Bush leads Kerry 48-44 among nation-wide RV’s in a new Time magazine Poll conducted 9/21-23. (Bush was up by 12 among RVs in Time’s poll 2 weeks earlier).
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
November 29: Biden, Trump and Young Voters
I decided to add my analytical two cents at New York to the political topic many Democrats are worried about right now: the direction of the youth vote.
Until recently, Democrats’ biggest concern about the 2024 youth vote was that millennial and Gen-Z voters were so disappointed with our octogenarian president that they might not turn out in great enough numbers to reelect Joe Biden. Young voters were, after all, the largest and most rapidly growing segment of the Democratic base in the last election. But now public-opinion surveys are beginning to unveil a far more terrifying possibility: Donald Trump could carry the youth vote next year. And even if that threat is exaggerated or reversible, it’s increasingly clear that “the kids” may be swing voters, not unenthusiastic Democratic base voters who can be frightened into turning out by the prospect of Trump’s return.
NBC News reports it’s a polling trend that cannot be ignored or dismissed:
“The latest national NBC News poll finds President Joe Biden trailing former President Donald Trump among young voters ages 18 to 34 — with Trump getting support from 46% of these young voters and Biden getting 42%. …
“CNN’s recent national poll had Trump ahead of Biden by 1 point among voters ages 18 to 34.
“Quinnipiac University had Biden ahead by 9 points in that subgroup.
“The national Fox News poll had Biden up 7 points among that age group.
“And the recent New York Times/Siena College battleground state polling had Biden ahead by just 1 point among voters ages 18 to 34.”
According to Pew’s validated voters analysis (which is a lot more precise than exit polls), Biden won under-30 voters by a 59 percent to 35 percent margin in 2020. Biden actually won the next age cohort, voters 30 to 49 years old, by a 55 percent to 43 percent margin. In 2016, Pew reports, Hillary Clinton won under-30 voters by a 58 percent to 28 percent margin, and voters 30 to 44 by 51 percent to 40 percent.
So one baby-boomer Democrat and one silent-generation Democrat kicked Trump’s butt among younger voters, despite the fact that both of them had their butts kicked among younger primary voters by Bernie Sanders. It’s these sort of numbers that led to a lot of optimistic talk about younger-generation voters finally building the durable Democratic majority that had eluded the party for so many years.
What’s gone wrong?
For one thing, it’s important to note that yesterday’s younger voters aren’t today’s, as Nate Silver reminds us:
“Fully a third of voters in the age 18-29 bracket in the 2020 election (everyone aged 26 or older) will have aged out of it by 2024, as will two-thirds of the age 18-to-29 voters from the 2016 election and all of them from 2012. So if you’re inclined to think something like “gee, did all those young voters who backed the Obama-Biden ticket in 2012 really turn on Biden now?”, stop doing that. Those voters are now in the 30-to-41 age bracket instead.”
But even within relatively recent groups of young voters, there are plenty of micro- and macro-level explanations available for changing allegiances. Young voters share the national unhappiness with the performance of the economy; many are particularly afflicted by high basic-living costs and higher interest rates that make buying a home or even a car unusually difficult. Some of them are angry at Biden for his inability (mostly thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court) to cancel student-loan debts. And most notoriously, young voters are least likely to share Biden’s strong identification with Israel in its ongoing war with Hamas (a new NBC poll shows 70 percent of 18-to-34-year-old voters disapprove of Biden’s handling of the war).
More generally, intergenerational trust issues are inevitably reflected in perceptions of the president who is turning 81 this week, as youth-vote expert John Della Volpe recently explained:
“Today many young people see wars, problems and mistakes originating from the older generations in top positions of power and trickling down to harm those most vulnerable and least equipped to protect themselves. This is the fabric that connects so many young people today, regardless of ideology. This new generation of empowered voters is therefore asking across a host of issues: If not now, then when is the time for a new approach?”
All of these factors help explain why younger voters have soured on Uncle Joe and might be open to independent or minor-party candidates (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, Jill Stein, or a possible No Labels candidate). But they don’t cast as much light on why these same voters might ultimately cast a ballot for Donald Trump.
