"Vice President JD Vance, a potential 2028 presidential contender, broke sharply with the president in owning the failures of the administration’s policies."

That's the WaPo subheadline, under the headline "Vance blames Republicans’ midterm losses on Iran war, cost of living" (gift link).

Here, read Vance's post. It doesn't strike me as a "sharp break" from Trump. I see it as just analyzing the  substance of yesterday's big losses:

"Democrats were far more enthusiastic about taking the poll than Republicans were. Registered Democrats were more than twice as likely as registered Republicans...."

"After 2020, many polls, including The Post’s, adopted additional methods to guard against the threat of nonresponse bias, leveraging voter files with extensive information on past turnout and demographics to help ensure more representative samples. Polls also began weighting samples based on which candidate voters supported in the previous presidential election. Studies found this was effective in reducing errors in 2024, although polls still underestimated Trump’s support.... 'The partisan enthusiasm gap likely explains the disconnect between Democratic and Republican willingness to respond,' said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, which co-sponsored the poll. 'With an unpopular president, inflation, a war that Trump voters never asked for, the lack of GOP enthusiasm is not surprising. Are Republican voters this late in the election cycle feeling so down about their party’s chances that they just don’t want to talk about it?'"

I'm reading "We polled Kansas. Democrats wanted to talk. Republicans, not so much. The Post is publishing results of its Kansas Senate poll in the interest of transparency and to highlight the challenges the poll faced" (WaPo)(gift link).

Sounds like Rozell wants to put the gloomiest face on Republicans. I can think of other reasons why Republicans might not want to talk to pollsters. Anyway, I'm skeptical about pollsters. Is "poll" even the right word, once it becomes a game of "leveraging" and "weighting"?

This is Francesca Hong, a Democratic Socialist who is ahead in the polls for the Democratic Party nomination for Wisconsin governor, speaking in the streets of Madison yesterday after a fatal shooting by the police.

pic.twitter.com/YXlgytpDrc

— Laura Schulte (@SchulteLaura) July 23, 2026

For background on the polling: "Democratic socialist leads Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial field: Poll" (The Hill).

For background on the shooting: "Wisconsin officer kills man armed with knife, police say, as shooting sparks protests/Madison police said that after a chase and a struggle, a man who was being sought pulled out a knife and injured an officer, which led to the deadly shooting" (NBC News)("Videos of the shooting were captured by bystanders and were circulated online. One of them, verified by NBC News, appears to show officers holding on to the man as someone yells, 'Let go!' Multiple shouts of 'He’s got a knife!' can be heard....The shooting was not captured on body camera video, which the Madison Police Department does not widely use").

ADDED: Interrupting the Concerts on the Square can't be the best way to win over moderates. It was a beautiful day and this is an extremely well-established and much-loved Madison tradition:

Protesters have taken the stage at Concerts on the Square pic.twitter.com/PPXQo6Jgm9

— Madison365 (@madison_365) July 23, 2026

AND: Here's bystander video of the incident.

"Reliable polling is hard to find in Cuba. A recent survey by a Cuban news website, El Toque, which gathered over 40,000 answers..."

"...found that about 56 percent of Cubans who reside in the island, and nearly 70 percent of those abroad, would support a military intervention by the U.S. While the results of the survey — which gathered answers from voluntary participants — could not be considered as a representative poll, its findings likely did reflect the exhaustion of many Cubans, said Prof. Michael J. Bustamante, a professor of history and chair in Cuban and Cuban American Studies at the University of Miami. 'I don’t think it means that Cubans relish the idea of a foreign power coming in and fixing their problems,' Professor Bustamante said. 'But I think people are at such a level of exasperation, desperation, they’ll take help for from wherever they can get it.' Raúl Cardoso, a 70-year-old Cuban retiree, said whatever the U.S. decision, they should just hurry up and take it. 'If they are going to go in, they should come in,' Mr. Cardoso said. 'And if not, they should stop talking so much.'"

