The Strength In Numbers Podcast with G. Elliott Morris

G. Elliott Morris

Independent, data-driven analysis of politics, public opinion polls, and elections. From author, journalist, and pollster G. Elliott Morris. www.gelliottmorris.com

  1. 1d ago

    A troubling trend of fake polls and lying pollsters, with FiftyPlusOne’s Mary Radcliffe

    On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott is joined by Mary Radcliffe, head of research at FiftyPlusOne, to dig into a truly wild week in polling. This week truly had it all: one “pollster” that turned out to be entirely fictional, a real pollster that admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices, and two firms that our investigation found were doing polls for campaigns but passing them off as non-partisan, public surveys. Plus, we talk about how to navigate the polling landscape given the increasingly low barrier to entry in public opinion research. Here are the big takeaways: * A firm called “Median Strategies” faked polls in California and Wisconsin. The firm told the LA Times it had invented its results as a “social experiment,” then scrubbed its anonymously registered website once reporters started asking for methodological details. Mary explains why FiftyPlusOne never reported on this organization’s “polls” and the screening questions she asks every pollster before she shares their numbers at 50+1. * A pollster called The Public Sentiment Institute admitted to reassigning respondents’ vote choices to boost numbers for one candidate — who coincidentally paid for the company’s polls, which it didn’t disclose. TPSI says they “leaned” respondents who had selected voting for Jay Collins toward James Fishback — whose campaign, it turns out, had paid them about $1,500 shortly before the polls came out. Collins finished in the mid-20s, and Fishback got 10%. * Fake polls have always been around. But it’s easier than ever to conduct surveys that are both real and unprofessional or low-quality. A firm called Research 2000 faked Daily Kos’s daily Obama approval tracker for over a year before they got caught. Now, in 2026, AI tools make it trivial for enterprising young coders to fabricate release paperwork and even topline and crosstab data — and anonymous prediction markets create an avenue for payoff. Mary says that social media accounts that collect and republish polls should only publish verified results, and link to their sources (instead of posting screenshots of polls to go viral). Better yet, just go to FiftyPlusOne.news for all your polling needs. Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    A troubling trend of fake polls and lying pollsters, with FiftyPlusOne’s Mary Radcliffe
  2. Aug 13

    Can we trust the polls in 2026?

    On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into why the Wisconsin governor’s primary polls overestimated Francesca Hong by 20 points, why the “the polls are overestimating the left” narrative falls apart pretty quickly (look at Minnesota), and why late primaries are bad for democracy (and frustrating for election forecasters). Here are the big takeaways: * Hong’s miss is a 90th-percentile polling miss, not proof the industry is broken. The pre-election average had her up about 20 on David Crowley, and she lost by one. In the Senate and governor primaries Elliott and Mary Radcliffe analyzed going back a decade, the average poll misses the margin between the top two by 13 points, and misses of 20-plus happen about 10% of the time. What’s genuinely unusual is the direction: in all eight of the 20-point misses in the database, the polls underestimated the leader — Tammy Duckworth by 20 in the 2016 Illinois Senate primary, Sam Brown in Nevada in 2024 — and the previous record for overestimating an eventual loser was 19 points, in the 2024 Puerto Rico governor’s race. (Lamar Alexander in 2014 and Spencer Cox were both overestimated by 15-plus and won anyway.) Evergreen reminder: polling primaries is hard. * We should judge candidates by their absolute performance, not performance relative to the polls. If nobody had polled Wisconsin, the only available take Tuesday night would have been “wow, that was close.” Instead, polls set up a prior for everyone that Hong would win big — so when she didn’t, the election gets cast as a “disappointment for the left.” David argues for rooting our grading of candidates by their actual performance. Elliott says you could also use the fundamentals. But be consistent: you can throw out the polls as junk and trash them when they’re wrong, but then you can’t say candidates “underperformed” based on polls. * At a D+7 national environment, Wisconsin and Minnesota are at worst lean D, and maybe likely. With a generic ballot running D+7 to D+8, Minnesota a couple points bluer than the country and Wisconsin about a point redder, a win by under five points for either Democratic candidate would be a surprise. Especially considering in Wisconsin the Republican nominee for governor, Tom Tiffany, is a Freedom Caucus member, election denier who voted against recognizing Biden’s win days after January 6, one of only 18 House members to oppose the resolution condemning QAnon, and very far right on abortion. Democrats will spend heavily making all of that central to their campaign — while Trump has, at best, a 40-42% approval rating in the state. Maybe this is bluer than people think? Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    Can we trust the polls in 2026?
  3. Aug 10

