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.
So what if Iraq HAD WMD and a way to deliver them. . . so did Russia for so many years. So why didn’t they zap us when they had the chance?
Because we have the enormous power to retaliate, that’s why. Therefore, it dosen’t wash that Saddam would’ve delivered WMD to the USA.
WMD was nothing but a pretext from Bush and Co. to grab a significant oil producing country AND scare the heck out of us so he can do what he pleases in the name of national security.
Big John
Sorry, I intended to paste the address, but the site wouldn’t let me . It is:
http://www.electoralvote.com
Bush won Nevada by just under 4% in 2000.
Bush 301,575 49.52%
Gore 279,978 45.98%
What in the world is the MoE for these polls, especially the FL one. I have trouble believing Bush surged that much so fast. I could believe Bush is up, but within or just barely outside the margin. Also, I agree with the general sentiment that if millions of people don’t have TV or electriticity or are generally displaced, polling is worthless for another couple weeks in the sunshine state.
Still, NV is good news, 4 points is probabbly w/i MoE. Kerry needs to do another trip out to Vegas and the Vegas burbs to help the house candidate there (get some $) and raise the spirits of his Nevada campaign.
I would say Kerry needs NH WV and then try to get either FL or OH for good measure; right now, it looks like FL is a better bet than OH.
Looks like Nevadans definitely want the nuclear dump in their state. I’m beginning to think may be we deserve this moron as the president.
and more good news, A judge threw Nader off the ballot yet again.
Anyone know a URL that has a good discussion of why RoboPolls suck?
I got into an extended and heated argument with a local TV station’s news director over his use of Survey USA in the last mayor’s race.
The Poll was off by over 12% in the event and prior to the last polling round, was off by a similar margin from a highly respected normal poll
About what states are needed. If Kerry were to win all the Gore 2000 states, and Bush retain all the Bush 2000 states, then Bush wins 278-260.
Using that as a baseline, if the only change is Kerry winning Ohio, he wins 280-258. If Wisconsin also changes (to Bush), Kerry still wins 270-268. So…Kerry doesn’t need to win both Florida and Ohio, assuming he can hold all of the Gore states, or that he loses no Gore state worth more than 10 electoral votes. [That is, if he gets Ohio, he can lose any one of Minnesota, Iowan, Wisconsin, Maine, Oregon, or New Mexico.]
Florida is worth 27 electoral votes, so if Kerry were to win there, that would add another 7 electoral vote buffer.
And he has the lead in New Hampshire, which also gives him another 4 electoral votes.
So…Going back to Nevada….If Kerry can keep Pennsylania and Michigan and pry away either Florida or Ohio, there’s a good change Nevada won’t matter.
But…if the only changes from 2000 are Kerry getting New Hampshire and Nevada, the election ends up deadlocked at 269, throwing it to the House and Senate to pick President and VP. If the Dems can pry away the Senate, that could well leave us with a Bush/Edwards tandem. That’s not what I’d prefer, but better a half loaf than nothing, so I want Nevada to go Democratic.
The Florida poll must favor northern Florida, since that’s the part that isn’t evacuated/reeling re: the hurricane. It’s also the more GOP-heavy part of the state. It’s a crappy poll.
Florida polls can’t be worth much right now, with the hurricane and all. (If South Florida got evacuated this week, but the Panhandle’s evacuating this week, I’d expect gains for Kerry next week based solely on who will be home to answer their phones.) The NV results are unfortunate, but we don’t need that state to win: we do, I think, need either CO or WI or BOTH FL and OH.
I think this poll is worthless, with all the hurricane stuff the past two weeks, does anyone realistically believe an accurate poll would come out of that mess at least until Ivan blows past.
Never mind. I just checked, and there are no RV figures. I wish to hell they would stop taunting us with figures that are likely imaginary.
What is the percentage of Registered Voters?
Nader is back on the FL ballot. So, it probably is worse for Kerry. And yet, I know we will win. I took a poll in the mirror this morning and Kerry is doing fine. Thank you zanex.
Two things to point out:
(1) all of these polls report likely voters, which isn’t necessarily incorrect, but does employ certain assumptions about voter turnout.
GOTV efforts, obviously, can make a huge difference, and this is an area in which the Dems have been losing ground to the GOP over the last two decades. Hopefully the DNC is developing an effective field machine, gathering corps of volunteers to phone Democratic voters less likely to vote (i.e., those below the median income) as well as undecided voters on election day and offer rides/baked cookies/lemonade etc.
(2) in the FL poll for the SAME RESPONDENTS there is quite a bit of ticket-splitting, as Castor (D) is ahead of Martinez (R) in the Senate 49 to 45.
Now this suggests to me that there remains about 5-6% of voters in FL who are seriously in play.
In general, Kerry needs to make better use of local politicians who are (sometimes) more popular than he is in their states–not merely FL but elsewhere, esp. in swing states that have popular Dem governors, i.e., AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, etc. I know that some coordinated campaigning has been done, but not nearly enough. And there are some governors (e.g., Mike Easley in NC) who do not seem to want to share the stage with Kerry.