It really hits you every day, doesn't it? Just
this constant flood of political news, policy
changes. Yeah, it's overwhelming trying to figure
out what actually matters. Yeah. It's tough.
Exactly. And that's why we're here, to try and
cut through some of that noise for you. And we've
got this great source today, the Electoral Vote
News Briefing. It's from April 28th, 2025. So
that marks day 97 of the current administration.
Day 97. OK, so let's really unpack this briefing,
because it covers a lot of ground, doesn't it?
Oh, definitely. It's not just a surface look.
Right, we're talking presidential approval, these
questions about executive power getting maybe
a bit out of hand. Yeah, potential overreach,
reported missteps, the whole tariff situation
and the economy. And even like new fundraising
tactics, party politics, how Canada's reacting.
It's all in there. And what's interesting, I
think, is how these things are starting to connect,
even this early on. So our mission here, really,
is to pull out the key stuff, connect those dots
for you, help you feel informed without drowning
in every single detail. Exactly. Give you that
clearer picture of what's happening and, well,
maybe why you should care. All right, let's jump
right in then. Public perception. The briefing
suggests the honeymoon period, if there was one,
might be fading fast. That's putting it mildly,
I think. The numbers show a pretty noticeable
drop in the president's approval. Specifically.
Well, take the economy. That was a huge focus,
right? The polls cited average out to around,
what, 40 % approval? Oof. 40 % on the economy.
That's not ideal. Not really, no. Especially
when it was such a cornerstone promise, it becomes
a real vulnerability, you know? And it's not
just the economy. Immigration was another big
one. Same story there. One poll shows 51 % disapproval
on his handling of immigration. Wow. And it's
across the board, strong disapproval from Democrats,
but also a majority of independents weighing
in negatively. Even on specific things like that
idea of sending gang members to El Salvador,
the briefing mentioned pushback there, too. Significant
pushback, yeah. It suggests maybe a disconnect,
even with parts of his base on some policies.
OK, but here's where the language gets really
interesting. That New York Times, CNN poll uses
words like scary. and chaotic. It does. And it
says voters aren't really buying what Trump is
selling. That feels like it goes beyond just
policy disagreement, doesn't it? Yeah, it speaks
more to like temperament, leadership style. I
think so. And look at independence. Only 31 percent
feel he understands the problems facing people
like you. That's a tough number. Because independents
are often crucial, right, if they're skeptical.
It makes broadening that appeal really difficult.
It suggests the administration might struggle
to reach beyond its core supporters. And the
briefing puts this in context. Comparing his
numbers now to other presidents around Day 97,
how does that look? Not great, according to the
briefing. It mentions that even some administrations
considered to be struggling were actually doing
better at this same point. So it really raises
questions about the trajectory. Big questions.
And you remember all that talk right after the
election about a permanent Republican majority?
Yeah, seemed like everyone was saying it. Well,
the briefing notes that talk has pretty much
faded away suggest those assumptions might have
been premature. OK, let's shift gears a bit.
The briefing also flags these growing worries
about executive power. And the numbers here are
really quite stark, actually. How so? There's
significant public support. We're talking anywhere
from 54 percent up to 76 percent for limiting
presidential power in specific areas. Like what
kind of areas? Things like ignoring Supreme Court
decisions, sending citizens off to El Salvador
without due process, deporting legal immigrants
just for protesting. Wow. Imposing tariffs without
Congress signing off, even getting rid of congressional
programs unilaterally. So across the board, people
seem to want those checks and balances firmly
in place. That's the clear message. The briefing
basically concludes voters do not want the president
to usurp the powers of Congress. Pretty blunt.