From "In Blackout-Hit Cuba, Word of U.S. Castro Indictment Spreads Slowly/While many Cubans were divided over the legitimacy of the U.S. charging Raúl Castro with murder, the hope for developments that might ease their suffering is widespread" (NYT).

CNN goes wild over the incredible power of Trump's endorsement.

🚨 JUST IN: CNN was just FORCED to report that Donald Trump has a 95% GOP primary WIN RECORD and he just forced Bill Cassidy into the worst performance for a sitting senator in *80 YEARS*!

"Cassidy did worse than EVERY SINGLE one, getting 25% of the vote for a senator, in a… pic.twitter.com/jrzh6GW3Q0

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 18, 2026

"And this is sort of just going back through the archives to see how bad Bill Cassidy did. He got 25 percent of the vote, okay? I went back and I looked at every single non-appointed senator. This in my mind was the worst primary showing ever, at least since the end of World War II. That is how badly Bill Cassidy did. He did worse than every single one. Getting 25 percent of the vote for a senator in a primary? It's literally unheard of! And that is because, of course, Donald Trump endorsed against this guy.... When in fact you go against President Trump, you go in the grinder.... If you look at Trump approval rating within the GOP—21st century own party approval at this point in term two—he's still at 83%. That's more popular than Obama was with Democrats. Way more popular than George W. Bush was with Republicans back in 2006. So the power of a Trump endorsement is still sky high. And we'll see tomorrow if that happens with Thomas Massie."

"The sense that the Dream is dying was reflected throughout the poll."

The London Times explains, in "The American Dream is dying, Times poll reveals."

Perhaps this graph will make the concept more concrete for you:

In case you're having trouble discerning the year when that peak of excellence occurred, the text pinpoints it at 1976. Perhaps you remember. It was 50 years ago. The Bicentennial. Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford. Karen Ann Quinlan was disconnected from her ventilator. A school bus full of children was buried in the ground but the kids dug themselves free, in 16 hours. Jenner won the Decathlon. Apple and Microsoft sprang into being. How could you not feel that happy days were here again?

"The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are 'unsure,' as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions...."

I'm reading "We asked 1,000 Americans if U.S. strikes on Iran should continue" (WaPo)(gift link).

A Post poll shortly after the strikes began found 39 percent supported “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” while 52 percent opposed them and 9 percent were unsure. The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure. The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.

Polls! People are so easily manipulated by the wording of the question and/or the news report on the poll explains away results the editors disfavor. Here, the poll shows growing support for the war, but the article says maybe there is no growing support. It's just that the first poll had a lot of respondents who reacted to Trump's name and the second poll didn't say his name. Who knows? There might be even less support for the war and the big takeaway is that plenty of people loathe Trump. 

"It’s impossible to determine a single root cause for the overall sense of anger and frustration with government..."

"... but there is a fairly obvious hinge point after which voter fury grew, about 20 years ago. That’s when the Iraq War grew deadlier while the stated purpose of the invasion — to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — turned out to be false. The housing market had blown up by 2008, causing a financial collapse that left millions of homeowners underwater and, the following year, led to an unemployment rate of 10 percent. Around that time, cable news began breaking away from its early focus on crime and trials and was instead becoming focused wall-to-wall on politics and government, fragmenting into ideological corners just as technology turned phones into instant echo chambers...."

From "Anger is a defining character trait for both parties, new study shows/Updated Pew research shows Democrats are now at record levels of anger toward government, surpassing previous GOP records" (WaPo).

Sample comments: "What a terrible both sidesism essay"/"Before Trump spewed his invectives demonizing our democratic institutions, I was mostly content with our government and felt it reflected our values...."

I like that the essay, by Paul Kane, reminded Democrats that their anger isn't traced to Trump. It was full grown in the Bush era. And you should have seen what it looked like here in Wisconsin in 2011:

"Republicans and Democrats are now nearly unanimous in believing the other party has gone too far with its rhetoric and are much more likely to think this than in 2011."

