
CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it
Neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party has consolidated a majority of the public behind its approach, with more than 4 in 10 saying that neither party can get things done or has strong leadership, a new CNN survey conducted by SSRS finds. Despite those widespread doubts, Americans increasingly say they see meaningful differences between the two parties.
The poll, taken as public opinion resettles in the first months of Donald Trump's second administration, also finds a record-high share of the public saying that the government should be doing more to solve problems. Americans are evenly split on which party best reflects their views on the role of the federal government, with one-third of respondents saying neither party does.
Amid a wave of skepticism among Democrats about their own party's effectiveness, the GOP currently holds the advantage across several key attributes — though with a shrinking advantage on the economy, which regularly polls as Americans' top concern.
Americans see Republicans and Democrats as offering vastly contrasting visions of the country. An 81% majority say they see important differences between the two parties, marking an increase from two years ago across political, age and educational lines. Just 18% say the parties are 'pretty much the same,' down from 28% in 2023 and roughly one-third in CNN and Gallup polling dating back to 2002.
But even among those who say there are critical differences between the two major parties, a sizable minority say neither reflects their vision across a range of issues: Nearly 20% who see such differences still say neither party reflects their perspective on at least 5 out of 9 issues they were asked about in the poll.
Asked to choose which of the parties they see as the 'party that can get things done,' 'the party with strong leaders' or the 'party of change,' the lion's share of the public – more than 4 in 10 – say that neither party fits the bill.
At the same time, most Americans, 58%, now say that the government should do more to solve the country's problems – a record high in more than 30 years of CNN's polling. While Democratic views on the role of government have remained largely unchanged over the past two years, the shares of Republicans and independents who say that the government is doing too many things have both fallen since the White House changed hands.
While neither political party is viewed as especially strong or effective, skepticism weighs particularly heavily on the Democratic Party. Americans are far more likely to see Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders: 40% say this descriptor applies more to the GOP, with just 16% saying it applies to the Democrats. They're also more likely to call Republicans the party that can get things done by 36% to 19%, and the party of change, by 32% to 25%.
That's in large part because of relatively anemic support for Democrats among their own partisans. GOP-aligned adults are 50 points likelier than Democratic-aligned adults to say their own party has strong leaders, and 36 points likelier to view their party as able to get things done.
True independents, those who don't lean toward either party, are particularly grim in their views of the parties on these issues: 76% say neither party has strong leaders or can get things done, and 72% that they view neither as the party of change.
While the public as a whole sees the GOP as relatively effective, they also say, 41% to 30%, that it's better described as the party of extremism, the only attribute tested that fewer than 30% said applied to neither party. Roughly one-sixth of Republican-aligned adults say they view the GOP as representing extremism, compared with roughly one-tenth of Democratic-aligned adults who say the same of their own party.
Beyond Americans' shifting views of government, the survey also finds ebbing belief in the achievability of the American Dream. A 54% majority says that most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard, down from 67% in 2016, and lower than other polling on the same question dating back to the 1990s.
Nearly half, 45%, say they don't view hard work and determination as any guarantee of success for most people. That rises to a 52% majority of Black Americans and 53% among those younger than 30, as well as 53% of those who don't agree with either party on the economy, 65% among Democrats and 71% among those who describe themselves as liberal.
Americans are closely split on which party represents the middle class, with a third saying neither does. The view that neither party stands for the middle class rises to 38% among those who say hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.
Asked which party best reflects their views on handling the economy more broadly – a perennial top issue that has frequently favored the GOP – the public gives the Republican Party an advantage, but a shrinking one. The party's 7-point margin on the issue now is down from 15 points in May 2022, and marks their narrowest advantage on the issue over that time.
The Republican Party also sees a diminished edge on immigration, another typically strong topic for the Trump-led party: What was a 14-point lead in November 2023 now stands at just 6 points. Looking outward, Americans are now evenly divided on which party's views on world affairs more closely match their own, an issue where Republicans held a 6-point edge in 2023.
Across issues tested in the poll, Republicans held the widest advantage – 13 points – on their approach to crime and policing, and that margin has largely held over time. The public also leans modestly toward the GOP when it comes to taxes (by a 7-point margin) and the federal budget (5 points).
Support for legal abortion remains strong in CNN's polling, with a rising share of the public, 36%, now saying that abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Roughly 6 in 10 Democrats now say abortion should always be legal, up from 44% in 2016. In a CNN survey last year, a roughly two-thirds majority of the public opposed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
By a 10-point margin, Americans say their views on abortion align more with the Democrats than the Republicans, although that's down from a 16-point advantage in fall 2023.
Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP reflects their views on abortion – significantly lower than the share who side with their party on issues such as the economy or immigration.
Amid internal Democratic arguments over the party's messaging on issues surrounding race and gender, the poll finds that Americans side with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party on the way society deals with LGBTQ issues by an 8-point margin and with racial issues and education by a 7-point margin each.
By a wide margin, 72% to 27%, most Americans say that growing racial diversity does more to enrich than threaten American culture. That's slightly broader agreement than last fall, though it still falls short of the more than 8 in 10 who called diversity enriching during Trump's first term. The sense of diversity as a threat is largely concentrated among the GOP, particularly among Republican-aligned men. Currently, 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents call diversity a threat, up from just 20% who said the same in 2019, during Trump's first term in office. Democratic opinion has moved little in that time.
