Americans aren't too keen on Musk's new party: Poll
The big picture: Musk has floated the so-called "America Party" since rifting from President Trump over his signature "big, beautiful bill," but the initiative still has to clear some hurdles before it can become a reality.
What they found: Nearly half of those surveyed (about 45%) think a third major political party is necessary for the U.S., according to the poll.
But only 11% overall said they would consider supporting Musk's proposed third party.
Although Republicans were less likely to see a need for a third political party, they and Independents were more than twice as likely as Democrats to say they would support Musk's party.
Zoom in: Musk himself has lost some favorability over the past month since parting ways with the DOGE and the Trump administration.
Still, the poll found Musk's strongest supporters are Republicans — including those who identify as MAGA Republicans.
Democrats, on the other hand, generally have had unfavorable views of Musk since the beginning of the year, and the share who now view him favorably is below 10%.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump wields tariffs to sway Putin on Ukraine. Here's how they might work, or not
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has sacrificed an estimated 1 million of his soldiers, killed and wounded, in a three-year campaign to crush Ukraine. Now President Donald Trump is betting that his go-to economic weapon — tariffs — can succeed where Ukrainian drones and rockets haven't, and finally persuade Putin to end his war. Tariffs, which the U.S. president has called ' the most beautiful word in the dictionary,'' are taxes on imports. They are Trump's all-purpose fix — a tool he deploys to protect American industry, lure factories to the United States, tackle drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and raise money to pay for his massive tax cuts. On the campaign trail last year, Trump promised he'd negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. But months have passed without a peace deal, and the president has recently expressed frustration with the Russians. 'We're very, very unhappy with them ... I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there,' Trump told reporters Monday. So in addition to agreeing to send more weapons to Ukraine, he's once again unsheathing tariffs. He said Monday the U.S. would impose 100% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, natural gas and other products if there isn't a peace deal in 50 days. The levies are meant to cause Russia financial pain by making its trading partners think twice before buying Russian energy. 'I use trade for a lot of things,'' Trump said, "but it's great for settling wars.' 'Unilateral tariffs are likely to be ineffective in influencing Putin's actions,' said Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who studies American trade policy. "Financial sanctions in cooperation with European and other allies are much more likely to damage Russian economy, but whether they soften Russia's approach is also uncertain.'' The secondary tariffs idea isn't new. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut earlier this year introduced legislation that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian oil, petroleum products and uranium. If Trump goes through with his threat, his 100% tariffs have the potential to disrupt global commerce and push oil prices higher. They might also complicate Trump's efforts to strike separate trade deals with countries like China and India. The 100% tariffs would likely target China and India Since December 2022, when the European Union banned Russian oil, China and India have bought 85% of Russia's crude oil exports and 63% of its coal, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Finnish nonprofit. So they would likely be the two countries most affected by Trump's 100% import taxes. Trump has already tangled with China this year, and things did not go well. In April, Trump plastered a 145% levy on Chinese imports, and Beijing counterpunched with 125% tariffs of its own. The triple-digit tariffs threatened to end trade between the world's two biggest economies and briefly sent financial markets reeling. China also withheld shipments of rare earth minerals used in products such as electric vehicles and wind turbines, crippling U.S. businesses. After showing how much pain they could inflict on each other, the United States and China agreed to a ceasefire. A new 100% secondary tariff 'would blow up that deal,' said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is particularly well-placed to hold out,' said Nicholas Mulder, a Cornell University historian. "All this would get us back to a position of full confrontation that would be uncomfortable for all sides.'' Hufbauer also noted that the secondary tariffs would also likely end 'any rapprochement with India'' — the world's fifth-biggest economy and one with which Trump is pursuing a trade deal. Energy prices could climb If Trump goes ahead with the tariffs, 'it would invariably lead to higher global energy prices,'' especially for natural gas, economists Kieran Tompkins and Liam Peach of Capital Economics wrote in a commentary Monday. Other oil-exporting countries have enough spare capacity to ramp up production and offset any loss of Russian oil exports in global market. But if they did, the world would have no buffer to rely on if there were an oil shock caused by, say, conflict in the Middle East — and prices could skyrocket. 'Removing that spare capacity would be akin to riding a bike with no shock absorbers,'' Tompkins and Peach wrote. The Russian economy has been resilient After Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its allies slammed Russia with sanctions. Among other things, the U.S. froze the assets of Russia's central bank and barred some Russian banks from using a key international payments system run by Belgium. With its allies from the Group of Seven rich nations, it also capped the price that importers could pay for Russian oil. The sanctions were expected to crush the Russian economy, but they didn't. Putin put Russia on a wartime budget, and high defense spending kept unemployment low. Military recruits were given big sign-up bonuses and the families of the fallen received death benefits, pumping income into some of Russia's poorer regions. To keep its oil sales going, Russia deployed "shadow fleets,'' hundreds of aging tankers of uncertain ownership and dodgy safety practices that delivered oil priced above the G7 price cap. 'The experience of the G7 oil price cap against Russia showed how challenging the enforcement of measures against the Russian oil trade can be,' Mulder said. Last year, the Russian economy grew 4.1%, according to the International Monetary Fund. But strains are showing, partly because Putin's war has made Russia a pariah to foreign investors. The IMF forecasts growth will decelerate to 1.5% this year, and last month the Russian economy minister warned the country is "on the brink of going into a recession.'' Trump's tariffs could increase the pressure, in part by driving down Russia's energy exports — and the revenue the Russian government collects from an energy tax. Tariffs are mostly untried as a diplomatic lever 'To my knowledge, tariffs have never been applied as an explicit anti-aggression measure,' said Mulder, author of a 2022 history of economic sanctions. "I am skeptical that the secondary tariffs threat will be effective.'' For one thing, he said, it's unclear whether Trump will actually impose them after 50 days. The president has repeatedly announced tariffs against other countries, and then sometimes suspended or tweaked them. For another, the secondary tariffs would target countries — namely China and India — that might have some sway in Moscow. 'The United States needs cooperation and collaboration to bring Russia to the negotiating table,' said Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. "Threatening to harm the actors who actually have leverage over Moscow may backfire.''
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
PEPFAR survives rescissions
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told reporters that the White House agreed with a plan to change the rescissions package with a substitute amendment that would exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from being cut. 'It's substantially the same package and the Senate has to work its will and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they've got the votes,' Vought said. 'There is a substitute amendment that does not include the PEPFAR rescission and we're fine with that.' Trump had requested that $900 million be clawed back from PEPFAR. If the substitute amendment is adopted, the size of the initial $9.4 billion request would be narrowed to $9 billion, Vought said Tuesday. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) repeatedly stated her desire to remove PEPFAR from the package. Other GOP appropriators maintained their support for the program but didn't say whether it was a deal breaker. 'This is progress,' Collins told reporters about saving PEPFAR. But she added Vought did not give a clear enough explanation about what programs he wanted to 'save' and the specifics about what programs are being cut. 'It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion,' Collins said. 'We still have the problem of not having detailed account information from OMB.' The amendment means the House will have to vote again on the legislation. House Republicans had pressed for the Senate not to change the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R) told reporters Tuesday there had been 'a lot of interest' in preserving PEPFAR funding among his conference, adding that he hopes the House will accept 'that one small modification.'
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Sen. Tillis on Rescissions Package, Not Seeking Reelection
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Does this rescissions package have your hard yes vote? Will it have enough votes to pass in final passage? Yeah. I had actually indicated that I was a lean years before the amendment came out. The main thing that's important about this bill is to make sure that the questions from members who have not yet decided on how they're going to vote get answered. Are there there are commitments that those broad authority that they're providing the administration to make cuts is not going to surprise them in the future. The reason that's important is this is a spiced $9 billion bill. I hate to dismiss the concept of 9 billion, but there's a promise of tens of billions of dollars in rescissions that I hope that we're voting on in the future as a result of some of the government efficiency efforts. And we do not want to erode the support for future rescissions packages by not getting this small one right. It's a great test case, and that's why I'm inclined to support it. This apparently is a test case for some Democrats as well. Senator, it's your point in the grand scheme, $9 billion is a drop in the bucket and a lot of Democrats say you will lose support from any members across the aisle when it comes to crafting a budget for the new fiscal year. Doesn't clawing back congressionally approved funding send the message to Democrats that they can't trust a deal if there is one on spending? I think it's a fair argument, which is exactly what the the advisers, the president's advisers on where these cuts hit really should fit in the category of of fraud or waste or abuse. If you use this with the general support from Republicans to rescind measures that may have been used to negotiate a budget deal in the past, then why on earth would they risk that while on earth would they trust us in the future? So I think getting it right is very important. What I'm talking about our future rescissions votes that I hope that are sent to us and we process like the one before us today. What you're talking about is basic trust. And if we negotiate an appropriate year end appropriations deal that the Democrats feel like they the spirit of that negotiation is not going to be undone with a future rescission. I think that'd be a huge mistake. I can't imagine the president would intuitively want to do it. Hopefully none of his advisers would encourage them that that's a good idea. It's a bad idea. Well, as it may take Democratic cooperation to get appropriations passed, it also will take Democratic cooperation to get crypto legislation through both chambers. As I'm sure you well know, Senator, the House has dubbed it Crypto Week, and yet it seems they're struggling to advance a package of bills, one that would be the genius Act that already passed the chamber, another being the Clarity Act market structure legislation. It seems that the holdouts who did not vote for this procedural advancement are concerned that they cannot make changes to the Genius act that you and your colleagues passed. If they do so, would it be able to pass the Senate once again? Would you do anything if they're able to pass the Clarity Act with it, or would that require change as well? I'm just my Republican colleagues in the House need to hear this. I was one of the four members that teamed up with four Democrats to pass Senate Bill 2155, which was regulatory tailoring for small and regional banks. We had an agreement that that bill wasn't going to change, and we carried it all the way through, over the objections of Sherrod Brown, the chair, and Elizabeth Warren on the Banking Committee. If our House members send an amended bill back to us that doesn't fit, or is it already pre-conference with the Democrats who helped us pass that bill out, they can expect that that bill will never see the light of day. So I respect that they may want to make some changes, but they may want to send that in a separate vehicle to us and go ahead and send the Genius Act to the president's desk. If they don't, then they may own they the responsibility for not getting that done. And it's a great start, but we've got a lot of work to do. And, of course, Senator, you also found yourself on the same side as many Democrats in voting against the president's so-called big, beautiful bill. And it led to a major decision for you to decide to bring your Senate career to a close here. President Trump talked about your vote here. If you didn't hear what he said, let's bring it to our listeners and viewers here on Bloomberg. Tell us. I guess it was an owl, right? He was an owl. And he they said he was brave. He said no to the president, but he resigned the following morning. So anyway, that was terrible, I thought. Senator, weigh in on that as you please. That was from yesterday at the White House, by the way. Have you talked to President Trump? Has he called you or have you called him since that happened? Oh, we haven't spoken since. But the president knew that night before. Number one, that I was a no because I told him personally. And number two, I told him now would be a good time to start looking for my replacement. And it was after that that the president posted that he'd be seeking, you know, interviews for my replacement. But I was pretty clear with the president, unless he forgot that discussion the night before, I noticed he was trying to check to see if I voted no, but I was pretty clear I was going to be a no. The reason I was a no. And the reason it was so difficult for me is the vast majority that Bill I supported. I was here to vote for jobs and tax cuts, and I wanted that back in place. There were a number of provisions. The House bill for the Medicaid market was fine, but here's my challenge to anyone. We have fully released our analysis of the hit of the Medicaid bill that the president signed on July 4th. I would love nothing more than somebody to do the work to discredit the analysis. This this is it words. This is math. We did the math. We have three independent assessments that came to the same conclusion. This is going to be very difficult for states like North Carolina and many others to absorb. We already have a member today. I think it was Josh Hawley who's filing a bill to try and fix the Medicaid damage that he voted on last week. I decided that what we ought to do is go back to the house, Mark, great work, work requirements. The $800 billion in savings. Waste, fraud and abuse. The whole difference between me and the president came down to something that somebody in the White House suggested that the Senate put in the bill that saved 200 billion more dollars. But it's going to cost this country and potentially this party elections next year, in the coming years, as it gets implemented. It just seemed like it wasn't very well thought out. And I think the president was given bad advice to put it into the bill. Well, I wonder, Senator, if we should expect there to be more differences between you and President Trump or the majority leader, for that matter, as you said, when you decided not to seek reelection, that it gives you the freedom to call balls and strikes? Are you still a reliable Republican? Yes. Vote. Yeah. A lot of effort that happens from here. I need to be very clear. I am a transaction person. What I wanted to make clear was that if anybody thought that my decisions are driven by whether or not I can get reelected or get an endorsement, I wanted to take that off the table. That's not how I operate. I am a trained management consultant who looks at everything that we do here through the lens of execution. Will this work? Can the states absorb the change? Is it in the best interest of our country and our party in that order? And in my judgment, it was in every future transaction will not be influenced by this Medicaid vote. Hopefully, we can fix a lot of the damage that occurred by rushing it through for a 4th of July signature. But I'm on to the next transaction and I will do everything I can to try and make the defects in that bill work. Or, like I said, the U.S. government has probably access to more research capability than anyone else. Don't tell me that my estimates are wrong because you believe they're wrong. We provided all this information, the methodology for the impact, disprove it. I'd love nothing more than to know that I was wrong, because that means I don't have a lot of work to do to get North Carolina ready to potentially take 663 people, thousand people, off of Medicaid in a couple of years. Sure. Well, Senator, a lot of people think that that makes you one of the more brave members of the Senate right now. We had Democrats calling this a profile in courage. And I wonder, with that said, what that means when President Trump reaches out, when John Thune reaches out, will this be the same conversation when they need your support for legislation? How does this change your view? The only thing that I've tried to encourage the president, I've seen several and said, look, the president of the United States has a difficult job. He can't possibly be expected to be an expert in any area. What I'm trying to advise him on is that he has people advising him who pretend like they're him when he's not in the office and sometimes are not thinking through policy. I happen to have the rare combination of execution discipline with Fortune 500 companies and 20 years in legislative service, including Speaker of the House. So I've been able to understand the execution maybe a little bit better than other people, certainly people who have never been elected and who have never had a political role before, who advising the president. I'm just simply saying, take my advice for what it's worth, but it may help you look around a few corners. And I think that that's where we'll ultimately end up on this Medicaid provision in an otherwise big, beautiful bountiful. Old baby Bill. Whatever they want to call it. The fact of the matter is, most of the bill is good. I was talking about this one area that it ended up getting into that over $200 billion. We ended up having that sort of a dust up. It doesn't make sense to me. But again, I don't think it was the president's call. I think he had somebody want to put their foot on the accelerator. And I respectfully disagree with that. That was.
