Latest news with #Quinnipiac
New York Post
8 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump is right about border and criminals, but he's losing voters with mass deportations
President Donald Trump delivered on his key campaign promise: Securing the border. Yet the only thing falling faster than illegal crossings has been his approval rating on immigration. The problem: Instead of building on his win at the border with more popular arrests of criminal threats inside the country, the administration is going after migrants indiscriminately. Democrats can't deny it: The border crisis is over. Border Patrol arrests have fallen nearly 90% since December to near-record lows. Nonetheless, only 40% of voters approved of the president's handling of immigration in a July Quinnipiac poll, while 55% disapproved. The 15-point approval deficit contrasts with a +1 rating in the January Q-poll. Other polls show similarly dramatic declines. Of course, people don't actually want more illegal immigration. Polls consistently show that the president is the most trusted on the border. Instead, it's the deportations from within the United States driving the discontent. Quinnipiac's July poll found that only 38% approve of how the administration is handling deportations. That doesn't mean voters back the other side — 84% of disagree with Democrats who want to suspend deportations completely, according to a March Pew Research Center poll. But Trump emphasized that he would prioritize ending 'sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals' — the position of 81% of voters. Unfortunately, most voters don't believe the president is doing that right now. Even as late as June, voters told CBS News they thought that the president was prioritizing 'dangerous criminals' over peaceful immigrants 53%-47%. By mid-July, it was 44%-56% the other way — an 18-point swing in a month. What happened? Voters started to see how the priorities shifted. According to The Post's reporting, agents were instructed in late May to focus on 'quantity over quality' to meet a 3,000-per-day 'goal' set by the White House. ICE was advised to target people looking for work at Home Depot and to raid businesses in industries likely to employ illegal workers. Rather than scooping up violent criminals recklessly sent back to the streets by New York City or even cleaning out the homeless shelters costing New York taxpayers a fortune, ICE is arresting immigrants who are helping power the Trump economy. Since the White House ordered the change, there has been a dramatic escalation in arrests of people without criminal records. In June, the number of immigrants arrested without criminal convictions was 1,100% higher than it was even in 2017 during the first Trump term: nearly 6,000 per week. Yet there are still half a million illegal immigrants with criminal convictions out there to remove — and ICE should locate them before spending its time and resources on workers. It's common sense: ICE agents told The Post that the policy was 'leading them to leave some dangerous criminal illegal migrants on the streets.' Setting aside politics and crime, Trump has already publicly acknowledged there's an economic downside to these non-criminal deportations. 'Our aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long-time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' he said in June, referencing farms, hotels, and leisure businesses. The president is correct. Besides the border, the president's other primary election issue was inflation. And immigrants reduce inflation — not, as critics claim, by depressing wages for American workers, but by increasing production of goods and services. When supply decreases, prices go up for consumers, as we painfully saw throughout the pandemic. Immigrant workers also benefit their American counterparts: Companies invest more when there is enough labor to quickly construct and fully man facilities, and Americans end up in better jobs as managers and supervisors when immigrant workers fill lesser-skilled jobs. Booting the nearly 2 million illegal-immigrant construction workers will pull Americans out of those better-paying jobs, not into the labor force. Whatever the immigration politics are, Trump's midterm success will ultimately depend most on his economic outcomes. Americans re-elected him because they remember his first term before the pandemic as a period of stable wage and job growth — but random mass deportations are both politically unpopular and economically destabilizing. Although the president has promised 'changes are coming' on deportations, none have yet occurred. In April, Trump floated the idea that employers might be able to sponsor their illegal workers for visas if the workers leave the country and return legally. That's a great starting point: If no employer is willing to vouch for them, deportation likely won't have much economic downside. The president has diagnosed the problem. He's come up with a viable solution. And the One Big Beautiful Bill shows he's capable of navigating controversial legislation across the finish line. With the economy slowing and midterms looming, there's no reason to wait. David J. Bier is Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute.
Vox
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Democratic voters have turned against Israel. Why won't their leaders?
