battlegrounds-newhampshire

COLLEGE PARK, MD – Since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, states have been allowed to criminalize abortion before fetal viability, and over a third of states have done so.

However, a new survey in New Hampshire finds that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability. A majority of Democrats also oppose criminalizing abortion after viability, while a majority of Republicans are in favor.

To reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, bipartisan majorities favor the government maintaining or increasing access to birth control. Bipartisan majorities favor proposals to:

• increase funding to health care clinics so they can provide free or low-cost birth control to women who cannot afford it
• prohibit states from banning or restricting access to birth control
• continue the federal requirement that health insurance covers birth control (with religious and moral exemptions for some employers).

These policies are derived from federal legislation.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the eighth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, and Immigration.

Criminalizing Abortion

Respondents in New Hampshire were asked whether it should be a crime to provide an abortion, punishable with prison time or major fines for the doctor. Three options were presented:

• make abortion a crime at any point during the pregnancy (selected by 11% of Democrats, 16% of Republicans, 12% overall)
• make it a crime only after the fetus is viable (22–24 weeks), meaning it can likely survive outside the womb (selected by 38% of Democrats, 46% of Republicans, 42% overall)
• do not make it a crime (selected by 51% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans, 44% overall)

Thus, combining the second and third positions reveals that a bipartisan majority opposes making abortion a crime before fetal viability. This includes 89% of Democrats, 84% of Republicans, and 86% overall.

A majority of Democrats go further, and oppose making abortion a crime at all (51%).

Proposals to criminalize abortion at earlier stages of pregnancy have also been put forward. A 2024 PPC survey asked the same question as in the current survey, but included an additional option to criminalize abortion after 15 weeks. Even with that option included, bipartisan majorities nationally and in six swing states still supported not making abortion a crime before fetal viability (National: Democrats 90%, Republicans 61%; Six swing states: Democrats 83 to 93%, Republicans 57 to 70%).

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability.

Access to Birth Control

Three proposals to maintain or increase access to birth control get robust bipartisan support.

The government increasing funding to health care clinics so they can provide long-term birth control for free or at low cost to women who cannot afford it, is favored by 89% of Democrats, 79% of Republicans, and 84% overall.

Ensuring a nationwide legal right to purchase birth control, by prohibiting states from banning or restricting access to it, is favored by a bipartisan majority (Democrats 83%, Republicans 80%, overall 83%).

Continuing to require that health insurance cover birth control, as per the Affordable Care Act, is favored by a bipartisan majority (Democrats 83%, Republicans 82%, overall 84%).

These policies are favored by a bipartisan majority in every competitive state and district surveyed.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, with 605 adults. The response rate was 7.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 5.5%, and the maximum weight is 6.5.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. In New Hampshire, the distribution of partisan affiliation was weighted to be within expectations, based on voter registration data for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While immigration is a highly divisive issue in Washington, DC, a new survey in New Hampshire reveals substantial bipartisan common ground among the public on proposals to address the millions of undocumented people living in the US.

For the vast majority of undocumented immigrants – people who have been in the US for years and have no criminal record – a majority of both Democrats and Republicans favors offering them a pathway to become legal residents, if they pay a penalty and any owed taxes. For people brought to the US illegally as children, a bipartisan majority favors offering them a pathway to citizenship.

For undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime, deportation is favored by a bipartisan majority.

To deter immigrants from coming to the US illegally for work – the primary motivator for most immigrants – and steer them into a legal pathway, a bipartisan majority favors a proposal to:

• require employers to verify new employees’ legal status using E-Verify, and
• increase the number of work visas in line with the demand for labor

To reduce the amount of time that asylum-seekers wait in the US for their court hearing, which is often years, a bipartisan majority favors hiring more immigration court judges to speed up asylum cases.

All proposals presented were derived from Congressional legislation.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the seventh in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, and Social Security.

Addressing Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

For undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime, a large bipartisan majority favors the government deporting them (Democrats 82%, Republicans 91%, overall 86%).

For undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for years, and have not committed a crime, a bipartisan majority favors offering them legal status if they pay a penalty and any taxes they owe (Democrats 82%, Republicans 70%, overall 73%).

For undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US illegally as children, and have not committed a serious crime, a large bipartisan majority favors offering them a path to citizenship (Democrats 86%, Republicans 76%, overall 79%).

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed are in favor of these three proposals.

Reducing Illegal Immigration

To reduce the number of immigrants coming to the US illegally, which is primarily for work, and steer them into legal pathways, a two-part proposal has been put forward: 1) require employers to verify the legal status of their workers using the E-Verify system, and 2) increase the number of work visas in line with demand for workers. Over two-thirds of Democrats (83%) and Republicans (83%) are in favor, and overall (82%).

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed are in favor.

Reducing Wait Times in the U.S. for Asylum Seekers

To reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers wait in the US for their court hearing, which can be several years, a bipartisan majority favors hiring several hundred more asylum judges and staff to significantly speed up the process of evaluating claims (Democrats 79%, Republicans 70%, overall 74%).

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

While Congress has been unable to agree on solutions to prevent Social Security’s pending insolvency, a new survey in New Hampshire reveals how Americans across party lines would tackle the budget shortfall and prevent benefit cuts.

Proposals to increase revenue and reduce spending, which together would eliminate Social Security’s budget shortfall, are favored by majorities of Democrats and Republicans across the battlegrounds. They would:

• subject income over $400,000 to the payroll tax
• gradually increase the payroll tax
• reduce benefits for top lifetime earners
• gradually increase the full retirement age

Proposals to increase benefits, that would slightly increase Social Security’s budget shortfall, are also favored by bipartisan majorities. They would:

• raise the minimum monthly benefit
• change cost-of-living adjustments, tying them to what older adults tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits

These measures are derived from federal legislation, and proposals by the Congressional Budget Office, and the Social Security Administration.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the sixth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, and Families and Children.

Solving Social Security’s Budget Shortfall

Respondents were told they would be evaluating “options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits.” Each option was presented along with the amount that it would reduce the program’s budget shortfall.

Bipartisan majorities chose options that would eliminate the shortfall and extend full benefits for decades.

Increasing Revenue

Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax – which currently does not apply to income over $185,000 – is favored by 84% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans and 80% overall. This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 61 percent.

Gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5 percent is favored by 65% of Democrats, 57% of Republicans, and 60% overall. This would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent.

Bipartisan majorities in nearly all competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of these proposals.

Reducing Spending

Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of lifetime earners is favored by 71% of Democrats, 61% of Republicans, and 65% overall. This would reduce the budget shortfall by 11 percent. Bipartisan majorities in nearly all competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of this proposal.

Gradually increasing the full retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2033 is favored by 57% of Democrats, 55% of Republicans, and 56% overall. This would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent. Bipartisan majorities in most competitive states and districts surveyed are in favor of this proposal.

Increasing Social Security Benefits

Respondents were also presented “options for increasing Social Security benefits, which would increase the Social Security shortfall,” along with the amount that each proposal would increase the shortfall.

Raising the minimum monthly benefit from $1,125 to $1,630 (i.e. equal to 125% of the federal poverty line) is favored by 72% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans, and 74% overall. This would increase the budget shortfall by 8 percent.

Changing the formula used to calculate annual increases in Social Security benefits, by tying it to what older adults tend to buy, is favored by 67% of Democrats, 68% of Republicans, and 66% overall. This would increase the budget shortfall by 12 percent.

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed are in favor of this proposal.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0%. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

As the cost of raising a child continues to be a major concern, a new survey in New Hampshire reveals extensive bipartisan common ground in support of wide-ranging federal assistance for families.

Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor:

• increasing federal funding to establish free universal preschools
• subsidizing childcare for low- and middle-income parents
• increasing the Child Tax Credit, back to the level it was temporarily raised to during the Covid era
• establishing a national paid leave program to allow workers to take 12 weeks off to care for a new child, or a family member with an illness

The policy questions included in the survey were derived from federal legislative proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the fifth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, and Low-income assistance.

