Latest news with #CooperativeElectionStudy
New York Post
3 days ago
- Health
- New York Post
Is it any wonder liberals are having a mental health crisis?
Liberals are more than twice as likely to say they have poor mental health — while conservatives are more than twice as likely to say their mental well-being is 'excellent.' Is it any wonder? Conservatives promote family and religious values and pro-community messaging. The left is the party of grievance politics and 'yes you can't' messaging. Advertisement 9 Liberals are twice as likely to say they have poor mental health, according to self-reported data. pressmaster – Now, data collected from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study from Tufts University and reported by statistician and political commentator Nate Silver reveals that, among voters who said their mental health was poor, 45% identified as politically liberal and just 19% were conservatives. Conversely, those who said they had excellent mental health identified as conservative 51% of the time, while 20% were liberal. 9 Nate Silver published data showing liberals have worse mental health outcomes on his Substack. Slaven Vlasic Advertisement The stark lifestyle differences between the two are illuminating. For one thing, Democrats have ceded a virtual monopoly on pro-family and pro-religious messaging to Republicans — the very values that can promote life meaning, interpersonal connection and mental well-being. Conservatives traditionally promote family values, and it's long been known that people who have other people who rely on them, like spouses and children, fare better than people who only worry about themselves. Take, for example, Fay Dubinsky, a 28-year-old Zoomer who actually describes herself as a happy member of the most depressed generation on record. Advertisement 9 Fay Dubinsky says her marriage and child give her meaning and purpose. Courtesy of Fay Dubinsky 'I take time for myself, but so much of my day is to help others, to take care of my family, to take care of my baby,' Dubinsky, a mother of a two-year-old, told The Post. 'People my age, their life is about them, and serving themselves, and always seeking out more pleasure.' Some 86% of conservatives identify with a religion, according to Pew. And religious people are more likely to self-describe as 'very happy' in the United States, likely because they have a connection to a higher purpose beyond the earthly world. This likewise applies to Dubinsky: 'I grew up Jewish and religious, and I think that's probably one of the reasons that I'm not depressed or anxious. I have so much meaning in my life, and that's not typical for my generation.' Advertisement 9 Religious people tend to report greater happiness in the United States. tutye – But it's also about the messaging coming from conservative politicians about self-reliance and self-confidence, two traits highly associated with mental well-being, according to mental health professionals and organizations alike. The right traditionally espouses pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps messaging — teaching people they can rely on their hard work and resolve to get by. On the flip side, Democrats have embraced just about the opposite of all of these values. Self-reliance?The libs aren't fans. 9 Young men have shifted to the right as Democrats embraced grievance politics. Michael Nigro Identity politics have overtaken the Democratic party, as lefty leaders insist that immutable characteristics like race and gender are constantly holding citizens back from their potential. Only government intervention — and a vote for their side — can fix it, they claim. It's the sort of ideology that saw the Biden administration attempt to give out loans exclusively to black farmers. What sort of message does that send? 9 The Biden Administration attempted to deliver loans to black farmers, while excluding other groups. Bloomberg via Getty Images Advertisement Or how about the endless insistence that non-white voters would be disenfranchised if voter ID laws were put in place, because they couldn't possibly be expected to produce identification like everyone else? Democrats have also become the party of handouts and free things — from student loan forgiveness to endless stimulus checks — implying that Americans can't get along without their help in a world stacked against them. 'Today the game is rigged — rigged to work for those who have money and power,' Elizabeth Warren declared in her memoir 'A Fighting Chance.' It's an ironic title, considering how the Massachusetts senator is pretty much implying regular Americans don't have one. 9 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said one's Zip code 'determines your destiny.' Paul Kitagaki Jr./ZUMA Press Wire / Advertisement 'I was born in a place where your Zip code determines your destiny,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, a graduate of Boston University and nationally famous politician, told her constituents who are from that same area. And sometimes it's not even clear who exactly is holding people back … but it's definitely someone. 'There will be a resistance to your ambition, there will be people who say to you, 'You are out of your lane.'' Kamala Harris bafflingly said in 2020. 