ABC News
Trump leads in swing-state polls and is tied with Biden nationally"
26 APRIL 2023
It's the moment you've all been waiting for: Today, 538 launched our interactive polling averages for the 2024 presidential general election.
They show incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump essentially tied in national polls and Trump with a tenuous lead in key swing states.
Specifically, as of April 25 at 9 a.m. Eastern, our national polling average shows 40.9 percent of likely voters would support Biden if the election were held today, while 41.6 percent would support Trump.
But there's considerable uncertainty in those numbers.
To communicate this, we are also publishing uncertainty intervals for our horse-race averages for the first time.
These intervals — represented by the red and blue shaded areas around each line — are kind of like the range of possible precipitation reported in a weather forecast, showing you could get anywhere from, say, 1 to 3 inches of rain in an upcoming storm.
Our uncertainty intervals take into account the variability of the polling data and the uncertainty we have about the various adjustments we are making, which are detailed later in this article.
Right now, that interval shows that Biden's support could be anywhere between 39.4 and 42.2 percent, while Trump’s range is from 40.3 to 42.8 percent.
Read on for more information about all the sources of uncertainty we are (and aren't) taking into account for these averages.
Our averages also show Trump leading in most swing states, though there is enough uncertainty that Biden could easily be ahead in enough to win the Electoral College.
The table below shows each candidate's current estimated support and our uncertainty intervals for those numbers.
Of course, the election will not be held today.
While 538's new way of calculating polling averages takes into account sources of error that could affect those averages today — such as having a lot of polls from pollsters who tend to favor one party over another — we make no attempt to account for error that could arise from the large amount of time (six months!) remaining until the election, nor do we include the chance of an industrywide polling miss favoring either candidate.
Those are the types of potential errors we will account for in our election forecast, which will use several ingredients (including these averages) to predict the outcome of the November election and which we'll release in a couple of months.
By contrast, our polling averages are intended to be our best guess at where public opinion stands right now, not a prediction for an election happening several months from now.
We still urge you to exercise caution when reading early polls; they can change significantly between now and Election Day.
The rest of this article explains the methodology behind our polling averages: which polls we collect, how we weight and adjust them, and how we average them.
This methodology is different from the one powering our other polling averages (such as for Biden's presidential job approval rating) in a few important ways, so it's worth spending a little time on the details.
Which polls we include
The building blocks of our polling averages are, of course, individual polls.
Our presidential general election polling averages include all publicly available scientific polls that meet our methodological and ethical standards and test at least Biden versus Trump, though we prefer polls that test all major candidates who will be on the ballot in most states.
We consider the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees to be "major" candidates by default, and include in that category any third-party candidate that is polling at least in the mid single digits nationally and will be on the ballot in most states, or who has a sizable chance of coming in second place in any state (think Evan McMullin in 2016).
That means we exclude polls that ask people how they would vote in hypothetical matchups, like if Michelle Obama were the Democratic nominee instead of Biden.
We also don't use polls that ask about support for a "generic Democrat" or "generic Republican," nor do we include polls that ask voters if they support "someone else" for a third-party option.
If a pollster releases versions of a survey among multiple populations, our horse-race averages use the one with the most restrictive sample.
That means we prefer polls of likely voters to polls of registered voters and polls of registered voters to polls of all adults.
If a pollster releases multiple likely voter estimates, we average them together.
Some pollsters conduct polls that overlap with each other, such as Morning Consult.
In these so-called "tracking polls," interviews from a certain period are incorporated into future polls, getting reweighted with different samples until they are too old and dropped from the analysis.
But our averages include only polls with non-overlapping dates.
How this works in practice is that we include the most recent iteration of each tracking poll, then include the next most recent version of that poll that doesn't overlap at all with the first poll, then include the next most recent version that doesn't overlap with that poll, etc.
Finally, to answer a frequently asked question, we do include partisan and internal campaign polls that get released to the public, with adjustments that aim to cancel out their partisan biases (see below).
These polls make up a fairly small percentage of the data 538 aggregates, but they can still be useful for calculating trends in support over the course of the campaign.
How we weight polls
The next step is to calculate how much weight each poll should be given in our average.
For really cool, but wonky, reasons you can read about in the footnotes,* our new presidential general election polling averages don't need to weight polls by several factors that we previously weighted on.
Instead, a poll's weight is now a function of just two factors.
(While our model does not weight for these old factors, they still get taken into account. See the footnote.)
The first is the 538 rating of the pollster that conducted the poll.**
These ratings distill the empirical record and methodological transparency of each pollster into a single rating (from 0.5 to 3.0 stars) that tells our model how seriously to take its polls.
Each poll gets a weight equal to the square root of its pollster's rating divided by the maximum three stars, then that weight is divided by the weight of the average pollster.
The resulting pollster weight on a typical day usually ranges between a maximum of 1.3 and minimum of 0.5.
If a pollster is new and does not have a 538 pollster rating, its polls get a weight equal to one.
Polls also receive reduced weight if the pollster who conducted them has released a lot of surveys in a short period of time.
Specifically, each poll gets a weight equal to the square root of the number of polls released by its pollster in a 14-day window.
We make this adjustment to prevent any given pollster from exerting too much control over the average.
Finally, we no longer explicitly weight polls by sample size, but we do limit the effective number of interviews per poll.
Some polls contain tens of thousands of interviews (usually done very cheaply), and leaving these large numbers as they are would give those polls too much weight in our average.
Therefore, we cap sample sizes at 5,000.
How we adjust and average polls
Let's zoom out for a second.
Broadly speaking, the most commonly used polling averages for U.S. elections have followed one of three approaches:
* Take a simple moving average of polls released over some number of previous days (the RealClearPolitics approach).
* Calculate a trendline through the polls using various statistical techniques, such as a polynomial trendline or Kalman filter (the HuffPost Pollster and The Economist approach).
* Combine these approaches, putting a certain amount of weight on the moving average and the rest on the fancier trend (historically, this has been the 538 approach).
There are a lot of benefits to this third option.
The average-of-averages approach allows you to use predictions from the best parts of a slow-moving exponentially weighted moving average and a fast-moving polynomial trendline; it is computationally efficient to do so; and it's easy to explain this model to the public.
It's also relatively trivial to tweak the model if we find something is working incorrectly.
However, this model has some shortcomings too.
Our poll-averaging model for approval rating, favorability rating, primary elections and the generic congressional ballot is really a set of many different models that work together iteratively: First, we use models to reduce the weight on polls that are very old or have small sample sizes; then we use models to average polls and detect outliers; then we run new averaging models to detect house effects; and so on and so on, for nearly a dozen individual steps.
This can introduce some problems, some of them practical and others statistical, if a modeler is not careful.
First, it's hard to account for uncertainty in the average, especially when using ad hoc weights for sample size and other factors.
That's because we generate potential statistical error every time we move from one model to the next, and we have to run the program thousands of times every time we want to update!
It's also a little more sensitive to noise than we'd like it to be, even when designed to accurately predict support for candidates in previous campaigns.
So this year, we're unveiling a brand-new methodology for averaging polls of the presidential general election.
While the general approach is similar — we take polls, we weight them, we adjust them and we average them together — the various steps of our model no longer happen iteratively, but rather simultaneously in the same combined model.
Our new model is formally called a Bayesian multi-level dynamic linear model, or a "state-space" model depending on your persuasion.
The model is fit using a statistical method called Markov chain Monte Carlo — a mathematical approach to figuring out the likely values of a bunch of different parameters in one huge equation.
Oversimplifying a bit, you can think of our presidential general-election polling average as one giant model that is trying to predict the results of polls we collect based on (1) the overall state of public opinion on any given day and (2) various factors that could have influenced the result of a particular poll.
For example: The polling firm responsible for the poll: The specific ways in which a pollster collects and analyzes its data can lead to systematic differences between its polls and other pollsters' polls.
For example, some pollsters, such as the Trafalgar Group, usually underestimate support for Democrats, while other pollsters, like Center Street PAC, overestimate them.
We call these differences "house effects," and we apply a house-effect adjustment to ensure they're not biasing our averages.
The mode used to conduct the poll: Different groups of people answer polls in different ways.
Young people are likelier to be online, for instance, and phone polls reach older, whiter voters more readily.
If pollsters aren't careful, these biases can creep into all polls conducted using a single mode.
So we apply a mode-effects adjustment to correct for those biases before we aggregate those surveys.
