Number of Democratic voters who are ‘extremely motivated' to vote in next election skyrockets
Just six months after Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-aligned voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to vote in the next election, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS this month found. By contrast, only 50 percent of Republicans say the same.
Democrats are now looking to enter midterm elections in 2026 under similar circumstances as 2018 in an attempt to break up the GOP's control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.
During the 2018 elections, voters dealt a massive blow to President Donald Trump's first-term agenda, with House Democrats gaining 23 seats to take control of the House.
In October 2022, two years into President Joe Biden's term when Democrats narrowly controlled the trifecta, just 44 percent of Democratic voters expressed the same motivation to vote in the midterm. That figure was just slightly higher for Republicans, with 48 percent saying they were eager to vote.
In that election, Republicans clinched the House of Representatives while Democrats retained control of the Senate.
Still, the poll shows Democrats could have some work cut out for them.
Just 28 percent of respondents said they view the Democratic Party favorably. Meanwhile, 33 percent expressed a favorable view of the Republican Party.
'I think that the Democratic Party, we have a lot of work to do to make sure we are meeting voters where they are, listening to what they have to say, and talking to them about issues that they want us to take action on,' Virginia Democratic Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan told CNN in response to the poll. "What's going to matter is what we're doing on the ground in these districts.'
Recovering from Kamala Harris' defeat to Trump in 2024, Democrats are looking to harness an electorate that they lost in the last election.
A separate poll by Lake Research Partners and Way to Win analyzed 'Biden skippers,' those living in battleground states who voted for Biden in 2020 but sat out of the 2024 presidential election.
The survey poked holes in the idea that Harris was 'too far left.' Progressive lawmaker Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez topped the list of public figures respondents viewed positively, with 78 percent having a favorable view of Sanders and 67 percent having a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez.
Republicans are also making moves ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The White House is already strategizing to ensure the GOP retains the trifecta. The plan reportedly includes Trump returning to the campaign trail as well as him having a hand in advising which candidates run and which 'stay put' in the upcoming election, sources told Politico.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Creating realistic deepfakes is getting easier than ever. Fighting back may take even more AI
WASHINGTON (AP) — The phone rings. It's the secretary of state calling. Or is it? For Washington insiders, seeing and hearing is no longer believing, thanks to a spate of recent incidents involving deepfakes impersonating top officials in President Donald Trump's administration. Digital fakes are coming for corporate America, too, as criminal gangs and hackers associated with adversaries including North Korea use synthetic video and audio to impersonate CEOs and low-level job candidates to gain access to critical systems or business secrets. Thanks to advances in artificial intelligence, creating realistic deepfakes is easier than ever, causing security problems for governments, businesses and private individuals and making trust the most valuable currency of the digital age. Responding to the challenge will require laws, better digital literacy and technical solutions that fight AI with more AI. 'As humans, we are remarkably susceptible to deception,' said Vijay Balasubramaniyan, CEO and founder of the tech firm Pindrop Security. But he believes solutions to the challenge of deepfakes may be within reach: 'We are going to fight back.' AI deepfakes become a national security threat This summer, someone used AI to create a deepfake of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in an attempt to reach out to foreign ministers, a U.S. senator and a governor over text, voice mail and the Signal messaging app. In May someone impersonated Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Another phony Rubio had popped up in a deepfake earlier this year, saying he wanted to cut off Ukraine's access to Elon Musk's Starlink internet service. Ukraine's government later rebutted the false claim. The national security implications are huge: People who think they're chatting with Rubio or Wiles, for instance, might discuss sensitive information about diplomatic negotiations or military strategy. 'You're either trying to extract sensitive secrets or competitive information or you're going after access, to an email server or other sensitive network," Kinny Chan, CEO of the cybersecurity firm QiD, said of the possible motivations. Synthetic media can also aim to alter behavior. Last year, Democratic voters in New Hampshire received a robocall urging them not to vote in the state's upcoming primary. The voice on the call sounded suspiciously like then-President Joe Biden but was actually created using AI. Their ability to deceive makes AI deepfakes a potent weapon for foreign actors. Both Russia and China have used disinformation and propaganda directed at Americans as a way of undermining trust in democratic alliances and institutions. Steven Kramer, the political consultant who admitted sending the fake Biden robocalls, said he wanted to send a message of the dangers deepfakes pose to the American political system. Kramer was acquitted last month of charges of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. 'I did what I did for $500,' Kramer said. 'Can you imagine what would happen if the Chinese government decided to do this?' Scammers target the financial industry with deepfakes The greater availability and sophistication of the programs mean deepfakes are increasingly used for corporate espionage and garden variety fraud. 'The financial industry is right in the crosshairs," said Jennifer Ewbank, a former deputy director of the CIA who worked on cybersecurity and digital threats. 'Even individuals who know each other have been convinced to transfer vast sums of money.' In the context of corporate espionage, they can be used to impersonate CEOs asking employees to hand over passwords or routing numbers. Deepfakes can also allow scammers to apply for jobs — and even do them — under an assumed or fake identity. For some this is a way to access sensitive networks, to steal secrets or to install ransomware. Others just want the work and may be working a few similar jobs at different companies at the same time. Authorities in the U.S. have said that thousands of North Koreans with information technology skills have been dispatched to live abroad, using stolen identities to obtain jobs at tech firms in the U.S. and elsewhere. The workers get access to company networks as well as a paycheck. In some cases, the workers install ransomware that can be later used to extort even more money. The schemes have generated billions of dollars for the North Korean government. Within three years, as many as 1 in 4 job applications is expected to be fake, according to research from Adaptive Security, a cybersecurity company. 'We've entered an era where anyone with a laptop and access to an open-source model can convincingly impersonate a real person,' said Brian Long, Adaptive's CEO. 'It's no longer about hacking systems — it's about hacking trust.' Experts deploy AI to fight back against AI Researchers, public policy experts and technology companies are now investigating the best ways of addressing the economic, political and social challenges posed by deepfakes. New regulations could require tech companies to do more to identify, label and potentially remove deepfakes on their platforms. Lawmakers could also impose greater penalties on those who use digital technology to deceive others — if they can be caught. Greater investments in digital literacy could also boost people's immunity to online deception by teaching them ways to spot fake media and avoid falling prey to scammers. The best tool for catching AI may be another AI program, one trained to sniff out the tiny flaws in deepfakes that would go unnoticed by a person. Systems like Pindrop's analyze millions of datapoints in any person's speech to quickly identify irregularities. The system can be used during job interviews or other video conferences to detect if the person is using voice cloning software, for instance. Similar programs may one day be commonplace, running in the background as people chat with colleagues and loved ones online. Someday, deepfakes may go the way of email spam, a technological challenge that once threatened to upend the usefulness of email, said Balasubramaniyan, Pindrop's CEO. 'You can take the defeatist view and say we're going to be subservient to disinformation," he said. 'But that's not going to happen.' David Klepper, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Washington Post
5 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Georgia Republican Mike Collins joins field seeking to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in 2026
ATLANTA — Georgia Republican Mike Collins said Monday that he will join the field challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff in the state the GOP has named as their top target to add a Senate seat in 2026. A second-term member of Congress from a district east of Atlanta, Collins becomes the newest top Republican to get into the primary race. U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter is already running, while state Insurance Commissioner John King dropped out. Also expected to run is former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley .
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Congress should eliminate all energy subsidies, not just for renewables
Congress voted to pass a massive budget package that, among other things, drastically cuts clean energy tax credits to reduce federal spending. Claiming victory, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4. Indeed, taxpayer dollars subsidizing any special industry can play havoc with the intelligence and efficiency of the free market system. That said, the obvious question is this: Why only the renewable subsidies? Why were fossil fuel subsidies not also eliminated? Lowering the tax burden from fossil fuel subsidies would have offered substantial savings to our federal budget. The U.S. government funnels $10 billion to $15 billion per year to the industry through tax breaks, direct spending (federal programs and infrastructure support), and below-market leases on public lands. Such preferential treatment is sometimes called 'corporate welfare.' Taxpayers actually pay twice for these subsidies, because we also foot the bill for rising costs of localized pollution and climate impacts resulting from increased greenhouse emissions. These federal subsidies benefit profitable oil, gas, and coal companies at taxpayer expense. But instead, the budget bill added a new stack of subsidies for the oil and gas industry. For example, it rolled back royalty fees for extraction on public lands to 1920 rates. It added a new tax credit for intangible drilling and development costs. It increased the value of existing tax credits for use of carbon dioxide to boost extraction. It stalled implementation of a pollution fee on wasted methane flared or vented from oil wells. It also added noncompetitive leasing rules that can offer energy companies bargain-basement prices. The bill also gave the coal industry new subsidies, slashing royalty payments on public lands from 12.5 percent to a maximum of 7 percent for all existing and future leases. There is also a new 2.5 percent tax break for extraction of metallurgic coal, which is hard to justify from an 'America First' perspective. Almost all metallurgic coal mined in the U.S., after all, is exported, primarily to China and India, where it is used to manufacture carbon-intensive steel that out-competes cleaner U.S. steel on the global market. Pollution reduction results in healthier communities and fewer health and disaster costs. There is a fundamental contradiction in providing financial support to companies that are not held financially responsible for the damaging consequences of what they produce, even while eliminating support for clean energy sources like solar and wind. A case can be made that all energy subsidies — whether for fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewables—should be eliminated in the U.S. to create a truly competitive, transparent, and market-driven energy sector. Subsidies distort pricing, shield inefficient technologies from natural market pressures, and lead to inefficient allocation of public funds. While initially helpful in developing emerging industries, long-term subsidies can lock in political favoritism, suppress innovation, and over-burden taxpayers. Removal of subsidies forces energy producers to compete on a level playing field, where cost, efficiency, and sustainability — not government handouts — determine success. This approach would not only save billions in federal spending but also encourage more cost-effective energy solutions driven by actual demand and performance. Uneven standards, where government energy subsidies are granted to some, such as fossil fuels, and not to others, such as clean energy, result in higher energy costs for consumers. If we stop subsidizing America's richest energy companies and oldest industries, we could lower the deficit without cutting essential services and free up more funds for public investment. We need smarter policy that results in fairer energy markets and global energy leadership. Eliminating subsidies is often economically rational but politically difficult, but our individual action can play a meaningful role in shifting political momentum, especially when it is sustained and collective. Congress can still, and should, phase out all energy subsidies, not just the current clean energy cuts.
