As each new year approaches, many people reflect on what they hope will be different in the new year. We imagine ourselves living up to an ideal and wish for a better tomorrow. Soon, the tension between who we are and who we want to be emerges. We might say we want to be healthier or friendlier, but we find that true change is easier said than done.
Americans keep hoping next year will be better for their country, too. In polls that I see every day for my work, voters consistently say they want a different type of approach to politics and governing. They express their disapproval of leaders who behave badly. Record high levels of voters say that they don’t like either party. They tell me over and over in surveys and focus groups that they worry about how divided we’ve become, or how nasty our politics are.
And so, voters keep resolving to change our country, too. Nearly every federal election in the past 20 years has been what we call a change election, in some fashion, through handing control of the White House or one chamber of Congress to the party not in power. And yet we are increasingly disappointed in those we elect. No wonder two-thirds of Americans told the Pew Research Center that they often feel exhausted by politics — and that was back in 2023.
How do we wind up continually disappointed? Why do we keep ratcheting up the toxicity in our politics, even as polls in recent years show we claim to want the opposite?
In market research, we describe this divide as stated preferences versus revealed preferences. Consumers may tell a company they want a product with a new feature, only for it to flop when it hits shelves. In political polls, what we say we value in leaders may be more virtuous or high-minded, but when candidates who match those values are on the ballot, they don’t always win.
Fresh polling from CNN asked who voters want to see run for president in 2028. Among the two-thirds who said they don’t have anyone specific in mind, they also said they want someone who is honest and truthful, cares and understands people, and helps people out. Voters will express in focus groups that the ability to bring people together, to be pragmatic and to embody strong character is important to them. In surveys, voters often say they prefer candidates who are willing to compromise to get things done, more than those who stand firm on principle.
If that’s really what voters want, then, why aren’t their elected leaders giving them more of it?
One answer, voters say, is that their leaders are not listening. Many think political leaders are only in it for fame or money, not for policy or service. Yet there is evidence to suggest that politicians are simply responding to the (sometimes perverse) incentives that are in front of them. In practice, playing nice doesn’t seem to get you very far. Academic studies have shown that politicians and leaders who exhibit more agreeableness seem to have less political success.
Politicians talk and vote the way they do because, at some level, it aligns with what their voters want. When political leaders push extreme or manipulative messaging, they are often handsomely rewarded in their fund-raising efforts. That’s one reason you see such toxic negative advertising in campaigns. In our attention-driven media ecosystem, what makes us feel something seems to go viral far easier than that which makes us think.
Voters who say they want us to turn to a more unifying style of politics — their stated preference — are most likely quite genuine in their view. Sometimes when the revealed preference shows something different, it isn’t necessarily a case of people being deluded about themselves; living out that preference may be hard simply for lack of good options.
For instance, most people say they want to eat healthy, but seven in 10 say it is hard to do so because of the higher cost of healthy food options. Can people be blamed for eating poorly if that quality of food is all they can afford? Similarly, can voters be blamed for electing candidates who ultimately disappoint them if there aren’t better options on offer?
Some of those better candidates may have failed to make it through a primary; potentially good candidates might not have entered a race at all. After all, seven in 10 voters say that candidates running for office in recent years have been bad.
True, it isn’t impossible to imagine candidates who inspire, and who fill supporters with a sense of optimism. It may seem increasingly rare, but, thankfully, we still occasionally get exceptions to the rule. One example is Spencer Cox, a Republican who was re-elected as governor in Utah despite a Trumpian primary challenge, despite getting booed for saying, “Maybe you hate that I don’t hate enough.”
In our heated partisan moment, though, some voters may feel that unity is a luxury they can’t afford, at least not until the other side surrenders. We say we want to lower the temperature, but only once we think the fever has crushed the virus. In this climate, kindness often becomes viewed as weakness.
Most notably, voters have long told pollsters that their support for President Trump is not necessarily because he is “likable” or nice in any traditional sense, but rather because they think of him as strong and decisive. This gives him the ability to say abominable things, such as his comments in the wake of the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, and get head shakes of disapproval — but not face widespread rejection from his own party.
Or take the debate around gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting; during 2025, my data showed fewer and fewer voters opposing such efforts, saying it was necessary to fight fire with fire. By an 85-to-10 majority, that polling finds Democrats want candidates who take the fight to Mr. Trump rather than try to work with him.
When Gov. Gavin Newsom pushes for redistricting in California while launching an X account copying Mr. Trump’s crude rhetoric, he is responding to Democratic voters’ desire for greater combativeness, and being rewarded for it in the polls.
As we embark on America’s 250th year, it is hard not to think about the example of George Washington, someone who was selfless enough to let go of the reins of power when he could have held them tightly by using his immense popularity to seek a third term. He was a leader whose words were uplifting and whose character made our system of government possible. When I hear voters in focus groups describe the things they want out of leaders — devoted to public service, less partisan, with strength of conviction — they describe qualities that feel timeless but are sadly out of fashion, compared with what winds up succeeding at the ballot box.
The year 2025 has been a year marked by political violence and sharpening divisions. Eighty-five percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats agree that our nation is at a “breaking point” because of our disagreements over politics.
In the wake of this pain comes a chance to resolve to be kinder to one another; to find opportunities for unity in our own communities; to build more bridges than we burn; to condemn political violence; and to reward leaders who show courage for making brave decisions. Americans have beautiful aspirations for themselves and for their nation. Every day is a fresh chance to move toward being the kind of country we say we want to be.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, a contributing Opinion writer, is a Republican pollster and a moderator of Opinion’s series of focus groups.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Americans Say They Want One Thing, Then Vote a Different Way. Here’s Why. appeared first on New York Times.
