Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Urduski. Thank
Speaker 1: you all for being here again this week on this
Speaker 1: Thursday's episode, once again on twice a week. So please
Speaker 1: like and subscribe to You're on both episodes. You get
Speaker 1: both episodes every week. It means a lot to us.
Speaker 1: It was a very busy week, and I want to
Speaker 1: start off by thanking everyone who sent me a message
Speaker 1: on social media, but wishing me a happy birthday. That
Speaker 1: meant a lot. It was really really great. If I
Speaker 1: have the if I can, I just want to go
Speaker 1: on a little jant for a second. On the birthday,
Speaker 1: I went to go there's something called luckyseats dot com
Speaker 1: in New York week you can win lottery tickets for
Speaker 1: cheap Broadway tickets. So I did. I won them, and
Speaker 1: I went to see Sunset Boulevard with Nicole sharon'ser Shirvanser,
Speaker 1: I think it's her last name. She's from the Pussycat
Speaker 1: Dolls and America's got talent. I'm sure you might have
Speaker 1: seen her picture or her song somewhere anyway. So she's
Speaker 1: starring in Sunset Boulevard. She's getting all this praise, so
Speaker 1: we go to see it. I've seen the original with
Speaker 1: Glenn Close, you know, a while ago, and everyone's saying
Speaker 1: this is like the show to see. I go to
Speaker 1: see it. It was a flaming pile of garbage. It
Speaker 1: was horrible. In my opinion, it was one of the
Speaker 1: top five worst things I've ever seen. The show is
Speaker 1: from a Billy Waller movie from the fifties. It's not
Speaker 1: a musical the original movie. It was made to a
Speaker 1: music by Angeloa Weber, starring Glenn Close on Broadway Pilot
Speaker 1: pone started in London. It's about an aging silent film
Speaker 1: actress in the nineteen fifties and forties rather who wants
Speaker 1: to make a comeback and she's kind of going insane
Speaker 1: because she's believing that she's as famous as she used
Speaker 1: to be. And it worked for Glenn Close because Glenn
Speaker 1: Close kind of looks a little crazy once in a while,
Speaker 1: like one hundred and one downations Glenn Close, and she
Speaker 1: looks like an older woman, an older actress. Nicole shearings
Speaker 1: Aer who started in this version, looks like a very young,
Speaker 1: good looking woman. Although she's probably of the correct age
Speaker 1: for the time, she doesn't look the age anymore. It
Speaker 1: was in a black Box theater. It's everything bad about
Speaker 1: like new age theater. Like people are in track suits,
Speaker 1: there's no time, I'm coordination, there's no costumes, there's no sets,
Speaker 1: and there's no point. Do you believe that she's actually
Speaker 1: Norman Desmond? It was horrible. Okay, sorry, I had to
Speaker 1: say that to somebody, and no one wants to hear
Speaker 1: me ran about theater, and you're my captive audience, so
Speaker 1: you get to hear about it. Now to the news
Speaker 1: of the actual week. I want to go back and
Speaker 1: focus on what we talked about last week and earlier
Speaker 1: this week because it's important and it's still something that
Speaker 1: people are talking about it and the news broke. So
Speaker 1: first of all, the Canadian election, the Liberal Party, as expected,
Speaker 1: made the big comeback, biggest comeback in Canadian politics, and
Speaker 1: when their fourth consecutive government, they beat the Conservative Party
Speaker 1: by forty three point seven percent of the vote to
Speaker 1: forty one point seven percent of the vote, winning by
Speaker 1: two points. They got one hundred and sixty nine seats
Speaker 1: they call them writings in Canada instead of seats, but
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty nine writings able to form a
Speaker 1: minority government, probably with the support of either the Progressive
Speaker 1: New Democratic Party or the French Canadian Party of the
Speaker 1: Block Quebecs. So we'll see what goes on, how they
Speaker 1: end up government. But they have minority government. The casual
Speaker 1: viewer in America who doesn't really spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time listening to a Canadian news or Canadian politics, which
Speaker 1: is most of us, no shame, but it is what
Speaker 1: it is. They sat there and they heard about it,
Speaker 1: and on social media they were like, well, I guess
Speaker 1: Pierre Pola there, the leader of the Conservative Party who
Speaker 1: ended up pilightly losing his own seat in the parliament,
Speaker 1: his own writing that actually flipped to the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: He must have done a terrible job. And just like
Speaker 1: the party lost and they just they weren't they were
Speaker 1: insufficiently conservative. I want to actually go a little deeper
Speaker 1: for the American audience who may not know what actually happened,
Speaker 1: and really give you a good understanding. First of all,
Speaker 1: the Canadian Conservative Party had their best performances nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 1: They grew their coalition based upon the data of these
Speaker 1: writings of these seats by fifteen to twenty points among minorities, immigrants,
Speaker 1: young people, and blue collar voters in the area outside
Speaker 1: of Michigan, that part of Canada which is very heavy manufacturing, free,
Speaker 1: very blue collar. In the ethnic suburbs outside Toronto and Vancouver.
