Thursday on the RealClearPolitics radio show, Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan, and RCP senior elections analyst Sean Trende dissect opinion polls about the Trump administration and the collapse of trust in institutions in general. They also discuss why Democrats may regret retaliating against Texas and escalating the redistricting battle to the next level. Also, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has come out in favor of a congressional stock trading ban. Could it really happen? Later, James S. Robbins, the dean of academics at the Institute of World Politics, joins Andrew Walworth to preview the meeting on Friday between President Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska. You can listen to the show weeknights at 6:00 p.m. on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel 124 and then on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and here on our website. *** First, the Trump administration is keeping busy and dominating the headlines. What do the polls say about how people are responding? “His overall approval rating in the RealClearPolitics Average of polls is 45.9%, which is not great,” Tom Bevan said. “But we’ve got 25 years of data… As of two days ago, Donald Trump’s 45.9% was two full points higher than where Obama was at this point in his second term, and a little higher than George W. Bush.” “This isn’t Trump’s first term when he was down in the high-30s, and Senate races in Alabama became competitive,” Sean Trende commented. *** And then, around minute 7, a new U.S. News/Harris poll says Americans continue to lose trust in institutions across the board. “So we talk about Trump’s numbers being bad, but his numbers are sort of in line with other institutions,” Andrew Walworth noted. “There was another poll a couple of weeks ago by Pew that showed 80% of Americans –79% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats– agreed that we can’t even agree on the same set of facts,” Tom Bevan said. “So the one thing that unites Americans is the fact that we can’t agree on the same set of facts.” *** Next, starting at minute 10:30, California Gov. Gavin Newsom today revealed his plan to retaliate against Republicans doing a mid-decade redistricting in Texas. What are the long-term effects of both sides taking partisan gerrymandering to the extreme? “California already had a very favorable map. Democrats get about 60% of the vote, and they already had all but nine of California’s 52 seats,” Trende explained. “Newsom, in retaliation to what’s going on in Texas, is trying to take that up where they’ll get 93% of the seats off of 60% of the vote.” “Democrats already went for broke. Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts are maximal Democratic gerrymanders,” Trende said. “But there’s a ton of places for Republicans to escalate.” “If the Supreme Court ends up striking down the Voting Rights Act, which I think it will, you’re looking at Republicans potentially adding 20 seats total in redistricting,” Trende said. “That’s a wow, but it is also really dangerous. At that point, you can talk about Republicans losing the popular vote by four or five points and still holding onto the House… Right now, Democrats need to gain three seats. They would have to gain 23 seats.” “What are the macro effects of maximizing all of the districts in all of the states all around the country? What is that going to do to partisanship and just the civic fabric of the country?” Tom Bevan added. “I don’t know how you find an off-ramp for that.” *** After that, at minute 25:30, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent voiced support for a single-stock trading ban for members of Congress, calling their record of “eye-popping returns” a “statistical anomaly.” Are they willing to give that up? “I don’t understand why members of Congress aren’t interested in protecting the reputation of the institution,” Tom Bevan said. “When you’re getting six, seven, eight times the return over the S&P 500 – that’s like batting .500 in the major leagues when everyone else is batting .220.” “They might want the credibility of their institution – but they also might want a million dollars,” Sean Trende offered. “Both sides make big bucks off this kind of trading, so there’s no partisan angle to it. Everyone’s protecting their back, and it gets to the degradation of trust the American people have in their institutions.” *** Finally, at minute 34:30, James S. Robbins, the dean of academics at the Institute of World Politics, joins Andrew Walworth to preview the meeting on Friday between President Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska. “We’re talking about an initial meeting of what’s going to be a very hard series of negotiations to try to settle this war,” he said. ” I think President Trump has a lot of faith in himself as a dealmaker. He thinks if he can just sit down with Putin, they can somehow hash it out. And good luck to him.” “But I just don’t think the Russians are interested in anything other than taking everything they have and just saying, okay, that’s it for now.” “From Putin’s point of view, it’s him and Trump,” Robbins said, “Just like the old days, right? Just like the bipolar Cold War days, when the leaders of the two countries would settle all the world’s issues. So I think it’s in Putin’s interest to promote and enhance the idea that he and Trump are on the same level and they’re meeting as equals.” *** Don’t miss an episode of the RealClearPolitics weeknight radio show – subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
RealClearPolitics Videos