Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Political Intelligence

Partisan Gap Widens on National Pride, NPR/PBS/Marist Poll Finds

Partisan Gap Widens on National Pride, NPR/PBS/Marist Poll Finds

When question wording shifts, so do the results — a methodological detail that matters as both parties claim patriotism as a campaign asset heading into the 2026 midterms.

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · July 4, 2026

Americans continue to express broad national pride, but views on patriotism, the country's future, and trust in government are increasingly divided along partisan lines, according to a June 8–11, 2026 NPR/PBS/Marist poll of 1,340 adults. The poll, conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion and reported by Bloomberg on July 4, 2026, found that overall levels of national pride have remained relatively stable over time, even as the partisan composition of that pride has shifted measurably.

The survey's headline finding — that Americans remain broadly proud — is complicated by a methodological note researchers flagged: response patterns changed depending on how pride-related questions were framed. Ashley Connan, director at the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, noted the sensitivity of question wording in public polling on patriotism themes, as cited in Bloomberg's July 4 coverage. The specific question texts and full cross-tabulations have not yet been released publicly; the complete Marist poll methodology and crosstabs, which would allow independent verification of the partisan breakdowns, are expected to be published on the Marist Institute's public data portal.

The poll's findings arrive on the Fourth of July, a date both Republican and Democratic elected officials routinely use to issue statements on American identity. No legislative action or federal policy is directly tied to this survey. However, similar polling data has historically been cited in floor speeches and campaign communications by members of both parties — uses that cannot be independently verified without reviewing the Congressional Record for the relevant period.

Several questions remain unanswered by currently available public records. The full crosstabs broken down by party identification, age, and region have not been published as of this writing. The margin of error for partisan subgroups — which are smaller than the full 1,340-person sample — is not yet disclosed. The Marist Institute's complete methodology report would answer both questions. Bloomberg attributed additional analysis to Puck News writer Abby Livingston, but her full commentary was not available in the source excerpt reviewed for this article.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com