"Ninety-four percent of Democrats, compared with 74% in 2011, now say Republicans and their supporters have gone too far, and 93% of Republicans (vs. 63% in 2011) say the same about Democrats and their supporters. In contrast, partisans are disinclined to believe their own party has gone too far with its rhetoric and are no more likely now than in 2011 to hold this view. Today, 36% of Republicans believe the GOP and its supporters’ rhetoric has gone too far, compared with 32% in 2011. And Democrats are less likely now (28%) than in 2011 (45%) to say their party’s rhetoric has been too inflammatory."

From "More Americans Say Political Rhetoric Has Gone Too Far/69% say Republicans', 60% say Democrats' inflammatory criticism of opponents has gone too far" (Gallup).

There are 3 groups where the majority approve of Trump — 2 are age groups and 1 is a racial group.

Rassmussen Reports this morning. I'll put it after the jump so you can enjoy puzzling and the surprise of being wrong about 2 of them... or maybe you won't be wrong now that I've nudged you to think twice:

"I’m not sure that winning the shutdown is a thing that matters. And I’m not sure that polling tells us very much about it."

Says the poll analyst Nate Silver — in "'Democrats Fumbled This a Bit’: 3 Writers Assess Where We Are With the Shutdown" (NYT) — making me assume the Democrats are losing ground in the polls.

Let's see:

"The survey of 1,019 American adults, which was conducted between September 19-21, found that the public trusts Republicans’ plan..."

"... to address crime to the Democrats’ by 20 points (40%-20%), on immigration by 18 points (40%-22%), on foreign conflicts by 12 points (35%-23%), on the economy by 10 points (34%-24%), and on gun control (32%-28%) and political extremism (30%-26%) by four points. Democrats, on the other hand, are better trusted on the environment (37%-23%), women’s rights (38%-25%), healthcare (34%-25%), and respect for democracy (31%-29%)."

From "Republicans Mop the Floor With Democrats on the Economy and Immigration in Stunning New Poll" (Mediaite).

Who thinks what about the Epstein files?

The Washington Post has a poll and graphics like this:

Here's a gift link.  Check it out. I think it's interesting to see who thinks what. I'd like to ask them why. Obviously, Democrats are hot to think ill of Trump. But why aren't they more concerned that there's bad stuff about Democrats in there? There needs to be some reason why the Biden administration didn't release this information when it was so desperate to stop Trump in 2024. But the way of the human mind is not reason. It is wishful thinking. We are optimists, even about scurrilous ugly things.

"New York City’s Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly believe that Israel is 'committing genocide' in Gaza..."

"... and that the United States should stop arming the Jewish state, according to new polling from a pro-Palestinian group.... Asked if the city should 'enforce the arrest warrant' against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani supports, 63% of primary voters said yes."

Semafor reports, in "Poll: New York Dems side with Mamdani on Israel, Netanyahu."

"Pride among Democrats tumbles, while independents also hit new low, more than offsetting increase among Republicans."

According to a new Gallup poll, reported at "American Pride Slips to New Low."

"American Pride" is a bit awkward. The question asked was "How proud are you to be an American — extremely proud, very proud, moderately proud, only a little proud or not at all proud?"

"Lefty upstart Zohran Mamdani has leapfrogged over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the city’s ranked choice Democratic primary for mayor..."

"... according to a stunning new poll released Monday. In its hypothetical initial round of voting, Cuomo’s lead shrinks to 3 percentage points, with 35% of likely Democratic voters supporting him compared to 32% for Mamdani and 13% for city Comptroller Brad Lander, the Emerson College Polling/Pix 11/The Hill survey found.... [S]ince no one garners the more than 50% of the vote needed to win outright, the ranked choice system kicks in. That means that even if a voter’s first choice is eliminated in successive rounds of calculations, their other picks could still be in the mix and emerge as the eventual overall winner. Mamdani finally surpasses Cuomo in the eighth round [!!!!!] of the simulated ranked choice voting — 51.8% to 48.2% — in the latest poll conducted June 18-20...."

