Yesterday, I was arguing that this race is a referendum on the incumbent and Kerry backers should take heart from how poorly–and increasingly so–Bush is doing in the eyes of voters. The release of the latest Gallup poll, provides abundant support for that viewpoint.
There’s even some good news on the horse race numbers people have been obsessing about. Kerry is now tied with Bush in Gallup’s RV matchup (47-47), an improvement from his 46-50 performance in their mid-April poll. The same pattern can be seen in Gallup’s LV version of this matchup, with Kerry ahead 49-48, compared to lagging 46-51 in mid-April.
Note also that, continuing a pattern I’ve noted of late, Kerry is doing better in the battleground states than overall. In an LV Kerry-Bush-Nader matchup (the only relevant data Gallup provides), Kerry is ahead of Bush by 4 points (48-44) in the “purple states”, while tied in the national race.
But the really cool stuff here is how dreadfully Bush is doing in every area Gallup asked about. In terms of whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied with way things in the country are going, 36 percent say satisfied and 62 percent say dissatisfied–the worst rating of his presidency.
Bush’s overall approval rating is now 49 percent approve/48 percent disapprove, tied for the worst of his presidency. And here are his approval ratings in four specific areas, all the worst of his presidency: the economy, 41 approve/56 disapprove; foreign affairs, 42/53; the situation in Iraq, 42/55; and terrorism, 52/45 (!).
Hope that cheers everybody up.
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
April 19: Will Chaos of Chicago ’68 Return This Year?
A lot of people who weren’t alive to witness the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago are wondering if it’s legendary chaos. I evaluated that possibility at New York:
When the Democratic National Committee chose Chicago as the site of the party’s 2024 national convention a year ago, no one knew incumbent presidential nominee Joe Biden would become the target of major antiwar demonstrations. The fateful events of October 7 were nearly six months away, and Biden had yet to formally announce his candidacy for reelection. So there was no reason to anticipate comparisons to the riotous 1968 Democratic Convention, when images of police clashing with anti–Vietnam War protesters in the Windy City were broadcast into millions of homes. Indeed, a year ago, a more likely analog to 2024 might have been the last Democratic convention in Chicago in 1996; that event was an upbeat vehicle for Bill Clinton’s successful reelection campaign.
Instead, thanks to intense controversy over Israel’s lethal operations in Gaza and widespread global protests aimed partly at Israel’s allies and sponsors in Washington, plans are well underway for demonstrations in Chicago during the August 19 to 22 confab. Organizers say they expect as many as 30,000 protesters to gather outside Chicago’s United Center during the convention. As in the past, a key issue is how close the protests get to the actual convention. Obviously, demonstrators want delegates to hear their voices and the media to amplify their message. And police, Chicago officials, and Democratic Party leaders want protests to occur as far away from the convention as possible. How well these divergent interests are met will determine whether there is anything like the kind of clashes that dominated Chicago ’68.
There are, however, some big differences in the context surrounding the two conventions. Here’s why the odds of a 2024 convention showdown rivaling 1968 are actually fairly low.
Gaza isn’t Vietnam.
Horrific as the ongoing events in Gaza undoubtedly are, and with all due consideration of the U.S. role in backing and supplying Israel now and in the past, the Vietnam War was a more viscerally immediate crisis for both the protesters who descended on Chicago that summer and the Americans watching the spectacle on TV. There were over a half-million American troops deployed in Vietnam in 1968, and nearly 300,000 young men were drafted into the Army and Marines that year. Many of the protesters at the convention were protesting their own or family members’ future personal involvement in the war, or an escape overseas beyond the Selective Service System’s reach (an estimated 125,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam War, and how to deal with them upon repatriation became a major political issue for years).
Even from a purely humanitarian and altruistic point of view, Vietnamese military and civilian casualties ran into the millions during the period of U.S. involvement. It wasn’t common to call what was happening “genocide,” but there’s no question the images emanating from the war (which spilled over catastrophically into Laos and especially Cambodia) were deeply disturbing to the consciences of vast numbers of Americans.
