A huge notable swing is Republican STRONGLY approve decaying -34. Also Independent disapproval swing +31.

Jan 2025 Poll: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reuters-ipsos-trump-inauguration-survey

Oct 2026 Poll: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-mid-october-survey

Bloomberg Article || archive version

The linked article talks about young men who voted for Trump but are now becoming disillusioned. While there might be other factors the primary cause appears to be economic. I'll also grant that this is an anecdote but there is lots of non-anecdotal evidence that this is a widespread feeling. The article starts with:

(Dallas Cruze earns) $85,000 as a health and safety coordinator for construction sites, he will still be around $350 shy of paying his bills this month.

Cruze works in Detroit and is a S Carolina resident. The point I want to make is one about personal, micro, economies and a bit of a prediction:

Cruze earns 85k. I am assuming he is single (no ring on the pictured left hand). He gets about 7k a month. I would assume that about 1k of that goes to the government for taxes.

On a global level a person working with a take home pay of 6,000 USD is not poor. Even for the US that isn't all that bad (I am well aware that there are much more wealthy people). Detroit is also just not a particularly expensive city.

That Cruze is 350 USD short on this month's bills is more an issue of budgeting than pay. Increasing his pay by a few hundred bucks a month isn't the solution. To get to where Cruze probably has: a car payment that is expensive, cc debt, and maybe student loans (or he has a house in S Carolina that should be sold).

The issue for Cruze isn't that he doesn't have income; he actually has quite a bit of income. The issue is that debt accumulation in the US has become exceptionally easy. Highly leveraged lifestyles have become much more normalized both by US peers and by the banking institutions that make the loans. CC debt (plus pay later debt that is basically the same) is super high (in to the 1.2 T range). Negative equity car trade-ins have become standard practice for dealerships (average negative equity on trade-ins has gotten to 7k).

Cruze probably doesn't care about the unemployment rate; lowering that to 3% (it is 4.2% now) isn't going to move the needle. Bringing inflation down to 2% would probably be good though 3.7% for CPI is far from terrible. These typically reported on economic indicators won't make much of a difference for Cruze. What does make a difference is if the dealership can get him to trade in the Chevy truck for a GMC that has 'only' 200 USD more a month in payments on a 96 month loan.

Cruze's economy is much more affected by trends in a finance system that seems to take a back seat in the current political discourse. It also seems to be outside of anything that a potential Democratic (or GOP for that matter) president + congress would actually do. Until these problems (an over leveraged lifestyle) are fixed on a societal level I don't really see anyone feeling positively about the economy in the long term.

Nate covers a lot of topics here. He discusses the Fox and Marist LV/RV differences around 6 minutes in. He discusses the Wedgwood Polls scandal. And talks about the likelihood of split ticket voting.

In Republican leaning districts (such as pictured districts of CO-5, OH-10, FL-13, KY-6, OH-15, MT-1, NY-21, NV-2, PA-8) the vast majority of polls are Democrat sponsored and shows highly encouraging results for Democrats, usually their candidate winning or sometimes trailing narrowly in a closer than expected race. Is this evidence of intentional poll flooding strategy intended to increase voter turnout? They have very prominently targeted districts like these with political spending, after all, and it seems likely that these polls showing good results are just part of the strategy. In past elections there was a lot of talk of Republican poll flooding in key races, are Democrats doing the exact same thing Republicans were being accused of then?

The internal also shows the district voting Hamilton 47-45 and Holscher 48-47.

I'm genuinely confused by how Fox News, YouGov and many other reputable pollsters seem to have smaller D margins in their RV screenings than in the LV tabulations.

I'm not claiming that the LVs are underestimating Dems or if the RVs are overestimating them but one of those two scenarios must be true.

Any explanation as to why the Likely Voter samples are now to the right of the Registered Voters contrary to August and early September?

So far according to NBC's analysis of early voting, Republicans have a 1-point advantage by party registration. Using the SAME source (yes—I'm aware they don't register by party in Texas, however the source of their estimation is the same as they used in 2024).

The final numbers in Texas early voting in 2024 was R+13, so as of now it shows a 12 point shift left (OF MAJOR PARTIES ONLY), however these are obviously NOT the final results. The early voting has been shifting slowly Republican over time so if the trend counties in that direction, we'll have to see. Now, yes , the "other" category includes independents who are likely significantly bluer than in 2024, but are making up a much smaller portion of the electorate. Even with some Republicans going towards Talarico, if early voting continues in the Republicans direction, I don't know exactly how much more Democrats can take. Now, we'll have to see where it goes from here and Election Day of course, but as if now I'm not sure why people are so bullish on the early voting numbers

Asking out of curiosity - as well as mild concern.

Most polls rightly prioritize Likely Voters over Registered Voters but polls them as separate blocks. But I'm curious as to whether or not leads among Registered Voters, but not Likely Voters, has also translated to actual wins in the past?

Voter propensity is difficult to gauge but I find it fascinating how candidate preference can vary based on how likely someone is to actually cast a ballot.

Take Michigan or Texas for example: in both of those races the Democrat (Talarico & El-Sayed) have just a 2-3 point lead among likely voters but enjoy a 6-7 point lead among registered voters.

Would this sharper lead among registered voters contribute to a higher "overall likelihood" of leading? Are likely voter leads much narrower because older/boomer voters vote at higher rates - and also trend more conservative? Would the registered voter lead be more accurate to actual results than the likely voter lead in an election with unusually high turnout and voter enthusiasm?

I'm essentially trying to parse whether Talarico & El-Sayed's leads are - in a sense- "bigger" than 2-3 points because their leads among *registered voters* is so much higher? Being very active all across Michigan I'll say that while El-Sayed doesn't appear to have a crushing lead, the vibes, signs, and indicators point to a lead that feels a bit larger than 2-3 points.

What are your thoughts?