Whether the poll sampled likely voters, registered voters or all adults: Our presidential general-election averages apply a likely-voter adjustment to all polls of registered voters and adults, since, at the end of the day, we're not interested in Trump's and Biden's support among people who aren't going to turn out.
Whether the poll included response options for third-party candidates or forced respondents to pick between Biden and Trump: This year, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is likely to make the ballot in most, if not all states, and since he's polling at around 10 percent according to our average, polls that don't include him as an option are likely overestimating support for Biden and Trump.
So we apply a third-party adjustment to polls that don't ask about third parties.
Whether the poll was conducted by a campaign or other partisan organization: We apply a partisanship adjustment to account for this.
Our initial guess is partisan polls overestimate support for the allied candidate by 2 percentage points, but this effect will shrink (or grow) if the data reveals a different answer.
Our prediction for a given poll also accounts for the value of the polling average on the day it was conducted.
That's because if overall support for a candidate is 50 percent, we should expect polls from that day to reveal higher support than if they were at, say, 30 percent overall support.
This also means the model implicitly puts less weight on polls that look like huge outliers, after adjusting for all the factors above.
At the state level, we consider one more variable: the national political environment.
Historically, candidates' support has tended to rise and fall across the country more or less uniformly.
In other words, if a candidate slips in national polls, they have probably slipped in state polls by a similar amount (our nation is made up of the states, after all).
Our trendline adjustment takes this into account.
Every day, movement in a given state's polling average is a function of changes in both polls of that state and national polls.
The relationship also works the other way — if we see a flood of state polls with Biden improving by 3 points, his national average will increase, too.
But if our prediction for the support of Candidate X in State Y on Day Z depends on the average for that X-Y-Z combination, that brings up the question of how exactly the national and state averages are being calculated.
We use a random walk to model averages over time.
In essence, we tell our computers that support for every candidate in state and national polls should start at some point on Day 1 and move by some amount on average each subsequent day.
Support for Biden might move by 0.1 points on Day 2, -0.2 points on Day 3, 0.4 points on Day 4, 0 points on Day 5, and so on and so on.
Every time we run our model, it determines the likeliest values of these daily changes for each candidate nationally and in each state, while adjusting polls for all the factors mentioned above.
We also account for the amount of random error in each poll.
This is noise that goes above and beyond the patterns of bias we can account for with the adjustments listed above.
The primary source of this noise is sampling error, derived from the number of interviews a pollster does: A larger sample size means less variance due to "stochasticity" (random weirdness) in a poll's sample.
But there is also non-sampling error in each poll — a blanket term encompassing any additional noise that could be a result of faulty weights, certain groups not picking up the phone, a bad questionnaire design or really anything else that we haven't added explicit adjustment factors for.
Our model decides how much non-sampling error is present across the polls by adding an additional constant to the standard deviation implied by each poll's sample size via the sum of squares formula (with the model deciding how large that constant should be).
Considering all these factors together, the full equation behind our model looks like this.
Two more short notes: First, we also tell the model to expect support for one candidate to move inversely with support for the other.
If Biden makes gains in Wisconsin, it's probably coming at Trump's expense.
While this correlation is more important for forecasting outcomes than averaging polls (it changes average support for Biden by just 0.1 points today), we find that our models run much faster if they take this into account.
The exact correlation between the candidates is also a parameter in the model; we start with a strong prior that extra Democratic votes cost the Republicans (and vice versa), but the data will determine how strong the penalty is.
Second, our model no longer directly measures each state's "elasticity," or how malleable its public opinion is compared with the nation as a whole.
However, the model implicitly accounts for this by letting the day-to-day variability in candidates' averages change by different amounts in different states.
How we account for uncertainty
Our new model also lets us account for uncertainty in the polling average in a very straightforward way.
Imagine we are not calculating support for Biden in Wisconsin one single time, but thousands of times, where each time we see what his support would be if the data and parameters of our model had different values.
What if the latest poll from The New York Times/Siena College had Biden's support 3 points higher, as a poll of 1,000 people would be expected to have about 5 percent of the time?
Or what if the third-party adjustment were smaller?
Our model answers these questions by simulating thousands of different polling averages each time it runs.
That, in turn, lets us show uncertainty intervals directly on the average — to our knowledge, the first time a general-election polling average has done so since HuffPost Pollster in 2016.
Again, though, these uncertainty intervals aren't showing you the uncertainty that arises from the possibility of an industrywide polling miss.
That is the job of our forecast.
The uncertainty in our averages answers the question, "How different could support for each candidate be in the average poll today if we observed more polls with slightly different results?", while the uncertainty in our forecast answers the question, "How different could each candidate's actual support be from the polls?"
Conclusion
I should note that variations of this model have been proposed by political scientists and statisticians for a few decades.
(The following paragraph is not exhaustive, but should give you a good sense of the history of this approach.)
By my research, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien were the first to model support for candidates with house effects and as a smooth function of time over the campaign.
Political scientist Simon Jackman later formalized a Bayesian time-series model of polls with house effects for Australian elections.
Statisticians Kari Lock and Andrew Gelman employed a time-series model of polls as part of a paper forecasting election outcomes with polls and other data.
Political scientist/survey statistician/pollster Drew Linzer combined aspects of these and other approaches in a Bayesian dynamic linear model of state and national polls of 2012 general election.
And I worked with Gelman and statistician Merlin Heidemanns to add additional poll-level adjustments as well as other factors to model the 2020 general election in this way.
538's new presidential general-election polling average goes one step beyond these previous approaches by modeling support for multiple candidates across geographies simultaneously and adding a few additional adjustments that have not been attempted before in the fully Bayesian context.
That's it for now!
If I've done my job well, hopefully you can see how this new approach closely resembles our original dual-purpose model of models, but in one neat package.
If you see any polls that are missing, or spot a methodological bug (these things do happen when we launch new averages, especially with models of this level of sophistication), hit us up with an email.
Footnotes
*More on this in the "How we adjust and average polls" section, but the basic reason is that our new model is not a mix of a weighted average and polynomial trendline — methods that need to be told explicitly which observations are subject to less noise — but rather a Bayesian time series model that directly takes the observation noise in the poll into account.
So we no longer need to weight on sample size, poll recency and the degree to which a poll is an outlier; the model handles that stuff for us on its own.
**As a methodological matter, we think how to best integrate pollster weights into an aggregation model is an open debate.
(In fact, one statistician told me we shouldn't weight to pollster effects at all — instead we should create complicated meta-models of polling accuracy across many different contests simultaneously and inject the estimated uncertainty and bias of each pollster directly into our model. Unfortunately, this is not computationally feasible for the type of live-updating statistical model we want to publish.)
We tried a few more complicated methods — such as adjusting the effective sample size of each poll to match how accurate we expected it to be — but they did not perform meaningfully better than more parsimonious approaches.
As a practical matter, what matters more than how you weight polls based on their quality is that you try to account for quality at all.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 418a&ei=36
THE DAILY NEWS
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
The Washington Examiner
"White House Report Card: Biden drives his approval rating into a ditch"
Story by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner
27 APRIL 2024
This week’s White House Report Card finds President Joe Biden in a tornado of trouble.
Let’s start with his polling.
Gallup on Friday averaged other polling that has shown just how unpopular the president is.
Biden has dropped to a 68-year presidential low, 38.7% approval.
That is nearly 10 points below where former President Jimmy Carter was at this point in his presidency, and we remember what happened in his reelection bid.
That dismal approval rating puts Biden exactly 10 points below the bare historical minimum he needs to secure reelection, according to Gallup.
Next there is the economy.
Not only has inflation dug in and GDP petered out, but union workers are publicly ripping Biden’s leadership on live TV.
And there were more examples of the president’s stumbles and mumbles.
First there were reports of aides being ordered to walk between the president and media cameras to hide Biden’s feeble gait.
There were his weird and wrong claims that he used to drive 18-wheelers.
And he’s back to reading aloud directions to “pause” on his teleprompter.
Both our graders saw troubles this week.
Conservative Jed Babbin graded it a “D-minus” and highlighted moves by the White House to hurt the economy.
Pollster John Zogby graded the week a “C” and said the president’s stumbles have blocked chances to take advantage of problems facing his political foe, former President Donald Trump.
Jed Babbin
Grade: D-
President Biden’s war on the American economy continued with more regulations this week designed to bring it to a halt.
And that’s not the half of it.
You might remember former President Donald Trump’s 2017 remark that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville, Virginia. “white supremacist” rally.
