With the N.C. General Assembly’s short session well underway and six state constitutional amendments being considered (if all are passed by supermajorities in both legislative chambers, they will join a seventh proposed amendment on November’s ballot for majority vote by North Carolinians), another bill dropped this week into the hopper related to early in-person voting in the state.

Currently, North Carolina allows for 17 days of early voting, from the third Thursday prior to the Tuesday general election, and ending on the Saturday before that Tuesday. Senate Bill 1084 would reduce the early voting period down to 10 days.

Share

Yet both voting data and public opinion point in the same direction - North Carolinians have embraced early voting, and most believe the current 17-day window is about right.

In the August 2024 Catawba-YouGov Survey on election confidence, 1,000 North Carolinians were asked about the early voting period:

North Carolina currently provides up to 17 days of early, in-person voting for registered voters before an election. Do you believe that this time for early voting in North Carolina is:

• About the right amount of days for North Carolina

• Too many days, needs to be reduced

• Too few days, needs to be expanded

Nearly seven out of ten North Carolinians said that the state’s early voting period of 17 days was “about the right amount of days for North Carolina,” with about 19 percent saying it was too many and should be reduced and 12 percent saying it was too few and needed to be expanded.

Surprisingly, in this day of divided partisanship, all three major party identifications agreed: NC early voting period was about right. Three-quarters of NC Democrats said it was about right, as did two-thirds of Independents and 64 percent of Republicans.

The upcoming August 2026 Catawba-YouGov survey of North Carolinians will again ask this question.

Subscribe now

And it’s not just public opinion, but actual habits that show how much North Carolina voters appreciate early voting, especially in-person.

Since 2008, North Carolinians embraced the early in-person vote method, with significant majorities ‘banking their ballots’ well before election day. Using voter history data from the N.C. State Board of Elections, here’s the distribution of general election vote methods from 2004 to 2024:

In the last presidential election, nearly three-fourths of all the ballots cast came from in-person early voting, with another 5 percent using absentee by mail voting. Only twenty percent of the ballots were cast on Election Day.

North Carolinians took to early voting in 2008’s presidential election and its use has only increased in subsequent years. For mid-term election years, it took another decade, in 2018, for the majority of votes to come before election day. But in the last two mid-terms, well over half of North Carolinians cast an early ballot (the majority via in-person, with small percentages by mail).

Using this historical data (2008-2024) for each county’s vote methods used (early, being both mail-in and in-person, compared to Election Day), I ran an analysis of what we might expect when it comes to the early votes for 2026’s mid-term election.

On the first pass, a predictive statistical analysis showed that North Carolina might see as much as two-thirds (67 percent) of the ballots cast this November come early (both in-person and mail-in) across North Carolina, compared to 58 percent just four years ago. And the distribution across the state would vary:

Thinking this might be a bit aggressive of a trend scenario, I ran a second analysis and took each county’s 2022 value and moved the trend halfway toward the straight-line 2026 trend projection. It’s a dampened version meant to potentially avoid overreacting to extreme growth.

The more conservative analysis came to 61 percent of the ballots state-wide being cast early, a three-point increase over 2022’s mid-term percentage. Again, there will be likely variation across the 100 counties of North Carolina.

So, the likelihood of North Carolinians casting majorities of the ballots for this November is high, anywhere from potentially six out of ten to two-thirds—it’s probably safe to land the final numbers come November as in between this range.

For counties that are preparing now for the November election, they are considering early voting locations and ballot preparation and printing for the three forms of casting ballots, with the sense that more ballots will be needed before Tuesday, Nov. 3 than on election day.

As policy makers consider this fall’s early voting period, and potentially cutting a week from the early voting period, consideration should be given to the past history and public’s opinion on early voting. Reducing the number of early voting days would likely not reduce voters’ interest in voting early; it would likely compress that demand into fewer days.

At least from both survey and actual data, North Carolinians are clear: they love to bank their ballots.

Ask Republicans and Democrats what makes up ‘America’ nowadays, and you’d think they were describing different countries. They are—but maybe not for the reason most people assume.

As the nation prepares to celebrate the Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary, the Catawba-YouGov March 2026 Survey focused on which traits, values, and ideas North Carolinians associated with American culture.1

Specifically, the survey asked, “Every country has values and culture that are specific to that country; which of the following do you associate with American culture and values?” Respondents were given 13 traits to consider as associated with America or not, and then pick the single one most central to their idea of America.

The top lines look like a familiar partisan story—Republicans flagging faith, family, and moral-civic identity; Democrats flagging diversity and pop culture. But introduce other factors and most of the partisan divide turns out to be cloaked.

Subscribe now

What North Carolinians say is “American”

Start with the statewide rankings of the 13 traits.

The chart below shows the share of the 1,000 North Carolina respondents (weighted) who said each item was associated with America, sorted from most-selected to least-selected overall. The right-hand columns show the same items broken out by party identity.

A few things stand out:

• Freedom of speech (63%) and religious freedom (59%) are the two most-cited associations overall — and they are the only two items selected by more than half of North Carolinians.

• Economic opportunity (46%) and patriotism (43%) round out the top tier — broadly civic ideas about what America offers and what binds it together.

• Diversity (42%) and individualism (40%) sit in the upper-middle, both popular but with slightly different partisan profiles.

• Christian values (33%) and consumerism (32%) are mid-pack overall but are among the most polarized items in the survey — they’re the clearest examples of partisan signal “hiding” inside a moderate-looking topline.

North Carolinians most readily associate America with freedoms (speech, religion) and opportunity/patriotism, with cultural-symbolic items (Christian values, diversity, consumerism) sitting in the middle of the pack overall but doing most of the partisan polarizing.

This polarization is unmistakable at the partisan level: Republicans select more often than Democrats on Christian values, religious freedom, patriotism, high moral standing, and the nuclear family, while Democrats select more often than Republicans on diversity, consumerism, and entertainment/pop culture.

Independents track the overall responses closely — they tend to look like the state average, sitting between the two parties on most items and a bit closer to Democrats on cultural ones.

That’s the puzzle underlying these results. The differences look like a familiar partisan story — Republicans flagging faith, family, and moral-civic identity; Democrats flagging diversity and pop culture. However, once ideology and demographics are factored in, the partisan gap appears to be an ideological one wearing a partisan jersey — concentrated, as we’ll see, on religion, patriotism, and the symbolic content of what people mean by “American.”

Share

What is the ‘most’ reflective value that is America

After selecting as many (or as few) values that make up America, each respondent was asked to select one that is most reflective of America. Each cell in the following chart is the percent of that group who picked that item as the single most representative of American culture.

What stands out is that freedom of speech is the runaway #1 overall (24%) — and it’s a top pick for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, though by different margins (Democrats 25%, Independents 28%, Republicans 20%).

Diversity is a clear dividing line: Democrats pick it as the most-American-thing 5 times more often than Republicans.

Closely behind diversity is Christian values (11%) but it is the clearest partisan dividing line — 21% of Republicans pick it as the single most American thing, three times that of Democrats. And Republicans selected patriotism four times more than Democrats.

Consumerism is interesting: it’s notably more popular as a “most representative” pick among Democrats than Republicans. Economic opportunity is evenly distributed across the partisan identities.

All of the other values—religious freedom, individualism, global leader, pop culture, education, moral standing, nuclear family—sit under 10% each.

It’s about partisanship—or is it?

So we have clear party preferences, and in particular, the differences look large and intuitive among North Carolina partisans. Republicans were dramatically more likely than Democrats to associate “American culture” with Christian values, patriotism, religious freedom, high moral standing, and economic opportunity. Democrats were more likely to associate it with diversity, consumerism, pop culture, and freedom of speech.

The next chart demonstrates the range of differences for each characteristic between Republicans and Democrats:

That looks like an enormous partisan divide: a 37% point gap between Republicans and Democrats selecting Christian values, while there’s a 17% point gap between Democrats and Republicans selecting consumerism. And it would be — if party were the only way of thinking about it. But party isn’t just a team jersey. It’s also a bundle of potential factors: ideology, demographics, and life experience.

In today’s politics, partisanship is a central identity of Americans. But there can be other factors driving our identities within party identification. For example, in looking at North Carolinians’ ideological composition in the March survey, we see both sides of the partisan aisle landing pretty much in their respective ideological camps, though one side is much more ideologically uniform than the other.

Six out of ten North Carolina Democrats identify as liberal, with another thirty percent as moderate. Conversely, 8 out of 10 Republicans say they are conservative, with only 14 percent being moderate. The ‘cross-ideological’ partisans are minor components of both parties: conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in NC are less than ten percent each.

For those who identify as ‘independent’ in North Carolina, they sit in the ‘moderate middle,’ at 56 percent, with almost equal numbers of the remainders splitting between conservative and liberal.

So what might be ideology’s role in characterizing what constitutes America? One quick way to see whether one’s ‘worldview’ is doing the heavy lifting is to set party aside for a moment and compare liberals and conservatives directly.

Share Center for NC Politics

Investigating ideology

When you replace party with ideology, a potentially clearer picture emerges.

First off, as a comparison to partisan self-identification, here’s North Carolinians’ ideological self-identification for picking all of the values that they believe reflect America:

What stands out yet again:

• Freedom of speech and religious freedom are still the top two overall, but the ideological gap on religious freedom is much wider than on free speech (Conservatives 77% vs Liberals 46% on religious freedom for a 31-point gap; 76% vs 53% on free speech, resulting in a 23-point gap).

• Christian values is the single biggest ideological gap of any item: Conservatives 66% vs Liberals 15% — a 51-point spread.

• Patriotism has a 41-point ideological gap (Conservatives 69% vs Liberals 28%) — much wider than the corresponding partisan gap (35 point).

• Diversity, consumerism, and pop culture are the clearest liberal anchors — all three have 12–22-point liberal-over-conservative divide.

This is a potentially sharper story than just the partisan version: the divide on what people associate with “American” appears to run along an ideological spine.

And when asked to pick one value that is most reflective of America, there appears to be some consensus on the top value among North Carolinians, but beyond that, very little agreement based on ideology.

Freedom of speech is the #1 pick across all three ideological groups, but with a small twist — Moderates selected it most often (27%), Liberals in the middle (24%), and Conservatives pick it (as their second) characteristic (21%). It’s still a near-universal anchor, but it’s slightly less central to the conservative picture of America.

For conservatives, Christian values is the strongest ideological signal: 23% pick it as the single most American thing, compared to 4% of Liberals and 5% of Moderates — roughly a 20-point Conservative-over-Liberal spread, the widest of any item.

Diversity is the mirror image — 20% of Liberals pick it as the single most American thing, compared to 4% of Conservatives and 11% of Moderates.

Consumerism runs along the same axis: 19% of Liberals, 11% of Moderates, but only 3% of Conservatives. As before, a sizable share of liberals read “consumerism” as a defining feature of American culture, where conservatives largely don’t pick it at all.

Patriotism flips the direction: 15% of Conservatives, 10% of Moderates, and just 4% of Liberals.

As with Republicans versus Democrats, the range of differences for each characteristic between North Carolina conservatives and liberals:

No gap is larger than Christian values: conservatives are roughly 51 points more likely than liberals to associate it with American identity. On the opposite end, liberals are 21 points more likely than conservatives to name consumerism. Both of these gaps are statistically significant, as is every characteristic save individualism.2

Notably, these raw ideology gaps are larger than the raw partisan gaps on most items — Christian values widens from a 37-point party gap to a 51-point ideology gap, and patriotism from 35 to 41. That’s a first hint that party potentially may be borrowing much of its signal from ideology — a hypothesis the next two tests put to a stricter standard in the next section.

When you ask the question based on ideology, the cultural divide isn’t messier — it’s sharper. North Carolina liberals and conservatives are describing two different versions of what constitutes “America,” with a fairly consistent pattern: a religious–moral–traditional vision on the conservative side, and a diverse–expressive–cultural vision on the liberal side.

Compare similar Republicans & Democrats, but hold for various factors

Skeptics might reasonably say: of course, Republicans and Democrats answer differently — Republicans tend to be older, whiter, more rural, more religious, and much more conservative. The gaps might just be a variety of things in disguise.

So here’s a stricter test: if you compare Republicans and Democrats who are otherwise similar—same ideology, race, education, generation, and urbanicity—do meaningful differences still remain?

