Meet the Segments!
Nine groups of voters
Over the last eight months, we spoke to more than 9,000 voters across the country and found nine distinct segments among the voting population. We call this project How to Build a Supermajority because it lights the path for a political party to break through our era of hyper-polarization and craft an agenda that resonates with the vast majority of the American electorate.
A “segment” for the purposes of this project is a group of voters who have distinct clusters of shared beliefs around everything from the government’s role in the economy to public safety and family values.
Most of these segments — or “Political Neighborhoods,” as we’re calling them — have a heterodox mix of views that do not map neatly onto the conventional left-to-right spectrum. There are liberals who are open to more deportations and conservatives who support a wealth cap. Some of the segments we found have a high degree of demographic variance; some are more homogeneous. Most importantly, only 14% of the electorate is completely ideologically conservative, and 10% is completely ideologically liberal.
Candidates who are interested in stitching together a supermajority coalition should familiarize themselves with these segments and look for the common beliefs that permeate across large swaths of the electorate.
Now, let’s meet the segments!
Liberal Arts Left
Voters in this segment are highly ideological progressives. They are highly educated, but report being financially unstable, younger, and not religious. One-third of the Liberal Arts Left identifies as a Democratic Socialist. These voters are highly politically engaged, both in their consumption of political content and their likelihood to show up to vote. These voters are also the most likely to say they have politically homogeneous friend groups.
The Liberal Arts Left also strongly supports most progressive policies. They want the government to help people financially, even at the expense of increased fraud in the benefits system; they are least supportive of work requirements to access public benefits, favor increasing taxes, and are strongly supportive of wealth redistribution.
In general, they value an open and free society, rather than one that is focused on maintaining law and order. They want universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, shifting police funding towards mental health care and violence prevention, allowing homeless people to camp in public spaces, and are against deporting illegal immigrants. They’re also the most likely to want the government to address climate change.
The Liberal Arts Left also stands out on cultural issues. They are one of the only segments to support banning parents from spanking their children. They also strongly believe that the government should stay neutral on people’s life decisions rather than encouraging them to start families, and rules about bathrooms and sports should be based on people’s gender identity rather than birth sex.
Lawn Sign Liberals
Voters in this segment are politically engaged, college-educated, mainstream liberals. These voters are more likely to be older, less religious, suburban, and female. They are also slightly more likely to be white. Two-thirds of Lawn Sign Liberals are Democrats, and 90% voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. These voters spend less time online and generally get their news from mainstream media outlets rather than social media.
Lawn Sign Liberals hold conventional liberal positions on healthcare, guns, and abortion, and care about climate change and gender equality, but less than other more progressive segments. While they support typical liberal policies, they stand out among other left-leaning segments for wanting the government to protect personal freedoms rather than setting rules to protect people from harm. When it comes to fiscal policies, they believe that the government should prioritize making sure everyone who is eligible can receive benefits, even if there is some fraud in government programs. However, they diverge from more progressive segments by opposing wealth caps. They also want businesses and markets to play an active role in shaping the economy, and would prefer shifting existing funds for new government programs rather than raising new taxes. On more cultural issues, Lawn Sign Liberals support allowing parents full access to their children’s information, increasing legal immigration, and requiring children to get vaccinated in order to attend public schools.
The Neighborhood Watch
Voters in this segment are more likely to be racially diverse, older, and non-ideological. These voters are a mix of moderate and liberal. Just over half identify as Democrats, but 75% voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. These voters also report higher rates of financial instability and are slightly more likely to be single parents than voters overall. While they generally support an active government and institutional order, they have lower social trust than other segments. That’s why they’re the Neighborhood Watch.
The Neighborhood Watch supports a sort of meat-and-potatoes liberalism. They want government involvement in the economy. They are strongly in favor of universal healthcare, increased regulation, having the government provide financial help for people, giving favorable loans to minority businesses, and student loan forgiveness. They diverge from more progressive segments by opposing wealth caps and are less supportive of wealth redistribution.
While they are comfortable with current legal immigration levels, they are open to deporting illegal immigrants who came recently, but want longer-term residents to stay. Their institutional streak comes across most clearly as a preference for order over disruption. They stand out among liberals for opposing affirmative action, wanting parental access to children’s information, and not wanting the government to be involved in how parents discipline their children. Their preference for order does put them in line with some more progressive voters on issues like gun control and requiring children to be vaccinated in order to attend public school.
Trad-Digital
Voters in this segment are more likely to be younger, racially diverse, employed, and religious. Trad-digitals also spend a lot of time online, including listening to podcasts. They are the most likely of any of our segments to live in a city, be raising a child under 18, and be employed full time. This is also our most Catholic segment. Trad-digitals are more ideologically and politically diverse than any other segment: 46% are Democrats, 18% are Independents, and 22% are Republicans. They split nearly down the middle in the 2024 election, as 51% voted for Kamala Harris and 47% voted for Trump. Trad-digitals live up to their name: they are most likely to be on every social media platform we asked about, most likely to be exposed to the manosphere, and are most likely to place sports bets. Despite the amount of time they spend online, Trad-digitals show a notably high trust in government.
