77
David Ellison says 70% of Americans are centrist. Surveys tell a different story
(www.theguardian.com)
It’s propaganda. The guys a propagandist.
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
77 points (97.5% liked)
politics
29271 readers
2673 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
david ellison's centrist is a lot different from actual centrist though
It doesn't matter anyways because most people will always claim to be "in the middle" because the people to either extreme are always loudest.
You poll them on policies, and suddenly everyone is a "far left extremist" for wanting safety nets and basic standards for human existence.
You ask right/center/left at face value, and the answers will always be about the same despite what's going on in reality.
You poll them on policies, and suddenly everyone is a “far left extremist” for wanting safety nets and basic standards for human existence.
Former coworker kept saying he was republican, but he disagreed with them on a fundamental level about nearly every social issue, including guns.
He was all for anything and everything about collective bargaining, the workers uniting against management, but god forbid you use the "U" word.
Agreed every day about this social safety net needs expanded, that program needs better funding, more programs like this or that should exist for people in need, but once the dreaded "S" word comes out, suddenly everyone is a commie. Cause you know how socialism is actually communism and all that.
Kinda it. Everyone thinks their position is just average common sense. You only really get to the point of saying "I'm pretty far ____" if you've been actively alienated by others but just dug in your heels instead of changing your mind.
I suspect most people who don't have political thought as a large part of their identity don't really have a well integrated worldview with good internal consistency. Few enough active political thinkers do, after all! It might not be that useful to describe everyone in aggregate along a spectrum.
I suspect most people who don’t have political thought as a large part of their identity don’t really have a well integrated worldview with good internal consistency
Nope, we're built for us/them thinking.
Loads of people "don't care about politics" but really care about other shit.
They were born into a family/community that was heavily one or the other, and they'll stay that way no matter what.
Like, that's the crux of it.
It's not an accurate representation of someone's policy positions. Which is why when we poll that, we get vastly different results.
It's just the human brain doing what it evolved to do: commit to "us" and ignore "them".
It's not a bug, it's a feature, and why there's no other modern homind close to us.
We can't stop it from happening, because it's fighting human nature. So we have to socialize kids when very young so that they don't set "us" along maladaptive lines.
That's why the racists leading "the right" are always bitching about "woke culture" in kids shows, because that is hands down the most effective plan to stop bigotry. Without it, bigotry is the human default.
Just like a dog won't chase cats if it was around them as a puppy. We need to show kids that even if someone doesn't look/act/sound/whatever exactly like us, they're still "us".
Otherwise the kid will think of groups they weren't exposed to as "them" instinctively, and it's a lifelong conscious effort to remember "everyone is us".
Which is why white American boomers get racist when drunk/tired/old, they've had to put in effort this whole time, and can't always do it.
They weren't socialized as kids to be around other groups, they grew up during segregation
To put it more directly, anyone with a political ideology based on having a position relative to two or more other positions seems constantly so desperate to appear like an enlightened, balanced thinker while also having a political that’s nearly entirely worthless. They’re great at voting against stuff but their spines are jelly and it’s so fucking hard to get them to commit to fuckin’ anything.
And it carries over in their lives! Trying to get a hard opinion out of them on anything is so hard! They’re so scared of being “wrong” that they constantly half-ass everything they do and I’m so tired of it. Just commit to something, please!
Maybe we need to start running actual super far left parties in the world to centralize regular leftist parties to get these people to finally behave lol
Yes, entirely unironically. It's a negotiation technique called "anchoring".
They’re so scared of being “wrong” that they constantly half-ass everything they do and I’m so tired of it. Just commit to something, please!
If you're in the u.s., give them a small break. Only business owners and corporation havers are allowed to have political opinions that contradict another's. Unless you're a lucky peon who has a dick of a boss and they let you mouth off at work, then you can have a political opinion.
But that’s just it, the US had this strong pro-labour stance, so much momentum, and then they threw it all away and now it’s about what your boss “lets” you do.
But they won’t even have those discussions outside of work. I have a theory that it’s because if they’re progressive outside of an exploitative power dynamic then it’s much harder to handle if when it’s happening. It’s like their lives are in constant justification of why being taken advantage of is “actually normal” and why they say shit like “that’s life” or “in an ideal world…”. Easier to submit than fight*.
*Clarification: “fight” here could literally even just be voting progressive since that’s a completely secret thing. I’m not saying we gotta be raging at our bosses or trying to imply that everyone is in a place they can even speak honestly, safely.
