In 2017, the Third Way think tank conducted a listening tour in rural Wisconsin as part of a political research effort to understand the results of the
2016 presidential election.[SUP]
[34][/SUP] This tour was the focus of an article in
The Atlantic magazine, where reporter
Molly Ball observed many focus group participants expressing strongly politically partisan views that challenged Third Way's ideology that political partisanship was not most people's primary concern. Ball recounts hearing focus group participants blame things like government bureaucracy, changes in society and the family, young people, welfare recipients, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, income inequality, gerrymandering and union rights for their problems. Despite this, Ball writes that Third Way summarized its findings in a short report that ignored all the sentiments heard on the tour which challenged Third Way's ideology and instead selectively highlighted sentiments which adhered to Third Way's ideology:
The report surprised me when I read it. Despite the great variety of views the researchers and I had heard on our tour, the report had somehow reached the conclusion that Wisconsinites wanted consensus, moderation, and pragmatism—just like Third Way. We had heard people blame each other for their own difficulties, take refuge in tribalism, and appeal to extremes. But the report mentioned little of that. Instead it described the prevailing attitude as "an intense work ethic that binds the community together and helps it adapt to change.[SUP]
[35][/SUP]
— Molly Ball
As a result of Ball's account, the validity of Third Way's research has come into question.[SUP]
[36][/SUP] However, Third Way strongly disputed Ball's claim in a public post. Third Way's Matt Bennett wrote in response: "We are dismayed that in the story, Molly writes that we omitted information that is actually in the report[SUP]
[37][/SUP] we drafted about the WI visit. And she indicates that we have drawn conclusions that we do not reach and do not share".[SUP]
[38][/SUP] He also stated:
Yes, in the last page of the report, we provide some evidence that people believe they can still work together. But nowhere in the report do we even imply that means they think politicians should support a centrist policy agenda. [...] Moreover, this research is by its very nature anecdotal. It is about impressions, which can vary widely, not quantitative data, which can be extrapolated. We make that very clear in our description of the project and in each of the reports on the visits we've done, each of which have been quite different from the rest.[SUP]
[39][/SUP]