Democrats held their widest advantage in the poll, 14 points, on handling climate change. A 58% majority of adults say they're at least somewhat worried about the risks of climate change in their community, down slightly from the 63% who said they were at least somewhat worried in the fall of 2023. About one-quarter in each poll said they were very worried.
By a 5-point margin, Americans say their view of how to protect U.S. democracy aligns more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.
Roughly half of Americans say that democracy in the U.S. today is under attack, with 36% saying it's being tested, and only about 13% that it's not in any danger. While these concerns have held roughly steady since 2021, partisan dynamics have shifted sharply in that time. In the latest poll, 72% of Democrats see democracy in crisis, compared with just 29% of Republicans. By contrast, during Joe Biden's presidency, concerns were either roughly balanced or higher among the GOP.
The CNN poll was conducted among 2,539 adults nationwide by SSRS from May 5-26, using a combination of online and telephone interviews. The survey samples were originally drawn from two sources – an address-based sample and a random-digit dial sample of prepaid cell phone numbers – and combined. Respondents were initially contacted by mail or by phone. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to undercut a proposal that was offered by his special envoy to Iran, saying he will insist that Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program as part of any deal to ease crushing sanctions. Trump and Steve Witkoff, who is leading the negotiations for the U.S., have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes. The Trump administration maintains that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The negotiations have been framed by Trump as both countries' best chance to avoid direct military conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Tehran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has insisted that it will not agree to any deal that fully scraps its enrichment program. 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on social media. The White House didn't elaborate on the post. Trump's post comes after media reports that Witkoff's latest proposal to Tehran would allow Iran to retain low levels of enrichment for civilian uses like nuclear medicine and commercial power if it agrees to shut down its heavily protected underground sites for a period of time. The U.S. and Iran have engaged in several rounds of direct nuclear talks for the first time in years. Senior officials — including Witkoff and Trump himself — have said within the last few weeks that Iran would not be able to keep enriching uranium at any level. The proposal, reported by Axios and confirmed by two U.S. officials, called for the creation of a regional consortium to handle uranium enrichment for civilian uses — a plan first studied more than a decade ago in negotiations that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump was sharply critical of that agreement — which also allowed set limits on uranium enrichment but permitted Iran to maintain such a capacity — and withdrew the U.S. from it in 2017 during his first term. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels since its last update in February, according to a confidential report released by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Saturday. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but Iranian officials have increasingly suggested that Tehran could pursue an atomic bomb. 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement before Trump's post. 'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.' The proposal that Trump appeared to undercut on Monday evening included significant concessions by the administration certain to anger Israel along with pro-Israel lawmakers in the United States. Several of the main points were essentially the same or very similar to conditions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal. Early iterations of that agreement negotiated by the Obama administration also suggested the possibility of a regional consortium that would put Iranian uranium enrichment above a certain level under the control of Iran and its neighbors. The idea was scrapped, however, because of Gulf Arab nations' objections and Iranian suspicions of the ultimate aims of the consortium. People who were involved in the 18-month negotiations for the 2015 deal reacted immediately to reports that the Trump administration might allow Iran to continue with an enrichment program at any level, particularly after senior officials repeatedly said Iran would not be able to retain such programs. 'This proposal poses a moment of truth for critics of previous Iran nuclear negotiations/agreements (and) those who have called for a no-enrichment, full-dismantlement deal,' Dan Shapiro, Obama's former ambassador to Israel, wrote on X. 'Will they hold Trump to the same standard?'

Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH
A federal Department of Homeland Security report identified the city of Lebanon and adjacent town of Hanover as the only communities in New Hampshire it identifies as being 'sanctuary' communities for immigrants in the country illegally. The report comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two bills (SB 62 and HB 511) to outlaw sanctuary city policies in the state and to block local officials from preventing police departments or county jail administrations from reaching cooperative agreements with federal immigration authorities. DHS officials said its report complies with President Donald Trump's executive order titled, 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The report listed the 35 states and the District of Columbia where at least one community had an ordinance blocking or altering cooperation with federal officials about suspected, illegal immigrants. Maine and New Hampshire are the only states in New England not identified as sanctuary states. In Maine, the sanctuary status exists in two counties and the city of Portland, according to the report. A federal court order created the sanctuary treatment in Rhode Island while officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont adopted their own language, DHS officials said. The Franconia Board of Selectmen earlier last month endorsed a sanctuary community ordinance. Ayotte said the bills she signed would nullify that town's actions. Legislative critics charged the legislation would worsen the relationship local law enforcement has with legal immigration advocates in their hometowns and was an unfunded mandate as it could impose unreimbursed costs on communities. The new laws the governor signed take effect Jan. 1 except for one anti-sanctuary city provision that would apply starting in late July. Legislative leaders sent out letters last Friday thanking the sheriffs in Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties for signing so-called Section 287G agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Two other counties, six towns and New Hampshire State Police have applied for their own agreements. klandrigan@
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss