A new CBS News/YouGov poll showed that Americans are increasingly critical of Trump’s handling of the economy, and that more people are blaming him than a month earlier. It surveyed 2,410 U.S. adults from April 8 to 11.

When asked whose policies are more responsible for the state of the economy, 54% said they believe Trump’s policies are more to blame. Only 21% said they believe Biden’s policies are to blame. 20% said both of their policies are equally to blame, while 5% said neither are to blame for the state of the economy.

This compares to a March CBS News poll, when 38% of respondents said they blamed Biden for inflation, while only 34% blamed Trump.

A poll from YouGov and The Economist also showed that more Americans are blaming Trump for the economy.

  • underwater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Because he’s the one currently tanking the economy. Fuck Trump - even as a conservative, I can say that he and the current Republicans are awful. They singlehandedly pushed me into becoming a conservative Democrat since 2015-2016. Blue Dog Democrat or whatever.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      So you were fine with decades of hate for minorities and what not, it’s the economy doing shit that you can’t tolerate?

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Look I get it, some of you are fine being in bed with the right wing and are happy moving further to right than ever standing for something.

          I’m not.

          This person did not stop being a conservative. The only motivation they have for not supporting Trump is the economy.

          • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            maybe. its possible there are other semi-conscious awakenings inside this person as well. cognitive dissonance makes it very, very difficult to admit you were wrong. we can’t expect people to do a 180. the people on the right win elections because they run a big tent. I personally believe the left(more-ish) in america loses elections largely due to purity tests.

            anyway, its hard to say what’s inside someone’s head. I say if someone is willing to vote blue for “the economy” they’re welcome in the tent. with any luck, the influence of the other people they’re no longer knee-jerk hostile to will rub off over time, issue by issue.

    • Kalon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Remember when Republicans seemed concerned with reducing debt? Guess some may still say that but look what’s happening with spending now at the same time they are cutting everything, and still looking to increase tax cuts for top earners. 😩

      • kobra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I remember when a democrat balanced the budget and gave the US a surplus from 1998-2001

        • kibiz0r@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          And destroyed the economy as a result.

          Public sector growth (federal budget surplus) is private sector atrophy.

          You can keep the charade going through risky debt, like mortgage-backed securities. But since there’s no new money entering the economy, those will eventually collapse. And they did.

          • kobra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Whatever flaws the Clinton plan had, it was followed by 9/11 and GWB/Obama so I’m not sure how you go back and blame Clinton for that? This feels like blaming Clinton for not having a perfect solution.

            • kibiz0r@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I’m not super interested in blame here. Clinton did something dumb. GWB didn’t undo it.

              But neither of them invented this obsession with retiring the US debt — which would in fact retire the US dollar.

              It’s not the first time we’ve balanced the budget, after all.

              History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.

              Do you see the correlation?

              The one exception occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Remember when Republicans seemed concerned with reducing debt?

        Literally no. Please tell me when this was.

        • kewjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          every time we had a D president, the concern goes away it’s an R in office and then spending goes through the roof.

        • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 hours ago

          They’ve long said it, but never shown it through actions. Just used it as a cudgel to beat social programs.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      since 2015-2016

      Hah, I would be ecstatic if we had a Romney now instead of what we do have. Or even a McCain. Or hell, even a GWB as long as he wasn’t allowed to invade anywhere.