Trad-digitals are paternalist and believe in an interventionist approach to policy. They believe that the government should provide social benefits, but only to those who truly need them. They strongly want the government to protect people from harm and play an active role in managing the economy. They are comfortable with raising taxes and wealth caps, but also feel strongly that the government should crack down on fraud. These traditional instincts extend to their opinions on family and culture. Trad-digitals stand out amongst the other segments for wanting the government to promote marriage and starting families, supporting traditional family structures, and distinct gender roles.
They diverge from other more traditional segments for supporting bans on physical discipline of children and wanting the government to protect children’s privacy. On immigration, border security matters more to Trad-digitals than most liberal-leaning segments, but they still strongly support taking in refugees and birthright citizenship.
The Center Square
Voters in this segment are more likely to be younger, racially diverse, and more compassionate. They are the least likely of our segments to have a college degree and more likely to be unemployed or living with their parents. The Center Square is the least politically engaged of our segments. They are the least likely to be registered to vote and the most likely to be unsure of their political party. The people in this segment who did vote were split in their 2024 vote choice, with 51% voting for Donald Trump and 46% voting for Kamala Harris, though they are the second most likely of the segments to have mixed feelings about their vote.
The Center Square has few strong policy priorities, mostly choosing the ‘lean’ or center response. The views they do express tend to track with the national average. They are wary of policies that impact their pocketbook, like new taxes, and prioritize economic development over environmental protections. They’re more open to allowing children to attend public schools without required vaccinations, but a majority still thinks schools should require shots. They are somewhat more supportive of affirmative action, gun control, shifting some police funding towards mental health, banning parents from spanking children, and protecting children’s privacy. They also lean toward the government promoting marriage and traditional family roles. The Center Square sits squarely in the middle on climate, voter ID laws, and restricting disruptive protests.
Sticker-Shocked Skeptics
Voters in this segment are more likely to be older, not ideological, rural, offline, white voters. These voters are not politically engaged and are the least likely to be paying attention to politics. Consequently, they are not hyper-ideological, but lean right on cultural issues and vote mainly on pocketbook issues. These voters do not fall cleanly into any partisan buckets; 32% identify as Independents and 37% are Republicans. In 2024, 54% voted for Donald Trump, and 43% voted for Kamala Harris, but they are the most likely of the segments to regret their vote choice. Primarily because Trump promised to lower inflation but did not.
When it comes to policy issues, Sticker-Shocked Skeptics are focused solely on domestic topics, with most of their attention focused on fiscal policy. Their priorities are inflation, Social Security, and government spending. They strongly believe in financial self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, which manifests in a desire for limited government intervention in the economy. They are against raising taxes and giving favorable loans to minority-owned businesses. They also value protecting personal freedoms over preventing harm.
Nearly all Sticker Shock Skeptics don’t want the government to be involved in how parents raise their children, with regard to spanking and access to their information. Sticker Shock Skeptics stand out among conservatives for advocating for gender equality and do not want the government to be involved in promoting marriage or traditional family structures.
Stars, Stripes, and Steeple
Voters in this segment are more likely to be retired, southern, religious, traditional family conservatives. This is our most Evangelical segment. They are disproportionately conservative, and 70% voted for Trump. The political figures that they report the highest agreement with are Trump, JD Vance, and Marco Rubio. These voters are more financially stable and disproportionately retired.
The Stars, Stripes, and Steeple are motivated by a law-and-order approach to politics. They stand out for prioritizing crime and want a strong foreign policy. They want border security and to deport illegal immigrants who recently came to the U.S., but are open to allowing illegal immigrants who have been here for a long time to stay. These voters want to ban disruptive protests and homeless people from camping in public spaces. They stand out among conservatives for being supportive of humanitarian aid, international development, and universal healthcare. However, the Stars, Stripes, and Steeple fall in with other conservatives in believing the national debt is a big problem, not wanting to raise taxes, and opposing wealth caps. They are also conservative on most cultural and social issues. They are in favor of school-led prayer, parental access to children’s information, and want the government to promote traditional family structures with distinct roles for men and women.
No Trespassing Populists
Voters in this segment are more likely to be rural, white, female conservatives. They are slightly more likely than voters overall to be single parents. Seventy-five percent of No Trespassing Populists voted for Donald Trump in 2024, and they disproportionately agree with political figures like Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Joe Rogan. Despite their cemented status as conservatives, No Trespassing Populists are more likely than average to regret their 2024 vote.
No Trespassing Populists’ policy priorities are immigration, inflation, and Social Security. They have very conservative views on cultural issues and immigration, but are more aligned with liberals on fiscal policy and social benefits. They are more likely to want to deport all illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have been in the U.S., and are likely to be against birthright citizenship. They break from most conservatives for wanting to make major changes when the government isn’t working, being open to wealth caps, and wanting redistribution at levels similar to more liberal segments.
