The No. 1 word Americans used to describe President Trump's first year in office was "disaster," a new Quinnipiac University poll found using an open-ended question that garnered the same unhappy answer from 69 different people. The second most popular word was "chaotic," with 62 people using it, followed by "successful," "horrible," "great," "good," "terrible," "embarrassing," and a diplomatic few who said "interesting." Twenty-one people enthused that Trump's first year was "awesome," while five others went ahead and called it a "catastrophe."
Asked to give the president a grade, 39 percent of voters gave Trump an "F" and 16 percent gave him an "A."
In May, Quinnipiac ran a similar poll asking voters to answer with the first word that came to mind when they thought of President Trump. The first three most popular words were "idiot," "incompetent," and "liar."
The Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday surveyed 1,106 voters between Jan. 5-9 and has a margin of error of 3.6 percent. Read the full results here. Jeva Lange
The Democratic National Committee is back with some brand new hoops to jump through.
Continuing the trend it has followed in each successive primary debate, the DNC on Monday announced increased donor and polling requirements candidates have to meet to make the November debate stage. It includes a total of 165,000 individual donors and a smattering of poll showings either nationally or in one of four early-primary states.
The total number of donors isn't that much higher than the 130,000 threshold it was set at for the September debates, and at least eight of the 10 candidates who got on that stage have hit at as well, The New York Times reports. But the newly required 3-percent showing in four national or early-state polls, or at least 5 percent in two early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina — may be a bit harder.
Polls are only counted if they were released between Sept. 13 and seven days before the November debate, so it's a bit like a reset button for any traction candidates had gained and lost over the summer. The November debate date hasn't been announced yet, and only three qualifying polls have been released so far. Top tier candidates including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) could all make the cut by Tuesday morning, Politico reports. Kathryn Krawczyk
The producers of this year's Emmys were hoping to replicate the success of the Oscars with a host-less show. It didn't work.
Emmys viewership was once again down this year, with Sunday's broadcast reaching yet another new ratings low. Nielsen estimates just 6.9 million people watched the 71st Primetime Emmy Awards in the U.S., down 32 percent from 10.2 million last year, Reuters reports. That's the biggest ratings decline of the major awards shows in 2019, The Hollywood Reporter writes.
No one hosted the Emmys this year for the first time since 2003, with Fox Entertainment CEO Charlie Collier noting in August, "The Oscars did very well. That was something we paid attention to." Indeed, when the 91st Academy Awards went without a host in February, the fast-paced show earned surprisingly positive reviews, and ratings improved for the first time in five years.
But Sunday's Emmys revealed there's a danger in going without a host, as the broadcast was widely panned for feeling disjointed and chaotic. In the show's biggest blunder, actor and comedian Thomas Lennon was recruited to fill the host void by providing commentary, which earned derision on social media throughout the night. His jokes often fell flat when they were audible at all, and at one point, he stumbled before reaching his punchline and said live on the air, "this is why people don't do this, because it sucks."
The Emmys' ratings failure comes despite the fact that the show celebrated the final season of Game of Thrones, with HBO's television phenomenon taking home the top drama prize. But ratings for award shows in general just keep falling as streaming-focused viewers lose interest in live events, and without an obvious Thrones equivalent next year, the Emmys could be in for even more trouble. Brendan Morrow
President Trump really wants a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the United Nations General Assembly on Monday, a member of the Pakistani press reportedly suggested to Trump that he would be deserving of such an honor if he mediated a solution to the tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region. While Trump was reportedly flattered by the questions he was receiving from the Pakistani press, the Nobel-themed comment reminded him that former President Barack Obama already has such a prize, leading him to question the fairness of the committee. "I think I'm going to get a Nobel Prize for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly," Trump said. "Which they don't."
He added that the only thing he ever agreed on with Obama was his predecessor's surprise at receiving the award. "He had no idea why he got it," Trump said while seated next to Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan, who reportedly laughed at the comment.
Trump went on to tout himself as a potential mediator between India and Pakistan, arguing that he has a good relationship with Khan and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and that he has "never failed as an arbitrator." Tim O'Donnell
Sixteen adolescents, including Swedish teen Greta Thunberg, are suing five countries for violating their rights as children by not taking sufficient measures against climate change. But they don't want money, they want action.
The lawsuit was announced Monday shortly after Thunberg's emotional speech in front of the United Nations General Assembly. The five countries named are Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey — the children filing the suit, all under 18, are from 12 different countries, including four of the five named in the suit, reports Gizmodo.
They claim the countries did not uphold the 30-year-old U.N. treaty Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the most widely ratified in history, and lays out rights to life, health, and peace.
The plaintiffs expressed how climate change is negatively impacting them, ranging from worsening asthma to having to leave their homes for fear of running out of water — showing that pollution of the environment has no borders.
The complaint is to be heard by a committee of children's rights experts, and, if successful, the U.N. will classify the climate crisis as a children's rights crisis, according to Gizmodo. Then the five countries must exit the convention or address climate change.
Two of the largest carbon dioxide emitters, China and the United States, are not named, as they did not ratify the part of the treaty that allows children to file a suit against the countries signed onto the protocol. Read more at Gizmodo. Taylor Watson
Stanford University's attempts to compensate Chanel Miller for her sexual assault on campus severely missed the mark.
For instance, the university told Miller it would put up a memorial garden and a plaque near where Brock Turner raped her on campus in 2015. But when she selected quotes from her viral impact statement to put on it, the university turned them all down, NPR reports from a preview of Miller's memoir Know My Name.
Before revealing her name in a 60 Minutes interview earlier this month, Miller was known as "Emily Doe" — an anonymous sexual assault victim. Turner ended up serving just three months of a six-month sentence, but Miller's impact statement was published and ensured his name wasn't forgotten.
But it seems that Turner wasn't the only one trying to preserve his reputation. Stanford, Miller writes, didn't seem to care so much about her attack once it realized she wasn't a student there. It offered her money for therapy in an attempt to stop her from suing the school, making her realize she was "visible not as a person, but a legal threat, a grave liability," she writes. And when Miller offered Stanford pieces of her statement to put on a plaque near where the attack happened, it turned her down in hopes she would give it "something reassuring and inane, something that implied all was forgiven," NPR writes. Miller and Stanford negotiated for a while, but Miller eventually turned the school down.
Read more from Miller's book at NPR, or preorder it here. Kathryn Krawczyk
Europe's attempts to ease the tensions between the United States and Iran have gotten a little more challenging, The New York Times reports.
At this time last year, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had mostly won over European support, as leaders hoped to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal. Indeed, President Trump received most of the blame for its fragile state after he pulled the U.S. out of the pact. Now, as the world's leader gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, there's reportedly a growing amount of European skepticism when it comes to Iran, thanks largely to attacks on two major Saudi Arabian oil facilities earlier this month. Washington and Riyadh are convinced Tehran was behind the strikes, despite denials from Zarif and his fellow leaders.
European leaders have been less vocal about the attacks than Washington, but French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters Sunday that the strikes were a "game changer," placing French President Emmanuel Macron's once-promising mediation efforts in jeopardy. Now France's priorities have reportedly shifted from renegotiating the nuclear deal to preventing a military conflict between Tehran and Washington. "The priority subject is whether we can restart a de-escalation path with the different actors," Le Drian said.
Ellie Geranmayeh, the deputy head of Middle East and North Africa studies for the European Council on Foreign Relations, said Iran has received "a real wake-up call that what they are able to get from Europeans is no more than some limited political cover for support of the nuclear deal." Read more at The New York Times. Tim O'Donnell