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. Given how far Democratic voters have moved on support for Israel — a more than 60-point swing in the last decade — why has their party's establishment been so slow to respond? Getty Images Since former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic Party has been in a panic over how it can win back more voters. Ideas have so far included Democratic officials going on podcasts, finding their own Joe Rogan, and growing facial hair. But when it comes to actual issues Democratic voters care about, the party doesn't seem so eager to experiment. And there's one topic in particular that is showing just how big the divide is between the Democratic establishment and Democratic-leaning voters: the United States' support for Israel. Israel's destruction of Gaza — which many scholars and experts consider to be an ongoing genocide — has prompted a dramatic shift in how Americans view Israel and its relationship with the US. That change is especially pronounced among Democratic voters. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that only 12 percent of Democratic voters say they sympathize more with Israelis, while 60 percent say they are more sympathetic toward Palestinians. Compare that to just eight years ago, when Quinnipiac asked voters the same question. In 2017, 42 percent of Democratic respondents said they sympathized more with Israelis, while only 23 percent sided more with the Palestinians. 'All of a sudden, it's the pro-Palestinian position that actually reigns supreme in Democratic politics, not the Israeli position,' Harry Enten, CNN's chief data analyst, said in a recent broadcast breaking down why Zohran Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel, performed so well in the New York City mayoral primaries. 'I rarely ever see shifts like this.' Over the last week, news and images of more and more Palestinian children dying of hunger have finally compelled American politicians to push back on Israel's war crimes in Gaza. A growing number of Democrats have called out Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war in recent days because of just how dire the situation has become, though Israel has been weaponizing humanitarian aid since the start of its war. It seems that nearly two years into Israel's assault on Gaza, more and more Democrats are starting to shift their tone. If Democrats really wanted to act on their criticisms of Netanyahu's government, they could have, over the past two years, tried to suspend military aid to Israel — including defensive weapons — until it complies with international law. But when members of Congress made those kinds of proposals — like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders's resolution to withhold billions in military aid to Israel — they consistently failed to gain any real traction within the Democratic Party, let alone on the Republican side of the aisle. Given how far Democratic voters have moved on support for Israel — a more than 60-point swing in the last decade — why has their party's establishment been so slow to respond? The Israel lobby still has power in Democratic politics Even before the war in Gaza, public opinion in the US, especially among Democrats, was already shifting on Israel. Gallup polls have shown the same trend as the Quinnipiac polls. In 2013, only 19 percent of Democratic voters sympathized more with Palestinians than with Israelis. By 2022 — a year before Hamas's October 7 attacks — that number had doubled to 38 percent. Israel's destruction of Gaza has only accelerated the shift, and by 2025, 59 percent of Democratic voters sympathized more with Palestinians, while only 21 percent sympathized more with Israelis. Gallup That sea-change is not just limited to Democrats. In 2013, 63 percent of independents sympathized more with Israelis, while only 11 percent said they were more sympathetic toward Palestinians, according to Gallup. By 2025, those numbers were 42 percent and 34 percent, respectively — marking a 44-point swing. Republican voters, on the other hand, have remained relatively steady and staunchly pro-Israel. So what accounts for the Democratic reticence to shift on Israel? One major factor is the Israel lobby. Political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have argued that the strength of this lobby — and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular — is largely responsible for the strong US-Israel relationship. In a 2006 article for the London Review of Books, which they later spun into a book, they wrote, 'The thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.' Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country — in this case, Israel — are essentially identical.' While others have pushed back on that claim, it's hard to argue that AIPAC — a hard-line pro-Israel group that has lobbied both political parties for decades, helping organize donors' campaign contributions to pro-Israel candidates — does not have a major role in US politics and foreign policy. 'Members of both parties worried about crossing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful bipartisan lobbying organization dedicated to ensuring unwavering U.S. support for Israel,' former President Barack Obama wrote in his memoir, A Promised Land. 'Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as 'anti-Israel' (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election.' AIPAC is just one part of a whole lobbying ecosystem that includes other pro-Israel groups, think tanks, and wealthy individuals who try to influence US policy to support Israel. This is a reflection of the way money in politics works in general: that deep-pocketed donors have way more sway over party leaders than average voters. That's why wealthy individuals and corporations, for example, keep avoiding significant tax hikes despite the fact that higher taxes on millionaires are extremely popular among Americans. AIPAC seems keenly aware that Democratic voters' views on Israel are shifting fast, so much so that it has become even more aggressive in recent election cycles. In 2024, the group targeted Democratic members of Congress critical of Israel, spending millions to help unseat them. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri both lost their primaries to challengers backed by AIPAC. And as a result of AIPAC's spending, those two races became the most expensive House primaries in US history. (Notably, AIPAC funneled its money on those races through its new super PAC, the vaguely named 'United Democracy Project,' which is perhaps a sign that even AIPAC is aware of how toxic its brand has become in Democratic politics.) The millions of dollars AIPAC poured into these primaries were a desperate attempt — amid the quickly changing politics around Israel — to send Democrats a warning: Criticize Israel and you'll still face a well-funded opponent. A group of demonstrators stage a protest outside AIPAC's headquarters in Washington, DC. Celal Gunes / Anadolu via Getty Images Of course, AIPAC's influence has its limits. Despite spending record amounts of money to unseat Bowman and Bush, other representatives who have drawn AIPAC's ire — including Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Summer Lee — won reelection comfortably. In some cases, AIPAC didn't even bother trying, knowing the incumbents were too strong. That doesn't mean that AIPAC is going away. The group remains a top donor to some major Democratic figures, including Gillibrand and Jeffries. And even Democrats who reject money from pro-Israel groups can still feel boxed in by the Israel lobby. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, specifically turned AIPAC down when they approached her after she won her first primary in 2018. But it's clear why even she is wary of being too outspoken against Israel. Take, for example, her vote for an amendment that would have stripped Israel of military aid. If she has any ambitions for statewide office, it's not difficult to imagine the attack ads against her, calling her out — potentially calling her antisemitic — for voting to strip Israel of money for defensive weapons. And it's easy to see why that prospect would spook her, especially given that her state is home to the largest Jewish population in the US. It's not just AIPAC Another obstacle to Democrats shifting on Israel is that groups like the Anti-Defamation League have conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism, making it all the more toxic for politicians to talk more openly about Israel's abysmal human rights record, let alone in support of Palestinian liberation. There's also a longstanding bias against Palestinians in American politics and culture. Politicians can get away with repeating Israeli talking points that dehumanize Palestinians, including by (as mentioned above) conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism or decrying symbols like the keffiyeh as hateful, without getting as much pushback as they would if they were talking about other ethnic groups. As a result, anti-Palestinian racism is seldom called out as its own form of discrimination and often flies under the radar. That makes it easier to defend Israel because Palestinians are too often treated as an afterthought in US politics, not people who face life or death consequences as a direct result of US policy. Related The Ilhan Omar controversy shows how little we care about Palestinian lives Finally, there's the problem of political inertia. Many establishment politicians who have been around for some time are accustomed to a different political era when support for Israel was unshakeable. They are also part of an older generation whose views on Israel are vastly different from younger Americans. The stark generational divide is even evident among Jewish voters: A recent poll in the New York City mayor's race showed that 67 percent of Jewish voters under the age of 45 support Mamdani, while only 25 percent of Jewish voters over 45 do. That all helps explain why so many establishment Democrats — used to a kind of politics where Israel enjoyed broad support from voters in both parties — might be reluctant to embrace the new political reality. But at some point, if Democrats truly want to improve their standing among the public — especially now that their approval ratings have record lows — it might be wise to start actually listening to their voters. Will Democrats ever change? These voices are a minority, but they show there is a potential opening for change. The fracture within the party could mean that the Biden administration's record on Gaza will be a topic of fierce debate in the 2028 Democratic primaries, given how Biden enabled one of the bloodiest military assaults this century — one that many Democratic voters, especially young people, view as a genocide. And that could further embolden progressive-leaning Democrats to be more outspoken about their opposition to Israel. As Mamdani's race in New York City showed last month, that might catch some of the more old-school, establishment Democrats by surprise, since being pro-Palestinian is no longer the third rail in American politics that it was long thought to be.