The answer: yes, but on far fewer items, and the differences are sharper among North Carolinians. From the weighted adjusted model:

Ultimately, NC Republicans are more likely than similar NC Democrats to associate America with religious freedom, while in the other direction, similar Republicans are less likely than similar Democrats to associate America with consumerism, diversity and entertainment/pop culture.

All of the other items produce smaller adjusted differences whose 95% confidence intervals cross zero. Once we account for ideology and demographics, we can’t confidently separate similar Republicans and similar Democrats on those eleven items.

What about comparing similar conservatives & liberals (again, accounting for other factors)?

But as noted above, ideology appears to be doing a lot of work—so a second test was conducted, switching out ideology for partisan identification, thus controlling for party ID and the other demographics to see ideology’s role.

Compared to party, ideology appears to do more explanatory work in these controlled comparisons of North Carolina. Previously, when you control for ideology and demographics, most of the gaps in partisanship shrink with fewer characteristics that we can say are statistically significant (4 out of 13).

Now, when you control for party and demographics, ideology does more work with more characteristics (7 out of the 13) and with bigger gaps.

The largest conservative-leaning divides remain concentrated around Christian values, patriotism, and economic opportunity, while consumerism is the largest (and only significant) liberal-leaning divide.3

Ultimately, the partisan-adjusted model leaves only four clear disagreements, but the ideology-adjusted model leaves seven. That’s a hint that, for these culture-and-values associations, ideology could be doing more lifting than partisanship — at least in this survey and with these measures.

Share

What this analysis means to defining what America means

Polarization in America is often written about as a partisan phenomenon: Team Red vs. Team Blue, jerseys donned, hostility on the rise between the Rs and the Ds.4 That story is real, but on questions about what kind of country we are it may not be the whole story, at least in North Carolina.

What this analysis suggests is something more underlying beyond the standard “tribalism” narrative:

The American identity divide between North Carolinians isn’t mostly about which party they belong to. It’s also about which worldview they hold.

Two Republicans — one a small-government libertarian, the other a religiously-grounded traditionalist — disagree more about what counts as “American” than two ideological conservatives who happen to vote for different parties do. Two Democrats — one a secular cosmopolitan, the other a working-class moderate — likewise diverge on these symbols more than two ideological liberals split across party lines.

Partisanship can be considered as a team, while ideology, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs. When the two come apart, ideology appears to do more of the work on questions related to American characteristics and values, at least among North Carolinians.

That has three implications potentially worth considering:

One: in our nation’s 250th year of independence, the partisan culture war on what makes America could be narrower than the headlines suggest.5 Once you compare NC Republicans and Democrats who share the same ideology and demographics, most of the gaps shrink and only a handful remain.

Two: it’s not just partisanship, but perhaps ideology that drives the divide. Liberals and conservatives describe two different countries. One is centered on diversity, free expression, and an outward-facing pop culture. The other is centered on faith, tradition, family, and a moral-civic identity. And because the parties are more ideologically sorted, party labels have come to mean worldviews that are farther apart from each other.

Notably, the gaps between these two worldviews are wider, more numerous, and more visible than the gaps between the parties themselves. Even after controlling for party identification, race, education, generation, and urbanicity, conservatives are more likely than liberals to call Christian values American, as well as patriotism and the nuclear family. On the liberal side, the only association that survives is consumerism. These look less like tribal reflexes and potentially more like worldview-level disagreements about what kind of country exists.

Three: it’s a useful reminder that raw partisan cross tabs make every disagreement look potentially more dramatic than it is. We’ve seen the party divide play out in a lot of public opinion polls, both in North Carolina and in the nation. Most of what reads as “Democrats vs. Republicans” in survey data could also be “liberals vs. conservatives” plus some demographic patterns that come with them. Once you compare similar people, a lot of the heat dissipates — and what’s left is sharper, smaller, and more specific.

What we could be seeing is an American identity war that is not only fought just across just party lines. The battle could also be ideological — with religion, patriotism, and the symbolic content of American identity as the fields where the parties draw their lines.

For North Carolinians, the deepest disagreement may not only be over who governs America, but over what America fundamentally represents.

By Michael Bitzer, Janice Bryant, Janet Garner-Mullins, Greg Randolph, and Cheryl Spainhour

We recently traveled from North Carolina to Belfast, Northern Ireland, as part of a larger bipartisan group of faith and civic leaders from six states identified as being at the highest risk for political violence. Hosted by The Carter Center and Rethinking Conflict, we went to learn from a country that has lived through what we fear may be ahead for the United States.

For three decades, Northern Ireland endured “The Troubles,” a period of violent political conflict that claimed more than 3,700 lives, mostly civilians. Proportionally, that would be the equivalent of about 800,000 deaths in the United States.

We did not just study their history. We sat with it. We heard firsthand from those who lost parents, spouses, and children. We saw the physical and emotional scars that remain. And we left with a sobering conclusion: the United States is closer to this kind of conflict than most of us are willing to admit.

Ultimately, we left Belfast with three major takeaways.

First, we came away with a deep sense of urgency.

The United States is already on a path toward its own version of The Troubles. In just the past few years, we have witnessed a deadly insurrection at the United State Capitol, two assassination attempts on a presidential candidate, the assassination of a Minnesota legislator and her husband, and an attempted assassination of the governor of Pennsylvania and his family, just to name a few incidents. While we were in Belfast, a Republican city council candidate in Charlotte withdrew from his race and relocated his family after a drive-by shooting at his home. And, most recently, the assassination attempt of the President of the United States, members of his cabinet, of Congress, of the press, and other dignitaries, certainly underscores the need to reflect on our current trajectory. The threat to our nation’s wellbeing is not abstract. It is here.

At the same time, leaders across the political spectrum are increasingly using dehumanizing language to describe their opponents. As we were reminded in Belfast, linguistic violence often precedes physical violence. Words shape reality. When leaders normalize violent rhetoric, the consequences can escalate quickly.

Second, the cost of continuing down this path will be devastating.

The pain we encountered in Northern Ireland was not confined to the past—it is still present, still raw, still shaping lives decades later. Survivors spoke of grief that never fades. One man who lost his wife to a bombing told us that justice in the traditional sense has been impossible for him over the past 30 years.

Even today, Belfast remains physically divided in many areas, with walls separating Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods.

These “peace walls” stand as a stark reminder: once division hardens into violence, it does not simply disappear when the fighting stops.

For a snapshot of the pain and despair we witnessed and want to avoid, you can view this segment from PBS about what Americans can learn from Northern Ireland.

Third, and most importantly, we left with hope as well as a sense of responsibility.

A different path is still possible, but it will require action from all of us.

We learned that change must happen both from the top down and the bottom up. While leadership matters, civil society, the everyday actions of individuals and communities, may matter even more.

We also saw how, in Northern Ireland and other conflict zones, women leaders and women-led organizations have played a disproportionately influential role in promoting civility, dialogue, and peaceful elections. Their leadership offers a model worth elevating here at home.

Importantly, the public is likely ahead of our politicians. In North Carolina, recent polling from Catawba College-YouGov found that across fifteen scenarios, North Carolinians overwhelmingly reject political violence. For example, 72% of respondents said violence is never justified to stop a political candidate they disagree with from being elected.

So, what can we all do?

We can model civility in our daily interactions and demand the same from our leaders, especially from those who share our political beliefs. If a politician from your party uses violent rhetoric or dehumanizing language, write or call them about your objections and why.

We can seek out conversations with friends, neighbors and colleagues who hold different political views, listening not to respond, but to understand. In our own time together in Belfast, those of us from across the political spectrum found far more common ground as Americans than as conservatives or liberals.

One practical approach we heard was simple but powerful: when faced with disagreement, start with “You may be right, let’s talk about it.” This kind of comment invites dialogue instead of shutting it down.

And we can choose to civically engage. Building a more peaceful, resilient democracy will not happen on its own. It will take sustained effort, humility, and courage from most North Carolinians.

The lessons of Northern Ireland are clear. Political violence is not inevitable, but neither is peace. The difference lies in what we choose to do now.

To learn more and/or get involved with efforts to reduce polarization and the risk of political violence here in North Carolina, you can subscribe to updates from The Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service.

Subscribe now

Share

“Even in a deeply divided political environment, North Carolinians show broad agreement on a fundamental principle: no president is above the Constitution,” said Dr. Michael Bitzer, director of the Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service, which paid for the survey. “Voters across party lines expect the courts to be respected—and Congress to respond if the president ignores the courts.”

Conducted March 9 through 18, 2026, the survey of 1,000 North Carolinians was administered online by YouGov. The survey has an overall margin of error of plus/minus 3.58 percent; subgroups reported will have higher margins of error. As with all surveys of public opinion, results should be viewed as informative and not determinative.

Share

NORTH CAROLINIANS REJECT PRESIDENTIAL DEFIANCE OF SUPREME COURT IN HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO

The survey gave respondents a hypothetical scenario: following a ruling that a policy is unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, a president continues enforcing it, arguing the Court is wrong. Respondents were randomly assigned a Democratic or Republican president.

“The findings offer a clear indication of how North Carolinians would respond if a constitutional conflict between the presidency and the courts were to occur,” Bitzer said.

When asked if they would approve of the president continuing the policy despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, 64 percent disagreed, with majorities across the political spectrum saying the president should respect the court’s rulings: 54 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of both Independents and Democrats.

Six out of ten North Carolinians said the president’s defiance would violate the Constitution, with majorities of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats agreeing.

Nearly two-thirds—64 percent—of North Carolinians believe Congress should assert its constitutional role in response to presidential noncompliance. Half of Republicans, 69 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats said the legislative branch should hold the president accountable.

When given a list of what actions Congress should take, 26 percent said they should begin impeachment proceedings, with another twenty percent saying they should hold hearings or investigations. Another 12 percent said they should pass legislation to block funding for the policy, while 22 percent were not sure.

“North Carolinians aren’t just rejecting presidential overreach—they’re also signaling that Congress has a responsibility to respond when those boundaries are crossed,” Bitzer said.

When asked what kind of threat the president ignoring a Supreme Court ruling posed to American democracy, two-thirds described it as a serious threat, with only 15 percent saying it was not a serious threat.

Again, strong majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans said presidential disobedience was a threat.

And when asked about a mid-term election held after the president’s refusal to obey a court ruling, three-quarters said it would impact who they voted for in the election.

Among Republicans, 65 percent said their vote would be impacted, while 80 percent of Independents and 81 percent of Democrats said the same. A quarter said the president’s defiance would have no impact on their vote.

Bitzer observed that “what stands out is the consistency across party lines—respondents agree that ignoring a Supreme Court ruling crosses a constitutional line.”

Subscribe now

NORTH CAROLINIANS SUPPORT CHECKS & BALANCES, YET LACK CONFIDENCE IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Two-thirds of North Carolina respondents said it was more important to maintain the system of checks and balances, even if it makes it harder to get things done.

Reflecting the Constitution’s division of governing power, the idea of checks and balances was supported by majorities across the political spectrum: 59 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats.

Only 17 percent of respondents said it was more important that government act quickly and decisively, even if that means one branch of government has more power than the other two. Another 16 percent were not sure.

When it comes to who has the final authority in interpreting what the Constitution means, a plurality—41 percent—said it should be the Supreme Court of the United States, while another third said all three branches should share that authority.

Yet when it comes to confidence in the nation’s highest court, 56 percent said they had not very much, or none at all, with 44 percent saying they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence. And when it comes to whether the federal courts have too much power in deciding what the law means, North Carolina is fairly divided: 43 percent agreed to 39 percent disagreeing.

“There’s a notable tension in the data,” Bitzer noted. “North Carolinians may lack confidence in the Supreme Court, but they still believe its rulings must be respected.”

Two-thirds opposed a president acting independently based on their own constitutional interpretation, with only 25 percent agreeing in presidential power. And 62 percent oppose Congress acting independently in passing laws, if the Supreme Court rules differently.

And when asked if the president should be able to act when they believe it is necessary without Congress, a majority—53 percent—disagreed, fueled by Democrats (at 75 percent) and Independents (at 59 percent).

Only 37 percent of North Carolinians said a president could act without congressional action, driven by two-thirds of Republicans agreeing.