Perhaps a better analogy for the Gaza protests than those of the Vietnam era might be the extensive protests during the late 1970s and 1980s over apartheid in South Africa (a regime that enjoyed explicit and implicit backing from multiple U.S. administrations) and in favor of a freeze in development and deployment of nuclear weapons. These were significant protest movements, but still paled next to the organized opposition to the Vietnam War.
Political conventions are different today.
One reason the 1968 Chicago protests created such an indelible image is that the conflict outside on the streets was reflected in conflict inside the convention venue. For one thing, 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey had not quelled formal opposition to his selection when the convention opened. He never entered or won a single primary. One opponent who did, Eugene McCarthy, was still battling for the nomination in Chicago. Another, Robert F. Kennedy, had been assassinated two months earlier (1972 presidential nominee George McGovern was the caretaker for Kennedy delegates at the 1968 convention). There was a highly emotional platform fight over Vietnam policy during the convention itself; when a “peace plank” was defeated, New York delegates led protesters singing “We Shall Overcome.” Once violence broke out on the streets, it did not pass notice among the delegates, some of whom had been attacked by police trying to enter the hall. At one point, police actually accosted and removed a TV reporter from the convention for some alleged breach in decorum.
By contrast, no matter what is going on outside the United Center, the 2024 Democratic convention is going to be totally wired for Joe Biden, with nearly all the delegates attending pledged to him and chosen by his campaign. Even aside from the lack of formal opposition to Biden, conventions since 1968 have become progressively less spontaneous and more controlled by the nominee and the party that nominee directs (indeed, the chaos in Chicago in 1968 encouraged that trend, along with near-universal use of primaries to award delegates, making conventions vastly less deliberative). While there may be some internal conflict on the platform language related to Gaza, it will very definitely be resolved long before the convention and far away from cameras.
Another significant difference between then and now is that convention delegates and Democratic elected officials generally will enter the convention acutely concerned about giving aid and comfort to the Republican nominee, the much-hated, much-feared Donald Trump. Yes, many Democrats hated and feared Richard Nixon in 1968, but Democrats were just separated by four years from a massive presidential landslide and mostly did not reckon how much Nixon would be able to straddle the Vietnam issue and benefit from Democratic divisions. That’s unlikely to be the case in August of 2024.
Brandon Johnson isn’t Richard Daley.
Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley was a major figure in the 1968 explosion in his city. He championed and defended his police department’s confrontational tactics during the convention. At one point, when Senator Abraham Ribicoff referred from the podium to “gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago,” Daley leaped up and shouted at him with cameras trained on his furious face as he clearly repeated an obscene and antisemitic response to the Jewish politician from Connecticut. Beyond his conduct on that occasion, “Boss” Daley was the epitome of the old-school Irish American machine politician and from a different planet culturally than the protesters at the convention.
Current Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, who was born the year of Daley’s death, is a Black progressive and labor activist who is still fresh from his narrow 2023 mayoral runoff victory over the candidate backed by both the Democratic Establishment and police unions. While he is surely wary of the damage anti-Israel and anti-Biden protests can do to the city’s image if they turn violent, Johnson is not without ties to protesters. He broke a tie in the Chicago City Council to ensure passage of a Gaza cease-fire resolution earlier this year. His negotiating skills will be tested by the maneuvering already underway with protest groups and the Democratic Party, but he’s not going to be the sort of implacable foe the 1968 protesters encountered.
The whole world (probably) won’t be watching.
The 1968 Democratic convention was from a bygone era of gavel-to-gavel coverage by the three broadcast-television networks that then dominated the media landscape and the living rooms of the country. When they were being bludgeoned by the Chicago police, protesters began chanting, “The whole world is watching,” which wasn’t much of an exaggeration. Today’s media coverage of major-party political conventions is extremely limited and (like coverage of other events) fragmented. If violence breaks out this time in Chicago, it will get a lot of attention, albeit much of it bent to the optics of the various media outlets covering it. But the sense in 1968 that the whole nation was watching in horror as an unprecedented event rolled out in real time will likely never be recovered.
Guess young people react differently….
Washington, D.C. – Sen. John Kerry, who once held a commanding, double-digit advantage over President George W. Bush among young Americans, now finds himself in a statistical dead heat with the president among voters aged 18-29, according to the latest IPSOS/NEWSWEEK/GENEXT poll. While Kerry currently leads Bush within the margin of error, 45 percent to 42 percent, back in February 56 percent of 18-29 year-olds said they supported the senator versus 42 percent who said they would vote for Bush.
I don’t think Bush will have a landslide, but he will win by a comfortable margin. It’s a given that Republicans will pick up seats in the House, and in the Senate as well. There is no real alternative for voters. The media lies to them, and the Democrats are running on, “hey, we’re not Bush!!” People will always go for the devil they know.
I am delighted with the 8 point drop in “good at war on terrorism” survey item. I am looking forward to the next poll publication on a like item for confirmation that this is a confirmed trend downward, and that the rate of decline graphs like a steep canyon cliff.
What is even more satisfying about all this is that the decline is not at Kerry’s hand — the pornographic slide show out of Iraqi Prisons can be argued as caused by Bush’s failure to faithfully execute the laws (and Geneva Treaties on War Crimes and the like are the equal of laws). That’s the message we have to communicate in all sorts of ways over the next weeks as we get the “second showing” and as a few more matters come home to roost — perhaps a Plame indictment, 911 investigative matters, and who knows what else. Just as long as it goes to the question of whether Bush is doing a proper job fighting terrorists — or it can be comprehended that way — that voting issue trend line ought to keep going down. Come late July and the convention, then Kerry can start interpreting it all as part of the real campaign.
I agree with James. Bush owns the media, not in a literal sense, but through intimidation. Look for the Dems to loose even more seats in the senate/house, and a Bush landslide.
This is only one poll; all the others have Bush in the lead. Given the public’s strong sympathy towards Rumsfeld (70% want him to stay), and the media’s success at lying to people about the economy and blaming the prison abuses all on this England girl, I think that you will see Bush’s support go way up again in the next few months.
which of Kerry’s possible VP choices would leave him in the best position in the home stretch?
Wes Clark. He’s the one who can restore dignity to the military, ensure proper measure of attention to war on terror, and he’s got the leadership credentials.
Cheney wouldn’t have a chance against Clark.
bt: They didn’t count them correctly last time so I have no illusion that they will count them correctly this time. We need to make such an overwhelming victory that even their slight of hand will not be enough to overcome our will.
Tripsarecopsem in his/her post above (inquiring about a Diebold Correction Factor) voiced one of my other questions about assumptions underlying the analysis of the promising poll data.
An editorial in today’s Washington Post, and news articles in the Post yesterday and the day before outline grounds for concern about whether we’ll count the votes correctly this time.
All very well. But if the rising tide doesn’t sweep in Democratic legislators, isn’t it only limited good news?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting anyone in the bush admin knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance. But they did know that something was up. They were informed by more than one vehicle about plans and possibilties.
Let’s all pray that we can have a civilized change of power come November/January. Shrub & company already can see the writing on the wall. I only hope that what they do is not so awful that we and the world cannot recover. When you look at the 9-11 crisis and you look at all the facts surrounding that event before and after it occured you have to wonder if there was a certain amount of complacency by an administration hell bent on finding any justification to take Iraq’a oil for their own and establish a mighty American presence in Israel back yard. The facts could just support a theory like this is all I’m saying. Right after the attack, they were all over Iraq, how convenient.
So what might happen next to bolster their hold on power?
The track record is clear. Starting with the 2000 election, then the ignoring of the warnings about the pending terrorist attacks, then the falsification of the Iraq war reasons, followed by the ill advised and poorly followed up war. Now they’re into their attack mode against a genuine American Hero. We mean nothing to these people. They are only concerned with their own power and the control that goes with it.
> It is good news, and the only discouraging part
> of it is that I can’t understand why Bush’s
> numbers aren’t way, way down by now. Guess
> it’s the red meat Republicans who will never,
> ever vote for a Democrat.
Probably GOPpers who support him because they think he shares their religious/moral “values” and like him personally.
: In how many states will Nader actually appear on
: the ballot? When will we know if he’s gotten the
: signatures or whatever? As an independent
: instead of a Green, he doesn’t get on
: automatically, I believe. I understood he was
: working first on getting on the ballots in the
: non-purple states (Texas, New York) where he
: could rack up votes without changing any actual
: outcomes.
Maybe Kerry could promise him a position in his Administration if he goes along with that? Or would Congress most likely throw up roadblocks, much as Gale(sp) Anne Norton and Ashcroft almost didn’t make it for “Shrub” in 2001?
| no matter whether you agree or disagree with
| the ideology of the Bush administration (or agree
| with it more than that of Kerry) it is absolutely
| true that Bush & Co are incompetent.
Well, these guys are good at only one thing — pandering to their dumb base (on style if not substance). You have to give them credit for being well organized and very focused/ruthless. But if you look at their track record e.g. in Iraq and foreign policy in general, we are possibly talking about the most inept Administration in a century. All the more surprising considering how respectably Bush v.41 fared in this respect.
MARCU$
Hopeful signs, Ruy. This is no time, however, to forget:
DIEBOLD IS A VERB.
No polls are being published with any kind of Diebold Correction Factor, anywhere, are they?
Kerry is looking better at the moment, but he still needs to give the voters a solid reason to vote FOR him.
This is why the VP choice can be critical in that regard.
Assume that the economy will–barring the unexpected–continue to improve for the next six months. Kerry’s relative advantages in that area will largely evaporate.
Assume that the Iraqi mess will drag on and on, possibly with further complications in the Middle East. Bush’s relative advantages in the foreign policy and security areas will evaporate.
Given those assumptions–leaving out possible bombshells such as another 9/11 or a Bin Laden capture–which of Kerry’s possible VP choices would leave him in the best position in the home stretch?
Any opinions?
On the topic of predictions, Kerry will win i can feel it. At this point, Kerry is doing exactly what he should. If he were to start jumping all over Bush, Kerry will become cliche by the time the election season is really here. The public would be sick of hearing about it all sort of like my feelings towards all of the current big name trials. Kerry recently put out several advertisements meant to begin painting a picture of him from his side, or that don’t lie. No matter what comes out about Bush, the American people (generally) have become attached to him as a leader due to all of the major events over the last 4 years. Kerry needs to continue to increase his positive exposure over the next few months, giving the people an alternative to Bush and what he has gotten us into. Closer to the election, negative bush adds will drill home the point.
There you go, thats my opinion
To add to bt’s comments, it seems to me that the few Bush supporters I regularly bump into are either Democrat-haters to the core (the immobile base), or else feel like they have to justify their opinion. Many of them say they’re for Bush and then launch into a justification without even being asked for one, as if they’re embarassed to like Bush.
I frankly think Bush’s tactic of appealing almost exclusively to his base is preposterous. But if he’s determined to alienate moderates, far be it from me to tell him to stop.
Well, if the response to the Abu Ghraib outrages is any indication, you may be right, Billy Boy. This could be the straw that breaks the Administration’s back. We’ll see what the next round of polls show, but I would not be surprised if there is a strong shift. Rush Limbaugh seems to be about the only American who is expressing anything other than outrage and/or shame. If Rumsfeld is fired it will be a sign of how desperate the Administration feels.
It seems as though a lot of Bush supporters like him because they think he does our country proud. As the pride turns to shame, a lot of his supporters are going to start bailing or cloaking their support for him.
re: “Personally, I prefer to “run scared”. Not as in projecting lack of confidence that we will win, but as in believing in the importance of any and all efforts to help. To a fellow Dem friend who told me two months ago he was feeling a lack of inspiration to work hard to help Kerry my response consisted of two words: find some.”
I sez:
I don’t think it matters. I think there is a LOT of anger out there towards Bush, and the media has had their finger in the dike trying desperately to cover it over. But the worm has turned, and I think we will see a large Democratic turn out, and I do believe we will have a Kerry landslide in November.
We will probably win back the Senate as well. I think the electorate is tired of the Republican swindle.
If you look at those polls you’ll see there’s a large number of “undecideds”. IMO, a goodly portion of those people are those who are not real happy with Bush, but who aren’t sure that Kerry is any better. If Kerry can convince them he’ll do a better job, he’ll get those votes. If he fails to do that, Bush will be back (shudder). At this point, I think it’s all up to Kerry. And us. We need to help. If you haven’t volunteered or sent money, do it now :-}
I see no reason for our side to be pessimistic about our chances at this point. One of the reasons I come to this site is for the refreshing dose of grounded optimism it provides.
