Summary

A Harris poll reveals that 69% of Americans believe Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase consumer costs, with many planning purchases ahead of his inauguration to avoid price hikes.

Trump has championed tariffs as a key policy to boost domestic manufacturing, but economists and corporate leaders warn costs will be passed to consumers, potentially adding $2,600 annually to household expenses.

While Republicans are more supportive of tariffs, only 51% think they will benefit the economy.

The poll highlights widespread concern over tariffs’ economic impact, especially amid lingering inflation and financial uncertainty.

  • ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    If 2/3 of people seemingly understand the truth, how tf was he voted back in? Can they get rid of the outdated electoral college system yet?

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      Electoral college was irrelevant this election. Trump won the popular vote because people don’t think voting is important. Kamala Harris was a shit candidate, but Democratic voters weren’t given a primary to pick a better one.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        While the Electoral College did not directly factor into this election it could have indirectly factored in due to minority voters in solidly controlled states simply deciding not to vote due to their votes having no impact on the outcome. If for instance you were a Democrat in a state that Republicans have won by double digit percentages for the last couple decades you might rightly assume that whether you vote or not the outcome remains unchanged.

        If we had a straight popular vote rather than the EC then literally every vote would count, unlike the current system where that’s only true in battleground states. In this case the EC is just another in a long list of voter suppression tools.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Make not voting cause you to be chosen first for jury duty.

          Personally, I’ve never minded jury duty, but people seem to lose their minds over it.

          • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            4 days ago

            I don’t want to potentially be judged by people who can’t even be fucked to vote, thank you very much.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            I’d agree, except do we really want to emphasize the least engaged citizens for jury duty? That’s still someone’s freedom on the line, and while for some select few people finding a chance to vote is extremely difficult due to registration fuckery in Republican states, with the rise of early voting and vote by mail, the primary demographic of non-voting adults is people who are apathetic or intentionally ignorant to the political process. My fear is: “This is a waste of my time, and 30 days isn’t that long; just send them to jail.” And there won’t be anyone who cares strongly enough to object because the jury is packed with these apathetic citizens. To clarify, I see this as more of a problem with small-fry misdemeanor or less serious felony cases, not like murder or rape trials. But that’s most trials.

            You could argue that politically engaged Republicans can be much, much worse on a jury, that this could help them develop a sense of engagement with politics, and that they might care if they can see their choice directly affecting someone else, but it seems sketchy.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            When we don’t get paid because we miss work and are dependent on that money, it can be annoying. In theory, I think it would be cool to be on a jury, but its a luxury to be able to afford to be on a jury.

            • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              I guess it depends on where you are. In my city, you get 150% of minimum wage/hour of jury duty, so $18 an hour. Though of course if you make more than that and are paid hourly, it’s a definite loss.

              • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                My state pays $20/day. The last time I was summoned, the estimated cost of the commute using the IRS average is $35 (granted, that’s a high estimate) and not reimbursed or compensated. Also the $20 is taxed. So it effectively cost me money to go to jury duty in my old county even before accounting for lost wages.

          • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I never understood the hatred over jury duty. Except for people who work minimum wage or don’t get paid jury duty.

            Jury duty is the most direct way a normal citizen can affect democracy.

        • Brokkr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          While I too want more people to participate, I think we should also recognize that choosing not to vote is protected speech. That’s probably not why people don’t vote, so we should probably find other ways to encourage voting (holiday, more access to polls, etc.) Unfortunately, some repulsive people prefer it when fewer people vote.

          • NABDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            For protected speech, I’d prefer if people would go in, take a ballot, and submit it blank. Essentially, making a statement that there is no one on the ballot who would represent them. It would be more meaningful than not going to the polling place at all. It sends a more significant message than just staying home.

            I do agree that we need to make it easier, not harder, to vote.

            Automatic registration, election day holiday, laws forcing employers to facilitate voting by their employees.

              • NABDad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Well, perhaps you should do it in a way that doesn’t appear exactly like you actually can’t be bothered to do anything.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Matter of perspective. Its not important that you think their action has no effect, its important that they think their action has effect.

                  Neither perspective is really wrong or right absolutely. We won’t know which is right for so many decades that its useless to declare one perspective entirely baseless.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        The new suppressed it, or the democrats restricted who could run, or anything else, but stop telling me the primary I voted in didn’t happen.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          It did happen, it was just irrelevant. No serious competition was allowed (Sorry, Dean Phillips).

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Was Kamala on your ballot? If the results of an election are ignored, was it really an election?

          • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            I’m not going to say that people were so stupid that they didn’t realize a vote for Biden was really a vote for Kamala.

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              What a weird reality you live in. Especially funny given that Kamala came in almost dead last in the 2020 primary that Biden won.

              Democracy depends on an informed public. The Democrats concealed Biden’s mental decline so, arguably, a vote for Biden wasn’t even a vote for Biden.

              Also, an election without adequate media coverage and no debates makes a mockery of the idea of an informed electorate. That’s how they run elections in Russia or North Korea, not in a functioning democracy. If you don’t have higher standards than that, you don’t deserve democracy.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 days ago

      Less than a third of eligible voters voted for him, so it tracks. Close to half the country not voting suggests they understand tariffs, but either just fine paying 20% extra for everything or don’t believe he’ll actually do the things he’s been most vocal about doing.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Trump won with less than 20% of the vote if you count all eligible voters, he won because most people stayed home.