Pinched by higher prices, many Trump voters say: Don't blame him

Reuters' monthly interviews with 20 November Trump voters show affordability is front-and-center ahead of next year's midterms: while a majority continue to back President Trump—six of 20 scored his cost-of-living performance 5 or below and only one scored above an 8—a Reuters‑Ipsos poll finds roughly three-quarters of Trump voters approve of his handling versus 30% overall. Respondents blamed a mix of structural factors (oligopolies, corporate pricing power, money supply) and policy choices (tariffs, regulatory shifts), with some saying tariffs have raised consumer costs and others arguing the president has limited immediate control and should expand domestic energy production. With job growth slowing, unemployment rising and consumer prices still elevated, Republicans fear affordability could sway independents and materially affect their midterm prospects.

Analysis

Reuters' monthly interviews with 20 November Trump voters show affordability is the dominant concern ahead of next year's congressional midterms: six of the 20 voters rated the president's handling of the cost of living 5 or lower and only one rated it above an 8, even though a Reuters-Ipsos poll cited in the piece found roughly three-quarters of Trump voters approved of his cost-of-living handling versus 30% overall and a 10-point bump from a November poll. Respondents cited a mix of structural and policy drivers for price pressure—oligopolies and corporate pricing power, an elevated money supply, and tariffs—with eight voters reporting higher restaurant and grocery prices (notably meat and coffee) while 11 reported local gasoline price declines and one voter citing a $1.74/gallon fill-up. Several voters blamed tariffs for doubling or tripling some retail prices and criticized tariff uncertainty for raising costs; others credited the administration for lower energy and egg prices and advocated expanded domestic drilling as a remedy. Macroeconomic context in the article notes slowing job growth, the highest unemployment in four years and persistently elevated consumer prices, creating political risk that could translate into sector-specific volatility if policy actions on tariffs, energy access or subsidy extensions (e.g., pandemic-era health plan subsidies) change consumer purchasing power.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Monitor near-term political catalysts—midterm polling, tariff adjustments, energy leasing announcements and the fate of pandemic-era health-plan subsidies—as these are explicitly cited by voters and can drive sector volatility
• Tilt toward defensive consumer staples and high-margin, consolidated firms that can defend margins amid affordability pressure while remaining mindful of antitrust or tariff-related regulatory risks highlighted by respondents
• Consider tactical exposure to U.S. energy producers if policy signals favor expanded drilling and energy rhetoric persists, but size positions conservatively and hedge for potential policy reversals that would widen gasoline volatility
• Trim or hedge discretionary retail and restaurant exposure where local price-sensitivity is reported (meat, coffee, dining out) and use incoming CPI, unemployment and consumer-spending data to time re-entry or further reduction