by Alex Epstein | Sep 23, 2026

AI developers are creating affordable, powerful mental assistance for everyone—and yet are afraid this is somehow going to destroy the world.

It’s so sad that AI developers are creating affordable, powerful mental assistance for everyone—and yet are afraid this is somehow going to destroy the world.

AI is amplified intelligence

“AI” is a new type of computer. It doesn’t replace the human mind, it amplifies the human mind. AI should be called amplified intelligence not “artificial intelligence,” because it doesn’t replace the human mind, it amplifies the human mind. An artificial heart can replace the role your heart plays in your life. AI cannot replace the role your mind plays in your life. If I could only use three words to describe large language models, I would describe them as “symbol-guessing savants.” They aren’t conscious and they don’t have goals. But they are extraordinarily good at taking the symbols we give them and generating symbols we find useful.

We need to be careful how we connect it to high-stakes systems.

That’s it.

Premises behind “AI Going Rogue”

“AI went rogue” amounts to:

1. Someone took a powerful, open-ended computer that they don’t perfectly control (i.e., one running LLMs).

2. They deliberately reduced their control over its ability to produce potentially harmful outputs.

3. They connected the deliberately-badly-controlled computer to a high-stakes system.

Whether this is done irresponsibly or as a legitimate exploration of potential risks, it does not justify doomerism. The proper conclusion to draw is that we need to responsibly develop LLM computers and be very responsible about when and how we connect them to high-stakes systems.

Not that AI is some interested, conscious being that has a 10% or even 0.0000001% chance of killing us all. “AI” is a bunch of computers running an amazing new kind of software that we can and should use to be of enormous assistance to our lives. AI computers are no more self-interested or conscious than a calculator or an abacus—even though their outputs do a great job of mimicking interests and consciousness.

Solution to AI threats

While there is a real threat of people accidentally misusing AI assistance to do a lot of damage, that threat is always going to be limited by the humans who ultimately direct AI computers and can literally unplug them. We already have laws against configuring and connecting computers in ways that lead to felonies. AI companies should develop technologies and practices so their AI agents follow those laws, not ask the government to dictatorially limit AI progress as such.

The biggest AI threat by far is bad actors deliberately using AI assistance to do a lot of damage. To prevent this threat, as well as to reduce the damage of accidents, we need good actors, above all in the US, to proudly lead in this technology. Not to indulge in fear-mongering based on metaphysical nonsense.

The Industrial Revolution gave us machine physical assistance. The AI revolution is giving us machine mental assistance. This is an enormous expansion of human capability—and we’re only just beginning to discover what we can do with it.

Adapted from a series of posts by the author on X.

Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein is a philosopher who applies big-picture, humanistic thinking to industrial and environmental controversies.

He founded Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank and communications consulting firm focused on energy and environmental issues, in 2011 to offer a positive, pro-human alternative to the Green movement.

He is the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.

He is the author of EnergyTalkingPoints.com featuring hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.

Follow him on Twitter @AlexEpstein.

As shocking as it may seem, the same does not apply to a child. Yes, you brought them into existence, you endured their infancy, fed them, clothed them, and worked hard to ensure their education. Though these are big things, you child asked for none of them. Put bluntly, your child did not ask to be born.

Nobody likes to help anybody who feels righteously entitled. Yet, your child is entitled to your care. And entitlement in this context is indeed valid. The parent chooses to give him life, and with that comes the responsibility of helping him into adulthood.

Some parents go to the opposite extreme. Instead of resenting their child for feeling entitled, they actually assume she’s entitled to everything – forever. You’d be surprised at how often I see parents of twenty- or thirty-somethings pouring money and resources into that adult. They rationalize: “It’s my child. And I love him or her.” But does that love make you their slave in perpetuity? Sometimes I’ll ask such parents if their son or daughter deserves that help. The question rarely occurs to them, and sometimes they even resent it.

