Latest news with #Ipsos
USA Today
4 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Waving Canadian flag on two-way street of trade
Opinion I gave up my Friday night pizza dates with Tom Gore around the same time Donald Trump started his trade war with Canada. It was a forced breakup, but I didn't mind. Tom was my favourite wine until it was pulled from liquor store shelves as part of the federal and provincial governments' response to the imposition of tariffs on U.S. imports from Canada. There's been so much background noise in the aftermath that it's been hard to keep track. All I know is Tom and all his California cohorts are still in exile, and the alternatives I've found are such that I don't miss them. Apparently, I'm not alone. Sales of U.S. wine to Canada are, by some accounts, down 94 per cent, and sales of Canadian alcoholic beverages are up, probably the most noticeable effect of our collective disenchantment with our largest trading partner. An Angus Reid poll released in the early days of this muddled trading mess showed four out of five Canadians were buying more Canadian products in the face of the Trump's tariff tactics. Three out of five said they were actively boycotting products from the U.S. However, these opinions were collected in February, around the same time it was still cool to boo the American anthem at hockey games. Thankfully, we've moved on from that. It's likely Canada's aversion to anything American will also start to dissipate now that Trump's attention has shifted from making Canada the 51st state to other matters. However, an Ipsos poll released this month shows the aversion to buying U.S.-made goods has gone global. Fewer than half of respondents from 29 countries say they are likely to buy something manufactured in the U.S. According to that poll, 63 per cent of Canadians say they are unlikely to buy anything American. Food and beverages top the list of consumer goods where shoppers can vote with their dollars, thumbing their nose at Trump every time they stock up. Considering all this, it comes as no surprise to anyone — except perhaps the U.S. administration — that the U.S. agricultural trade deficit is growing instead of shrinking as was promised when it turned to taxing imports, kicking out immigrant workers critical to its own food supply and detaining tourists to 'make America great again.' Release of the USDA quarterly trade report earlier this month was reportedly delayed and stripped of its usual analysis after the original draft's authors cited tariffs and the 'buy Canadian' movement as reasons for reduced demand for U.S. agricultural goods. The redacted report forecasts a US$49.5 billion trade deficit for fiscal year 2025, an increase of US$500 million. It's living proof it's never a good idea to trash-talk your best customers. However, that's something we Canadians need to keep in mind as we explore how to navigate the tangled trade environment we face for the foreseeable future. It's always a good idea to shop local when you can. Even if it costs a little more, supporting local suppliers and businesses circulates our hard-earned dollars in our communities, creating jobs and contributing to economic growth. Our farmers no doubt appreciate the moral and financial support. Yet one of Canada's defining strengths as a nation is its status as a global supplier of food commodities. More than 50 per cent of what farmers here grow is exported either directly or indirectly. The U.S. is still our largest trading partner. More than half of Canada's agri-food imports originate in the U.S., while 60 per cent of Canada's agri-food exports are U.S.-bound. The food industries in both countries count on that cross-border trade. For that reason, the export-orientated sectors have steadfastly maintained support for rules-based trade and opposition to policy that unduly protects access to domestic markets. Trade must be a two-way street. As Canada Day approaches, waving the flag and putting Canadian foods on the table is a meaningful expression of our national pride. Our collective individual actions do make a difference. But does supporting local equate with boycotting someone else? It's a choice we all need to make. Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@ Laura RanceColumnist Laura Rance is editorial director at Farm Business Communications. Read full biography Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans weigh Medicaid changes amid ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill's' unpopularity
This week, Senate Republicans released the tax and health care parts for their version of President Donald Trump's desired 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' But they face a huge problem: The bill is becoming incredibly unpopular. A poll from Ipsos and The Washington Post found that a plurality of Americans oppose the bill, with 42 percent opposing it, 34 percent saying they have no opinion and 23 percent saying they support it. Specifically, they are grappling with the unpopularity of the bill's changes to Medicaid. And it does not show signs of letting up. On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee released the text of its part of the bill. During the debate around the bill in the House, Republicans made it so that able-bodied adults without dependent children would have to work, participate in education or community service for 80 hours a month. Conservative Republicans lobbied to make the work requirements begin in 2026 rather than 2029. The Senate bill goes even further. For one, it lowers the age at which children are considered dependent to 14 years old. That means parents of children older than 14 would have to work to keep their Medicaid. Sen. Jim Justice, a freshman from West Virginia, defended the work requirements. 'Biblically, we are supposed to work,' he told The Independent. 'We have taken the dignity and the hope and the belief away from a lot of people where they are hopeless, they think they can't. ' According to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, about 29 percent of West Virginians are on Medicaid and 62 percent of West Virginians on Medicaid work either part-time or full-time. It seems Republicans know how politically caustic touching Medicaid might be. Sen. Bernie Moreno, a freshman from Ohio, tore into reporters. 'You guys really need to report it accurately, though, which is we're actually increasing the amount of money we're spending on Medicaid,' Moreno told The Independent this week. 'We're spending more on Medicaid. We're also eliminating the abuse by able-bodied adults, and we're reinstating the fact that Medicaid is for people who need it.' Trump has said he wants the bill done by the July 4th holiday. Earlier this week, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Mehmet Oz, the television host, met with Senate Republicans to discuss the bill. The legislation also seeks to cap the level of provider taxes. To pay for Medicaid, many states levy taxes on facilities like hospitals or nursing homes. This often allows for states to collect the money to receive matching funds from the federal government. Under the proposed bill, states that did not expand Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act signed by then-President Barack Obama, would be prohibited from raising provider taxes. States that did expand Medicaid would see their provider taxes reduced by 0.5 percent annually until they are capped at 3.5 percent in 2031. 'The provider tax is a way around the match,' Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota told The Independent. 'The whole point is for us to get after waste, fraud and abuse, and the provider tax is a way for states to avoid putting up their share of the match.' Sen. Ron Johnson, a fiscal hawk who has wanted the bill to slash even more spending, went a step further. 'It's legalized fraud, it's not health care,' the Wisconsin Republican told The Independent. 'Why are we paying for taxes reimbursing state taxes and fees? It's absurd.' But the proposal in the bill raised alarm bells for hospitals, since Medicaid accounts for 19 percent of all hospital revenue, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many rural hospitals also rely on Medicaid given the large number of rural residents who are on Medicaid. Chip Kahn, the CEO and president of the Federation of American Hospitals, said in a statement earlier this week that the Senate text made the bill worse. 'Rural communities across the country will be the hardest hit, with struggling hospitals compelled to face difficult decisions about what services to cut,' he said. 'It's imperative Senators take a detour on this text and reject its deepening of the House cuts already on the table.' But it's not just the hospital lobby that hates the text so far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, the biggest defender of Medicaid among Senate Republicans, criticized the provisions. 'I'm totally surprised by what they proposed to do on the provider tax I don't know why we would defund rural hospitals to pay for Chinese solar panels,' he told The Independent, referring to the fact that Senate version draws down the renewable energy credits from Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act at a slower pace than the House's version of the bill does. Hawley later said that he spoke with Trump about the subject. 'I think that you know he's he does not want to have Medicaid benefits cut,' Hawley said, adding that Trump doesn't want to see rural hospitals hurt either. But Hawley is not the only Republican worried about the effect on hospitals. Sen. Susan Collins, who faces a tough re-election in Maine in a state Trump lost. 'I'm looking at whether there would be receptivity to a provider relief fund that would be aimed at rural hospitals, nursing homes and community health centers,' Collins told reporters on Wednesday. 'I've not endorsed in any way, a provider tax change.'
Telegraph
a day ago
- Business
- Telegraph
On its benefits Bill too, Labour is avoiding scrutiny with Parliamentary trickery
It has become hard to judge whether Sir Keir Starmer has had a good or a bad week. With his first anniversary as Prime Minister only a few days away, his net approval rating, according to a recent opinion poll, is -39 per cent, worse than any other party leader. Labour cannot pretend that it is just Starmer dragging it down either. An Ipsos survey this month showed that only 25 per cent of those surveyed would vote Labour at the next general election: that share of the vote would be its worst performance since the Coupon Election of 1918. The most pressing woe for Starmer and his ministerial team is next week's Second Reading debate on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. The Government hoped that welfare reforms would save £5 billion a year by 2030 and slow the increase in the number of benefit claimants. These cuts were too swingeing for many Labour members, some of whom intoned the value-free and knee-jerk anguished plea, 'I didn't become a Labour MP to cut benefits for disabled people'. The danger became real when reasoned amendments were tabled. These are amendments saying 'this House declines to give the Bill a second reading' and then explaining the objections, and are a standard way of opposing a Bill at Second Reading. But one of the reasoned amendments was in the name of Dame Meg Hillier, the Labour chair of the Treasury Committee and hardly a natural rebel; more than 120 of her colleagues signed it. That would be enough to overturn even Starmer's 174-seat majority. The situation was not just bad but potentially catastrophic. Only twice in the past 50 years have government Bills been defeated at Second Reading, the more recent being the Shops Bill, which was lost by 14 votes in April 1986. Then, the government took defeat on the chin and did not seek to bring the measures back. The Prime Minister may have averted that humiliation: he has conceded that there will be no cuts in benefits to existing claimants, and a £1 billion support plan scheduled for 2029 will be brought forward. Hillier and others have said they can now support the Bill, though a hard core of Left-wingers are likely still to oppose it. It also remains to be seen where the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will find the estimated £1.5 billion these concessions have been estimated to cost. Even before this expensive white flag was waved, ministers had been looking for salvation through sleight of hand. When the Leader of the Commons, Lucy Powell, announced the House's future business on Thursday, the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was set down for consideration in Committee of the whole House and all remaining stages on Wednesday 9 July, just eight days after MPs debate it for the first time. Most Bills are sent to a committee, generally of 17 MPs, which goes through the text line-by-line and can also hear evidence on the subject. A small number are taken in Committee of the whole House, which happens in the Commons chamber and is open to all members. It is generally used for major constitutional Bills or measures which have to be passed very quickly, and the Universal Credit Bill does not sit easily in any of the usual categories of eligible Bills. What this procedure does mean is that there will be no opportunity for hearing evidence from those who will be affected by the Bill. It gives very little time for members to consider and table amendments, and it will see the entire remaining consideration of the Bill by the House of Commons compressed into about six hours, including votes. I have sat through individual select committee hearings not much shorter than that. The business managers' coup de grâce (perhaps coup de main?) is that it expects the Bill to be certified as a Money Bill. This process, decided by the Speaker, applies to any Bill which 'contains only provisions dealing with national, but not local, taxation, public money or loans or their management', and under the terms of the Parliament Act 1911 it is effectively waved through the House of Lords and can, if necessary, be passed without the assent of the upper House. Squeezing the whole Commons stage of the Bill into two days, battering through them within little more than a week, seeking to have it effectively insulated from the House of Lords… perhaps this is what 'mission-driven government' looks like. Not quite what I had in mind. Eliot Wilson is a former House of Commons clerk
News18
2 days ago
- Business
- News18
Consumer Confidence in India Rises Sharply In June 2025, Second-Highest Globally: LSEG-Ipsos Index
Last Updated: Consumer confidence in India surged in June, with the LSEG-Ipsos PCSI rising 2.9 points to 59.0, placing India second among 30 countries. Consumer confidence in India rebounded sharply in June, rising by 2.9 percentage points to a national index score of 59.0, according to the latest LSEG-Ipsos Primary Consumer Sentiment Index (PCSI). This marks a strong recovery after a turbulent May and places India second among 30 surveyed countries, trailing only Indonesia (61.1). The upbeat sentiment was visible across all four key components of the index. Notably, the 'Employment Confidence' sub-index saw the highest surge, climbing by 6.5 percentage points. The 'Economic Expectations' sub-index jumped 4.2 points, while sentiment around 'Current Personal Financial Conditions' and 'Investment Climate' rose by 3.2 and 1.0 percentage points, respectively. The PCSI is a monthly global survey conducted by Ipsos in partnership with LSEG, gauging consumer sentiment across various indicators such as the local economy, personal finances, and investment outlook. In India, the survey includes a sample of 2,200 adults from metros and tier 1-3 cities, reflecting views of urban social-economic classes A/B/C. The global sample includes over 21,700 adults across 30 countries, with rigorous weighting applied to ensure demographic representation. The Indian leg of the study combines both online and face-to-face interviews. About the Author Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published:
