Latest news with #Wall Street Journal
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What polls show about a very confusing political landscape
The political landscape right now is more confusing than a corn maze. For every data point that suggests Republicans face headwinds, there seems to be another that suggests Democrats should hold their britches. It all leaves this political analyst wondering just what the heck is going on out there, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi. Trump's popularity Let's start with President Donald Trump's approval rating. Gallup released a poll last week putting Trump's approval rating (37%), way down from the beginning of his second term (47%). The poll made a lot of press. Then you have the Wall Street Journal survey, which got a lot less play and showed something very different. Trump's net approval ratings among registered voters (approval - disapproval), while still negative at -6 percentage points, have barely declined from earlier this year. His approval rating of 46% looks a lot like it did at the start of the year. There are even surveys that have Trump's approval rating basically equal to his disapproval rating. Diving deeper into the data can leave one more befuddled, even when looking at the averages. Trump's approval rating with independents is lower than any president at this point in office. Yet he's lost very little ground with Republicans since the beginning of the year. This is important because there are a lot of them (e.g. see the section below this one). The average overall, regardless of how you compute the average, still does have Trump's net approval negative. That's where I think it is. Yet, I can't guarantee it. We've seen too many times in the last decade that the range of the results gave us a better understanding of the potential outcomes than the average did at pinpointing where things would end up. Party identification Pollsters will almost always ask how people identify themselves: Democrat, Republican or independent. Then they'll follow that up by asking independents whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican side of the aisle. Party identification is one of the fundamental variables to understand how people will vote. Most Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates, while most Republicans will vote for Republican candidates. No wonder a lot of people took note of the Pew Research Center's annual benchmark poll that was released last week that showed 46% of the country were Republican or leaned Republican to 45% who were Democratic or leaned Democratic. That margin is no different from last year's version of the poll, before Trump won the presidency again. Pew's data, however, isn't the only data. I asked Quinnipiac University for their polls conducted during roughly the same period. Quinnipiac shows a pretty clear swing to the Democrats over the course of the year. During the January-to-February period, Republicans (including leaners) held a 1- to 3-point advantage on party affiliation. Democrats, however, were ahead by 2 to 4 points in the April and June polls. This included two 4-point edges in both June surveys they put into the field. I don't know who is right. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Democrats may be slightly ahead, though that's not great on a metric where they have usually been ahead over the years. The generic congressional ballot This question is one of my favorites. It asks respondents some form of 'would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?' The polling does seem to have the Democrats up. The Journal has them up narrowly among registered voters by 3 points. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June finds the parties about evenly matched, with Democrats at 40% to Republicans' 38%. This is well behind the pace of where Democrats were in either 2005 or 2017 — the years before they won wave elections in the midterms. The Democratic lead in those cycles was closer to 7 points. Confused? You haven't seen anything yet. Ipsos' poll actually looks no different from their final poll on the subject in 2024, the year Republicans held on to the House. The Journal poll, which is one of Trump's better ones, shows the Democrats gaining significantly from its final survey in 2024, when Republicans were up by 4 points. But the seat-by-seat landscape in the House isn't the most appealing for Democrats. Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections show more potential pickup opportunities for the Republicans than Democrats. This is without any pro-Republican redistricting that might occur in Texas — or potential pro-Democratic redistricting in other states as retaliation for whatever Texas does. Democrats had more pickup chances than Republicans by this point in both 2005 and especially 2017, according to Cook. I should point out, however, that Democrats don't need a wave to take back the House. They need a small gain given the GOP's razor-thin majority. But with a smaller-than-usual lead on the generic ballot for Democrats and potential redistricting, that may not happen. The bottom line All of this leaves me a little befuddled. I believe Trump is more unpopular than not. Given that fact, I believe Republicans are in clear trouble for 2026. I'd probably have said the same thing during the 2022 cycle, when Joe Biden's approval rating was awful heading into those midterms. And while Democrats lost the House that fall, Republicans barely pulled it off. This cycle strikes me as even more confusing. And who can forget the most important variable? It's still 2025. It was only months before the 2022 midterms that Roe v. Wade got overturned and gave Democrats a political shot in the arm. We have a long way to go.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What polls show about a very confusing political landscape
The political landscape right now is more confusing than a corn maze. For every data point that suggests Republicans face headwinds, there seems to be another that suggests Democrats should hold their britches. It all leaves this political analyst wondering just what the heck is going on out there, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi. Trump's popularity Let's start with President Donald Trump's approval rating. Gallup released a poll last week putting Trump's approval rating (37%), way down from the beginning of his second term (47%). The poll made a lot of press. Then you have the Wall Street Journal survey, which got a lot less play and showed something very different. Trump's net approval ratings among registered voters (approval - disapproval), while still negative at -6 percentage points, have barely declined from earlier this year. His approval rating of 46% looks a lot like it did at the start of the year. There are even surveys that have Trump's approval rating basically equal to his disapproval rating. Diving deeper into the data can leave one more befuddled, even when looking at the averages. Trump's approval rating with independents is lower than any president at this point in office. Yet he's lost very little ground with Republicans since the beginning of the year. This is important because there are a lot of them (e.g. see the section below this one). The average overall, regardless of how you compute the average, still does have Trump's net approval negative. That's where I think it is. Yet, I can't guarantee it. We've seen too many times in the last decade that the range of the results gave us a better understanding of the potential outcomes than the average did at pinpointing where things would end up. Party identification Pollsters will almost always ask how people identify themselves: Democrat, Republican or independent. Then they'll follow that up by asking independents whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican side of the aisle. Party identification is one of the fundamental variables to understand how people will vote. Most Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates, while most Republicans will vote for Republican candidates. No wonder a lot of people took note of the Pew Research Center's annual benchmark poll that was released last week that showed 46% of the country were Republican or leaned Republican to 45% who were Democratic or leaned Democratic. That margin is no different from last year's version of the poll, before Trump won the presidency again. Pew's data, however, isn't the only data. I asked Quinnipiac University for their polls conducted during roughly the same period. Quinnipiac shows a pretty clear swing to the Democrats over the course of the year. During the January-to-February period, Republicans (including leaners) held a 1- to 3-point advantage on party affiliation. Democrats, however, were ahead by 2 to 4 points in the April and June polls. This included two 4-point edges in both June surveys they put into the field. I don't know who is right. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Democrats may be slightly ahead, though that's not great on a metric where they have usually been ahead over the years. The generic congressional ballot This question is one of my favorites. It asks respondents some form of 'would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?' The polling does seem to have the Democrats up. The Journal has them up narrowly among registered voters by 3 points. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June finds the parties about evenly matched, with Democrats at 40% to Republicans' 38%. This is well behind the pace of where Democrats were in either 2005 or 2017 — the years before they won wave elections in the midterms. The Democratic lead in those cycles was closer to 7 points. Confused? You haven't seen anything yet. Ipsos' poll actually looks no different from their final poll on the subject in 2024, the year Republicans held on to the House. The Journal poll, which is one of Trump's better ones, shows the Democrats gaining significantly from its final survey in 2024, when Republicans were up by 4 points. But the seat-by-seat landscape in the House isn't the most appealing for Democrats. Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections show more potential pickup opportunities for the Republicans than Democrats. This is without any pro-Republican redistricting that might occur in Texas — or potential pro-Democratic redistricting in other states as retaliation for whatever Texas does. Democrats had more pickup chances than Republicans by this point in both 2005 and especially 2017, according to Cook. I should point out, however, that Democrats don't need a wave to take back the House. They need a small gain given the GOP's razor-thin majority. But with a smaller-than-usual lead on the generic ballot for Democrats and potential redistricting, that may not happen. The bottom line All of this leaves me a little befuddled. I believe Trump is more unpopular than not. Given that fact, I believe Republicans are in clear trouble for 2026. I'd probably have said the same thing during the 2022 cycle, when Joe Biden's approval rating was awful heading into those midterms. And while Democrats lost the House that fall, Republicans barely pulled it off. This cycle strikes me as even more confusing. And who can forget the most important variable? It's still 2025. It was only months before the 2022 midterms that Roe v. Wade got overturned and gave Democrats a political shot in the arm. We have a long way to go.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Murdoch v Trump: why the flawed media titan could be the final protector of press freedom
