Roy Cooper NC Senate 2026 Voter Perception Study

Roy Cooper NC Senate 2026 Voter Perception Study: Executive Synthesis

Objective and context. We set out to understand how North Carolina voters perceive Roy Cooper as a Senate candidate, which issues matter most, how his affordability/healthcare messages land, and what would win or lose persuadable voters. Across seven questions, respondents consistently rewarded specificity, local proof, and a low‑drama tone.

Cross‑question learnings grounded in evidence. Initial reactions were cautiously positive: Cooper is seen as a steady, competent manager (“a deep exhale… keeps the trains mostly on time”), but support is transactional and contingent on measurable, local deliverables (rural broadband, teacher pay, apprenticeships, manufacturing jobs, ACA stability). Skepticism centers on out‑of‑state money, fundraising‑first optics, and whether the Senate can overcome gridlock. Cost‑of‑living messaging resonates emotionally-groceries, power, car insurance, childcare “all creeps”-yet falls flat when generic; voters demand numbers, timelines, and named levers (drug pricing, hospital consolidation, housing supply, no stock trading for members of Congress). Healthcare is top‑tier and Medicaid expansion is a tangible, vote‑moving receipt-keeping neighbors on meds, stabilizing small hospitals-if paired with plain‑language implementation (hotlines, Spanish lines), rural access, and protection against cost‑shifting to employer plans. In the Cooper vs. Whatley frame, most trust Cooper’s in‑state receipts over a national/party‑first profile, while a small minority lean Whatley on regulation/energy if he offers “real meat… with receipts and dates.” The single most important ballot‑box issue is healthcare affordability and dependable local access, with a minority prioritizing energy/diesel/electricity and farm inputs. At the doorstep, voters ask for exact actions, dates, and household impact (“put $200–300 back per month within a year”), plus accountability (public scorecards, named local contacts). Enthusiasm to vote sits ~6–8 and is conditional on concrete details, easy logistics (early hours, curbside, short lines, clear sample ballots, one clean Spanish text), and visible local presence; culture‑war noise and attack ads depress turnout.

Persona correlations and nuances.

• Rural mid‑to‑older adults (teachers, community‑involved) reward Medicaid expansion but insist on county‑level proof: staffed clinics, rural hospital stabilization, working telehealth (Diana, Kylie, Elizabeth, Sarah).
• Younger, bilingual second‑shift workers need operational access: Spanish hotlines, after‑hours clinics, childcare supports, broadband (Austin).
• Manufacturing/plant‑floor families want penciled‑in savings with short horizons and bipartisan, pragmatic fixes (Jason, Sarah).
• Agribusiness/high‑income operators prioritize energy, permitting, and per‑unit cost impacts (cents/kWh, diesel, fertilizer) (Terry).
• Affluent older suburbanites seek federal roadmaps on ACA stability, drug prices, and consolidation (Elizabeth).
• Politically active non‑voters (green‑card holders) will donate and drive voters if plans are calm, specific, and locally staffed (Clayton, Sarah).

What will win-and what will lose-persuadables.

• Lead with receipts: dollars/month, dates, and named levers on healthcare (drug pricing, surprise billing, rural hospital viability), utilities, insurance, and broadband.
• Translate Medicaid expansion into operational usability: plain‑English/Spanish hotlines, after‑hours access, provider capacity, maternal/mental/dental services.
• Demonstrate rural proof: county‑by‑county deliverables and unscripted Q&A in VFWs/church halls; publish who called/what was fixed.
• Address energy and permitting with concrete timelines and unit‑cost impacts to engage agribusiness and cost‑sensitive segments.
• Show ethics and independence: transparency on funding, no stock trading, “who pays/who benefits” boxes.

Risks and guardrails. Over‑promising on cost impacts; gridlock‑driven cynicism; accessibility gaps (ADA/language/after‑hours); donor‑capture skepticism; culture‑war saturation. Mitigate with ranges and sources, receipts‑first brevity, bilingual/after‑hours access SLAs, proactive ethics disclosures, and a steady, non‑performative tone.

Next steps and measurement.

1. 30 days: Ship receipts‑first one‑pagers (healthcare, utilities, broadband) with $/month and dates; launch first transparency scorecard; announce ethics baseline; schedule small‑format listening sessions.
2. 60 days: Pilot bilingual hotline and extended chat hours; publish county‑by‑county rural hospital/broadband progress; standardize one clean logistics text (Spanish/English).
3. 90–180 days: Expand policy library and simple cost calculators; maintain monthly rural sessions with published follow‑ups; report quarterly on progress and access SLAs.

• KPIs: Message Clarity (% who can name top 3 levers/timelines ≥75%); Specificity Index (assets with numbers/dates/levers ≥90%); Access SLAs (<2 min wait; ≥85% first‑contact resolution; ≥95% Spanish answer rate); Community Presence (≥4 sessions/month; ≥80% follow‑ups closed in 30 days); Perceived Household Impact (% who can estimate $/month change within 12 months ≥60%).

This audience will reward concrete, local, verifiable progress-delivered calmly, measured publicly, and accessible to every county.