And it mentions the heavy reliance on executive
orders for a lot of this stuff. Yes. And that
some of those orders are already facing core
challenges. Plus, it points out that some of
these big moves, like the trade war or targeting
universities, they weren't exactly front and
center campaign promises. Interesting. So maybe
a shift in approach after getting elected. Could
be. or maybe just leaning heavily on executive
authority to get things done quickly. Which brings
us to another section in the briefing, these
reported mistakes. It paints a picture of, well,
maybe some competence issues. That's one way
to put it. The briefing lists several incidents
that feed into a narrative of disorganization,
maybe poor judgment. Like the Secretary of Defense
situation. Exactly. The reports of security breaches,
secret war plans on insecure devices. The briefing
draws that parallel to the Hillary Clinton email
scrutiny. Right. Highlighting the potential double
standard, but also the actual security risks
involved. Real risks, yeah. Then there was that
Harvard funding threat. Which they then walked
back, calling it a mistake. Right. But as the
briefing asks, was it a genuine mistake? Suggesting
carelessness? Or was it, you know, an intentional,
maybe authoritarian style move that they backtracked
on? Neither option looks particularly good, does
it? Not really. And the list sort of goes on.
The IRS commissioner thing. Yeah. Appointed,
then fired almost immediately. Apparently after
Elon Musk got involved and then Treasury Secretary
Besant stepped in, seems chaotic. It suggests
a lack of maybe internal coherence and potential
outside influence on really key appointments.
And the tariffs. The initial rollout based on
AI errors. The Penguin Island tariff. Yes. It
sounds almost comical, but the briefing uses
it to question basic competence in just making
policy. They had to revise things quickly. And
the president claiming 200 trade deals when there
aren't 200 countries. It just stretches credibility.
It makes you wonder about the attention to factual
detail. And some of these things have serious
potential consequences, like those budget cuts
pushed by Musk. The ones affecting nuclear safety
and power grid security personnel. Yeah. That's
genuinely concerning. Especially when the briefing
points out the claims savings were tiny compared
to the potential risk, and then they had to reinstate
people anyway. It raises serious questions about
the whole decision making process there. And
if you tie this back to the economy, the briefing
notes, negative impacts already showing up? Yeah,
on the stock market, the bond market, the dollars
value, it suggests these policies or maybe the
uncertainty they create are starting to bite.
particularly for businesses relying on imports,
right? Seeing costs rise, supply chains getting
shaky. Definitely. It ripples through. And then
on top of all that, there's that frankly bizarre
story about HHS Secretary Noem's purse being
stolen. With all that cash, blank checks, passport.
Yeah, it's an odd one. It raises eyebrows. Plus
her showing up at that El Salvador facility with
expensive stuff, given the context. The briefing
notes, it seemed kind of tone deaf. It all adds
up, doesn't it? The briefing sort of captures
the feeling by asking, can't they do anything
right? Which feeds right back into those approval
numbers we talked about earlier. It creates this
narrative of instability, maybe? I think so.
It raises those fundamental doubts about effective
governance and sound judgment. OK, let's dig
a bit deeper into the terrace specifically, because
the briefing makes a strong point. Even if they
stop tomorrow, some damage is already done. That's
a really crucial takeaway. The disruption, especially
with China trade, is already happening. China
restricting rare earth exports is a big deal,
too. And you can physically see it, like fewer
ships at ports. Exactly. The briefing mentions
fewer cargo ships at places like Long Beach.
That's a tangible sign the supply chain is under
strain. So this isn't just abstract numbers.
It's hitting businesses, maybe inventory shortages,
potential closures. Could be. And that means
fewer hours or jobs for dock workers, truckers,
retail staff. Yeah. It affects real people. And
that Philly Fed manufacturing survey dropping
sharply. Yeah, because businesses can't get the
imported parts they need. That could genuinely
lead to factory shutdowns, layoffs down the line.
Plus, businesses are holding back on investment
because everything feels so uncertain. Makes
sense, right? Why commit big money when you don't
know what the economic landscape will look like
next month? The briefing also mentions the president's
negotiation style might not be helping things
with China, or even allies like Japan and the
EU. Right, it suggests his more confrontational
style might clash with how countries like China
prefer to negotiate, which is often more long
-term, less abrupt. And other countries pushing
back too. Expected resistance, yeah. So navigating
out of this trade mess looks complicated. The
briefing seems to imply some economic pain is
now unavoidable. So the focus probably needs
to shift to just managing the fallout. Mitigating
further damage, probably yes. Okay, switching
gears completely now. This executive branch club,
tell us about that. Sounds interesting. It definitely
has an air of exclusivity. Basically, a $500
,000 membership fee gets you access to the president,
other top officials. It's being run by Donald
Trump Jr. and Omid Malik, a big GOP donor. Half
a million dollars for access. That immediately
raises questions about buying influence, doesn't
it? Absolutely. The perception is pretty clear.
