Red, Blue, and 5 Shades of Purple

Last week's episode digs into Pew Research Center's ninth Political Typology — the "Beyond Red vs. Blue" study that sorts the American public into nine values-based groups instead of two parties. I talked with Baxter Oliphant (Senior Researcher) and Gabe Borelli (Research Associate) about why "style" turned out to be a genuinely separate, model-worthy dimension this cycle — 53% of the No Apologies Right say they enjoy watching politicians they agree with humiliate their opponents, — more than double the next-closest group, and ten times the Pragmatic and Polite Right (hence the name) — and why the Democratic coalition is getting squeezed on two fronts at once, from Loyal Liberals and Leftward Progressives alike. We also got into the Order and Opportunity Left, the single largest group in the whole typology (18% of the public), a quarter of whom are actually Republicans or GOP-leaning independents despite favoring a bigger social safety net — a combination that doesn't fit the usual mental map of who wants what from government, and also tells us something about the so-called "brand" problem the Democrats have.

A few lines that stuck with me:

"53% of them said they like it when their politicians they agree with humiliate the opponents." — Baxter Oliphant, on the No Apologies Right

"Even though people go to their partisan corners, they actually do have these things in common. Does that say that partisanship may dominate the ballot booth? Maybe." — Gabe Borelli

Baxter Oliphant is a Senior Researcher and Gabe Borelli a Research Associate at Pew Research Center, where they worked on the full Beyond Red vs. Blue report. Take the companion quiz and see which of the nine you land in; maybe you'll get a result you weren't expecting (and if you do, I'd love to hear what you got, and what made it surprising).

You can take a listen (and subscribe!) here:

Cross-Pressured with Baxter Oliphant and Gabe Borelli of the Pew Research Center

Podcast Episode · Cross Tabs · September 17 · 1h 5m

Apple Podcasts

What I was reading last week

Maybe there's a reason the parties don't know what to say about AI. Kate Gage's Political AI Field Guide: Factions and Beliefs maps out how different political and ideological camps are talking about, organizing around, and using AI tools right now. The episode coming up later this week has a lot to do with AI attitudes, and means we should be spending more time understanding how groups seeking to influence regulation and other political outcomes are lining up.

Is polling okay? Three different writers circled the same anxious question this week: G. Elliott Morris's Two big questions about the polls right now, Lauren M. Goldstein's Polling isn't broken., and the New York Times on the confusion around election polls and prediction markets — worth reading together since they are in some sense in dialogue with each other. Polling faces some real methodological challenges, and it's not being helped by lazy, disingenuous, or absurdly naive campaigns, reporters and commentators.

And the voter-fraud investigation story got more serious. A federal whistleblower's account, covered by the New York Times, alleges investigators may have broken state laws while carrying out DHS's "Unlawful Voter Initiative" — including a rushed pace (at least 40 voters examined per agent per day) that raises real questions about how many eligible citizens got flagged "in error". The thing about authoritarianism is that it doesn't rely on highly skilled, surgical methods – the chaos is a choice.

GET IN TOUCH

💬 Follow the show on Bluesky: @crosstabspod.bsky.social

📨 Got a question, a comment, or just want to say hi? Reply to this email — I read every one.