Bush leads Kerry 47-46 among Minnesota RV’s in a head-to-head match-up, with 7 percent neither/other/no opinion, according to a USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll conducted Sept. 11-14.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
October 22: “Red Dog” Democrats Shouldn’t Expect Big Policy Concessions
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.
omar-
I’d not seen your posts when I put mine up there. Consider it great minds running on the same track.
Given that I keep wondering what’s up with Colorado, I went looking. There are two polls out that show it a virtual tie. One is by Public Opinion Strategies, which is, by one report I saw, a Republican group:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3188882,00.html
This shows Bush ahead 45-44 in a three way, among likely voters. It’s a small sample, with 500. Kerry has a 50-30 lead among independents in that poll, and a 36 point lead among Hispanics. With a Hispanic running for Senator. The same poll had Bush up 49-40 back in April.
ARG had Bush up 46-45 amng 600 likely voters.
Zogby, in data from earlier this September, had Kerry up by 1%.
When I see those three pointing in the same direction, I start thinking that Kerry really ought to pour in some resources there. I know I’ve said it before, but holding the Gore states and grabbing New Hampshire and Colorado (and ideally Nevada to create a buffer so he could lose a congressional district in Maine and either New Mexico or Iowa…) might end up being his winning strategy, if he can’t wrest Ohio or Florida from Bush.
He’s got to rally in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to make that one work.
correction, I meant all the GORE states, not all the bush states.
I think Colorado has to be added to the Cook’s # real battleground states considering the poll released today and the 2 polls released in august show bush up by an average of .33 percent and alot of people who are yet to decide.(who normally break for the challenger 2 to 1).
On the other hand I don’t think its a safe bet to assume Kerry will win all the Bush states. Many of those states were razor close last time, and probably will again.
Harris called the tie with their final poll in 2000 (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130) . Their final ONLINE poll also called the tie (but I can’t find the link).
Cook Report indicates that Bush is probably up by about 5% on the whole at this point. And he reports only 9 real tossups….Five were Gore states in 2000, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico. Four were Bush states in 2000, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire.
If so, then Kerry does need Ohio or Florida for an outright win. Nevada and NH give, at best, a tie.
I’d really love to know more of what’s up in Colorado. I did see one report that seemed somewhat unsubstantiated that the proportional vote in Colorado was currently far behind in the polls.
Also, I agree with the comment upthread, that the close races thing cuts both ways. Yes, Kerry needs to hold all the Gore States and then some, which will be hard. But remember Bush has to win FL AND OH. I’ve seen plausible scenarios in which Bush wins FL, OH, and even MO, and still loses.
Considering Gallup’s definite GOP bias this year I imagine Kerry is doing better in Minnesota than that.
Not just this year. Remember they had Bush up by 13% two weeks before election day 00. Their CEO is a big GOP donor, and apparently they havent precicted an election correctly since George died in 84. I like Zogby and Rasmussen, both reputable in my opinion. And you get one dem and one republican so no one can complain.
Zogby’s running an online poll now, if you want to see wht thay are like for yourselves.
In any case, it seems to me that relying on a sample of land-line phone respondents is kind of a joke in 2004. Why even bother? And why does anyone even take those polls seriously?
thecreature – I think I have read that Zogby also uses email and some other methods to compliment the telephone polling. And that is true, they were the only ones who were right about the 2000 election. But isn’t it odd that all the other national polls were wrong in the same way–they all gave Bush the lead. I wonder why that was?
Gene, I believe I read that somewhere, but I really don;t remember where, nor do I rememebr what Zogby does differently.
But it’s worth noting that Zogby was the only poll in 2000 that called the tie.
What I’d like to know is why anyone would still use the telephone exclusively to do polling? I understand Zogby doesn’t do that, but others do — or am I wrong about that?
Polling data from the major pollsters within several days of the 2000 election show that nearly all showed Bush 2, 3, 4, even 6 pts ahead of Gore.
No, I’m not a statistician and haven’t had a stat course in decades, but to me this suggests some systematic error in the polling or analysis or filtering or all of the above.
What says Dr. Ruy T or other math types out there?
And, if it does suggest systematic error — we’ll discount poll rigging — might those same errors be operaing now?
Who knows? Da Shadow do.
U & Tony,
Excellent responses; Thank you. To be sure, if anyone thinks they can tell you who’s going to win based on current polls, they should have their head examined.
This election will be more event driven than any other in the recent past IMO – And even a last minute bombshell like what happened to GWB and the durnking driving charge in 2000 can upset the applecart.
The only thing I can say definitively today is that I cannot say anything definitive today regarding how this election will unfold.
Reality Check….the only poll that counts is the one on Nov 2.
FACT: In Election 2000 Americans were smart enough to vote +583,000 for Gore/Leiberman. It came down to Florida…we know the story.
