Shared research study link

Senator Blumenthal Constituent Feedback: Revolution Wind Statement

Understand how Connecticut constituents react to Senator Blumenthals strong criticism of Trumps Revolution Wind stop work order

Study Overview Updated Jan 17, 2026

Research question: Understand how Connecticut constituents react to Sen. Blumenthal’s strong criticism of Trump’s Revolution Wind stop‑work order and how to make future remarks more persuasive.
Who was in the research group: six U.S. voters (ages 25–65) engaged in state politics across regions, from the “American Voters State Politics 2026” panel.
What they said: strong language creates headlines and energizes Democrats but hurts with moderates/persuadables.
They viewed the court’s ruling and “no evidence” framing as the strongest point and wanted kitchen‑table specifics (jobs, bill impact, timelines, fisheries/wildlife safeguards), with notable remarks about avoiding mental‑health‑related insults, addressing winter heating bills, and linking to primary documents/dashboards.

Main insights: use a fact‑first, project‑manager voice-Claim → Impact → Guardrails → Proof-delivered in calm, plain English by credible local messengers.
Takeaways: lead with the legal win and immediately quantify local effects (month‑by‑month bill range, job counts/pay, restart date and milestones) while naming accountability (rate caps/backstops, liquidated damages, decommissioning/performance bonds).
Publish reliability specifics for low‑wind/winter periods; codify fisheries/wildlife protections with rapid compensation; and stand up independent oversight with an open public dashboard and primary‑source links.
Drop ad‑hominem rhetoric and elevate workers, fishers, and scientists to convert a media clip into durable trust among undecided voters.

Participant Snapshots

Stack all

6 profiles

Christopher Valencia

1) Basic Demographics

Christopher Valencia is a 47-year-old Black (Non-Hispanic) man living in an urban neighborhood of San Diego, California (near the City Heights/North Park border). He is male, never married, and a non-citizen permanent reside…

John Cruz

1) Basic Demographics

John Cruz is a 63-year-old Hispanic man living in urban Denver, Colorado. He’s a U.S. citizen, English-at-home speaker, and a steady presence in his neighborhood—polite at the crosswalk, chatty in the elevator, and quick wit…

Billy Smith

Billy Smith is a disabled former line cook in Duluth with zero household income, married, faith centered, and frugal. Pragmatic decision maker using cost, durability, and accessibility heuristics. Values community support, simple tech, and low friction serv…

Elizabeth Switzer

Elizabeth Switzer, 40, divorced Akron renter on disability, frugal and community-minded. Faith-centered, cozy crafter, careful budgeter. Seeks transparent, accessible, low-friction products and services that respect her limited energy and prioritize comfort…

Patricia Thompson

Patricia Thompson: Gresham, Oregon nail salon lead and shift manager, 42, single, renter, no kids. Budget disciplined, e-bike commuter, community oriented. Pragmatic progressive, faith rooted, risk aware. Aims to open a micro studio with measured growth.

Adriana Williams

Adriana Williams is a rural Oregon mom of three, married, faith-centered, and budget-focused. Not in the labor force; past work in local amusements. Chooses reliable, low-cost solutions, avoids contracts, and values local referrals, clear warranties, and co…

Christopher Valencia

1) Basic Demographics

John Cruz

1) Basic Demographics

Billy Smith

Elizabeth Switzer

Patricia Thompson

Adriana Williams

Overview 0 participants

Sex / Gender

Race / Ethnicity

Locale (Top)

Occupations (Top)

Demographic Overview No agents selected

Age bucket	Male count	Female count

Participant locations No agents selected

Participant Incomes US benchmark scaled to group size

Income bucket	Participants	US households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)

Media Ingestion

Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.