'They are burdened by only having the capacity to see what has always been instead of what can be. But don't you let that burden you.' 9 Kamala Harris has alluded to 'burdens' borne by the American people. AP Advertisement There's a term in psychology called the 'locus of control,' which refers to your sense of whether things happen to you or whether you make things happen. No surprise that the latter — a greater sense of agency — is associated with vastly better mental health. When you stop thinking everything is working against you and start taking power over what you can control, the world becomes a far less scary place. Unfortunately, the left has taught its voters to externalize their locus of control, according to Greg Lukianoff, co-author of 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' 9 'The Coddling of the American Mind' theorized that some progressive ideas were making people depressed and anxious. Advertisement 'Progressivism, with its emphasis on victimhood and vulnerability to impersonal forces … weakens the sense of agency and, frankly, contributes to depression and anxiety,' he told The Post. 'As the political left reevaluates its strategies on everything from abundance to identity, it should also consider adopting an ideology that empowers individuals, fosters an internal sense of control and doesn't fuel emotional suffering.' It's no wonder, then, that the party of self-pity is also the party of poor mental health.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Medicaid cuts will harm rural Republican communities most
Though President Trump promised a 'big beautiful' budget bill, what narrowly passed the House of Representatives in the early morning hours of May 22 will be anything but a big beautiful win for millions of marginalized Americans, and Medicaid beneficiaries won't be the only ones who feel the pinch. In fact, if passed, this legislation would destabilize the publicly insured and privately insured alike, especially in America's many rural communities. Trump's budget dramatically reduces the robustness of the federal social safety net, on which three in ten Americans (including nearly half of children) rely for critical programs ranging from health care to food security. Most drastically, the bill is set to cut Medicaid by nearly $800 billion over 10 years, add burdensome and ineffective work requirements and kick as many as 13 million people off their health insurance. These cuts will have demonstrably negative consequences for millions of Americans, including those who are not themselves enrolled in Medicaid. The irony is that despite nearly every Republican House member voting for its passage, it is rural, Republican majority communities that will face the most extreme consequences. Nineteen percent of Americans, or over 72 million, are insured by Medicaid and the share of the 66 million rural Americans on Medicaid is even higher at 23 percent. And not only do America's rural communities tend to vote more conservatively, but this is even true of Medicaid beneficiaries, the very people whose health coverage Republican legislators seek to strip away. Survey data from the Cooperative Election Study reveal that the majority of rural Medicaid beneficiaries in Republican states and districts are people who identify as Republicans. This is especially true in Republican congressional districts and states with Republican senators. For example, a majority of residents in districts held by some Republican congressmen — Reps. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.) come to mind specifically — are enrolled in Medicaid (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively). About 40 percent of residents of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are enrolled in Medicaid. What's more, in most of these cases, the beneficiaries are Republican voters themselves. Meanwhile, in states with two Republican senators like Arkansas and Kentucky, nearly 30 percent of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, and between 40 and 55 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries reside in Republican-leaning rural areas. In each of these instances, survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation show that the majority of even Republican beneficiaries approve of Medicaid. Not only do 61 percent of Republicans see Medicaid as important to their communities, but 67 percent of Republicans want Congress to preserve or increase Medicaid funding. Political scientist David Mayhew famously argued that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection. Yet even with broad public support for Medicaid and health care's salience in the minds of voters, Republicans' efforts to cut Medicaid would remove health insurance from their own voters. Beyond the effects experienced by enrollees directly, the proposed Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout and harm all residents of rural communities by undermining the financial security of rural hospitals. According to estimates from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, not only have nearly 200 rural hospitals already closed in the last two decades, but over 300 rural hospitals face 'immediate risk' of closure in the coming years. What's more, the vast majority of these vulnerable hospitals are in Republican majority communities in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A key reason why these hospitals face closure is due to 'uncompensated care' costs, which accrue when uninsured or underinsured patients seek medical treatment for which they are unable to pay. Not only do rural hospitals experience higher rates of uncompensated care, but it proves more debilitating than in the case of research hospitals, which can steady themselves with higher insurance reimbursement rates and subsidies. Medicaid expansion has proven critical in strengthening these hospitals' financial security, because it drastically decreased the percentage of people showing up at hospitals without health insurance. The result has been that more rural hospitals