Trump is less than four years younger than Biden and is about as un-hip an oldster as one can imagine. He’s responsible for the destruction of federal abortion rights, a deeply unpopular development among youth voters (post-election surveys in 2022 showed abortion was the No. 1 issue among under-30 voters; 72 percent of them favored keeping abortion legal in all or most cases). His reputation for racism, sexism, and xenophobia ought to make him anathema to voters for whom the slogan “Make America Great Again” doesn’t have much personal resonance. And indeed, young voters have some serious issues with the 45th president, even beyond the subject of abortion. In the recent New York Times–Siena battleground state poll that showed Trump and Biden about even among under-30 voters, fully 64 percent of these same voters opposed “making it harder for migrants at the southern border to seek asylum in the United States,” a signature Trump position if ever there was one.
At the same time, under-30 voters in the Times-Siena survey said they trusted Trump more on the Israel-Hamas conflict than Biden by a robust 49 percent to 39 percent margin. The 45th president, needless to say, has never shown any sympathy for the Palestinian plight. And despite the ups and downs in his personal relationship to Bibi Netanyahu, he was as close an ally to Israel’s Likud Party as you could imagine (among other things, Trump reversed a long-standing U.S. position treating Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank as a violation of international law and also moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a gesture of great contempt toward Palestinian statehood). His major policy response to the present war has been to propose a revival of the Muslim travel ban the courts prevented him from implementing during his first term.
But perceptions often differ sharply from reality. Sixty-two percent of 18-to-29-year-old and 61 percent of 40-to-44-year-old voters said they trusted Trump more than Biden on the economy in the Times-Siena survey. It’s unclear whether these voters have the sort of hazy positive memories of the economy under Trump that older cohorts seem to be experiencing or if they instead simply find the status quo intolerable.
In any event, the estrangement of young voters provides the most urgent evidence of all that Team Biden and its party need to remind voters aggressively about Trump’s full-spectrum unfitness for another term in the White House. Aside from his deeply reactionary position on abortion and other cultural issues, and his savage attitude toward immigrants, Trump’s economic-policy history shows him prioritizing tax cuts for higher earners and exhibiting hostility to student-loan-debt relief (which he has called “very unfair to the millions and millions of people who paid their debt through hard work and diligence”). Smoking out the 45th president on what “Trumponomics” might mean for young and nonwhite Americans should become at least as central to the Biden reelection strategy as improving the reputation of “Bidenomics.” And without question, Democrats who may be divided on the Israel-Hamas war should stop fighting each other long enough to make it clear that Republicans (including Trump) would lead cheers for the permanent Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank while agitating for war with Iran.
There’s no world in which Donald Trump should be the preferred presidential candidate of young voters. But it will require serious work by Team Biden not only to turn these voters against the embodiment of their worst nightmares but to get them involved in the effort to keep him away from power.
Nice Blog!
Reference the New York Times article on voter pick up in Ohio: the same information is also being reported by media outlets in Ohio, not a hotbed of liberalism.
Oh, the selected prime minister of iraq comes here and in effect tries to interfere with the election. he lies about what is happening in Iraq and the cons are outraged at Kerry? Excuse me, boys! The one to be outraged at are the liars, bush and alawi. And as i recall newsweek and cnn both use gallup poll numbers. that has been shown to be out of touch with reality. so where is the real discussion? where is the discussion about over 1000 dead in iraq? the WMD? the missing osama? the deficit? What in the world is wrong with you conservatives(not anappropirate name) more like big spenders? You attack the truth teller and applaud the liar. what is is the night gallery in real time? bush is a liar and a loser. he is losing the election. they lied to you about iraq. the media kissed up and carried it along. now why is there any question that the media is not doing it again. i would assume they were without any real indication they had reformed. duh!
Elrod,
Sorry to disappoint you but insofar as GWB is concerned, Saletan is no centrist – Indeed, he is a card carrying member of the Michael Moore (FahrenHype 911), Whoppi Goldberg (Kiss my ___), Terry McCaulliffe wing of the Dem party – In other words, he’s a Bush Hater in sheep’s clothing.
As for your supposition that Kerry’s attacks are resonating, reasonable people will disagree – Especially when you consider the battleground poll released last night showing he’s trailing GWB by 6 points.
