Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Dining habits reflect Americans’ self-segregation

people having dinner
Portra Images/Getty Images

For centuries, people have used the phrase “breaking bread” to mean much more than just sharing a meal. It indicates a deeper connection, a bond that unites people around a common community. But what happens when we only break bread with those who reflect our own beliefs and backgrounds?

According to new polling, only half of Americans have had a meal with Democrats or Republicans over the past six months, and less than half have shared a meal with someone representing a racial minority. If the Ipsos/Axios poll is any indication, there is a common line between personal interactions and a sense of commonalities.

Three-quarters of respondents said they have “a lot” or “some” in common with white people, matching the 77 percent who said they have had a meal with a white person in the past six months.

But the numbers dropped off when the pollsters asked about minorities.


Forty-seven percent of people have had a meal with a Black person in the past six months and 55 percent said they have “a lot” or “some” in common with Black people. The numbers were even lower for Hispanic people (42 percent a shared meal/47 percent something in common) and Asian people (29/43).

The country appears to be evenly split when it comes to members of political parties, with less than half saying they have something in common with Democrats and the same for Republicans (and one quarter saying they have “nothing” in common in both cases).

Exactly 50 percent said they have shared a meal with a Democrat in the past six months, with the same percentage for Republicans.

According to the data, politics seems to create a wider chasm than race and religion.

Nearly half (46 percent) agreed with the statement, “People with opposing political views don’t share my values.” Just 39 percent disagreed.

However, when asked the same question but about people with different racial or religious backgrounds, just 26 percent agreed they do not share the same values and 60 percent disagreed.

Ipsos also asked people how confident they are that Americans will sort out differences over the next five years, and the answers were discouraging, with just 25 percent confident and 63 percent not confident.

The survey was conducted May 9-10 of 1,005 adults and had a margin of error of 3.8 percent.


Read More

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less