NORTH CAROLINIANS PESSIMISTIC ON THE NATION’S POLITICAL CLIMATE

The survey found that a majority—56 percent—believe that the future of the United States’ political climate is negative, while only 18 percent believe it is positive. The remainder—17 percent—believe the nation’s political future will trend neither positive nor negative.

Among those who said they voted for Donald Trump in 2024’s presidential election, one third were positive about the future of the nation’s political climate, while 47 percent said they were negative. Among Kamala Harris voters, 73 percent said the political climate was trending negative, compared to only 9 percent saying it would be positive.

“Taken together, the findings suggest that while they are pessimistic about the direction of national politics, North Carolinians remain firmly committed to our constitutional framework—and wary of leaders who challenge it,” Bitzer noted.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY:

Catawba College’s Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service wrote and paid for the survey. Between March 9 and 18, 2026, YouGov interviewed 1,266 18+ year-old residents of North Carolina who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The survey’s overall margin of error (adjusted for weights) is plus or minus 3.58 percent, meaning that in 95 out of 100 samples such as the one used here, the results should be at most 3.58 percentage points above or below the figure obtained by interviewing all North Carolinians. Where the results of subgroups are reported, the margin of error will be greater.

The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame was constructed by stratified sampling from a North Carolina subset of the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2024 presidential vote choice, and further stratified by gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight.

Since additional factors such as question wording and other methodological choices in conducting survey research can introduce additional errors into the findings, survey results should be viewed as informative and not determinative.

Conducted March 9 through 18, 2026, the survey of 1,000 North Carolinians highlights a politically complex state on several policy issues: public education financing following the end of the Leandro case; federal involvement over elections; the impact of immigration status and enforcement on the state; and protecting the environment by the state.

Paid for by Catawba College’s Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service, the online survey was conducted by YouGov with an overall margin of error of plus/minus 3.58 percent; subgroups reported will have higher margins of error. As with all surveys of public opinion, results should be viewed as informative and not determinative.

Share

NORTH CAROLINIANS AGAINST TAX INCREASES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s dismissal of the long-running Leandro school funding case, a plurality of North Carolinians—47 percent—oppose raising taxes to increase funding for public education.

“With the end of the nearly thirty-year Leandro case and a multibillion dollar plan to address educational inequalities between poor and rich counties, only 27 percent of North Carolinians would support raising taxes for public schools,” said Dr. Michael Bitzer, professor of politics and history and director of the Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service.

No partisan group reaches majority support for raising taxes. While 43 percent of Democrats favor the idea, nearly half of Independents (47 percent) and two-thirds of Republicans (67 percent) oppose it.

Generational divides are also evident: nearly two-thirds of Millennials and Generation Z (under age 45) support raising taxes, while older North Carolinians—particularly those in the Silent and Baby Boomer generations—oppose it, with 58 percent against.

Subscribe now

BROAD OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS

Amid renewed national debate over federal involvement in elections advocated by President Donald Trump, North Carolinians express clear resistance to national oversight of election administration and vote counting by the states.

Nearly half of respondents—48 percent—oppose federal control of elections in certain states, while 49 percent oppose such a move in North Carolina specifically.

“With President Trump’s repeated calls for federalizing elections and recent actions regarding mail-in voting, North Carolinians are clear: they oppose federal overreach in administering elections,” Bitzer said.

Partisan divides remain pronounced. While 60 percent of Republicans support federal involvement in other states’ elections—and 53 percent support it in North Carolina—large majorities of Democrats (75 percent) and Independents (55 percent) oppose federal control in both contexts. Currently, the North Carolina State Board of Elections oversees the state’s election administration within the hundred counties, and is under the State Auditor, Republican Dave Boliek.

“Even with Republican oversight of North Carolina’s elections, many in the GOP support federal involvement,” Bitzer added.

STRONG SUPPORT FOR COLLEGE EARLY VOTING ACCESS

The survey also finds broad agreement on improving voting access for college students.

A majority of North Carolinians (57 percent) support having early voting sites on college and university campuses, while just 14 percent oppose the idea. Support spans party lines, including 81 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents, and a plurality (42 percent) of Republicans.

Eight in ten respondents say it is important to make it easier for college students to vote, including 70 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Independents, and 96 percent of Democrats.

Concerns about fairness appear limited: only 15 percent say campus voting sites are unfair to non-students, while pluralities say such access either benefits both parties equally (34 percent) or has no partisan impact (29 percent).

When asked whether the location of voting sites affects turnout, 30 percent say it makes a major difference and 40 percent say it makes a minor difference.

STATE DIVIDED ON IMMIGRATION AND ICE

North Carolinians are sharply divided over immigration and the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the state.

Overall, 41 percent oppose ICE’s presence, compared to 38 percent who support it. The divide is strongly partisan: 81 percent of Republicans support ICE, while 71 percent of Democrats oppose it. Independents tilt against ICE by a 13-point margin (47 percent to 34 percent).

“Not surprisingly, it’s a partisan division that drives these numbers, with 83 percent of Trump 2024 voters supporting ICE in the state, while 78 percent of Harris 2024 voters are opposed,” Bitzer said.

Views also differ sharply based on immigration status. Six in ten North Carolinians believe legal immigrants have a positive impact on the state, while only one-third say the same of undocumented immigrants. Forty-five percent say undocumented immigrants have a negative impact.

NORTH CAROLINA COULD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MORE

A plurality of North Carolinians—47 percent—believe the state could do more protect the environment, with 40 percent saying environmental protection is about right by the state. Of the overall plurality wanting more environmental protection, a third of North Carolinians say there’s not enough, while 13 percent say there’s far too little environmental protection.

Majorities of Democrats and Independents say North Carolina state government could be more proactive when it comes to environmental protection, while a majority of Republicans say enough is being done, with a quarter of the GOP saying more needs to be done and another quarter saying there’s more than enough protection.

This is the second release from the Catawba-YouGov March 2026 survey. The next release will focus on knowledge of U.S. constitutional powers by North Carolinians and their opinions on when there is noncompliance with constitutional authority.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY:

Catawba College’s Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service wrote and paid for the survey. Between March 9 and 18, 2026, YouGov interviewed 1,266 18+ year-old residents of North Carolina who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The survey’s overall margin of error (adjusted for weights) is plus or minus 3.58 percent, meaning that in 95 out of 100 samples such as the one used here, the results should be at most 3.58 percentage points above or below the figure obtained by interviewing all North Carolinians. Where the results of subgroups are reported, the margin of error will be greater.

The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame was constructed by stratified sampling from a North Carolina subset of the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2024 presidential vote choice, and further stratified by gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight.

Since additional factors such as question wording and other methodological choices in conducting survey research can introduce additional errors into the findings, survey results should be viewed as informative and not determinative.

With the Iran conflict now more than a month old, familiar constitutional questions have resurfaced: what role should Congress play in authorizing military action, and how should that authority be shared with the president?

The U.S. Constitution divides the power over war between Article I and II:

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; …”

Article II, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

This structure was designed not for efficiency, but for restraint—ensuring that the decision to engage in conflict would require shared responsibility.

But how do North Carolinians view that balance today?

Share

Agreement on Principle of Shared Power

In the August 2025 Catawba-YouGov Survey of 1,000 North Carolinians,1 respondents were asked about their level importance regarding these constitutional principles: the shared war powers and that the president should seek congressional authority to engage the U.S. military against another nation.

The results showed broad agreement.

Nearly seven in ten North Carolinians said that shared war powers between Congress and the president were either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important, with only a small fraction dismissing the shared power.

Notably, this sentiment cuts across partisans lines, especially that Republicans are the highest group emphasizing the importance.

At the level of constitutional principle, there is little disagreement: North Carolinians value the idea that war-making authority should not rest in the hands of a single individual.

Subscribe now

Division in Practice

However, when it comes to practical implementation of war power—namely, the authorization of military force (a congressional power)—North Carolina public opinion fractures thanks to partisanship.

While overall the importance of the president seeking congressional approval for initiating military operations against another nation increased—to 75 percent—compared to the divided authority question, the partisan divide is evident: a 24 point gap between Democrats saying it is important (85 percent) compared to Republicans (at 61 percent, with nearly three out of ten saying it is ‘somewhat’ important).

As a reminder: this survey was done six months before the current campaign against Iran.

This survey finding—taken six months prior to the current campaign against Iran—sets up a critical tension in North Carolina public opinion: while North Carolinians broadly agree on the idea of shared war powers, they diverge on how—and when—to enforce them.

When Hypothetical Constitution Powers Become Reality

The March 2026 survey—conducted amid the ongoing Iran conflict—offers an early test of how these attitudes translate when military action is no longer hypothetical.

One key question centered on the potential deployment of U.S. ground troops in Iran. Here, the partisan dynamics become even more complex.

One aspect of this question to watch will be Republican views on the deployment: while a third are supportive of deployment, a larger share express opposition—suggesting a potential cross-pressure among the president’s own party between partisan loyalty and skepticism toward deeper military engagement.

These mixed signals raise an important question: will public opinion constrain policymakers, or simply mirror the divisions already present in Washington?

Share Center for NC Politics

Familiar Constitutional Tensions At Play

What these findings ultimately suggest is a tension that is as old as the Constitution itself: Americans—and North Carolinians in particular—continue to value the principle of shared war powers, even as their partisan instincts shape how that principle should be applied in practice.

These mixed signals raise an important question: will public opinion constrain policymakers, or simply mirror the divisions already present in Washington?

The broad agreement on the importance of congressional involvement reflects a lingering institutional trust in checks and balances. Yet the divergence on authorizing force and deploying troops underscores how contemporary political alignments can override constitutional consistency.

As the conflict with Iran evolves, the real test will not simply be public opinion in the abstract, but whether those stated commitments to shared authority hold when the stakes are immediate and partisan pressures intensify.

If history is any guide, the gap between principle and practice may prove just as consequential as the conflict itself.

Today, (Wednesday, April 1), the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments around a major case on the high court’s docket this term: that of birthright citizenship.

At issue is President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to end the principle, one that was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898’s United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It is considered one of the “highest-profile cases” before the nation’s highest court this year. But while the legal question is before the Court, public opinion on the issue is far less settled.

National polling suggests that attitudes toward birthright citizenship are highly sensitive to how the issue is framed.

When surveys ask about birthright citizenship in general, people largely say they are supportive. But that support begins to crumble when respondents are asked about the parents’ legal status — with significant divisions by party, race, age and how they get their information. (emphasis in original)1

Share

In June 2025, the Catawba-YouGov Survey looked at three different components of what makes up the principles of American democracy: civic participation, governing authority, and liberties and rights.

For each of the 51 different principles surveyed, North Carolinians were asked to rank the level of importance of each principle, from “very” to “somewhat” to “slightly”, or “not very” or “not at all” important.

All but three principles received at least 70 percent of North Carolinians saying they were important (very or somewhat). While support for most democratic principles is broad, the areas of weakest agreement are revealing. The three principles that garnered less than 70 percent importance all share one common thread: they define the boundaries of citizenship—who is entitled to belong and on what terms.

Subscribe now

As a baseline, just under 70 percent (69) of North Carolinians said the principle of birthright citizenship was important: that if an individual is born on a nation’s soil, they are automatically a citizen of that country. As found in the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.2

Most notably, two out of ten respondents said it wasn’t important, driven by Republicans.

A second question introduces a qualification on birthright citizenship, that of non-citizen parents.

Again, two-thirds of North Carolinians said it was an important principle, but you see slight declines among the partisan identifications when you introduce the idea of non-citizen parents.

Subscribe now

The final question—this time regarding the rights and protections afforded to individuals, no matter their citizenship status—garnered the lowest level of importance by North Carolinians, at only 61 percent.

A slight plurality of Republicans said this principle was not important, compared to strong majorities of Democrats and Independents who said the opposite.

Debates over birthright citizenship are not simply legal or constitutional disputes—they are reflections of deeper disagreements over the boundaries of political membership itself.

While broad support remains for democratic principles in the abstract, the concept of citizenship reveals a more conditional and contested terrain. As the Supreme Court revisits the legal foundations of birthright citizenship, public opinion—at least in North Carolina—signals that the durability of this principle may depend less on doctrine and more on how Americans define who belongs.