Biden said that sparked his entry into the 2020 presidential race.
But this week he said something similar when talking about anti-semitic protests at colleges.
He condemned the hate talk, but added, "I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians…”
Biden is still terrified of the Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wing of the Democratic Party who won’t vote for him unless he bashes Israel and qualifies every defense of American values with defenses of the Palestinians and their ilk.
Biden also continued his EV push.
But his far-sighted regulatory regime is, at the same time, making it harder to produce electricity.
This week a final regulation was issued that requires coal and natural gas electricity producers to effectively cut all emissions by 2032.
For many the only solution will be to close, thus reducing the amount of electricity available.
If you want to shut down the U.S. economy, that’s one easy way to do it.
Meanwhile, inflation caused by Biden’s radical spending continues.
Old Joe celebrated Earth Day by subsidizing solar panels — more billions spent on nonsense.
Bidenomics continues to wreck our economy.
And let’s not forget Biden’s latest venture into “net neutrality” which will reduce competition on the internet and raise consumer prices.
Fortunately, there wasn’t a lot of international action this week, though the Middle East remains on edge following Israel’s response to Iran’s massive attack last week.
Finally, Old Joe claimed to have driven an 18-wheeler in his long career.
Of course, he never did.
And he managed to read out loud the instructions on his teleprompter to “pause” at one point.
His mental state continues to decline rapidly.
John Zogby
Grade: C
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are tied in a two-way and tied in a five-way race.
Not 'virtually' tied, but really tied.
And they are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Biden should have been able to take advantage of Trump's legal and financial woes, gag orders and all.
But the current president got gob-smacked by pretty lousy economic news.
No sooner had Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, declared a boom economy, a new report showed the GDP grinding down to an annualized 1.6% growth rate and inflation jumping back to a 3.7%.
The president traveled to key battleground states touting federal spending that was generating jobs and winning adulation from the locals.
But his job approval is still at about 40% and he is still trailing in battleground states.
Jed Babbin is a Washington Examiner contributor and former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush. Follow him on X @jedbabbin.
John Zogby is the founder of the Zogby Survey and senior partner at John Zogby Strategies. His podcast with son and managing partner and pollster Jeremy Zogby can be heard here. Their firm polls for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Follow him on X @ZogbyStrategies.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... fccc&ei=16
"White House Report Card: Biden drives his approval rating into a ditch"
Story by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner
27 APRIL 2024
This week’s White House Report Card finds President Joe Biden in a tornado of trouble.
Let’s start with his polling.
Gallup on Friday averaged other polling that has shown just how unpopular the president is.
Biden has dropped to a 68-year presidential low, 38.7% approval.
That is nearly 10 points below where former President Jimmy Carter was at this point in his presidency, and we remember what happened in his reelection bid.
That dismal approval rating puts Biden exactly 10 points below the bare historical minimum he needs to secure reelection, according to Gallup.
Next there is the economy.
Not only has inflation dug in and GDP petered out, but union workers are publicly ripping Biden’s leadership on live TV.
And there were more examples of the president’s stumbles and mumbles.
First there were reports of aides being ordered to walk between the president and media cameras to hide Biden’s feeble gait.
There were his weird and wrong claims that he used to drive 18-wheelers.
And he’s back to reading aloud directions to “pause” on his teleprompter.
Both our graders saw troubles this week.
Conservative Jed Babbin graded it a “D-minus” and highlighted moves by the White House to hurt the economy.
Pollster John Zogby graded the week a “C” and said the president’s stumbles have blocked chances to take advantage of problems facing his political foe, former President Donald Trump.
Jed Babbin
Grade: D-
President Biden’s war on the American economy continued with more regulations this week designed to bring it to a halt.
And that’s not the half of it.
You might remember former President Donald Trump’s 2017 remark that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville, Virginia. “white supremacist” rally.
Biden said that sparked his entry into the 2020 presidential race.
But this week he said something similar when talking about anti-semitic protests at colleges.
He condemned the hate talk, but added, "I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians…”
Biden is still terrified of the Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wing of the Democratic Party who won’t vote for him unless he bashes Israel and qualifies every defense of American values with defenses of the Palestinians and their ilk.
Biden also continued his EV push.
But his far-sighted regulatory regime is, at the same time, making it harder to produce electricity.
This week a final regulation was issued that requires coal and natural gas electricity producers to effectively cut all emissions by 2032.
For many the only solution will be to close, thus reducing the amount of electricity available.
If you want to shut down the U.S. economy, that’s one easy way to do it.
Meanwhile, inflation caused by Biden’s radical spending continues.
Old Joe celebrated Earth Day by subsidizing solar panels — more billions spent on nonsense.
Bidenomics continues to wreck our economy.
And let’s not forget Biden’s latest venture into “net neutrality” which will reduce competition on the internet and raise consumer prices.
Fortunately, there wasn’t a lot of international action this week, though the Middle East remains on edge following Israel’s response to Iran’s massive attack last week.
Finally, Old Joe claimed to have driven an 18-wheeler in his long career.
Of course, he never did.
And he managed to read out loud the instructions on his teleprompter to “pause” at one point.
His mental state continues to decline rapidly.
John Zogby
Grade: C
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are tied in a two-way and tied in a five-way race.
Not 'virtually' tied, but really tied.
And they are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Biden should have been able to take advantage of Trump's legal and financial woes, gag orders and all.
But the current president got gob-smacked by pretty lousy economic news.
No sooner had Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, declared a boom economy, a new report showed the GDP grinding down to an annualized 1.6% growth rate and inflation jumping back to a 3.7%.
The president traveled to key battleground states touting federal spending that was generating jobs and winning adulation from the locals.
But his job approval is still at about 40% and he is still trailing in battleground states.
Jed Babbin is a Washington Examiner contributor and former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush. Follow him on X @jedbabbin.
John Zogby is the founder of the Zogby Survey and senior partner at John Zogby Strategies. His podcast with son and managing partner and pollster Jeremy Zogby can be heard here. Their firm polls for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Follow him on X @ZogbyStrategies.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... fccc&ei=16
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
RBC Ukraine
"Up-to-date US-supplied missiles to Ukraine fall short: Pentagon explains why"
Story by Daryna Vialko
27 APRIL 2024
Small-diameter high-precision GLSDB munitions did not meet expectations based on the experience of the war in Ukraine, stated Deputy US Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante at the CSIS security forum.
"One company, I won't say who they are, came up with a really cool idea of taking an air-to-ground weapon and doing a ground launch version of it, and it would be a long-range fire weapon."
"They raced and did it as fast as they could, we even limited the testing in this country."
"We said, look just test for safety..."
"And then we sent it to Ukrainians."
"It didn't work," explained LaPlante.
He explained that these munitions failed to perform for several reasons, including:
* interference from electronic warfare systems,
* typical debris and ground use,
* tactical application peculiarities.
Presumably, LaPlante was referring to the recently developed GLSDB missiles from Boeing, which were based on the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).
Their testing concluded in December last year, and the first confirmed use against Russians appeared in February this year.
LaPlante summarized the situation, emphasizing that "when you send something to people in fight for their lives, and it doesn't work, they'll try it three times and then they'll just throw it aside."
"So that's happened".
GLSDB in Ukraine
The discussions regarding the supply of GLSDB missiles to Ukraine began as early as 2022.
The United States hesitated for some time about supplying the new missiles, fearing it could escalate the conflict.
However, in February 2023, the Pentagon confirmed the transfer of GLSDB missiles to Ukraine.
At the time, Ukraine's Defense Minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, emphasized that Ukraine would not use this type of weaponry to strike Russian territory but rather to defend the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/up ... fccc&ei=25
"Up-to-date US-supplied missiles to Ukraine fall short: Pentagon explains why"
Story by Daryna Vialko
27 APRIL 2024
Small-diameter high-precision GLSDB munitions did not meet expectations based on the experience of the war in Ukraine, stated Deputy US Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante at the CSIS security forum.
"One company, I won't say who they are, came up with a really cool idea of taking an air-to-ground weapon and doing a ground launch version of it, and it would be a long-range fire weapon."
"They raced and did it as fast as they could, we even limited the testing in this country."
"We said, look just test for safety..."
"And then we sent it to Ukrainians."
"It didn't work," explained LaPlante.
He explained that these munitions failed to perform for several reasons, including:
* interference from electronic warfare systems,
* typical debris and ground use,
* tactical application peculiarities.