Speaker 1: There was like a fifteen to twenty point swing in
Speaker 1: some of these districts some of these writings. Overall, Conservatives
Speaker 1: gained seven point six percent more of the popular vote
Speaker 1: than they got last time. So what happened. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, baby boomers happened. Baby Boomer's number one issue
Speaker 1: in Canada, according to the Exit poles, was stopping Trump.
Speaker 1: Young people wanted the economy be better. Old people wanted
Speaker 1: to stop Trump. It is like a whole nation of
Speaker 1: Rachel Mattow viewers. It is problematic. That's why when you
Speaker 1: say someone say at Canada as the fifty first state, no,
Speaker 1: please do not keep them where they are. We don't don't,
Speaker 1: we don't need that. Also, college educated voters moved to
Speaker 1: the left. This is why Pierre Poulaverir's seat flipped because
Speaker 1: he's in a very heavily college educated writing. He's in
Speaker 1: a very college educated district districts that used to be
Speaker 1: solidly conservative. It's the same thing we've seen in America
Speaker 1: in the last election with Trump. It's what we're seeing
Speaker 1: in Europe, this great realignment of young people, of ethnic minorities,
Speaker 1: of blue collar people moving to the right, and older
Speaker 1: voters in many cases moving to the left. And that's
Speaker 1: what we saw in Canada. And this is the best
Speaker 1: election for the Conservatives since nineteen eighty eight. It sets
Speaker 1: them in a good place for the next election, certainly
Speaker 1: depending on what's going on and who's ever in charge
Speaker 1: of our country and their country and what the economy
Speaker 1: looks like. But that is what happened. It wasn't a
Speaker 1: complete disaster for the Conservatives. It was a big disappointment.
Speaker 1: But if the third parties one last thing, the third
Speaker 1: there's multiple progressive parties in Canada. There's the Green Party,
Speaker 1: the Bau Quebec, the New Democratics, whatever. The New Democratics
Speaker 1: lost almost all their support, their numbers plummeted, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't so much as the center was holding for the Liberals.
Speaker 1: The New Democrats, part of the block Quebecs, part of
Speaker 1: the Green Party moved to the Liberals. So the far
Speaker 1: right moved to the Liberals, and the centrist voters who
Speaker 1: were part of the Liberal Party moved to the conservatives.
Speaker 1: They're just happening more far left liberals in Canada than
Speaker 1: there were centrist who moved. So that's what happened. Wasn't
Speaker 1: a complete disaster with the conservative It was actually a
Speaker 1: fairly strong showing. And we'll see what happens in that
Speaker 1: country going forward. And on Monday Show, we talked about
Speaker 1: Trump's first one hundred days in office. Now, this show
Speaker 1: was taped ahead of the Monday Program, which we always do.
Speaker 1: We were table at least a few days ahead of time,
Speaker 1: or a day ahead of time in this case, and
Speaker 1: we taped the episode on Friday. Well, of course on
Speaker 1: Sunday what comes out, but a ton of new polling
Speaker 1: it pulls up. We didn't mention that when I taped
Speaker 1: down on a Friday because we didn't have them yet.
Speaker 1: And the headlines from the Washington Post and the New
Speaker 1: York Times and a bunch of other publication said Trump
Speaker 1: has his worst performance in history. He's the worst performing
Speaker 1: president of the modern era, worse than he did the
Speaker 1: first term. Republicans are on a precipice for a doomsday disaster.
Speaker 1: You've heard these headlines before they were regurgitated. So I
Speaker 1: wanted to go over them, and I pulled all the data.
Speaker 1: I put on my substack, the National Populist newsletter. It's
Speaker 1: free there for everyone who wants to listen. You have
Speaker 1: to subscribe. You could just go there and read it.
Speaker 1: I pulled all the data and I want to go
Speaker 1: over it. So from April, these were the major polls,
Speaker 1: and I'll give you the poll number, the name of
Speaker 1: the pollster, and the margin at which Trump's at. The
Speaker 1: ABC Washington Post Pole had him at negative thirteen. New
Speaker 1: York Times had a negative twelve, CNN had negative fourteen,
Speaker 1: CBS was negative ten, The Economist was negative nine, Fox
Speaker 1: News was negative eleven, Atlas Intel was negative six, Pew
Speaker 1: Research was negative nineteen, Quinny Peck was negative twelve. Quantus
Speaker 1: Insight was negative three. And so if you average that out,
Speaker 1: you have about a negative eleven. That's where he is
Speaker 1: on average, negative eleven. But there's two numbers there that
Speaker 1: are much different than all the other numbers, Atlas Intel
Speaker 1: and Quantus Insight. Alice Intel has meant negative six, Quantus
Speaker 1: Insight has meant negative three. They're both taken a little
Speaker 1: while earlier in April, but after Liberation Day, after the tariffs.