    Deep Dive episode: What if our leaders are actually more responsive to public opinion than we think?

    On this week’s Deep Dive episode of the Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott sits down with Peter Enns — Cornell University political scientist, political methodologist, and co-founder of the polling firm Verasight — to talk through a huge new paper he has published, "How a Seemingly Innocuous and Intuitive Methodological Choice Confused a Generation of Research on Policy Responsiveness." We get into why one of the most famous papers in political science appears to be fatally flawed, and why the conventional wisdom about democratic responsiveness is outdated as a result. Democracy, Enns argues, might be working better than you think. This is a wonky episode, but one with profound implications for anyone who cares about what the public wants and how — or if — the government responds to that. Here are the big takeaways: * One of the most famous results in modern political science looks like a statistical fluke. From 2004-2014, Martín Gilens and Ben Page took thousands of opinion polls and broke down preferences for public policy among rich, middle-income and poor Americans. Then they identified policies where the rich and poor disagreed, and calculated how how often either group got what it wanted. The problem is that middle and the affluent agreed about 94 percent of the time — so Gilens and Page set aside every policy where the two groups weren’t at least 10 points apart, which meant throwing out 80 to 90 percent of 2,000 policies. The way the scholars analyzed the remaining subset produced a statistical paradox called “Simpson’s Paradox,” which obscured an underlying relationship of responsiveness to the poor even when the rich wanted something different. * The paper looks at income differences among the wrong groups. One misfire of Gilens’ approach is it pits the top 20% of earners ($150k) against the bottom. But, e.g., two public school teachers in Bakersfield make enough to land in the top 10 percent of American households — a comfortable income, but not the world of private fundraisers and super PACs that influence politics. Page and Bartels once ran a special survey of the genuinely wealthy precisely because a normal 1,000-person poll turns up no multimillionaires at all, and using it Enns shows that the top 10 percent’s opinions track the middle class far more closely than they track the very rich. But they didn’t look at policy responsiveness. * The system responds to the public as a whole. When Enns measures how policy tracks overall public opinion, while accounting for the influence of organized interest groups, he finds Congress does respond to what Americans want, and at least as strongly as it responds to those groups. A separate 2017 reanalysis of the Gilens data by Branham, Soroka and Wlezien reached a similar place, finding something close to a coin flip when the middle class and the rich disagree. The unexciting answer may be the correct one: policy does loosely follow public opinion, and most groups (excluding the super-rich) want the same things. * This matters because telling people their government ignores them, when it doesn’t, discourages participation. Enns concludes by saying Americans agree with each other far more than they realize, that policy does follow them when they do agree, and that the right reaction to seeing unrepresentative slices of the electorate or society get their way is to get more involved, not less. For more of the methods details, see this blog post from Peter about his new paper, and the study link here. If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do this kind of data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can also subscribe to this podcast on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! A reminder that paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! You can also read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    Deep Dive episode: What if our leaders are actually more responsive to public opinion than we think?
  4. Aug 6

    Why the polls missed in Michigan — and why Democrats are favored to flip the House and Senate