Ah. Today in "CEO said"...
We do not give a fuck.
“Nepotism-Hire David Ellison says that his daddy says he can do whatever he wants.”
The real DEI
Different meaning of Equity in that case.
The E stands for “Earn” in this scenario.
It stands for Elitism.
The sound of a man wanging away at the overton window with a crowbar.
And by "centrist," he means rightwing.
by who's standards of 'centrist'?
American standards being between dem an gop?
yeah. fuck that.
between american politicians and europoe? maybe?
It’s 68% if you assume a normal bell curve and define centrist as within 1 standard deviation of the mean. These assumptions, of course, are not based on evidence, but they do support the claim.
Which has nothing to do with politics or the political label "centrist" in reference to 2026 America...
Like, you can't just cram anything into a normal distribution and claim "the middle is the most popular!" Even if that's the lie James Carville and Hillary Clinton have been using to sell neoliberalisk for 30+ years.
Like, that might be the justification he's trying to use here, but it's total bullshit.
according to Gallup’s data from 2025, more than half of Americans – 54% – identify as either Democrats or Republicans, with another 35% characterized as “Republican-leaning independents” or “Democratic-leaning independents”. Pew data has the number of self-identified Republicans or Democrats at 59%.
Ok, but what does that mean? "Republican" and "Democrat" are not ideologies, they're political parties. And very broad parties, at that. Because of our de facto two party system, both parties usually try to be "big tents." So neither party ever has exclusively one ideology.
What is the guiding ideology of the Republican party (or rather, what was it before the party became the cult of Trump)? What is the guiding ideology of the Democratic party? I think it used to be Neoliberalism, or "Third Way" Liberalism. But what is it today? Is it still Third Way Liberalism, like during the Bill Clinton era? Or is it more traditional Social Democracy?
In a lot of ways, the Third Way was meant to be a compromise between Neoliberals and Social Democrats, but are either of those sides willing to compromise today? Should they compromise? It seems to me there are aspects of Neoliberalism and Social Democracy that are mutually exclusive. For instance, Neoliberalism usually wants lower taxes, but Social Democrats want a strong social safety funded by a progressive tax system, which usually means higher taxes, at least for income earners near the top. Well, taxes can't be both lower and higher at the same time, so which is it? You can compromise and just lower taxes a little, and have a smaller safety net, but while compromise seems like a good thing, it usually just ends up with watered down policies that no one is fully happy with.
So where are the majority of Americans, ideologically? Is there a majority ideological consensus? If so, what is it?
So where are the majority of Americans, ideologically? Is there a majority ideological consensus? If so, what is it?
The majority of Americans are non-ideological in that they either align with the ideology of the state or have an incoherent hodge-podge of heterodox ideas.
You're probably right. So if most Americans are either non-ideological or heterodox, what would the orthodox ideology be?
Currently in flux, but it has been neoliberalism. Trump's second term has been shifting the orthodoxy towards neoconservative fascism. When I say that someone is non-ideological what I mean is that they do not have a personal commitment to any particular ideology, but that doesn't mean they don't have an alignment. People who don't have ideological commitments often align with the state and have a loosely connected set of orthodox views, and if they don't then they instead have a loosely connected set of heterodox views.
I agree. I wonder what will follow. Neoconservativism and Fascism are both failed systems. It's only a matter of time before they fail this time, too. I wonder if the failure of Neoconservativism/Fascism will lead to so many crises that there will be a collapse of the current global order, specifically US hegemony. Could that lead to the Chinese model becoming the new preferred paradigm?
And as far as here in the US, well, maybe when this is an over there won't be a US anymore. But if there is, I wonder what the next dominant ideology will be.
I wouldn't dare speculate lest I end up as crazy as Professor Jiang.
Look man, we have a right wing party and an ultra far right wing party...1/3 of us think the right wing party is so far left it's either communist or "national socialist" and majority of the rest of us consider that right wing party to be reasonably left/progressive. You really can't figure out where we lean ideologically?
"Right-wing" isn't an ideology. I agree that most Americans are right of socialism, and probably even social democracy, but that encompasses a lot of ideologies.
LOL, I'd love to know what the "centrist" position really is on a whole host of issues.
I think few people think they're reasonable and not extremist, even when they are relative to the Overton window.
Like, the guy who wants to deport all immigrants thinks he's a centrist because he doesn't want to kill them.
If someone says they are centrist, they are actually far-right.