Speaker 1: Alice Intel was the number one most accurate pollster of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. Quantus was the third most accurates pollster
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty four. So why are their numbers significantly
Speaker 1: better for Trump than the New York Times, Sienna, New
Speaker 1: York Times, Santa Poll, the CNN poll, the Washington Post pol.
Speaker 1: Why are they different? And they actually match an NRCC
Speaker 1: and that's a National Republican Congressional Committee internal poll which
Speaker 1: had the president of negative seven. So they're in the
Speaker 1: same They're all playing the same kind of realm. So
Speaker 1: why are their polls much different than the mainstream media polls.
Speaker 1: I went through the cross tabs to look the major
Speaker 1: difference is there's a double digit difference among Republicans. First
Speaker 1: of all, Quantus and Atlas their polls have Trump in
Speaker 1: the mid eighties among Republicans. All the other pollsters have
Speaker 1: him barely crossing seventy. And I am more inclined to
Speaker 1: believe an Atlas poll or a Quantus poll showing that
Speaker 1: Trump's approval among Republicans probably hasn't dipped all that much.
Speaker 1: I mean, Republicans have been loiled for him for a
Speaker 1: lot crazier things and a lot more ups and downs
Speaker 1: than just the tariff anouncement. Also a double digit difference
Speaker 1: among independents. Some of these polls have Trump's independent numbers
Speaker 1: in horrific territory. I mean, I'm talking negative thirty five,
Speaker 1: negative forty seven, negative thirty six, negative twenty five. Negative
Speaker 1: twenty five is actually a good number. In some of
Speaker 1: these polls, Alice Intel has met negative eighteen and Quantus
Speaker 1: has been negative twelve. That's a much different place than
Speaker 1: negative thirty seven. It's not great eight, but it's not
Speaker 1: negative thirty seven. These double digit margins matter a lot,
Speaker 1: and overall the average among Hispanics for these poles is
Speaker 1: much higher. Hispanics saw this big realignment, like the when
Speaker 1: we just saw on Canada we had a re alignment
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, Hispanics moved to the right. Did
Speaker 1: they all of a sudden move to the left of
Speaker 1: the re alignment get erased? And the big, big, big
Speaker 1: question mark that kind of raised on my spicy senses,
Speaker 1: my pols or spidy senses, was this His support among
Speaker 1: black voters is as high as it was post election. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, all of the decline of support among
Speaker 1: minorities really primarily comes from Latino. Could that be because
Speaker 1: the mass depredations, maybe, But could it also be from
Speaker 1: over sampling Latino progressives and Democrats and centrists. Yes, it could,
Speaker 1: because that happens quite a bit. It happened throughout the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four election in many polls that said Trump
Speaker 1: could not cross thirty five percent among life Tinos, when
Speaker 1: he crossed the mid forties. I think that all those
Speaker 1: things are feeding these negative pole members, and I am
Speaker 1: more inclined to believe an antless intel poll which is
Speaker 1: matching the NRCC pole, which is matching the quantities insight
Speaker 1: pole over the sexy headlines of the New York Times
Speaker 1: and the Washington Post and all these other outlets really
Speaker 1: have been pushing forever. That's my personal opinion. Now we'll
Speaker 1: see what happens. Tariffs have been destabilized at the market.
Speaker 1: Our GDP numbers have just released as we're recording this
Speaker 1: podcast on Wednesday, showing a shrinkage in the economy of
Speaker 1: point three percent, which is concerning. It's not we're not
Speaker 1: in a great place, but I don't believe we're in
Speaker 1: a doomsday scenario. I don't think Trump's in a doomsday scenario,
Speaker 1: and I think we have a while till the midterm
Speaker 1: election of our polls really start to matter. But I
Speaker 1: don't think that the prevailing narrative, like it's not in
Speaker 1: the Canadian election, the prevailing narrative over Trump is not accurate.
Speaker 1: One poster that I did not mention in in the
Speaker 1: summary of all these polls is my buddy James Johnson.
Speaker 1: He is a polster from the UK. He was one
Speaker 1: of the most accurate polsters in twenty twenty four. He
Speaker 1: has a much different opinion than the headlines and the
Speaker 1: prevailing narrative over Trump, and he'll be with us next
Speaker 1: so stay tuned to hear what he has to say.