Presumably, LaPlante was referring to the recently developed GLSDB missiles from Boeing, which were based on the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).
Their testing concluded in December last year, and the first confirmed use against Russians appeared in February this year.
LaPlante summarized the situation, emphasizing that "when you send something to people in fight for their lives, and it doesn't work, they'll try it three times and then they'll just throw it aside."
"So that's happened".
GLSDB in Ukraine
The discussions regarding the supply of GLSDB missiles to Ukraine began as early as 2022.
The United States hesitated for some time about supplying the new missiles, fearing it could escalate the conflict.
However, in February 2023, the Pentagon confirmed the transfer of GLSDB missiles to Ukraine.
At the time, Ukraine's Defense Minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, emphasized that Ukraine would not use this type of weaponry to strike Russian territory but rather to defend the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/up ... fccc&ei=25
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
USA TODAY
"President Biden scraps 'Bidenomics' after slogan falls flat"
Story by Joey Garrison, USA TODAY
27 APRIL 2024
WASHINGTON ― Last June, in what the White House envisioned would be a turning-point speech in Chicago, President Joe Biden introduced a new slogan aimed at selling an economic revival.
The mantra was "Bidenomics."
And on this day, the word was plastered everywhere: flanking Biden on massive blue signs as he talked up an improving economy, across the base of his lectern, and draped down the walls of Chicago's historic post office where Biden spoke to a couple hundred supporters.
For the rest of the year, Biden would go on to tout "Bidenomics" about every time he discussed the economy as he sought to tie his policy agenda − investments in manufacturing, infrastructure and the middle class − to historically low unemployment, a robust jobs market, and inflation that, after peaking in the summer of 2022, was cooling.
But over time, all the "Bidenomics" talk has disappeared.
During a recent campaign swing this month in Pennsylvania − in which Biden made three stops and sought to contrast his economic agenda with former President Donald Trump's − Biden never mentioned the term "Bidenomics."
Nor did he utter the phrase during separate addresses to electrical workers and builders unions over the past week.
Or Thursday in Syracuse, N.Y., where he announced more than $6 billion in subsidies for two microchip factories.
The White House concluded that too many Americans didn't know what "Bidenomics" meant.
Congressional Democratic candidates and party activists never embraced the label as they work to overcome the president's low approval ratings to win back control of the House.
And because inflation has proven stubbornly high, the slogan became synonymous with an economy that, despite several strong metrics, many Americans fear is headed in the wrong direction.
"'Bidenomics' could mean anything to people, and we needed words or phrases that communicate more −like jobs, (tackling) rising costs and 'junk fees,'" said Celinda Lake, a former Biden campaign pollster in the 2020 election.
"'Bidenomics' ended up being confusing to voters because they thought it was Biden's economy rather than Biden's economic policies."
What 'Bidenomics' was supposed to mean versus what it became
"Bidenomics" was first coined by conservative critics of Biden in columns in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal ahead of the 2020 election.
By embracing the "Bidenomics" tag, the White House hoped to turn an attack line used by Republicans into a strength − similar to Democrats embracing "Obamacare," originally a Republican slander, as the name for President Barack Obama's signature health care law.
From the White House's perspective, "Bidenomics" was supposed to encompass an economic platform focused on growing an economy "from the middle out and the bottom up" − cutting health-care costs, forcing billionaires to "pay their fair share" in taxes, eliminating so-called "junk fees" and leveraging the federal government for historic investments in manufacturing of microchips and clean energy, infrastructure and innovation.
If Republicans were going to use "Bidenomics" as an attack, why not work to define it to Biden's advantage?
"I don’t think they meant it as a compliment, but they started referring to my economic policies as 'Bidenomics.'"
"Well, guess what?"
"It’s working," Biden said in a speech last August, reciting a line he turned to often.
But the calculus ignored a reality: When much of the country heard "Bidenomics," it reminded them of high inflation, not Biden's efforts to make the U.S. a microchip hotbed or the nation's economic rebound since the pandemic.
Meanwhile, the outlook on the economy remains sour.
In a New York Times/Sienna College poll this month, only 21% of voters described the economy as "excellent/good," compared to 79% who called it "fair/poor."
"I think that the fundamental root of it all was that people thought the situation would be parallel to Obamacare," Lake said.
"And for a number of reasons, it wasn't remotely parallel to Obamacare."
Drew Westen, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University who consults for Democrats on messaging, questioned coining any policy or bill after a president's name, arguing it turns off nearly half the country automatically.
And he said while the economic resurgence after the pandemic is "a phenomenal achievement," not all people have felt it.
"It was a bad call to use that term," Westen said.
"At that time, people were seeing the Biden economy as the inflation economy."
"That appears to be changing, but I still wouldn't go back to 'Bidenomics.'"
How Biden's use of 'Bidenomics' disappeared over time
Biden still leans into his message of "investing in America" and promotes the same policies.
But nearly a month has passed since Biden said "Bidenomics" during public remarks.
It came during a March 26 speech in Raleigh, North Carolina on his efforts to lower health care costs.
Before then, Biden hadn't used the word "Bidenomics" since late January, according to a USA TODAY review of Biden's public remarks archived by the White House.
Most notably, Biden left "Bidenomics" out of his March 7 State of the Union address before Congress.
Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other spokespeople for Biden, have also retired the phrase.
The messaging was very different last summer and fall.
Biden said "Bidenomics" 15 times in his June 28 speech in Chicago that debuted his new slogan to the nation.
He mentioned "Bidenomics" another 77 times in speeches through October, including as many as six or seven times in single speeches.
"'Bidenomics'" is just another way of saying 'restoring the American Dream,'" Biden said last year on multiple occasions.
"That's Bidenomics in action," was another favorite Biden line that later disappeared.
In a Sept. 14 speech in Largo, Maryland, Biden framed the presidential election as a "choice between Bidenomics and MAGAnomics," accusing Trump and Republicans of wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, gut Social Security and Medicare and end cost-saving measures for the middle class.
Yet Biden touted "Bidenomics" only four more times in both November and December, and he has said it only three times total this year.
White House: 'The press is caught up in semantics'
From the outset, most Democratic House and Senate candidates were cool to embrace "Bidenomics" in their campaigns.
Although they defend Biden's economic policies, no campaign ads emerged using the "Bidenomics" term.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a strong Biden ally, told NBC News in November that he didn't like the word.
"The people that he (Biden) stands for don’t deal with economics,” Clyburn said at the time.
"They deal with day-to-day issues."
"They have to educate their children and feed their families and develop their communities − and that doesn’t sound like ‘Bidenomics.’”
An analysis by Axios found congressional Democrats went from saying "Bidenomics" nearly 500 times last July in public speeches and social media posts to just 10 times in March, compared to 474 mentions of "Bidenomics" by Republicans in March.
In a statement to USA TODAY, the White House downplayed Biden's shift away from "Bidenomics" as the focus of the media, not everyday Americans, and argued the president is still talking regularly about the policies that make up "Bidenomics."
“While the press is caught up in semantics, consumer confidence is higher than at this point under Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan; the President’s economic approval is rising; and he is on the road touting his accomplishments that are widely supported and making a real difference in peoples’ lives," said Michael Kikukawa, assistant White House press secretary.
"The President will continue talking about Bidenomics − his agenda to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up," he said, calling his approach a "sharp contrast" with Republicans.
Viet Shelton, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said House Democrats' and Biden's "victories for working families" is what will matter to voters in November − "not a slogan."
But if Democrats do look for another slogan, they might consider one Democrat's advice.
"If the the right suggests the term, don't use it," said Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."
"You never want to take the other side's branding of anything about you or your programs and run with it − because it's been designed by the other side to create the associations in people's minds that they want to create."
Reach Joey Garrison on X, formerly Twitter, @joeygarrison.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... fccc&ei=46
"President Biden scraps 'Bidenomics' after slogan falls flat"
Story by Joey Garrison, USA TODAY
27 APRIL 2024
WASHINGTON ― Last June, in what the White House envisioned would be a turning-point speech in Chicago, President Joe Biden introduced a new slogan aimed at selling an economic revival.
The mantra was "Bidenomics."
And on this day, the word was plastered everywhere: flanking Biden on massive blue signs as he talked up an improving economy, across the base of his lectern, and draped down the walls of Chicago's historic post office where Biden spoke to a couple hundred supporters.
For the rest of the year, Biden would go on to tout "Bidenomics" about every time he discussed the economy as he sought to tie his policy agenda − investments in manufacturing, infrastructure and the middle class − to historically low unemployment, a robust jobs market, and inflation that, after peaking in the summer of 2022, was cooling.
But over time, all the "Bidenomics" talk has disappeared.
During a recent campaign swing this month in Pennsylvania − in which Biden made three stops and sought to contrast his economic agenda with former President Donald Trump's − Biden never mentioned the term "Bidenomics."
Nor did he utter the phrase during separate addresses to electrical workers and builders unions over the past week.
Or Thursday in Syracuse, N.Y., where he announced more than $6 billion in subsidies for two microchip factories.
The White House concluded that too many Americans didn't know what "Bidenomics" meant.
Congressional Democratic candidates and party activists never embraced the label as they work to overcome the president's low approval ratings to win back control of the House.
And because inflation has proven stubbornly high, the slogan became synonymous with an economy that, despite several strong metrics, many Americans fear is headed in the wrong direction.
"'Bidenomics' could mean anything to people, and we needed words or phrases that communicate more −like jobs, (tackling) rising costs and 'junk fees,'" said Celinda Lake, a former Biden campaign pollster in the 2020 election.
"'Bidenomics' ended up being confusing to voters because they thought it was Biden's economy rather than Biden's economic policies."
What 'Bidenomics' was supposed to mean versus what it became
"Bidenomics" was first coined by conservative critics of Biden in columns in the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal ahead of the 2020 election.
By embracing the "Bidenomics" tag, the White House hoped to turn an attack line used by Republicans into a strength − similar to Democrats embracing "Obamacare," originally a Republican slander, as the name for President Barack Obama's signature health care law.
From the White House's perspective, "Bidenomics" was supposed to encompass an economic platform focused on growing an economy "from the middle out and the bottom up" − cutting health-care costs, forcing billionaires to "pay their fair share" in taxes, eliminating so-called "junk fees" and leveraging the federal government for historic investments in manufacturing of microchips and clean energy, infrastructure and innovation.
If Republicans were going to use "Bidenomics" as an attack, why not work to define it to Biden's advantage?
"I don’t think they meant it as a compliment, but they started referring to my economic policies as 'Bidenomics.'"
"Well, guess what?"
"It’s working," Biden said in a speech last August, reciting a line he turned to often.
But the calculus ignored a reality: When much of the country heard "Bidenomics," it reminded them of high inflation, not Biden's efforts to make the U.S. a microchip hotbed or the nation's economic rebound since the pandemic.
Meanwhile, the outlook on the economy remains sour.
In a New York Times/Sienna College poll this month, only 21% of voters described the economy as "excellent/good," compared to 79% who called it "fair/poor."
"I think that the fundamental root of it all was that people thought the situation would be parallel to Obamacare," Lake said.
"And for a number of reasons, it wasn't remotely parallel to Obamacare."
Drew Westen, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University who consults for Democrats on messaging, questioned coining any policy or bill after a president's name, arguing it turns off nearly half the country automatically.
And he said while the economic resurgence after the pandemic is "a phenomenal achievement," not all people have felt it.
"It was a bad call to use that term," Westen said.
"At that time, people were seeing the Biden economy as the inflation economy."
"That appears to be changing, but I still wouldn't go back to 'Bidenomics.'"
How Biden's use of 'Bidenomics' disappeared over time
Biden still leans into his message of "investing in America" and promotes the same policies.
But nearly a month has passed since Biden said "Bidenomics" during public remarks.
It came during a March 26 speech in Raleigh, North Carolina on his efforts to lower health care costs.
Before then, Biden hadn't used the word "Bidenomics" since late January, according to a USA TODAY review of Biden's public remarks archived by the White House.
Most notably, Biden left "Bidenomics" out of his March 7 State of the Union address before Congress.
Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other spokespeople for Biden, have also retired the phrase.
The messaging was very different last summer and fall.
Biden said "Bidenomics" 15 times in his June 28 speech in Chicago that debuted his new slogan to the nation.
He mentioned "Bidenomics" another 77 times in speeches through October, including as many as six or seven times in single speeches.
"'Bidenomics'" is just another way of saying 'restoring the American Dream,'" Biden said last year on multiple occasions.
"That's Bidenomics in action," was another favorite Biden line that later disappeared.
In a Sept. 14 speech in Largo, Maryland, Biden framed the presidential election as a "choice between Bidenomics and MAGAnomics," accusing Trump and Republicans of wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, gut Social Security and Medicare and end cost-saving measures for the middle class.
Yet Biden touted "Bidenomics" only four more times in both November and December, and he has said it only three times total this year.
White House: 'The press is caught up in semantics'
From the outset, most Democratic House and Senate candidates were cool to embrace "Bidenomics" in their campaigns.
Although they defend Biden's economic policies, no campaign ads emerged using the "Bidenomics" term.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a strong Biden ally, told NBC News in November that he didn't like the word.
"The people that he (Biden) stands for don’t deal with economics,” Clyburn said at the time.
"They deal with day-to-day issues."
"They have to educate their children and feed their families and develop their communities − and that doesn’t sound like ‘Bidenomics.’”
An analysis by Axios found congressional Democrats went from saying "Bidenomics" nearly 500 times last July in public speeches and social media posts to just 10 times in March, compared to 474 mentions of "Bidenomics" by Republicans in March.
In a statement to USA TODAY, the White House downplayed Biden's shift away from "Bidenomics" as the focus of the media, not everyday Americans, and argued the president is still talking regularly about the policies that make up "Bidenomics."
“While the press is caught up in semantics, consumer confidence is higher than at this point under Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan; the President’s economic approval is rising; and he is on the road touting his accomplishments that are widely supported and making a real difference in peoples’ lives," said Michael Kikukawa, assistant White House press secretary.
"The President will continue talking about Bidenomics − his agenda to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up," he said, calling his approach a "sharp contrast" with Republicans.
Viet Shelton, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said House Democrats' and Biden's "victories for working families" is what will matter to voters in November − "not a slogan."
But if Democrats do look for another slogan, they might consider one Democrat's advice.
"If the the right suggests the term, don't use it," said Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."
"You never want to take the other side's branding of anything about you or your programs and run with it − because it's been designed by the other side to create the associations in people's minds that they want to create."
Reach Joey Garrison on X, formerly Twitter, @joeygarrison.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... fccc&ei=46
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
The Washington Examiner
"Top Biden officials likely violated key federal law, watchdog says"
Story by Gabe Kaminsky, Washington Examiner
27 APRIL 2024
Top officials at the White House and Small Business Administration appear to have violated a federal law restricting government staffers from engaging in certain political activities, according to a watchdog group.
Internal emails obtained by Protect the Public's Trust, a group investigating apparent conflicts of interest, show that both White House and SBA officials have frequently used official resources to communicate about former President Donald Trump's campaign phrase "MAGA," or Make America Great Again.
But under the Hatch Act, federal executive branch employees are barred from "using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election," the watchdog wrote in a Thursday complaint sent to the White House, the SBA's inspector general, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a federal investigative and prosecutorial agency.
"This continual apparent disregard of the Hatch Act shows why it’s needed in the first place," said director Michael Chamberlain of Protect the Public's Trust, a group that previously argued White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre skirted the Hatch Act, leading to the Office of Special Counsel concluding in June 2023 that she did violate it.
"American citizens don’t pay their public servants to wage a permanent political campaign while disparaging their opponents," said Chamberlain, who worked in the Department of Education under Trump.
The Hatch Act, which went into effect in 1939, aims to ensure taxpayer-backed programs are nonpartisan and not tools for the government to engage in political coercion.
It has been routinely violated in prior administrations, including under Trump, by at least 13 officials.
In the complaint, Chamberlain's group cited how federal employees may not use their “email account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group."
The complaint cited, for instance, an email obtained by Protect the Public's Trust showing White House Senior Communications Assistant Brianna Stonick in January 2023 emailing White House colleagues with the subject line, “Talking Points: House Republican MAGA Economic Plan."
Moreover, Stonick sent an email in March 2023 to colleagues titled "Talking Points: President Biden’s Veto of Extreme MAGA Republican Bill," the Daily Caller reported.
Similar communications are cited in the complaint.
The White House and SBA did not reply to requests for comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... c89e&ei=61
"Top Biden officials likely violated key federal law, watchdog says"
Story by Gabe Kaminsky, Washington Examiner
27 APRIL 2024
Top officials at the White House and Small Business Administration appear to have violated a federal law restricting government staffers from engaging in certain political activities, according to a watchdog group.
