Connect with us

News

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Published

on

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris are starkly different presidential candidates. So why are so many voters — roughly 1 in 6 — still unsure of their choice?

We asked voters who have not yet made up their minds — 830 of them across five battleground states and Ohio — to name their biggest worries with both candidates.

Here is what they said.

  • Concern about Trump

    “He’s made people comfortable with being racist and set the country back 50 years with racism.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “She’s a liar and it feels like she hasn’t done anything she said she was going to do.”

    Black woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Don’t like his rhetoric, how he speaks to people.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Incompetent, no experience in foreign policy or running the government; also has no opinions except on abortion.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 70s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Trump

    “Too extreme.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Having the right to control my own body.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Immigration and inflation.”

    Black woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “Arrogance.”

    Advertisement

    Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman and not sure if a woman should be running.”

    White woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Has felonies on his record.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “Don’t know much about her policy.”

    Black man, 50s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I don’t trust him.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t trust her.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

Until President Joe Biden dropped his bid for re-election, a large share of voters were unhappy with their choices for president.

Today, the electorate as a whole is happier, but the uncommitted voters are still not, according to recent polling by The New York Times and Siena College in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

They trust neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris. They question the candidates’ honesty and ethics.

Advertisement

Based on New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Respondents who said they didn’t know or who declined to say are not included.

These voters are younger than the electorate overall, less educated and have a lower income. They are much more likely than voters overall to be Black or Latino, and a little more likely to be men.

Some of these voters may just stay home, but a meaningful portion of them will probably vote. And in a close election, they could be the deciding factor.

Advertisement

In trying to understand what is holding them back from committing, we asked voters to tell us in their own words about their worries. Their phrases were telling: “being a bully,” “she’s an idiot.”

In many ways, their words suggest that voters know, and perhaps have become inured to, Donald Trump’s slash-and-burn campaign style and personality.

But with Kamala Harris, who was plunged into the race only in July, their fears are wider ranging — encompassing both character and the issues, like the economy. And for some voters, the historic nature of her candidacy presents not progress but a drawback.

Voters are concerned about one thing when it comes to Trump: his character.

They said he is arrogant or erratic and talks too much. They talked about his age or criminal trials. The words boiled down to concerns about the former president’s personality and honesty.

Advertisement

Even voters who said they were leaning toward Trump mentioned concerns about chaos and dysfunction.

A small but notable share were also concerned, specifically, about his ability to carry out and complete the tasks of president, mentioning his age and mental capacity.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Angered easily.”

    White man, 40s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Being a bully towards other nations.”

    White man, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “He is erratic, not very well-spoken and lies.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Trump

    “Him staying off the internet.”

    White man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Being presidential, sense of decorum, way he communicates.”

    Advertisement

    Man, 60s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Does not know when to shut up.”

    White man, 20s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “His age.”

    White woman, 20s, Wisconsin

At the same time, even though Trump has crossed all kinds of red lines during his campaign, voters used comparatively mild language in describing their doubts about him. Words like “a bit” and “a little” crept in frequently.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Little power hungry.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “His authoritative tendencies.”

    White man, 30s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Probably his rhetoric, maybe, and how he presents himself. And the debate was kind of rough.”

    Woman, 40s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Bit decisive at times. He doesn’t always say the right things.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I wish he could be a little more presidential.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “He might become too emotional when making decisions.”

    Advertisement

    Nonwhite man, 30s, North Carolina

Concerns about Harris are more varied.

For Kamala Harris, voters’ anxieties were broader and more complicated. Although qualms about her personality came up less often than with Trump, trustworthiness and honesty were still big question marks for many voters.

So was her ability to handle the economy. Voters specifically mentioned costs and inflation, a persistent concern among undecided and not fully decided voters over the last few months.

Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “She will make the economy worse than it is.”

    Black man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s like every other politician, that she is not going to actually do anything to help us.”

    Black woman, 30s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “Bring down the price of groceries and housing.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “How she would handle the economy.”

    Hispanic woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “Too liberal.”

    Black woman, 50s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “Not following through.”

    White woman, 30s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “The people didn’t vote for her; she was appointed. That is not democracy.”

    White man, 60s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “Democrats take the African American vote for granted. Not sure her policies are going to benefit African Americans.”

    Advertisement

    Black man, 30s, North Carolina

They also questioned her abilities and wondered if she was ready for the job. Some voters described her with caustic language, which echoes Trump’s, who called her “mentally disabled” and “mentally impaired.”

Harris has not leaned into the historical nature of her candidacy — she would be the first woman of color to be president. For some of these voters, her background may be a challenge. Some voters used language that was outright sexist.

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s not intelligent enough to be president. I think she is an idiot.”

    White man, 70s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t think she’s got it all together.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “Overall untrustworthy.”

    Black man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Advertisement

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman. I’m not sure she can get the job done. People probably won’t listen to her.”

    White woman, 50s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a lady.”

    Black woman, 60s, Wisconsin

    Advertisement

Sources and methodology

Selected responses from New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Undecided and persuadable voters were voters in the survey who either did not pick a presidential candidate after being asked multiple questions about their vote choice or voters who ultimately did pick a candidate but said they were only “probably” but not “definitely” going to support that candidate.

Open-ended responses to the “biggest concern” question were coded into categories using a trained coder and validated with a second reviewer. The primary coder reviewed a sampling of responses and then created an initial coding schema. Categories were adjusted based on size and coherence throughout the process. Where there was disagreement between coders, proposed codes were reviewed, discussed and compared with similar examples in other surveys. To help ensure consistency, responses that exactly matched previous responses in prior surveys were automatically coded to the same category, but were still reviewed for accuracy.

Advertisement

News

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

Published

on

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

“So, my daughter, Robin, was born Jan. 5, 2025.” “Hi, baby. That’s you.” “When I first saw her, I was like, ‘Oh my God, she’s here.’” “She was crying and immediately when she was up on my face, she stopped crying.” “I got the room with the view.” “But it wasn’t until way later, I saw a fire near the Pasadena Mountains.” “We’re watching the news on the TV, hoping that it’s just not going to reach our house.” “The Eaton fire has scorched over 13,000 acres.” “Sixteen people confirmed dead.” “More than 1,000 structures have been destroyed.” “And then that’s when we got the call. Liz’s mom crying, saying the house is on fire.” “Oh, please. No, Dios mio. Go back. Don’t go that way. It’s closed. Go, turn. Turn back.” “Our house is burning, Veli.” “Oh my God.” “It was just surreal. Like, I couldn’t believe it.” “There’s nothing left.” “Not only our house is gone, the neighbors’ houses are gone, her grandma’s house is gone. All you could see was ash.” “My family has lived in Altadena for about 40 years. It was so quiet. There’s no freeways. My grandmother was across the street from us. All our family would have Christmas there, Thanksgivings. She had her nopales in the back. She would always just go out and cut them down and make salads out of them. My grandmother is definitely the matriarch of our family. My parents, our house was across the street. And then me and Javi got married right after high school.” “My husband’s getting me a cookie.” “Me and Javi had talked a lot about having kids in the future. Finally, after 15 years of being married, we were in a good place. It was so exciting to find out that we were pregnant. We remodeled our whole house. We were really preparing. My grandmother and my mom, they were like, crying, and they were like, so excited.” “Liz!” “I had this vision for her, of how she would grow up, the experiences maybe she would have experiencing my grandmother’s house as it was. We wanted her to have her childhood here. But all of our preparation went out the window in the matter of a few hours.” “And we’re like, ‘What do we do?’ And then we get a phone call. And it was Liz’s uncle. He was like, ‘Hey, come to my house. We have a room ready for you.’” “In my more immediate family, nine people lost their homes, so it was about 13 people in the house at any given point for the first three months of the fire. It was a really hard time. We had to figure out insurance claim forms, finding a new place to live, the cost of rebuilding — will we be able to afford it? Oh my gosh, we must have looked at 10 rentals. The experience of motherhood that I was hoping to have was completely different. Survival mode is not how I wanted to start. “Hi, Robin.” “Robin — she was really stressed out. “She’s over it.” “Our stress was radiating towards Robin. I feel like she could feel that.” “There was just no place to lay her safely, where she could be free and not stepped over by a dog or something. So she was having issues gaining strength. So she did have to go to physical therapy for a few months to be able to lift her head.” “One more, one more — you can do it.” “All the stress and the pain, it was just too much.” “Then Liz got really sick.” “I didn’t stop throwing up for five hours. Javi immediately took me to the E.R. They did a bunch of tests and figured out it was vertigo, likely stress-induced. It felt like, OK, something has to slow down. I can’t just handle all of it myself all the time. My mom is so amazing and my grandmother, they really took care of us in a really wonderful way. So — yeah.” “We’ve been able to get back on our feet. “Good high-five.” “I think it has changed how I parent. I’m trying to shed what I thought it would be like, and be open to what’s new. Robin is doing much better. She’s like standing now and trying to talk. She says like five words already. Even if it’s not exactly home for Robin, I wanted to have those smells around. You walk in and it smells like home. For us, it’s definitely tamales. My grandmother’s house is not being rebuilt. I can tell she’s so sad. “Let me just grab a piece of this.” “So right now, where Javi’s standing is the front. One bedroom there, here in the middle, and Robin’s bedroom in the corner. My grandma will live with us versus across the street, which is silver linings. Yeah, and we did make space for a garden for her.” “What are you seeing? What do you think? What do you think, Robin?” “The roots of Altadena — even though they’re charred — they’re going to be stronger than before.” “How strong you can be when something like this happens, I think is something that’s really important for her to take on. And that I hope Altadena also takes on.”

Continue Reading

News

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

Published

on

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

People participate in a protest and noise demonstration calling for an end to federal immigration enforcement operations in the city, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026, in Minneapolis.

John Locher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

John Locher/AP

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota prosecutor on Friday called on the public to share with investigators any recordings and evidence connected to the fatal shooting of Renee Good as a new video emerged showing the final moments of her encounter with an immigration officer.

The Minneapolis killing and a separate shooting in Portland, Oregon, a day later by the Border Patrol have set off protests in multiple cities and denunciations of immigration enforcement tactics by the U.S. government. The Trump administration has defended the officer who shot Good in her car, saying he was protecting himself and fellow agents.

The reaction to the shooting has largely been focused on witness cellphone video of the encounter. A new, 47-second video that was published online by a Minnesota-based conservative news site, Alpha News, and later reposted on social media by the Department of Homeland Security shows the shooting from the perspective of ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who fired the shots.

Advertisement
This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE


hide caption

toggle caption

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE

Advertisement

Sirens blaring in the background, he approaches and circles Good’s vehicle in the middle of the road while apparently filming on his cellphone. At the same time, Good’s wife also was recording the encounter and can be seen walking around the vehicle and approaching the officer. A series of exchanges occurred:

“That’s fine, I’m not mad at you,” Good says as the officer passes by her door. She has one hand on the steering wheel and the other outside the open driver side window.

“U.S. citizen, former f—ing veteran,” says her wife, standing outside the passenger side of the SUV holding up her phone. “You wanna come at us, you wanna come at us, I say go get yourself some lunch big boy.”

Other officers are approaching the driver’s side of the car at about the same time and one says: “Get out of the car, get out of the f—ing car.” Ross is now at the front driver side of the vehicle. Good reverses briefly, then turns the steering wheel toward the passenger side as she drives ahead and Ross opens fire.

Advertisement

The camera becomes unsteady and points toward the sky and then returns to the street view showing Good’s SUV careening away.

“F—ing b—,” someone at the scene says.

A crashing sound is heard as Good’s vehicle smashes into others parked on the street.

Federal agencies have encouraged officers to document encounters in which people may attempt to interfere with enforcement actions, but policing experts have cautioned that recording on a handheld device can complicate already volatile situations by occupying an officer’s hands and narrowing focus at moments when rapid decision-making is required.

Under an ICE policy directive, officers and agents are expected to activate body-worn cameras at the start of enforcement activities and to record throughout interactions, and footage must be kept for review in serious incidents such as deaths or use-of-force cases. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to questions about whether the officer who opened fire or any of the others who were on the scene were wearing body cameras.

Advertisement

Homeland Security says video shows self-defense

Vice President JD Vance and Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in posts on X that the new video backs their contention that the officer fired in self-defense.

“Many of you have been told this law enforcement officer wasn’t hit by a car, wasn’t being harassed, and murdered an innocent woman,” Vance said. “The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has said any self-defense argument is “garbage.”

Policing experts said the video didn’t change their thoughts on the use-of-force but did raise additional questions about the officer’s training.

“Now that we can see he’s holding a gun in one hand and a cellphone in the other filming, I want to see the officer training that permits that,” said Geoff Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina.

Advertisement

The video demonstrates that the officers didn’t perceive Good to be a threat, said John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles.

“If you are an officer who views this woman as a threat, you don’t have one hand on a cellphone. You don’t walk around this supposed weapon, casually filming,” Gross said.

Ross, 43, is an Iraq War veteran who has served in the Border Patrol and ICE for nearly two decades. He was injured last year when he was dragged by a driver fleeing an immigration arrest.