Some help is deserved and some isn’t. And this doesn’t change just because you gave life to that person and cared for him when he was helpless. Many parents of grown children resent the help they feel they’re expected to give when they find these grown children mooching off of them. And in spite of that, they feel guilty! “How can I resent my own child?” Well, the “child” is no longer helpless. You can’t throw a two-year-old or a fifteen-year-old out on her own, but that doesn’t mean you can never throw a grownup out. Resentful parents can’t have it both ways. They can’t righteously announce, “I’ll never throw my (adult) child out, no matter how much he mooches or brings his problems upon himself,” and then feel resentful about it. Your grown child is just responding to the message you’re clearly sending: He or she is free to live off of you forever.

A parent has to be prepared to let a grown-up child go – even if it means throwing him out. Set a deadline, and stick to it. Anything less conveys the very unloving message that, “You can’t survive alone. I don’t have confidence in you, and I know you have to rely on me.”

Though childhood is a temporary state of helplessness, by adolescence a healthy young adult is capable of abstract thinking and a significant measure of responsibility and freedom. An adult child is no more helpless than you are. As fellow adults, you may be able and willing to help each other out; but short of an obvious accident or illness, nobody is helpless.

The challenge for parents is to keep things in perspective. When your kids are young, don’t resent them for the fact that while they might enjoy being alive, they didn’t ask to be born. They cannot help that they require your help to survive. But grown children are not helpless. They’re adults, and the responsibilities you once had don’t convey into their adulthood.

Parents of teenagers sometimes tell me that they don’t feel appreciated by their kids. “Look at all I’ve done for them,” they say. “Why can’t they show gratitude?” As reasonable as this may seem, it contains a huge error. Gratitude is an emotion one feels when somebody does something you wanted them to do. For example, I needed the door held for me, and you held the door. I feel gratitude. I asked you to be truthful and you were truthful. I feel gratitude. You got me a discount on a new car. I feel gratitude. All of these are things I wanted, and you delivered.

As shocking as it may seem, the same does not apply to a child. Yes, you brought them into existence, you endured their infancy, fed them, clothed them, and worked hard to ensure their education. Though these are big things, you child asked for none of them. Put bluntly, your child did not ask to be born.

Nobody likes to help anybody who feels righteously entitled. Yet, your child is entitled to your care. And entitlement in this context is indeed valid. The parent chooses to give him life, and with that comes the responsibility of helping him into adulthood.

Some parents go to the opposite extreme. Instead of resenting their child for feeling entitled, they actually assume she’s entitled to everything – forever. You’d be surprised at how often I see parents of twenty- or thirty-somethings pouring money and resources into that adult. They rationalize: “It’s my child. And I love him or her.” But does that love make you their slave in perpetuity? Sometimes I’ll ask such parents if their son or daughter deserves that help. The question rarely occurs to them, and sometimes they even resent it.

Some help is deserved and some isn’t. And this doesn’t change just because you gave life to that person and cared for him when he was helpless. Many parents of grown children resent the help they feel they’re expected to give when they find these grown children mooching off of them. And in spite of that, they feel guilty! “How can I resent my own child?” Well, the “child” is no longer helpless. You can’t throw a two-year-old or a fifteen-year-old out on her own, but that doesn’t mean you can never throw a grownup out. Resentful parents can’t have it both ways. They can’t righteously announce, “I’ll never throw my (adult) child out, no matter how much he mooches or brings his problems upon himself,” and then feel resentful about it. Your grown child is just responding to the message you’re clearly sending: He or she is free to live off of you forever.

A parent has to be prepared to let a grown-up child go – even if it means throwing him out. Set a deadline, and stick to it. Anything less conveys the very unloving message that, “You can’t survive alone. I don’t have confidence in you, and I know you have to rely on me.”

Though childhood is a temporary state of helplessness, by adolescence a healthy young adult is capable of abstract thinking and a significant measure of responsibility and freedom. An adult child is no more helpless than you are. As fellow adults, you may be able and willing to help each other out; but short of an obvious accident or illness, nobody is helpless.

The challenge for parents is to keep things in perspective. When your kids are young, don’t resent them for the fact that while they might enjoy being alive, they didn’t ask to be born. They cannot help that they require your help to survive. But grown children are not helpless. They’re adults, and the responsibilities you once had don’t convey into their adulthood.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

A surprising number of newly retired people I see are stressed over what they’re going to do with themselves. Some tell me that they’re not qualified for the jobs they want, and others aren’t interested in the jobs for which they’re qualified. Add that to the unique economy of a seasonal resort, and you end up with lots of restless, dissatisfied people.