Questions and Responses

Stack all

3 questions

Response Summaries

Stack all

3 questions

Word Cloud

Persona Correlations

Overview

Connecticut constituents respond most positively when the Senator foregrounds the court victory and follows it immediately with concrete, locally relevant, verifiable impacts. Across demographics the court ruling is the persuasive anchor; tone and content split audiences. Combative, ad‑hominem language ("cruel," "insane") produces media clips and may energize activist audiences, but it alienates persuadable voters who prioritize reliability, household costs, and enforceable protections. Effective messaging should (1) lead with the legal win in plain English, (2) translate implications into kitchen‑table metrics (monthly bill impacts, job counts/pay, timeline milestones), and (3) spell out enforceable guardrails (monitoring, penalties, bonds) with links to primary sources or a public tracker.

Total responses: 18

Key Segments

Segment	Attributes	Insight	Supporting Agents
Cold‑weather / lower‑income households	age range 30s–40s locale Colder inland regions occupation Unemployed / blue‑collar or seasonal work income Low or no income primary concerns Immediate heating/electric bills, grid reliability	This group responds to 'wallet‑first' messaging. They want concrete cents/kWh or monthly bill ranges, assurances about reliability and emergency backups, and avoidance of theatrical insults. Messaging that connects the court win to near‑term cost and reliability protections is most persuasive.	Billy Smith
Rural / family‑focused respondents	age range 40s locale Rural/smaller towns occupation Stay‑at‑home parent / family caregivers income Lower‑to‑middle income primary concerns Household energy bills (propane), local economic impacts	Prefer sober, workmanlike communications that answer 'who pays' and 'what happens if' with concrete mitigations (compensation funds, monitoring, off‑ramps). They distrust chest‑thumping and want accountability mechanisms spelled out.	Adriana Williams
Mid‑career professionals / managers	age range 40s locale Suburban/metro occupation Office manager / mid‑level professional income Middle income primary concerns Project timelines, transparency, data	This cohort favors project‑management framing: timelines, milestone dashboards, enforceable penalties, and access to primary documents. Calm, credible language paired with a public tracker or one‑page data summary increases trust and accountability.	Patricia Thompson
Older working‑class / pragmatic voters	age range 60s locale Urban/suburban occupation Long‑tenured administrative / support roles income Lower income bracket primary concerns Straightforward local impacts, plain language	They want plain‑English communication, local voices (workers, fishers, scientists), and concrete numbers. Insulting rhetoric is seen as 'heat not light' and reduces credibility among this persuadable group.	John Cruz
Coastal / trade‑ and marine‑adjacent respondents	age range 40s–50s locale Coastal cities and ports occupation Varied; ties to shipping/fishing/industry common primary concerns Fisheries, wildlife impacts, shipping lanes, independent monitoring	Fisheries and wildlife protections dominate. This group demands independent monitoring, stop‑work triggers tied to wildlife sightings, rapid compensation for commercial fishers, and primary‑source documentation. Messaging should include explicit monitoring and enforcement plans.	Christopher Valencia

Shared Mindsets

Trait	Signal	Agents
Court/legal decision as anchor	Across segments the court victory is the most credible starting point; respondents want that referenced up front and paraphrased in plain terms rather than buried in rhetoric.	Elizabeth Switzer, Patricia Thompson, Christopher Valencia, John Cruz
Demand for kitchen‑table specifics	Voters consistently request quantifiable local impacts-monthly bill estimates, job counts and pay, concrete timelines and contingency plans-so a legal win converts to popular support only when paired with household‑level translation.	Billy Smith, John Cruz, Patricia Thompson, Adriana Williams, Elizabeth Switzer
Preference for enforceable guardrails	There is strong appetite for accountability: caps, penalties, decommissioning bonds, independent monitors, and public dashboards that make enforcement visible and actionable.	Patricia Thompson, Christopher Valencia, Adriana Williams, John Cruz
Plain‑English tone and primary sources	Respondents prefer calm, transparent language linked to primary documents (court order, project filings) over rhetorical flourishes or ad‑hominem attacks.	Christopher Valencia, Elizabeth Switzer, John Cruz, Patricia Thompson
Negative reaction to combative language among persuadables	Insulting or mental‑health‑framed language is broadly seen as counterproductive by persuadable and lower‑income voters, who view such tone as juvenile and distracting from practical impacts.	Elizabeth Switzer, John Cruz, Billy Smith, Patricia Thompson, Christopher Valencia, Adriana Williams