Internal emails obtained by Protect the Public's Trust, a group investigating apparent conflicts of interest, show that both White House and SBA officials have frequently used official resources to communicate about former President Donald Trump's campaign phrase "MAGA," or Make America Great Again.
But under the Hatch Act, federal executive branch employees are barred from "using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election," the watchdog wrote in a Thursday complaint sent to the White House, the SBA's inspector general, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a federal investigative and prosecutorial agency.
"This continual apparent disregard of the Hatch Act shows why it’s needed in the first place," said director Michael Chamberlain of Protect the Public's Trust, a group that previously argued White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre skirted the Hatch Act, leading to the Office of Special Counsel concluding in June 2023 that she did violate it.
"American citizens don’t pay their public servants to wage a permanent political campaign while disparaging their opponents," said Chamberlain, who worked in the Department of Education under Trump.
The Hatch Act, which went into effect in 1939, aims to ensure taxpayer-backed programs are nonpartisan and not tools for the government to engage in political coercion.
It has been routinely violated in prior administrations, including under Trump, by at least 13 officials.
In the complaint, Chamberlain's group cited how federal employees may not use their “email account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group."
The complaint cited, for instance, an email obtained by Protect the Public's Trust showing White House Senior Communications Assistant Brianna Stonick in January 2023 emailing White House colleagues with the subject line, “Talking Points: House Republican MAGA Economic Plan."
Moreover, Stonick sent an email in March 2023 to colleagues titled "Talking Points: President Biden’s Veto of Extreme MAGA Republican Bill," the Daily Caller reported.
Similar communications are cited in the complaint.
The White House and SBA did not reply to requests for comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... c89e&ei=61
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
The New York Post
"Biden is the least popular president in 70 years — below even Nixon and Carter, scathing poll finds"
Story by Mary Kay Linge
28 APRIL 2024
It’s a low blow for Joe.
Joe Biden is the least popular commander in chief at this point of his presidency in the last 70 years, below even Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, according to a blistering new poll — imperiling his chances of re-election.
Biden, 81, notched a dismal 38.7% job approval rating for the first quarter of 2024, the venerable Gallup Poll found in a survey released Friday, three points lower than that of the one-term George H.W. Bush at the same point in his presidency.
“With about six months remaining before Election Day, Biden stands in a weaker position than any prior incumbent,” the pollsters concluded.
In contrast, former President Donald Trump, who is vying with Biden for a second White House term, had a 46.8% approval rating at this point in his presidency.
Even Nixon and Carter had higher ratings than Biden, with 53.7% and 47.7%, respectively, and Eisenhower had the highest rating at 72.3%, according to the poll.
The results of Gallup’s presidential approval polls, which the organization has compiled since the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower began in 1952, have been strongly predictive of re-election success.
Historically, every incumbent in the past seven decades with an approval rating above 50% has won a second term.
Only Barack Obama bucked the trend: his 2012 victory came despite a middling 46% approval six months ahead of that year’s general election.
No first-term president in Gallup’s history has returned to the White House with approval numbers as low as Biden’s — whose results this quarter ranked among the worst of the post-World War II era, in the bottom 12% of all presidential quarters going back to 1945.
And while this quarter marks a new low for Biden in Gallup’s polling, his popularity has remained stubbornly mired in the low 40s since the first year of his presidency, amid skyrocketing inflation, a worsening border crisis and the disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.
His re-election campaign has been plagued by embarrassing gaffes, and aides have struggled to shield their octogenarian boss from the press as his halting, shuffling gait offers evidence of his advanced age.
Yet current polls show the 2024 presidential election as a tight race, with Trump holding a 0.3% edge over Biden in the RealClearPolitics aggregate of national polls.
Gallup’s national survey of 1,001 Americans, conducted from April 1 to April 22, has a 4-point margin of error.
Biden’s historic low compared to other US presidents
President Biden’s approval rating 39 months into his presidency is the lowest of any elected chief executive in modern American history, according to Gallup.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1956): 73.2%
Ronald Reagan (1984): 54.5%
Richard Nixon (1972): 53.7%
Bill Clinton (1996): 53.0%
George W. Bush (2004): 51.0%
Jimmy Carter (1980): 47.7%
Donald Trump (2020): 46.8%
Barack Obama (2012): 45.9%
George H.W. Bush (1992): 41.8%
Joe Biden (2024): 38.7%
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 5939&ei=44
"Biden is the least popular president in 70 years — below even Nixon and Carter, scathing poll finds"
Story by Mary Kay Linge
28 APRIL 2024
It’s a low blow for Joe.
Joe Biden is the least popular commander in chief at this point of his presidency in the last 70 years, below even Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, according to a blistering new poll — imperiling his chances of re-election.
Biden, 81, notched a dismal 38.7% job approval rating for the first quarter of 2024, the venerable Gallup Poll found in a survey released Friday, three points lower than that of the one-term George H.W. Bush at the same point in his presidency.
“With about six months remaining before Election Day, Biden stands in a weaker position than any prior incumbent,” the pollsters concluded.
In contrast, former President Donald Trump, who is vying with Biden for a second White House term, had a 46.8% approval rating at this point in his presidency.
Even Nixon and Carter had higher ratings than Biden, with 53.7% and 47.7%, respectively, and Eisenhower had the highest rating at 72.3%, according to the poll.
The results of Gallup’s presidential approval polls, which the organization has compiled since the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower began in 1952, have been strongly predictive of re-election success.
Historically, every incumbent in the past seven decades with an approval rating above 50% has won a second term.
Only Barack Obama bucked the trend: his 2012 victory came despite a middling 46% approval six months ahead of that year’s general election.
No first-term president in Gallup’s history has returned to the White House with approval numbers as low as Biden’s — whose results this quarter ranked among the worst of the post-World War II era, in the bottom 12% of all presidential quarters going back to 1945.
And while this quarter marks a new low for Biden in Gallup’s polling, his popularity has remained stubbornly mired in the low 40s since the first year of his presidency, amid skyrocketing inflation, a worsening border crisis and the disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.
His re-election campaign has been plagued by embarrassing gaffes, and aides have struggled to shield their octogenarian boss from the press as his halting, shuffling gait offers evidence of his advanced age.
Yet current polls show the 2024 presidential election as a tight race, with Trump holding a 0.3% edge over Biden in the RealClearPolitics aggregate of national polls.
Gallup’s national survey of 1,001 Americans, conducted from April 1 to April 22, has a 4-point margin of error.
Biden’s historic low compared to other US presidents
President Biden’s approval rating 39 months into his presidency is the lowest of any elected chief executive in modern American history, according to Gallup.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1956): 73.2%
Ronald Reagan (1984): 54.5%
Richard Nixon (1972): 53.7%
Bill Clinton (1996): 53.0%
George W. Bush (2004): 51.0%
Jimmy Carter (1980): 47.7%
Donald Trump (2020): 46.8%
Barack Obama (2012): 45.9%
George H.W. Bush (1992): 41.8%
Joe Biden (2024): 38.7%
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 5939&ei=44
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
Meaww
"'You reap what you sow': Internet roasts Democrats as Adam Schiff gets robbed in San Francisco ahead of speaking event"
Story by Bhavik Grover
28 APRIL 2024
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA: Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff experienced a taste of San Francisco's notorious crime problem firsthand on Thursday, April 25, when his luggage was stolen from his parked car before a speaking event in the city.
Despite the unsettling incident, Schiff remained composed and attended the event wearing a shirt and hiking vest, having been robbed of his formal attire.
The incident sparked an online firestorm, with many critics mocking the California lawmaker and his party's policies on law and order.
Adam Schiff goes ahead with his speaking engagement despite robbery
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Schiff's car had been parked in a downtown garage while he visited the area.
Ahead of a dinner where the Senate hopeful intended to thank high-profile lawyer Joe Cotchett for his support in the race to replace the late Dianne Feinstein, Schiff's belongings were stolen from his vehicle.
Lee Houskeeper, Cotchett's press agent who was present at the Ristorante Rocca event, reportedly warned Schiff not to leave anything in the car, quipping, "I guess it's 'Welcome to San Francisco'."
However, the congressman seemed unfazed, telling the Chronicle, "Yes, they took my bags."
"But I'm here to thank Joe."
Despite the theft of his luggage, Schiff continued with his speaking engagement, delivering his remarks without wearing a suit jacket.
