Devastating New Poll Shows Trump Is Losing Ground With Key Group

Donald Trump appears to be losing the support of the one demographic that has reliably backed him, and is essential to winning the White House: white voters without a college degree.

CNN’s senior data reporter Harry Enten appeared on Out Front with Erin Burnett Tuesday to discuss what a recent New York Times/Siena College poll showed about Trump’s “core group” of white working class voters—the very same people who helped him break down the blue wall in 2016.

While the poll found that Trump still led among white voters without a college degree, his favorability appeared to have taken a massive hit in light of his new match-up against Vice President Kamala Harris.

In May, Trump was leading President Joe Biden among white voters without a college degree in the swing states Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a whopping 25 points. This latest poll shows that Trump’s lead has been nearly cut in half: in August, Trump only leads Harris by 14 points with this demographic in those swing states.

Harris’s apparent surge in support comes just as the vice president has managed to pretty much erase Trump’s edge on the economy, according to a new survey the Financial Times published last week, signaling a crucial shift in momentum for the Democratic candidate. Enten explained that Harris was doing slightly better among those voters, in those key states, than even Biden had in 2020.

“Those are the types of numbers that Kamala Harris needs to put up in order to win. And of course, Joe Biden was like, ‘I don’t want to drop out of the race, because I’m not sure that Kamala Harris can break into the group,’ but it turns out she absolutely can,” Enten said.

“The margin is shrinking, and elections are all about margins,” Enten continued. He explained that these numbers were significant more broadly as well, because non-college educated white voters make up 50 percent of the electorate in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Trump’s advisers previously revealed that the former president tapped J.D. Vance as his running mate to pick up white working class votes. The campaign needed “a white guy to get the white guys we lost,” MAGA political operative Vish Burra told The Bulwark. If this recent polling is any indication, it seems the campaign’s play has yet to pay off.

Donald Trump’s lengthy interview with Elon Musk earlier this week may have violated federal campaign regulations, at least according to one Democratic-aligned political action committee that has already filed an FEC complaint over the issue.

The complaint, filed Tuesday by End Citizens United, argued that the unfettered “conversation” on X, Musk’s $12.5 billion company, amounted to a “virtual campaign event” financed by the social media platform. Per the FEC’s website, a contribution is “anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.”

End Citizens United also claimed that the event did not fall under press exemptions set forth by the election commission on the basis that X is not a traditional news outlet; that the company devoted “considerable resources” to host the interview, including dedicating “real time staff” to fix numerous technical glitches; and (perhaps most significantly) that Musk has repeatedly voiced his support for Trump in the 2024 race, and launched the talk with the intention to platform Trump’s personal beliefs.

“Because X spent considerable resources to host an event to expressly advocate for Trump and was not entitled to the press exemption for that event, Respondents have violated the ban on giving and receiving corporation contributions,” the complaint alleged.

The group called for the FEC to “immediately investigate” the violations and to take “appropriate remedial action” against the “brazen corporate contribution.”

Unfortunately for End Citizens United, such high-profile complaints can take months or even years for the ideologically gridlocked six-commissioner panel at the FEC to investigate, making it highly unlikely for the group to reach a consensus before the November election.

“The Donald Trump-Elon Musk campaign rally hosted on X wasn’t just an incoherent diatribe of lies marred by technical difficulties—it was a blatantly illegal corporate contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign,” said End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller in a statement. “This brazen corporate contribution undermines campaign finance laws and would set a dangerous precedent for unfettered, direct corporate engagement in campaigns.”

Donald Trump’s livestream interview with Elon Musk on X Monday night was plagued not only with technical glitches but also Trump’s own slurred speech. Late Tuesday night, Trump finally came up with an excuse.

“My conversation with Elon last night was heard by a RECORD audience, and was really something special, as Elon himself is very special—and I thank him for such a strong Endorsement!” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Unfortunately, because of the complexity of modern day equipment, and cellphone technology, my voice was, in certain areas, somewhat different and strange. Therefore, we have put out an actual, and perfect, recording of the conversation. ENJOY!!!”