Speaker 1: James Johnson is the founder of j L Partners. He
Speaker 1: has a lot of stuff that gets published in the
Speaker 1: Daily Mail. He was once the polster for the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of England. He's a good buddy of mine. James,
Speaker 1: thanks for being on this podcast.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. Ron.
Speaker 1: So you have a new poll out from it's in
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail. What is your findings on Trump's approval rating?
Speaker 3: Right, so, we do think that Trump's approval rating has
Speaker 3: gone down. We've got a forty five percent before we
Speaker 3: were actually about fifty percent for Trump. In fact, two
Speaker 3: weeks ago we had him at his joint highest approval rating.
Speaker 3: So we've generally shown better numbers for Trump than the average.
Speaker 3: We do think he's come down a bit. We think
Speaker 3: he's in the mid forties. We think, however, he's nowhere
Speaker 3: near some of the more dire ratings that some of
Speaker 3: the poles as are putting out. So we don't think
Speaker 3: he's on thirty eight thirty nine percent. We think he's
Speaker 3: in the mid forties. Actually, by Trump standards, that's really
Speaker 3: not that bad.
Speaker 1: Right, So okay, so first things first I did. I
Speaker 1: looked at all the polls that had just recently come out,
Speaker 1: and the interesting thing about them, where pollsters like you Atlas,
Speaker 1: Intel and Quantus Insights, you, the three you're at three
Speaker 1: poles are much more alike with each other than other polls.
Speaker 1: What's your what's his unfavorable number? If it's favoral is forty.
Speaker 2: Five fifty five? We do it without the donotes, okay,
Speaker 2: so oh gotcha?
Speaker 1: All right, so it's ten with no donuts, gotcha. Now.
Speaker 1: The thing that I found interesting, and the reason I
Speaker 1: think it was interesting, is that in the ABC Washington Post,
Speaker 1: the New York Times, CNN, CBS, economists, you name it.
Speaker 1: Trump's favorable numbers with all those pollsters among Republicans is
Speaker 1: somewhere in the low seventies. The now for you guys,
Speaker 1: for your pole, they just came, it's eighty five. And
Speaker 1: that ten point margin among Republicans, and also you have
Speaker 1: a isentially higher support among independents that makes up a
Speaker 1: large chunk of the favorability rating. Do you think that
Speaker 1: there's any possibly like one in four Republicans have an
Speaker 1: unfavorable opinion of him.
Speaker 3: No, No, okay, And if this is the thing, so,
Speaker 3: I think a lot of pollsters are well.
Speaker 2: I think it's a lot of reasons behind this.
Speaker 3: But the fundamental problem with some of these polls is
Speaker 3: that they are still getting too many Harris voters in
Speaker 3: their samples. Now, that was a problem in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: where people were getting too many people.
Speaker 2: Intending to vote Harris.
Speaker 3: But they've now got too many people who voted Harris
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty four in their samples to debt to death.
Speaker 3: And that's the reason you're getting these Republicans who actually
Speaker 3: are not indicative of Republicans as a whole. They are
Speaker 3: Republicans who actually perhaps opted for Harris in twenty four
Speaker 3: or indeed didn't vote. So I think we're getting these
Speaker 3: Poles who they did not do very well in twenty four,
Speaker 3: and now they're putting out these bad approval ratings of Trump.
Speaker 3: I have to say, right, I find it baffling. I
Speaker 3: find it incredible if you just take the three posters
Speaker 3: with the lowest Trump ratings that also had Poles in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, let me read them out to you. ABC,
Speaker 3: Washington Post, Dipsos. They've got thirty nine percent Trump approval.
Speaker 3: They had Harris three points ahead in November in an
Speaker 3: SRSS forty one percent Trump approval. They had Harris winning
Speaker 3: by six points in Wisconsin, five points in Michigan. New
Speaker 3: York Times Sienna often talks about as a gold standard
Speaker 3: forty two percent Trump approval. They had Harris winning all
Speaker 3: the swing states by Arizona. Now, I don't need to
Speaker 3: point out to your esteemed listeners that's not what happened.
Speaker 3: Trump won the popular vote anyone, all seven sin swing states.
Speaker 3: So I find it slightly baffling that these media outlets
Speaker 3: are still hiring the exact same polsters with the exact
Speaker 3: same methodology that meant that they fell so far wide
Speaker 3: of the mark in November.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean the New York Times poll did a
Speaker 1: little better than the other ones, as I believe they
Speaker 1: were in version of error in most of the swing stations.