Instead, he opted for a shirt and hiking vest.
Cotchett observed that the congressman behaved as though everything was normal during his visit.
Notably, Schiff grew up in San Francisco and has served in the California delegation for over two decades.
The theft of Schiff's belongings in San Francisco comes amidst a backdrop of rising crime rates in the city, which has prompted concerns among residents and businesses alike.
The city has witnessed a mass exodus of retailers from its downtown area, with prominent stores and malls closing due to safety concerns.
Last year, a CNN crew reporting on the escalating crime in San Francisco fell victim to a similar incident when their vehicle was broken into, resulting in the theft of equipment.
Internet lambasts Democrats in wake of the theft of Adam Schiff's belongings
As the news of the theft of Schiff's belongings spread across the internet, users seized the opportunity to lambast the Democratic Party and its policies.
One X user commented, "You reap what you sow, democrats..."
Another user echoed this sentiment, stating, "Dems could stop most of this if they WANTED law & order. Not crying any tears for Schiff…"
A user weighed in, remarking, "Adam Schiff, feeling the pain of living in a state run by Democrats."
Similarly, another individual asserted, "Democrats suffering the consequences of their policies."
One user asserted, "Dems built this lawless mayhem. Now they can enjoy it."
Another user highlighted, "It's good he gets a taste of what HIS party has unleashed on the big Dem cities."
A user emphasized, "Another high ranking democrat gets to experience crime in democrat-run cities first hand. This time it was Shifty Adam Schiff."
One user bluntly stated, "The Democrats have done this to California."
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 5939&ei=52
"'You reap what you sow': Internet roasts Democrats as Adam Schiff gets robbed in San Francisco ahead of speaking event"
Story by Bhavik Grover
28 APRIL 2024
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA: Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff experienced a taste of San Francisco's notorious crime problem firsthand on Thursday, April 25, when his luggage was stolen from his parked car before a speaking event in the city.
Despite the unsettling incident, Schiff remained composed and attended the event wearing a shirt and hiking vest, having been robbed of his formal attire.
The incident sparked an online firestorm, with many critics mocking the California lawmaker and his party's policies on law and order.
Adam Schiff goes ahead with his speaking engagement despite robbery
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Schiff's car had been parked in a downtown garage while he visited the area.
Ahead of a dinner where the Senate hopeful intended to thank high-profile lawyer Joe Cotchett for his support in the race to replace the late Dianne Feinstein, Schiff's belongings were stolen from his vehicle.
Lee Houskeeper, Cotchett's press agent who was present at the Ristorante Rocca event, reportedly warned Schiff not to leave anything in the car, quipping, "I guess it's 'Welcome to San Francisco'."
However, the congressman seemed unfazed, telling the Chronicle, "Yes, they took my bags."
"But I'm here to thank Joe."
Despite the theft of his luggage, Schiff continued with his speaking engagement, delivering his remarks without wearing a suit jacket.
Instead, he opted for a shirt and hiking vest.
Cotchett observed that the congressman behaved as though everything was normal during his visit.
Notably, Schiff grew up in San Francisco and has served in the California delegation for over two decades.
The theft of Schiff's belongings in San Francisco comes amidst a backdrop of rising crime rates in the city, which has prompted concerns among residents and businesses alike.
The city has witnessed a mass exodus of retailers from its downtown area, with prominent stores and malls closing due to safety concerns.
Last year, a CNN crew reporting on the escalating crime in San Francisco fell victim to a similar incident when their vehicle was broken into, resulting in the theft of equipment.
Internet lambasts Democrats in wake of the theft of Adam Schiff's belongings
As the news of the theft of Schiff's belongings spread across the internet, users seized the opportunity to lambast the Democratic Party and its policies.
One X user commented, "You reap what you sow, democrats..."
Another user echoed this sentiment, stating, "Dems could stop most of this if they WANTED law & order. Not crying any tears for Schiff…"
A user weighed in, remarking, "Adam Schiff, feeling the pain of living in a state run by Democrats."
Similarly, another individual asserted, "Democrats suffering the consequences of their policies."
One user asserted, "Dems built this lawless mayhem. Now they can enjoy it."
Another user highlighted, "It's good he gets a taste of what HIS party has unleashed on the big Dem cities."
A user emphasized, "Another high ranking democrat gets to experience crime in democrat-run cities first hand. This time it was Shifty Adam Schiff."
One user bluntly stated, "The Democrats have done this to California."
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 5939&ei=52
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
The Center Square
"Elevated inflation, poor GDP growth raise concerns"
Story by Casey Harper
29 APRIL 2024
(The Center Square) – Federal data released Friday showed that inflation remains elevated.
The figures came out on the heels of other data showing the U.S. Gross Domestic Product underperformed in the first quarter of this year.
Both the inflation and GDP data points raised concerns among economists and renewed criticism of President Joe Biden among Republicans.
“Given the elevated levels of inflation – and this is the new normal for 2024 – the market is going to need to get over hopes for Fed rate cuts,” Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer for Independent Advisor Alliance in North Carolina, said in a statement.
“Yes, they may cut once (or not at all), but there is no possibility the Fed is going to cut rates 3 or more times, unless we go into recession.”
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released the Personal Consumption Expenditure data Friday, which showed the PCE rose 0.3% last month.
The federal Consumer Price Index, another leading marker of inflation, reported prices rising 0.4% last month.
“A lot of people have argued elevated inflation is just because of housing and housing is lagged/inappropriate,” Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former economic advisor during the Obama administration, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Friday.
“But even excluding housing, recent inflation is highly elevated…” he continued
That inflation data comes after new federal data this week showed that the GDP increased at an annual rate of only 1.6% in the first three months of this year, much less than the 3.4% growth in the previous quarter and well below experts’ expectations.
“New GDP numbers out - yet ANOTHER depressing quarter under Biden…” Richard Stern, an expert at the Heritage Foundation, wrote on X.
“This marks the THIRD quarter in a row of the government growing faster than the economy!
“That's socialism at work as the woke left-wing government eats everyone else's lunch off the buffet table – all while the personal saving rate falls off a cliff and is less than half what it was pre-pandemic,” he added.
Republicans heaped on more criticism of Biden after the new economic data.
“Antisemitism is running rampant on campuses,” U.S> Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., wrote on X.
“Illegal immigrants are invading both borders."
"Inflation is rising and draining the pocketbooks."
"America is experiencing one crisis after another under Joe Biden's failed leadership.”
Prices have risen nearly 20% since Biden took office.
“President Biden’s recipe of outlandish spending and higher taxes is robbing the American people and hurting the economy,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said in a statement.
“The soaring cost of gas and groceries keeps killing family budgets – leaving Americans struggling to either pay rent or buy a house."
"The latest GDP report shows an economy sagging under the weight of failed economic policies."
"With prices continuing to rise and the Federal Reserve likely to keep interest rates at the highest levels in over 20 years, the American Dream is slipping out of reach for more families.”
Biden, though, has rebuffed criticism and pointed to his other economic wins, as The Center Square previously reported.
“Today’s report shows the American economy remains strong, with continued steady and stable growth,” Biden said in a statement last week.
“The economy has grown more since I took office than at this point in any presidential term in the last 25 years – including 3% growth over the last year – while unemployment has stayed below 4% for more than two years.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... d1f6&ei=12
"Elevated inflation, poor GDP growth raise concerns"
Story by Casey Harper
29 APRIL 2024
(The Center Square) – Federal data released Friday showed that inflation remains elevated.
The figures came out on the heels of other data showing the U.S. Gross Domestic Product underperformed in the first quarter of this year.
Both the inflation and GDP data points raised concerns among economists and renewed criticism of President Joe Biden among Republicans.
“Given the elevated levels of inflation – and this is the new normal for 2024 – the market is going to need to get over hopes for Fed rate cuts,” Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer for Independent Advisor Alliance in North Carolina, said in a statement.
“Yes, they may cut once (or not at all), but there is no possibility the Fed is going to cut rates 3 or more times, unless we go into recession.”
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released the Personal Consumption Expenditure data Friday, which showed the PCE rose 0.3% last month.
The federal Consumer Price Index, another leading marker of inflation, reported prices rising 0.4% last month.
“A lot of people have argued elevated inflation is just because of housing and housing is lagged/inappropriate,” Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former economic advisor during the Obama administration, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Friday.