The post followed another late-night post, made an hour before, where Trump went on the offensive against Kamala Harris.

“Kamala: You ruined San Francisco, one of the greatest cities in the World, you ruined California, one of the greatest places on Earth—And you will turn America into a giant combination of both,” Trump’s post read. “We are not going to let that happen. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Trump’s excuse probably won’t be bought by anyone but the right. The Harris campaign has already seized upon his glitches, as well as Trump’s extremist rhetoric from the interview. The Trump campaign is trying to claim that one billion people watched the livestream, but that’s not going to get much traction either. The likeliest explanation for Trump’s slurring words may be his cognitive decline, which is all the more noticeable now that he’s the oldest candidate in the race.

Elon Musk’s judge-shopping attempt to get back at advertisers has failed.

The CEO of X (formerly Twitter) is trying to sue a coalition of advertisers who he claims conspired against the social networking site by refusing to buy advertisements. Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in the northern district of Texas, recused himself from the lawsuit Tuesday after NPR reported that he owns stock in Tesla, another one of Musk’s companies.

Last week, Musk sued the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a group of advertisers, media agencies, and platforms that focus on safety in media and technology. The lawsuit also targets the parent organization of GARM, the World Federation of Advertisers, and four of its member companies: Orsted, Unilever, CVS Health, and Mars.

Musk appears to have chosen the northern district because it is a favorite of conservatives, as almost all of its judges have been appointed by Republicans, even though the case has little, if anything, to do with Texas. O’Connor has a reputation for giving the right the rulings they are looking for. For example, he has repeatedly tried to gut or eliminate the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, even going after HIV drugs and cancer screenings. 

NPR’s report found that O’Connor owns between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Tesla stock, which gives the appearance of a conflict of interest and ultimately seems to have led to O’Connor’s recusal. But while that will delay the advertiser lawsuit, O’Connor is still presiding over a different Musk lawsuit against Media Matters, filed in November, accusing the liberal media watchdog of defaming X by pointing out the rise in hate speech on the site.

The Media Matters lawsuit is still ongoing and still has the right-wing judge presiding over it. Even with O’Connor’s recusal from the advertiser lawsuit, Musk had a small measure of success as GARM announced last week that it would be disbanding, claiming that it didn’t have the financial resources to fight billionaire Musk. The question is how much more money Musk is willing to spend to punish perceived slights.

Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has been altering the headlines on real articles in Google search results to make them appear more pro-Harris, Axios reported Tuesday.  

The articles—which, unbeknownst to the outlets publishing them, are transformed into advertisements by the Harris campaign—include a banner that says “Paid for by Harris for President” floating above URLs linking articles on sites such as the Associated Press, Reuters, The Independent, and more. 

The headlines and deks, or subheads, of these articles have been changed in the search results to emphasize support for Harris’s accomplishments. 

For example, an article about Harris’s economic plan published by NPR was accompanied by the headline “Harris Will Lower Health Costs” and a dek that states “Kamala Harris will lower the cost of high-quality affordable health care.”

While the banner is meant to make clear that the results are advertisements, not articles, the ads may create the impression that Harris is backed by certain news organizations when she is actually not. 

Spokespeople for CNN, USA Today, and NPR told Axios that they weren’t aware their brands were being used by the Harris campaign. 

A spokesperson for The Guardian, which had also been featured in the ads, made a statement to Axios. “While we understand why an organization might wish to align itself with the Guardian’s trusted brand, we need to ensure it is being used appropriately and with our permission,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll be reaching out to Google for more information about this practice.”

This style of ads is common in commercial marketing, and Google has said that those ads don’t violate its rules. However, this approach may ultimately prove to be a gambit that lacks an actual advantage as it potentially undermines trust in the news. 

It is also unclear why Harris’s campaign felt the need to do this, as there has been plenty of positive coverage of Harris since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed her to replace him.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump isn’t running these kinds of ads, according to Google’s transparency center, although he has edited articles he posted on Truth Social. But honestly, why would he want to align himself with mainstream media, which he actively rails against? Trump has previously vowed retribution against the press, which he claims has treated him unfairly, referring to journalists as the “enemy of the people.”