Trump v Harris: Perception, reality and how their records in office compare

Published

1 year ago

October 5, 2024

admin

Some Americans are already voting for their next president and, if polls are to be believed, the economy and immigration are at the forefront of many of their minds.

Voters consistently favour Donald Trump over Kamala Harris as the best person to manage both, but recently Harris has narrowed the gap.

The economy

In a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll from early September, Trump held a 15-point lead on the economy. However, more recent polling has shown a narrower single-digit lead.

For many people, though, the economy comes down to one simple factor: purchasing power – particularly, what they can afford in their day-to-day lives. Essentially, the difference between what they earn and the rate at which prices are increasing, or inflation.

Real-terms wages were higher under Trump, with average earnings consistently outpacing inflation.

This was especially true during the pandemic, as average earnings were boosted by the departure of lower-paid employees from the workforce.

Overall, during his presidency, real wages increased by 7%.

Since Joe Biden and Harris have been running the economy, real wage growth hasn’t been as strong.

By mid-2022, it had fallen nearly 4% below where it had been at the start of their term.

Much of this was affected by the post-COVID recovery and external factors driving inflation.

There are signs that the economy is now improving for ordinary Americans, with real wage growth only 1% lower than when Biden and Harris took office.

But what is important to the candidates’ electoral success is whether voters are noticing the difference.

And it’s not yet clear that they are.

“Economists are saying ‘Unemployment has fallen, the economy’s growing stronger, so is wage growth’, which is true. But some people feel worse off now,” says Shaun Bowler, a professor of political science at the University of California Riverside.

Petrol (or ‘gas’ as it’s called in the US) prices are a good example.

In America, more than nine in 10 households own at least one vehicle.

During Trump’s presidency, petrol prices remained relatively low, staying under $3 per gallon and even dipping below $2 during the pandemic.

By contrast, under Biden and Harris, petrol prices rose to $3.06 per gallon by June 2021, hitting nearly $5 a year later.

Much of this was driven by factors outside of their control, including the global energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This trend wasn’t unique to the US. In the UK, the cost of unleaded petrol rose by two-fifths from £1.30 per litre in June 2021 to £1.84 a year later.

“The Trump administration inherited a good economy from (Barack) Obama, one with low unemployment and inflation and that persisted for a couple of years,” says Professor Bowler.

“Then COVID upset everything, followed by the big supply shock of the war in Ukraine which gives us high inflation,” he adds.

While petrol prices have since dropped to $3.39 per gallon in the US, they remain higher than at any point during Trump’s term.

It’s these cost of living issues which have encouraged the Harris campaign to talk about what she would do as president to help the middle class, rather than spend too long trying to defend Biden’s economic record.

Immigration

One part of Biden’s record that Harris can’t escape is immigration, not least because the president tasked her with tackling the root causes of migration from Central American countries.

Trump has called Harris Biden’s “border tsar” and sought to blame her for problems at the US-Mexico border, and immigration policy overall.

She has been famously criticised by Trump for not visiting the border much during the last four years.

The vice president made her way there last week for a campaign rally. She was selling a message of zero tolerance on illegal immigration and highlighting an improvement in the data.

But polls have consistently suggested that voters have little confidence in her record on the issue and still favour Trump as the candidate to manage it. Why?

Trump’s rhetoric has been more hardline, marked by the promise of a border wall which was never built during his victorious 2016 campaign for the presidency.

👉 Click here to follow the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts👈

One of the things Trump did introduce was Title 42 – a public health order during the pandemic – which enabled authorities to swiftly expel migrants without offering them the chance to seek asylum.

This led to an initial drop in people trying to cross the border between the official points of entry, but implementation was challenging.

Some countries were more able than others to accept people removed under Title 42. This meant the policy didn’t have as much impact as intended.

Nevertheless, these illegal crossings were relatively low, compared to when they rose during Harris’s first years in post.

This led to her having a bad reputation for handling the border.

But in recent months, there’s been a sudden and significant fall in people crossing between points of entry, most likely driven by a policy change.

In June, Biden and Harris introduced a controversial asylum ban allowing the deportation or turning back of migrants if illegal crossings exceed 2,500 per day for a week.

In the first month alone, illegal crossings dropped from 83,536 to 56,399.

However, it’s difficult to predict whether this will continue.

“After any sort of big policy change, we often see a drop in migrant encounters. It becomes this wait-and-see period and previously we’ve seen numbers go back up,” says Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.

In contrast, the number of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the US through official crossing points remains high.

This shift is largely due to the expanded use of an app called CBP One which in May 2023 became the only way migrants could schedule appointments for asylum claims at the border.

As with the economy, though, Harris has been narrowing the gap in the polls on immigration since taking over at the top of the Democratic ticket from Biden.

But this is still an issue Trump leads on with most voters.

Abortion rights

While Harris is making some progress in improving her standing versus Trump on the fundamental issues of the economy and immigration, she’s also trying to raise the profile of abortion as an election vote winner.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the US and Harris has made it a cornerstone of her campaign.

She has polled well on the issue, with a strong 19-point lead in a recent survey from KFF, and there’s evidence she is mobilising support among women.

“It’s been a winning issue for Democrats since the overturn of Roe, it is going to be playing out in various states on the ballot in November, and the Republicans basically don’t have a coherent line,” says Dr Richard Johnson, senior lecturer in US politics and policy at Queen Mary, University of London.

Trump’s appointment of judges that secured the conservative majority in the Supreme Court during his presidency helped in overturning Roe v Wade in 2022, allowing states to decide their own abortion laws.

Since then, several states have effectively banned most abortions, forcing women to travel across state lines for care.

From 2019 to 2023, the number of women who sought an abortion in a different state grew by 133% from more than 73,000 to over 170,000.

This November changes to abortion laws are on the ballot in 10 states and at least two of these, Arizona and Nevada, are key battleground contests.

As the race nears its final stretch, Trump’s reputation for handling key issues like the economy and immigration remains strong in the polls, but Harris has worked hard to close those gaps, while also boosting the profile of abortion as a pivotal issue.

The question now is whether voters will trust Trump’s version of his past performance or be swayed by Harris’s vision for the future.

The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

US

‘He must have got this from K’: What mistaken tweet tells us about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war

Published

23 hours ago

November 20, 2025

admin

'He must have got this from K': What mistaken tweet tells us about 'secret' plan to end Ukraine war

There are developments in the quest for peace in Ukraine.

It’s been one of those days when different snippets of news have come together to create a picture of sorts. The jigsaw remains complicated, but the suggestion is neither the Ukrainians nor the Europeans have been privy to the developments.

As it happened: Russia responds to spy ship claim

The most intriguing development came at lunchtime on Thursday.

“He must have got this from K…” wrote Donald Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff on X. He clearly thought he was sending a private message.

He was replying to a scoop of a story by Axios’s Barak Ravid.

The story revealed a “secret” plan to end the Ukraine war. The report suggested the Americans had been talking secretly to the Russians about a renewed effort to bring the war to an end, which involved Ukraine ceding land it still controls to Russia.

Who is “K” in Witkoff’s message? It’s probably Kirill Dmitriev, who has become Putin’s unofficial and unlikely envoy to Washington. Kyiv-born and Stanford-educated Dmitriev is, essentially, Witkoff’s Russian opposite number.

In a sense, they are the yin and yang of this geopolitical puzzle. Witkoff is a real estate mogul. Dmitriev is an economist. They are opposing forces with backgrounds that are, on the face of it, equally unsuited to geopolitical conflict resolution. Yet their two leaders are trusting them with this huge task.

‘Territorial concessions’ in 28-point plan

So, back to the developments to have emerged over the last 24 hours.

First, we know senior US Department of War officials, including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, have arrived in the Ukrainian capital to meet their counterparts there.

Their visit was scheduled but the focus shifted. The plan to discuss drone technology and the winter offensive morphed into a discussion about a Russian-presented peace plan Witkoff and Dmitriev had been discussing.

This is the second development. The Axios report – which Witkoff seems inadvertently to have suggested came from Dmitriev – claims the two envoys met recently in Florida (Witkoff’s base) to discuss a 28-point plan for peace.

A defence official told our partners at NBC News that Driscoll has been briefed on the 28-point plan. Driscoll and his military staff are thought to have been presenting an initial brief to the Ukrainian side of this Russian-sponsored plan.

Ukrainian sources have suggested to me in clear terms they are not happy with this Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Sources tell me it includes “territorial concessions” and “reductions in military strength”. The Ukrainian position is the plan represents the latest attempt to “play the American government”.

What’s happening with security guarantees?

Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US. Trump signalled during Zelenskyy’s last visit to Washington that he was willing to provide those. This was framed by the Europeans as a huge positive development, even though the White House did not spell out the crucial detail – what would these guarantees actually entail?

The latest reporting, from Axios, suggests the security guarantees (still undefined, publicly at least) are dependent on Ukraine giving up the whole of the Donbas region – this would include about 15% of territory Russia does not currently hold.

Crucially, the areas of the Donbas from which Ukraine would withdraw (the 15%) would be considered a demilitarised zone. The plan is very similar to one floated by Vice President JD Vance in the months before Trump won last year’s election, which was roundly rejected as a non-starter at the time.

Is Gaza plan the model?

Another source, from a third country close to the negotiations, has told me the Qataris are playing a role in the talks and were present at the weekend when Steve Witkoff met Ukraine’s national security advisor Rustem Umerov last weekend.

Qatari and Turkish mediation, along with the multipoint peace plan for Gaza, is being projected as a model transferable to Ukraine despite the conflict, challenges, and root causes being wholly different.

Other European sources told me this morning they were not aware of this Russian-American plan. It’s worth remembering it’s in the interests of the Russians to be seen to be engaged in peace proposals in order to avoid secondary sanctions from the US.

Zelenskyy has been in Turkey over the past 24 hours, where he singled out Trump’s efforts to find peace.

“Since the beginning of this year, we in Ukraine have supported every decisive step and the leadership of @POTUS, every strong and fair proposal aimed at ending this war.” Zelenskyy wrote. “And only President Trump and the United States have sufficient power to make this war come to an end.”

This is the vital language of flattery.

US

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry – but it’s hard to imagine why he’d talk

Published

23 hours ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry - but it's hard to imagine why he'd talk

They’ve said they are offering him an opportunity to tell them everything, once and for all.

But as we hit the two-week deadline set by the US Congress committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein for a reply from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, will he agree to their request to open up about the paedophile financier?

The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.

The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.

Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.

The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.

Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.

But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.

However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.

The Metropolitan Police still have to tell us if they intend to take any further action after they said they were looking into claims Andrew had asked one of his officers to dig up dirt on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.

And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.

From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.

All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.

US

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Published

1 day ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Donald Trump has signed a bill approving the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein by the US Justice Department.

“I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” he said in a Truth Social post, following a lengthy preamble aimed at discrediting the Democrats.

“Democrats have used the ‘Epstein’ issue, which affects them far more than the Republican Party, in order to try and distract from our AMAZING Victories,” he continued.

It comes after the Senate finished the formalities and sent the proposed legislation to the president’s desk, having comfortably cleared a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The Justice Department now has 30 days to release the documents it holds on the paedophile financier.

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY MUST BE RELEASED?

All files relating to Epstein, including investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters;
All files relating to Ghislaine Maxwell;
Flight logs or travel records for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Epstein or any related entity;
Individuals named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigations;
Entities with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks;
Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates;
Internal DOJ communications concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates;
All communications concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of files related to Epstein;
Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including witness interviews and autopsy reports.

How did we get here?

Mr Trump promised during last year’s election campaign to release the Epstein files in full, but has since spent months decrying them as a Democratic “hoax”.

His links to the Epstein have long been subject to scrutiny. Mr Trump has always denied any wrongdoing.

His change of heart on releasing the files came as a surprise over the weekend, as he called on Republicans in Congress to vote for the so-called Epstein Files Bill and indicated he’d sign it.

“Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor [sic] of passage,” Mr Trump wrote in his late-night post announcing the signing of the bill.

The House of Representatives was indeed near unanimous in voting for the material to be released, with 427 in favour and one against.

Hot on the heels of that vote, which was met with cheers in the chamber, the Senate said it too would pass the bill.

Trump tries to tie Democrats to Epstein

Mr Trump’s post repeatedly labels Epstein as a Democrat, citing his past associations with the likes of Bill Clinton.

Mr Trump has said he wants the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s links to Mr Clinton, former treasury secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn founder, who is also a prominent Democratic donor.

All three men were mentioned in the 20,000 other Epstein-related documents released by Congress’s House Oversight Committee last week. None of them, however, have been accused of wrongdoing in the case.

Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts

Emails, photos and other documents released by Congress in recent weeks have included references to Mr Trump, the UK’s since sacked US ambassador Lord Mandelson, and former British prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has faced calls from members of the committee to give evidence.

Like Mr Trump, both Britons have denied any wrongdoing and expressed regret about their relationship with Epstein.

The deadline for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to respond to an official request from the committee is today.

Unrest in MAGA world

The issue has proved to be a major source of division within Mr Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a long-time Trump backer who publicly fell out with the president just days ago, stood with Epstein survivors on the steps of the Capitol ahead of Tuesday’s Congress votes.

She said: “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up.”

Read more: Who is Marjorie Taylor Greene?