Frankly, any benefit from his anti-Iraq War speeches was mitigated by his condescending and haughty attack on the very courageous PM of Iraq; Who couldn’t even thank us without having to see Kerry’s mug & gait flailing away on a subject which he knew very little about other than what sees on CBS and in the NY Times.
The Time poll is the best news I’ve read in awhile! 36R – 30D among RVs and the gap is closing. More important is Kerry’s attack on Bush’s Iraq policy is clearly hitting. The idea of a Bush-Iraq credibility gap is a powerful one. Hopefully Kerry can drive that point home in the debates.
BTW, this Will Saletan article on debate tactics is great. Saletan is a centrist who probably understands swing voters better than most of us.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107141/
NEWSFLASH: BATTLEGROUND POLL – GWB 51%, KERRY 45%, GWB JOB APPROVAL 53%…
http://www.tarrance.com/Week2charts.pdf
Kerry is also behind 20% in fighting terrorism and Iraq; It’s tough for Kerry to win facing numbers like that.
I see many posters here are getting excited about the new Dem registration being reported by the NY Times in FLA & OH, and how these new Dems are not being captured in surveys. I have news for you all: The NY Times, like CBS, is in the tank for Kerry, and is trying desperately to salvage his candidate, especially since all their Abu Gharib, Richard Clarke, etc., stories couldn’t do the trick.
They also have reported very little on all the stories of possible vote fraud being perpetrated by Dems – ie 20,000 with dual NY & FLA voter registration reported by the NY Daily News a few weeks back, dead Dems in WIS with voter registration cards, et al.
They also do not fully explain how this phenomena is not the typical voter registration churn, or capture the intensity and enthusiasm likely to occur among Reps this year because of anger over the CBS fraud, the over the top hatred of President Bush, Kerry’s trashing and unpopularity with the military, etc.
My advice to Kerry supporters: Believe the NY Times at your peril.
To win, Bush must carry Ohio. Similarly, Kerry must take PA. to win. The question then might be, is Ohio more within the reach of Bush than PA is within the reach of Kerry?
Seems to me that Kerry must put more resources into PA to assure a win. Once he’s sure that the Keystone State is safely locked up, he can make his move on Ohio. The sooner he locks PA up the better his chances overall.
My biggest concern is the one someone mentioned: The lengths to which Republicans will go to reject Democratic voter registration. Republicans are notorious for doing such things to gain advantage, since they know they can’t win heads up.
El Guapo, you were great in THE THREE AMIGOS.
Regarding the comment above about the GOP skullduggery in rejecting new voter registrations….
OK, I agree that the GOP will stop at nothing to win this. But, at least in Pennsylvania, when you register to vote it’s not a mystery whether or not your application has been accepted or not. You get a voter registration card in the mail. So it’s not like you show up on election day and they can say, “Oops, sorry. You’re not on the rolls.”
OK…they’re Republicans…they cheat…so they COULD say that. But people who have just registered need to follow-up to make sure their applications went through and thus minimize the likelihood.
Sep 26
Rasmussen has a Bush only +1 in the horserace.
FL Kerry +1; MI K +4; MN tied; OH Bush + 4; NV tied.
A trend? We’ll see. Rove is dragging his feet on debate #1. Trying to raise expectations? Who would imagine?
Ethan, you hit upon something that I’d been mulling over myself for a while. If the popular Time/Gallup polls now show the race tightening (which they do) and they still oversample Republicans (which they do) then there can be only one conclusion:
Kerry pulls off an upset in a few “red” states.
Not to jinx it, but look for Kerry wins in almost all the “true battleground” states, plus maybe even a Kerry upset in a “close red” state (like VA, NC, or AR).
Plus the NY Times had an article showing registration in Dem-leaning counties was 6 times the registration jump in Rep-leaning counties in OH, and with a similar Dem registration lead in FL.
And Bush is now on the defensive, having to explain his rosy Iraq comments to an increasingly skeptical public.
There is a HUGE increase in new voters in both Ohio and Florida according to the New York Times. I live in Ohio and local news media is also reporting a huge increase in new voters in Democratic areas of Ohio. Will polls catch those new voters? How do polls handle situations where there is volatility in the numbers of registered voters?