    On this week's Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott and David dig into why the Michigan Senate primary polls may have missed so badly, why the electability discourse about Abdul El-Sayed misses the mark, and how the new FiftyPlusOne election forecast that gives Democrats an 87% chance in the House and a 54% chance in the Senate actually works. Here are the big takeaways: * Michigan’s primary polls missed by 12 points on Tuesday night. That is, in fact, better than the typical primary poll. The pre-election average had Abdul El-Sayed up about 13, but he barely skated by with just a 1-point win. When Elliott looked at Senate and governor primaries going back to 2014 earlier this year, he found the average poll was off by 13 points on the margin between the top two candidates—and about 20% of the time the candidate trailing in the polls won outright. Evergreen reminder: Polling primaries is hard! * The likely culprit in Michigan is either late movement (the polls were stale by primary day) or differential non-response bias, not just bad demographic assumptions. One pollster who was in the field in Michigan described to me a “death by a thousand cuts” rather than one big error as the culprit. It’s possible the rural, lower-income white voters he did reach may simply have been too El-Sayed-friendly, and his Black respondents broke 65-35 for Stevens when the real split may have been closer to 70-30 or 75-25. * The deeper problem is that primaries have fewer benchmarks of vote choice to weight to than general elections. That’s a structural problem with surveying primaries, and readers should expect more errors in the future. * The electability debate about El-Sayed is really stupid. Across public polling of Mike Rogers against either El-Sayed or Stevens, the gap between the two is statistically indistinguishable from zero. The only way to believe Stevens was clearly stronger is to weight a single Glengariff Group survey — which has also shown the strongest numbers for Rogers of any pollster — more than everything else. That notwithstanding, when we run all the data through our forecasting model, El-Sayed holds Michigan 64% of the time with Democrats taking the Senate 55% of the time; Stevens, performing similarly, comes in at 69% for Michigan and 56% to win the chamber. Mind the uncertainty, folks. * Democrats are in better shape now than they were in 2018. The 50+1 forecast gives them an 87% chance in the House and a median of 231 seats — four short of what they actually won in the 2018 “blue wave” — but the backtested model gave Democrats only around a 70% chance to win at this same point in that cycle. That’s because there are fewer “Lean Dem” seats the party might lose this go-around, plus district-level polling, fundamentals, and race ratings are looking more favorable for Democrats. The Senate is much closer, at 54%, with 51 Democratic seats the single most likely outcome and a 50-50 tie the runner-up. Thanks to everyone who joined us for the weekly live stream on Substack, and we’ll be back next week! As a reminder, paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    Why the polls missed in Michigan — and why Democrats are favored to flip the House and Senate
  5. Jul 30

    What's behind Trump's new all-time approval low? (The podcast returns!)

    On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast — the first live episode back from Elliott’s paternity leave! — Elliott and David break down Donald Trump’s new all-time-low approval rating, what gas prices and the war in Iran have done to it, and take a look at The Downballot’s newly updated hexagonal map of all 435 congressional districts. Here are the big takeaways: * Trump just hit another all-time approval low. In the 50+1 polling average, his disapproval is at an all-time high of 60.8% against 36.2% approval, a net of about -25. That’s even lower than the previous low the president set the day before. Across every poll out since Friday, his net approval has fallen an average of 1.8 points in the last week, with the sharpest drops among the best pollsters. CNN’s number is as bad or worse than right after January 6th. * Gas prices explain a lot of the collapse — and cheaper gas won’t undo it. Gas prices and Trump’s inflation approval track each other almost perfectly with a short lag, but the magnitudes on the upswing doesn’t match the downswing. Based on how a small decrease in prices correlated with Trump’s approval in mid-July, we estimate a return to $2.90 gas would still leave him around -30 to -35 on prices. New Strength In Numbers/Verasight polling finds 59% of Americans have cut back on spending, and 51% blame Trump — against 12% oil and gas companies, 12% OPEC, and 8% for Biden. Evidence suggests voters’ opinions of Trump’s economy are hardening. * Trump’s losing on immigration and deportations now. His immigration approval slid back toward its all-time low over the past two weeks, following ICE shootings in Maine and Houston, and YouGov put him at a record low on the issue this week. Since his inauguration, when the consequences of Trump’s mass deportations agenda have made news, his numbers has fallen. Elliott says Trump is now losing on both of the pillars of his 2024 presidential campaign. * The bull case for a Democratic wave. Democrats lead the generic ballot by six points on average. But if you add the two to two-and-a-half points midterms historically break against the president’s party by November, plus the two points likely voters have run ahead of registered voters for seven months, you get D+10. That’s not far off from where the Times (D+11), CNN (+10), and Argument/Verasight (+8) put it recently. * The Downballot’s new congressional hex map is the best answer yet to “try to impeach this.” Daniel Donner’s cartogram gives every district five hexagons and resizes states by population while keeping their shapes. The update from David covers ten states that redrew their maps for 2026. We go through an example in Tennessee. If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do original data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! A reminder that paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! You can also read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    What's behind Trump's new all-time approval low? (The podcast returns!)
  6. Jul 21

