CNN polling expert marvels at collapse of Democratic advantage with middle class in Trump era
CNN senior political data reporter Harry Enten Monday marveled at how Democrats continue to face a stark lack of confidence from voters on the economy and middle class issues.
Voter dissatisfaction with former President Biden's management of the economy was one of the major issues that led to President Donald Trump's return to the White House. While Trump may have stirred controversy with his tariff and immigration policy shakeups since then, the economy appears to be one key area where he retains voters' trust.
CNN host Kate Bolduan observed as she spoke to Enten that, according to CNN's own polling, Republicans are actually gaining ground in terms of being trusted to help America's struggling middle class.
"Yeah, you know, historically speaking, 'Which is the party of the middle class?' has been a huge advantage for Democrats," Enten said, referring to one question from the polling.
He said Democrats had a 23-point advantage on this question in 1989 and a 17-point advantage in 2016, "But by this decade, we already started seeing declines back in 2022, where you saw that Democrats led, but only by four points, well within the margin of error."
Now it's tied.
"This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else," he argued. "They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more! Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away, and now a key advantage for Democrats historically has gone 'adios, amigos,' and now there is no party that is the party of the middle class. Republicans have completely closed the gap, Kate."
Enten also said while one might think Trump's rocky experimentation with tariffs might shake voters' faith in Republicans and make them consider the opposition, but, "It ain't so. It ain't so!"
The data reporter noted that in November 2023, Republicans had an 11-point advantage as "the party that is closest to your economic views." He noted, "Now it's still within that range, still within that margin of error, plus eight point advantage for the Republican Party. How is that possible, Democrats?"
Enten continued to break down the numbers, wondering, "How is it possible after all the recession fears? After the stock market's been doing all of this, after all the tariffs that Americans are against, and Republicans still hold an eight-point lead on the economy? Are you kidding me?"
He argued that CNN's poll was echoed by similar findings from Reuters/Ipsos, showing that confidence in Republicans to handle the economy has risen.
"And again, this is after months of supposed economic uncertainty in which the stock market's been going bonkers, in which tariff wars that Americans are against have been going on. And yet, despite all of that, the Democrats are down by 12 points on the economy," he said.
"This speaks to Democratic problems on the economy better than basically anything that you could possibly look at," Enten continued, arguing that even if approval ratings are slightly lower than they once were, Republicans maintain a clear advantage with public opinion on their management of the economy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Hollywood Stars Make Bank On Broadway—For Producers
George Clooney could not have asked for a much bigger or better Broadway debut. Good Night, and Good Luck—the show he cowrote, produced and stars in—is nominated for five Tony Awards at this Sunday's ceremony, including Clooney for Best Actor, and has broken weekly box office records as the highest-grossing non-musical play in history. Its penultimate performance on Saturday will be broadcast live on CNN and HBO Max, a first for a Broadway show. Through 12 weeks of its 13-week run, the stage adaptation of the showdown between journalist Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy has grossed more on Broadway ($44 million) than its source material. The 2005 film of the same name cowritten and directed by Clooney, earned just $32 million at the domestic box office despite earning six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Director. But this much is clear—Clooney didn't come to Broadway for the money. Forbes estimates the 64-year-old Clooney will earn $6 million in salary and gross royalties for his numerous roles in the show, more than any other theater performer over that span, but a fraction of what Hollywood's highest-paid actors can expect to make on each movie project. For last year's Wolfs, for instance, Forbes estimates Apple paid Clooney and his co-star Brad Pitt $30 million each. Whether it's the purity or the prestige of acting on stage—"Movies will make you famous, television will make you rich, but theatre will make you good," the Broadway stalwart Terrence Mann famously quipped—A-list stars like Clooney have become a vital of the Broadway ecosystem. Denzel Washington and Jake Gyllenhaal currently headline Othello, while Kieren Culkin, Bob Odenkirk and Bill Burr lead Glengarry Glen Ross. In April, Gladiator II star Paul Mescal wrapped up a run in A Streetcar Named Desire. And the 2024 theater season included Robert Downey Jr., Rachel McAdams, Steve Carrell, Eddie Redmayne and Jeremy Strong, all leading non-musical plays that ran 10-16 weeks with a hard closing date to accommodate the actors' busy schedules. While Hollywood stars have made appearances on Broadway for decades, in recent years, producers and investors have been increasingly eager to stage these short-run, star-driven productions, which considerably lower their financial risk. A play typically requires a $6 to $9 million investment to get to opening night, compared to $20-25 million for new musicals, according to Forbes estimates. Weekly operating costs run in the $400,000-$600,000 range for plays versus $800,000-$900,000 for musicals. 