Attempts to reach Ross at phone numbers and email addresses associated with him were not successful.

Prosecutor asks for video and evidence

Meanwhile, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said that although her office has collaborated effectively with the FBI in past cases, she is concerned by the Trump administration’s decision to bar state and local agencies from playing any role in the investigation into Good’s killing.

Advertisement

She also said the officer who shot Good in the head does not have complete legal immunity, as Vance declared.

“We do have jurisdiction to make this decision with what happened in this case,” Moriarty said at a news conference. “It does not matter that it was a federal law enforcement agent.”

Moriarty said her office would post a link for the public to submit footage of the shooting, even though she acknowledged that she wasn’t sure what legal outcome submissions might produce.

Good’s wife, Becca Good, released a statement to Minnesota Public Radio on Friday saying, “kindness radiated out of her.”

“On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns,” Becca Good said.

Advertisement

“I am now left to raise our son and to continue teaching him, as Renee believed, that there are people building a better world for him,” she wrote.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Adam Bettcher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Adam Bettcher/AP

The reaction to Good’s shooting was immediate in the city where police killed George Floyd in 2020, with hundreds of protesters converging on the shooting scene and the school district canceling classes for the rest of the week as a precaution and offering an online option through Feb. 12.

On Friday, protesters were outside a federal facility serving as a hub for the immigration crackdown that began Tuesday in Minneapolis and St. Paul. That evening, hundreds protested and marched outside two hotels in downtown Minneapolis where immigration enforcement agents were supposed to be staying. Some people were seen breaking or spray painting windows and state law enforcement officers wearing helmets and holding batons ordered the remaining group of fewer than 100 people to leave late Friday.

Shooting in Portland

The Portland shooting happened outside a hospital Thursday. A federal border officer shot and wounded a man and woman in a vehicle, identified by the Department of Homeland Security as Venezuela nationals Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras. Police said they were in stable condition Friday after surgery, with DHS saying Nico Moncada was taken into FBI custody

Advertisement

DHS defended the actions of its officers in Portland, saying the shooting occurred after the driver with alleged gang ties tried to “weaponize” his vehicle to hit them. It said no officers were injured.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day confirmed that the two people shot had “some nexus” to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Day said they came to the attention of police during an investigation of a July shooting believed to have been carried out by gang members, but they were not identified as suspects.

The chief said any gang affiliation did not necessarily justify the shooting by U.S. Border Patrol. The Oregon Department of Justice said it would investigate.

On Friday evening, hundreds of protesters marched to the ICE building in Portland.

The biggest crackdown yet

The Minneapolis shooting happened on the second day of the immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities, which Homeland Security said is the biggest immigration enforcement operation ever. More than 2,000 officers are taking part and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said they have made more than 1,500 arrests.

Advertisement

The government is also shifting immigration officers to Minneapolis from sweeps in Louisiana, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. This represents a pivot, as the Louisiana crackdown that began in December had been expected to last into February.

Good’s death — at least the fifth tied to immigration sweeps since President Donald Trump took office — has resonated far beyond Minneapolis. More protests are planned for this weekend, according to Indivisible, a group formed to resist the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

News

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

Published

on

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot block federal money for child care subsidies and other programs aimed at supporting needy children and their families from flowing to five Democratic-led states for now.

The states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York argued that a policy announced Tuesday to freeze funds for three grant programs is having an immediate impact on them and creating “operational chaos.” In court filings and a hearing earlier Friday, the states contended that the government did not have a legal reason for holding back the money from those states.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was pausing the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally, though it did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others.

The programs are the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for children from low-income families; the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, a smaller fund that provides money for a variety of programs.

The five states say they receive a total of more than $10 billion a year from the programs.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who was nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, did not rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but he said the five states had met a legal threshold “to protect the status quo” for at least 14 days while arguments are made in court.

The government had requested reams of data from the five states, including the names and Social Security numbers of everyone who received benefits from some of the programs since 2022.

The states argue that the effort is unconstitutional and is intended to go after Trump’s political adversaries rather than to stamp out fraud in government programs — something the states say they already do.

Jessica Ranucci, a lawyer in the New York Attorney General’s office, said in the Friday hearing, which was conducted by telephone, that at least four of the states had already had money delayed after requesting it. She said that if the states can’t get child care funds, there will be immediate uncertainty for providers and families who rely on the programs.

A lawyer for the federal government, Kamika Shaw, said it was her understanding that the money had not stopped flowing to states.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending