While mulling some recent material from The Bulwark, I thought I’d explain something to the converted “Never Trumpers” the outlet represents, and did so at New York:
For a while now I’ve had a guilty-pleasure reading habit: The Bulwark, that semi-official outlet of Never Trumpers who view themselves as having definitively broken with the GOP thanks to their former party’s thralldom to Donald J. Trump. I share its contributors’ belief that they (the tribe usefully described by Miller as Red Dog Democrats) represent not just a self-promoting claque of elite scribblers but a real if marginal faction of the Democratic Party, having burned a lot of bridges on their way out of the GOP. Their views appear to parallel those of a significant number of suburban Republicans and independents who voted Democratic in 2018 and 2020. And given the very close balance between voters of the two parties, as reflected most recently in 2020, Democrats really can’t afford to contemptuously reject any potential adherents, however alien or even repugnant they might find their backgrounds.
So it’s understandable when Bulwark co-founder Charlie Sykes expresses frustration that Democrats refuse to consider their pleas for policy concessions on grounds of holding old grudges:
“The spending. The wokeness. The repeal of the Hyde Amendment. I could go on …
“These are difficult times for folks on the center-right, who’ve tried to join Democrats in a loose alliance to protect the Republic from Trumpism …
“Litmus tests are applied: it’s not enough to be pro-democracy, NTers are also expected to embrace the elements of the progressive agenda — from free community college, to abortion, rent moratoriums, police funding, transgenderism, CRT, social spending, and the candidacy of Greta Thunberg for sainthood.”
Sykes fears it’s all very personal, and warns, “If you cancel moderates/conservatives for their past sins, you don’t have a coalition.”
Here’s the thing, though: It’s not really about the Red Dogs. Yes, I’m sure it’s been tough for them to watch Democrats largely come together around a legislative program that’s significantly more progressive than the one advanced by the Obama administration. But Democrats have been coalescing around the basics of the Build Back Better agenda for some time now. That the famously moderate Joe Biden now embraces it is a sign of how the party has slowly evolved, not some sort of betrayal or surrender to the left. And anyone who paid close attention to the 2020 presidential primaries should have understood that there is less distance between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders than between Joe Biden and the Joe Biden of the 1990s.
Part of what has happened is simply a resolution of internal conflicts among Democrats that left them defensive and at times incoherent. A classic example is one that Sykes mentioned: abortion policy. For years, Democrats claimed to value reproductive rights even as they accepted significant limitations on them: e.g., the Hyde Amendment, which made abortion services, unlike any other medical services, ineligible for any sort of federal support. That amendment, along with acceptance of some largely symbolic restrictions on rare late-term abortions, and the whole “safe, legal, and rare” messaging introduced by Bill Clinton, represented concessions to a significant bloc of Democratic voters and Democratic pols who did not recognize reproductive rights at all.
That has changed over time. Anti-abortion Democratic politicians are a rare and shrinking breed, and there are now significantly fewer anti-abortion Democratic voters than there are pro-choice Republicans. Most Democrats, including Joe Biden, have made the leap into a more coherent and unified position. They aren’t going to turn back the clock to satisfy ex-Republicans, but they aren’t insisting on a “litmus test” just to annoy or exclude them, either. The same could be said for other policy tenets once beloved by a significant number of Democrats — from fiscal hawkishness to armed interventionism to an openness to “entitlement reform” — that remain attractive to the newest proto-Democrats. As for the idea that Democrats are some sort of rigid ideological cult: Come on, seriously? Look at what’s going on with the attempted enactment of the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. If this is an intolerant and exclusive political party, I’d hate to see a loosey-goosey one try to function. It may just be that the issues Red Dogs fret about may lie outside the still relatively loose bounds of party unity.
This doesn’t mean Red Dogs should despair, but it may mean another painful reevaluation of priorities, recognizing that most have already had to sacrifice a lot of old allegiances and even the habitual language used to make sense of the political world. In many respects, the Never Trumpers resemble their spiritual (and in some cases biological) predecessors, the neo-conservatives. These were people who broke with the Democratic Party out of a conviction that Democratic views on national security made continued party loyalty impossible. But most of them retained many views that horrified their new Republican allies until they accepted the inevitable role of a factional minority and grew to accommodate or even share the policy positions and ideological language of the GOP, which was increasingly dominated by conservatives with their own ideological-consistency demands.
Most Red Dogs have no illusions about the party they’ve left and understand their constituencies are too small to form a third force or demand concessions from a position of strength. Most, I suppose, will get used to the strange and sometimes lurid landscape of the Donkey Party. Others will embrace the posture of the gadfly, the people of no party or coalition. But it’s really not personal. It’s just politics.
McGreevey won’t make a difference one way or the other. It’s a funny state. Tends to go Republican for Governor (Keane, Whitman), but also goes Dem (Florio, McGreevey). The tendency is to be unhappy when the Gov is Dem and content with the Repub Gov. But the legislature trends Dem and national elections, I think, trend Dem. Went for Nixon, like everyone else. Not sure where it went with the Reagan and Bush I years. But went for Clinton and Gore. Both Senators are Dem (Corzine and Lautenberg). I think it will go Dem this time. That’s my ear to the street sense talking.
To compare the various polls, go to:
http://www.fastpolitics.com then scroll down the right side column to Polling Report and you’ll see them all. It’s a great site. This morning Kerry was ahead in four polls, Bush in two, and they tied in one. :))) Most encouraging.
Isn’t McGreevey becoming more popular (or at least less hated) in Jersey? Will that keep on through November?
Rasmussen has Kerry up by 5 points in Florida as of May 20. It was tied the previous week.
Don’t worry about those California and NJ polls. Kerry has to be up by more than a point in California if you accept that Kerry is even or slightly ahead nationwide. The New Jersey poll may be reflecting some unpopularity with Governor McGreevy but New Jersey should be there in November for us. As for Rasmussen his last poll in 2000 had Bush beating Gore 49-40. So don’t take his poll too seriously.
Trent,
The news Faux News/Opinion Dynamics poll has Bush up in the swing states. They have the 3-way race 40-40-3, but Bush up 43-37 in 16 battleground states.
Consider the source, but also consider that Bush gets only 43% in battleground states in this obviously slanred poll.
So what poll was that blond Republican bimbo on ‘Crossfire’ bragging about tonight when she said Bush is ahead in the swing states?
Gropenator is not helping Bush because he is riding high right now. Plus the gropenaror will be going to trail in UK for sexual harrasment shortly.
CA is safe , period. Only a san andreas earthquake can shake loose CA for Bush.
News just in that Kerry may not accept Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention. Acceptance will be delayed to permit Kerry spending donated campaign funds, without limitation, just like Bush. This would put him in sync with Bush on the expenditure limits of the $75 million in public funds.
Presumably, Kerry’s formal acceptance of the nomination would be in Sept. about the same time as Bush’s. One of Kerry’s aides explained to the media that they have no intention of fighting with on hand tied behind their back. Way to go Kerry!
RE: California polls — thanks to the several explanatory posts above, I have now relaxed enough to slip a sliver of lime in my Corona Extra and start enjoying my weekend. Much obliged.
“Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?”
Because Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. And the poll is a CRAP poll anyway.
Yeah, getting back to NJ, no worries here either. Went for Gore strong in 2000. Major job losses in the tech industry since then. Fed dollars bypass us in a big way with the Bush regime and Republican Congress. This state is not going Republican in 2004. Only problem we could run into is McGreevey, Dem governor, is unpopular and viewed as corrupt by many, which could hurt Dem chances in many ways. But I don’t think McGreevey has big enough “negative coattails” to help Bush.
JTBLA, Thanks for your post. I do remember that Calif. poll in 2000 that had Bush within 2, which turned out to be way off the mark.
As a Calif. resident I can guarantee that Bush has NO chance to win out here. That poll is out of whack with others that show Kerry up 10+, including a recent LA Times poll. In 2000 there was a late poll that showed Bush within 2 of Gore and people freaked. Gore won the state easily.
I don’t know what CA poll people are referring to, but let’s remember DR’s consistent arguments about the incumbent’s approval rating being more important than horse-race numbers at this point. Then, with that in mind, take a look at this story from early April:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/06/MNGPO616OS1.DTL
“A new poll shows President Bush’s approval ratings in California have plummeted, even in the state’s most GOP-dominated conservative areas.”
“With the Iraq war taking a difficult turn and questions raised at home about the administration’s terrorism policy, the poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Monday puts Bush’s state approval ratings at just 38 percent, while 50 percent disapprove.”
“That’s a dramatic change from the start of the year, when 49 percent of Californians approved of the job the president was doing, and 40 percent disapproved.”
Also keep in mind that this poll was from almost two months ago, just as the deadliest month for Americans in the entire Iraq conflict was beginning, and before the prison abuse scandal. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Bush’s approval ratings in CA haven’t improved since then.
Though I think the independent voters are important. I really think that bringing out the base will be most important.
Isn’t even the Groppenfurer distancing himself from Bush in Cali?
I believe there’s only one poll that has Kerry’s lead in California at just a point. Don’t worry; there’s no way Bush will win that state. You can take that to the bank.
Interesting and VERY encouraging. Remember, the Bushies have spent the vast majority of their campaign funds so far in the battleground states. This is the best they can do. The news won’t get better from Iraq, and the general opinion around my household (for what it’s worth) is that things will get worse there after the make-believe power handover. I do not celebrate that, but I do read the tea leaves that arise from it.
Don’t worry about NJ. I’m here. I got your back.
These data are largely good news, but I echo the previously stated concerns about California, and add New Jersey to that. Further: given the power structure and the loose definition of democratic rights there, Florida should not be considered in play. By hook or, more likely, by crook, Bush will end up with its electoral votes.
I’ve wondered about California myself. With such a majority of Deocratic voter registration, this state should be the Dem’s to keep for a long time. I took the 2000 election numbers and looked at the states where W has pretty much done himself in that are swing states and came up with Kerry winning the election with 292 electoral votes. This assumes that the voting machine are not rigged for Bush. Ohio should be a slam dunk for Kerry, as should Michigan, New Hampshire, and even West Virginia. Nevada should be Blue this time as Nevadans should start to glow from nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains very soon. With all the scandal (especially the NEW torture pictures on top of the old ones), Plamegate (something I think is a major issue and should be more public this summer), deficits and spending, this guy should be sent to Gitmo for retirement.
That data is encouraging, but here’s what I want to know (and I haven’t yet seen this addressed elsewhere): Why is Kerry only up by ONE point in the recent California polls? Shouldn’t that be a slam dunk, double-digit lead for him? Is he in trouble there, possibly because of Schwarzenegger’s successes? Is it possible that he could LOSE California? Is California really in play for this election, or are these poll results an aberration? I’d love to hear from someone who has some insights into this issue.
Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?