Poll Shows Most Americans Taking the Same Side in Musk vs. Trump
Forget picking sides—Americans want out of the Trump-Musk drama altogether.
52 percent of Americans picked 'neither' when asked who they would side with in the bitter feud between President Donald Trump and his ex-buddy Elon Musk, according to a new YouGov survey.
Trump drew more support overall, with 28 percent backing him compared to just 8 percent for Musk. Another 11 percent said they were 'not sure.' The online poll was conducted with 3,812 U.S. adults Thursday, the same day the president and the world's richest man went to war with each other.
Across nearly all of YouGov's demographics, most Americans distanced themselves from both men—with 51 to 53 percent choosing 'neither' in every age group—except when the results were divided by political party.
Republicans backed the president by a wide margin—71 percent—while giving the Tesla CEO just 6 percent support. Twelve percent chose neither.
This indicates a dramatic shift in Musk's standing among the right, sending a clear message that Republicans' loyalties lie firmly with their MAGA leader, rather than the tech billionaire.
Just a few months ago, 73 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents viewed Musk favorably, according to a Pew Research poll. In the same survey, 85 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners held an unfavorable view of Musk.
Predictably, 80 percent of Democrats chose neither side in Thursday's poll, although 11 percent sided with Musk compared to just 4 percent backing Trump—whom Musk claimed Thursday is 'in the Epstein files.'
Women were more likely to reject either man at 57 percent, compared to 47 percent for men. Twenty-seven percent of women sided with Trump, versus 30 percent of men. Just 5 percent of women picked Musk, while 11 percent of men chose the billionaire's side.
Support for either man was especially low among Black Americans, 68 percent of whom picked 'neither'—a full 20 percent higher than white respondents.
During Thursday's explosive spat, Trump threatened to end the subsidies and contracts held by Musk's companies, like SpaceX. Musk promptly fired back on X, 'Go ahead, make my day.'
YouGov's poll found 41 percent of all respondents supported ending Musk's subsidies and contracts, while 21 percent opposed the move and 38 percent weren't sure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Could you invest your own FICA taxes? The new Social Security proposal explained
As Elon Musk took a figurative chainsaw to the Social Security Administration earlier this year, there were those, like U.S. Rep. John B. Larson (D-Connecticut), who suspect the move had a lot to do with a desire to privatize Social Security. Social Security privatization refers to transforming the current Social Security system, primarily a government-run program, into a system that allows Americans to invest their Social Security contributions into private accounts rather than paying into the federal program. The challenge If you've ever looked at a paycheck and wondered what FICA stands for, it's the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Of your gross wages, 6.2% goes into FICA to pay for Social Security and another 1.45% goes toward covering Medicare. Your employer matches both amounts, resulting in a total contribution of 15.3% of your wages. Contributions made today support benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of workers who have died. Think of it as today's employees helping fund the benefits of today's retirees. Since Social Security was first established in 1935, the understanding has been that each generation of retirees will be supported by younger workers still on the job. A perfect storm of demographic changes in the United States put the Social Security system in a vulnerable position. Between the declining fertility rate and increased life expectancies, there are fewer workers to support an ever-growing group of retirees. As of this year, 12% of the total population is 65 or older. By 2080, it will be 23%. In other words, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is expected to drop dramatically, potentially impacting the SSA's ability to fulfill promised benefit payments. A move away from FICA? Among the proposals being made is the suggestion that Americans retain the 6.2% of their wages currently allocated toward FICA. Instead, they can invest it in private investment vehicles and decide how the money should be allocated. Supporters of Social Security privatization argue that the change would give individuals greater control over their retirement savings and potentially allow them to earn returns higher than those provided by the current system's fixed benefits. They also see it as a way to reduce the financial burden on the federal government. On the other side are those who worry that some Americans may not have the financial literacy or resources to manage investments on their own. Not everyone has experience managing assets, and it's concerning to think about throwing millions of people into the investment pool who may never have learned to manage their finances effectively. Another concern involves what happens to those who spend years investing for retirement only to hit a string of bad luck. That may mean making bad investment choices or even facing losses due to uncontrollable setbacks, like a recession or bear market. Opponents worry about what will happen to those who hit retirement age with little money put away through no fault of their own, and point out that the current Social Security system offers fixed benefits that retirees can count on. Countless issues to work through Even if Congress were able to come to a consensus and privatize Social Security, there are thorny issues that would need to be managed. For example: Partial privatization? Some supporters of Social Security privatization suggest allowing workers to invest a portion of their current Social Security contributions in private accounts, with the remainder allocated to the traditional pay-as-you-go system. While this model would lower the Social Security benefits earned by workers who choose this path, they would have a safety net of some sort to look forward to in retirement. Given how difficult it can be to get Congress to agree on anything, there's no doubt that deciding to upend the entire Social Security system will be an uphill (and long-fought) battle. In the meantime, the more immediate goal is to find a way to shore up the current system so that retirees will receive every dollar they've been promised. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Vance travels to LA amid immigration protests
Vice President JD Vance is traveling to Los Angeles on Friday as protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown continue to grip the city. Vance, a Marine veteran, will tour a multi-agency Federal Joint Operations Center as well as a Federal Mobile Command Center. He will also meet with leadership and Marines before giving remarks, according to his office. His visit comes as protests and law enforcement clash in Los Angeles over Immigration and Customs Enforcement's raids and deportations -- a key part of President Donald Trump's agenda. MORE: Trump has made a number of claims about the LA protests. Here is the context. Another conflict in the city stems from Trump's decision to deploy thousands of National Guardsmen and hundreds of Marines to LA against Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Trump can keep the National Guard in Los Angeles for now -- allowing the president to continue to use the military to quell protests against his deportation plans. Trump called the decision a "BIG WIN" in a social media post. MORE: LA protests timeline: How ICE raids sparked demonstrations and Trump to send in the military Earlier this month, Vance attacked the protests and used the events unfolding in LA to push for passage of the megabill that would advance Trump's legislative agenda. "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil," Vance wrote in an X post. "Time to pass President Trump's beautiful bill and further secure the border." Many Democrats have spoken out against the Trump administration's immigration practices. Last week, California Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat, was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference on the topic after he said he was trying to ask a question.
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Despite two assassination attempts, NY Times blames Trump for 'angry culture' that can lead to violence
The New York Times editorial board pointed the finger at President Donald Trump on Friday following another incident of deadly political violence. In a new editorial, the board said Trump is the chief individual to blame for America sliding into an era marked by political violence. "Although Mr. Trump has been a personal victim of this violence, he also deserves particular responsibility for our angry culture," the board declared. The headline read, "The Nation Encourages Political Violence by Allowing It to Seem Normal." The Times published the piece days after the deadly shootings that claimed the lives of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and resulted in the wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, last weekend. The suspect, 57-year-old Vance Boelter, was arrested on Sunday following a two-day manhunt in Minnesota after he allegedly posed as a police officer and killed the Hortmans. The previous day, he carried out a related attack against Hoffman and his wife. Boelter was found with a cache of weapons, including at least three AK-47 assault rifles and a 9mm handgun, along with a manifesto that listed 70 names and addresses, some of which belonged to other public officials. The Friday editorial argued that this latest politically motivated attack represents a "surge in political violence during the Trump years" that has imperiled not only American lives but also our country's collective memory." The board recounted several high-profile instances of political violence that have occurred in America in the last decade, listing the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., in 2017, the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot, the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif., husband, and the two assassination attempts on Trump, as part of the "grim catalog of political violence in recent years." It declared that "Fear has become a fact of life for politicians," elsewhere noting that "Democrats and Republicans alike have been the victims" of attacks driven by "demonizing comments" that people "on both the firth and the left engage in." The board then blamed Trump for this, justifying the point in stating, "He uses threatening language in ways that no other modern president has. He praises people who commit violence in his name, such as the Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom he has pardoned, despite their attacks on police officers and others. He sometimes seems incapable of extending basic decency to Democrats." "Instead of calling Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota to express condolences about the killings of two of his friends, Mr. Trump insulted Mr. Walz," the piece stated, adding, "It is no coincidence that hate crimes have surged, according to the F.B.I., during Mr. Trump's decade as a dominant political figure." Other Democratic Party leaders have made the same argument about Trump in the days since the Minnesota lawmaker shooting. Figures like former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pointed to the president when asked this week what has led to more violent incidents that seem to be politically motivated. The Trump administration has rejected these statements, with White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson telling Fox News Digital earlier this week, "Democrats are wrong to exploit this tragedy and blame President Trump… President Trump – the survivor of two assassination attempts – is uniting the country through patriotism, prosperity, and success. Radical Democrats must stop with their divisive, violent rhetoric."