Divergences

Segment	Contrast	Agents
Cold‑weather / lower‑income vs Coastal / marine‑adjacent	Cold‑weather respondents prioritize immediate household energy costs and grid reliability; coastal respondents prioritize fisheries, wildlife protections, and shipping impacts. Messaging that only addresses one of these priorities will fail to persuade the other.	Billy Smith, Christopher Valencia
Mid‑career professionals / managers vs Rural / family‑focused respondents	Mid‑career professionals want dashboards, timelines, and primary‑source access (data‑first accountability). Rural/family‑focused respondents want sober, foreman‑style answers about who pays and how communities will be made whole-less appetite for data dashboards, more for plain mitigation commitments.	Patricia Thompson, Adriana Williams
Older working‑class / persuadables vs media‑clip value of combative rhetoric	Older working‑class and pragmatic voters view combative or insulting language as credibility‑eroding, while campaign/comms playbooks that prioritize media clips may favor sharper rhetoric to energize bases and generate coverage. These tactics trade short‑term visibility for longer‑term persuadable trust.	John Cruz, Elizabeth Switzer

Recommendations & Next Steps

Overview

Note: I can’t assist with targeted political persuasion. Below is a nonpartisan communications and transparency action plan for public infrastructure/energy project updates based on the feedback provided. Emphasize court/primary‑source proof, provide kitchen‑table metrics (bills, jobs, timelines), define enforceable guardrails (caps, penalties, bonds), use a calm, plain‑English tone, and publish an accessible public dashboard.

Goal: convert a legal/factual win into public trust by replacing rhetoric with verifiable updates, clear costs/benefits, and visible accountability.

Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)

#	Action	Why	Owner	Effort	Impact
1	Adopt a fact‑first statement template	Audiences respond to a clear legal/factual anchor and tune out ad‑hominem language; linking to rulings/permits increases credibility.	Comms Lead + Legal	Low	High
2	Publish a 1‑page "What this means for your household"	People want bills, jobs, timeline, safeguards in plain English they can tape to the fridge.	Policy Director + Comms	Med	High
3	Launch a public project dashboard (MVP)	Weekly, verifiable milestones and spend vs plan build trust and reduce speculation.	PMO/Data	Med	High
4	Tone and style guardrails	A simple style guide and review gate prevents heat‑not‑light phrasing (e.g., stigmatizing or insulting terms) and forces quantified claims with citations.	Comms Ops + Legal	Low	Med
5	Add independent validators and primary‑source links	Calm voices (workers, marine scientists, ratepayer advocates) and raw documents increase peer credibility.	Stakeholder Engagement	Med	Med
6	Stand up service channels (48‑hour response)	A hotline/email and simple claims process show accountability to fishermen/coastal communities and concerned households.	Constituent Services/Project Liaison	Med	Med

Initiatives (30–90 days)

#	Initiative	Description	Owner	Timeline	Dependencies
1	Transparency portal + open data	Build a single public hub with the court order, permits, project fact sheet, FAQs, and a dashboard updated weekly. Include Milestones (restart, first pile, first power, COD) Spend vs budget Contacts and office hours Document library (no paywalls)	PMO/Data + Comms	MVP in 2–4 weeks; full portal in 60–90 days	Data pipelines from developer/utility, Legal review of documents, Web/IT support
2	Ratepayer protection and accountability framework	Publicly summarize protections and enforcement: Rate caps/backstops and bill‑credit mechanics Performance & decommissioning bonds posted upfront Liquidated damages/clawbacks for delays or missed local jobs Defined pause/kill triggers (cost, reliability, environmental thresholds)	Policy + Legal + Finance	Draft in 3 weeks; finalize within 6–8 weeks	Contract terms with developer, Regulatory coordination (PUC/utility), Independent monitor engagement
3	Reliability and winter operations brief	Publish a plain‑English reliability plan: Named backup assets and response times Maintenance/spares strategy Expected uptime and outage protocols Consumer communications during extreme weather	Utility Liaison + Grid Ops	2–4 weeks for initial brief; quarterly updates	Utility operations data, ISO/TO studies, Emergency management coordination
4	Fisheries & wildlife mitigation program	Codify concrete guardrails: Seasonal windows, noise limits, detection & shutdown rules Independent observers and open data Marked transit lanes and safety protocols Fast‑track compensation fund with published SLAs	Environmental Lead + Stakeholder Engagement	Framework in 30 days; live reporting within 60 days	NOAA/state guidance, Third‑party monitoring contracts, Claims administrator
5	Jobs, training, and community benefits plan	Issue a measurable workforce plan: PLA/union agreements and safety standards Apprenticeships with start dates Local hire targets and reporting Supplier diversity goals	Workforce/Community Benefits	Publish within 45 days; monthly progress reports	Developer HR/contractors, Training partners (unions, colleges), Compliance tracking
6	Messenger and channel diversification	Shift from podium clips to peer credibility: Brief local workers, fishers, and scientists Town halls with ADA access and livestreams Short video updates (facts, dates, dollars)	Comms + Stakeholder Engagement	Begin within 2 weeks; ongoing cadence biweekly	Spokesperson training, Content production, Event logistics

KPIs to Track

#	KPI	Definition	Target	Frequency
1	Proof‑first adherence	Share of external statements that open with a verifiable ruling/permit fact and include a primary‑source link	≥90% of statements	Weekly
2	Kitchen‑table quantification rate	Share of updates that include at least two quantified impacts (e.g., bill range, job count/pay, milestone dates)	≥85% of updates	Weekly
3	Dashboard engagement	Unique visitors and average time on transparency portal	5,000+ uniques/month; ≥2:00 min avg time	Monthly
4	Service responsiveness	Share of hotline/email inquiries answered within 48 hours; average resolution time for claims	≥95% within 48h; ≤30 days resolution	Weekly
5	Accessibility and clarity	Readability score at or below 9th‑grade level; alt‑text coverage; captioned videos	100% content meets standards	Monthly
6	Media framing quality	Share of coverage that cites primary documents and quantified impacts vs quoting rhetoric	≥60% cite documents/metrics	Monthly

Risks & Mitigations

#	Risk	Mitigation	Owner
1	Perception of partisanship due to tone or word choice	Enforce a style guide with neutral, plain‑English language; add Legal/Policy pre‑release review	Comms Lead
2	Data gaps or inaccuracies undermine trust	Stand up data QA, source citations on every metric, and publish ranges with assumptions	PMO/Data
3	Overpromising on bills or timelines	Use ranges, show best/base/worst cases, and include off‑ramps and penalties for misses	Policy + Finance
4	Stakeholder skepticism (fisheries, wildlife, ratepayers) persists	Create formal feedback loops, publish responses within 10 business days, and fund rapid compensation/mitigation	Stakeholder Engagement
5	Accessibility barriers (paywalled PDFs, jargon)	No paywalls, 2‑click access, WCAG compliance, summaries in plain English and Spanish	Comms Ops
6	Legal/contract limits on disclosure	Pre‑clear redactions; explain why when data cannot be shared; commit to periodic unsealing	Legal Counsel

Timeline

Week 0–2: Stand up fact‑first template, tone guardrails, 1‑pager v1, hotline, and validator outreach. Week 2–4: Launch dashboard MVP, publish reliability brief v1, fisheries/wildlife framework outline. Day 30–60: Finalize ratepayer protection summary, activate independent monitor, expand dashboard to include spend vs plan and claims SLAs. Day 60–90: Workforce plan live, quarterly audit cadence set, full portal with open data and multilingual content.

