PAX
Agentic Inbox
America Thinks
Chat
Clips
Data dictionary
Docs
Lift
Reports
Survey
PAX
Agentic InboxAmerica ThinksChatClipsData dictionaryDocsLiftReportsSurvey

Reports

Right-click to go to any page

Massachusetts Message Testing · Wave 3

Massachusetts Wave 3: What the test found

October 29, 2026 · 2,464 simulated respondents (2,464 weighted) · six treatment videos plus placebo

  1. What the test found
  2. The videos
  3. Outcomes in detail
  4. Subgroups
  5. What it can and cannot establish

Four of six videos showed detectable ballot support differences; one showed detectable comprehension differences

Population
Respondents who completed the test, weighted to Massachusetts general adults (18+)
Fielded
October 29, 2026
Sample
2,464 respondents · 2,464 weighted
Control
Placebo video · 356 weighted
Threshold
90% criterion (two-sided two-proportion test)
Ballot supportComprehension
Glossary
Glossary
Glossary

Ballot support

The weighted percentage selecting Yes, compared with the placebo arm.

Comprehension

The weighted percentage choosing the correct description, compared with the placebo arm.

The 90% criterion (two-sided two-proportion test) is a statistical decision rule. It does not mean there is a 90% chance any particular person changed their mind.

The six videos and their results

35 s

01 · Danielle Allen

352 actual respondents

Ballot support62.8%
vs 48.6% placebo · +14.2 ppDetectable
Comprehension50.1%
vs 51.4% placebo · −1.2 ppInconclusive
n = 348 weighted
28 s

02 · Dustin Cathcart

352 actual respondents

Ballot support64.4%
vs 48.6% placebo · +15.7 ppDetectable
Comprehension42.3%
vs 51.4% placebo · −9.1 ppDetectable
n = 347 weighted
49 s

03 · Jesse Littlewood

352 actual respondents

Ballot support59.5%
vs 48.6% placebo · +10.9 ppDetectable
Comprehension55.4%
vs 51.4% placebo · +4 ppInconclusive
n = 347 weighted
43 s

04 · Paul Schilchtman

352 actual respondents

Ballot support61.4%
vs 48.6% placebo · +12.8 ppDetectable
Comprehension50.9%
vs 51.4% placebo · −0.5 ppInconclusive
n = 365 weighted
37 s

05 · Alex Rodriguez

352 actual respondents

Ballot support53.7%
vs 48.6% placebo · +5.1 ppInconclusive
Comprehension44.8%
vs 51.4% placebo · −6.6 ppInconclusive
n = 325 weighted
27 s

06 · Ajayi Harris

352 actual respondents

Ballot support52.5%
vs 48.6% placebo · +3.8 ppInconclusive
Comprehension54.7%
vs 51.4% placebo · +3.3 ppInconclusive
n = 375 weighted

Results are versus placebo. A difference between two point estimates does not establish a statistically significant head-to-head difference.

Two outcomes in detail

Ballot support, % level
Glossary
Comprehension, % level
Glossary

Which of the following best describes the main change the measure would make?

  • Each party would keep its own primary, but independent voters could choose one to vote in
  • CorrectAll candidates would run in one primary, and the two with the most votes overall would advance
  • Primaries would be eliminated, and every candidate would go straight to the general election
  • General elections would be decided by ranked choice voting

Subgroup results

Bars are levels — the % selecting Yes in one subgroup and arm — not lifts. Significant vs placebo inside that subgroup (90% criterion (two-sided two-proportion test)) Not marked Hatched, italic = source small-sample flag Placebo level in that subgroup

Political ideology and party ID

Marked vs placebo: 6 of 18 cells · no small-sample flags

LiberalModerateConservative
Glossary

Marked vs placebo: 9 of 18 cells · no small-sample flags

DemocratIndependent or otherRepublican
Glossary

Education and 2024 presidential vote choice

Marked vs placebo: 7 of 18 cells · no small-sample flags

High school or lessSome collegeBachelor's degree or higher
Glossary

Marked vs placebo: 8 of 24 cells · small-sample flag: Another candidate, I did not vote

The Democratic candidateThe Republican candidateAnother candidateI did not vote
Glossary

Marked vs placebo: 10 of 18 cells · no small-sample flags

Self-selected · asked before exposure · stated trust, not an outcome
A traditional TV or broadcast ad44%1,083share of the weighted sample
A short social video with a person speaking directly to camera32.3%796share of the weighted sample
A clip of a podcast or interview23.7%585share of the weighted sample
A traditional TV or broadcast adA short social video with a person speaking directly to cameraA clip of a podcast or interview
Glossary

What the study can and cannot establish

Supported by this study

  • Randomized comparison of each video arm with the placebo arm on stated ballot choice and comprehension.

What it cannot establish

  • Comparisons between video arms: each arm is tested only against the placebo.
  • A verdict from any arm or subgroup with fewer than 50 actual respondents: those comparisons are inconclusive by rule.

What “no measurable effect” means

Inconclusive means the comparison did not meet the criterion; it is not evidence of zero effect.

Weighted counts by arm

Placebo356
Danielle Allen348
Dustin Cathcart347
Jesse Littlewood347
Paul Schilchtman365
Alex Rodriguez325
Ajayi Harris375

Arm counts sum to the reported weighted total, 2,464.

Methodology notes

  • Counted: 2464 complete records, the latest per panel id, env development. Not counted: 0 complete(s) from another env, 0 earlier duplicate(s), 0 with an arm outside the test, 0 screenout(s); 14 start record(s) seen.
  • Raked to education, party, vote2024 in 4 iterations (largest remaining gap 9.7e-9); weights normalized to mean 1, range 0.27899999999999997 to 5.004, capped at 5 (23 capped). Targets: Massachusetts general adults (18+), derived from the audience store by scripts/results/targets.mjs.
  • Weighting target, education (as raked): hs-or-less 31.2%, some-college 21.5%, bachelors-plus 47.3%. American Community Survey 5-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau); education_4 @25, count; period 2020-01-01 to 2024-12-31; universe population 25+; proxy: population 25+; derivation audience-store. B15003 covers ages 25 and over; the store has no 18–24 education for the state, so the 25+ distribution stands in for adults 18+ and likely overstates bachelor's-or-higher for them.
  • Weighting target, party (as raked): democrat 37.3%, republican 14.6%, independent-other 48.2%. Cooperative Election Study common content 2020, 2022, 2024 (Harvard University); pid3 @25, 2024, pct (commonweight); period 2024-01-01 to 2024-12-31; universe adults 18+ (CES state respondents, commonweight); derivation audience-store. Party identification, a survey estimate: n 1119, margin of error up to ±4 points. The printed shares sum to 100.1 and are renormalized to 100. Identification, not enrollment: the state's party enrollment measures registration, a different construct on a different universe. 2024 is used to match the 2024 vote target (--party-year picks another); the store also holds 2023 (n 383, ±5) and 2025 (n 272, ±6.3).
  • Weighting target, vote2024 (as raked): democrat 37.4%, republican 22.0%, did-not-vote 38.2%, other 2.4%. Official ballot-measure results (state election offices); American Community Survey 5-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau); presidential_vote @25, 2024, count; ACS age_bucket @25 (adults 18+); period 2024-11-05 to 2024-11-05; universe adults 18+; derivation audience-store. 3,512,930 ballots cast ÷ 5,679,875 adults 18+; "Did not vote" is the adults who cast no ballot (38.15%), non-citizen adults included. Blank presidential lines (a ballot cast, no presidential choice) count with "other" under the pax-entry map. Respondents over-report voting, so raking to the true non-vote share up-weights the non-voters a panel yields.
  • Declared but not asked by this test, so not raked: age, gender, race.
  • Levels are weighted percentages. Lifts are arm level minus placebo level, in points, with a margin of 1.645 standard errors. Each comparison is a two-sided two-proportion z-test with Kish effective sample sizes; detectable means p < 0.1 and at least 50 actual respondents in both groups.

Limitations

  • Simulated respondents: the seeded demo run (scripts/results/seed-demo.mjs) walked the respondent flow, not a fielded panel. Every figure on this wave exercises the pipeline; none is a measurement.
  • No multiplicity adjustment is applied across subgroups.

Source: pax-trinity-test-responses:ma-wave-3, computed 2026-10-29 (env development).

Related

Executive summary13 of 16 treatment videos showed detectable ballot support differencesEvery wave · Massachusetts general adults — not verified likely voters · separate samplesWave 1Five of six videos showed detectable ballot choice differences; none showed detectable comprehension differencesOctober 2–7, 2026 · 3,600 respondents (3,564 weighted) · six treatment videos plus placeboWave 2Four of four videos showed detectable ballot support differences; three showed detectable comprehension differencesOctober 12–15, 2026 · 2,400 respondents (2,371 weighted) · four treatment videos plus placeboOpen Primaries Message TestOne of four videos showed detectable ballot support differences; three showed detectable comprehension differencesOctober 26–29, 2026 · 2,503 respondents (2,503 weighted) · four treatment videos plus placeboMethodologyHow every report tests a video against its own placebo, and how to read what it foundDesign · lift · detectable · weighting · subgroups · sources