Speaker 1: Is why I still listen to them. I like CNN
Speaker 1: for the fact that they show cross tabs. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really all I have to go for them. I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 1: at least I can see the I can see the work,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other poles they don't show cross
Speaker 1: steps or they show limited ones, even like Wuinnipiac, which
Speaker 1: those limited ones. But so you were at a piece
Speaker 1: with the Spectator where you went in on these polsters
Speaker 1: and why that they were wrong? Is it the fact?
Speaker 1: And this has been my long standing opinion, especially when
Speaker 1: a him to polling senior citizens senior citizen poll in
Speaker 1: many polls, like even the New York Times Sanaple which
Speaker 1: you just mentioned, in the swing states in Wisconsin, Michigan,
Speaker 1: and Pennsylvania, they had Harris not only winning seniors in
Speaker 1: those states, but they went winning them by double digits.
Speaker 1: I think in Michigan they had her winning by twenty
Speaker 1: points senior citizens, senior citizens have moved to the left
Speaker 1: as polier. Senior citizens who were I would say silent
Speaker 1: generation or greatest generation have died off and baby boomers,
Speaker 1: who are more progressive have become senior citizens. I said,
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, it's like the archie Bunker was
Speaker 1: a senior citizen. He's no longer alive. Meat loaf. The
Speaker 1: liberal son alone is a senior citizen now. But among
Speaker 1: senior citizens there is a there are there are older
Speaker 1: liberals who are you know MSNBC viewers who would break
Speaker 1: someone's neck to go answer a poll. They will do
Speaker 1: anything to answer a pole. They cannot wait to tell
Speaker 1: you how much they hate Trump, And that same kind
Speaker 1: of participation is not is not there for conservative senior citizens.
Speaker 1: Do you find that as well as that why we're
Speaker 1: seeing these numbers that are sometimes very off in that
Speaker 1: in that demographic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a key factor.
Speaker 3: Our research during the twenty twenty four election showed that
Speaker 3: the group that was most likely to pick up a
Speaker 3: landline polling pool were older, white middle class women. Now,
Speaker 3: I haven't got anything against older white middle class women.
Speaker 3: They're an important group to poll, but they're not so
Speaker 3: important that they should flood your your polling answers, and
Speaker 3: that group is more likely to vote Democrat than a
Speaker 3: Republican way. Is what was behind that and Seltzer's disastrous
Speaker 3: Iowa pole. She only used landline polling, she picked up
Speaker 3: more of those people. She thought that was the story
Speaker 3: of the election. It was actually the.
Speaker 2: Story of her polling buyers. So that is a big element.
Speaker 3: The fundamental problem I think to that poll to others
Speaker 3: is that they are using traditional methods in an information
Speaker 3: ecosystem that isn't traditional anymore. For every voter, I sort
Speaker 3: of think of them as having a bubble around their head,
Speaker 3: and they've got media on one hand giving them some things.
Speaker 3: They've got AI on the other giving them some things.
Speaker 3: They've got social media. They've also got their friends and family.
Speaker 3: They've also just got their own view of the world,
Speaker 3: and polling has to sort of overlap with that bubble.
Speaker 3: You can't just go people on landlines and only penetrate
Speaker 3: a bit of that. You've got to a potion in
Speaker 3: a different way. So one of the things that we
Speaker 3: do alongside the traditional methods is in app polling. So
Speaker 3: if you're playing a game on your phone or you're
Speaker 3: online shopping, you get a notification, do you want to
Speaker 3: get a discount or do you want to win fifty
Speaker 3: thousand game points? Complete this short survey. It picks up
Speaker 3: people who are not who are not answering those traditional things.
Speaker 3: It picks up more disengaged people. It also picks up
Speaker 3: busy people. Ryan a key part of the Trump coalition
Speaker 3: were busy blue collar workers who weren't going to go
Speaker 3: and answer a poll. It wasn't because they didn't distrust
Speaker 3: the bowling. It was because they were working all day
Speaker 3: and didn't have the time.
Speaker 1: So problem when you have like the economists, which asks
Speaker 1: the economists you go poles which literally ask one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty seven questions, so like you have to spend
Speaker 1: an hour of your day. Now they pay people or
Speaker 1: do those poles, which I think also feeds into the inaccuracy.
Speaker 1: But you have to do one hundred and eighty sum questions.
Speaker 1: So in your piece that you know that Trump's approvings
Speaker 1: have gone down, how much of it is tariffs? And
Speaker 1: what is the conversation tariffs are having a month?
Speaker 3: So we asked people in that same poll, what is
Speaker 3: the reason that you feel more negative towards Trump? And
Speaker 3: we asked that of people, of everyone, but we've narrowed
Speaker 3: it down in the analysis to Trump voters, now too
Speaker 3: small a samples to say too much about. But the
Speaker 3: general gist of those answers was that it was about tariffs.
Speaker 3: And we actually did a word cloud and the most
Speaker 3: mentioned word in the word cloud was the word tariffs. However,
Speaker 3: I think it's more complicated than just people think tariffs
Speaker 3: are bad. I don't think they do. When Trump first
Speaker 3: announced his Liberation Day tariffs, we actually had Trump's approval
Speaker 3: at fifty four percent the week after. They respected when
Speaker 3: we dug into the numbers. They respected a sense of direction,
Speaker 3: a sense of strength, a sense of this is what
Speaker 3: he said he'd do. What we've actually seen happened since
Speaker 3: is that since Trump softened and changed some of his
Speaker 3: positions on tariffs, voters have lost a bit of that
Speaker 3: benefit of the doubt. They're less saying he's strong, he's
Speaker 3: getting things done, he's taking a strong stance on this.
Speaker 3: They're more saying, well, I still trust Trump, I still
Speaker 3: like him, but I'm not quite sure what the strategy is,
Speaker 3: what's the plan here? And that's taken away a bit
Speaker 3: of that respect, and it's made people worry a little
Speaker 3: bit more about the impact on their four oh one
Speaker 3: k and their wallets.
Speaker 2: So, look, I don't think this is a.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I've been saying to everyone in Washington
Speaker 1: is that I don't I who work in the media
Speaker 1: a lot, and I know every I know a lot
Speaker 1: of members of Congress and the Trump administration, and I
Speaker 1: work for the Vice president. I don't know what what
Speaker 1: the plan is. I don't know. I don't understand what
Speaker 1: the end goal is with the tariffs, and it's very
Speaker 1: very frustrating. I'm looking at your word bubble right now.
Speaker 1: Tariffs is like not only the biggest word, it takes
Speaker 1: upody I think at least probably forty percent of all
Speaker 1: the space available. And then in the lower words, the
Speaker 1: words that are are not as big as tariffs are
Speaker 1: tariff tariffs spelled a different way with two r's instead
Speaker 1: of the two f's, mosque elon doje. And then minor
Speaker 1: lower is like deportations, which is very very very small,
Speaker 1: but it's mostly China's. There is a small bubble. Ukraine
Speaker 1: is a very small bubble, but it is almost entirely tariffs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think it's particularly this this this watering
Speaker 3: down the people have wondered. Look from a political CON's
Speaker 3: point of view, that's either a that's either an issue
Speaker 3: of well, you know, perhaps the U turn, perhaps he
Speaker 3: shouldn't have changed position, or perhaps you shouldn't have brought
Speaker 3: it in the first place if it was always inevitably
Speaker 3: that it was going to change position. It reminds me
Speaker 3: of a British example, Ryan of Liz Truss. She was
Speaker 3: Prime Minister in the UK for a very short period.
Speaker 3: She ended up resigning. She went from pretty good approval
Speaker 3: ratings to catechismically bad ones. And the reason is not
Speaker 3: so much because of the economic policy that she took,
Speaker 3: but the fact she reversed it massively.
Speaker 2: She lost that hunch. Now.
Speaker 3: I don't think we're seeing the same thing happen here.
Speaker 3: I don't think we are seeing an abandonment of Trump.
Speaker 3: I think this is people just going a bit like, okay,
Speaker 3: I'm still with him, but what's the plan they want
Speaker 3: that reassurance. I don't think it's an abandonment on trust levels.
Speaker 3: But it's similar in that it's the reversal that's done
Speaker 3: the damage rather than the policy itself, but just very quickly.
Speaker 3: Ry So I just want to pick up on something
Speaker 3: you said there. What this isn't It is not a
Speaker 3: backlash against deportations. It is not a backlash against the
Speaker 3: case of Garcia in Al Salvador. It is not really
Speaker 3: even a bat against Elon Musk or Doche. It's not
Speaker 3: a backlash against Trump's style. It's not a backlash on
Speaker 3: Ukraine and Zelenski. It's a very particular thing that has
Speaker 3: just made them doubt whether Trump's cat a strategy. On
Speaker 3: the bulk of the Trump policy platform, his voters are
Speaker 3: still really, really behind him.
Speaker 1: Now, I want to bring up something else that you
Speaker 1: put it in your poll. I'm looking at the cross
Speaker 1: tims you've made about approval disapproval with the neutral there,
Speaker 1: with the I don't know Trump's numbers, My Hispanics have
Speaker 1: fallen substantially, and this has been in a lot of
Speaker 1: different poles. That actually makes me question whether they're or
Speaker 1: correct or not. Did the entire realignment that affected how
Speaker 1: you know, this election? Last election went and his bag
Speaker 1: supporting Trump has fallen apart because of deportations.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think it has.
