Key findings
11 of 11
Tested policies received majority support among all registered voters
79.5%
Would vote for a candidate supporting extreme risk protection orders
45 pts
Largest party gap — federalized Medicaid: Democrats 88.5% vs. Republicans 43.5%
42%
Average support among male Republicans — the lowest of any gender-party subgroup
Interactive data

Explore voter support by subgroup

Percentage of registered voters who would likely or definitely vote for a candidate who strongly supported each policy. Use the tabs to compare by gender, parental status, or political party.

Highest support
79.5%
Extreme risk protection order
Majority support
11 of 11
All tested policies
Lowest support
57.9%
Summer nutrition programs
Voter support ranged from 57.9% (summer nutrition programs) to 79.5% (extreme risk protection order).

Message framing experiment

How you say it matters — for some audiences.

The survey included two randomized message experiments. Respondents were assigned to different policy framings, allowing researchers to isolate the effect of language on voter support.

Refundable child tax credit: "hardworking" vs. "low-income" families

Respondents randomly assigned to read that the credit benefits "hardworking families" were significantly more likely to support restoring it than those who read "low-income families" — but only among specific subgroups.

+11.6 pts
More Republican support for "hardworking" framing (54.6% vs. 43.0%, p<.05)
+7.6 pts
More support among men for "hardworking" framing (67.0% vs. 59.0%, p<.05)

Federalized Medicaid: equity, fairness, or loss — does the frame matter?

Three vignettes tested whether framing Medicaid reform around "equity," "fairness," or preventing "loss of coverage" changed voter support. Overall, it did not — support held across all three frames. One exception: Independents were more likely to support the equity and loss frames than the fairness frame.

66.0%
Overall support regardless of framing — language did not shift the result (p=.4)
13.5 pts
Independent gap between equity/loss framing vs. fairness framing (p<.05)
Policy guide

What voters were asked about

Each question asked whether voters would support a candidate who strongly backed national funding for that program. Filter by Same Sky pillar.

Methodology

About this study

This nationally representative cross-sectional survey was fielded March 27 through April 12, 2024 using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel — a probability-based online panel with over 50,000 members recruited to represent the U.S. non-institutionalized adult population.

The analytic sample included 2,014 registered voters (1,030 parents of children under 18; 984 other adults), after excluding 52 respondents who completed the survey in under one-third of the median interview time. Survey weights align to the 2023 Current Population Survey. All significance testing used Rao-Scott corrected chi-squared tests (α=.05).

The survey was conducted in English and Spanish. The study was deemed exempt from human subjects review by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center IRB. Funded by the Boedecker Foundation and Nemours Children's Health.

Patrick SW, Loch SF, McNeer E, Davis MM. Policies affecting child health as national campaign priorities: missing pieces that voters favor. JAMA Health Forum. 2024. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.3673