Politico
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
The Big Polling Question Surrounding Trump and the Epstein Saga
Since then, however, not much has changed. That's why the furor over the administration's handling of the Epstein files is potentially so important. It's not just MAGA leaders and influencers who are upset with the administration — it's rank and file Republicans. Quinnipiac University's latest survey, released July 16, found more than three times as many registered voters disapproved (63 percent) than approved (17 percent) of how the administration has dealt with the Epstein affair. More revealing, Republicans, who normally can be counted on to overwhelmingly back Trump's handling of any issue, were divided: 40 percent approved while 36 percent disapproved and a suspiciously large minority (24 percent) declined to answer. Yet here's the thing: that same survey found that Trump's job rating was virtually unchanged since June, with 40 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving (Quinnipiac polls consistently show lower approval ratings for Trump than do many other surveys). Nor was there any evidence that Trump's image among Republicans had been damaged; 90 percent approved of the way he was doing his job as president. This week's CNN survey also showed no real change in Trump's approval. Clearly, the Epstein controversy is in its early stages and many Americans are still forming their opinions. But it's not occurring within a vacuum: Trump is facing increasing pressure on many other fronts as well. Inflation is creeping back up, the polling on the BBB has been abysmal, and Trump's tariffs may yet jolt the economy again, when (or if) they kick in next month. The backdrop here matters a great deal. Since he was first elected, Trump has never been all that popular, especially when compared with his predecessors. His first-term average approval rating of 41 percent placed him below every other president dating back to Harry S. Truman, according to Gallup Org. Trump barely edged out former president Biden, whose 42 percent average was the second-lowest. His second term ratings also are weaker than those of his past presidents. The main difference among the polls at his 100-day milestone was whether Trump was the least popular modern president ever at that point, or whether his rating was slightly higher than his own lackluster first-term approval mark. However, Trump thus far has also been able to avoid the devastating ratings declines that other presidents have suffered, despite the fact that his approval on specific issues — most notably, immigration and the economy — is in negative territory. Four years ago this month, Joe Biden's presidency ran aground on the twin shoals of Afghanistan and inflation. Prior to that point, his job ratings were consistently above 50 percent; after that, he was mired in negative territory for the rest of his term. Barack Obama, who arrived in office with glittering 60 percent plus job ratings, suffered a sharp ratings falloff during his first year in office. George W. Bush's job approval also fell throughout the first year of his second term.
Business Insider
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Americans are hungry for a third party — but not one created by Elon Musk
Several new polls suggest that Elon Musk is repelling potential third-party voters. While many Americans are open to a third party, far fewer are interested in one created by Musk. The polling also found that Musk's party would draw more support from the GOP than the Democrats. People have complained about America's two-party system for decades, and many voters say they would consider supporting a third party — as long as Elon Musk wasn't involved. New polling suggests that potential third-party voters aren't interested in what Musk's"America Party" may be offering, and the Tesla CEO might be the problem. Three polls released this week found the same general pattern. According to YouGov, 45% of Americans believe a third party is necessary, but just 11% would consider joining a Musk-founded party. Per Quinnipiac University, 49% of Americans say they would consider joining a third party, while just 17% say they're interested in one created by Musk. A CNN poll found that 63% of Americans would favor a third party, a figure that drops to just 25% when Musk is involved. All three polls included more than 1,000 respondents and were conducted in early to mid-July. The aversion to Musk-led party may be driven in part by independent voters, according to Quinnipiac. 75% of independents say they would consider joining a third party, a figure that drops to just 22% when the question is about a Musk-formed party. It's also driven by Democratic-leaning voters' distaste for Musk, whose past political alliance with President Donald Trump and creation of DOGE sharply polarized the left against him. According to Quinnipac, 39% of registered Democrats say they would consider joining a third party, while just 6% are interested in Musk's hypothetical party. That also indicates that a Musk-created party would draw more from the right than the left. YouGov found a similar pattern to Quinnipiac, with 15% of Republicans saying they'd consider supporting a Musk-founded third party while just 6% of Democrats said the same. The world's richest man first floated the idea of forming a third party as Republicans in Congress worked to pass the "Big Beautiful Bill," a sprawling piece of legislation at the center of Trump's domestic agenda. Musk objected to the bill's impact on the deficit, as well as the scaling back of renewable energy subsidies and tax credits. Weeks after his relationship with Trump exploded in an epic feud and after the bill made it to Trump's desk, Musk declared that he would move forward with forming the party. It's been about two weeks since then, and Musk has yet to take more formal steps to actually establish a new political party. It also remains unclear exactly what the party's platform would be, though deficit reduction would likely be a key focus.
Sky News AU
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Democrat approval crashes to record low in new poll
Centre of the American Experiment President John Hinderaker has slammed Democrat voters who want their representatives to be 'more extreme' and 'farther left'. According to a Quinnipiac poll, only 19 per cent of registered voters approve of the way Democrats are handling their job in Congress. 'I think the reason why that number is so extraordinarily low is that many Democrats don't approve of congressional Democrats because they want them to be more extreme, farther left, [and to] fight the Trump administration harder.'