I'm reading "Shocking poll shows Mamdani overtaking Cuomo in NYC’s ranked choice primary" (NY Post).

"The erosion of working-class support — among Black, white and Latino voters alike — has unnerved every ideological wing of the Democratic Party."

"Ben Tulchin, a pollster who worked on Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns, said the old political calculations for how Democrats can win elections were now obsolete. 'The math doesn’t work,' he said. 'For years, the belief was Democrats have had demographic destiny on our side. Now, the inverse is true.' Some Democrats hope that this is only a phenomenon of the Trump era, and that G.O.P. gains will evaporate once the president is no longer on the ballot.... But Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist who served as chief of staff to former Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who left the party last year, warned that such optimism was misplaced. 'Trump is the symptom, not the disease,” he said. “The disease is the fact that you have lost touch with a whole swath of voters that used to consistently vote Democratic.”... [Representative Ritchie Torres, a Democrat from the Bronx said] 'I am convinced that Donald Trump is a singular phenomenon in American history.... I am unconvinced that his appeal is necessarily transferable to the Republican Party writ large. That remains to be seen.'"

From "The Democrats’ problems run deep, nearly everywhere.This is where voters shifted toward President Trump in each of the last three elections" (NYT)(free-access link, because there are a lot of interesting graphics showing the dramatic shift toward Trump (or something more than just Trump)).

"White, college-educated voters shifted to the right, and by significantly more than White, noncollege voters did."

So it says here in "The 2024 election was even weirder than we thought/An expansive new report challenges early theories about how Donald Trump won" (WaPo).

That's a free-access link, so you can read the details and form an opinion over whether to trust this rather than all that other polling and poll analysis that found a "continued leftward march of White, college-educated voters," supposedly "the only major racial subgroup shifting left," which "reinforced existing fears among Democrats that they were increasingly appealing to educated White voters with their policies and message at the exclusion of other groups."

Other headings at that link: "The gender gap was real," "Democrats held up better with rural voters than with urban voters," and "Democrats gained ground with engaged voters."

I don't trust any of this material. The Democratic Party has a big problem and must rebuild itself, but how? By increasing its appeal to white, college-educated voters, because that's actually where the problem is? 

"The Trump phenomenon could be dismissed as a cult of personality, but Luntz believes otherwise."

"'You say to me, when Trump leaves, does this go away? I’ll say to you, absolutely not, because of JD Vance,' he says. Vance’s reputation among the Maga faithful has grown since his assured performance in the vice-presidential debate with Tim Walz, Luntz says. 'He presented an ideology behind the Trump cult of personality. Vance found a way to take all the individual aspects of Trump’s policies and put them in a way that will outlast Trump. It was masterful. This is also part of the de-alignment — now there is an ideology and it’s not just Trump’s persona.'"

From "America’s top pollster: What Trump voters think now surprises me/Frank Luntz says the new political reality of the US — and the world — can be summarised in one word" (London Times).

We were just laughing at Frank Luntz yesterday, here.

"Democrats did worse in the 2024 election than you think. They completely failed to win over less engaged voters..."

"... who are becoming much more Republican. The higher the turnout, the more these voters show up and the worse it is for Democrats.... Low turnout is now the Democrats’ BFF!... Shor’s analysis... suggests that Trump outright won voters under 30. ... He also finds that Gen Z voters under 25 regardless of race or gender are now more conservative than the corresponding Millennial voters. So much for the Democrats’ generational tsunami. The issue landscape in 2024 was worse than most Democrats thought. The only really important issue Democrats had an advantage on was health care and that advantage was tiny by historical standards. The Democrats did have a large advantage on climate change—but voters don’t really care about the issue.... The way out is not with a feel-good Democratic playbook that leaves Democratic shibboleths intact. That hasn’t worked and it won’t work."

Writes Ruy Teixeira, in "How Deep Is the Hole Democrats Are In? Pretty deep" (Substack).

Shor = David Shor, who explained his findings here: