Donald Trump would lose to Kamala Harris if elections were held today, claims new poll

A new poll shows Kamala Harris might beat Trump if elections were held today. While she lost in 2024, many still support her. Trump's falling popularity, especially on the economy, could help her chances.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
2024 US Election results
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs
A new strength In Numbers/Verasight poll says Kamala Harris would beat Donald Trump in a re-run of the 2024 election. If elections were held today, 47% would vote for Harris, 42% for Trump.If people who wouldn't vote were also to be counted, Harris gets 40%, of the popular vote while Trump languishes at 36%. The poll was done between May 1 to 6, with 1,000 adults and a 3.2% margin of error.Trump actually won in November 2024, beating Harris in popular vote 50% to 48%. He won big in the electoral college, 312 votes to Harris 226, which ultimately sweeped the results in his favour.Before that election, some polls showed Harris leading or tied with Trump.Among people who didn't vote in 2024, 36% now support Harris, only 22% support Trump. But 43% of these non-voters say they still wouldn't vote if given a second chance.Among people who voted in 2024, Harris and Trump are tied at 43% each.Harris lost in 2024, but many still think she could be a strong candidate in 2028.She hasn't said if she'll run, but some in the Democrat's ranks think she might. Some also say she might run for Governor of California in 2026.Supporters say she ran a better campaign than Joe Biden did before he dropped out in 2024. They believe she helped close the gap against Trump despite the campaign already I'm disarray due to Biden's perceived ill health.But others in the party are vying for fresh faces and new leaders instead of Harris. Some also say Harris hurt her popularity by supporting moderate Republicans like Liz Cheney.Trump's popularity dropped after he launched "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2. The tariffs caused stock markets to crash, the worst since June 2020. Since then, many voters don't trust Trump on the economy.In the same poll, more people didn't like how Trump is handling the economy.Only 38% said they approve, while 58% don't, that's a -17 score. On prices and inflation, it's even worse, only 31% approve and 63% don't, giving him a -32 score.Also, 53% of people said the country's economy got worse in the past year. Just 25% think it got better.The poll shows Trump is unpopular on all issues, except border/immigration.Even on immigration, he's barely ahead, 49% disapprove, 47% approve. This matches results from a Fox News poll too.Trump got flak for a controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from Maryland. The DOJ called it an "administrative error." The Trump admin said Garcia was part of the MS-13 gang, now labeled a terrorist group. But his family and lawyers deny any gang link.In the poll, half the people were told about Garcia's story. Among those, support for deporting all undocumented immigrants dropped to 39%. 43% were against mass deportation.When asked about people with court protections like Garcia, 49% were against deporting them, 29% supported deporting them, 22% were unsure, 45% said wrongly deported immigrants should be allowed to return, 35% said they should stay abroad.This negative view of Trump might help Kamala Harris if she runs again in 2028. She has not confirmed if she's running yet. But polls show she's the front-runner right now.Some other polls say Kamala Harris isn't doing as well. In an April poll by Data for Progress, only 18% of people said they'd vote for her in the Democratic primary.Pete Buttigieg got 14%, AOC and Cory Booker got 12% each, Newsom got 8%, Josh Shapiro got 5%, and Tim Walz, Gretchen Whitmer, and J.B. Pritzker each got 4%.Other recent polls show different numbers. One by Echelon Insights in April showed Harris at 28%. A YouGov poll from March showed her at 25%. And a Survey USA poll from February had her at 37%.Here's what some politicians are saying about Kamala Harris, Senator John Hickenlooper from Colorado told The Hill that Harris 'will add value to the national conversation.'Many Democrats will have different opinions on what the party should focus on next, he added.Q1. Will Kamala Harris run for next president?She has not said yet, but many think she might.Q2. Why are people unhappy with Trump?Most don't like how he's handling the economy and prices.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

23 minutes ago

• Mint

Trump's Iran attack was ferocious. But has it actually worked?

'OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER", as America called its strike on Iran, was a vast raid involving more than 125 military aircraft. It was the largest-ever strike by B-2 stealth bombers, and the first use in battle of the GBU-57, America's largest bunker-buster bomb. Seven bombers flew east over the Atlantic from Whiteman air-force base in Missouri on the 37-hour mission to Iran and back, helped by in-flight refuelling tankers and fighter jets to sweep the skies ahead of them. Decoy planes flew west over the Pacific to confuse anyone watching their movement. Dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at Iran from submarines. Iranian forces did not respond. The scope and scale of the operation would 'take the breath away" of most observers, boasted Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. He was at pains to say that the attack was a 'precision strike" aimed solely at nuclear facilities. Iranian forces or civilians were not attacked. Nor was America seeking regime change. 'As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened," he said. Iran has 'every opportunity" to come to the table to negotiate a peace deal. But amid the self-congratulation, has the operation actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities? Donald Trump, who first announced the strikes on facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 21st (they took place on the 22nd Iranian time), declared that the programme was 'totally obliterated". General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was more cautious. He said the bomb-damage assessment would take time to complete. The initial assessment was that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction". Satellite images released by Maxar, an American firm, later on June 22nd showed a series of craters on the mountainside. The B-2s dropped 14 GBU-57s on buried uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and especially Fordow, which Mr Trump described as the 'primary" target (the image above shows Fordow before and after the attack). The Tomahawks struck Isfahan, a complex of facilities where Iran turns uranium metal into a gaseous compound and back, makes centrifuges to enrich the gas, and may have stored much of its stock of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) estimates that Iran had 400kg of HEU, concentrated to 60% purity, which is a short hop to weapons-grade (usually 90%). That would be enough for ten bombs, if the material were to be enriched further. Israel had already hit Natanz and Isfahan, and destroyed much of Iran's air-defence system, clearing the way for the Americans. But the site in Fordow, buried into a mountain, was beyond the reach of Israeli bombs. 'I have been there," noted Rafael Grossi, the secretary-general of the IAEA, earlier this month. 'The most sensitive things are half a mile [around 800 metres] underground." A European source gives the figure of 500 metres. Before the strikes Western officials disagreed on whether the GBU-57, or 'massive ordnance penetrator" (MOP), alone could obliterate Fordow. Some experts thought the site could be destroyed only with nuclear weapons, or by ground forces fighting their way into the site and blowing it up. In the end America used B-2s and MOPs for the job. These can burrow through 60 metres of standard concrete, but probably less if Iran was using strengthened concrete. Repeatedly striking the same spot allows them to strike deeper. David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who now leads the Institute for Science and International Security, a think-tank in Washington, argued prior to the war that Fordow was 'more vulnerable than people realise". Israel had detailed knowledge of the building's designs, he noted, including knowledge of the tunnels: 'where they start, how they zig and zag, where the ventilation system is, the power supplies". The site had only one ventilation shaft, which is visible in its plans and in historical satellite imagery showing the site's construction. Destroying that, he argued, could put Fordow out of action for 'a few years rather than a few months". One weapons expert told The Economist that the post-strike images suggest that America might have targeted Fordow's ventilation and access tunnels. Moreover, even if America did not reach all parts of the Fordow complex, the powerful blasts might have done enough to damage or destroy the machinery inside. 'Uncontrolled vibration…is a centrifuge killer," says Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another think-tank. 'That's why they're carefully balanced, heavily bolted down on the pads built for the purpose." Iran's IR6 centrifuges, which make up more than half of those installed at Fordow, are more robust than the much older IR1s, which make up the majority at Natanz, notes Mr Nephew. But even they would probably be affected badly by a blizzard of MOPs. If Iran had powered down the centrifuges, that would help. But the process of doing so can cause them to crash, says Mr Nephew, adding that it is 'pretty unlikely" Iran will have been able to turn off and disassemble the machines in the time available. Fordow was originally a secret project, revealed by Western countries in 2009. The question now is whether Iran has other intact secret facilities and a sufficient stock of HEU hidden away with which to restart the programme away from prying eyes. Iran had previously threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so now, IAEA inspectors would have no way to observe Iran's future nuclear work. Nevertheless, Israel's spies have displayed an extraordinary ability to penetrate Iran's nuclear enterprise and security forces, and have repeatedly assassinated nuclear scientists and generals. The Iranian project has been much more extensive and dispersed than the efforts of Iraq and Syria, whose reactors Israel bombed in 1981 and 2007 respectively. 'Will this look more like Syria 2007—where a nuclear programme was decisively ended—or Iraq 1981, where nuclear ambitions were strengthened, and repeated intervention was required?" asks Nicholas Miller, a non-proliferation expert at Dartmouth College. 'Assuming the current regime stays in power in Iran, my money is on the latter."