    Deep Dive episode: Ben Wikler has a plan to save democracy

    On this week’s Deep Dive episode of the Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott sits down with Ben Wikler, former chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 2025 candidate for DNC chair, and author of the new book This Is the Plan: How to End America’s Meltdown and Save Democracy. We have a wide-ranging conversation that includes such topics as: why no message would have saved Democrats in 2024, how the party wins back the rural voters it has been bleeding since 2008, and the one-shot window Democrats will have in 2029 to unrig American democracy. Here are the big takeaways: * Wisconsin is the proof of concept for unrigging a broken system. Wikler’s home state was, until recently, a “democracy desert.” In 2018, Democrats won every statewide office and 54% of the state assembly vote — and got 36% of assembly seats, flipping exactly one. Years of organizing later, the state has a Democratic governor, a pro-democracy state supreme court, and new maps under which the party that wins a majority of votes can actually win a majority of seats. As Wikler puts it, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. * No message would have saved Democrats in 2024 — and the loss was still agonizingly close. We talk about the difference between “micro” and “macro” theories of elections. When it comes to 2024, the macro: voters in every developed democracy were furious about high prices in 2024, and every governing party lost vote share — in fact, on average, slightly more than Democrats did. A shift of roughly 115,000 votes across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — about one-tenth of 1% of ballots cast — would have made Kamala Harris president. The voters who moved were mostly passive news consumers reacting to their own cost of living, not to either campaign’s messaging. Wikler’s advice for Democrats tempted by a single-cause postmortem: don’t lose your soul. Go out into the world and find those voters and talk to them. * Ben says the party’s brand is set by the fights it takes on. Wikler says most Americans get their news about Democrats from Republicans. One candidate quietly moderating on a hot-button issue does approximately nothing to fix its brand problem as an out-of-touch coastal machine. But big public fights present an opportunity. When Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, every elected Democrat fought back loudly — and in 2018, voters who called health care their top issue broke overwhelmingly Democratic. Wikler puts last year’s shutdown fight over ACA funding and opposition to the gas-price-spiking Iran war in the same category: fights that show, over and over, whose side each party is what really moves the needle. * Democrats need to show up, in person. Democrats have lost about a third of their rural voters since 2008, by Elliott’s math, and thousands of local offices. Wikler blames three forces — the collapse of local news, algorithmic feeds, and the party simply not being present — and only the third is in the party’s power to fix. As WisDems party chair Wikler championed a model whereby the state party gave grants to local volunteer-staffed county “storefronts” where party members could relate to everyday voters, in person. He says 44 of the Biden campaign’s 100 field offices grew out of these storefronts. Elliott shares some ideas for taking that program nationwide. * Democrats will get one shot to unrig the system. Wikler argues if Democrats win power in 2028, they will have a small window to enact key reforms to unrig American democracy and give power back to the numerical majority. He wants to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, reform the filibuster that currently waves through judges and tax cuts but blocks voting-rights bills and progressive priorities, expand the U.S. House and elect it proportionally from multi-member districts, add D.C. statehood, ban partisan gerrymandering nationwide, and reform a Supreme Court that would otherwise strike down all of the above.Wikler cites Strength In Numbers/Verasight polling from November 2025 in the book — asked in their own words what their ideal party would fight for, 38% of Americans gave answers that don’t fit the left-right spectrum at all. Wikler says what people want is a party that fights for everyday people and makes their lives better. Ben’s new book, This Is the Plan: How to End America’s Meltdown and Save Democracy, is out now wherever you get your books. If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do this kind of data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. You can also subscribe to this podcast on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! A reminder that paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! You can also read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    Deep Dive episode: Ben Wikler has a plan to save democracy
  7. Jun 11

