Litmus Tests, Duopoly Style – April 20, 2026

We have had a conversation or two to date on the growing distance between the Republican and Democratic Parties on the issues, usually in the context of how various polling shows party identification for either one on the downward trend with the growing demographic being “political independents.”

Putting aside for a moment the idea of “left-leaning” or “right-leaning” responses to other polls, usually with intention to blend those leaning into Republicans or Democrats cores of voters for the purposes of some issue or approvals based poll, what we are talking about here is how those decreasing pools of party-loyalists are qualified (for lack of a better way to put it.)

Gallup tends to be the most insightful when it comes to party identification, or affiliation depending on how you look at it. But, Gallup also tends to dive into some details on why that distance seems to be getting worse. This past January, Gallup went into some details with this study on record high 45% political independents, that we have also discussed a time or two for other conversations.

A natural extension of that, is how Republicans and Democrats identify themselves and their core views on matters of importance, all in the context of how an increasing pool of voters may not agree with either one.

Or, litmus tests.

We can define that in political context, in that a political litmus test is a decisive and divisive question(s) used entirely to judge someone, be it a candidate for office down to feeling included in some party event, to determine acceptability on those matters to then justify political party support. The implication is the answer ends up binary, some “black-or-white” answer to a challenge, as if to suggest there is either no middle ground. The bigger implication being anything less than standard for the party becomes a failure of the litmus test.

Assuming truth to this, what are some examples?

For the purposes of this conversation, what we are not talking about is which party is right or wrong on some matter but more how these things tend to become adversarial to the point of distance between core party positions.

Something else we have had a conversation or two on is all the military activity related to Iran and what it has done to world energy markets. But, there is an underlying issue at play here and it happens to be a solid example of a political litmus test.

Because of how this has played out so far, and with some reference to how Israel itself has conducted their operations into Gaza and Lebanon, one of the litmus tests asked of Republicans is military aid to Israel as a barometer of supporting Israel. Therefor, anyone standing up saying they are running as a Republican must pass this litmus test question. It may err on the side of false dilemma, some stance that support for Israel means support for all their actions to date, but the fundamental litmus test exists.

Because that stance is so strong with Republicans we are just recently seeing a shift within Democrats of usual support for Israel as a de facto position becoming a real question on that false dilemma. Agreeing that Israel has a right to exist does not mean agreeing with Netanyahu’s position on things nor his strategy to date against Hamas, Hezbollah, and of course Iran. The inverse question becoming its own litmus test being supporting the right of Palestinians to exist.

Another example, the never ending debate on abortion. Consider that on the surface the views from Republican and Democrats seem unchanged in the past 30 years, at least according to this fact sheet from Pew Research. Then you get about a third of the way down the link and you’ll find this qualifier on legal in all or most cases against illegal in all or most cases and the division appears wider.

In how they define subgroups, “liberal democrats” to leaning democrat have nearly universal support, at 93%, for abortion being legal in all or most cases. “All or most” giving polling wide latitude on merging various views. Contrast that to 73% of “conservative republican” to leaning republican think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Where is the pulse of the nation, that 45% demographic not loyal to either Republicans or Democrats, that is not really in those piles of voters? Very significant disagreement with only 53% saying legal in all or most cases.

You could argue the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022 changed the lines on where the litmus test ended up. Prior to the decision this was a state level challenge, largely on Republican candidates across the southeast. When you get down to it the challenge to Roe v. Wade was state driven, arguably taking the more conservative Supreme Court for a test spin.

Post that decision, the litmus test moved national for Republicans with more motivation from the Dobbs v. Jackson win, a handful of states went very restrictive going with “heartbeat bills” to other restrictions including outlawing abortions in the cases of rape, incest, harm to mother and/or child. Arguably, the most restrictive seen since the days prior to Roe v. Wade.

Republicans today have this more outward litmus test, agree to these restrictive measures we are seeing more and more of. Democrats have the inverse of should be legal in all or most cases. But, the pulse of the nation is in neither camp. This might be one of the better examples of distance between mainstream Republicans and Democrats leaving more people failing both litmus tests.

So where are Independents on abortion? Depending on who you ask, a slim majority of them favor legal in all or most cases. However the fine print suggests that timing and condition of pregnancy matters. Independents go way up to over 70% favoring first trimester unrestricted abortions, but that significantly drops in the second or third trimester where restrictions come down the very factors that the litmus test for both Republicans and Democrats rule out. Later in the pregnancy, Independents favor looking at rape, incest, and health of mom and child as factors that Republicans are against and Democrats do not even ask about.