In this age of smartphones, Facebook, chat rooms, blogs, texts, email, corporate websites, etc., etc., there are better ways to look for a job than trudging from one storefront to another; becoming increasingly disheveled as the day wears on. It amazes me how many older people don’t consider the influence of the Internet and the power of something as basic as an Internet search.

An effective job hunt ends up boiling down to five basic strategies; each contributing to the ultimate goal.

1. Continue the search. Assume you can and will find an interesting job. If unemployment is at, say, 10%, then remember that 90% ARE employed. In spite of the daily negativity spewing out of your TV, people are still spending money, new businesses are still opening, and profit is still a reality.
2. Be positive. And stay positive! Even if the economy gets worse, new opportunities will open in some areas. Vocational-technical education is a prime example: People who lose or quit their jobs sometimes want to learn new skills. Hair continues to grow and must be cut. Air conditioning systems must be fixed. Just about everybody has a car that will need repair. Computer skills are still in demand. A friend who owned and operated a vo-tech school marveled at how his enrollments soared every time “the economy” took a downturn. For better or for worse, the government makes tax money available for just this sort of education. Opportunity exists during good times and bad.
3. Don’t think in terms of age. As you get older, you might have less physical ability but more mental ability. This increased mental ability stems from the wisdom that comes from your years on this earth. If you’ve been reading, thinking and learning throughout your life, continuing to do so will not be a challenge.
4. Dissatisfaction is in your head, not in reality. “I feel like there’s no job match for me. Therefore there isn’t one.” Wrong! The futility may seem real, but it’s only a feeling. Granted, you can’t pretend to know things you don’t know, but you do have the power to take action and find out about those things. We never outgrow the ability to learn. Our minds just need to be open. For those who get frustrated and stop looking, all possibilities instantly disappear.
5. Don’t fall for false alternatives. Years ago, a man told me he really wanted to become a presidential press secretary. And if that didn’t happen, he would have to end up as a greeter for Walmart. After I picked myself up off the floor, I realized this guy genuinely believed that there was simply nothing in between. In reality, there’s everything in between. All he had to do was to take off his blinders.

Beware the foolish false alternatives! When a person rejects the very good in favor of ‘nothing less than perfect’, he or she could be left with the futility of having given up – much worse than even the most menial job. Don’t let that happen.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

Moments before President Xi Jinping climbed down the steps of his aircraft to be greeted by Donald Trump, US marines were filmed on their hands and knees smoothing out the red carpet, Chinese officials looking down from the top of the steps. It was an uncomfortable image, ridiculed on social media for the symbolism of kowtowing to the emperor. But it set the tone for a summit which so far has been heavy on pomp and ceremony, rich in platitudes, but with very little in the way of substance.

A strong diplomatic case can be made for political fawning – where the power dynamics are lopsided against you, and if there’s a chance of a reasonable payback. After all, it’s what Trump’s democratic Western allies do a lot of the time in order to keep Trump on side, fend off his punitive tariffs and tame his caprice. But even allowing for Trump’s soft spot for autocrats and political theatre, his treatment of Xi has so far been cringemaking, the returns so minimal that it rather begs the question: what was the point?

Their main achievement during the first day of the summit appears to be a two-month extension of a trade war truce. This was struck last November in order to end tit-for-tat sanctions that saw China weaponise its control over the global supply of rare earths, essential for high-technology products, in retaliation for sky-high US tariffs.

They also agreed that they should keep in touch over the threat to human existence from artificial intelligence – or ‘super intelligence’ as Trump calls it – while seemingly also agreeing that there was nothing much worth talking about. Xi said, ‘humans must remain in control over AI technology’, while the US president called it a ‘big topic’ of discussions, saying he and and his Chinese counterpart were happy to ‘leave it exactly where it is’.

Trump met Xi in person at the foot of that smoothed-out red carpet – the first time that a sitting American president has greeted a foreign leader in Washington in person for 64 years. Xi never made the effort when the US president visited Beijing in May, during which the pomp and ceremony were much more low key. The two leaders began their bilateral meeting yesterday morning after a military performance that involved an ear-splitting flyover by a B-2 Spirit bomber and four F-22 Raptor fighter jets.

At the start of their meeting, Xi appealed for ‘healthy’ competition with the US and ‘not a wrestle in which one side wins or loses’, Trump said he had forged ‘a truly great friendship’ with the Chinese leader. The visit comes amid fresh rumours about Xi’s health – the 74-year-old skipped a dinner during the recent BRICS summit in Delhi and was rumoured to have been hospitalised on his return to Beijing. But in a Truth Social post, the US President wrote that Xi looked ‘strong. Vibrant and fit’.

At a lavish White House dinner last night, Trump said that the US and China had ‘never gotten along better’, while Xi said he and the US president had ‘sincere, in-depth’ exchanges and came to an understanding on many issues, though he did not elaborate. He said that Trump’s goal of ‘making America great again’ and his own commitment to ‘national rejuvenation’ were not necessarily incompatible. ‘These two goals are both ambitious and can surely be mutually reinforcing,’ he said.

Xi also served up some pandas – two of them, to be sent to Atlanta Zoo ‘in a few days’ as an ‘envoy of friendship’. Panda diplomacy has long been a feature of Chinese statecraft. They are rented, rather than given, since as with rare earths China has a monopoly and can recall them at any time – as it did in 2024 when four were taken back from Atlanta amid rising US tensions. They should beware of becoming too comfortable in their new American home. Trump presented Xi with a statue of a bald eagle, a national symbol of US, which he said was designed by himself and first lady Melania.

During the banquet, the two leaders sat at the top table alongside US technology leaders, including Elon Musk (Tesla), Jason Huang (Nvidia), Lisa Su (AMD) and Tim Cook (Apple). They represented the cutting edge in American technology leadership. No Chinese business people attended, since Xi reportedly chose not to bring a delegation with him to Washington, after initially indicating that he would do so. It was not immediately clear why, but many of China’s top companies are blacklisted for their links to the Chinese military.

Earlier, hundreds of human rights activists marched in Washington, protesting against Xi’s visit and his repression against ethnic minorities and dissidents, and included Hong Kongers, Uyghurs and Tibetans. On the eve of the summit, Andy Burnham had reportedly implored Trump to bring up the case of imprisoned Hong Kong dissident Jimmy Lai, though it is unclear whether he did so. There were many elephants in the ballroom last night – from the Iran war, where China has reportedly supplied targeting data to the Islamic regime, to Beijing’s support for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, US support for (and China’s aggression against) Taiwan, China’s alleged copying of America’s AI models and China’s mercantilism, over-production and record-breaking trade surplus.

There is still a day of this summit to go, so more substance could emerge. During his banquet speech, Trump went off script and pointed to the construction of the new White House ballroom. ‘If we had it, we would have way more than 1,000 people,’ he boasted, inviting his guests to take a look. It is not clear whether any of them took up the offer. If they did, it could well have been the most interesting thing they’d done all day.

Ian Williams, The Spectator

An 11-year-old’s ride to a fishing spot in Oviedo, Florida, ended with police stopping him, fingerprinting him, towing his electric dirt bike, and ordering him to appear in court.

Cade Kirchner, a sixth grader, was riding toward a nearby pond with his fishing pole on Labor Day, September 7.

His father, Chris Kirchner, said Cade was about 300 feet from home and traveling on the road’s shoulder.

The family says the bike was limited to 20 miles per hour. FOX 35 Orlando reported that police classified it as a motorcycle under Florida law.

They say the 4,500-watt machine has pegs instead of pedals, so Florida law classifies it as a motorcycle, not an e-bike, meaning it needs registration, insurance, a motorcycle endorsement, and a licensed adult rider.

The citation was issued under Florida Statute 320.02 for an unregistered vehicle, which requires a court appearance.

Because Cade had no driver’s license, they put his fingerprint on the ticket to satisfy ID rules. The bike was towed because it “is not legally allowed on the roadway.”

Oviedo Mayor Megan Sladek called Cade a “good kid” but said officers’ hands were tied by state definitions. Police added they could have piled on more citations and chose only one.

