John Zogby: [00:00:00] there legitimacy to this taco charge? Trump always chickens out.
Jeremy Zogby: president is purposely being unpredictable.
John Zogby: I don't know what's scarier. Is it scarier that we invade Iran or is it scarier if after all of this we back off lose credibility again?
Jeremy Zogby: There's a lot of signal and there's a lot of noise. And I think it's best to approach all of this with the understanding that the system is broken,
John Zogby: It's January 30th and it's another edition of Real Polling in Real Time with Zogby. John Zogby and I'm here with Split Screen. Jeremy Zogby, how you doing?
Jeremy Zogby: doing pretty well. How about you?
John Zogby: I am doing well. So we're not going to on and [00:01:00] on, there are three things that I'd like to talk about today, alright. The, first is I wanna look, we say, we're going to do at, President Trump's polling numbers and ask the question, why do some pollsters have approval rating at 45 40 6% and others have him at 35 to 37%. I wanna break that down
I see it. then numbers two and three deal with some memes that are out in the air, right now. one is called Trump Derangement syndrome. And the other is called Taco Trump, always chickens out and wonder, are those for real? are these just the product of a, few minds, on social media? How's that sound to you, j
Jeremy Zogby: we can get into that.
John Zogby: Okay. So let's, very briefly, [00:02:00] why are some polls percentage points apart from each other? And frankly, it's a weird way to get an average. The President, has an average approval rating of around 42%, but it's a weird way to get a 42 with some polls as high as 46. Others as low as, as I said, to 37 as opposed to a kind of a more of a clustering, a around that 42 number. And so essentially as, we've gotten into before, but this is an appropriate time, to, talk about it. It depends on the sampling and it depends on, how the pollster and his or her team view what we call the turnout models. What we suppose a turnout model would look like today if the [00:03:00] election were held today. And of course the closer you get to the election, the more that, turnout model be becomes very important. And so there are some pollsters who for, application of waiting when it comes to how many Democrats, republicans, and independents are in the sample. And so you'll have some very prominent polls out there that will have 42, 40 3% Democrats, 28, 20 9% Republicans. And according to us, that's just simply not America. we've, when we take a look at exit polls and actual turnouts, Democrats and Republicans, some, they take turns as to how many show up How many don't show up, but generally speaking, their turnouts are fairly close [00:04:00] in numbers. Never were more than three or four points away from each other. and the theory also means that, if as we have today a situation where both the Democrats and the Republicans are, not necessarily revered. We have a situation where there's a rise in the number of independents, genuinely people who don't agree with either party. But suffice it to say that if you see Trump at 45 or 46, that means that the pollster is probably sampling. and in some cases, I can tell you definitively sampling more Republicans. then maybe he or she should. On the other hand, if you see very low of 35, 30 6%, rating for the president, then that means that, that there's an oversampling of, [00:05:00] Democrats in the sample or democratic groupings, people or Hispanics and so on.
Jared, do you want to comment on that?
Jeremy Zogby: yeah, I, let's talk about us because we have had, over the last several months. Trump's somewhere in the mid forties range. And, that's not because we are, incorrectly oversampling Republicans. We saw the 2024 exit polls. the turnout and Republicans were the highest, in terms of voter share.
Independents were second. Democrats were a third, were last, and so we're more in line. With the reality of a larger share of Republicans, a larger share of independence. But at the same time, we also know that Democrats do have a case could be [00:06:00] made that they're, a situation where they are more mobilized than November in 2024, where they didn't turn out.
And that is because of their great dissatisfaction. With the president. And so we don't fall into that categorization of, what you just laid out, and I wanted to clarify that.
John Zogby: No good. And I'm glad that you did. And, there is disagreement in the field of polling as to whether or not, you should apply a weight if the numbers of Democrats and Republicans, are out of whack. the, the, academic side of our field feels that leave party alone. never wait. It. We have, in most instances over the years apply to wait for party. [00:07:00] But before we move on to the next topic, I just wanna state that when our raw data comes in for us to look at and determine weights, that, will be adjusted to the, actual turnout model. We never get numbers so out of whack. F with party that they ever really have to be weighted so massively. party may be one or two points off and it's a judgment call on our part. And I'll only end with this statement because I've said it now for over 40 years. The polling is about 80% science, but it's 20% art. And there are assumptions, and riffs, that we have to make. in order to get our polls out and to try to ref reflect reality as much as we can. word.
Jeremy Zogby: I'm [00:08:00] in complete agreement when you're talking about humans. There is a level of predictability, but there's also a level of unpredictability and somebody's perceptions, let's say a political consultants, IE mainly pollsters perceptions and sensibilities and, depth of understanding humans.
That takes a lot, takes a lot of art to, to understand and, that's why. I think you're correct in, your 80 20, percentage of what polling is 80% science, 20% are.
