SerpApi.Org
The findings cut into one of Donald Trump’s strongest 2024 arguments: that he could bring down everyday costs. Gas prices are now a political pressure point heading toward the 2026 midterms.
Some Trump voters believe gas would have been cheaper if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, according to a new poll on gas prices and the 2024 election released Wednesday. The survey contrasts voters’ perceptions of gas prices under Donald Trump with a hypothetical Democratic administration led by Harris.
That matters because Trump campaigned heavily on lowering prices and blaming Democrats for inflation. Now, with national gas prices above $4 a gallon and the Iran war pressuring oil markets, even some of his own 2024 voters are not fully convinced Republicans would have produced the cheaper outcome.
Trump voters split on blame
The poll, conducted by Politico and Public First, found a complicated picture among voters who backed Trump in 2024. Newsweek reported that 35 percent of Trump voters said gas prices would have gone up by the same amount under a Democratic president. Another 34 percent said prices would have risen more under a Democratic administration.
That leaves a meaningful share of Trump voters open to the opposite view: that gas prices have gone up more under Trump than they would have if a Democrat had won. The poll does not prove what would have happened under Harris. It measures perception, and perception is often what drives politics.
Among all respondents, the finding was sharper. A plurality, 42 percent, said gas prices have risen more than they would have if Harris had won. Only 18 percent said prices would have gone up more under a Democratic administration.
For a president who returned to office after hammering Joe Biden and Harris over inflation, that is a politically uncomfortable number. Gas prices are visible, local and unavoidable. Voters may not follow every budget fight in Washington, but they know what a fill-up costs.
Gas tops $4 nationally
AAA data cited in the report put the national average at $4.060 per gallon on Wednesday. That was up from $4.019 the day before, $3.890 a week earlier, $3.929 a month earlier and $3.145 a year earlier.
That one-year increase is about 29 percent. The state-by-state spread also remains wide: California had the highest average at $5.545 per gallon, while Mississippi had the lowest at $3.622.
Those numbers help explain why the poll has traction. Gasoline is not just another economic indicator. It is posted in giant numbers on roadside signs, refreshed constantly and felt immediately by commuters, parents, delivery workers and small businesses.
GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan warned in a post on X that prices could keep rising, pointing to higher crude prices and threats to oil routes. That means the political pain may not have peaked.
Iran war shapes the debate
The poll found that 63 percent of Americans said the Iran war is a factor in higher gas prices. That was the most commonly cited cause in the survey, ahead of Trump’s tariffs, his handling of the economy, supply chain disruptions and a lack of domestic oil production.
The geopolitical backdrop is central. Newsweek reported that the Iran war has put pressure on global oil supply, with disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for oil. Prices eased during a ceasefire, then began rising again after renewed fighting.
The White House has pushed back against the idea that Trump’s policies are to blame. Spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Newsweek that Trump “remains committed to unleashing American energy dominance, cutting costs, and putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking American families.”
Rogers also argued that as the U.S. military degrades Iran’s ability to disrupt energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, “oil and gas prices will plummet back to pre-conflict levels.” Another White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, has previously framed the price jump as a short-term disruption connected to Operation Epic Fury.
Democrats see an opening
Democrats have made opposition to the war and its effect on fuel prices part of their midterm message. That is not surprising. The party out of power often tries to turn everyday costs into a referendum on the president.
What is more notable is that the argument may be reaching beyond the Democratic base. If some Trump voters believe Harris might have delivered cheaper gas, Democrats can present fuel prices as evidence that Trump’s economic promises have not translated into lower household costs.
Still, the issue is not cleanly partisan. Gas prices are shaped by global crude markets, refinery capacity, seasonal demand, taxes, supply disruptions and trader expectations. Presidents can influence energy policy and foreign policy, but they do not set the pump price by themselves.
That nuance rarely survives campaign season. If prices stay high, voters tend to blame whoever is in charge. If prices fall, the White House will likely argue its strategy worked.
Other polls show economic strain
The Politico/Public First survey is not the only sign of economic frustration. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll cited by Newsweek found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, described as the lowest point in that pollster’s surveys.
That poll also found limited confidence that negotiations to end the war would bring gas prices down. Only 39 percent said they were confident that would happen, while 59 percent said they were not confident.
A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 23 percent of Americans viewed gas prices as a financial hardship, with another 30 percent calling them difficult. Twenty-nine percent described prices as an inconvenience, while only 7 percent said their finances had not been affected.
The same survey painted a grim view of the broader economy: 7 percent called it very good, 24 percent fairly good, 33 percent fairly bad and 30 percent very bad. That is the kind of environment where even small increases at the pump can become politically explosive.
The limits of a hypothetical
The key caveat is that the Harris comparison is hypothetical. No poll can determine what gas prices would be today if the 2024 election had gone the other way. Harris would have faced the same global oil markets, the same supply chokepoints and many of the same consumer pressures.
But hypotheticals still matter in politics because voters constantly compare reality with alternatives. Trump won in part by arguing that Democrats had made life too expensive. The new polling suggests some voters are now applying that same standard to him.
The survey was conducted online by Politico and Public First among 2,061 adults from July 13 to July 15, 2026, with Politico reporting that it began on July 12. As with any poll, methodology, wording and timing matter, especially during a fast-moving conflict affecting oil prices.
The immediate takeaway is simple: gas has become a political vulnerability again. If prices drop, Trump can claim vindication. If they rise, Democrats will keep asking why some of his own voters think Kamala Harris might have produced a cheaper trip to the pump.
