Poll Suggests Sharp Decline in Support for Trump Among Republicans

One in four Trump voters say GOP candidates should break with the president to win in November, according to the latest POLITICO Poll, conducted by independent firm PF Global.

The findings underscore the degree to which even loyal Republicans understand President Donald Trump is a drag on the ticket. Persistent inflation, $4 gas prices, 7% mortgage rates, a quagmire in the Middle East and a trade war with Canada have given Republican candidates no shortage of opportunities to take the president to task.

Read the rest here.

Trump Directed Use of Taxpayer Money for Ads Praising His Presidency

President Trump personally instructed his budget director to use taxpayer money for TV ads praising him and his presidency, setting in motion a $20 million contract that used funds from the Department of Homeland Security, according to people familiar with the matter.

The ads have run across cable and network television — on Fox News, CNN and MS Now, with football games on Fox and with national newscasts on CBS, ABC and NBC, including “Meet the Press,” which Mr. Trump is known to watch.

Mr. Trump was eager to see the laudatory ads on the air and told Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to come up with the money from within the government, the people said. Mark Paoletta, the budget office’s counsel, and Will Scharf, the White House counsel, both said it would be legal to use D.H.S. funds. The president and Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, both spoke with Markwayne Mullin, the homeland security secretary, about the ads.

On Sept. 20, U.S. Customs and Border Protection — which falls under D.H.S. — awarded the contract to LMD, a Maryland marketing firm, federal records show.

Read the rest here.

US Government is Paying for Trump Advertising

At first glance, it looks like a typical Republican campaign advertisement. As images of President Donald Trump flash across the screen, the 30-second spot says “America will never be a communist country” and boasts about the “largest tax cuts in history.”

But there’s something different near the end — a bit of text at the bottom that says “paid for by the U.S. government.”

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the advertisement cost $14,000 and it ran during conservative shows on Fox News and Newsmax.

It’s not clear what part of the U.S. government paid for the spot, which includes background music with singers crooning “love me” over and over. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. Neither did Fox News or Newsmax.

The advertisement does not say who voters should support in the midterms, but it meshes with campaign messaging from Trump and other Republicans, particularly during the party’s unusual convention in Dallas earlier this month.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins the majority in November, said in a social media post that it’s a violation of the Hatch Act for government employees to work on such a video.

“It is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns,” Raskin wrote.

Poll: Trump's Approval Rating Breaks Below 30%

It was received wisdom during President Trump’s first term that his hard floor of support sat somewhere around one-third of Americans. Those were the MAGA true believers, the die-hards, the folks who stood in line for hours to attend their fifth Trump rally of the year. That rule of thumb proved to be true. Trump’s approval was still hovering in the 40s before ending around 34 percent on Jan. 4, 2021.

Whatever truths we can glean from Trump’s trainwreck of a second term, it is clear the MAGA base is now deserting him in record numbers.

An American Research Group poll published this week found Trump’s approval at just 29 percent — a new low for his presidency and a flashing warning sign for the congressional Republicans being dragged beneath the waves by the president’s plummeting popularity. 

What is surprising are the circumstances of Trump’s collapse. The economy is certainly in better shape than it was during the height of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, when Trump’s approval sat in the 40s. Last month’s 3.5 percent inflation rate is bad but well below its peak. Perhaps, more than high gas and grocery prices, Americans have just had enough of politicians who don’t seem to care about their problems.

The best example of Republican apathy doesn’t even come from Trump, but from the very mild criticism delivered by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). In a Sept. 6 interview with “Meet the Press,” Kennedy admitted that congressional Republicans could act before the midterms to ease an affordability crisis that is crushing regular Americans.  

“These prices are gutting the middle class like a fish and they expect Congress to address them. And we should have started five months ago. We didn’t. But we need to start talking about it now,” Kennedy said. 

When asked by host Kristen Welker if Republicans had the power to address inflation, Kennedy was clear: “Sure, if we wanted to,” Kennedy replied. “We can do anything we want to in reconciliation and ask the House to come back and do it. I’m not saying we will do that. Certainly based on our record of the last five or six months, it’s not likely.” 

It is one thing for angry voters to hear Democrats complaining about Republican inaction on inflation. It’s quite another to hear a prominent Republican tell voters in no uncertain terms that the Republican Party just doesn’t care enough about them to address skyrocketing prices. Sure, your nearly $5 a gallon gas may be demolishing your family budget, but don’t expect your Republican elected leaders to lift a finger to help. 