have been able to remain open. In contrast, roughly 80 percent of rural hospitals that have closed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have been in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid. The economic and health effects of rural hospital closures are catastrophic for all residents of affected communities, regardless of their insurance status. Numerous studies have shown that rural hospital closures lead to significant increases in mortality. Additionally, birthing outcomes and access to obstetric-gynecological care tend to suffer following closures. Many of these negative effects are driven by the drastically increased distances individuals must travel to receive care. When a rural hospital closes, patients are left to travel on average 20 miles farther to receive common health care services, and 40 miles farther for specialized care. That time is precious in the setting of acute health problems. Regardless of one's insurance status or provider, the farther you are from a hospital following a car crash or after a stroke, the worse the consequences. For most closures, Republican voters themselves and those with lower incomes are the people who face the longest distances to care following closures. Cutting Medicaid will only further restrict access to care and worsen health outcomes for rural people, regardless of insurance status. Outside of the immediate health effects, hospitals are typically the largest employers in congressional districts, and that is no less true in rural communities. In fact, the health care sector can supply as many as 10 percent of the jobs in a rural community. While some have argued that rural hospital closures are a symptom of communities' economic decline, their effects are also unmistakable, leading to a marked increase in unemployment and a reduction in residents' average income. In his recent New York Times op-ed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued against Trump's budget. He wrote that while Trump promised to protect working-class tax cuts and social insurance programs such as Medicaid, the 'Wall Street wing' was instead seeking to slash health insurance for the working poor in a manner that he characterized as 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' The data are clear and Hawley is correct. Trump's budget will actively harm the health and incomes of rural communities and Republican voters, well beyond those who themselves are enrolled in Medicaid. Michael Shepherd is an assistant professor of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan. Miranda Yaver is an assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburgh. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Medicaid cuts will harm rural Republican communities most
Though President Trump promised a 'big beautiful' budget bill, what narrowly passed the House of Representatives in the early morning hours of May 22 will be anything but a big beautiful win for millions of marginalized Americans, and Medicaid beneficiaries won't be the only ones who feel the pinch. In fact, if passed, this legislation would destabilize the publicly insured and privately insured alike, especially in America's many rural communities. Trump's budget dramatically reduces the robustness of the federal social safety net, on which three in ten Americans (including nearly half of children) rely for critical programs ranging from health care to food security. Most drastically, the bill is set to cut Medicaid by nearly $800 billion over 10 years, add burdensome and ineffective work requirements and kick as many as 13 million people off their health insurance. These cuts will have demonstrably negative consequences for millions of Americans, including those who are not themselves enrolled in Medicaid. The irony is that despite nearly every Republican House member voting for its passage, it is rural, Republican majority communities that will face the most extreme consequences. Nineteen percent of Americans, or over 72 million, are insured by Medicaid and the share of the 66 million rural Americans on Medicaid is even higher at 23 percent. And not only do America's rural communities tend to vote more conservatively, but this is even true of Medicaid beneficiaries, the very people whose health coverage Republican legislators seek to strip away. Survey data from the Cooperative Election Study reveal that the majority of rural Medicaid beneficiaries in Republican states and districts are people who identify as Republicans. This is especially true in Republican congressional districts and states with Republican senators. For example, a majority of residents in districts held by some Republican congressmen — Reps. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.) come to mind specifically — are enrolled in Medicaid (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively). About 40 percent of residents of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are enrolled in Medicaid. What's more, in most of these cases, the beneficiaries are Republican voters themselves. Meanwhile, in states with two Republican senators like Arkansas and Kentucky, nearly 30 percent of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, and between 40 and 55 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries reside in Republican-leaning rural areas. In each of these instances, survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation show that the majority of even Republican beneficiaries approve of Medicaid. Not only do 61 percent of Republicans see Medicaid as important to their communities, but 67 percent of Republicans want Congress to preserve or increase Medicaid