The survey also finds that Democrat Roy Cooper leads Republican Michael Whatley in the early horserace numbers for the U.S. Senate election, 48 percent to 34 percent among likely voters (including those who initially said they were undecided but lean toward a candidate), with 14 percent undecided.

Share

“President Trump has registered the lowest approval rating in the Catawba-YouGov Surveys since last March, at 42 percent, with his highest disapproval at 55 percent,” said Dr. Michael Bitzer, professor of politics and history and director of the Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service, which wrote and paid for the survey. The online survey was conducted by YouGov of 1,000 weighted North Carolinians from March 9 to 18, 2026, and has an overall margin of error of plus/minus 3.58 percent.

Subscribe now

“With the role of North Carolina military personnel and operations in the month-long U.S.-Israel-Iran war, only one-third of North Carolinians agree that the U.S. was right to militarily intervene in Iran, while 44 percent disagree,” Bitzer said. “And with troops from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg already deployed, 58 percent of North Carolinians are against land forces on the ground in Iran, with only 18 percent supporting such a move.”

Trump’s 42 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval mark the widest gap recorded in the past year, with both figures outside the survey’s margin of error.

Share

NORTH CAROLINIANS WEIGH IN ON U.S. MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN

Beyond the topline numbers, the U.S. and Israeli war with Iran garners striking divides. Seven out of ten Republicans agree that the United States was right to attack Iran, while 50 percent of independents and nearly seven out of ten Democrats disagree. Over seven out of ten Trump 2024 presidential voters support the action, while 78 percent of Kamala Harris’ voters disagree with the action.

When it comes to supporting U.S. troops in military engagement in Iran, 58 percent of North Carolinians opposed troops on the ground, with only 18 percent supporting. Only among Republicans is there a level of considerable support—one third—while a plurality is opposed. Among independents and Democrats, 63 percent and 73 percent, respectively, are against American troops on the ground in Iran.

Another clear divide over Iran is whether the president has a plan for the conflict with Iran. Only 36 percent of North Carolinians believe the president has a clear plan for the conflict with Iran, driven largely by Republican respondents.

One-third say he does not have a plan at all for Iran, while another 22 percent say his approach is unclear.

North Carolinians are almost split evenly when it comes to whether the Iran attacks align with the president’s ‘America First’ doctrine. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say it does, while six out of ten Democrats and a plurality—44 percent—of Independents say it doesn’t align with ‘America First.’

Finally, the survey asked North Carolinians about their opinions regarding both financial and military aid towards two allies involved in military conflicts: Israel and Ukraine. Notably, North Carolinians express greater support for aiding Ukraine than Israel across both financial and military assistance.

Four out of ten North Carolinians agree that the United States should continue to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, while only 35 percent of respondents said the U.S. should support Israel with military assistance and 28 percent with financial assistance.

Not surprisingly, it’s Republicans who are more likely to favor assistance to Israel, while Democrats support aid to Ukraine.

These views on the Iran conflict may also be shaping the state’s political landscape, including early preferences in the U.S. Senate race.

Subscribe now

EARLY SENATE HORSERACE REFLECTS CANDIDATE STRENGTH OVER PARTY LOYALTY

In the first test of the U.S. Senate race, former Governor Roy Cooper leads Republican Michael Whatley by fourteen points, 48 percent to 34 percent among likely voters (including those who initially said they were undecided but lean toward a candidate), with 14 percent undecided. Without leaners, Cooper holds a 47 percent to 31 percent advantage.

“What stands out is the contrast between the Senate race and the broader partisan environment,” Bitzer said. “Cooper’s double-digit lead, even as both parties have relatively weak standing, suggests voters are potentially responding more to the candidate’s familiarity and profile than to party labels alone, with some openness to crossing party lines. Cooper has shown this in his past runs, and early on it looks like he is continuing this trend.”

“The former governor also benefits from a strong Democratic base of support, while almost half of independent likely voters are inclined to vote for Cooper. While Whatley has three-quarters of Republican likely voters supporting him, only 27 percent of independents support him at this point in the contest.”

Differences in candidate familiarity may help explain the gap. Cooper’s approval stands at 48 percent statewide, with strong support among Democrats and nearly half of independents.

By contrast, 44 percent of North Carolinians say they are unfamiliar with Whatley. Among those who do recognize him, opinion is evenly split: 28 percent favorable and 28 percent unfavorable. Notably, a significant share of Republicans and nearly half of independents report not knowing enough about Whatley to form an opinion.

“When it comes to Whatley’s standing, there is still a sizable portion of his own party and independents who are unfamiliar with him,” Bitzer said. “And yet, he still garners strong support from Republican identifiers, which underscores the role of partisan loyalty in shaping early preferences.”

STEIN REMAINS POPULAR IN NC; TILLIS SLIGHTLY UNDERWATER; GENERIC BALLOTS SHOW CONSISTENT PATTERNS

Governor Josh Stein continues to command a positive approval rating among North Carolinians, with half approving to 29 percent disapproval. Notably, 38 percent of Republicans approve of Stein, with almost half of independents and seven out of ten Democrats doing so.

U.S. Senator Thom Tillis, who is not seeking re-election this fall, is slightly underwater with his approval ratings: overall, 39 percent disapprove to 34 percent approving. Over one-third of Republicans disapprove of him, while almost one-third of Democrats approve of Tillis.

Both congressional parties share similar marks in approval among North Carolinians: 35 percent approve of the Democratic Party in Congress, while 37 percent approve of the Republican Party.

When it comes to the generic ballot for November general election for the U.S. House of Representatives, Democratic candidates hold a five point lead over Republicans, 43 percent to 38 percent. Bitzer notes that “with the partisan advantage the G.O.P. has in creating the congressional districts, Democrats could need more than a five point advantage going into November to hold, or possibly swing, some U.S. House seats in the state.”

Seven months out, both parties have their base supporters firmly locked in for the congressional generic ballot: 85 percent of Democrats say they will vote for their party’s congressional candidate, while 88 percent of Republicans will vote for their candidates. Among North Carolina independents, Democrats have the advantage, 44 percent to 25 percent, with 27 percent of independents undecided.

Among the state-level generic ballot contests this fall, all show a very similar pattern: 43 percent Democratic to 36 percent Republican for the state supreme court, the N.C. state house, and N.C. state senate.

This is the first release from the Catawba-YouGov March 2026 survey. Future releases will focus on issues such as ICE, legal and undocumented immigrants, voting site locations and federal takeover of election administration, along with knowledge of U.S. constitutional powers and when there is noncompliance with constitutional authority.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY:

Catawba College’s Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service wrote and paid for the survey. Between March 9 and 18, 2026, YouGov interviewed 1,266 18+ year-old residents of North Carolina who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The survey’s overall margin of error (adjusted for weights) is plus or minus 3.58 percent, meaning that in 95 out of 100 samples such as the one used here, the results should be at most 3.58 percentage points above or below the figure obtained by interviewing all North Carolinians. Where the results of subgroups are reported, the margin of error will be greater.

The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame was constructed by stratified sampling from a North Carolina subset of the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2024 presidential vote choice, and further stratified by gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight.

Since additional factors such as question wording and other methodological choices in conducting survey research can introduce additional errors into the findings, survey results should be viewed as informative and not determinative.

What happens after an election may matter almost as much as the election itself. Once votes are accurately counted, results certified, and all procedural and legal challenges are settled, democracy depends on something less formal but just as critical: whether the losing side accepts the outcome—and says so publicly.

That is why one finding from the June 2025 Catawba-YouGov Survey1 stands out: most North Carolina voters say defeated incumbents should publicly concede, but based on partisanship and other factors, they do so with different levels of conviction. Democrats and Independents are the most likely to treat concession as an important democratic obligation, Republicans are less likely to do so, and respondents who are other or unsure are the least likely of all.

The broad norm is still there—but beyond just partisanship, it is stronger in some parts of the electorate than in others.

Subscribe now

Overall, seven in ten North Carolinians say it is very or somewhat important for incumbents who lose elections to publicly concede defeat.

But within these overall findings, the key pattern is not disagreement over whether concession matters, but how strongly different groups believe it does.

Share

Much of what divides North Carolinians nowadays is based on partisanship, and the divide plays out regarding this democratic norm.

What stands out most in the above partisan identification chart is that support for this public obligation is broad, but not equally intense across partisan groups. In every major party category, a majority says it is very or somewhat important for incumbents who lose elections to publicly concede defeat.

But the strength of that commitment clearly varies. Democrats register the highest level of support, with Independents close behind, while Republicans are notably less likely to rate concession as important. The sharpest drop appears among respondents in the other/not sure category, where attitudes are more mixed and uncertainty is much higher.

So the main takeaway is not that one side rejects the norm outright, but that some parts of the electorate embrace it more strongly than others—and that difference matters when we think about how democratic expectations are sustained in practice.

Share Center for NC Politics

We see this same dynamic in those who voted for either Trump or Harris in the 2024 presidential election as well.

The sharpest divide emerges in 2024 vote choice: a twenty-point gap separates Trump voters (64%) from Harris voters (84%) in seeing concession as important—one of the clearest indicators of polarization in the survey.

Ideology by North Carolinians is also seen as a major sorting dynamic when it comes to this democratic practice.

Public concession by an incumbent resonates much more strongly with liberals than with conservatives, again by an almost twenty-point gap. Moderates, not surprisingly, fall in between and reflect the overall dynamics.

A more interesting division is apparent based on age, especially when defined within generational cohorts.

Older respondents—those who are Generation X or older—were much more likely to say this democratic principle was ‘very important’: 55 percent for Gen X and Boomers+, while only 40 percent of Millennials and Generation Z said it was very important.

Thus, generational differences add another layer. Younger North Carolinians don’t reject the norm, but they hold it with less intensity, compared to older respondents.

On the other demographic dynamics, the divide over this norm isn’t as great as the political dynamics, but there are still some differences, for example within education.

With a clear gradient as one’s education level increases, college-educated North Carolinians are the most likely to rate this norm as important, compared to non-college educated respondents.

Race/ethnicity is pretty much flat across the three major groups, with no clear evidence that public concession differs meaningfully among this demographic dynamic.

The region that a North Carolina respondent comes from seems to matter, with those in urban areas (central cities and urban suburbs) most likely to stress the importance of this norm, while those in the surrounding suburban and rural counties are less intense, especially those in the ex-urbs.

This is likely more a ‘place-based’ difference, thanks to the emphasis by urban respondents.

Share

North Carolinians Differences on a Core Democratic Norm

Ultimately, this question shows that attitudes are structured much more by political orientation and age than by race. The strongest differences appear by 2024 presidential vote and ideology, with both dimensions highly significant. Kamala Harris voters are far more likely to rate public concession as important than Donald Trump voters or nonvoters, and liberals are notably more likely than conservatives or the ideologically uncertain to say the issue is very important. These are the largest divisions in North Carolina public opinion.

A second tier of differences appears by generation, education, and region. Older voters place greater importance on public concession than younger adults, and college-educated respondents are more likely than those without a four-year degree to rate it highly. Regionally, respondents in central cities and urban suburbs are more likely to view incumbents conceding defeat as important than those in surrounding suburban counties and rural counties. These differences are statistically significant, though weaker than the divides by vote choice and ideology.

By contrast, race and ethnicity do not produce a statistically significant difference on this item. White, Black, and Hispanic/other respondents all cluster fairly closely in their ratings, suggesting that this issue does not operate primarily as a racial cleavage in this survey.

Notably, these survey findings of North Carolinians suggest that the norm of incumbents publicly conceding their defeat is best understood as an issue shaped chiefly by partisanship, ideology, and generational differences, with education and place playing secondary roles. In practical terms, the issue has its strongest resonance among Harris voters, liberals, older respondents, and the college educated, while it is less salient among Trump voters, younger adults, and nonvoters.

At a moment when even the most basic democratic rituals can become politically contested, this survey offers a useful reminder that many voters still see some norms as essential. One of those norms is public concession after an electoral defeat. Large majorities of North Carolinians across party groups say it is important for incumbents who lose elections to publicly concede defeat—but that consensus is not equally strong everywhere.