FACT: In Election 2000 there were less Americans accessing the Web to crosscheck information and there were no political blogs.
FACT: In Election 2000 Bush/Cheney did not have a ABYSMAL performance record on the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, the environment, Iraq to be measured against.
FACT: For the past 4 years Bush has been misleading the public, distorting fact, and contriving false realities on virtually every major issue because Bushco has to rely on gross image manipulation and false perceptions to win in 2004. And, the US mainstream media ( with some exceptions ) is bending over backwards to help.
The Net Net: More Americans should be smarter in Election 2004 and see that Kerry/Edwards have a much better plan for America and Americans
George W. Bush, the “Excuse President’ is a miserable FAILURE, has NOT earned our TRUST, and will be FIRED on Nov 2.
Even TN and MO are close.
smooth-
Why think Kerry has a shot at Ohio or Florida?
The second to last Florida poll list at RealClearPolitics shows Kerry up 0.3%. The last Ohio poll shows Kerry down only 3%. Rasmussen apparently shows Ohio deadlocked. Both of those suggest that the states are still within his reach. With the hurricanes right now, I’m not sure how much faith I put in any of the Florida polling.
If neither of those two go Kerry, then I see two other promising lines of attack. In both, he goes for New Hampshire. In one, he also goes for Colorado, which has been surprisingly close in what polls have appeared. Colorado, New Hampshire, and the Gore states gives him the win. In the other, he also gets Nevada. Nevada, NH, and the Gore states creates a tie, which might be enough to get Edwards elected as VP, depending on how the Senate races break.
What other Bush 2000 states look vulnerable? I’ve not given up yet on Missouri, Arkansas, or West Virginia, though odds seem against in those three.
But Kerry really *has* to hold Pennsylvania and New Jersey, pretty hmuch has to hold Wisconsin and Iowa, and can’t afford to lose all of Maine. (If he gets NH, then if Maine splits, and he gets Colorado, losing Maine’s other three votes don’t matter.)
So…my view of the battleground is Bush attacking Kerry on Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine; Kerry attacking Bush on Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Nevada.
Bush has some more ripe picking right now, but both have ways of making things work out for them. The debates will be big. World events will be big. We’ll see.
Smooth Jazz:
Good questions. If you look at the state polls coming out now, they show the race very close. A few show Bush outside the MOE in Ohio and Flordia, most show him inside the MOE (and closer to tied). In other words, both states are far from done deals. Indeed, Gore was supposedly done in Ohio and pulled his resources, but ultimately came in much closer than polls. Almost all current polls also show CO basically tied, and Nevada within the MOE.
The downside for Kerry is that he has to win a lot of close races. That, I think, is the fundamental reason Democrats are nervous. But, as some have pointed out, this cuts both ways: Bush will be in real trouble if he can’t win FL or OH, even if he picks off one of the close uppwer-midwest states.
That’s one reason why this race is still too close to call. The other reason is that we don’t have a clear idea what’s going to happen with voter turnout. 1998, 2000, and 2002 were all surprises from a polling perspective because the turnout models were wrong. For example, when initial results came in from NC during the afternoon of the election in 2002 the old turnout models suggest a Democratic pickup.
At the same time, polling is getting less and less reliable. Some of the reasons have been discussed here and elsewhere: cell phones, the fact that people no longer want to answer polls, answering machienes, and so forth. This drives my colleagues who study American politics crazy, because their data just isn’t as good as it used to be.
Given all that, I predict either a Bush blowout, a Kerry blowout, or a tight election on the first Tuesday of November :-).
Charlie,
VG analysis but you forgot to point out the following: That all GWB needs to do is hold serve, win all the states he won last time and he’s back in – especially given the fact that the census has given him 7 more electoral votes vis-a-vis 2000.
My question to you is: Given the polling data that you’ve seen, what makes you think that Kerry has a shot at either OH or FLA, since they are the most logical swing states to switch from red to blue. Please note: taking NH will not even cover the census adjustment in the electoral college.
If you respond, please do not flame me with Bush Hating propaganda. A logical, reasonable response would be appreciated.
Kerry may in fact wind up winning several “Gore” states that are now tilting toward Bush. But he will have to expend vital resources in time and money to do so, thus preventing those same resources from being devoted to competing elsewhere–CO, NC, OH, MO, FL, etc. He should have shorn up Wisconsin and Minnesota and Iowa by now–and he hasn’t. Certainly it’s not too late, but having to work these states hurts the overall effort–for Kerry, and importantly, for Senate and Congressional races where Kerry-Edwards’ time and effort could help a lot. T.J.
CDB,
Perhaps as well as the +9 for Kerry the Strib polled among LVs?
Considering Gallup’s definite GOP bias this year I imagine Kerry is doing better in Minnesota than that.