funding. Political scientist David Mayhew famously argued that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection. Yet even with broad public support for Medicaid and health care's salience in the minds of voters, Republicans' efforts to cut Medicaid would remove health insurance from their own voters. Beyond the effects experienced by enrollees directly, the proposed Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout and harm all residents of rural communities by undermining the financial security of rural hospitals. According to estimates from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, not only have nearly 200 rural hospitals already closed in the last two decades, but over 300 rural hospitals face 'immediate risk' of closure in the coming years. What's more, the vast majority of these vulnerable hospitals are in Republican majority communities in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A key reason why these hospitals face closure is due to 'uncompensated care' costs, which accrue when uninsured or underinsured patients seek medical treatment for which they are unable to pay. Not only do rural hospitals experience higher rates of uncompensated care, but it proves more debilitating than in the case of research hospitals, which can steady themselves with higher insurance reimbursement rates and subsidies. Medicaid expansion has proven critical in strengthening these hospitals' financial security, because it drastically decreased the percentage of people showing up at hospitals without health insurance. The result has been that more rural hospitals have been able to remain open. In contrast, roughly 80 percent of rural hospitals that have closed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have been in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid. The economic and health effects of rural hospital closures are catastrophic for all residents of affected communities, regardless of their insurance status. Numerous studies have shown that rural hospital closures lead to significant increases in mortality. Additionally, birthing outcomes and access to obstetric-gynecological care tend to suffer following closures. Many of these negative effects are driven by the drastically increased distances individuals must travel to receive care. When a rural hospital closes, patients are left to travel on average 20 miles farther to receive common health care services, and 40 miles farther for specialized care. That time is precious in the setting of acute health problems. Regardless of one's insurance status or provider, the farther you are from a hospital following a car crash or after a stroke, the worse the consequences. For most closures, Republican voters themselves and those with lower incomes are the people who face the longest distances to care following closures. Cutting Medicaid will only further restrict access to care and worsen health outcomes for rural people, regardless of insurance status. Outside of the immediate health effects, hospitals are typically the largest employers in congressional districts, and that is no less true in rural communities. In fact, the health care sector can supply as many as 10 percent of the jobs in a rural community. While some have argued that rural hospital closures are a symptom of communities' economic decline, their effects are also unmistakable, leading to a marked increase in unemployment and a reduction in residents' average income. In his recent New York Times op-ed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued against Trump's budget. He wrote that while Trump promised to protect working-class tax cuts and social insurance programs such as Medicaid, the 'Wall Street wing' was instead seeking to slash health insurance for the working poor in a manner that he characterized as 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' The data are clear and Hawley is correct. Trump's budget will actively harm the health and incomes of rural communities and Republican voters, well beyond those who themselves are enrolled in Medicaid. Michael Shepherd is an assistant professor of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan. Miranda Yaver is an assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburgh.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Trump's ratings slide, polling data reveals the scale of Fox News's influence on US politics
Donald Trump's ratings continue to slide on most issues. Recent Economist/YouGov polling across the US, completed on May 9-12, shows 51% think the country is on the wrong track, while only 45% have a favourable impression of his job as president. On inflation and prices in the shops, only 35% approve of his handling of this policy. Trump seems to be scoring particularly badly with young voters. Around 62% of young people (18 to 29s) have an unfavourable opinion of the president, compared with 53% of the over-65s. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pursue an agenda to close down, or shackle, much of the media it considers not on his side. Funding for national public service radio NPR and television PBS, as well as the global news service Voice of America, is under threat. Some national news outlets are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their coverage. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. In a speech in March, Trump said broadcasters CNN and MSNBC, and some newspapers he didn't name 'literally write 97.6% bad about me'. He added: 'It has to stop. It has to be illegal.' The Trump team clearly see the role of the media as important to establishing and retaining support, and have taken steps to shake up White House coverage – including by changing who can attend the White House press pool. About seven in ten members of the American public say they are following the news for updates on the Trump administration. It is interesting, therefore, to consider the role of the media in influencing Trump's popularity, and insights can be found in the massive US Cooperative Election Study, conducted during the presidential contest last year. That survey showed 57% of Americans had watched TV news in the previous 24 hours. Around 81% had used social media during the same period, but only 20% had used it to comment on politics. There is a lot of attention being paid to fake news on the internet, which is helping to cause polarisation in the US. But when it comes to news about politics, TV coverage is still very important for most Americans. The survey asked respondents about the TV news channels they watched, and Fox News came out on top with 47% of the viewers. ABC came second with 37%, and CBS and CNN tied on 35%. Fox News is Trump's favourite TV station, with its rightwing populist agenda and regular output of Trump-friendly news. Relationship between Trump voters and Fox News's audience in 2024 US presidential election: The Cooperative Election Study had 60,000 respondents, which provides reasonably sized samples in each of the 50 states. The Trump vote varied quite a lot across states, with only 34% of voters in Maryland supporting him, compared with 72% in Wyoming. The electoral college formally decides the results of presidential elections, and this is based on states – so, looking at voting in this way can be quite revealing. The connection between watching Fox News and Trump's vote share can be seen in the chart above. It varies from 21% who watched the channel in Vermont to 60% in West Virginia. Vermont is represented in Congress by Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from a radical political tradition, and only 32% voted for Trump there. In contrast, West Virginia is part of the rust belt of impoverished states hit by deindustrialisation and the decline of the coal mining industry, and 71% voted for Trump there. We can use a regression model (which looks at the relationship between variables) to predict support for Trump using key measures that drive the vote share for Trump in each state. The model uses three variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy, which means while not perfect, it gives a very accurate prediction of Trump's vote. Not surprisingly, partisanship – that is, the percentage of registered Republicans in each state – is one of the key metrics. In addition, ideology – the percentage of respondents who say they are conservatives – is another. Perhaps more surprisingly, the third important predictor is viewership of Fox News. The relationship between watching the channel and voting for Trump is very strong at the state level. Also, the more time people spend watching the channel, the more likely they are to have voted for Trump. Impact of key factors on Trump voting in 2024 US election: This chart calculates the relationship between watching Fox News and other factors and the strength of a state's support for Trump in 2024. If a variable is a perfect predictor of Trump voting, it would score 1.0 on the scale. If it is a perfect non-predictor, it would score 0. So, the most important predictor of being a Trump voter was the presence of conservatives in a state, followed by the percentage of registered Republicans, and the third was watching Fox News. A high score on all three meant greater support for Trump. To illustrate this, 45% of Texans considered themselves conservatives, 33% were registered Republicans, and 51% watched Fox News. Using these measures, the model predicts that 57% would vote for Trump. In fact, 56% voted for him in that state in 2024. So, while the prediction was not perfect, it was very close. A similar predictive model can be used to forecast former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's vote shares by state. In her case, we need four variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy – the percentage of registered Democrats, liberals and moderates in a state, and also Fox News viewership. Not surprisingly in Harris's case, the relationship between Fox News viewing and voting is strongly negative (correlation = -0.64). When viewership was high, the Harris vote was low. Years ago, the 'fairness doctrine' used to mandate US broadcasters to fairly reflect different viewpoints on controversial issues in their coverage. Candidates for public office were entitled to equal air time. But this rule was removed by the FCC in 1987, and has led to an era of some broadcasters becoming far more partisan. The FCC decision followed a period of debate and challenges to the fairness doctrine. This led to its abolition under Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who inspired Project 2025 – the document that in turn appears to be inspiring the Trump government's policy agenda. When the Trump era is over, incumbent Democrats are going to have to repair US institutions that this administration has damaged. If they want to do something about the polarisation of US politics, they may also need to restore the fairness doctrine. Had it not been removed in the first place, it is possible that Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election, since Fox News would not exist in its present form. Whatever happens next, the US media is likely to play an important role. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.
Politico
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
What's driving Gen Z's voting behavior?
