Stop Treating the Cook Political Report Like It’s Credible
Don’t Take the Cook Political Report Seriously.
The Cook Political Report just released a new presidential approval tracker showing Donald Trump with a net favorability rating about 10 points underwater. According to them, this is largely due to weaker support among Hispanics, independents, and young voters.
The CPR PollTracker finds Trump’s net job approval rating has dropped seven points since April 15, going from -3.9% to -10.7%. The biggest drop-off in approval ratings came from younger voters, Latinos and independents.
But let’s be clear: the Cook Political Report has a long record of inaccuracy and should not be treated as a credible source.
During the 2024 presidential cycle, Cook sponsored its own polling—and the results were a disaster. They released surveys in both August and October showing Trump leading in only one battleground state. In every other state, they had Kamala Harris either ahead or tied.
As we now know, Trump went on to win all seven battleground states.
To highlight just how far off they were: they had Harris up by four points in Arizona—a state Trump ended up winning by nearly six. In Pennsylvania, they had Trump down five points (with third-party candidates included). In reality, Trump nearly won Pennsylvania by two points.
This isn’t just a one-off miss. It’s a pattern.
On election night, one of their lead analysts, Dave Wasserman, was conspicuously quiet. He’s well-known for posting his “I’ve seen enough” calls during presidential and off-year elections. But this time? Silence. Could it be that he wasn’t happy with the way the night was going? That’s a fair question.
Now they’re claiming their new presidential approval tracker is based on 21 “reliable” polls. But if that list doesn’t include credible pollsters like Richard Baris, Rasmussen, Trafalgar Group, or Emerson College, then their average is meaningless.
At the end of the day, the Cook Political Report is not an objective, neutral source. They’re Democrats posing as analysts—giving the left political cover by shaping narratives ahead of elections. Conservatives should stop treating them as a trustworthy source of data or insight.
Their track record speaks for itself.