    Deep Dive episode: Political scientists were right about Trump

    Strength In Numbers is on a short summer break while Elliott takes paternity leave with his new baby. This deep dive episode was recorded in early May, and things may have changed since we recorded it. In this Deep Dive episode of the Strength In Numbers podcast, Elliott sits down with Seth Masket, political scientist at the University of Denver and author of the Smotus Report Substack, to swap interviews on what political scientists got right (and wrong) about Donald Trump, the constitutional fallout of Trump’s second term in general and the post-VRA redistricting arms race, and what Democrats actually learned — or refused to learn — from the 2024 election. Masket is the author of the new book The Elephants in the Room, a review of what the Republican Party learned from its loss in 2020 and how that shaped its decisions (or not) in 2024. Here are the big takeaways: * What political scientists got right about Trump in 2020 and 2024. Masket readily admits the discipline underestimated Trump’s ability to win the 2016 Republican primary, expecting his celebrity-without-insider-support campaign to flame out the way most do. But once Trump was in office, political scientists were largely correct in warning about election denial, attacks on the press, threats of political violence, and the refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. And after 2020, plenty of pundits wrote that Trump would simply “fade away” — despite primary elections and media coverage showing his iron grip on the GOP. * The Callais decision is supercharging a redistricting arms race. With the Supreme Court effectively gutting the protections of minority-majority districts, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and other Republican-controlled states are moving to redraw maps mid-decade. Masket is optimistic and speculates that now that both parties are going to war over new maps, they may try to find some truce in new redistricting guidelines so they aren’t drawing new gerrymanders every two years. Both Elliott and Masket are increasingly drawn to proportional representation as a structural fix to these problems. A system where politicians can’t draw their own district lines has its own advantages, and having third, fourth, and even regional parties could force coalition-building and blunt the worst effects of partisan sorting. Some sort of system that acknowledges the primacy of parties, instead of denying them wholesale, is probably way healthier for democracy in the long run. * Media pundits and DC analysts learned the wrong lesson from 2024. Masket surveyed hundreds of Democratic county chairs after the election and found the single most common explanation for Harris’s loss was inflation and anti-incumbent backlash. He thinks that’s roughly right — and notes there is little the party could have done to avoid it. Joe Biden’s stimulus, labor support, and broadly effective economic policy yielded him “roughly nothing in terms of politics.” Elliott’s working theory for what actually moves voters is that highly visible, durable empathy with working-class people can buy an incumbent party that is presiding over economic stress some clout with voters, such as the case of Zohran Mamdani in NYC and Taylor Rehmet in Texas’ 9th state seat district. This is an are both agree the parties and policymakers are having trouble figuring out. Thanks again to Seth for joining this second Deep Dive version of the show. It was a lot of fun, and I (Elliott) personally learned a lot! If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support the podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do this kind of analysis well. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. A reminder: Elliott and David Nir record the usual Strength In Numbers podcast live every Thursday at 2:00 PM Eastern. We always discuss a few pre-planned topics and then answer questions submitted live by viewers. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! A reminder that paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! You can also read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    Deep Dive episode: Political scientists were right about Trump
  8. May 14

