"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:

"Less than a week before the 2024 presidential election... [u]sing the now-disgraced and shuttered 538 as its unimpeachable source..."

"... the [New York] Times scoffed at a number of the latest polls that showed Trump leading. A 'torrent of polls began arriving just a few weeks ago, one after the other, most showing a victory for Donald J. Trump,' wrote the Times. These polls 'stood out amid the hundreds of others indicating a dead heat in the presidential election.'... [T]he Times accused those pollsters — 37 in all — of being 'focused on lifting Republican enthusiasm before the election' and 'cementing the idea that the only way Mr. Trump can lose to Vice President Kamala Harris is if the election is rigged.'... 'Unlike its competitors, RealClearPolitics does not filter out low-quality polls' and also 'does not weight its averages.' Which is just another way of saying that, unlike 538 (which got the election wrong and has lost so much money and credibility it just closed in disgrace), RCP does not put its thumb on the scale. It lists the polls and offers the averages, and that’s it...."

From "Far-Left NY Times Owes RealClearPolitics Apology After 538 Shutdown" (Breitbart).

"With most describing him as 'tough,' 'energetic,' 'focused' and 'effective' — and as doing what he'd promised during his campaign — President Trump has started his term with net positive marks from Americans overall."

"Many say he's doing more than they expected — and of those who say this, most like what they see. Very few think he's doing less. His partisans and his voters, in particular, say he's got the right amount of focus on matters like ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and deporting those who are in the country illegally...."

From "CBS News poll — Trump has positive approval amid 'energetic' opening weeks; seen as doing what he promised."

That was just so good for Trump that there was no way to spin it negative and CBS tells it straight.

"Many Americans who otherwise dislike President-elect Donald J. Trump share his bleak assessment of the country’s problems and support some of his most contentious prescriptions to fix them..."

"... according to a new poll from The New York Times and Ipsos. A little more than half of the country expresses some desire to see Mr. Trump follow through with his harshest threat to deal with illegal immigration: deporting everyone living in the United States without authorization. The poll, which surveyed 2,128 adults from Jan. 2 to 10, found that 55 percent of Americans either strongly or somewhat support such mass deportations.... 46 percent say that trade with foreign nations should be subject to increased tariffs. And a large majority is sympathetic to efforts to strictly limit how doctors can treat children struggling with their gender identity.... Seventy-one percent said that no one under 18 should be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs or hormones.... For a political figure so divisive — Americans view him more negatively than any other president about to take office in the last 70 years — the level of support for his ideas is striking...."

From "Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump/A new poll found the public is sympathetic to the president-elect’s plans to deport migrants and reduce America’s presence overseas" (NYT).

Here's how I would venture to explain that discrepancy: People like to think of themselves as nice — kind and empathetic — but they also know — or believe — that some hard actions need to be taken. There's that tough man over there. Ooh, I don't like him.

Are you enjoying the happy good times of the Trump transition?

From Real Clear Politics:

"Trump files suit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer and Des Moines Register.... Selzer published a poll days before the election..."

"... that said Kamala Harris was ahead by 3 percentage points. Trump ultimately won the state by 13 percentage points."

NBC News reports.

The suit, filed Monday night in Polk County, Iowa, says it seeks “accountability for brazen election interference” over a Nov. 2 poll that showed Kamala Harris up 3 percentage points in Iowa. Trump ultimately won the state by double digits, a difference that his lawyers argue in the suit constitutes “election-interfering fiction.” The president-elect is making the claim under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive advertising....

Well, it's not just advertising. It covers "advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes." But still, it's hard to see how that could cover deceptions in the form of political polls — however dishonest — published — however corruptly — in the news portion of a newspaper. I'm not looking at the complaint, however. I understand the outrage, and maybe there oughta be a law, but how can it be the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act? Who was to be bamboozled out of anything? The Trump campaign? (That is: Come waste time and money in Iowa and stay out of those blue-wall states that will actually determine the election.)

Americans approve of Trump handling of the transition to the presidency.

According to a new CNN poll.

New CNN poll shows that Americans have confidence in Trump's ability to solve virtually every issue facing our country, and more confidence in America's future today than they've had in over 3 years.

Trump broke the mainstream media. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/taZncCJyNb

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) December 11, 2024