Even after accounting for demographics, the strongest predictors of support for concession are political rather than purely social: ideology, presidential vote, and party alignment do more to explain attitudes than gender or region alone.

The result is not a collapse of a democratic norm, but something more subtle—and potentially more consequential: a partisan gradient in how strongly that norm is held.

In stable periods, that difference may not matter much. But in close or contested elections, the intensity of belief in public concession—following all prescribed recounts, post-election processes, and legal challenges—may shape whether democratic expectations hold when they are most needed in a highly competitive state.

From Vietnam to Iraq to more recent military engagements, the balance of war-making authority between Congress and the president has been a recurring point of conflict in American politics. The Constitution divides this power—giving Congress the authority to declare war while making the president commander-in-chief—but in practice the boundaries between the two branches have often blurred. A recent survey of North Carolinians shows that while the institutions may clash, public opinion still leans strongly toward maintaining the constitutional balance.

In a previous post on North Carolinians and their opinions regarding war powers, it was noted that “nearly three-quarters of North Carolinians say presidents should seek congressional authorization before engaging the U.S. military,” according to the Catawba-YouGov Survey conducted in August 2025.1

This is one of the many shared powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, which many Americans know as “checks & balances” (political scientists tend to use the phrase ‘separate institutions (of government) sharing power’2, in this case, the war making power).

Share

In understanding this division of power, we can look back at the Federalist Papers to see what was considered as the shared nature of war making, specifically Federalist #69 by Hamilton:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. (emphasis added)

At least according to the Federalist Papers, a source of historical documentation as to the U.S. Constitution’s meaning, the president’s power over war making was that of ‘supreme command and direction’ of the forces, while Congress, the ‘legislature,’ had the power of declaring war and raising and regulating the military.

While the Constitution divides authority between Congress and the president, history shows that the balance between the two branches has been constantly contested. Public opinion therefore offers an important lens into how Americans view this constitutional design today.

Subscribe now

Beyond the constitutional theory, an important question remains: do Americans—and North Carolinians in particular—value this division of war-making authority in practice? And is there an ‘eye of the beholder’ dynamic at play with this division of power?

In the August 2025 Catawba-YouGov Survey, along with the authorization, we asked about the importance by North Carolinians of the shared power of war making:

How important [is it that] Congress has the power to declare war and authorize military power, but the president serves as the commander in chief over the nation’s military?

Like with the authorization question, North Carolinians were on the side of dividing the war power:

Compared to the question about presidents seeking congressional authorization, respondents placed slightly less “extreme” importance on the constitutional division of power itself—but the overall level of support remains similar.

When combining the ‘extremely’ with ‘very’ responses, we get a similar dynamic as the authorization question:

Nearly seven out of ten North Carolinians say this division of war making power is important, down from three-quarters on the authorization question, but still a healthy number.

When we break the results down politically, an interesting pattern emerges.

Three-quarters of GOP respondents say it’s important, as opposed to two-thirds of Democrats and Independents. And this maps onto the ideological perspective as well:

77 percent of conservatives say this division of war power is important, compared to two-thirds of liberals and moderates.

White North Carolinians are more likely to say this division is important than Black or Hispanic/Latino North Carolinians:

The largest gap appears generationally. Older North Carolinians overwhelmingly value the division of war powers, while younger respondents show noticeably less intensity.

Eight out of ten older North Carolinians say it is important, but there’s a twenty-point drop down to those under the age of 45 years old (Millennials and Generation Z).

Subscribe now

There’s also a divide based on education, as three-quarters of college graduates say it is important compared to two-thirds of high school educated respondents:

Regionally, urban respondents are more likely to say this power division is important than those in rural North Carolina:

And most interestingly, there’s a difference between what Trump and Harris voters say about the importance of this power divide:

For Trump voters, they registered at 77 percent, whereas Harris voters are at 70 percent.

While debates in Washington often frame war-making authority as a struggle between Congress and the president, North Carolinians appear broadly supportive of the Constitution’s divided approach to military power.

Across most demographic and political groups, substantial majorities say the division of authority—Congress declaring war while the president commands the military—is an important feature of American constitutional government. In many ways, this reflects the original design outlined by the founders: a system in which no single branch fully controls the nation’s war-making authority.

At the same time, the survey results reveal subtle but important differences beneath this broad consensus. Republicans and conservatives place slightly greater importance on this division than Democrats and independents, while older North Carolinians express much stronger support than younger generations. These generational differences could signal a changing relationship with constitutional institutions among younger Americans.

Ultimately, these findings suggest that while Americans often disagree over the use of military force itself, many still value the constitutional principle that decisions about war should not rest with a single individual alone.

The challenge, as history repeatedly shows, is ensuring that this constitutional balance remains more than just theory.

With continuing U.S. military action involving Iran, the question of who should authorize military force—the president or Congress—has once again returned to the forefront of American politics.

But where do North Carolinians stand on the division of governing authority over war powers?

Share

In August 2025, the Catawba-YouGov Survey posed a series of questions about governing authority and various constitutional principles of ‘checks & balances’ to North Carolinians.

Among the governing authorities and powers in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 states “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War … To raise and support Armies…(and) To provide and maintain a Navy,” while in Article II, Section 2, the Constitution states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….”

In the survey, 1,000 North Carolinians1 were asked the following question:

How important is it that the president must seek authority from Congress to engage the U.S. military against another nation?

Respondents could select extremely, very, somewhat, not very, or not at all important in their responses.

Overall, a plurality of North Carolinians—43 percent—said it was ‘extremely’ important that the president seek Congressional authority for military action against another nation, with another 32 percent saying it was ‘very’ important.

When the responses are combined, nearly three-quarters of North Carolinians (74 percent) say it is important that Congress authorize military action against another nation.

Subscribe now

In breaking down the responses by various characteristics, it is clear there is variation within North Carolina public opinion on a number of dimensions. Not surprisingly, one such clear difference is among initial partisan self-identification:

Partisan differences are evident. Democratic and independent identifiers overwhelmingly say congressional authorization is important, while only about six in ten Republicans say it is extremely or very important. Nearly three in ten Republicans say it is only “somewhat” important that the president obtain authorization before launching military strikes.

In looking at race/ethnicity of the respondents, each category had over 70 percent of North Carolinians saying it was extremely/very important for Congress to act.

Regionally, it is urban respondents—those in the central cities and in the urban suburbs—who feel most strongly about congressional approval before military strikes are called by the president. Well over three-quarters said it is important, while those in surrounding suburban counties and rural counties—typically the base of the state’s Republican support—were lower in their extremely/very important responses.

Not surprisingly, the ideological breakdown goes as expected in this day of polarized partisanship: over 90 percent of liberals say it is extremely/very important, while three-quarters of moderates said so. Among conservatives, only 63 percent said it was extremely/very important, while a quarter said ‘somewhat.’

Among generations, older respondents—those in the Silent and Boomer generations—had the greatest share of those saying it was important, while Generation X and Millennials/Generation Z respondents were over 70 percent.

The “diploma divide” is also evident: about two-thirds of high school graduates say congressional authorization is extremely or very important, compared with roughly eight in ten college graduates.

Finally, in looking at the 2024 presidential vote, it is notably that over 60 percent of Trump voters said it is extremely/very important that the president seek congressional authorization. But not surprisingly, nine-out-of-ten Harris voters said the same.

Taken together, these results suggest that North Carolinians broadly support a constitutional balance when it comes to military action. Across most demographic groups, large majorities say it is important that Congress authorize the use of force against another nation.

Yet the differences across partisanship and ideology also reveal how views of constitutional authority increasingly reflect the dynamics of modern polarization. While most voters—even among supporters of former President Trump—say congressional approval matters, Republicans are notably less likely than Democrats to see it as essential.

In an era when presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on unilateral military actions, public opinion in North Carolina—a state with significant military presence in it—appears to favor a more traditional constitutional approach: one in which Congress plays a meaningful role before the nation commits its military to conflict abroad.

Whether Washington follows that public preference, however, remains an open question.

It’s an extremely early morning after the North Carolina primary election and making sense of what happened last night requires some initial thoughts, followed by (surprise, surprise) the official results and data to analyze.

But here are some way-too-early reactions to what we saw in last night’s returns.

Share

When they say ‘every vote counts,’ they literally mean it—especially when it’s 2 votes.

With all due deference to the U.S. Senate nomination contests, the real race of the evening was the N.C. State Senate District 26 Republican nomination battle between the most powerful GOP official for the past 15 years, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, and his home county sheriff and bête noire Sam Page.

When all the precincts reported and the results still unofficial, Page bested Berger by two votes.

Now, as my colleague Chris Cooper rightly noted, this election isn’t done—it’s not certified, there are likely votes out there that have to be considered, processed, and tabulated, the canvassing needs to be completed, recounts, and then any legal challenges posed before we officially know the Republican nominee for Senate District 26.

Specifically, as Chris notes in his way-too-late reflections posted at Anatomy of a Purple State:

• Military and overseas (UOCAVA) ballots are still coming in—and may continue to come in through March 12.

• Mail ballots that need curing still need to be counted.

• Provisional ballots needs to be counted (if they’re found to be accepted)

• Canvass, “the official process of determining the votes have been counted and tabulated correctly, resulting in the authentication of the official election results.” occurs ten days after the election. It will be open to the public.

• Because, even after all of that, the results will almost certainly be within one percentage point, there will then be recounts.

• Then there’s the possibility (read: near-certainty) of legal challenges after all of that is over.

• And, here’s a fun/terrifying additional one. The Yoda of North Carolina election law, Gerry Cohen, tweeted that “under a 1915 law, if there is a tie in a multi-county state senate race there is no recount—instead there’s an automatic second primary. If there’s a tie in the second primary, the primary is vacated and the party executive committee chooses the winner and is not limited to the tied candidates.”

In other words: stay tuned folks. The band at this rager ain’t done playin.

Subscribe now

U.S. Senate Primaries play out as expected for nominees, but not for voters

The tradition in North Carolina primary politics is that the party with the perceived ‘more competitive’ top-of-the-ballot contest draws the most attention/ballots. And that’s to be expected. And conventional wisdom was that this year the competitive contest was on the Republican side of the ballot.

Until 2026 said, yea, not so much.

Again, with unofficial results and counts, here’s how each party’s U.S. Senate contest played out in terms of ballots cast:

• Republican U.S. Senate: 625,667

• Democratic U.S. Senate: 824,798

Nearly 200,000 more ballots were cast in the Democratic primary than in the Republican, with the total percentage split going 57-43 between the two major parties.

And across the state, the pattern is fairly predictable when it comes to where Democratic primary ballots outpaced Republican primary ballots, and vice versa:

The dominant Democratic urban counties, followed by the majority-minority counties of the upper northeast of the state, resemble a very typical pattern in N.C. county electoral patterns, along with the swath from the upper northwestern mountain counties slicing down in the central Piedmont region (basically Ashe cutting down to Randolph).

One stretch of counties is somewhat interesting at first glance: along the eastern South Carolina border, the range of Anson through Robeson is notable, as these rural counties had been trending more Republican in general elections, but Democrats had more primary ballots pulled. This may be something to watch come November.

One other set of notes: on the Republican side, Whatley secured 65 percent of the GOP primary vote. That’s right in line with my thinking about Republican primary electoral dynamics, where the Trump-endorsed GOP candidate garners two-thirds of the primary vote to everyone else. That fits a pattern going to 2022’s GOP nomination contest, with Ted Budd (as the Trump endorsee) and Mark Walker seeking the ‘Trump lane’, while in 2024, Mark Robinson carried that mantel and secured two-thirds of the vote.

On the other side, for a contest that ended up being a coronation for Cooper (92 percent of the vote), the Democratic primary’s energy in attracting voters (with a turnout rate of only 20 percent, same as four years ago) is something to consider as the lead-off in the general campaign (and yes, that begins today).

It’s not just party loyalty among the voters, it’s party adherence for elected officials

In today’s political environment, it’s not just the voters that are party loyalists in their habits, but nowadays the expectations are that elected officials will ‘toe the party line’ and not crossover to work with the other side of the aisle.

Three test cases of that dynamic were on full display last night, and the resounding answer from the primary voters was “toe the line or you’ll get the boot.” All three Democratic legislators who voted for overrides of their governor’s vetos were summarily excused from renomination. And a fourth Democrat, trying to make a come back after having been dismissed in 2024 for bucking his party, failed as well.

And it’s not just on the Democratic side enforcing compliance. The Republican House Freedom Caucus leader, Keith Kidwell, was defeated in his renomination bid for State House District 79 in what appears to be an intra-party fight against a fellow Republican representative and party leaders.

As political scientist, I’ve noted the fact that the parties and voters have been sorting themselves for some time, and with that sorting comes party loyalty tests and allegiance. Tonight’s results show that when some officials buck their party, the party kicks back.

Now, the real fun begins: on to November.

Once the recounts, canvassing, and certification of the official winners is completed, some will say “it’s off to November.”

But for me, that chant begins today.

It looks like what we were expecting for November was set up in the primary:

• Cooper versus Whatley for the U.S. Senate, with expectations of being one of the most expensive contests in NC (maybe US?) history

• NC’s First and Eleventh Congressional Districts have their prime-time candidates on both sides

• Again, pending resolution of Berger-Page, is there a new dawn in #ncpol that comes with the defeat of the most powerful Republican elected official in the state? And the mad scramble to garner the state senate reigns of power?

• Democratic enthusiasm is notable—is it sustained over the next nine months when they need their voters to show up and counter the built-in Republican registered voter turnout advantage in the general election?

Lots of questions, with future discussion (and sleep) to be considered.

For those who are watching tonight’s North Carolina primary elections and the results, you’ll have another hour to wait for returns to be released.

Per the N.C. State Board of Elections:

Raleigh, N.C. — The North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously Tuesday to extend voting by one hour – to 8:30 p.m. – at Halifax County’s Littleton precinct (Littleton United Methodist Church, 105 E. South Main St., Littleton).

The voting site for this precinct was delayed in opening on Election Day morning due to a synchronization issue with electronic poll books, and backup procedures were not immediately employed.

With more than 2,600 polling sites statewide, it is not unusual for minor issues to occur at polling sites that result in brief disruptions of voting. The State Board routinely meets to discuss the extension of hours when the need arises on Election Day.

Hours for voting (N.C.G.S. § 163-166.25) authorizes the State Board to extend voting hours at sites where voting is interrupted for at least 15 minutes, but the Board may extend voting for an amount of time no longer than the disruption and only for the affected sites. All votes cast after 7:30 p.m. in these two precincts will be provisional votes, per state law.

Election officials cannot release results while voting is underway in many contests. The State Board will not publish any unofficial results statewide until all polls are closed.

As such, a large amount of results are expected to be posted at around 8:30 p.m. For unofficial results, go to the Election Results Dashboard.

Before a single Election Day ballot is cast, North Carolina’s 2026 primary has already told us something important.

Early voting totals have surpassed both the 2022 midterm primary and the 2024 presidential primary at the same point in the calendar. That alone makes this cycle notable. But the real story is not simply about aggregate numbers — it is about who is voting, which ballot they are pulling, and how those choices compare to recent cycles.

The top-line figure suggests heightened engagement. Yet beneath that surface lies a far more revealing set of dynamics: a Democratic primary outperforming recent benchmarks, an unusually strong Unaffiliated tilt toward the Democratic ballot, and a geographic pattern that reinforces the state’s now-familiar urban–suburban–rural divide.

The question now is not whether early voting was strong. It was. The question is what these patterns signal about overall turnout — and whether Election Day reinforces or rebalances what early voting has already revealed.

Share

The 2026 primary has exceeded the last mid-term’s early votes (2022) and the most recent presidential primary (2024) in terms of accepted early ballots, cast by mail and in-person.1 The numbers will continue to adjust with continued processing by the 100 counties, but as we head into Election Day, the biggest question is where do we end up when the polls close Tuesday night.

Overall, NC’s 2026 early votes are three percent ahead of the final tally for 2024, and 24 percent ahead of 2022’s final totals.

But the trend-line noted at the 10-day mark continued unabated based on party primary ballots.

The Republican Party primary ballots fell behind their same day totals for 2024 and were only four percent ahead of the 2022 primary. But Democratic Party primary ballots were 32 and 43 percent ahead of 2024 and 2022, respectively—even exceeding the contested Republican Party presidential primary numbers from two years ago.

Within both party’s primaries, we see the split between partisan registered voters (Democrats and Republicans) versus the Unaffiliated voters.

Historically, North Carolina’s Unaffiliated voters behave strategically in primaries, mostly gravitating toward the more competitive or higher-profile contest. This year, however, more Unaffiliateds pulled the Democratic primary ballot than the Republican, 56 percent to 44 percent. This year’s tilt toward the Democratic ballot breaks from that familiar pattern.

The Democratic primary attracted about 26,000 more Unaffiliateds than the Republican primary, and with a little less than 96,000 more registered Democrats early voting than registered Republicans. Of course, we’ll need Election Day numbers to see how this ultimately breaks down for the overall primary electorate.

Across North Carolina, a slightly familiar pattern of one party over the other in terms of early ballots being cast in the counties is notable:

As expected, major urban counties (Mecklenburg, Durham, Wake) have a greater Democratic percentage of ballots, along with the upper-eastern Black-Belt region of the state. What is interesting is the lower-eastern Black-Belt region (Anson to Robeson counties) is also more Democratic than Republican. This stretch of South Carolina-border counties have been trending more Republican in recent general elections.

Subscribe now

In the end, both parties saw a relatively balanced division between partisan registered voters and Unaffiliateds in their early ballots pool:

Another similarity between the two parties was that both pulled about the same percentage of “consistent party primary voters” (41 percent of each party’s total), meaning these early voters cast a ballot in 2020, 2022, and 2024 in the same party primary as they did this year.

Most likely, the 60,000 Unaffiliated ‘consistent’ voters functionally behave as partisans, repeatedly choosing the same party’s primary ballot over several cycles (a variety of reasons for this, including their county is heavily to one party that dominates, or they really are partisans in disguise as Unaffiliateds). But this year’s 145K Democratic consistent voters versus the nearly 90K Republican consistent voters who cast an early ballot is something of note—again, Tuesday will determine the definite analysis.

What Can NC’s Early Vote Totals Tell Us About Overall Primary Turnout?

The big question at this point is: what will the overall turnout rate be, when we finish the voting on Tuesday? In 2022, the overall turnout rate was barely 20 percent statewide, while 2024 saw about a quarter of the state’s registered voter pool cast ballots.

This year, 22 percent of the early ballots cast came from voters who voted on Election Day in 2024’s primary, with Republicans seeing a quarter of their 2026 ballots come from those Election Day voters two years ago and Democrats having just two-out-of-ten.

If a significant share of habitual Election Day voters have already shifted to early voting, the final Tuesday surge may be more muted than in past cycles.

Who Are The 2026 Early Primary Voters?

The final numbers of NC early accepted ballots seems to confirm the trendlines over the in-person early voting period: more White and Black than the overall voter registration pool, older, and overall balanced among the state’s regions (though partisanship creates a very different distribution).

As the trends developed over early voting, the racial partisan divide is clearly evident, with 56 percent of White non-Hispanics pulling the GOP ballot versus all other races pulling the Democratic ballot.

For age, older voters still dominated the early voting pool:

And among generational cohorts, Boomers & Silent generation voters were 63 percent of the early votes cast and accepted, while those under the age of 45 (Millennials and Gen Z) are 16 percent.

While the state’s regional early vote distribution tends to mirror the state-wide registration dynamic, each party pulled from their respective ‘partisan base region’: Democrats from central cities, Republicans from the surrounding suburban counties.

This is reflected in each region’s partisan primary ballot distribution: heavily Democratic in urban counties, heavily Republican in surrounding suburban and rural counties.

This geographic polarization that defines North Carolina general elections appears to be playing out in structuring its primaries.

Early voting in North Carolina’s 2026 primary offers strong signals — but not definitive answers.

Democrats appear to have generated disproportionate early energy, both among registered partisans and among Unaffiliated voters. The fact that more than half of Unaffiliated voters chose the Democratic ballot — reversing the traditional “go where the action is” pattern — is one of the cycle’s most intriguing developments. Whether that reflects competitive dynamics, ideological sorting, or strategic crossover voting will require deeper post-election analysis.

At the same time, the electorate remains structurally familiar: older voters dominate participation, regional partisan strongholds remain intact, and consistent primary voters form a large share of the early vote. In other words, while there are signs of enthusiasm shifts, there is no wholesale reshaping of the primary electorate — at least not yet.

Ultimately, Tuesday’s turnout will determine whether early voting was a leading indicator of higher overall engagement or simply a redistribution of when ballots were cast. If Election Day participation mirrors recent midterm patterns, 2026 could land between the low-turnout 2022 primary and the slightly more robust 2024 presidential cycle. If the total numbers surge past 2024’s total, then the early vote may prove to have been the opening chapter of a more energized electorate.

For now, the numbers suggest something subtle but meaningful: not a political earthquake — but a detectable shift in energy. And in a closely divided state like North Carolina, shifts in partisan energy often matter more than shifts in registration.

Share Center for NC Politics

For more analysis on NC’s upcoming primary election—and well beyond—make sure to subscribe to my colleague Dr. Christopher Cooper’s “Anatomy of a Purple State” Substack for his insights and takeaways on all things #ncpol.

In January 2026, Catawba College and YouGov surveyed 1,000 (weighted) North Carolinians about whether they would approve or disapprove of U.S. military action against Iran. The results show a public that leans against military action overall, but with sharp partisan splits and a striking pattern: the less politically engaged North Carolinians are, the more likely they are to say they are unsure.

Share

The question posed to 1,000 (weighted) North Carolinians was:

President Trump has threatened military action against Iran in recent weeks as the Iranian government has violently cracked down on protesters in the country. Do you approve or disapprove of the US taking military action against the government of Iran?

As noted two weeks ago when I wrote about this question, 46 percent of North Carolinians disapproved, with 38 percent approving and 16 percent not sure. This is well within the survey’s overall margin of error of 3.69 percent, meaning that the approval could be as high as almost 42 percent, while the disapproval could be as low as 42 percent as well.

But as noted in the previous piece, in all things about North Carolina politics, a clear partisan divide is evident, along with independents who tend to mirror the statewide dynamics.

Beyond the partisan and engaged dynamics at play, I looked deeper into both the demographics and, notably, a baseline of Trump Republicans versus Party Republicans.

Subscribe now

For the demographics, here’s a good comparison of various characteristics:

A couple of ‘bullet’ observations from above (the error bars on each column shows that margin of error):

• Men are slightly more approving of military strikes, but both responses are well within the margin of error. Women, however, are more disapproving and uncertain.

• Liberals are significantly against the strikes, while moderates are more likely to be against the strikes. Conservatives are much more for the strikes.

• Whites are almost evenly divided between approving and disapproving, while Black North Carolinians are against the military strikes.

• One region stood out to me: while central cities in NC were much more against, the rural counties were second among the four regions against the strikes. Both suburban areas—within urban counties (but outside the central cities) and those surrounding suburban counties—are evenly divided.

• Education shows that college graduates significantly against the strikes, while those without a college education appear evenly divided.

• Born-again/evangelical North Carolinians appear more approving of the strikes, while non-born-agains are much more against.

Finally, I looked at those who identify as “Trump Republicans” versus those who don’t (“Party Republicans”) and their opinions:

“Trump Republicans” are overwhelmingly supportive of the Iran strikes; almost 8 in 10 approve and only about 1 in 10 disapprove, while among “party Republicans,” support is still a plurality but much softer: just over half approve, and nearly 3 in 10 disapprove, with a sizable “not sure” group.

In the end, support for U.S. strikes against Iran is nearly unanimous among “Trump N.C. Republicans,” but only a bare majority of Republicans who say they’re more loyal to the party than to Trump himself.

This difference between Trump and Party Republicans is highly statistically significant — well beyond the conventional p < 0.05 threshold. The gap between Trump loyalists and party-first Republicans on Iran is not noise; it's a real and substantial divide at this point. We’ll need to watch and see what happens to this divide (more on that below).

While statewide opinion on military strikes against Iran is closely divided, the deeper story appears to be in coalition politics.

North Carolina remains polarized along traditional partisan lines, but this survey shows that polarization does not end at party identification. Within the Republican Party, foreign policy attitudes appear to map onto some identity-based allegiance—most importantly, whether one’s political loyalty is rooted primarily in Donald Trump or in the broader Republican Party.

If the U.S. military action against Iran becomes a sustained political issue over time, it will be important to watch what kind of future movement within North Carolina public opinion (which we will do in the forthcoming March Catawba-YouGov Survey). Most notably, now that military action is underway:

• Where do the “don’t knows” move: to approval or disapproval, or stay uncertain?

• Do Party Republicans rally around the president and become more like Trump Republicans, or is there a fracture within the GOP coalition?

• With televised images of both U.S. and Iranian strikes, and a potentially prolonged uncertainty about the future of Iran and its impact on things such as oil, how do NC Independents react about this issue?

• And while we’re still nine months out from November’s general election, are there any early indications on the impact on the U.S. Senate campaign?

All to say: stay tuned.

Share Center for NC Politics

With just days left before early voting ends in North Carolina, one thing is clear: the trends discussed earlier this week aren’t fading—they’re holding and accelerating. And they point to one unmistakable development—a pronounced Democratic turnout advantage that has yet to show signs of narrowing.

As North Carolina’s early voting gets closer to the last day (ending on Saturday at 3 PM), through Wednesday, 2026 turnout is running 29 percent ahead of the comparable point in the 2022 midterm primary and 9 percent ahead of 2024’s presidential primary. That latter comparison is particularly notable given that presidential cycles typically drive higher participation—even if 2024 featured little Democratic competition at the top of the ticket.

Share

But it continues to be an uneven distribution between the Republican and Democratic primary numbers. With all the expectations that the GOP U.S. Senate contest would be the more ‘lively’ of the two top-of-the-ticket nomination fights, it’s the Democratic side that remains significantly ahead.

Compared to four years ago and the last mid-term, Democratic ballots are 50 percent ahead of their same day total, and 37 percent ahead of where they were in 2024’s presidential primary. Granted, there was no real contest on the Democratic side (Biden was still running for re-election at that time), so the numbers are softer than for a competitive contest two years ago, but to have a mid-term primary at this level—with a confirmation of Cooper’s candidacy—is notable.

While Democratic primary ballots are up significantly over 2022 levels, Republican ballots are up just 7 percent—and trail their 2024 pace by 16 percent. This produces an overall 58–41 Democratic-Republican ballot split—an imbalance that would require a dramatic late Republican surge, in either the final days of early voting or on Election Day—to meaningfully narrow.

With the early voting trajectory pretty well laid and the final push of early voters typically coming on Thursday and most importantly Friday, these accepted early ballots could be a significant portion of the overall ballots when the dust settles on the evening of Tuesday, March 3.

The Unaffiliateds Continue Their Democratic Lean

In looking at where the partisans and Unaffiliateds are, over 200,000 registered Democrats have cast a party primary ballot, compared to nearly 134,000 registered Republicans.

And Unaffiliated registered voters—who can pick either party’s primary ballot—continue to split more Democratic: 55 percent to 45 percent.

In a state where unaffiliated voters now make up the largest registration bloc, even modest shifts in their primary participation can shape the narrative about intensity and momentum.

In terms of composition of both party primaries, the Democratic primary is 72 percent registered Democrats to 28 percent Unaffiliated, while the Republican primary has a 68/32 split between registered Republicans and Unaffiliateds.

Race-Ethnicity, Age, & Generations Hold Steady

The overall primary electorate continues to be dominated by White and Black non-Hispanic voters, while Hispanic/Latinos are only one percent, with all other races/unknown at 6 percent.

And the partisan divide is still very evident: White voters are picking the Republican ballot, while all other voters are selecting the Democratic ballot.

Age is still very much skewing older, as shown in this histogram chart:

Broken down by generational cohorts, Boomers still dominate at 57 percent of all primary ballots cast and accepted so far. Combining them with the Silent generation, two-thirds of NC primary voters casting early ballots are over the age of 62.

At this stage, a familiar pattern is being reinforced: primary electorates in North Carolina remain older, whiter, and more partisan than the November electorate will be.

Two of Three Key Questions Appear to be Answered

In the 10-day analysis of NC early voting, I gave three questions moving forward through this week that I was particularly interested in:

• Does turnout maintain this pace through the final week?

• Do Republicans close the enthusiasm gap to Democrats?

• And does the appearance of Democratic enthusiasm reflect intensity that carries into the general election—or simply a primary electorate skewed toward reliable partisans?

On question one—whether turnout would maintain its pace—the answer appears to be yes. Daily ballot totals have increased by an average of 13 percent each day this week, and we generally see high numbers on the final Thursday and Friday of early voting.

On question two—whether Republicans would close the enthusiasm gap—the answer is increasingly no. A sustained 58–41 split suggests the gap is structurally embedded, not cyclical.

The third question—whether Democratic primary intensity translates into general election strength—remains unresolved. Primary electorates are not November electorates. Tuesday’s Election Day turnout will help clarify whether this is broad enthusiasm or reliable partisan consolidation.

If past voting patterns hold, a majority of total ballots may already be cast before polls even open on Election Day. In modern North Carolina elections, campaigns don’t simply win on Tuesday—they build substantially in the weeks before it.

For now, the data tell a clear story: turnout is high, Democrats are overperforming relative to recent cycles, Republicans have yet to close the gap, and unaffiliated voters continue to lean towards the Democratic primary.

Tuesday night will answer some questions—but it may raise even larger ones about what this primary says about November.

Bonus Analysis: The closely watched GOP Primary in State Senate District 26

Many of us in #ncpol world are watching with increasing fascination the GOP slugfest between Republican State Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (the most powerful GOP state official over the past 15 years) and his home county sheriff Sam Page.

This isn’t just a local contest—it’s a test of long-held establishment power of Berger versus insurgent challenger of Page inside the Republican Party.

In looking at the 13,000+ ballots cast so far in State Senate District 26, the composition of the two party primaries between the two counties—Rockingham (home to Berger and Page) and Guilford (with a significantly greater share of the voter pool)—shows a split in county influence in the two parties.

On the Republican side, nearly seven out of ten ballots are from the home county battleground of Rockingham, while on the Democratic side, six out of ten are from Guilford.

Within each party primary, the influence of partisans versus Unaffiliateds is also notable.

In Guilford, the percentages within both primaries is fairly even: a three-to-one partisan to Unaffiliated dynamic for both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

But in Rockingham, while the Democratic primary has only 13 percent Unaffiliated, the Republican primary is 35 percent Unaffiliated. The movement of the ‘unaffiliated’ into the Rockingham GOP primary is something to note.

Again, we’ll need to watch the returns come Tuesday night, but I dare say this particular race will garner a lot of ‘refresh’ hits on the NC State Board of Elections website that evening.

Subscribe now

Through the first 10 days of early voting, North Carolina’s 2026 primary electorate is not just ahead of past cycles—it is potentially reshaping expectations about which party is energized, who is participating, and how they’re voting.

In daily totals1, 2026 is standing out as a remarkable primary election so far—33 percent ahead of the 2022 mid-term primary early voting (on the same date) and 16 percent ahead of 2024’s primary early voting.

Share

We’ll need to watch carefully a couple aspects to this trend: will the last week taper off in terms of daily numbers, are these consistent/persistent primary voters (compared to the last two primary elections), and if so, are they shifting their ballot casting earlier, or new voters coming (more on this later)?

What’s Driving Turnout So Far?

This year’s “competitive” Senate contest, as the top of the ticket race, is perceived to be on the Republican side, yet turnout enthusiasm is disproportionately Democratic. Could this be driven by an ‘issue environment’ rather than ‘candidate competition,’ or more a ‘banking’ behavior by reliable Democratic primary voters this year?

Compared to 2022’s mid-term primary, Democratic primary numbers are 55 percent ahead of where they were four years ago, while Republican numbers are 11 percent ahead. And compared to 2024’s presidential primary election (and remember—two year’s ago the ‘competitive contest’ was on the Republican side), Democrats are 47 percent ahead of their same day total, while Republicans are down 11 percent from their 2024 same day total.

And there’s another indication of where the interest and enthusiasm resides.

Subscribe now

Where Are Unaffiliated NC Primary Voters Going?

For folks unfamiliar with North Carolina’s party primary system and who can participate, N.C. is a ‘semi-closed’ primary state: meaning, those who are registered with a political party can only vote in that party, but those who are registered Unaffiliated (the largest group of NC registered voters) can pick which party to cast a primary ballot.

In research with my colleagues Drs. Christopher Cooper, Whitney Ross Manzo, and Susan Roberts, we found the ‘unmoored’ Unaffiliated NC voter (one who isn’t consistently voting in one party primary) tends to float to whichever party has the ‘more competitive’ race—not surprising, in that they tend to go where the electoral action is.

But this year, the Democratic Party primary enthusiasm is evident in the numbers of Unaffiliateds going to that side of the political primary aisle, with 8,000 more going to the Democratic ballot than GOP ballot.

Granted, because of the increased number of registered Democratic voters casting accepted ballots (46K more) than Republicans, the Unaffiliated percentage in the Democratic primary is smaller than on the Republican side.

What Are the Demographics of NC’s Primary Voters So Far?

When compared to the voter registration pool, the overall primary electorate is racially polarized in predictable ways and older for both parties than the state’s registration pool, yet there are some subtle differences at the margins in terms of age.

In the 7.7 million NC voter registration pool, White non-Hispanic voters are 63 percent, with Black non-Hispanics at 19 percent. But the primary electorate so far has a White percentage at 69 percent and Black percentage at 24 percent.

And not surprisingly, there’s a racial divide in the casting of party primary ballots, with 56 percent of Whites voting on the Republican side and 98 percent of Blacks voting on the Democratic side of the aisle. Three-quarters of Hispanic/Latino primary voters are selecting the Democratic primary ballot, and all other races/unknown are well over two-thirds picking the Democratic primary.

In looking at age, the overall primary electorate is heavily skewed heavily older:

The median age is 68 in both primaries, with the center of the distribution nearly identical.

Boomers are 58 percent of the voter primary pool so far; and when combined with Silent generation, over two-thirds of primary voters are 62 years or older.

While Millennials and Generation Z are 44 percent of the state’s registered voters, they are only 13 percent of the primary voters so far. And these younger voters (under the age of 45) are heavily more Democratic primary voters.

This also shows in a histogram of both party’s primary voters by age:

Through broad age bands:

• Under 35: Democrats 7.3%, Republicans 5.7% That’s about a 1.6 percentage point Democratic advantage among younger voters.

• 55+: Democrats 77.4%, Republicans 79.4% That’s about a 2.0 percentage point Republican advantage among older voters.

So far, both parties’ early-vote primary electorates are old—and remarkably similar at the center. The median voter in both the Democratic and Republican primaries is 68 years old. Where the two start to diverge is at the margins: Democrats have a slightly larger share of younger voters, while Republicans have a slightly larger share of seniors.

How About Distribution of Both Parties Across North Carolina?

Both parties have respective ‘bases’ of voters in geographic areas: Democrats tend to be more concentrated in urban counties (think Wake County with Raleigh, Mecklenburg County with Charlotte, Guilford County with Greensboro, etc.), while Republicans are more diffused but have strongest presence in the traditional mountains-into-Piedmont GOP axis from the upper north-western counties into the center of the state (think of the mountain Surry County into the Piedmont’s Randolph county).

And this state-wide distribution is playing out as well for both parties:

Taking the difference between Democratic and Republican primary ballots cast so far (in the following map), you can see the most Democratic primary counties so far in Durham, Orange, and several rural Black Belt counties (Northampton, Halifax, and Warren), while the most Republican counties are in the mountains: Mitchell, Graham, Yadkin, Alexander, and Cherokee.

The above map shows a clear urban blue / rural red divide. Wake and Durham anchor the Triangle; Buncombe (Asheville) is a deeper blue island in the west, as it traditionally is in general elections; and the rural Coastal Plain (Black Belt) leans Democratic, while the mountains and Piedmont foothills lean heavily Republican.

Are 2026 Primary Voters “Consistent” or “New”? And Are They Creatures of Voting Methods?

With the data of voters’ past vote history and methods, we can see if the 2026 primary voters participated in the past two primary elections, and if so, what vote methods did they use.