“The State of Florida regulates motorcycle use, and the definition of what counts as a motorcycle and what counts as an e-bike,” Mayor Sladek said.

“Even if it has two wheels, if it doesn’t have pedals, the State of Florida will classify that as a motorcycle and not as an e-bike.”

Body-camera footage shows an officer warning Cade that he had to appear in court or “they’re going to put out a warrant.”

The hearing is scheduled for a school day, meaning the sixth grader will have to miss class. ClickOrlando reported that his father plans to ask prosecutors to dismiss the case.

According to the news outlet, Cade got his e-bike after raising $900 through his summer business selling squirrel tables.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

President Donald Trump has been ordered to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS ​NOW ‌and Politico, ⁠with a federal judge ruling early Thursday morning the three media ‌outlets must be “immediately” granted necessary permissions.

U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly issued his directive in a ‌lawsuit the news organisations ​collectively filed contesting the Republican president’s announcement Friday that forbade their access to the White House, as Breitbart News reported.

If CNN or MSNOW have a right to enter the White House for practicing what they call “journalism” then doesn’t the principle extend to anyone making the claim? Including a non-Communist critical of a future President Mamdani or AOC? Not a chance. Justice is a one-way street in America, and it’s getting worse. More evidence that our Constitution is no longer operative. Unlimited rights for Establishment leftists; denial of rights for dissenters, even when one of the dissenters is President. It’s truly a joke. Not sustainable.

I repeat what I wrote last week, regarding President Trump’s removal of Democratic Party propaganda operatives from the White House:
Don’t you dare call this censorship. Censorship is when the government bans private speech; not when the government bans speech from government property. And especially when the speech being banned consists of openly dishonest propaganda machines, mouthpieces for the opposition Communist Party dedicated to the destruction of Trump’s presidency, the Republican Party and of America itself.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

A federal appellate court ruled on Wednesday that Ohio can enforce its law requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote in the midterm elections.

In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals paused a preliminary injunction issued by Ohio-based Senior District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. last month. The Obama appointee’s order sought to block the Buckeye State from enforcing its statutory requirement that individuals provide documentary proof-of-citizenship when registering to vote.

As described by Courthouse News, Oliver argued that the contested provision is “preempted by the National Voter Registration Act and increases the likelihood that U.S. citizens fail to register for elections.” The injunction also suspended “the requirement for documentation ahead of the Oct. 5 registration deadline for the midterm election.”

After initial review, 6th Circuit Judges John Nalbandian and Whitney Hermandorfer, both Trump appointees, determined that the four factors used to decide whether to stay Oliver’s order all favor Ohio. Such factors include the likelihood that Ohio “will defeat the injunction,” the “irreparable harm” Ohio will suffer if the injunction is allowed to remain in place, “the prospect of harm to others,” and “the public interest.”

“At this juncture, Ohio appears primed to succeed in vacating the injunction on threshold grounds. Because those grounds are sufficient to warrant entry of a stay, we need not address the merits of the district court’s NVRA analysis,” the majority ruled.

Nalbandian and Hermandorfer went on to note that Oliver likely lacked jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction and that the left-wing challengers likely lacked standing to bring their suit. The judges also determined that the challengers’ lawsuit suffers from a “problem of mootness” because they have already “obtained Ohio drivees licenses and registered to vote.”

The majority furthermore raised concerns that Oliver’s injunction “appears to run afoul” of the Purcell principle, a judicial doctrine that says federal courts should avoid changing state election rules on the eve of an election. “Recent Purcell precedents,” the court ruled, “cut in favor of a stay.”

“On balance, the stay factors support Ohio’s request for relief. We therefore GRANT Ohio’s motion for a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. We DENY Ohio’s motion for entry of an administrative stay as moot,” the court wrote.

Writing in dissent, Judge Kevin Ritz, a Biden appointee, argued that Ohio is “not likely to show that the district court in any way abused its discretion.” Unlike his colleagues, he claimed that the challengers likely possess standing to bring their suit, that the case is not moot, and that the stay factors weigh against Ohio.