The apathy on display among Republican leaders is baffling, given the scope of America’s affordability crisis. A Fox News poll conducted Sept. 11-14 found that more than two-thirds of voters — including one-quarter of Republicans — blame Trump for making the economy worse. Those voters also trust Democrats over Republicans to address the inflation crisis by a 15-point margin, one of the largest spreads to date.

Interestingly, that number is driven more by voter anger over Republicans’ failure to act (51 percent) than confidence Democrats’ plans will actually work (47 percent). Voters would rather try a solution that might not work than let an indifferent and ineffective Republican Party squander two more years of power. 

Read the rest here.

75% of Americans Say Tariffs Will Be Important to Their Vote in the Midterms

A new Cato Institute/​Morning Consult survey of 4,150 registered voters finds that three in four (75%) say tariffs will be important to their vote in this November’s midterm elections.

Nearly the same share—74%—say that Trump’s tariffs increased the prices of things they buy at the store, including 66% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Majorities say the tariffs are a tax on Americans (57%) and believe they have weakened the US economy (53%), while just 23% say the tariffs have improved their personal quality of life. 

Overall, 57% have an unfavorable opinion of President Trump’s handling of trade policy (an increase from 54% in March), while 43% have a favorable view. 

Together, these findings suggest tariffs could pose a political liability for Republicans in the midterms, particularly among independents and voters concerned about higher prices. The survey finds that a plurality of Americans plan to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress over the Republican candidate by 47% to 42%, with 11% unsure. 

Read the rest here.

A Sober Reflection on the National Debt

Imagine running into a movie theater and yelling “fire!” But just as people are starting to panic, you add, “I mean … not yet … but maybe at some unknowable point in the future.”

That’s a fair description of where many of us tracking the U.S. fiscal outlook find ourselves at this moment. For years, I wasn’t an alarmist about the national debt. During the Biden administration, I even criticized those calling for more austere budget policy; I thought that fiscal austerity would do more harm than good.

Our fiscal reality has changed significantly since those days, and so has my stance on public debt. Here’s why:

The basic budget math has worsened as the interest rate on our national debt has climbed closer to the economy’s growth rate. If the compounding debt consistently grows faster than the economy, we risk entering a debt spiral.

Our annual deficits, currently about 6 percent of G.D.P., are way above where history says they should be. We’re not in a recession, but we’re borrowing as though we were.

Politically, neither party shows any interest in addressing the problem. President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in fact, are aggressively creating the very risks I worry about.

Mr. Trump does so by explicitly trying to manipulate the Federal Reserve to lower the nation’s debt payments.

Mr. Bessent may be even worse, abandoning the steady hand that’s essential for being Treasury Secretary for hedge-fund swagger. He’s flexing on markets — “I am the house now,” he said, referring to the Treasury’s recent purchase of Japanese yen to support the dollar — by daring currency and bond markets to bet against him. They did. The traders quickly waved off his swagger, and bond yields rose.

Read the rest here.

Reconciling Hayek and Mill's Divergent Defenses of Liberty

Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek and the great political philosopher John Stuart Mill both reached generally libertarian conclusions. But, as prominent Harvard law Porf. and political theorist Cass Sunstein points out in an excellent recent post, they did so for quite different reasons:

Mill was a romantic about choosers (about you and me, and what we know, and what we are capable of), while Hayek was not a romantic about choosers at all (not close). He was a romantic, or something like that, about undesigned orders and traditions, and a skeptic about planners.

Mill put a bright spotlight on individuals, their knowledge, their potential, and their agency. Hayek put a bright spotlight on markets and traditions, and on government planners and what they cannot know.

In sum, Mill emphasized the merits of individual freedom of choice, which he famously argued would enable each person to exercise control over his or her affairs, and result in valuable "experiments in living." By contrast, Hayek emphasized the defects of government planners, and their lack of knowledge.

As Sunstein notes, these two ideas are not inherently opposed. They can even be mutually reinforcing, in so far as they provide alternative justifications for the same conclusion. But there is a tension, in so far as Hayek also emphasized the value of "spontaneous order" and the traditions it generates, which he viewed as better guides to decision-making than the unaided reason of individuals. This contrasts with Mill's emphasis on individual autonomy and reasoning skills.

Read the rest here.

The Freedom Caucus is having a brutal primary run

The hard-right Freedom Caucus is having a rough primary season.