'Your likelihood of losing all your money [as an investor] is near zero, because of the projections of sales based on that actor," says Jason Turchin, a Tony-winning producer and founder of the Broadway Investors Club. 'You may not make multiples back but you should get a healthy return.' Good Night, and Good Luck, for example, recouped its initial $9.5 million investment just seven and a half weeks into its run. Othello and Glengarry Glen Ross made their money back ($9 million and $7.5 million respectively) in nine weeks. Reputation, Reputation, Reputation: Stars such as Othello's Jake Gyllenhaal and Denzel Washington can sell out limited-edition runs on Broadway and then return to the more lucrative world of movies. While the upside of these shows is capped by the limited run, investors can expect to make 10-30% return on their capital, Turchin says. Considering only about a quarter of all Broadway shows fully pay back their investors, or less, it's the kind of safe bet he believes producers will lean into even more in future years. A-list stars meanwhile, some of whom are paid upwards of $20 million per movie, are typically given a minimum weekly salary—around $100,000 per week for the highest-level talent—as an advance against a percentage of the show's net gross, after expenses such as credit card fees and theater restoration charges are deducted from the raw receipts. An actor's gross royalty points are highly variable, but the top end can reach 10%. Other significant members of a show, such as the writers, producers, and directors, are either paid royalties from a small percentage of the gross or a larger percentage of a show's profits after recoupment. For ongoing shows, almost all have moved toward paying out of the profits to mitigate risk, but for sure-thing star vehicles—say, Hugh Jackman's year-long run in the 2022 revival of The Music Man—the standard is gross participation. Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck deal would include net gross points for starring, cowriting, producing and owning the underlying IP, adding up to his impressive total. Until this year, a Broadway actor's gross percentage only modestly exceeded the weekly minimums. Most hits gross just over $1 million per week, and over the run of a show, a star performer could expect to earn between $1-3 million. But if you're the type of actor who has made a fortune playing a superhero (Jackman), selling a tequila company (Clooney) or being one of the most bankable box office draws of the last 30 years (Washington), the money matters less. What's changed in the 2025 season is that producers are realizing just how far they can push the ticket pricing with a bankable star, particularly for the most expensive seats. Average ticket prices for Good Night, and Good Luck, Othello and Glengarry Glen Ross hover between $250-$400, and premium seats have routinely sold in the $700-$900 range, more than double the cost of top tickets to last year's star-driven plays or long-running hits like Wicked and Hamilton. Of the shows that started their runs in March, they account for three of the top four highest-grossers on Broadway, with Good Night, and Good Luck and Othello averaging more than $3 million per week, and Clooney's show cracking the previously untouchable $4 million threshold for non-musicals on three occasions. For deep-pocketed theatergoers, the appeal of seeing a movie star perform live has proven immune to traditional hurdles for other shows, such as negative reviews. According to Broadway review aggregator Did They Like It?, Good Night, and Good Luck received eight positive reviews, 9 mixed reviews and four negative reviews from major critics. Othello logged two positive reviews, 15 mixed reviews and three negative, and was completely shut out at the Tony Awards. Yet ticket sales remain robust. Last year's Robert Downey Jr.-led McNeal—his Broadway debut—was one of the worst reviewed shows of the season (one positive, five mixed, eight negative) and grossed $14 million across its 12-week run. Compare that to a play like John Proctor Is The Villain—a revisionist telling of Arthur Miller's The Crucible starring Sadie Sink of Stranger Things—which received 17 positive reviews, three mixed and one negative, plus seven Tony nominations, but averages less than $500,000 in weekly grosses, and one can quickly see the disconnect. "It does seem that theatergoers want to see Hollywood celebrities, in the same space at the same time. They crave that experience,' says one major Broadway dealmaker. 'And for the star? A standing ovation from a thousand people every night doesn't hurt the ego.'
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash
SACRAMENTO — In a largely courteous gathering of a half dozen of California's top gubernatorial candidates, four Democrats and two Republicans agreed that despite the state boasting one of the world's largest economies, too many of its residents are suffering because of the affordability crisis in the state. Their strategies on how to improve the state's economy, however, largely embraced the divergent views of their respective political parties as they discussed housing costs, high-speed rail, tariffs, climate change and homelessness on Wednesday evening at the first bipartisan event in the 2026 governor race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Californians are innovators. They are builders, they are designers, they are creators, and that is the reason that we have the fourth largest economy in the world,' said former Rep. Katie Porter., a Democrat from Irvine 'But businesses and workers are being held back by the same thing. It is too expensive to do things here. It is too expensive to raise a family. It is too expensive to run a business.' Conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, argued that state leaders need to end the 'stranglehold' of unions, lawyers and climate change activists on California policy. 'I've been traveling this state. Everywhere I go, it's the same story, this heartbreaking word that I get from every business I meet, every family is in such a struggle in California,' he said, with a raspy voice he explained immediately upon taking the stage was caused by a sore throat. The candidates spoke to about 800 people at a California Chamber of Commerce dinner at an 80-minute panel at the convention center in Sacramento. The chamber's decision on who to invite to the forum was based on which ones were leaders in public opinion surveys and fundraising. Making the cut were former Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Hilton, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The sharpest exchange of the evening was between Kounalakis, a Democrat, and Bianco, a Republican. After the candidates were asked about President Trump's erratic tariff policies, Kounalakis cited her experience working for her father's reat estate company as she criticized Bianco for arguing for a wait-and-see approach about the president's undulating plans. 'You're not a businessman, you're a government employee,' she said to Bianco. 'You've got a pension, you're going to do just fine. Small businesses are suffering from this, and it's only going to get worse, and it's driven, by the way, it is driven by Donald Trump's vindictiveness toward countries he doesn't like, countries he wants to annex, or states he doesn't like, people he doesn't like. This is hurting California, hurting our people, and it's only going to make things worse, until we can get him out of the White House.' Bianco countered that Kounalakis and the other Democrat gubernatorial candidates are directly responsible for the economic woes facing Californians because they have an 'unquenchable thirst' for money to fund their liberal agenda. 'I just feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I have a billionaire telling me that my 32 years of public service is okay for my retirement,' he said. 'It's taxes and regulations that are driving every single thing in California up. We pay the highest taxes, we pay the highest gas, we pay the highest housing, we pay the highest energy.' The Democrats on stage, though largely agreeing about policy, sought to differentiate themselves. The sharpest divide was about whether to raise the minimum wage. On Monday, labor advocates in Los Angeles proposed raising it in Los Angeles County Atkins reflected most of her fellow Democrats' views, saying that while she wanted to see higher wages for workers, 'now is not the time.' Villaraigosa said that while he believes in a higher minimum wage, 'we can't just keep raising the minimum wage.' Kounalakis, though, said not increasing the minimum wage would be inhumane. 'I think we should be working for that number, yes I do,' she said. 'You want to throw poor people under the bus.' California's high cost of living is a pressing concern among the state's voters, and the issue is expected to play a major role in the 2026 governor's face. Nearly half feel worse off now compared with last year, and more than half felt less hopeful about their economic well-being, according to a poll released in May by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times. Nearly exactly a year before the gubernatorial primary next year, the event was the first time Democratic and Republican candidates have shared a stage. It was also the first time GOP candidates Bianco and Hilton have appeared together. Although the state's leftward electoral tilt makes it challenging for a Republican to win the race – Californians last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006 — Bianco and Hilton are battling to win one of the top two spots in next year's primary election. The pair expressed similar views about broadly ending liberal policies in the state, such as stopping the state's high-speed rail project and reducing environmental restrictions such as the state's climate-change efforts that they argue have increased costs while making no meaningful impact on the consumption of fossil fuels. A crucial question is whether President Trump, who both Bianco and Hilton fully support, will eventually endorse one of the Republican candidates. The gubernatorial candidates, some of whom have been running more than a year, have largely focused on fundraising since entering the race. But the contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is growing more public and heated, as seen at last weekend's California Democratic Party convention. Several of the party's candidates scurried around the Anaheim convention center, trying to curry favor with the state's most liberal activists while also drawing contrasts with their rivals. But the Democratic field is partially frozen as former Vice President Kamala Harris weighs entering the race, a decision she is expected to make by the end of the summer. Harris' name did not come up during the forum. There were a handful of light moments. Porter expressed a common concern among the state's residents when they talk about the cost of living in the state. 'What really keeps me up at night, why I'm running for governor, is whether my children are going to be able to afford to live here, whether they're going to ever get off my couch and have their own home,' she said.
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