Business Standard

23 minutes ago

• Business Standard

'Dumb presidents' led US into wars, says JD Vance on new Iran strategy

US Vice President JD Vance defends US strikes on Iran as limited and targeted, criticises past presidents for dragging America into decades-long wars; Trump signals shift with talk of regime change New Delhi US Vice President JD Vance criticised what he called the country's 'dumb former presidents', arguing they dragged America into two decades of costly West Asia conflicts. 'I empathise with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents,' Vance said in an interview with NBC News, recalling his own Marine Corps service in Iraq. . @VP Vance on the Trump Admin's dedication to peace through strength in the Middle East: 'The way you achieve peace is through can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon and expect that's going to lead to peace.' — Taylor Van Kirk (@VPPressSec) June 22, 2025 Early Sunday, US forces struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in the first wave of 'Operation Midnight Hammer', formally inserting Washington into the war between its ally Israel and Iran. The operation came days after President Donald Trump publicly gave himself a two-week window to decide on military action — timing that now appears to have been a diversionary tactic. 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon' Vance stressed that the US objective is narrowly focused on Tehran's nuclear programme. 'It is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing. We've got in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear programme back. We're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do. Simple principle: Iran can't have a nuclear weapon,' he said. Five prez, two wars, one new approach Over the past 25 years, three Democrats — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden —and two Republicans — George W Bush and Trump — have occupied the Oval Office. Bush launched the post-9/11 'War on Terror', sending US troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Vance contends that Trump 'actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives', signalling a break with what he views as a legacy of misguided interventions. As Washington's latest strikes aggravate across the region, the administration insists its sights remain set solely on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, not on waging an open-ended war. Trump hints at regime change in Iran Trump appeared to reverse his earlier position on the Israel-Iran conflict, now raising the possibility of a regime change in Tehran — a move he had distanced himself from just days earlier. In a post on X, Trump wrote: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The statement came shortly after US airstrikes targeted three major nuclear facilities in Iran as part of a broader escalation. Trump declared the sites were 'completely and fully obliterated'. In response, Iran has vowed to retaliate, with its parliament approving a measure to block Western naval access to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route.

Time of India

24 minutes ago

• Time of India

Who is Rep. Kat Cammack? Pro-life supporter sheds light on deadly pregnancy and Florida's abortion law

Florida Congresswoman Kat Cammack , a staunch anti-abortion Republican and co-chair of the House pro-life caucus , is speaking out about a harrowing ordeal during her pregnancy last year—a personal crisis that has sparked new debate over the real-world impact of restrictive abortion laws, even on their supporters. In May 2024, Cammack, who represents Florida's 3rd congressional district, was rushed to the emergency room after learning her pregnancy was ectopic, a life-threatening condition in which the embryo cannot survive and the mother's life is at serious risk. At the time, Florida's six-week abortion ban had just taken effect. Cammack urgently needed a dose of methotrexate, a medication used to end ectopic pregnancies, but hospital staff hesitated. Doctors and nurses, she said, feared prosecution or loss of their medical licenses if they administered the drug, even though her life was in danger and the pregnancy was nonviable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Simple Morning Habit for a Flatter Belly After 50! Lulutox Undo Cammack described pleading her case, showing hospital staff the state law on her phone and even attempting to contact the governor's office for clarification—without success. 'It was absolute fearmongering at its worst,' she told The Wall Street Journal, emphasizing that what she experienced was not an abortion but a medically necessary intervention to save her life. After several tense hours, she finally received the medication she needed. Cammack, who recently announced she is expecting her first child in August, shared her story publicly to highlight the unintended consequences of abortion restrictions. 'I would stand with any woman – Republican or Democrat – and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic,' she said. Live Events Her experience underscores the legal confusion and risk-averse climate faced by healthcare providers under strict abortion laws, which can delay or complicate emergency care even for those who support such measures. Cammack's ordeal is now fueling bipartisan calls for clearer guidelines and renewed focus on maternal health, as the U.S. continues to grapple with some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world.