Candidates with backing from the caucus and its allies flopped in primaries from Florida to Wyoming on Tuesday, adding to a string of recent losses for the group.

In Florida, Catalina Lauf lost in a House GOP primary to replace Freedom Caucus member and Florida Rep. Byron Donalds — despite backing from President Donald Trump as well as a late, small ad buy from the Freedom Caucus Fund and millions from other groups supporting her.

Hours later, more than a dozen Wyoming Freedom Caucus candidates in the state’s legislature lost to moderates. The group’s chair, Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, lost to a moderate in the secretary of state race, as did Freedom Caucus candidates for state superintendent and treasurer.

Those losses followed Rep. Andy Ogles’ (R-Tenn.) ouster earlier this month, Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-Texas) defeat in his run for Attorney General and Rep. Ralph Norman’s third-place primary finish in the race for South Carolina governor — all candidates who the Freedom Caucus Fund, the federal campaign apparatus of the House Freedom Caucus, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to boost.

The State Freedom Caucus Network, which backed the Wyoming legislative candidates, is not officially affiliated with the House Freedom Caucus, but its website says its mission is “building on the success of the House Freedom Caucus” to bring the fiscally conservative principles of the group to statehouses nationwide.

While there have been some wins for Freedom Caucus members this cycle, the combined pattern suggests that the ultra-conservative group’s name and influence is waning with GOP voters, and it comes as the factions of the party battle for relevancy when Trump’s presidency ends.

Read the rest here.

Bill Maher: Yes, the DSA are a bunch of commies

Are We Witnessing a "Soft Secession"

“I actually think,” Rush Limbaugh told his many millions of listeners during the weeks between Donald Trump losing the 2020 election and his supporters’ assault on the Capitol, “that we’re trending toward secession. It can’t go on this way. There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs.”

Twenty months later, on the day the F.B.I. seized thousands of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, The Times reported that “posts on Twitter that mentioned ‘civil war’ had soared nearly 3,000 percent in just a few hours” and “jumped again a few weeks later, after President Joe Biden branded Mr. Trump and ‘MAGA Republicans’ a threat to ‘the very foundations of our republic.’”

Days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, then-Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene reiterated her push for legally splitting up the country: “I want a peaceful national divorce. Our country is too far gone and too far divided, and it’s no longer safe for any of us.” Polls since 2021 by universities, YouGov and others have consistently found that a third or more of Americans said they expected a civil war during the next decade or so.

A national divorce — let alone a civil war — is, for now, the stuff of fiction. But while loose talk from rabble-rousers has distracted us, the nation has sunk, almost unnoticed, into an unspectacular yet profoundly strange new arrangement. It’s not yet a divorce; it’s more like a bitter, loveless marriage in which the parties stay technically but less and less enthusiastically united because splitting up is too complicated or dreadful or expensive.

...During the past two Democratic presidencies, many red states and counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, prohibiting their police forces from enforcing some federal gun regulations. (The term was a trollish play on Democratic sanctuary cities, which did the same for federal immigration policies.) Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas took it upon himself to override federal immigration policy, deploying the National Guard to string the banks of the Rio Grande with coils of razor wire and ordering his troops to prevent federal border agents from helping migrants who got tangled in them. More than two dozen Republican governors endorsed the show of anti-federal strength.

Now that Mr. Trump is back in office, Democratic-led states and cities are getting almost as aggressive, overriding or ignoring federal and state policies they find objectionable. Local police departments aren’t cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many states passed laws to shield residents from prosecution if they are charged elsewhere with facilitating abortions, and several have stockpiled abortifacients in case federal law or regulations make them hard to get.

Read the rest here.

What the Crackup of the Heritage Foundation Says About the Post-Trump Right

“You can never institutionalize the gut instincts of a great, heroic populist like Donald Trump, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Andrew Jackson,” Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, told me this spring. “But the point is that, moving forward, on the evening of Jan. 20, 2029, President Trump will have left the stage. We as conservatives have to answer the question, Where is this movement going? And what it can’t do — what it must not do — is go back to 20 years ago.”

The Heritage Foundation currently finds itself engulfed in an internal struggle that mirrors the one roiling the Republican Party: how to harness the energy unleashed by Trumpism without being completely overrun by its conspiracy- and nativist-minded elements, particularly among the rising generation that has known little else. Long accustomed to placing its experts in key positions in Republican administrations, as it did in Trump’s first term, Heritage presented its Project 2025 as just the kind of master plan an uncompromising second Trump administration would need to implement its agenda.

But once Trump took office, Heritage was instead pushed to the side. As it tried to work its way back into the center of power, the foundation was consumed by a vicious in-house conflict. An old guard of establishment experts saw themselves swamped by an influx of more radical, often younger conservatives eager to remake the institution for the post-Trump right in their image: terminally online, ruthless in fighting the culture wars and vehement in rejecting the dogmas of postwar conservatism.

A watershed moment came last October, when Roberts posted a video to X in support of Tucker Carlson, who had been widely criticized for inviting the 27-year-old white nationalist and antisemitic influencer Nick Fuentes onto his show. Condemnations flooded in from across the right, with several of Carlson’s closest allies breaking with him over his decision to turn his show into what one of them, the Israeli American philosopher Yoram Hazony, recently called “the leading clearinghouse for virulent antisemitism on the political right.” Roberts leapt to Carlson’s defense, denouncing the “venomous coalition attacking” Carlson and arguing that conservatives should “feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class” and the “bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda.”

Roberts later apologized to Heritage staff for his choice of words, which some had criticized as playing into antisemitic tropes, and for having “let down this institution.” But when I asked him about the video, he insisted that it was Heritage’s job to figure out how to bring together a coalition that can win elections and exercise power effectively. Roberts, who is 52, projects a friendly, confident energy. He was wearing a fitted blue suit along with alligator-style cowboy boots, in keeping with his years as president of Wyoming Catholic College. Before taking over at Heritage in 2021, his pitch to the board of trustees, according to The Dispatch, was that he could marry the conservative movement’s new populist ethos with a traditional institution like Heritage. “You can’t have a governing coalition if you’re saying, I’m not even going to talk to people who occasionally listen to a podcast by someone who’s a total goofball,” he went on, referring to Fuentes. “That doesn’t mean that we endorse what that person says. We endorse trying to convince these people of what’s right, and what isn’t right.”

Many employees and experts at Heritage appeared to disagree with the premise that such people belonged in their coalition, and especially that anyone was trying to set them right. Longtime Heritage employees told me that the people they usually collaborated with in congressional offices, circuit courts, foreign embassies and other institutions no longer wanted to be publicly associated with Heritage and what they perceived as its fidelity to Carlson. In a resignation letter later made public, Josh Blackman, a legal scholar who had for years been working on a new edition of “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution,” said the volume’s contributors pulled out of an event promoting the book and refused to sign copies. Judges who had spoken at the foundation, Blackman wrote, said “they would no longer affiliate with Heritage.”

Read the rest here.

On the Dangers of One Party Rule

...But what if we don’t actually have a competitive two-party system? What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.

The best illustration of this reality is found in state government “trifectas.” That’s the term for a state where one party controls the governor’s mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. That leaves 11 states with divided governments.

Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the population lives in a divided state.

Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom Edsall described this week: “An overwhelming majority of House members run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger in the primary.”

Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the aisle.

For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.

As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the parties’ bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided compromise against an uncompromising foe.

The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition might as well not exist.

Read the rest here.

UK Prime Minister Under Pressure to Quit

LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - Britain's Observer newspaper said Prime Minister Keir Starmer was expected to resign on Monday and set ‌out a timetable for his departure, though a government source said Starmer remained focused on getting on with the job of governing.

The threat to Starmer's position, which has been building for months, increased sharply on Friday when his rival Andy Burnham won a seat in parliament that would allow him to ​launch a formal leadership challenge.

The Observer report said Starmer was discussing the matter with his wife at his Chequers country ​residence before making a final decision, but that senior Labour figures expected a clear statement on ⁠his future as early as Monday.

However, a government source said Starmer remained focused on his job and pointed to previous statements ​he has made to that effect.

The British leader said on Friday he would fight any challenge to his leadership and urged Labour not to tear ​itself apart with infighting.

Read the rest here.

Graham Platner, Ken Paxton and Political Hypocrisy

If you want to know just how unprincipled — and how unabashedly hypocritical — politicians and their supporters can be, consider how Democrats would respond if Graham Platner were a Republican.

Platner, the Democrats’ nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine, has spent weeks answering questions about his past. By now, you probably know at least some of the story. During what he describes as a dark period in his life after military service, he had a Nazi tattoo emblazoned on his chest — which he maintained for nearly two decades. He has acknowledged inappropriate relationships with women. He has made insulting comments about military heroes and said things about Black Americans that, at the very least, demonstrated remarkably poor judgment.

Now ask yourself a simple question: What would Democrats be saying if Platner were a Republican?

Read the rest here.

Fox News: Disapproval of Trump hits new high

Voters are increasingly pessimistic about the economy and President Trump’s handling of key issues, while a majority opposes continued U.S. military involvement in Iran even as most believe the U.S. is winning the war. That’s according to a new Fox News national survey.

Affordability continues to dominate the political landscape.

Fifty-eight percent flag the cost of living as their top economic worry, up from 50% in February. This eclipses other issues, such as government spending (16%), jobs (8%) and tariffs (8%).

More than three-quarters also say the economy is in bad shape (77%), worse than last month (73%) and a year ago (71%). Only 23% rate it positively, the lowest in more than a year. 

The pessimism is personal too. A slim majority of voters (51%) say their family’s finances are worse now than two years ago. Before the 2022 midterm elections, 44% said the same. 

Read the rest here.

See also...

Trump approval among Republicans at new low

Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice leaves Democratic Party over antisemitism concerns

A Pennsylvania state Supreme Court justice said Monday he is leaving the Democratic Party over what he sees as a rise in antisemitism from mainstream party figures.

Justice David Wecht, who was elected to the court as a Democrat in 2015, said in a statement he is switching his party affiliation to independent due to an “acquiescence to Jew-hatred” becoming “disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party.”

“I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t,” Wecht said. “I am no longer registered within any political party.”

Read the rest here.

For Frustrated G.O.P., Redistricting Fight Turns to Florida and the Courtroom

Frustrated Republicans looked Wednesday to rebound from another setback in a nationwide redistricting chess match, as the high-stakes contest turned to Florida and the courtroom.

A Democratic victory on Tuesday in Virginia, where voters approved a change to the state’s House map that could give the party up to four more seats in the midterms, left Republicans with little to show for a tit-for-tat they started last year in Texas at the urging of President Trump.

Republicans are holding out hope that Virginia’s top court might reverse Tuesday’s result. And they are eying a chance to gain ground by redrawing the House map in Florida, where they control the governor’s office and hold supermajorities in the Legislature. But there is growing doubt in the party about its broader strategy.

“The two sides spent hundreds of millions dollars to get back to where they started, and in general, it’s turned out to be a net loser for Republicans,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a Republican consultant.

Read the rest here.

Meanwhile, the Democrats...

In California Democrats could lock themselves out of the ballot for the governor's race.

And in New York, they are playing dirty in the governor's race. 

Ten Years Ago Donald Trump Promised to Eliminate the National Debt. It Has Doubled.

Ten years ago today, Donald Trump said he would pay off the national debt in the span of just eight years.

That did not happen. Instead, the gross national debt has doubled since that day—from about $19 trillion to over $39 trillion. Much of that additional borrowing has taken place during Trump's five-plus years in the White House.

The gap between Trump's outlandish promise and the brutal fiscal reality of the past decade is not just a political gotcha. It's also an apt illustration of how far and how fast the debt has spiraled. And it's a painful reminder of a missed opportunity that Americans will be facing for a long, long time. The bill for these 10 years of fiscal profligacy will be coming due long after Trump has finally departed from the political scene.

But it's a story that starts, as everything in politics seems to these days, with Trump.

Read the rest here.

At CPAC a Generational Divide Over Iran

GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) — A generational divide over the Iran war surfaced Thursday between older attendees and their political heirs at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, as the group’s leaders pleaded for unity in a challenging midterm election year for Republicans.

Younger conservatives spoke of disappointment and even “betrayal” over President Donald Trump’s launch of strikes against Iran, saying in interviews with The Associated Press that the president’s actions run counter to his many pledges to oppose foreign entanglements.

Meanwhile, older conservatives were looking past Trump’s campaign criticism of military action to topple foreign regimes, arguing the war in Iran is a pragmatic act forced by threats to the United States.

The bright dividing line emerged in conversations with a dozen participants on either end of the age spectrum who gathered for the annual meeting of conservatives, being held outside Dallas. That split could reflect flagging enthusiasm for Trump among some younger voters, a potentially troubling sign for Republicans heading into midterm elections and for the conservative movement as it looks to build beyond Trump’s tenure.

“We did not want to see more wars. We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that,” said Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty. “It does feel like a betrayal, for sure.”

Read the rest here.