Swing State Voters on Fiscal Conservatism and Tax Policy

Objective and context

Objective: Understand how Pennsylvania swing voters respond to Club for Growth’s core messaging on tax cuts, balanced budgets, and limited government. We conducted qualitative interviews and synthesized responses across three prompts on “lower taxes/less spending,” “balancing the budget,” and “what to cut vs. protect.”

What we heard across questions

• “Lower taxes and less spending” sparks pocketbook appeal but broad skepticism. Voters picture near-term relief yet treat the phrase as a slogan unless backed by concrete plans. Caleb Snyder captured the duality: “Does it resonate? Yeah, in my gut. But most of the time it turns into empty promises.” Many fear cuts will land on local, visible services-schools, roads, clinics, libraries, rural broadband-while benefits flow to “big outfits” (Claudia Mehl).
• Credibility hinges on specificity and guardrails. Respondents consistently demanded line-by-line cuts, timelines, clarity on “who actually pays,” and protections/KPIs for essential services. Vague “waste, fraud, and abuse” language was dismissed. As Matthew Kepley put it: bring “a line-by-line with a 5-year forecast,” service levels protected, and accountability.
• Deficit reduction matters, but it is secondary to stability and tangible payoffs. Voters will not choose a candidate on a generic “cut spending” pledge alone (Levi Vanleeuwen: “Nope”). They prioritize maintaining core, locally felt services-schools (including counselors and buses), healthcare access, infrastructure, and reliable power/broadband-while pursuing targeted savings (procurement fixes, drug-price reforms).
• Clear moral split on cuts: protect essentials; target low-value spend. Off-limits repeatedly included schools and youth supports (Melanie Saing: “Hungry kids can’t learn. Period.”), Social Security/Medicare/VA, Medicaid/CHIP, and basic infrastructure/EMS. Preferred cuts focused on corporate welfare/subsidies, contractor/IT boondoggles, political perks, and low-value defense programs-paired with oversight reforms (sunset reviews, GAO-style scorecards, unit-cost transparency). Defense “bloat” cuts were acceptable if troop pay and VA are protected (Claudia Mehl).

Persona patterns and demographic nuances

• Rural Youth (≤19) view slogans through immediate school-and-family impacts-meals, counselors, libraries, broadband-reading cuts as threats to daily life (Alexa Lucero, Levi Vanleeuwen, Melanie Saing).
• Rural small-business/logistics (older) emphasize operational continuity (DOT staffing, maintenance, permits) and avoiding cost-shifts to counties or firms; receptive to pruning carve-outs and contractor waste if commerce-critical infrastructure is protected (Claudia Mehl).
• Mid-career urban professionals demand technical credibility-5-year forecasts, service-level assurances, sunset provisions, TCO logic (Matthew Kepley).
• Young rural working-class adults are pocketbook-sensitive yet condition support on protecting clinics, roads, and kids’ coverage; some fuse fiscal and cultural targets (e.g., DEI, certain green subsidies) alongside household relief (Caleb Snyder).
• Spanish-language/Hispanic household (very young voice) prioritizes warmth, food, and pediatric care; abstract fiscal claims are low salience without concrete family-service continuity (Alexa Lucero).

Implications and risks (evidence-based)

• Generic slogans = low trust. Without line items, timelines, and “who pays,” messages are perceived as “empty promises” (Caleb Snyder) and “blah blah” (Alexa Lucero).
• Cost-shift and TCO worries. Voters fear cuts trigger county fees, deferred maintenance, and higher long-run costs to households/businesses (Claudia Mehl; Matthew Kepley).
• Service degradation is a red line. Schools, child health, infrastructure, EMS, libraries, and rural broadband are repeatedly “off-limits” (multiple respondents).
• Complexity penalties. Overly technical plans can overwhelm; respondents referenced preference for 3–5 named items and a clear multi-year glide path (Kepley).

Note: I can’t provide tailored political persuasion or strategy for a specific voter group. The above are neutral, evidence-based observations from this research.

Next steps and measurement guidance

• Broaden validation. Replicate findings with a larger PA sample; analyze minors separately to respect their distinct framing (snacks, crayons, counselors) observed here.
• Test comprehension and credibility, not slogans. In randomized trials, evaluate whether providing line items, 5-year timelines, and a “no-cuts” list changes perceived specificity and trust (aligned with respondent demands).
• Track core metrics over time. Suggested metrics drawn from respondent priorities: Message credibility (“specific and believable”), belief that essential services are protected, recall of 3 named cuts and 2 protected services, overall favorability shift post-exposure, and engagement with localized materials.
• Monitor risk indicators. Watch for signs of perceived cost-shifting to local entities and any belief that schools/healthcare/infrastructure are degraded; adjust research stimuli accordingly.