Reducing the Cost of Preschool and Childcare

A large bipartisan majority supports the federal government providing $25 billion to states or cities that want it, to help them create or expand preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds that would be available to all families free of cost. (Democrats 87%, Republicans 60%).

The federal government providing states with funds to subsidize childcare, so that low- and middle-income families spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare, is favored by a large bipartisan majority (Democrats 82%, Republicans 70%).

Bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and districts surveyed favor these proposals.

Increasing the Child Tax Credit

Increasing the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 up to $3,600, and making it fully refundable (meaning people who owe little or no federal taxes can get the credit as cash), is favored by a large majority of Democrats (83%) and Republicans (75%). This is the amount the tax credit was increased to during the Covid-era, but that increase was temporary and expired in 2022.

Bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and districts surveyed favor this proposal.

Creating a National Paid Family and Medical Leave Program

A large majority of Democrats (81%) and Republicans (67%) favor a proposal to allow all workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave, to care for a newborn or a family member with a health condition, or to recover from a serious illness. During that time, they would receive two-thirds of their wages, up to $4,000 a month, which would be funded by a new 0.2% payroll tax on both employers and employees.

Bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and districts surveyed favor this proposal.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

Amid ongoing political debates about spending on low-income assistance programs, a new survey in New Hampshire reveals bipartisan common ground in favor of the federal government providing more assistance to low-income households.

When given the option to increase, decrease or maintain current levels, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favored:

• Increasing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps
• Increasing federal spending on Medicaid, to provide health insurance to more low-income people
• Raising the federal minimum wage

Proposals to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income workers without children, and expand eligibility, are also favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the fourth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on eleven additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys include: Artificial Intelligence, Housing and Healthcare.

SNAP Benefits

A majority of Democrats (83%) and Republicans (69%) say monthly benefits for individuals living alone should be higher than the current average of $170. The median Democrat says it should be $250, and the median Republican $200.

For monthly SNAP benefits to single mothers, which are currently $530 on average, a majority of Democrats say it should be higher (75%), as do a plurality of Republicans (49%, with 46% choosing to keep it the same or lower it). The median Democrat says it should be $600, and the median Republican $545.

The government providing discounts on fruit and vegetables bought with SNAP benefits is favored by 90% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans.

Bipartisan majorities in most competitive states and districts surveyed say benefits should be higher, and discounts should be provided for fruits and vegetables.

Spending on Medicaid

Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, a majority of Democrats (85%) and Republicans (66%) say it should be increased.

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed say spending on Medicaid should be higher.

The Federal Minimum Wage

Told that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and asked to specify how much they think it should be, an overwhelming majority of Democrats (92%) and Republicans (85%) chose a higher wage. The median Democrat says it should be $15, and the median Republican $12.

Across the battleground states and districts as a whole, the median Democrat says it should be $15 an hour, and the median Republican $12.

Tax Credits for Low-Income Workers Without Children

Bipartisan majorities favor several proposals to expand and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), specifically for low-income workers without children (who receive substantially less benefits than workers with children).

Raising the limit on the maximum amount of the EITC credit from $630 to $1,300 a year is favored by a large majority of Democrats (83%) and Republicans (71%).

Raising the limit on the amount of savings people can have and still get the EITC credit (for individuals from $18,500 to $24,000; for married couples from $25,500 to $33,000) is favored by a large majority of Democrats (82%) and Republicans (73%).

Lowering the age of eligibility from 25 to 21 is favored by a majority of Democrats (69%) and Republicans (61%).

Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed favored all three proposals to increase and expand eligibility for the EITC.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0%. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults nationally. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

With healthcare costs continuing to rank among Americans’ top concerns, a new survey conducted in New Hampshire reveals common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to reduce costs and increase access to health insurance.