To me the most important part of that poll was not that Kerry cut Bushes lead in half, it was two of the other findings; A majority think that Iraq has made the world less safe and 60% of likely voters find Kerry likable.
Those two things tell me that we can win.
Nice observation by Gabby Hayes, sidekick to Roy Rogers whom we all love and remember dearly. It’s clear from analyses here and elsewhere that these media-bought polls are cooking the books. It’s beginning to look like deja vu all over again vis a vis 2000 with polls showing Bush up several points just days before the election. Anyone for an October surprise?
Now we have destroyer fleets of the coast of N Korea. Dare anyone suggest Bush/Rove might be manufacturing a “crisis” or “imminent threat of ICBMs from NK” ?
Film at 11.
It would appear that Scott Rasmussen and Ruy Tiexera agree in principle of the RV/LV – 2-way/3-way thing.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5283.shtml
It’s an interesting analysis Gabby. I would tend to buy high 80s or even low 90s for the Bush voters. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90% of registered voters do turn out to vote in a typical presidential election and it’s not uncommon to see slightly higer turnout for Republicans than Democrats (otherwise Democrats would win every time). But 97% does seem a little over the top.
While we’re on the subject, does anyone have any idea why Marist College’s LVs always seem to number <70% of their RVs?
BTW, wasn’t this Time poll something we were completely trashing a few weeks ago? Why would they be right now if they weren’t then?
No Gollum,
Ruys prime directive is to compare “apples to apples” – even if those apples have worms in them.
As was posted more extensively under the CBS poll story, the question will be how many of these new voter registration forms will be accepted by the Republican secretary’s of state in these battleground states, and how many will be thrown out for various technicalities like failing to check a box that you are over 18, even though you have provided your date of birth on another line. I think the Republican operative quoted in the NYT registration story has already previewed the upcoming Republican line for when these new voters are turned away at the polls on Nov 2: that the progressive voter registration groups did “sloppy work” which required all those nice new voter registrations to be thrown out by the poor secretarys of state, what a shame, etc. etc. Our opponents are quite determinedly anti-democratic and will stop at nothing to win.
Time Poll Sept. 21-23, 2004. N=1,014 registered voters nationwide, 877 likely voters.
I will now demonstrate how flawed this poll is.
According to the Time Poll, Bush has an edge of 54-42 among likely voters.
The pool of “likely voters” is 877 voters. 54% of that number is 474 “likely Bush Voters.”
Compare the pool of 1014 “registered voters.” 48% of that number is 487 “registered Bush Voters.”
So, we now know that under the Time poll, 474 likely Bush voters exist among 487 registered Bush voters.
In other words, Time is reporting that 97.3% of the registered Bush voters will vote.
Now compare the way they downsize the Kerry numbers:
Kerry has 44% of 1014, which is 446 registered voters.
But he only gets 42% of the 877 “likely voters” or 368 voters.
In other words, Time is reporting that only 82.5% of registered Kerry voters will vote.
To summarize, using their “likely voter” spin, they eliminated only 13 Bush voters, but threw out 78 Kerry voters to create a 54-42 split. That isn’t science, it’s skullduggery.
Reminder on Posting Policy
EDM does not host comments that attack other participants as individuals, rather then ideas. This is true even if the personal material represents only part of the content.
Posts that do not appear can be revised to remove such personal material and resubmitted.
This comments section is open to all points of view so long as the commenters discuss issues and ideas and express themselves in civil form.
EDM is currently evaluating other forum systems that allow for the creation of specific communities of interest (e.g. activist democrats). Look for more information after the election.
EDM Staff
I don’t see much data to suggest either giddyness or gloom. The election is still several weeks away. The dynamics will change in some way during this time. Perhaps multiple times. Be patient and effortful.
In that light, I do offer some promising information. I’ve been worrying about Pennsylvania. Using race2004.net for my state poll source, several polls right after the Republican convention mostly showed Bush in the lead. In polls dated at race2004 from 9/7-/9/15, [and not including polls from GOP or Dem organizations] Bush is up by 4% (Quinnipiac), 3% (TNS), 1% (Rasmussen), and 1% (Gallup). The race was tied per Keystone. Kerry was up in just 1 of these 6 polls (by 2%, Survey USA).
In the last 6 polls, 9/16-24, Kerry has been in the lead in 5. 3% for Opinion Dynamics and Zogby, 2% for Temple, and 1% for ARG and Mason Dixon. Bush led by 1% in the Rasmussen poll.
Kerry has to hold Pennsylvania.
And then there’s Ohio. In three of the 6 polls from 9/7 to 9/18, Bush had leads from 7-11%. Overall, these 6 averaged (unweighted) to a 5.5% /Bush lead. The last three polls have been closer, with Bush up by 4% (Opinion Dynamics), 3% (Rasmussen), and 2% (ARG).
Kerry needs to find a way to pull out Ohio. If he can get Ohio and hold all the Gore 2000 states, that would give him a 280-258 win. Kerry could then withstand losing Wisconsin and pull out a 270-268 win. [If that one Maine district were also to go to Bush, Kerry would then need to pull out one other small state, such as New Hampshire.]
There are other options. And this “only pick up Ohio” option would require Kerry either rallying from behind (2-6% in polls of the last week) in Iowa or pulling out two other small states such as New Hampshire (tied in the only poll from last week), Nevada (down 2% and 9% in the two polls from last week), or Arkansas (no polls last week, Kerry down 3% or tied the week before).
This is a very close thing this year. Keep focused and keep at it. And keep your fingers crossed for Kerry to do well this Thursday. Does anyone know how his cold is?
Sep 25
Rasmussen today has Bush only 0.6 ahead in the horserace. FL Bush +1, OH +3, PA +1, MN and NV tied. Kerry leads in MI.
And the voter reg numbers in the NY Times story is very heartening indeed.
QUESTION FOR RUY (or anyone else)
What do you make of the NYTimes article in Sunday’s pages that claims groups like ACT, etc., are kicking so much butt registering new Democratic voters. If that story is true — and the Times seems to have done exhaustive number crunching — then it would suggest that not only are the party ID weights misguided but that they ought to be weighted even more toward Demos than in 2000.
Is it possible that the 2004 election — with all the newly registered voters, with the gazillions of Bush-haters who don’t have a landline to answer phone polls, with so many young voters outraged after seeing Fahrenheit — will completely change the polling paradigm? It’s the TIVO election, in so many ways. People pay attention to what they want to pay attention to, only answer the phone if someone they know is calling and do not fall into any currently identifiable niches.
It just seems like the pollsters are using 20th Century methods to figure out the first race of the 21st Century.
Hey, I have a question for Ruy.
Over the last few weeks, you have written about popular polls, such as Gallup/CNN and said that they have oversampled Rs as a percentage of their sample population.
In the recent days, these polls have been tightening showing a closer race with Bush still in the lead, does this mean that in a sample that is overly populated with Republicans, Bush is ahead only by a small margin? Or have they changed their samples to include more Ds?
I think the implication here is obvious, so Ruy please explain this before I get giddy and wrongly warm myself to the thoughts of an election day landslide for Kerry!
Now the questions are: Will the media report this with the same zeal as they did the polling data of two weeks ago? What will the administration do to divert attention away from a “come back”-oriented story line in the press?
Also, an interesting story in the NYTimes about the onslaught of new voters registering in key states:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26vote.html?hp
Now…will they make it to the polls? Will the polls accept them?
This time: Likely voters reported party identifications are: 36% Republican, 31% Democratic, 24% Independents. Registered voters party affiliations are: 36% Republican, 30% Democratic, 24% Independent.
The 9/10 poll: Likely voters reported party identifications are: 34% Republican, 35% Democratic, 22% Independents. Registered voters party affiliations are: 31% Republican, 32% Democratic, 26% Independent.
Am I missing something? More Republicans, fewer Dems and the margin is still cut in half.
I don’t believe that Nader has support as high as 5%, which makes me disbelieve the rest of the poll.
BTW, wasn’t this Time poll something we were completely trashing a few weeks ago? Why would they be right now if they weren’t then?
It boggles my little mind. Who are they polling? I can’t believe that Bush fatigue has simply vanished.