Presented by TRUMP BUMP — There's an untold storyline in the growing chatter around the youth gender gap: Young men of color are largely driving the phenomenon. The emerging gender gap within Gen Z — the demographic cohort born between 1997 and 2012 — is central to understanding the 2024 election. Despite the conventional wisdom that young people are more progressive than the generations before them, President Donald Trump grew increasingly popular with young men, while young women moved to the left. Even now, there is a drastic difference in how Gen Z men and women evaluate Trump's performance as president. There's a 21-point difference in Trump's approval rate between Gen Z men and women, with 45 percent of young men approving of the president's job performance, compared to just 24 percent of young women, according to a recent NBC poll. Meanwhile, the generation above them, those aged 30 to 44, only see a 9-point gap. As more information comes out about youth voting, though, it becomes clear that the gender divide isn't single-handedly powered by Trump-loving young white men. Data from the Cooperative Election Study, which is the largest academic survey focused on American elections, showed that the percentage of young white men, ages 18-29, who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate dropped from 64.3 percent in 2020 to 57.9 percent in 2024. Meanwhile, the gender gap among young white men and women who voted for the Democratic candidate is just 3.2 percentage points. It's a completely different story for young men of color, according to the CES. The percentage of young Black, Asian and Hispanic men who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate dropped 18.8 percentage points in the span of four years, from 76.1 percent in 2020 to 57.3 percent in 2024. There's also been a drop in support for the Democratic candidate among their women peers — 85 percent to 77 percent — but there's still a wide gap between the two groups' Democratic support: 19.7 points, to be exact. Extrapolating racial data from youth surveys is a tricky exercise due to the difficulties in ensuring reliable sample sizes, which is why the exact percentage of their voting choices may vary drastically by poll. Even so, the larger gender gap among young voters of color is a trend that has emerged in other surveys. A key reason why this phenomenon is emerging is the changing priorities of young non-white men. Like their white peers, economic fairness and financial security are top of their minds, more so than cultural issues like diversity promotion, according to Daniel Cox, a pollster who specializes in the youth vote at the nonpartisan Survey Center on American Life. Pair that with a Democratic Party that has seemed uninterested in recruiting young men, and it becomes much clearer why Trump has had success in making inroads with the group. 'So much of the Democratic Party's rhetoric and their emphasis has been on these cultural questions, and I think that that has largely come about because of the shifting demographic transformation of the party,' Cox said. 'Nearly one in three Democrats is now a college-educated woman — the priorities that they have are quite different. And it's not that young men don't care about these issues at all, but they're just simply much lower priorities.' 'Trump, in attacking the political and economic system as he has, would… be appealing to some number of these young [Hispanic] and young Black men who kind of feel shut out economically, not represented politically, and that culturally, they don't really fit with the modern Democratic Party,' he said. There's one large caveat, though: While there is a large gender gap in young non-white groups when it comes to partisanship — Democrats vs. Republicans — that's not the case when it comes to political ideology — liberal vs. conservative, Cox notes. On the contrary, the gender gap is largest among young white men and women when it comes to political ideology, he adds, with 46 percent of white Gen Z women identifying as liberal, compared to just 28 percent of white Gen Z men. It's an unconventional phenomenon: Historically, we're used to seeing political ideology and voting behavior align. But that just isn't the case when it comes to Gen Z, which could be good news for Democrats, who can still court Gen Z men — white and non-white — who may identify as a liberal but swarmed to Trump in 2024. 'This is not a generation that looks overwhelmingly conservative,' said Cox. 'They largely believe in climate change, think government should be more active in helping people out. They are more pro-choice than pro-life, support same sex marriage and marijuana legalization, even if it's at lower rates than their female peers.' 'When you think about the 2026 midterm elections, I think there's a good chance that the Democrats could well recover and do fairly well with men in that election, depending on what the dynamics are,' he added. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at ckim@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ck_525. What'd I Miss? — GOP leaders draw the line at Trump's Library of Congress takeover: GOP congressional leaders have stood aside the past four months as President Donald Trump has attacked legislative branch prerogatives — shuttering agencies, canceling federal grants and imposing sweeping tariffs. Now he's meddling in their actual back yard. A White House push to seize control of the Library of Congress over the past week has run temporarily aground due to quiet but firm resistance from Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the sensitive situation. — Judge orders release of Georgetown scholar Trump admin is seeking to deport: A federal judge has ordered the release of a Georgetown researcher the Trump administration put into immigration detention in March as part of a crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics. U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles said today the government offered no evidence that Indian-born Badar Khan Suri posed a danger to the community. She also said his arrest likely violated his free speech rights as well as his rights to freedom of association with his Palestinian-American wife. — Trump EPA moves to weaken drinking water limits on toxic 'forever chemicals': The Trump administration said today it intends to roll back first-ever limits set by the Biden administration on four toxic 'forever chemicals' contaminating water supplies across the country. Even low levels of the chemicals known as PFAS are linked with cancer, immune system problems, developmental effects and other health ailments. EPA-mandated testing has found them in nearly half of Americans' drinking water. — Boeing signs deal in Doha against backdrop of Air Force One delays, Qatar's luxury jet gift: Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg joined President Donald Trump in Qatar Wednesday for a signing ceremony for 160 new planes — but not the one the president really wants. The much-discussed potential gift of a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar did not come up during brief remarks celebrating the separate deal for Boeing to sell Qatar Airways 160 new jets. Under a proposal endorsed by Trump this week, Qatar's royal family would gift him their own Boeing 747-8 jet to replace the current planes used as Air Force One. The plan has roiled not only some GOP lawmakers but even some vocal MAGA influencers, who have called out the move. The Qatari proposal came as Trump has separately been feuding with Boeing over delays in delivering him a new Air Force One. AROUND THE WORLD PUTIN'S A NO-SHOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin will not travel to Turkey to attend peace talks with Ukraine that he himself suggested, the Kremlin announced Wednesday evening. The news is of little surprise, as Putin had never confirmed he would attend in person. Many observers, including EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, predicted he wouldn't elect to meet directly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Putin offered the talks to Ukraine on May 11. Zelenskyy responded positively but cautiously, demanding a 30-day ceasefire as a starting point for negotiations. Russia and Ukraine have been at war since February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of its neighbor. AI ALLIES? — China is urging Britain to 'collaborate closely' with it on artificial intelligence and is inviting ministers to Shanghai in July to talk about it further, the country's ambassador to the U.K. said today. Shanghai will host the World AI Conference this summer, including 'high level meetings on global AI governance,' Beijing's ambassador to the U.K., Zheng Zeguang, said in a speech at the Sino-UK Entrepreneur Forum in London. 'We hope the U.K. government will send its senior representative.' The invite comes amid mixed signals from the British government about its China policy — with a flurry of more hawkish moves in recent weeks coming after months of work to try and build bridges between the two countries. British government reps took part in a China-hosted AI 'capacity building' workshop in Beijing this week, Zheng said. And he pointed to the delegation China sent to Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's AI Safety Summit in 2023 as evidence of how the two countries are collaborating already on the emerging tech. BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE — Germany may return to conscription if too few people volunteer for the military, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned today. Speaking in his first parliamentary address since the new government took office, Pistorius said a new voluntary military recruitment program will begin this year to rebuild Germany's under-strength army. 'We have agreed that we will initially rely on voluntarism — a service that is initially voluntary and intended to encourage young people to serve their country,' Pistorius said. 'And I say this quite deliberately and honestly: the emphasis is also on 'initially,' in case we cannot recruit enough volunteers.' Germany suspended compulsory military service in 2011. Reinstating it would mark a major policy reversal, driven by the rising threat posed by Russia coupled with growing worry about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees under President Donald Trump. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP THE CRINGE WARS — According to Gen Z, millennials — the generational cohort that came before them — are uncool. They wear short socks and pause when taking videos. Some wear skinny jeans, while today's young people are rocking oversized looks. This contrast is nothing new — generation bashing has been around for ages. But experts say it got worse during the pandemic, and one big divide lies within the generations' differing approaches to social media. While millennials post polished portraits of avocado toast, so-called Zillenials make messy photo dumps. Chloë Hamilton explores the dynamic for The Guardian. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
