Former President Trump narrowly leads President Biden in six of the seven states considered key in this year’s election rematch, an advantage powered by the perception that the Republican challenger would do a better job controlling inflation, according to a poll released Thursday.

Trump’s overall advantage in the seven states stands at 47% to 44%, a margin that grows to five percentage points in a five-way contest that includes independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Cornel West, according to the Swing State Survey, overseen by the Cook Political Report and two polling firms.

Trump’s lead in the head-to-head contest is a modest one: at or less than the margin of sampling error in four of the states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The former president holds a wider lead in Nevada and North Carolina, 9% and 7%, respectively, while the two are tied, 45% to 45%, in Wisconsin, the poll found.

While inflation has subsided substantially since its peak in the second half of 2022, many voters remain preoccupied with high prices. The Cook survey found that a significant majority of voters think Biden has control over inflation. But just 40% in the seven swing states think prices would be brought under control if he wins a second term, while 56% said they think a Trump presidency would usher in lower inflation.

Biden has an advantage among voters with his support of abortion rights, but the poll showed more voters are focused on economic issues. When nearly 4,000 voters across the seven states were asked what concerns them more, Biden overseeing economic policy or Trump setting policy on abortion, 55% said they were more worried about Biden handling the economy than they were about Trump setting policy on abortion (45%).

“At this point … the defining issue for this contest is a more traditional one: the economy,” Amy Walter, editor in chief of the Cook Political Report, wrote in an analysis of the results.

“While abortion remains a strong issue for Democrats, President Biden’s advantage on the issue isn’t strong enough to offset Trump’s overall strength on bringing down the cost of living,” Walter wrote. “Biden’s overall weak position, combined with voters’ deep worry about rising costs, is currently limiting his ability to make the case that Trump is the bigger risk.”

Both candidates face other challenges, with Biden’s “age and ability to complete his term” cited by slightly more potential voters than Trump’s “temperament and legal problems” — by a 53% to 47% margin. Biden is 81 years old, Trump is 77.

“The race is still close because both candidates’ personal weaknesses make it hard for them to leverage the issues that should benefit them,” Walter wrote.

Trump did marginally better in four of the seven key states in a hypothetical race including the additional candidates. The Cook survey showed the former president ahead in that scenario, 43% to 38%, with 8% for Kennedy.

Joining the Cook Report in conducting the survey was BSG, a polling firm tied to Democrats, and GS Strategy Group, a firm that mostly works with Republicans. The pollsters reached voters between May 6 and 13. Of those who responded, 85% said they were “absolutely certain” or “very likely” to vote.

The New Hampshire political consultant behind robocalls mimicking President Biden is now facing 24 criminal charges, 13 of which are felony counts.

Steve Kramer admitted to commissioning robocalls that used artificial intelligence to generate a voice similar to President Biden encouraging recipients not to participate in the primary.

The Federal Communications Commission also announced $6 million in fines against Kramer.

“It’s important that you save your vote for the November election,” the illicit calls stated, according to New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella. The calls added, “Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday.” 

NEW HAMPSHIRE INVESTIGATING FAKE BIDEN ROBOCALL TELLING VOTERS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN TUESDAY’S PRIMARY

“After we received multiple reports and complaints on the day these calls were made and the day after these calls were made, my office immediately opened an investigation,” Formella said.

He described how his office’s Election Law Unit worked with the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force, a bipartisan task force made up of 50 state attorneys general and the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau. 

Kramer previously told local outlet News 9 he produced the phone calls as a stunt to demonstrate the need to regulate AI technology.

NEW HAMPSHIRE AG TRACES ROBOCALLS WITH ‘AI-GENERATED CLONE’ OF BIDEN’S VOICE BACK TO TEXAS-BASED COMPANIES

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella describes the investigation into robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic President Biden’s voice and discourage people from voting in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary during a news conference in Concord, N.H. (Amanda Gokee/The Boston Globe via AP)

“Maybe I’m a villain today, but I think, in the end, we get a better country and better democracy because of what I’ve done, deliberately,” Kramer previously said of the investigation.

The New Hampshire robocalls sparked immediate action in outlawing deep fakes impersonating political candidates. The FCC ruled the practice illegal in February. 

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Pool via AP, File)

With the unanimous adoption of a ruling that recognizes calls made with AI-generated voices as “artificial” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a 1991 law restricting junk calls that use artificial and prerecorded voice messages, the FCC said it was giving state attorneys general new tools to go after those responsible for voice-cloning scams. 

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?

“Bad actors are using AI-generated voices in unsolicited robocalls to extort vulnerable family members, imitate celebrities and misinform voters. We’re putting the fraudsters behind these robocalls on notice,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

“State Attorneys General will now have new tools to crack down on these scams and ensure the public is protected from fraud and misinformation.”

Fox News’ Danielle Wallace and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a state’s mapmakers may shift tens of thousands of Black voters to a different district if they were seeking to shore up a partisan advantage for a Republican candidate.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld a redistricting map drawn by South Carolina’s Republican Legislature and overturned a lower court ruling that called it a “stark racial gerrymander.”

At issue was whether the state legislators drew the districts for political or racial reasons.

All six Republican appointees were in the majority and said the legislators were motivated by partisan concerns, while the three Democratic appointees dissented and said voters were shifted based on their race.

In the past, the court had said that partisan gerrymandering is legal and as old as the nation, but racial gerrymandering is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The justices reasoned that the Constitution permits elected officials to make decisions based on political considerations, but the 14th Amendment forbids the government from making decisions based on race.

Not surprisingly, however, those two principles come into conflict in the drawing of election districts. At issue in the South Carolina case was a congressional district in the Charleston area held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.

That district had regularly elected Republicans, but a Democrat won it in 2018 in what was described as a major upset. Mace ran in 2020 and won a narrow victory.

When the South Carolina Legislature redrew its seven districts in response to the 2020 Census, the mapmakers sought to shore up her district as a Republican stronghold. They shifted more than 30,000 Black voters from Mace’s district in Charleston into a Black-majority district held by Rep. James E. Clyburn, the state’s lone Democrat.

Lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU sued and argued the state’s redistricting plan was unconstitutional. They won a ruling from a three-judge court which said “race was the predominant motivating factor” in the drawing of Mace’s district.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, speaking for the court, said the evidence showed that partisan motives were driving force.

“To untangle race from other permissible considerations, we require the plaintiff to show that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district,” Alito said. He added that the plaintiffs did not show race was the dominant factor in drawing the districts.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering,” Kagan said in dissent. “Go right ahead, this court says to states today. …In the electoral sphere especially, where ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination have so long governed, we should demand better— of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this court.”

Unlike other redistricting cases from Alabama and Louisiana, the immediate impact of the South Carolina case looks to be limited.

Civil rights lawsuits in Alabama and Louisiana led to the creation of a second Black-majority district where a Democrat could be elected. The South Carolina litigation did not involve a possible second Black-majority district.

In March, the three judges who had struck down Mace’s district issued an order that allows this year’s election to proceed using the state’s preferred map.