It looks like a way for the wealthy to pay for
privileged access. And the briefing mentions
potential for like... private deals, maybe even
different tiers of membership later. Yeah, suggesting
it could become even more transactional. It kind
of feeds into this idea of a two -tiered system,
one for big donors, one for everyone else. Which
could really erode public trust, you'd think.
You would. While fundraising is normal, this
specific model, the price tag... It looks like
selling influence, plain and simple, to many
observers. Now, despite all these controversies
bubbling up, the briefing suggests Republicans
aren't exactly rushing to criticize the president
publicly. Generally no, which makes Senator Grassley's
comments on Russia and Ukraine stand out. What
did he say? He was quite critical, urging a tougher
stance, and actually said Russia is playing America
as a patsy. Wow, that's strong language. It is.
Especially when, according to the briefing, many
other Republicans share concerns about Ukraine,
but they're just keeping quiet. Even senators
who are retiring soon, you'd think they'd feel
freer to speak out. You might think so, but it
really shows the kind of hold the president seems
to have over the party right now. So Grassley's
comments are notable mainly because they're so
rare. Pretty much. It highlights that there are
different views within the party, even if they
aren't often voiced publicly. OK, let's look
at the Justice Department. AG Bondi seems to
be making some big changes quickly. Very quickly,
yes. The briefing details the abrupt cancellation
of at least 350 nonprofit grants. Worth how much?
About $4 .4 billion total. These were grants
funded by the previous administration. Supporting
what kinds of things? A really wide range. Victim
support services, mental health programs for
police, anti -human trafficking efforts, stuff
like that. So cutting funding for those programs
could have a pretty big impact on communities,
right? A huge impact. The briefing specifically
mentions concerns about victims of crime, losing
access to legal aid, housing, medical care, even
help with funeral costs. Has A .G. Bondi addressed
that? The briefing notes Barndy stated victim
services won't be affected. But, well, given
the scale of the cuts, there's skepticism. And
there was another policy change mentioned about
journalists. Yes, reversing the policy that limited
subpoenaing journalists to find their sources
in leak investigations. So making it easier to
go after leakers? Essentially, yes. The briefing
suggests the priority seems to be punishing leaks
over maybe addressing the potential wrongdoing
the leak exposed. How's that going down? Not
well with some state and local officials, according
to the briefing. They're worried about the chilling
effect on the press and government accountability.
So it feels like a shift in DOJ priorities towards
maybe loyalty and information control. That's
certainly one interpretation presented. These
changes seem likely to ripple out quite widely.
Okay, even though Democrats in the minority in
the House, the breathing outlines a strategy
they're planning. How are they pushing back?
It's a classic tactic, really. Using the committee
process specifically, the markup of that big
kitchen sink bill the president wants. The markup.
That's where they debate amendments in specific
parts. Exactly. So the plan is to force votes
on specific, potentially unpopular parts of the
bill. Like what? Like cuts to Medicaid. or SNF,
or maybe tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthy.
And the targets are? Republicans in swing districts,
especially those sitting on the key committees
where these votes will happen. So they force
them to go on the record. Yep. And then those
votes get used in campaign ads for the 2026 midterms.
Congressman X voted to cut your health care,
that kind of thing. We saw that work before,
didn't we, in 2018? It was very effective then,
yes. So they're dusting off that playbook and
the narrow margins on some committees mean just
a few Republicans flipping could actually change
things it could potentially adds another layer
of pressure It shows that even in the minority
you can still try to shape the debate and hold
the majority accountable But it's not all unity
on the Democratic side either. Is it the briefing
talks about some internal friction? Definitely.
There's this push led partly by DNC Vice Chair
David Hogg to challenge older, more moderate
Democrats in primaries with younger, more progressive
candidates. Hogg's group, Leaders We Deserve,
is funding these challenges, specifically in
safe Democratic seats. So the idea is to shift
the party leftward from within. That seems to
be the goal. get more progressive voices in Congress,
reflecting what they see as the energy of the
party's base, especially younger voters. And
how's that being received by the incumbents?
Not well, as you can imagine. The briefing mentions
pushback, and even DNC chair Ken Martin giving
Hogg an ultimatum. So real tension there. Yeah.
Hogg points to examples like AOC's primary win
as the model, and it mentions a specific challenge
to rep Jan Schakowsky by a TikToker, Kata Bugazala.
Tchaikovsky is expected to retire, but it shows
the trend. It really highlights that ongoing
dynamic within the Democratic Party, the establishment
versus the progressive wing. Exactly. These primaries
could really reshape the party's future direction.
Now, over in the Senate, Adam Schiff is mentioned
as taking a different approach for a new senator.
Yeah, he's not really following the traditional
seen and not heard path for freshmen. How so?
He's been openly critical of leadership, apparently,
and he's using procedural tools like putting
a hold on a nominee. That's pretty assertive
early on. Does his background in the House give
him more leeway, maybe, being a lead impeachment
manager? The briefing suggests that's a big factor.
He has name recognition, political capital that
most newcomers don't. And he's focusing on oversight.
Very much so. Aggressively questioning nominees,
working with other former House members now in
the Senate to hold hearings. It sounds like he
plans to be a major player in scrutinizing the
administration. Bringing some House energy to
the Senate, as the briefing puts it. That's the
phrase used, yeah. A more confrontational, proactive
style, perhaps. OK, one more. Senator mentioned
Susan Collins in Maine. Things aren't looking
great for her, according to the poll cited. No,
the numbers are pretty brutal. 71 % of Maine
voters saying she doesn't deserve re -election.
Wow, is that a cross -party lines? Yes, majorities
of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.
That signals a really broad dissatisfaction in
a state that used to reward her moderation. And
there are potential challengers lining up. Strong
ones, potentially. Governor Janet Mills, representative
of Chilly Pingree, are mentioned as possibilities.
So she could be facing a very tough fight. Looks
that way. Although... Interestingly, the same
poll found a surprising number of Maine voters
think leftist politicians are the state's biggest
problem. Huh. So it's complex. Always is, isn't
it? State politics often have their own unique
dynamics separate from the national narrative.
But Collins definitely seems vulnerable right
now. Finally, let's look north. The briefing
says the U .S. president is actually a big factor
in the Canadian election. A huge factor, apparently.
Past comments, current policies. they're causing
a stir. In what way? There's this reported surge
in Canadian patriotism, even a backlash against
some US products. Really? Yeah. And the liberals,
led by Mark Carney, are predicted to win. His
whole campaign pitch includes Trump -proofing
Canada. So the election there is partly about
the relationship with the US and specifically
the current president. It seems to have become
a major dividing line. almost creating a de facto
two -party system based on views of the U .S.
president. A big liberal win would definitely
be seen as a rebuke. It just shows how interconnected
everything is, doesn't it? Actions here have
real ripple effects internationally. Absolutely.
The Canadian election is a prime example of that.
OK, so let's try and wrap this up. Looking back
at this day 97 briefing, what are the big takeaways?
Well, we've seen a president facing declining
approval serious questions about executive power
and basic competence. An economy already feeling
the pinch from tariffs. Some really interesting
political maneuvering from both parties internally
and against each other. And clear international
fallout like in Canada. Exactly. It's a snapshot
of an administration facing significant headwinds
early on with strategy shifting on all sides
and real world consequences starting to emerge.
Hopefully diving into this briefing like this
gives you, the listener, a clearer sense of the
landscape without getting totally bogged down.
That's the goal, to connect those dots and highlight
what seems most crucial right now. And it leaves
you thinking, doesn't it, about the longer term?
What does this level of early controversy and
falling trust mean down the road? How resilient
are institutions when faced with these kinds
of pressures? Definitely something to keep mulling
over.