They are most in line with conservatives on not wanting to raise taxes, prioritizing the national debt, and supporting school-led prayer. They oppose favorable loans to minority businesses, affirmative action, and do not want the government to be involved with how parents discipline their children. No Trespassing Populists stand out for their low social trust and focus on law and order. They are the least trusting segment overall, which manifests in wanting police to enforce bans on homeless encampments, high support for voter ID laws, and wanting to ban disruptive protests.
Cul-de-Sac Conservatives
Voters in this segment are more likely to be older, male, college-educated, white, conservatives. These voters are highly partisan Republicans; about 80% are Republicans, and nearly all voted for Trump. They are much more likely to use the labels MAGA, America First, and nationalist to describe themselves. Cul-de-Sac Conservatives are highly politically engaged and highly likely to vote. Over half of Cul-de-Sac Conservatives report living with a spouse or partner, and most have older children who have moved out of the house; they report being parents, but are the least likely segment to be raising a child under age 18.
Politically, Cul-de-Sac Conservatives’ views are the most uncompromising and small-government of any of the segments. They support restrictions on foods like soda in SNAP; they are the most supportive of work requirements to access government benefits, and are the only segment that is not in favor of universal healthcare. They strongly oppose wealth caps, favorable loans to minority businesses, affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, and raising taxes. They are the hardest-line segment on immigration. They want less legal immigration, are the most supportive of deporting all illegal immigrants, nearly unanimously oppose birthright citizenship, and prioritize border security. Cul-de-Sac Conservatives also have very conservative views on social and cultural issues. They are anti-abortion, are in favor of school-led prayer, support allowing unvaccinated children to attend public school, and want parents to access children’s information. They feel strongly that the government should promote traditional family structures and distinct roles for men and women.
FAQs
Why is segmentation valuable?
To understand the ‘upstream’ drivers of public attitudes, we have segmented the population into nine groups. Segmentation gives us a short-cut to understand peoples’ values and worldviews better. With it, we can better understand the distinct ways that different groups in the community respond to public policy proposals, reforms, and debates. People have different values and orientations to society, and these differences profoundly shape their feelings about all sorts of issues from climate and culture wars to immigration and the role of government. National segmentations like this one can help give us a handle on the main differences within our population, helping us design more effective strategies that start with where people are at.
What is a segmentation?
A segmentation is a way of grouping people who share similar patterns of values, priorities, and beliefs. Rather than looking at Americans only by political party, age, race, or other demographic characteristics, this project identifies nine groups based on how people think about government and public policy.
How were the nine groups identified?
The groups were developed using responses to a large national survey. Statistical analysis identified recurring combinations of attitudes and values across the population. Researchers then examined each group’s policy views, political behavior, demographic characteristics, and open-ended responses to understand what made it distinctive. No single question determines someone’s group. A person is assigned based on the overall pattern of their responses.
Why are there nine groups?
We tested different numbers of groups and selected nine because that solution best captured meaningful differences in how Americans think without creating so many categories that the results became difficult to understand or use. The nine groups provide more nuance than traditional political labels while remaining practical for research and communication.
Does everyone fit perfectly into one group?
No. Human beings are more complicated than any segmentation. Some people strongly resemble one group, while others share characteristics with several. Each person is placed in the group that most closely matches their overall pattern of responses, but the groups should be understood as tendencies rather than rigid boxes.
Are the groups ranked from left to right?
Not exactly. Some groups are clearly more liberal or conservative, but the segmentation is not simply a nine-point ideological scale. Two groups may vote similarly while differing substantially in their views about government, culture, economic responsibility, civil liberties, religion, or public safety.
What does belonging to a group tell us?
It helps us understand the values and priorities a person is more likely to bring to public-policy questions. It can also help explain why certain arguments, policies, or messages appeal to some audiences more than others. It does not tell us everything about an individual, predict every opinion they hold, or imply that all members of a group agree.
Can people’s segment change?
Yes. The segmentation reflects how people answered at a particular point in time. Values often remain relatively stable, but people’s views can change because of life experiences, economic conditions, political events, or changes in the issues facing the country.
What do the segment names mean?
The names are shorthand for some of the characteristics that distinguish each group. They are intended to make the findings easier to discuss, not to define every member of a segment or pass judgment on them. The full descriptions provide a more accurate picture than the names alone.
Are the groups based on demographics?`
No. Demographics such as age, race, education, income, gender, religion, and geography were not used to define the groups. Some demographic characteristics are more common in certain groups, but people from many different backgrounds can belong to the same segment.
What makes these groups different from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents?
A person’s political party is important, but it does not tell the whole story. People within the same party can have very different views about government, personal responsibility, economic security, freedom, fairness, public safety, religion, and tradition. The segmentation helps bring those differences, as well as areas of agreement across party lines, into view.
Research and methodology by More in Common, a nonpartisan nonprofit