“But even excluding housing, recent inflation is highly elevated…” he continued
That inflation data comes after new federal data this week showed that the GDP increased at an annual rate of only 1.6% in the first three months of this year, much less than the 3.4% growth in the previous quarter and well below experts’ expectations.
“New GDP numbers out - yet ANOTHER depressing quarter under Biden…” Richard Stern, an expert at the Heritage Foundation, wrote on X.
“This marks the THIRD quarter in a row of the government growing faster than the economy!
“That's socialism at work as the woke left-wing government eats everyone else's lunch off the buffet table – all while the personal saving rate falls off a cliff and is less than half what it was pre-pandemic,” he added.
Republicans heaped on more criticism of Biden after the new economic data.
“Antisemitism is running rampant on campuses,” U.S> Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., wrote on X.
“Illegal immigrants are invading both borders."
"Inflation is rising and draining the pocketbooks."
"America is experiencing one crisis after another under Joe Biden's failed leadership.”
Prices have risen nearly 20% since Biden took office.
“President Biden’s recipe of outlandish spending and higher taxes is robbing the American people and hurting the economy,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said in a statement.
“The soaring cost of gas and groceries keeps killing family budgets – leaving Americans struggling to either pay rent or buy a house."
"The latest GDP report shows an economy sagging under the weight of failed economic policies."
"With prices continuing to rise and the Federal Reserve likely to keep interest rates at the highest levels in over 20 years, the American Dream is slipping out of reach for more families.”
Biden, though, has rebuffed criticism and pointed to his other economic wins, as The Center Square previously reported.
“Today’s report shows the American economy remains strong, with continued steady and stable growth,” Biden said in a statement last week.
“The economy has grown more since I took office than at this point in any presidential term in the last 25 years – including 3% growth over the last year – while unemployment has stayed below 4% for more than two years.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... d1f6&ei=12
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
RIGZONE
"Oil Falls as Geopolitical Risk Premium Decreases"
by Bloomberg | Julia Fanzeres, Alex Longley and Jordan Fitzgerald
Monday, April 29, 2024
Oil fell as signs of progress toward a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas reduced crude’s geopolitical risk premium.
West Texas Intermediate fell 1.5% to settle below $83 a barrel after the New York Times reported that Israel is open to a truce involving an initial release of 33 hostages, fewer than it previously sought.
Momentum toward a cease-fire has been building, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying he will step up his push to secure a truce in Gaza during a visit to the region.
The White House said Israel has agreed to hear out its concerns and hold off invading Rafah until meeting with the Americans.
Still, the gap between the two nearest Brent contracts was more than $1 a barrel in backwardation, a bullish indicator that signals tight near-term supply.
Benchmark North Sea crudes have also seen a spate of buying in recent days.
Crude has risen this year on OPEC+ supply cuts and heightened tensions in the Middle East — the source of about a third of the world’s oil.
Meanwhile, shifting expectations for US monetary policy are weighing on the demand outlook, and traders will look to a Federal Reserve meeting on Wednesday to gauge the prospects for rate cuts this year.
In another bearish sign, the premiums for diesel and heating oil over crude have fallen to the lowest level in months on concerns about oversupply.
Prices:
WTI for June delivery dropped 1.5% to settle at $82.63 a barrel in New York.
Brent for June settlement lost 1.2% to $88.40 a barrel.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/oil_f ... 4-article/
"Oil Falls as Geopolitical Risk Premium Decreases"
by Bloomberg | Julia Fanzeres, Alex Longley and Jordan Fitzgerald
Monday, April 29, 2024
Oil fell as signs of progress toward a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas reduced crude’s geopolitical risk premium.
West Texas Intermediate fell 1.5% to settle below $83 a barrel after the New York Times reported that Israel is open to a truce involving an initial release of 33 hostages, fewer than it previously sought.
Momentum toward a cease-fire has been building, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying he will step up his push to secure a truce in Gaza during a visit to the region.
The White House said Israel has agreed to hear out its concerns and hold off invading Rafah until meeting with the Americans.
Still, the gap between the two nearest Brent contracts was more than $1 a barrel in backwardation, a bullish indicator that signals tight near-term supply.
Benchmark North Sea crudes have also seen a spate of buying in recent days.
Crude has risen this year on OPEC+ supply cuts and heightened tensions in the Middle East — the source of about a third of the world’s oil.
Meanwhile, shifting expectations for US monetary policy are weighing on the demand outlook, and traders will look to a Federal Reserve meeting on Wednesday to gauge the prospects for rate cuts this year.
In another bearish sign, the premiums for diesel and heating oil over crude have fallen to the lowest level in months on concerns about oversupply.
Prices:
WTI for June delivery dropped 1.5% to settle at $82.63 a barrel in New York.
Brent for June settlement lost 1.2% to $88.40 a barrel.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/oil_f ... 4-article/
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
CNBC
"Treasury yields fall as investors look to Fed meeting"
Alex Harring @ALEX_HARRING Sophie Kiderlin @IN/SOPHIE-KIDERLIN-B327B914A/ @SKIDERLIN
PUBLISHED MON, APR 29 2024
KEY POINTS
* Investors await the Federal Reserve’s meeting, which is set to begin Tuesday and conclude with an interest rate decision and press conference about policymakers’ discussions on Wednesday.
* On Friday, the core personal consumption expenditures price index came in at 2.8% for March on an annual basis, which was just above the 2.7% Dow Jones estimate.
U.S. Treasury yields declined on Monday as investors looked ahead to the Federal Reserve policy meeting and economic data scheduled for this week.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell about 5 basis points to 4.616%.
The 2-year Treasury yield was almost 3 basis points lower at 4.97%.
Yields and prices move in opposite directions.
One basis point equals 0.01%.
Investors are awaiting the Federal Reserve’s meeting, which is set to begin Tuesday and conclude with an interest rate decision and press conference about policymakers’ discussions on Wednesday.
While markets are widely expecting interest rates to remain unchanged, traders will be closely watching for policy guidance from the central bank.
At the top of investors’ minds are questions around how many rate cuts will take place this year and when they might begin.
This comes as recent economic data has suggested resilience from the economy amid persistent inflationary pressures.
On Friday, the core personal consumption expenditures price index, which strips out food and energy prices, came in at 2.8% for March on an annual basis, which was just above the 2.7% Dow Jones estimate.
Including food and energy, the PCE rose 2.7% from a year ago, also slightly higher than previously expected.
Several key data releases are also slated for the week ahead, including the April jobs report.
This covers nonfarm payrolls as well as the latest unemployment figures and will provide fresh insights into how the labor market, and wider economy, is faring amid elevated interest rates and sticky inflation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/29/us-trea ... eting.html
"Treasury yields fall as investors look to Fed meeting"
Alex Harring @ALEX_HARRING Sophie Kiderlin @IN/SOPHIE-KIDERLIN-B327B914A/ @SKIDERLIN
PUBLISHED MON, APR 29 2024
KEY POINTS
* Investors await the Federal Reserve’s meeting, which is set to begin Tuesday and conclude with an interest rate decision and press conference about policymakers’ discussions on Wednesday.
* On Friday, the core personal consumption expenditures price index came in at 2.8% for March on an annual basis, which was just above the 2.7% Dow Jones estimate.
U.S. Treasury yields declined on Monday as investors looked ahead to the Federal Reserve policy meeting and economic data scheduled for this week.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell about 5 basis points to 4.616%.
The 2-year Treasury yield was almost 3 basis points lower at 4.97%.
Yields and prices move in opposite directions.
One basis point equals 0.01%.
Investors are awaiting the Federal Reserve’s meeting, which is set to begin Tuesday and conclude with an interest rate decision and press conference about policymakers’ discussions on Wednesday.
While markets are widely expecting interest rates to remain unchanged, traders will be closely watching for policy guidance from the central bank.
At the top of investors’ minds are questions around how many rate cuts will take place this year and when they might begin.
This comes as recent economic data has suggested resilience from the economy amid persistent inflationary pressures.
On Friday, the core personal consumption expenditures price index, which strips out food and energy prices, came in at 2.8% for March on an annual basis, which was just above the 2.7% Dow Jones estimate.
Including food and energy, the PCE rose 2.7% from a year ago, also slightly higher than previously expected.
Several key data releases are also slated for the week ahead, including the April jobs report.
This covers nonfarm payrolls as well as the latest unemployment figures and will provide fresh insights into how the labor market, and wider economy, is faring amid elevated interest rates and sticky inflation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/29/us-trea ... eting.html