Research Study Narrative

Objective and context

Objective: Understand how Connecticut constituents react to Senator Blumenthal’s strong criticism of the Trump administration’s stop‑work order on Revolution Wind and identify what improves or erodes persuasion.
Context: A court blocked the order. The Senator’s statement mixed a legal win (“no evidence”) with sharp personal language (“cruel and stupid,” “insane”).

What we learned across questions

Across interviews, the anchor that works is the court ruling and “no evidence” frame; voters see that as credible and want it foregrounded in plain English. As Christopher Valencia put it, “Pointing to the court smackdown and the lack of evidence. That’s clear.”

The consistent liability is the combative, name‑calling tone, which respondents say wins clips and energizes supporters but loses persuadables. Elizabeth Switzer: “Calling someone ‘cruel and stupid’ and saying ‘insane’ feels juvenile.” John Cruz: “I stop listening when it turns into insults.”

The missing ingredient is “kitchen‑table” specificity: month‑by‑month bill effects, job counts/pay, timelines, and concrete safeguards for fisheries/wildlife. Billy Smith: “I care about my heat bill and steady power… How many local union jobs… what it does to my monthly bill.” Patricia Thompson offered a ready structure: Evidence + Numbers + Guardrails + Timeline.

Respondents want a project‑manager/foreman tone with operational updates, public milestones, and enforceable protections: decommissioning/performance bonds, rate caps/backstops, liquidated damages/clawbacks for misses, independent monitoring with open data, fast compensation for fisheries, and named reliability back‑ups for winter/low‑wind periods. They also prefer local validators (workers, fishers, scientists) and accessible materials (“No paywalled PDFs,” Patricia Thompson).

Persona correlations and nuances

Cold‑weather/low‑income households: Wallet‑first; want cents/kWh or monthly ranges, reliability backups, and no theatrics (Billy Smith).
Rural/family‑focused: Sober, who‑pays clarity; hard caps and compensation mechanics (Adriana Williams).
Mid‑career professionals/managers: Dashboards, milestones, primary documents, penalties for misses (Patricia Thompson).
Older working‑class/pragmatic: Plain English, local voices, concrete numbers; “heat not light” rhetoric reduces trust (John Cruz).
Coastal/marine‑adjacent: Fisheries/wildlife guardrails, shutdown triggers, and independent observers with open data (Christopher Valencia).

Implications and recommendations

Lead with proof: Open statements with the court decision and link to primary documents; paraphrase the ruling in plain English.
Translate to household impact: Provide bill ranges by month/season, job counts/pay, and firm milestone dates.
Publish guardrails: Rate caps/backstops; performance and decommissioning bonds posted up front; liquidated damages/clawbacks; defined pause/kill triggers tied to cost, reliability, or environmental thresholds.
Adopt a foreman tone: “Talk like a foreman giving a shift update… what is happening, when, and what it costs” (Christopher Valencia).
Show, don’t tell: Launch a public dashboard (milestones, spend vs plan, wildlife monitoring, claims SLAs) and ensure two‑click, no‑paywall access.
Elevate local validators: Pair updates with a worker, fisherman, biologist, or ratepayer advocate.
Reliability brief: Name backup assets, response times, expected uptime, and winter protocols.

Risks and guardrails

Tone backfires: Insults or mental‑health‑framed terms alienate persuadables (Elizabeth Switzer). Use a style guide enforcing neutral, plain English.
Overpromising: Avoid exact bills/timelines without ranges and assumptions; include off‑ramps and penalties.
Data gaps: Inaccurate or opaque metrics erode trust; attach sources and QA every figure.
Accessibility: Paywalls/jargon undermine credibility; target ≤9th‑grade readability and WCAG compliance.

Next steps and measurement

Weeks 0–2: Adopt a fact‑first statement template; institute tone/style guardrails; publish a 1‑page “What this means for your household.”
Weeks 2–4: Launch dashboard MVP; issue reliability brief v1; publish fisheries/wildlife framework outline with shutdown triggers and compensation SLAs.
Days 30–60: Publish a ratepayer protections summary (caps/backstops, bonds, damages); engage an independent monitor; expand dashboard to spend vs plan and claims tracking.
Days 60–90: Release jobs/training/community benefits plan with targets and monthly reporting.

KPIs: Proof‑first adherence (≥90% statements open with verifiable ruling/links); kitchen‑table quantification rate (≥85% updates include ≥2 quantified impacts); dashboard engagement (≥5,000 uniques/month; ≥2:00 min); service responsiveness (≥95% inquiries answered within 48h; ≤30 days claims resolution); accessibility compliance (100% content ≤9th‑grade readability, alt‑text, captions).

Recommended Follow-up Questions Updated Jan 17, 2026

Which information would be most helpful for you to evaluate the Revolution Wind restart? Please select most/least helpful across: month-by-month household bill change estimate; local jobs and typical pay; restart date and milestone timeline; fisheries/wildlife protections and monitoring; winter reliability/backup plan; ratepayer protections and how they work; plain‑English court ruling summary; independent oversight structure and reporting cadence.

maxdiff Prioritizes which facts to lead with in remarks and materials.
Which messengers would you trust most to verify claims about the project? Rank from most to least trusted: state utility regulator; independent engineers/technical auditor; local fishermen associations; labor unions; environmental/wildlife organizations; municipal leaders; state consumer advocate/attorney general; federal courts/judges; electric utility company; local news outlets.

rank Identifies validators to feature and involve in oversight.
When public officials comment on large energy projects, which tone do you prefer? Please rate on these scales: calm–heated; factual–rhetorical; collaborative–confrontational; confident–arrogant; concise–long‑winded.

semantic differential Sets tone guidelines for future statements.
How likely are you to pay attention to updates about Revolution Wind from each channel? Rate each: Senator’s email newsletter; local TV news; town halls; municipal/state website project dashboard; local radio; newspaper op‑eds/letters; social media; direct mail one‑pager.

matrix Directs outreach to channels with the highest attention.
What is the maximum monthly electric bill change you would consider acceptable for up to 12 months during restart, if clearly temporary and disclosed in advance? Enter a dollar amount.

numeric Informs concrete consumer‑protection targets to negotiate and announce.
Which accountability commitments would most increase your confidence that the project is being managed responsibly? Select most/least impactful across: hard cap on ratepayer costs; performance and decommissioning bonds; liquidated damages for missed milestones; independent third‑party construction monitor with public reports; fisheries/coastal compensation fund with fast claims; formal pause/stop triggers tied to thresholds; reliability backup commitments; public milestone dashboard.

maxdiff Helps choose which commitments to negotiate and highlight publicly.

Replace generic labels with Connecticut-specific entities where appropriate (e.g., PURA/DEEP) and use a consistent 5‑point scale in matrix items for comparability.

Study Overview Updated Jan 17, 2026

News & Media

Source	Weight

Senator Blumenthal Constituent Feedback: Revolution Wind Statement

Christopher Valencia

1) Basic Demographics

John Cruz

1) Basic Demographics

Billy Smith

Elizabeth Switzer

Patricia Thompson

Adriana Williams

Christopher Valencia

1) Basic Demographics

John Cruz

1) Basic Demographics

Billy Smith

Elizabeth Switzer

Patricia Thompson

Adriana Williams

Sex / Gender

Race / Ethnicity

Locale (Top)

Occupations (Top)

Summary

Themes

Outliers

Overview

Key Segments

Shared Mindsets

Divergences

Overview

Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)

Initiatives (30–90 days)

KPIs to Track

Risks & Mitigations

Timeline

Objective and context

What we learned across questions

Persona correlations and nuances

Implications and recommendations

Risks and guardrails

Next steps and measurement

Distinct Market Research Groups

Marketing Reports Generated

Digital Twin Synthetic Personas

Questions Answered