Having said that, would it be better for us to “run scared”? If there arises a strong belief that our side is going to win easily, how likely is it that this would result in a net diminution of effort on our side? The same question could of course be raised at least as pointedly with respect to attitudes of deep pessimism or fatalism.
Campaigns often seem to be at pains late in the game to say they expect it to be a close election. In part, they say these things out of a perception that overconfidence could discourage effort all the way to the finish line from their supporters. But that doesn’t mean there’s reason to believe that less effort is likely absent such statements. Which is why I raise the question.
Personally, I prefer to “run scared”. Not as in projecting lack of confidence that we will win, but as in believing in the importance of any and all efforts to help. To a fellow Dem friend who told me two months ago he was feeling a lack of inspiration to work hard to help Kerry my response consisted of two words: find some.
I believe there is going to be a TIPPING POINT and when it happens and I think it’s close, I hope Kerry is ready to seize the ball and run with it.
“In an LV Kerry-Bush-Nader matchup . . .”
Relevant question:
In how many states will Nader actually appear on the ballot? When will we know if he’s gotten the signatures or whatever? As an independent instead of a Green, he doesn’t get on automatically, I believe. I understood he was working first on getting on the ballots in the non-purple states (Texas, New York) where he could rack up votes without changing any actual outcomes.
It is good news, and the only discouraging part of it is that I can’t understand why Bush’s numbers aren’t way, way down by now. Guess it’s the red meat Republicans who will never, ever vote for a Democrat.
I also worry about what this administration will do when it becomes increasingly obvious that Bush might lose. I may lose credibility when I say this, but I do see this administration as neo-fascist, and I wouldn’t put much past them – even manufacturing a domestic crisis and then postponing the election. Crazy? Yes, but worrisome.
The issue that is most encouraging to me is competence. In the last two days I have spoken with two lifelong, albeit moderate, Republicans. Both of them agree that no matter whether you agree or disagree with the ideology of the Bush administration (or agree with it more than that of Kerry) it is absolutely true that Bush & Co are incompetent. Both of these people then point out that this is completely consistent with Shrub’s entire life, where he has never done anything well. These are both people who voted for him in 2000 and will not do so again. One will vote for Kerry, the other will stay home. It is astounding to me how readily and completely these Republicans agree that Bush is incompetent. Not the slightest argument. I am beginning to think that even a recovering economy or the capture of Osama could not change that perception. Bye bye Shrub!
One final comment. I think that everyone who reads this site (and similar sites) should copy the article about Kerry winning in a landslide and send it to their local new outlets. The more the press publicizes this, the more it becomes the conventional wisdom and the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I wonder how long it will be until ShrubCo feels the need to follow the “Spiderman 2” approach and buy ads on 1st, 2nd and 3rd bases for a weekend? Or will MLB just give that away.
We have talked a bit about Democrats’ panic. Have we thought much about what will happen when the neocon/wingnut Republicans panic? This goes on they will. And they have been shown to be willing to do anything to hang on to power.
definitely good news. looks like kerry definitely has his window of opportunity.
the most promising results of the poll—-for kerry—-seem to be the ever-declining numbers for bush’s handling of the “war on terror.” once those numbers slip below 50% in any significant way, look for the bush bubble to finally burst.
Bush is caught in a riptide.
Swim harder George!
What is one good thing that bush can say he’s done?………………………..that he could get a majority of people to agree with?……………………………………give up?????
Nothing, not a single thing that’s what.
He trails in all the important catagories that Ruy has listed here. That will be the tale of the tape when people vote this November.
Thanks Ruy!!!!
Does it for me!! Thanks.
First!!!
No, seriously…this really does cheer me up. I’ve noticed that Bush has been going down while kerry stays about the same. That ought to change as Kerry gets his own message out. That’s why i think the new biographical ads are so wonderful.
It seems to me that people are hungry for an optimistic “morning sunshine” campaign, one that gives a positive vision rather than just trash talking the other guy. Kerry can afford to do that now that the Bush Administration is being it’s own Democrat-run attack ad.