    A reminder: Very few people support Donald Trump's presidency

    On this week’s Strength In Numbers podcast — the last live episode before Elliott heads off on paternity leave — Elliott and David break down just how historically unpopular Donald Trump has become and dig into the surging public appetite for age limits on members of Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Here are the big takeaways: * Nobody likes Trump, and gas prices are only part of the story. Trump is sitting at roughly 36.8% approval and 59.7% disapproval in the 50+1 polling average — a net rating of about -23, making him the most unpopular president at this point in his term in modern history, worse even than Joe Biden during the 2022 inflation panic. He’s underwater in roughly 40 states, including big red ones like Georgia, Florida, and Texas, and all the swing states. On prices, his net approval is a brutal -40. Trump’s recent collapse tracks almost perfectly with the war in Iran: from late February to now, gas prices are up about 54% — and Trump’s approval on inflation is down by about the same percentage. And don’t count on a bounce-back — even if gas prices fall, Biden’s presidency suggests voters don’t forgive you for price shocks on your watch — and logistically it can take months to ship and refine oil imported from Iran, even if Trump does resolve the crisis. * Voters are losing confidence in Trump’s mental fitness for the job. Worse for the president, 61% of adults (including 30% of Republicans) say Trump has become erratic with age, and only 45% call him mentally sharp enough for the job (down from 54% pre-2024), and just 32% are extremely or very confident in his mental fitness per the Pew Research Center. Among independents, the “mentally sharp” percentage has cratered from 53% to 36%. Those numbers are still about ten points better than Biden’s in April 2024 — but the trend is not Trump’s friend. * Voters support term and age limits for federal officials. Roughly 80% of American adults — including 78% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of independents — back a maximum age for House and Senate candidates, a level of cross-partisan agreement that’s almost unheard of on a high-salience issue. Additionally, 61% of independents and 73% of Republicans back a presidential age limit, with 54% picking a cap of 79 or younger; 65% support an 18-year Supreme Court term limit, and 74% favor a maximum age for justices. The catch: the 1995 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton decision held that states can’t add to the constitutional qualifications for Congress, likely dooming most age-limit laws — though North Dakota recently passed an age-limit law the Court could use to update the precedent, if challenged. In the meantime, primary voters are increasingly opting for candidates Since this is the last live show for a while, Elliott has pre-recorded a couple deep dives that will trickle into your feed over the next 4-6 weeks. If you value this work and want to help keep it going, please consider becoming a premium subscriber to Strength In Numbers. Paid subscriptions support this podcast, the newsletter, and the time it takes to do this kind of data-driven analysis of politics and elections. Paying subscribers also gain the ability to send in questions during our live streams, so you can directly shape the conversations we’re having on the podcast. If you missed our video livestream, you can watch it by clicking play on the web version of this post at gelliottmorris.com. You can also subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app to listen on your own time. And if you do listen via one of those apps, please drop us a five-star rating and review if you feel we’ve earned it — it really helps people discover the show! A reminder that paid subscribers to Strength In Numbers get to participate in our live Q&A! You can also read the transcript of our conversation by clicking the headline of this article to take you to the web version of the podcast, then clicking the button just below the byline that looks either like a piece of paper or is labeled “Transcript,” like so: If you’re a reader of Strength in Numbers and haven’t yet subscribed to David’s newsletter, head to the-downballot.com. And if you’re coming from David’s site, subscribe here to get the numbers behind the news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gelliottmorris.com/subscribe

    A reminder: Very few people support Donald Trump's presidency
4.9
out of 5
29 Ratings

About

Independent, data-driven analysis of politics, public opinion polls, and elections. From author, journalist, and pollster G. Elliott Morris. www.gelliottmorris.com

You Might Also Like