Ohio enjoyed support from election integrity groups such as the Honest Elections Project and the Center for Election Confidence ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. Both organizations filed a joint brief asking the 6th Circuit to pause Oliver’s injunction for several of the reasons cited by the majority in its decision.

Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist

CNBC

Ever-higher costs to service mounting debt loads pose a major risk to governments around the world, economists have warned.

Global debt rose by $10 trillion in the first half of the year to top $365 trillion, according to research published by the Institute of International Finance on Wednesday.

State debts are rising as yields on medium- and long-term government bonds issued by a slew of the world’s biggest economies hit their highest levels in more than a decade — including in the U.S., Japan, France and the U.K. Rising yields reflect growing investor discomfort at rising interest rates, persistent energy cost pressures, tepid economic growth and high fiscal spending.

The IIF highlighted the four major economies in particular as facing “persistently large deficits and rising interest expenses — challenges long associated with debt-distressed emerging market sovereigns.”

The Washington-based group found that advanced economies paid over $3.3 trillion in interest on internationally traded government bonds last year, more than global spending on AI ($2.6 trillion), defense ($3.1 trillion), or clean energy ($2.3 trillion).

Debt has become a political issue, creating a “vicious cycle between elections and short-term quick fixes, and a long-term vulnerability as the marginal utility of higher debt diminishes,” the IIF warned.

“As benchmark rates rise, interest expense is set to surge, while structural pressures from healthcare and public pension spending remain largely unaddressed,” it added.

In its economic outlook published Wednesday, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that rising bond yields showed the need for greater efforts to “contain and reallocate government spending, improve public sector efficiency and strengthen revenues.”

Reforms are needed to ensure longer‑term debt sustainability and ensure governments can react to future shocks, it said.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Kristalina Georgieva meanwhile told the BBC in an interview this week that shocks to the global economy were “pushing debt levels up like a staircase not to heaven,” as she criticized a lack of government action.

“There are these two things that must be done: bring debt levels down, put fiscal consolidation as a priority, and make sure that the central banks deliver on their mandate for price stability,” she said.

“It is impossible to stress strongly enough how critical it is to get the courage to take the steps that are necessary. These are politically tough steps to take, but necessary steps to take.”

CNBC

Elon Musk is making a sky-high prediction for artificial intelligence. The SpaceX CEO says computing will eventually move almost entirely off Earth.

The amount of compute in space will obviously round up to 100% of all compute,” Musk wrote on X in response to a video about Google’s Project Suncatcher.

The project explores whether solar-powered satellites carrying Google’s AI chips could work together as an orbital data center. In the video Musk responded to, researchers describe satellites flying in tight formation and linking their chips to handle larger computing tasks.

The idea is still in the testing stage. Google has said it plans to launch two prototype satellites with partner Planet by early 2027 to test the hardware in orbit. The X post sharing the video claimed Google would launch chips on a SpaceX Falcon 9 next week, but Google’s published plan does not confirm that timeline. Google says the satellites could tap into near-constant sunlight to power AI chips. Its first planned test involves just two prototypes, leaving a long way to go before Musk’s vision of moving nearly all computing into orbit could become reality.

Stepheny Price, Fox News

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Forty-three percent of Americans now have a positive view of socialism, marking the first time this figure has exceeded 39% in Gallup’s trend since 2010. Socialism still trails capitalism and free enterprise in public favorability but now ranks ahead of big business. Small business remains the clear leader among the five economic concepts tested, with 95% viewing it positively.

Gallup has measured Americans’ overall views of these five economic concepts periodically since 2010, with the latest update conducted Aug. 3-24.

Over the longer term, Americans have become less positive about most of the market-oriented concepts Gallup tracks. Since 2010, positive views of big business have fallen by 14 percentage points, free enterprise by nine points and capitalism by six points. Small business is the exception, with views of it unchanged. Meanwhile, positive impressions of socialism have risen by seven points.

Most of the increase in socialism’s positive rating through 2025 reflected increasingly positive views among Democrats, rising from 50% in 2010 to 66% last year. The latest uptick, however, comes entirely from political independents, whose positive rating jumped from 37% last year to 45% today. Democrats’ rating is essentially unchanged, at 65%, while Republicans’ remains below 15%.

Lydia Saad, Gallup