Sounds much like what Roe v. Wade went for, that Dobbs v. Jackson ended, where timing and condition mattered.

So what about the debate on the 2nd Amendment in the context of these litmus test guarded answers? Same thing, the further away from center the more likely to get an arguably extreme answer required, especially for Republicans who look at this as a non-negotiable requirement for candidates and inclusion in their stances. Very binary, very pro-gun and pro-gun industry, and very “conservative” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Concluding that more guns with minimal restrictions is always the answer. Example, even arming teachers to deal with armed students.

National Rifle Association (NRA) has a literal grading based vetting of candidates in true litmus test standard context showing clear lines of support for “gun rights” with anyone less than “A grade” landing in the opposition group. Republican opposition to “red-flag” laws by the challenge of due process. The idea of a Federal Law affirming a Constitutional Right to carry a firearm without permit. Being clearly against any action that limits the type of weapon allowed to be owned. That sort of thing.

Democrats have their standards on this as well, their litmus test on this primarily landing on “common sense gun laws” that come down to safety. Universal background checks is the big one, the want for all gun sales to go through checks on the buyer in terms of criminal past and those “red-flag” standards of unstable condition. Going a bit further, standing for bans on “Assault Weapons” that has become certain guns with higher capacity even if semi-automatic in nature. Organizations like Giffords (Gabby Giffords) and Everytown for Gun Safety (a merger of organizations) have created their own candidate vetting process to obtain their support. Arguably not quite the same political weight as their opposition NRA, but getting there for sure.

The consideration for us to make being the further organizations like the NRA move Republicans further right on this matter, the more opposition moves Democrats further left ensuring the litmus tests move more into the unrepresented category. One might agree with some restrictions, some “common sense” action, on guns without agreeing with all Democrats want to do.

These are not the only examples, of course, but suggest a distance via opposing litmus tests of wants on various matters.

Question – Where does this leave Independents?

One could argue the answer is, out in the cold.

But you could also answer that depending on the subject Independents and non-party loyalists may align with some percentage, some to most, of the stance guarded by a litmus test for Republicans or Democrats. For instance, the economy and cost of living issues tends to appeal to independents in a way that suggests moving the needle on those very litmus tests. But, the 2nd Amendment and Abortion debate has clearly left independents on the sidelines. May force the political third rail, compromise, just to ensure majority support.

You could say on some of those issues it may come down to threading a needle for Republicans and Democrats. Saying one thing to an audience of party-loyalists at some campaign event wanting to hear the expected litmus test answer, and then turning around to the general pool of voters saying something slightly different.

More prevalent with a President running in a general election, but as we have seen recently there are at least a handful of seats in the House of Representatives, and perhaps a few states for the Senate as well, that could go either way depending on current events. Perhaps amplified by whatever set of conditions at the time that rearranges the issues priority list.

Hope is not entirely lost.

Conclusions…

Given the results of these recent party affiliation polls and studies, there is some consideration to be made for a party taking the nation so far one direction that the other needs the very independents and non-party loyalists to pull the nation back the other direction. Means listening to what is being said, very carefully, as a candidate makes it past a primary then faces the general voter.

The midterms are coming up first, and at least the House seems in play, with the 2028 election appearing to be the same condition from Trump’s first term but obviously further right with this current Administration. In context, the political pendulum is headed back the other direction suggesting Democrats may try to appeal to just enough outside-the-party support to lock key districts. Perhaps even a state or two given recent events, and Trump’s approval headed downward. A compromise offered on a position or two might show a relax of a litmus test or two.

Another factor to consider, is while Republicans and Trump are not doing well in the polls we also know Democrat Party favorability is also in a terrible place. Various polls put Democrats at historical lows, somewhere near the 28% to 30% when doing a bit of poll aggregation from Gallup, to Pew, to YouGov, and a few others. Outside of the base, arguably further left and driven by the younger voter, most others do not look at Democrats with much support or enthusiasm.

Perhaps more evidence we might get a little more consideration?

We will have to see how this plays out, and the primary campaigning for the midterms is already running full tilt and still very much an appeal to the base.

Just a passive review of several races for State Governors and a few Federal Senate seats should make that blatantly obvious. Almost to the point of trying to run on Trump’s coattails or run as being entirely against him. A focus on a President with shockingly less focus on the status of Congress or the status of the Supreme Court, both of whom have terrible approval rates outside of Republicans.

We will have to see which subjects are given some litmus test latitude by Republicans and Democrats to try to appeal to those very independents, this might (repeat might) come down to which side blinks just enough and realizes independents and non-party loyalists are needed to change the direction we are headed.