Years before Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, the writer John Lanchester suggested that his primary motivation – more than ideology or even money – was a 'love of crises, of the point when everything seems about to be lost'. More than two decades later, is the crisis in the US media, one in which everything seems about to be lost, motivating Murdoch to take on the most powerful man in the world? It is as good a reason as many of those given over the past week for the fact that the billionaire whose Fox News channel has acted as a Trump cheerleader throughout is now, alone among US media titans, preparing to do battle in the courts. Trump's onslaught on the US media – withdrawing federal funds, banning reporters and launching multi-billion-dollar lawsuits – has led once-renowned defenders of media freedom such as the Washington Post, ABC News and CBS to crumple, either changing their editorial policies or agreeing to apparently frivolous settlements. Yet ranting calls to both the WSJ editor, Emma Tucker, and his old frenemy Rupert failed to prevent the publication of a story suggesting he had sent a hand-drawn picture of a naked woman to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein with the words: 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Last week, he launched a $10bn lawsuit over this 'fake'. After the WSJ doubled down with stories saying Trump had been told he was in the Epstein files, sources close to Murdoch report that, at 94, he refuses to be 'intimidated'. He is also enhancing his reputation as the most mercurial media titan. Media veteran Tina Brown asked how the world had come to depend on 'the Darth Vader of media' to stand up for press freedom, while a thoughtful friend asked: 'Suppose Murdoch had a Damascene conversion and sought to atone for his many sins – would we welcome him as an ally?' Can a man whose companies have paid out more than a billion pounds for either knowingly broadcasting lies or for hacking phones be preparing to die as the Severus Snape of the media world, the final protector of press freedom? Two years ago, when Murdoch announced he was standing down (sort of), he told staff to 'make the most of this great opportunity to improve the world we live in', a line that seemed ridiculous to me at the time. Is his battle with this madman in the White House really his final chance at leaving the world a better place? Before Murdoch watchers get carried away, there are of course a number of rational and personal reasons for Murdoch's decision not to kowtow to Trump. Throughout his long career at the nexus of media and power, one thing that has been consistent is Murdoch's desire to pick the winning side. Trump's friendship with Epstein is the only issue currently close to dividing him from a Maga power base that also forms the heart of the Fox News audience. And Murdoch's enthusiasm for the former real estate mogul has never been wholehearted. After the 6 January attack on the US Capitol in 2021 he sent an email to a former executive, saying: 'We want to make Trump a nonperson.' Despite this, the support of his Fox News channel helped elect a man he has little respect for. Not only is he spreading his bets on the Epstein fallout, Murdoch is also riding two horses by allowing his respected financial news organisation to defend its reporting, while Fox continues to downplay the story over Trump's card. A newsman at his core, Murdoch is just as likely to give his editors stories as ask for them to be spiked. But Murdoch is also known to have kept a particularly respectful distance from the Journal's editorials since buying it in 2007; one called Trump's tariff plans 'the dumbest trade war in history'. Besides, defending its journalism is good for business in a landscape in which the owners of CBS cancel a hit show critical of Trump and pay millions to his presidential library just days before receiving a government blessing for a huge deal. As always with Murdoch, there is also the psychodrama of an old man whose life is closer to Shakespearean than most. Michael Wolff, responsible for several of the many books on both men, tells me that Murdoch's support for his journalists is an 'old man's revenge' after the Fox fallout divided his family and prompted an inheritance battle still playing out in the family courts. Besides, says Wolff, Murdoch wants revenge on Trump simply for winning when Murdoch did 'everything to make sure [he] didn't'. Trump's behaviour in his second term – using his powers to further any whim or grievance, and approaching absolutism – could also have revealed to Murdoch the end result of a truly free market. What is to stop Emperor Trump from stripping his commercial empire of the protection of the rule of law once the old man is gone, for example? Murdoch is undoubtedly a flawed hero. And there is a chance after all that the drawing is a hoax, as Trump insists, despite the Journal's robust defence. Murdoch's papers have been tricked before. But for now, he is the closest thing journalism has to a Trojan horse, invited into the inner sanctum yet still apparently ready to do battle. Jane Martinson is professor of financial journalism at City St George's and a member of the board of the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What polls show about a very confusing political landscape
The political landscape right now is more confusing than a corn maze. For every data point that suggests Republicans face headwinds, there seems to be another that suggests Democrats should hold their britches. It all leaves this political analyst wondering just what the heck is going on out there, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi. Trump's popularity Let's start with President Donald Trump's approval rating. Gallup released a poll last week putting Trump's approval rating (37%), way down from the beginning of his second term (47%). The poll made a lot of press. Then you have the Wall Street Journal survey, which got a lot less play and showed something very different. Trump's net approval ratings among registered voters (approval - disapproval), while still negative at -6 percentage points, have barely declined from earlier this year. His approval rating of 46% looks a lot like it did at the start of the year. There are even surveys that have Trump's approval rating basically equal to his disapproval rating. Diving deeper into the data can leave one more befuddled, even when looking at the averages. Trump's approval rating with independents is lower than any president at this point in office. Yet he's lost very little ground with Republicans since the beginning of the year. This is important because there are a lot of them (e.g. see the section below this one). The average overall, regardless of how you compute the average, still does have Trump's net approval negative. That's where I think it is. Yet, I can't guarantee it. We've seen too many times in the last decade that the range of the results gave us a better understanding of the potential outcomes than the average did at pinpointing where things would end up. Party identification Pollsters will almost always ask how people identify themselves: Democrat, Republican or independent. Then they'll follow that up by asking independents whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican side of the aisle. Party identification is one of the fundamental variables to understand how people will vote. Most Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates, while most Republicans will vote for Republican candidates. No wonder a lot of people took note of the Pew Research Center's annual benchmark poll that was released last week that showed 46% of the country were Republican or leaned Republican to 45% who were Democratic or leaned Democratic. That margin is no different from last year's version of the poll, before Trump won the presidency again. Pew's data, however, isn't the only data. I asked Quinnipiac University for their polls conducted during roughly the same period. Quinnipiac shows a pretty clear swing to the Democrats over the course of the year. During the January-to-February period, Republicans (including leaners) held a 1- to 3-point advantage on party affiliation. Democrats, however, were ahead by 2 to 4 points in the April and June polls. This included two 4-point edges in both June surveys they put into the field. I don't know who is right. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Democrats may be slightly ahead, though that's not great on a metric where they have usually been ahead over the years. The generic congressional ballot This question is one of my favorites. It asks respondents some form of 'would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?' The polling does seem to have the Democrats up. The Journal has them up narrowly among registered voters by 3 points. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June finds the parties about evenly matched, with Democrats at 40% to Republicans' 38%. This is well behind the pace of where Democrats were in either 2005 or 2017 — the years before they won wave elections in the midterms. The Democratic lead in those cycles was closer to 7 points. Confused? You haven't seen anything yet. Ipsos' poll actually looks no different from their final poll on the subject in 2024, the year Republicans held on to the House. The Journal poll, which is one of Trump's better ones, shows the Democrats gaining significantly from its final survey in 2024, when Republicans were up by 4 points. But the seat-by-seat landscape in the House isn't the most appealing for Democrats. Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections show more potential pickup opportunities for the Republicans than Democrats. This is without any pro-Republican redistricting that might occur in Texas — or potential pro-Democratic redistricting in other states as retaliation for whatever Texas does. Democrats had more pickup chances than Republicans by this point in both 2005 and especially 2017, according to Cook. I should point out, however, that Democrats don't need a wave to take back the House. They need a small gain given the GOP's razor-thin majority. But with a smaller-than-usual lead on the generic ballot for Democrats and potential redistricting, that may not happen. The bottom line All of this leaves me a little befuddled. I believe Trump is more unpopular than not. Given that fact, I believe Republicans are in clear trouble for 2026. I'd probably have said the same thing during the 2022 cycle, when Joe Biden's approval rating was awful heading into those midterms. And while Democrats lost the House that fall, Republicans barely pulled it off. This cycle strikes me as even more confusing. And who can forget the most important variable? It's still 2025. It was only months before the 2022 midterms that Roe v. Wade got overturned and gave Democrats a political shot in the arm. We have a long way to go.
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
What polls show about a very confusing political landscape
The political landscape right now is more confusing than a corn maze. For every data point that suggests Republicans face headwinds, there seems to be another that suggests Democrats should hold their britches. It all leaves this political analyst wondering just what the heck is going on out there, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi. Let's start with President Donald Trump's approval rating. Gallup released a poll last week putting Trump's approval rating (37%), way down from the beginning of his second term (47%). The poll made a lot of press. Then you have the Wall Street Journal survey, which got a lot less play and showed something very different. Trump's net approval ratings among registered voters (approval - disapproval), while still negative at -6 percentage points, have barely declined from earlier this year. His approval rating of 46% looks a lot like it did at the start of the year. There are even surveys that have Trump's approval rating basically equal to his disapproval rating. Diving deeper into the data can leave one more befuddled, even when looking at the averages. Trump's approval rating with independents is lower than any president at this point in office. Yet he's lost very little ground with Republicans since the beginning of the year. This is important because there are a lot of them (e.g. see the section below this one). The average overall, regardless of how you compute the average, still does have Trump's net approval negative. That's where I think it is. Yet, I can't guarantee it. We've seen too many times in the last decade that the range of the results gave us a better understanding of the potential outcomes than the average did at pinpointing where things would end up. Pollsters will almost always ask how people identify themselves: Democrat, Republican or independent. Then they'll follow that up by asking independents whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican side of the aisle. Party identification is one of the fundamental variables to understand how people will vote. Most Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates, while most Republicans will vote for Republican candidates. No wonder a lot of people took note of the Pew Research Center's annual benchmark poll that was released last week that showed 46% of the country were Republican or leaned Republican to 45% who were Democratic or leaned Democratic. That margin is no different from last year's version of the poll, before Trump won the presidency again. Pew's data, however, isn't the only data. I asked Quinnipiac University for their polls conducted during roughly the same period. Quinnipiac shows a pretty clear swing to the Democrats over the course of the year. During the January-to-February period, Republicans (including leaners) held a 1- to 3-point advantage on party affiliation. Democrats, however, were ahead by 2 to 4 points in the April and June polls. This included two 4-point edges in both June surveys they put into the field. I don't know who is right. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Democrats may be slightly ahead, though that's not great on a metric where they have usually been ahead over the years. This question is one of my favorites. It asks respondents some form of 'would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?' The polling does seem to have the Democrats up. The Journal has them up narrowly among registered voters by 3 points. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June finds the parties about evenly matched, with Democrats at 40% to Republicans' 38%. This is well behind the pace of where Democrats were in either 2005 or 2017 — the years before they won wave elections in the midterms. The Democratic lead in those cycles was closer to 7 points. Confused? You haven't seen anything yet. Ipsos' poll actually looks no different from their final poll on the subject in 2024, the year Republicans held on to the House. The Journal poll, which is one of Trump's better ones, shows the Democrats gaining significantly from its final survey in 2024, when Republicans were up by 4 points. But the seat-by-seat landscape in the House isn't the most appealing for Democrats. Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections show more potential pickup opportunities for the Republicans than Democrats. This is without any pro-Republican redistricting that might occur in Texas — or potential pro-Democratic redistricting in other states as retaliation for whatever Texas does. Democrats had more pickup chances than Republicans by this point in both 2005 and especially 2017, according to Cook. I should point out, however, that Democrats don't need a wave to take back the House. They need a small gain given the GOP's razor-thin majority. But with a smaller-than-usual lead on the generic ballot for Democrats and potential redistricting, that may not happen. All of this leaves me a little befuddled. I believe Trump is more unpopular than not. Given that fact, I believe Republicans are in clear trouble for 2026. I'd probably have said the same thing during the 2022 cycle, when Joe Biden's approval rating was awful heading into those midterms. And while Democrats lost the House that fall, Republicans barely pulled it off. This cycle strikes me as even more confusing. And who can forget the most important variable? It's still 2025. It was only months before the 2022 midterms that Roe v. Wade got overturned and gave Democrats a political shot in the arm. We have a long way to go.