Speaker 3: I think we'd be careful with those small, small cross
Speaker 3: tab numbers. I think all polsters at this stage, remember,
Speaker 3: are not trying to predict an election, so they therefore
Speaker 3: are a little bit like you know that that that
Speaker 3: they're spending a bit less money, frankly, And I think
Speaker 3: that's also why we get a lot of these more
Speaker 3: garbage poles coming out, because people are just actually investing
Speaker 3: a lot less in it, because their reputation is riding
Speaker 3: on it less. Right, So I'd always be I'd always
Speaker 3: be cautious even with my own poll about cross tabs
Speaker 3: at this cross breaks at that level at the stage
Speaker 3: when I've carried on doing one to one voter interviews
Speaker 3: with voters since since the election, and I was actually
Speaker 3: doing Hispanic voter interviews in Nevada a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 3: and the general gist that I get is that actually,
Speaker 3: although they do not want to go out and show
Speaker 3: and talk to their friends and families saying they're in
Speaker 3: support of deportations, actually their support for them has basically
Speaker 3: remained pretty stable since the election. Yes, they're more nervous
Speaker 3: about talking about it and telling the neighbors that they
Speaker 3: support President Trump, but actually on the bulk of the
Speaker 3: fairness issue, I think they're pretty much in line. The
Speaker 3: message I got again and again and again in an
Speaker 3: election I still get now is I did it the
Speaker 3: right way. These people did it the wrong way. So
Speaker 3: I don't think that's gone. Look, I don't think these Hispanics,
Speaker 3: especially Hispanic men, who came over to Trump, I don't
Speaker 3: think they became lifelong Republicans overnight. But I do think
Speaker 3: they became swing voters for the first time in that election.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean the Republicans have goten for good. It
Speaker 3: means they're up for grabs, But it also means they
Speaker 3: haven't lost them either.
Speaker 1: Got it Okay, Well that's I mean, that's good to
Speaker 1: know the other part of the cross tabs, and I
Speaker 1: know not to get to obsess them. But this is
Speaker 1: not laying your cressos. This is in everybody's young people.
Speaker 1: Young people. There was a research done by David Shore
Speaker 1: that showed that young men between these of eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty one were the most Republican demographic. The Yale poll
Speaker 1: came out right afterwards, showing that young men were plan
Speaker 1: voting for Republicans in the twenty twenty six mid terms
Speaker 1: at the greatest portion of any group. Your poll has
Speaker 1: Trump falling. I think twenty points among young men. Other
Speaker 1: polls actually a bit for much much lower, not young men,
Speaker 1: young people as a whole. What is your opinion of
Speaker 1: the youth vote and how that's changed, Because they would
Speaker 1: seemingly be the least affected by tariffs in the stock
Speaker 1: market because they don't have, you know, a lot of stocks,
Speaker 1: and they're not, you know, their four to one k
Speaker 1: plans are rather small to fit a boom orrogen X.
Speaker 2: It's interesting.
Speaker 3: I think that is right, But they are also a
Speaker 3: group young men are also a group that are more
Speaker 3: like he's been plugged into financial news, and I think
Speaker 3: they're more what our research are shown, they're more likely
Speaker 3: to be tracking things like cryptocurrency, things like stocks on
Speaker 3: their phone than actually any group, even those who actually
Speaker 3: have more stocks.
Speaker 2: So it's interesting.
Speaker 3: They do seem to be a bit more plugged into
Speaker 3: that sort of information system that means that they see
Speaker 3: those things.
Speaker 2: So I think there's a bit of that.
Speaker 3: Look again, I would just come back to the point
Speaker 3: that I don't think there's any I don't think they're
Speaker 3: lost for good by any stretch. I think we have
Speaker 3: got a really interesting generational shift here, and I do
Speaker 3: think young men both in America and in other countries
Speaker 3: are having a real backlash to some of the stuff
Speaker 3: that's have been out there about gender rights. I spoke
Speaker 3: to a eighteen year old black man in Nevada as
Speaker 3: a swing voter interview. He was a first time Trump voter.
Speaker 3: I mean, he was a first time voter, but he
Speaker 3: is voting trumpet for the first time of anyone in
Speaker 3: his family and for him.
Speaker 2: I asked him why, and he just came.
Speaker 3: Back to the Democrats are pushing nonsense on gender and
Speaker 3: they want you know, they're pushing all this stuff on trends,
Speaker 3: and I'm more interested in the economy now. His view
Speaker 3: was that Trump had to improve the economy for him
Speaker 3: to carry on voting Republican. So he's not with Trump
Speaker 3: for good, but he's giving Trump a chance, and he's
Speaker 3: giving the Republican Party a chance. I do think though,
Speaker 3: that if the Republicans need to be concerned about one thing,
Speaker 3: it's how they get out these younger men, younger non
Speaker 3: white voters who gave Trump a vote for the first time.
Speaker 3: How do they get them out in twenty twenty six
Speaker 3: Because these are not people who have traditionally voted a
Speaker 3: lot in these elections, and that's the big challenge I think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's the problem where you have with
Speaker 1: the with Boomer's movies, a lt of people who are
Speaker 1: always voting, voting consistently, you'll have That's why you're seeing
Speaker 1: the special elections move ten twenty points and some seats
Speaker 1: that they're really not competitive in it, and it might
Speaker 1: be a very big problem for the midterms. I agree
Speaker 1: with that sentiment. I don't really know the answer the
Speaker 1: top of my head, but I think that that is
Speaker 1: really important part. What is the most if you were
Speaker 1: to sit there and talk to somebody about from like
Speaker 1: the White House, about an administration about the whole tariffs,
Speaker 1: would it be to double down on a plan or
Speaker 1: to kind of walk back and announce a bunch of
Speaker 1: free trade agreements and and just you know, call it
Speaker 1: a day. What would be what would be the best
Speaker 1: impactful for a polls? You know, because you have a
Speaker 1: few months until they start really mattering ahead of the midterms,
Speaker 1: But what would your opinion be?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, my first I'm going to I promise I'm
Speaker 3: going to answer your question, Ryan, But my first, my
Speaker 3: instinctive answer to that is ignore us, ignore the pollsters.
Speaker 2: Do what you think is right for the country.
Speaker 3: Like you know, President Trump, if if he's going to
Speaker 3: face what usually happens at the mid terms, which is
Speaker 3: that the opposition wins, then he should use this two
Speaker 3: years to do whatever the hell he wants to improve
Speaker 3: the country, so that that would be That's my fundamental answer.
Speaker 3: But if you're looking at how to message it best,
Speaker 3: I think you know, and I think that it's probably
Speaker 3: now showing that this is a plan that is paid
Speaker 3: off and that it's resulting in this free trade deal,
Speaker 3: this trade deal, tying it back to it. If they
Speaker 3: can't do that, then I think it's probably best to
Speaker 3: get off the issue and move on to something else.
Speaker 1: James Andson. Where can people go to read your stuff,
Speaker 1: read your polls, all your information?
Speaker 3: So they go on Twitter x is the best place,
Speaker 3: James Johnson two five two, And if you also look
Speaker 3: on jail partners dot com that's where we upload all
Speaker 3: of our latest polling and you can also get in
Speaker 3: touch there if you're interested in any further information.
Speaker 1: Cheers James Andson, Happy birthday. Thank you so much. You
Speaker 1: do great jobs in polling and people should check it
Speaker 1: out now.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Ron you're listening to It's The Numbers Game with Ryan Grodowski.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after this message. And now for
Speaker 1: the Ask Me anything part of this show. Once again,
Speaker 1: please send me a questions about literally anything that I
Speaker 1: can answer. I'll do the research for you. Can ema
Speaker 1: me Ryan at Numbers Game podcast dot com. That's plural numbers,
Speaker 1: Ryan at Numbers Game Podcast, come my email. This question
Speaker 1: this week was actually so simple. Do you have a
Speaker 1: book recommendation for me? And I do so. This is
Speaker 1: not a popular World War two book. It's not like huge,
Speaker 1: but it's one of my favorites called Diary of a
Speaker 1: Man in Despair by Friedrich Reich R. E. C. K.
Speaker 1: It is a book about a German aristocrat watching the
Speaker 1: rise of Nazis and losing his country. It is written
Speaker 1: from a conservative perspective. It's beautiful, it's heartbreaking, it's his
Speaker 1: own it's it's his diary, so it's it's it's very powerful,
Speaker 1: beautiful book. Love it, love it, love it. Cannot recommend
Speaker 1: it enough to people once again. Diary of a Man
Speaker 1: in Despair by Frederick Reich quick and easy, and it's
Speaker 1: also not super long. I'm the middle of reading a
Speaker 1: book right now, which is like seven hundred pages, and
Speaker 1: sometimes it's this is this book's a slog. It's a
Speaker 1: good book, but it's a slog. So maybe i'll give
Speaker 1: you a review when I'm finally.
Speaker 2: Done with it.
Speaker 1: Anyway, thank you all for listening this week. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate all of you. Please like and subscribe at the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 1: please check us out next week. Thank you all.