Proposals for making drugs more affordable are supported by large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, including:

• capping the price of prescription drugs to the price they are sold for in other developed countries
• reforming patent laws to bring more generic drugs on to the market

To increase access to health insurance, a large bipartisan majority favors restoring the recently expired enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which will lower the cost of insurance.

While Congress has scheduled reductions in future Medicaid spending, the surveys find little public support for this – less than one in four Democrats or Republicans. Instead, a large bipartisan majority favors actually increasing spending on Medicaid to provide coverage to more low-income households.

The surveys find strong bipartisan majority support for expanding government insurance options, including:

• allowing people 55-64 to purchase a Medicare plan
• creating a government-run health insurance plan that anyone can buy into (i.e., a public option)

For treatment of substance use disorder, a bipartisan majority favors the government investing billions of dollars more to help ensure access for all who need and want it.

These policies are derived from recent or existing Congressional legislation or White House proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the third in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.

Reducing the Cost of Drugs

An overwhelming bipartisan majority favors the government setting maximum prices for drugs sold in the US, based on what the drugs are sold for in other developed countries (which is about half the price on average). An overwhelming majority of 91% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans are in favor.

A large bipartisan majority favors a proposal to bring more generic drugs to market by making it “illegal for drug companies – whose patent on a drug has come to an end – to pay generic drug companies to hold off making and selling that drug.” (Democrats 80%, Republicans 83%)

Over two-thirds favor another patent reform proposal intended to lower drug prices: allowing the federal government to override a company’s drug patent and license other companies to produce that drug, if the government determines the price is unaffordable, and the drug was developed with federal funding. (Democrats 80%, Republicans 82%)

Large bipartisan majorities favor these proposals in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Reinstating Enhanced ACA Subsidies

Reducing premiums and deductibles for health insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, by reinstating the enhanced subsidies that expired this year, is favored by 89% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans.

Large bipartisan majorities favor this proposal in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Spending on Medicaid

Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, 85% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans say it should be increased.

Bipartisan majorities favor increasing federal spending on Medicaid in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Expanding Government Health Insurance

Allowing people aged 55 years or older to purchase a Medicare plan is favored by 74% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans.

Creating a “government-run public option (similar to Medicare) and allow all individuals who want to buy into it,” is favored by 85% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans.

These proposals are favored by at least two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans in all competitive states and House districts, as well as nationally.

Funding for Substance Abuse Treatment

A large bipartisan majority favors increasing federal spending on substance abuse treatment by $13 billion, “which would mean nearly all people who want and need treatment would get it” (Democrats 83%, Republicans 65%).

In general, ensuring that every person who needs and wants substance use treatment can get it is seen as a high priority by 93% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans.

Large bipartisan majorities favor spending more on treatment, and making it a high priority, in all competitive states and House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All Battleground States and Districts

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0%. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026, with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

While Democrats and Republicans in Congress recently came together to pass legislation addressing the cost of housing, a new survey in New Hampshire shows that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor policies that go substantially further.

The recently enacted law provides more tax incentives to build or repair affordable housing, which a large bipartisan majority favors, but they also favor the government investing tens of billions of dollars to help build more housing affordable to low- and middle-income households.

A large bipartisan majority also favors the government providing an additional $24 billion in rental assistance for the very low-income, elderly and disabled. The new law does not include an increase in spending on rental assistance.

Under the new law, corporations are prohibited from owning more than 350 single-family homes, but a bipartisan majority favors a more restrictive policy of prohibiting large corporations from owning any single-family homes.

The policy questions included in the survey were derived from federal legislative proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the second in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here.

Providing Tax Credits to Build Affordable Housing

A proposal for the federal government to provide, “tax incentives to home builders to build or repair homes affordable to low- and middle-income households” – consistent with the new law – was favored by a large bipartisan majority (Democrats 86%, Republicans 82%, overall 82%).

This proposal was favored by two-thirds of both Democrats and Republicans in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Investing Billions to Build Affordable Housing

Unlike the recent law, two legislative proposals call for substantial federal investments in affordable high-density housing (e.g. apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes). Both received large bipartisan majority support.

For very low- and low-income households, investing $40 billion to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 75% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans (overall 69%).

For low- and middle-income households, providing $25 billion to local governments to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 79% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans (overall 72%).

Each proposal was favored by bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and nearly all House districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Increasing Assistance for the Very Low-Income

A large majority of Democrats (85%) and Republicans (69%) favored, “spending up to $24 billion to provide more vouchers to help people pay rent who are very low income, disabled or elderly” (overall 77%). The new housing law does not increase funding for rental vouchers.

A large bipartisan majority was in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Banning Large Corporate Ownership of Single-Family Homes

While the new housing law prohibits corporations from owning more than 350 single-family homes, a large majority of Democrats (79%) and Republicans (71%) favored prohibiting large corporations from owning any (overall 76%).

A large bipartisan majority was in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

More Information

• New Hampshire + National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All Battleground States and Districts

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026 with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

A new Program for Public Consultation (PPC) survey in New Hampshire reveals common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to regulate artificial intelligence.

Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor the federal government:

• creating a federal agency devoted to monitoring and regulating AI
• requiring existing and new AI programs that make critical decisions to pass a government test (e.g. health insurance claims, hiring, etc.)
• requiring deepfakes to be labelled as such, and prohibiting their use in political campaign ads

Large bipartisan majorities favored the U.S. participating in international efforts to regulate AI by:

• creating an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs
• creating an international treaty to ban the use of weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command

The domestic proposals tested are derived from Congressional legislation, and the international ones come from international organizations, including the United Nations and Red Cross.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the first in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on fourteen additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.

New Federal Agency to Oversee AI

A majority of Democrats (80%) and Republicans (79%) favored creating a new federal agency to, “monitor new AI programs and try to anticipate potential problems, define best practices for developing and using AI programs, make policy recommendations, and enforce regulations” (overall 77%).

Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Regulating AI Programs That Make Critical Decisions

Bipartisan majorities favored two proposals to regulate, “AI programs that make decisions that can have significant impacts on people (e.g. in health insurance claims, loan applications, hiring, etc.),” that would help ensure they, “follow regulations, have data privacy and security protections, and do not have unintended biases.”

“For new AI programs, require they first pass a government-designed test.” (Favored: Democrats 87%, Republicans 77%, overall 79%)

“For AI programs already in use, allow the government to audit them.” (Favored: Democrats 77%, Republicans 74%, overall 74%)

Bipartisan majorities were in favor of these policies in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Regulating Deepfakes

Bipartisan majorities favored two new rules for AI-created images, audio and videos, also known as deepfakes.

“Require that any deepfake image or video distributed publicly – e.g. posted online or shown on TV – must have a label that states that it is not real and was generated by AI.” (Favored: Democrats 91%, Republicans 87%, overall 88%)

“Prohibit political campaigns, including PACs, from using deepfakes in their campaign advertisements.” (Favored: Democrats 85%, Republicans 85%, overall 84%)

Bipartisan majorities were in favor of these policies in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

International Treaty to Regulate Large-Scale AI

Bipartisan majorities favored, “the US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs.” (Favored: Democrats 84%, Republicans 78%, overall 80%)

Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

Banning the Use of Fully Autonomous Weapons

Bipartisan majorities favored “the US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty that would prohibit the development and use of AI-powered weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command.” (Favored: Democrats 80%, Republicans 76%, overall 77%)

Bipartisan majorities were in favor in all competitive states and districts surveyed, as well as nationally.

More Information

• New Hampshire + Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
• All Battleground State and District Results

About the Surveys

The New Hampshire survey was fielded May 27 – June 24, 2026, with 601 adults. The response rate was 8.0. The confidence interval is +/- 4.8%, and the maximum weight is 3.8.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026 with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, region, marital status, and home ownership to match the respective adult population. The national sample was also weighted by Census region and partisan affiliation. In the state and district samples, the distribution of partisan affiliation were within expectations, based on voter registration for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Project

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.