For the previous mid-term primary election, we see a healthy number of voters who didn’t participate in the 2022 primary election, while a plurality used in-person early ballots as they did four years ago.

In summary:

• Those who voted early in 2022 primary (45 percent of the total so far): 2026 Mail 0.51% | 2026 In-Person 99.49%

• Those who did not vote in 2022 primary (which makes up 36 percent of the primary ballots so far): 2026 Mail 2.46% | 2026 In-Person 97.54%

• Those who voted election day in 2022 primary (18 percent of the total so far): 2026 Mail 0.77% | 2026 In-Person 99.23%

• Those who voted by mail in 2022 primary (1 percent of the total so far): 2026 Mail 34.14% | 2026 In-Person 65.86%

While 2022 prior mail voters are dramatically more likely to be requesting mail again in 2026, even among 2022 mail voters, most are switching to in-person in 2026.

For 2024 primary voters:

Again, in summary:

• Voted early in 2024 primary (total 54 percent so far): 2026 Mail 0.38% | 2026 In-Person 99.62%

• Those who did not vote in 2024 primary (total of 26 percent of early ballots so far): 2026 Mail 2.62% | 2026 In-Person 97.38%

• Voted election day in 2024 primary (total 19 percent so far): 2026 Mail 0.60% | 2026 In-Person 99.40%

• Voted by mail in 2024 primary (1 percent of total ballots so far): 2026 Mail 54.53% | 2026 In-Person 45.47%

For these voters (2024 primary and 2026 so-far primary), the “mail habit” is even stickier looking back to 2024 than 2022. A voter who cast a mail ballot in the 2024 primary is basically a coin flip to be requesting mail again in 2026 (and that’s huge relative to everyone else). Otherwise, it’s in-person early voting that yet again dominates to date. When the polls close on March 3rd, we’ll have a sense whether N.C. voters prefer in-person early voting against voting on Election Day.

Both parties have substantial majorities of 2026 primary voters (so far) who voted in both the 2022 and 2024 primaries, but Democrats have two-out-of-ten of their voters who didn’t participate in the past two primaries, compared to 17 percent of Republican primary voters.

Based on statistical analysis of the 2026 early voters in the Democratic and Republican primaries, the difference of 3.48 percentage points indicate that early Democratic primary voters are significantly more likely to have skipped both the 2022 and 2024 primaries compared to Republicans. The effect is modest in absolute terms, but highly statistically significant given the large sample size.2

And what about these ‘missed-both’ 2026 primary voters?

Among those who missed both of the past two primary elections, 68 percent were registered on or before the 2022 primary,3 meaning they were eligible for both primaries and truly skipped them. Nine percent have registration dates between the 2022 and 2024 primaries, so they could only have voted in 2024 (and missed it).

Most importantly, two out of ten—or 21 percent—registered after the 2024 primary; they could not have voted in either 2022 or 2024.

In breaking down the ‘missed both’ between the Democratic and Republican primaries, Republicans in the missed-both group are a bit more concentrated in the registered on/before 2022 bucket (71.81% Rep vs 65.15% Dem), while Democrats have a higher share in the registered after 2024 bucket (23.16% Dem vs 18.27% Rep).

In sum, the “Democrats missed-both” group includes relatively more people who simply weren’t eligible for those earlier primaries. And if this trend holds over the final week, could the Democratic “new energy” story be partially about new registrants—not just resurrected drop-offs?

Share Center for NC Politics

What to Watch in the Final Week

Ten days in, three patterns are defining the 2026 primary electorate.

First, Democratic engagement is clearly outpacing recent cycles. Whether driven by issue environment, organizational mobilization, or perceived stakes, the early numbers suggest Democrats are banking primary votes at a rate well ahead of both the 2022 midterm primary and the 2024 presidential primary.

Second, the electorate remains structurally old. The median voter in both primaries is 68 years old. While Democrats hold a modest edge among younger voters, both parties’ coalitions are overwhelmingly anchored by Boomers and older voters. The generational participation gap remains a defining feature of North Carolina.

Third, voting behavior is habitual. Early voters tend to remain early voters. Mail voters—especially those from 2024—are far more likely to repeat that method, though they are a smaller percentage overall. But the overwhelming number of in-person early voters may continue a trend of North Carolinians ‘banking their ballots’ before the election day.

Primary participation itself also shows durability: most voters casting ballots this year participated in at least one of the last two primaries. Where Democrats differ slightly is in attracting a somewhat larger share of voters who were either newly registered or absent in prior cycles.

Moving towards next weekend, the open questions are straightforward:

• Does turnout maintain this pace through the final week?

• Do Republicans close the enthusiasm gap to Democrats?

• And does the appearance of Democratic enthusiasm reflect intensity that carries into the general election—or simply a primary electorate skewed toward reliable partisans?

As with any half-completed primary early voting cycle, there are important caveats to express, most notably that early voting primary numbers don’t predict November dynamics. But they do tell us who is engaged right now. And ten days in, that engagement is disproportionately Democratic, heavily senior, and deeply habitual.

That’s the story—at least so far. Once we get the final data next Sunday, we’ll see how these trends continued through the final week, or (as can be the case in North Carolina), further surprises await.

To say that 2026’s early voting has taken off may be an understatement. After just one full week of in-person voting, North Carolina’s primary electorate has already surpassed the same-day pace of both the 2022 midterm primary and even the 2024 presidential primary.

That’s not just a strong start—it’s a signal worth watching.

Share

With the first full week of ballots cast in-person completed, North Carolina’s primary early voting has exceeded the last mid-term’s same-day totals (in 2022, the eighth day of reporting saw a little over 201,000).

In fact, the first full week of 2026 has exceeded 2024’s presidential early voting same day total: two years ago, over 221,000 ballots had been accepted, compared to this year’s 259,723 accepted.

Whether this pace continues into the final week-plus of early voting remains to be seen. But with this level of early interest in North Carolina, we’ll have to continue to watch the trend lines leading up to February 28 (the last day of early voting).

Which side of the political aisle is where the action is at?

Conventional wisdom suggested that the more competitive Republican top-of-the-ticket contest for U.S. Senate would drive early turnout on that side. So far, the data suggest otherwise.

Over 150,000 ballots have been accepted in the Democratic primary, versus a little under 109,000 on the Republican side of the primary. And Unaffiliated voters are breaking slightly more to the Democratic side than the GOP.

As a percentage of each party’s primary, the Unaffiliateds are a larger share in the GOP primary than on the Democratic side.

Back in 2022’s mid-term primary election, Unaffiliateds broke more heavily towards the Republican primary, 62 percent to 38 percent casting ballots in the Democratic primary, thanks to the competitive U.S. Senate GOP contest. And within both party primaries, Unaffiliateds made up one-third of the GOP ballots, while only 20 percent of the Democratic ballots were from Unaffiliateds.

This isn’t surprising, as my colleagues and I found when we analyzed a universe of Unaffiliated NC primary voters: historically, North Carolina’s Unaffiliated voters tend to gravitate toward the party with the most competitive, high-profile primary contest.

With roughly one-third of this year’s Unaffiliated voters choosing the same party primary ballot they selected between 2020 and 2024, a significant share appear less “independent” in behavior than their registration status implies.

And among the Democratic and Republican primary voters so far, a good number are consistent primary voters: nearly half (49 percent) of the Democratic voters so far voted in the past three primary elections, and 44 percent of Republican voters so far voted in the 2020 to 2024 primaries also.

Subscribe now

Who is showing up early for Early Voting?

Breaking down by different demographics, we see a traditional divide within race-ethnicity playing out with the selection of party primary ballots:

White non-Hispanic voters are selecting more Republican primary ballots, but all other races-ethnicities are going Democratic. Overall, the primary electorate so far is more White and Black (meaning, higher than their voter registration percentages).

The emerging pattern demonstrates North Carolina’s familiar partisan racial alignment—but with turnout levels that amplify those differences.

And among generation cohorts, it’s not surprising that the overall primary electorate is skewing much older:

Nearly six out of ten primary voters so far are Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964); add in those of the Silent generation, and nearly 70 percent of primary voters are over the age of 62.

As is typical in primaries, participation is heavily driven by older voters—but the concentration among Boomers and Silent Generation voters is especially pronounced.

Share

So what might this all mean?

First, enthusiasm—or at least engagement—appears higher than expected for a midterm primary cycle. Second, Democratic primary participation is outpacing Republican participation despite assumptions about GOP contest competitiveness. Third, a meaningful portion of Unaffiliated voters show durable partisan habits beneath the surface of their registration status.

Most importantly, the electorate emerging in these early days looks older, racially polarized along traditional partisan lines, and composed heavily of consistent primary voters. That suggests a highly engaged—but not necessarily broadly representative—slice of North Carolina’s electorate.

The final week of early voting will matter. Election Day on March 3rd will matter. But the early electorate has already revealed something important about 2026: the voters most engaged in shaping the parties’ nominees are consistent, strategic, and far from random.

The question now is whether this electorate expands—or merely intensifies—to give us a sense of whether 2026’s primary electorate is simply energetic—or structurally distinct.

North Carolina is not just another state when it comes to questions of war and military force.

Home to such military bases as Fort Bragg (formerly Fort Liberty), Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City, the state has one of the largest active-duty military populations in the country, along with a substantial veteran community and defense-dependent local economies. Entire regions of the state are economically and culturally intertwined with the U.S. armed forces.

So when news breaks that the United States is positioning additional military forces for a potential strike against Iran, the question carries particular weight here.

Share

The January 2026 Catawba–YouGov Survey asked 1,000 (weighted) North Carolinians a straightforward question:

“President Trump has threatened military action against Iran in recent weeks as the Iranian government has violently cracked down on protesters in the country. Do you approve or disapprove of the US taking military action against the government of Iran? ”

Overall, a plurality—45 percent—say they would disapprove of military action, while 37 percent would approve. The remainder are unsure.1

Even in a state where the military is not an abstraction but a daily presence, opinion is divided.

The topline, however, masks a sharp partisan divide.

When broken down by initial partisan self-identification, Democrats and Independents lean clearly against military action, while Republicans express clear approval. Accounting for each subgroup’s margin of error, Democrats and Independents fall solidly on the disapproval side, while Republicans’ support is well outside statistical overlap.

In short, foreign policy attitudes in North Carolina—like so many other issues—are filtered through partisan identity.

Subscribe now

I also examined whether levels of political interest shape attitudes toward military action. Respondents were asked how closely they follow government and public affairs, ranging from “most of the time” to “hardly at all.” For analysis, I grouped responses into three categories:

• Most of the time

• Some of the time / only now and then

• Hardly at all / don’t know

When we break these attitudes down by political interest, a different kind of divide emerges.

Among those most politically attentive or only occasionally, opinion leans against military action, though the margins of error overlap with those who would approve.

The least politically attentive group, however, stands out—not for strong opposition or support, but for uncertainty. Those who hardly follow public affairs are significantly more likely to say they “don’t know,” underscoring how foreign policy issues can generate ambiguity among less-engaged voters.

This suggests that Iran policy is a ‘hard’ opinion among the politically attentive and a ‘soft’ one among the largely disengaged. People who consume political news and follow national debates have already positioned Iran into their perceptions of U.S. foreign policy. Those who rarely follow politics have not, and when asked about something as distant and complex as Iran, many simply say they don’t know.

In putting these findings together, a picture emerges of two publics in North Carolina: a highly engaged, strongly partisan public with relatively firm views, and a less engaged public marked less by polarization than by uncertainty.

Within the first group, party identification does most of the explanatory work. Republicans show clear support for military action, while Democrats and Independents lean against it. Among the second group, the defining feature is not ideological division but hesitation—those who follow politics least closely are the most likely to say they simply don’t know.

For campaigns and advocates, that uncertainty cuts both ways. It creates space to define the issue for voters who are not yet paying sustained attention. But it also introduces volatility: attempts to rally support for a more aggressive Iran policy could just as easily provoke resistance if “military action” is interpreted as the start of another open-ended conflict.

Should events escalate, opinions may crystallize—or realign—as political elites take clearer positions and media coverage intensifies. For now, however, North Carolina’s opinion landscape, with its strong military presence, reflects something closer to caution than consensus.