John Zogby: Taco Trump always chickens out. and essentially, just, review quickly. we, removed Maduro from office [00:09:00] and at that time the president and the Secretary of State said. the United States will be governing, Venezuela. And of course that had a lot of people scratching their heads. But the fact is we're not governing Venezuela. And in fact, the, if there's any degree of legitimacy down there and there really isn't in Venezuela. 'cause Maduro apparently was not really even elected. He stole the election, but he was the president. According to their constitution, then the vice president would succeed The president, she is in power, by many accounts.
She's worse than Maduro, apparently we're working with her Delsey. the president is much more interested, it appears in, oil than in human rights. That's, a bit different and a real backing off. So let's look at Greenland. [00:10:00] were all led to believe that the next thing we would wake up to are troops massing on the Greenland border and the potential of going to war with Denmark, and hence the European Union Greenland.
And there was resistance on the part of Greenland resistance on the part of Denmark resistance on the part of eu, which would threaten. the NATO alliance and then Trump in Davos sits down with those European leaders negotiates a settlement that looks like exactly what we had already. was absolutely nothing new in that settlement. the United States is always, since 1951, I think it is, had free reign Denmark. Let's look at tariffs. honestly, and you know that I follow this stuff [00:11:00] closely. I can't tell you what tariffs are in place, where always being changed and adjusted depending on what the news is or who is resisting and who's threatening counter tariff measures.
But in any event, if anything could be said about the tariffs, our trade deficit went up. over the the past year. It's not a policy that's working, but it's a policy that is causing an enormous amount confusion. We're saber rattling with Iran again, and unless we, according to the President, have a nuclear treaty with Iran, then there'll be some sort of American or Israeli or joint bombing of Iran. I don't know what's scarier. Is it scarier that we invade Iran or is it scarier if after all of this we back off [00:12:00] lose credibility again? But there legitimacy to this taco charge? Trump always chickens out.
Jeremy Zogby: I, my read and, I've said this many times, is that the president is purposely being unpredictable.
it's, fashionable to, frame it. I think from the vantage point of the opposition's, tactics. And strategy and branding. It makes sense to, to Democrats want to increase market share, right?
So they, they wanna hold their base and then they want to get independent voters. 'cause they're only gonna get five or 6% of, Republicans. We have that kind of, inter, party, dynamic. on both sides. So they're not obviously going to increase market share among Republican voters. The [00:13:00] Democrat strategists, they're gonna look for independent voters who are unaffiliated, who, are on the sidelines.
And so what do you do? You brand it, it looks like it's, it, feels chaotic. It looks chaotic. It sounds chaotic. That is Trump's approach to geopolitics and tariffs and whatever. but. that's how you brand it and in the attempt to obtain more voter share of the independent voters. But I think the reality is, that Trump has always made this very clear that he's never going to let you know what he's going to do next.
He's not going to let, other national leaders know what he's going to do next. And that's his strategy. And I've said before. As dangerous as it is, for a lot of analysts who believe it's that. here we are in 2026 [00:14:00] and it appears that it has worked well for maga. now the question is, as we get close to the midterms, how is he going to work that to his advantage?
And I, I think that's what we. Really need to be focusing on is what is the president going to do, in terms of potentially pivoting his messaging and his strategy to make sure that Republicans, don't get ousted.
John Zogby: So all roads now lead to Minneapolis because on one hand you do have, not a chickening out, but you do have the, modulated tone
Jeremy Zogby: I pivot.
John Zogby: removal of two, senior. Homeland Security officials, two folks who were in charge on the ground, now the borders are, is there. And I, I'm not [00:15:00] gonna quite say that, there's been a turnaround on the part of the administration, but there's been a softening of tone. Mr. Holman met with the mayor of Minneapolis, met with the governor of, of Minneapolis, and, did I say that right? Governor of Minnesota and mayor of Minneapolis.
That's something that, was not taking place and there was a war of words and, everybody promised root out criminals and to withdraw some ice agents from Minneapolis.
That's a change. But the point is, is that gonna work? so far as of this moment, Trump's approval rating on immigration, his signature issue right, is under 40%. And all of this, [00:16:00] in the shooting two, I'm gonna say innocent. People, but two people certainly who shot should not have been shot, has been working against the president and maybe he's showing a little bit of flexibility right now. Jared, does Trump derangement syndrome exist?
Jeremy Zogby: that's a charged term. I, I, think I, okay, so we're looking at the chaos in real time, which is exacerbated by headlines and signals, and I think we can agree that we've learned that a lot of headlines, don't reveal the truth. In the moment, and even in the long term when, events play out.
So there's a lot of signal and there's a lot of noise. And I think it's best to approach all of this [00:17:00] with the understanding that the system is broken,
the political system is broken, political discourse is broken, and unfortunately, both par parties are at war with each other. It. So th this is, we're in a very unconventional, time right now where we as political analysts who are taking our body of historical knowledge are, trying to use that to, to figure out what's going, on right now in, in this extraordinary time.
And I've just come to accept that we have to depart from that. I, I suggested last week. That the extraordinary times are going to lead to extraordinary issues. We can see that playing out. You just alluded to that with immigration in November of 2024 when voters turned out they were turning out over the issue of the border.
They were [00:18:00] over, they were turning out over the issue that, we agree if, the president wants to get somebody like Holman to run, that agency to deport, violent criminals and thefts. But now we've seen that net casted to really just anybody who could be suspected as illegal. And that has prompted protests, that has prompted intensity.
And so the issue is no longer really about the border and immigration. Now it's turning into civil unrest.
John Zogby: Yes.
Jeremy Zogby: Okay, so Minneapolis is the, is ground zero. For the potential outburst of great civil unrest. And if that continues to play out, you're gonna see that in other cities. That's an example of how the issue of immigration is turning into an extraordinary issue beyond what we may have thought.
looking at the election results in 2024, [00:19:00] and I have to say the economy is the same thing, today is, a major event. a new Fed chairman is being announced. I suspect Kevin Warsh is, going to be approved, to take Jerome Powell's seat, and he faces an amazing time right now.
Okay. So over the last three or four years, inflation crept into the American language, which, hadn't been, everyday vernacular since, I don't know, maybe the eighties or the early nineties. To the point where people were talking about it every day at the coffee shop, and that was inflation. Now we're talking about an affordability crisis.
Now we're looking at the next level of inflation and the affordability crisis. And I say that because here's Kevin Wars, who looks like he's going to assume, the chairman at the Federal [00:20:00] Reserve, and right now as we speak. The national debt is adding a trillion dollars every business quarter. Okay?
That's growing exponentially, which means it could get to the point where a trillion dollars are is being added to the national debt every month, and that's not gonna slow down. So what is he going to do? Is he going to raise interest rates like some people think he will 'cause they think he's hawkish?
No, that would exacerbate, the national debt problem. I don't see how he would do that. Is he going to lower interest rates? I think so because he's the one who devised the plan of QE during the financial crisis under Ben Bernanke. plus also, why did Trump pick him? Trump picked him because Trump wants lower interest rates, so the Fed is in a catch 22 position where it looks like no matter what it does.
It's going to pour fuel on the flame of the affordability crisis, [00:21:00] and we're no longer gonna be talking about just inflation. We're gonna be talking about the next level of in inflation. And so the president has a real issue on his hands in that regards, but what are the Democrats gonna do? What's, their answer to the problem?
So that's just really, a quick and dirty version of how I see 2026 playing out extraordinarily.
John Zogby: Yeah, and I'm gonna only, that's a very good analysis from what I understand. Of Kevin Walsh and just been reading what's been coming out now. First and foremost, apparently he's an institutionalist, meaning he identifies with the Fed and his job is to preserve the integrity of the Fed. And so one of the pressures that's on him is to make sure that he is independent. Of the President of the United States. That is the tradition. And if the President of the United States is demanding [00:22:00] as he had with Jerome Powell, that interest rates be reduced. Mr. Warsh sitting really on a powder keg, isn't he? he's gotta be careful that he doesn't, appear to be a stooge of the president.
The second issue, of course, is he didn't do anything. Unless he has a majority of the Board of Governors and they appear to be a fairly independent sort, those board of governors. So I think it's very un unpredictable. unpredictable, all of which, doesn't make sleeping at night, easier in 2026
Jeremy Zogby: yeah, the, only thing I can say to that is, is I agree with that now, but when there's an emergency, all bets are off. Now I'm gonna tell the story. Because you and I were, both present. We were giving a [00:23:00] presentation at the Sloan School back in 2019 on AI in the workforce. we had done a survey and we were presenting, and there were other people who were, thought leaders, let's say, and, who were talking on the topic.
Now, Kevin Walsh was there and he told the story and he opened his talk with a story about how. Financial crisis rolls out in 2008. Bernanke's at the head of the Fed and Kevin Warsh had this very unique position being the liaison between the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. And so he told the story that he presented to Ben Bernanke, a plan to which Ben Bernanke said, you mean we're going to turn into a Banana Republic?
That plan was quantitative easing. Now, the reason I tell that story is. All of which you say is true regarding independence and integrity and [00:24:00] maintaining the institution. But when an emergency arises on the scene, all bets are off. Warsh was in a position where he was looking down the barrel of, an economic collapse and he took extraordinary measures to stave that off with something that never resolved the problem.
So I have a sense that he's in. This problem once again, but it's compounded and all bets are off. When there's an emergency. What are they gonna do? we will find out.
John Zogby: We actually covered a lot of ground,
Jeremy Zogby: Yeah,
John Zogby: today
Jeremy Zogby: more than I thought we would.
John Zogby: yeah, me
Jeremy Zogby: I
John Zogby: okay. Always great listening to you. And
Jeremy Zogby: always great talking with you
John Zogby: yeah, same here.
Have a great weekend and I'll talk to you in about 10 minutes.
Jeremy Zogby: Yep, you got it.
[00:25:00]