James Johnson

Eric Swalwell has dropped out of the race for California governor after a series of sexual misconduct allegations. Republicans may be celebrating the demise of the prominent Democrat, but they should hold off on the champagne for now. Swalwell’s exit only increases the chance of two Democrats moving through to the run-off, depriving the GOP of a place on the ticket.However some Republicans still believe that the two GOP candidates in the race – Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco – can make it through California's jungle primary and face each other in November. While it sounds exciting and makes a good social media meme, such wishful thinking could cause Republicans to blow a historic opportunity to defeat a deeply unpopular and chaotic Democratic party in California.

Elon Musk has set up a third party and pledged to contest next year’s midterms. But to find a third party that has performed well in a midterm election, we must journey far into the annals of American history. Minnesota and Wisconsin-based parties managed a handful of House representatives and a senator or two in 1934, but these were states-first campaigns that were anchored in a geographical power-base – something Musk does not have. We can discount the movements linked to Ross Perot in the 1990s and George Wallace in 1968, who both ran for president but did not have a viable wider party slate at their own elections or ensuing midterms.

“Trump has lowest 100-day approval rating in 80 years,” screamed ABC News at the start of this week. The ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted by Ipsos to mark Trump’s 100th day in office, was one of a handful that have shown Trump’s approval rating dipping below 40 percent for the first time. There is just one problem: the pollsters who are showing the worst numbers for Trump are the ones who got the election most wrong. Take the ABC/WaPo/Ipsos poll, that showed Trump on 39 percent approval. In their final poll of the 2024 cycle, they found a three-point lead for Kamala Harris. Ipsos’s other poll for Reuters had a two-point advantage for Harris nationally. Trump ended up winning the popular vote by one and a half points.

Trump is headed to the White House. As I write, that is the consensus of almost all political experts, including the New York Times’ Nate Cohn, who puts Trump’s chance of victory at greater than 95 per cent. Trump is set to pick up at least one – and possibly all three – of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It is not confirmed yet, but it looks likely Trump will win all seven swing states. Cohn also projects a Trump lead in the popular vote, by 1.2 points. That would be the first time a Republican has won the popular vote since George Bush in 2004. There will be many postmortems to come, including from my firm, J. L. Partners.

It’s Kamala. The result of the last 48 hours, capping off one of the most eventful weeks in American political history, has been to all but confirm Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee for president this November. More than half the delegates at the upcoming DNC in Chicago have pledged their support to her, and the number is fast-rising. She has also pulled in several big name endorsements. It is true that Barack Obama has held back his support, but she has secured the backing of most of the serious players, including former speaker of the House – and driving force behind Joe Biden’s defenestration – Nancy Pelosi. Kamala Harris will need to make a gamble The question now becomes who the best candidate would be for Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick.

Lee Anderson, the recently-appointed Tory party deputy chairman, has sparked a political row with his comments on capital punishment. 'Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed. 100 per cent success rate,' he said in an interview with The Spectator. Rishi Sunak says he disagrees, and is not in favour of the death penalty. But what do most people think? Voters' views on some issues, like Brexit, range widely and change over time. But attitudes towards crime, and what to do with criminals, appear to be far deeper-rooted. You can never be too tough on crime, is the verdict of many voters. Last week, J.L. Partners asked British adults which punishment – from a fine to a prison sentence of more than 15 years – would be most suitable for 24 different crimes.

The loss of Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton has shaken the Conservative party. But governments like Thatcher’s and Cameron’s have suffered mid-term blues before and bounced back to win elections. Is there anything really that different about what is happening now that will stop Boris Johnson making a similar recovery? In my view, the answer is yes. The situation now facing the party is different, and not simply a mid-term grumble. The first difference is that people of both places voted the way they did not because of a general discontent with the government or its policies, but because of a focused fury with the Conservative leader. The top argument chosen in a J.L.

In the last week, I’ve been crisscrossing the United States, meeting with politicians and their advisers ahead of this year’s congressional elections. Almost everyone has asked me about the ongoing Boris Johnson saga. Their most common refrain is surprise: how can the simple act of attending a party prompt a prime minister’s ever-more-likely political demise? In a country where every scandal bounced off Donald Trump, it is hard for Americans to imagine a few sausage rolls and glasses of warm wine in Downing Street causing so many to turn on the Prime Minister. In America, loyalty to Trump persists. More than 70 per cent of Republicans continue to back him, and four in ten doubt whether Joe Biden was legitimately elected.

When Dominic Cummings released his WhatsApp messages with Boris Johnson earlier this month, perhaps the most alarming was the one where both men fretted about 'trends in polls and lots of focus groups over the past 2 weeks'. The texts, dated 27 April 2020, also saw the Prime Minister asking about 'tonight[‘s] focus group and polls'. At the heart of government, at the height of the pandemic, public health decisions and the Prime Minister’s thought process were clearly being steered heavily by a perceived negative public reaction. I am a pollster. There are many advantages in knowing what the public think. It ensures politicians do not let otherwise hidden resentments go unaddressed.

A quick read of the polls, and you would be forgiven for thinking we are a nation of lockdown-lovers, clamouring for stricter measures, eager to obey and accept any and all restrictions given to us. An Ipsos-MORI poll over the weekend showed 45 per cent of the public think current measures are not strict enough, three times the amount who said they go too far. YouGov has shown majority support for a ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown. And a survey by J.L. Partners found that, although only one in four thought the wider public would follow a potential ban on household mixing, three in four said they personally would. Focus groups — moderated conversations between a group of 8 to 10 people — often reinforce the polls.

Much has been said about the prospect of no deal over the past few days – the economics, arguments over sovereignty, the views of Conservative MPs, possible long-term gain, and the views of the voters. All will be important to the government’s final decision. Looking only at the voters, the established wisdom seems to be that a no deal course gives Boris his moment of facing down the EU, and that the former ‘Red Wall’ would welcome such a move. This, I think, is an incorrect assumption. Twelve months ago, no deal may well have been welcomed by a sizeable proportion of voters. Brexit was the only show in town. The Conservatives held a towering thirty-point lead on the issue over Jeremy Corbyn.

Once again, question marks surround Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. This is not new. While I was at 10 Downing Street, with the small but significant possibility of a sudden Corbyn departure, we spent some time exploring the electoral impact of who might come next. To work out who might put up the best fight and how best to counter them, I discussed potential candidates in focus groups, played videos to voters, and polled frontbenchers’ perceived attributes. The most consistently effective potential leader? Shadow chancellor, John McDonnell.  This may seem surprising – and as a Conservative it was a painful discovery. But he ‘focus grouped’ remarkably well.