An American Research Group poll of 20 states conducted September 7-13 shows John Kerry leading among LV’s in 4 out of 5 designated “swing” states, ME, MN, OR, and WA, with Bush leading only in CO by 1 percent. The polls also indicate Kerry is maintaining substantial leads in “blue” states.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
September 20: Tim Scott Wants to Fire Strikers Like Reagan Did
Reading through the ambiguous to vaguely positive remarks made by Republican pols about the historic auto workers strike, one of them jumped off the page, and I wrote about it at New York:
One of the great anomalies of recent political history has been the disconnect between the Republican Party’s ancient legacy as the champion of corporate America and its current electoral base, which relies heavily on support from white working-class voters. The growing contradiction was first made a major topic of debate in the 2008 manifesto Grand New Party, in which youngish conservative intellectuals Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argued that their party offered little in the way of material inducements (or even supportive rhetoric) to its emerging electoral base. Though Douthat and Salam were by no means fans of Donald Trump, the mogul’s stunningly successful 2016 campaign did follow their basic prescription of pursuing the economic and cultural instincts of white working-class voters at the expense of doctrinaire free-market and limited-government orthodoxy.
So it’s not surprising that Trump and an assortment of other Republicans have expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the unionized autoworkers who just launched a historic industry-wide strike for better wages and working conditions. But there was a conspicuous, even anachronistic exception among nationally prominent GOP politicians: South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott. As NBC News reported:
“It’s the latest of several critical comments Scott has made about the autoworkers, even as other GOP presidential candidates steer clear of criticizing them amid a strike at three plants so far …
“’I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike. He said, you strike, you’re fired. Simple concept to me. To the extent that we can use that once again, absolutely.’”
Scott’s frank embrace of old-school union bashing wouldn’t have drawn much notice 40 or 50 years ago. And to be clear, other Republicans aren’t fans of the labor movement: For the most part, MAGA Republicans appeal to the working class via a mix of cultural conservatism, economic and foreign-policy nationalism, nativism, and producerism (i.e., pitting private-sector employers and employees against the financial sector, educational elites, and those dependent on public employment or assistance). One particularly rich lode of ostensibly pro-worker rhetoric has been to treat environmental activism as inimical to the economic growth and specific job opportunities wage earners need.
So unsurprisingly, Republican politicians who want to show some sympathy for the autoworkers have mostly focused on the alleged threat of climate-change regulations generally and electric vehicles specifically to the well-being of UAW members, as Politico reported:
“’This green agenda that is using taxpayer dollars to drive our automotive economy into electric vehicles is understandably causing great anxiety among UAW members,’ [Mike Pence] said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Other Republicans followed suit, with a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson calling out Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin — Democrats’ favored candidate for the state’s open Senate seat — for her Thursday vote allowing state-level limits or bans on gas-powered cars as choosing her ‘party over Michigan.'”
More strikingly, Trump, the 2024 presidential front-runner, is planning to hold an event with Michigan workers at the very moment his GOP rivals are holding their second debate next week, notes the Washington Post:
“While other Republican candidates participate in the Sept. 27 event in California, Trump instead plans to speak to more than 500 autoworkers, plumbers, electricians and pipe-fitters, the adviser said. The group is likely to include workers from the United Auto Workers union that is striking against the Big Three automakers in the country’s Rust Belt. The Trump adviser added that it is unclear whether the former president will visit the strike line.
“Trump’s campaign also created a radio ad, to run on sports- and rock-themed stations in Detroit and Toledo, meant to present him as being on the side of striking autoworkers, the adviser said.”
There’s no evidence Trump has any understanding of, much less sympathy with, the strikers’ actual demands. But in contrast to Scott’s remarks endorsing the dismissal of striking workers, it shows that at least some Republicans are willing (rhetorically, at least) to bite the hand that feeds in the pursuit of votes.
Meanwhile, the mainstream-media types who often treat Scott as some sort of sunny, optimistic, even bipartisan breath of fresh air should pay some attention to his attitude toward workers exercising long-established labor rights he apparently would love to discard. Yes, as a self-styled champion of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private- and homeschooling at the expense of “government schools,” Scott is constantly attacking teachers unions, just like many Republicans who draw a sharp distinction between public-sector unions (BAD!) and private-sector unions (grudgingly acceptable). But autoworkers are firmly in the private sector. Maybe it’s a South Carolina thing: Scott’s presidential rival and past political ally Nikki Haley (another media favorite with an unmerited reputation as a moderate) famously told corporate investors to stay out of her state if they intended to tolerate unions in their workplaces. For that matter, the South Carolina Republican Party was for years pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of violently anti-union textile barons. Some old habits die hard.
One of the useful by-products of the current wave of labor activism in this country is that Republicans may be forced to extend their alleged sympathy for workers into support for policies that actually help them and don’t simply reflect cheap reactionary demagoguery aimed at foreigners, immigrants, and people of color. But Scott has flunked the most basic test threshold compatibility with the rights and interests of the working class.
Dana… your take on Smooth Jazz’ particpation is correct.. Anyone reserves the right to comment, once it conforms to the guidelines as outlined by the site’s directors. If we dont enjoy the posts, then press the ignore button. Its that simple.
Also, it always good to know what the “other side” is thinking, even tho SJ might not be from the “other side”.
You cant make the conversion if you dont have the relevant information. Who knows, after his experiences here, SJ just might vote for Kerry.
“Smooth Jazz,” I just have one, off-topic question for you: Do you REALLY listen to “smooth jazz”? Say it ain’t so. As a devotee of REAL jazz, I find “jazz lite” treacley, superficial, unimaginative, and annoying.
For those people who took Smooth seriously while still helping him understand why his favorite polls are just as baked as the rest, thank you. Polling is a specious business that can only be taken with a grain of salt, and we Kerry supporters still have good reason to fight on with victory parties in mind.
For those people who tried to derail Smooth’s line of attack by chewing him out, please stop. I hope Kerry stomps Bush into the ground, but simply saying “go away” when an unfavorable poll appears isn’t going to get us there. That’s half the reason I like this site so well–it attempts to parse the bad news in a thoughtful way. I hope folks will reply to conservatives’ questions (and the occasional baiting) with a decent level of decorum and not give them ammo to ignore the good reasons we have for thinking the way we do. *off the soapbox*
More numbers to think about for the USAtoday/Gallup “poll”
51 percent of 1022 is 521.22
45 percent of 1022 is 459.9
_______________________
55 percent of 767 is 421.85
42 percent of 76 is 322.14
so they started with 521 bushies in 1022 people.
To subselect for “likely voters they cut 255 respondants (1022 – 767 = 255)
Now, if they would have kept 51 of 255 they would have
km, Here’s a link for you; Read & weep:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-gallup-poll_x.htm
Jeremy,
Thanks for your measured and reasonable response to my posting. I was attacked yesterday by a Bush Hater for asking an innocuous question; So, in response, my initial posting on this thread, regrettably, included some comments about Kerry that I shouldn’t have made.
That said, while acknowledging this is a site that is favorable to Kerry, I’m trying to determine if contrary perspectives, delivered without malice, are welcomed – Or whether this is a group therapy site for Kerry supporters who don’t want to see or hear contrary POVs.
I am not a right wing zealot – I don’t listen to Rush, I don’t frequent conservative sites, I don’t parrot the GWB line while oblivious to the bad news, etc. However, I do notice that many of these Conservative sites, even Drudge, will post polls and other news unfavorable to GWB – And at least convey to their conservative audience that all is not well for GWB when warranted.
Best Regards,
SJ
Ok, that may not be totally clear here is a summary of the Gallup poll that Drudge headlines as a “blowout” for Bush of 13 points.
Total number surveyed: 1022 and amongst these:
Bush: 51 percent
Kerry: 45 percent
6 percent favoring Bush
of 1022 sampled 935 were Registered Voters
of these:
Bush: 52 percent
Kerry: 44 percent
8 percent lead for Bush
The survey of “Likely Voters” involves a subsample of 767 of the 1022 voters (supposedly) to yeild
Bush: 55 percent
Kerry: 42 percent
13 percent lead for Bush! WTF!!!@#???
The Gallup Poll is trash, here’s why.
If you read the actual(real) numbers of their survey differed by 6 percent 45-51 to Bush. What is really interesting is that amongst registered voters(935) in this survey of 1022 people Bush leads 44 -52. The methodology doesn’t doesn’t give party ID, but it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that this poll is conducted amongst registered GOP. What is even more “odd” is that even though the registered in teh survey go heavy Bush, the “likely voter” that gets even HIGHER towards Bush, even though amongst all but 88 people in a survey of 1022 had it between 8 points and amongst all 1022 Bush only led 45-51 or 6 points! To get the “likely numbers” someone how they cut the sample to 767 respondents of the 1022 and weighted the results, to finally obtain the headline 42-55.
This is the biggest crock of a poll since…well the ones earlier this week that were also polling mainly GOP. This Gallup poll doesnt even make sense by its own methodology, the numbers don’t add. This poll ought is down right dishonest, probably an attempt to stop the Kerry mo’. Hard to see the positive from such stuff but you have to remember, “no one kicks a dead dog,” i.e. there is no reason to doctor a survey like this unless you need to.
I did a little more research into the history of the USAToday/Gallup poll during the 2000 Election. The numbers further confirm my previous post about the unreliable predictive power of the Gallup poll. On August 12, 2000, Gallup predicted Bush would destroy Gore by 55% to 39%, a difference of 16%. From late August to early October Gallup
results switched to favoring the Dems and generally showed Gore leading. On October 4, five weeks before the election, the USAToday/Gallup poll showed Gore leading Bush 51% to 40%. All of this quiclky changed a few days later (debate time) and Gallup started placing Bush in the lead again. As late as October 26, Gallup was predicting a massive Bush victory over Gore of 52% to 39%. That ‘s less than two weeks before the election and Gallup wasn’t anywhere close.
It is also interesting to note that the NEWSWEEK poll, which gave Bush a significant bounce over Kerry this September, had Gore over Bush by 10% at the end of August 2000 (post-convention) and 14% by mid-September. Unfortunately for Gore, NEWSWEEK’s double digit bounce didn’t last. I honestly don’t know if NEWSWEEK is still using the same polling company in 2004, but the 2000 results certainly don’t give me a lot of faith in the accuracy of their polling.
Speaking of the predictive power of the USAToday/Gallup Poll in the 2000 election, it is interesting to note that Gallup released a poll on September 20, 2000 showing Gore with 51%, Bush with 41%, and Nader with 3%. You can just hear Al and Joe popping the champagne corks, while Dubya and Cheney are wandering around wondering what they were going to be doing for the next four years. A mere four weeks later on October 20, however, Gallup was predicting a Bush-Cheney blowout of 11 percent – 51% for Bush, 40% for Gore, and 4% for Nader. Ten days before the election, Gallup was still predicting a Bush victory of 7% over Gore. Only in the days immediately before the election, did Gallup’s numbers look anything close to the final result. So, folks, the moral of the story is not to let tommorrow’s breathless and excited headlines on Drudge and the rest of the media about Gallup showing Bush with a 14% lead over Kerry rattle us or make us lose faith in Kerry’s victory. The Gallup results are bullfeathers – pure and simple. The reality is that this race is damn close. If Gallup make our GOP troll friends feel better, then that’s great. They’re in denial these days about pretty muchg everthing anyways …
It always amazes me when republican trolls have nothing better to do than come over here and build up themselves, are they so scared they need to vent?
So trolls here is a little education on our outlook on polls, go look at the 2000 election polls and how close they got to the actual vote numbers. ( You can do this by going to numerous sites) That is what I and many others base their opinions on. Gallup was way off and Zogby was right on target. Pew has a huge sample size which also gives me more peace of mind in regards to their results.
I have a feeling our trolls are a little scared, because deep down they remember the 2000 election when every media outlet and poll was predicting a Gore defeat, yet we all know that Gore in fact won by over a half million votes.
OK,
You have 5 polls in the last 2 days come out that show the race either tied or a 1-point difference — Harris, Pew, Democracy Corps, the Economist (that liberal rag!) and Christian Science Monitor.
Now on Drudge — and he never bends the truth or prints anything untrue — a headline with no link or backup showing a huge lead for Bush. Only two words describe this — it’s either LIE or OUTLIER.
Nice try Smooth — go have another King Cobra.
Smooth Jazz, this is a Democrat’s website. It is a little naive to think that Ruy would post polls that are unfavorable to Kerry, tho I think it would be nice to see some analysis of them.
I hope that was Smooth Jazz’s goodby statement. I lost my dinner reading his moranic garbage.
I appreciate all the manifestos, delivered with passion to be sure, but the Gallup poll out tomorrow is not the point – And neither are the Pew, ARG, et al numbers. For that matter, my point had nothing to do with national polls.
I inadvertently came across this site – and noticed the moderator only provided commentary in cases where Kerry was leading while ignoring or spinning polls favorable to GWB. So I came on here yesterday to ask a simple question.
To wit: What is the significance of reputable polls such as ABC/Wash Post, Mason-Dixon, and Survey USA showing GWB ahead in PA, MN & NJ, Gore states that Kerry has to win or he’s done. And given the Pew numbers today, add to that: How come Pew had GWB 16 up in one subsample and 16 down in another – Seems odd.
I don’t need any foaming at the mouth, Michael Moore types spewing at me; I’m just looking for a reasonable response to my question.
Why do you people waste your time responding to taunts by these trolls? Read the message at the bottom of the comment window! This site used to be a place to get information on polling issues. Yeah, it’s run by Kerry supporters. If Bush supporters want to comment fine. But if their purpose is to engage in juvenile insults and taunts don’t respond. You can get plenty of that over on lucianne.com or littlegreenassholes.
S. Jazz
I am really no analyst on polls so I wont be able to answer your queries on the subject. I am not one who stakes any claims on polls and hence I place no bets based on any poll. To me, the polls are so unscientific that they seem like taking a shot at the lottery.
Of course there are those who are experts in the field so they may take confidence in poll stats. I dont. I simply look at whats on the ground and I see a presidency that is a genuine disaster and there is no one who has disputed this to date.. no matter what the polls say.
This presidency is such a disaster that the president himself refuses to touch it with a 10 foot pole. He stays so far away from his performance in the WH, that one has to wonder who is the incumbent here.
Personally, I am amazed by anyone who would associate with the president in this campaign. Anyone who votes for this president is not being honest with him/herself and is simply stiffling conscience in order to ensure that the DEMS do not get into the WH or to block kerry for personal or other reasons.
No honest person, who has the country at heart, who wants a better world, who wants positive change in the US, who abhor lies and dishonesty, who understands the difference between arrogance, stubborness and strength, can vote for Bush.
I would like to think that you are one of such person and hence I believe that you too will vote for Kerry.
Smooth,
You should know by now not to expect consistency from this site. They use what we call situational ethics so the goalposts are liable to move around a bit.
Also, they have protective covering that makes them impervious to logical argument.
The only way to make them stop chattering is to drive a stake through Lurch’s heart on Nov 2.
4 More Years!
Smooth Jazz,
Check out the RVs in the USA Today poll. Statistically tied. Now, do a search on Gallup’s LV methodology, which most experts are now dismissing out of hand.
The race is basically tied right now; a distressing fact, given how many true conservatives will admit in private that Bush has been terrible and probably shouldn’t be reelected.
I find the analysis of polling data on this site fascinating. It’s made me think about the fact that the sample may be skewed, or some respondents might be more likely to talk to the pollster because they’re “fired up” by a convention, or that “unlikely voters” might be left out (all the virgin voters that have been registered this year.)
But I sure wish you all would quit with the SNARKY comments.
Slow Jazz has his axe to grind. Fine. As someone said recently, “Bring it on.” But the snotty tone of the posts is really getting to be a drag. I’m not only annoyed by it — I’m bored of it.
After this election we’re going to have to live together and work together. Can’t we at least try to avoid assholism where it just isn’t useful or justified?
Smooth,
Zogby, which was the most accurate poll last election, gives Bush 2 point lead in their most recent poll. But yeah, okay, if Gallup is the official poll of the 2004 election for you, so be it.
I tend to look at at least 4 or 5 polls in order to see a trend. At this point, Bush has about a 3-5 point lead, which is still within most polls’ MoE.
RE: Conflicting MN Polls
3 polls came out in two days, one using LVs showed Kerry +9, 2 using RVs showed a dead heat.
Michael Dimock, research director at the Pew Research Center, said polls that focus on “likely” voters have historically tended to favor Republicans. He said it was “unusual,” then, that Bush ran stronger in the poll based on registered voters and Kerry was stronger in the poll of likely voters.
What do these polls say? Should I just forget them all together? Little help here.
Hey Smoothie,
54% for Bush … yeah, sure, right, whatever. You really think George is going to clean up with 54%? Gallup has to be expecting a lot of Gore and Nader voters to support Dubya come November 2nd. Funny thing, though, all of the Gore voters I know of hate Bush even more than they did in 2000.
Is that the same Gallup who had a poll showing that Gore was going to lose to Bush by 7 points on the eve of the 2000 election? If you and your Uncle Karl want to put your faith in Gallup, you go right ahead. You GOPers have gotten very good at believing your own spin these days. It’s probably why Bush actually seems like he believes Iraq really is on the verge of becoming a pluralistic democracy. Too bad for you and him the American people know different … and that’s why he is going to get tossed in November.
Wake up and smell the coffee, pal, the so-called Bush bounce is dead. All of your GOP troll spin isn’t going to change that. There ain’t going to be four more years. Better get used to it.
Smooth,
Well, I’ll turn it around on you. How do YOU account for the Pew and Harris polls? I know you say they are “Democrat leaning” but what do you base that claim on?
Zogby, called the 2000 election 50%, 50%, i trust em. Go to http://www.electoralvote.com. If Kerry can hold the blue states, and pick up Nevada he will win. Even if he loses Ohio and Florida. Kerry wins Nevada because Bush is trying to put the nations nuclear waste right outside Las Vegas. Republicans get used to saying President Kerry. Finally, a real liberal who will make you republicans beg for that moderate Clinton.
Geez Smooth Jazz, it must be horrible to be so persecuted by all those evil liberals. Did they come to burn your house down again?
Anyway, as far as pollsters like Pew and Harris being “biased”, they sure weren’t biased a few weeks ago, when they have Bush up by double digits. You are as bad as the whiners at dailykos, who constantly complain about the “conservative” New York Times, and accuse any pollster of “Bush bias” when they see a poll they don’t like.
As far as I can see, the polls are just freaking whacky. Each one shows such strange and conflicting results. I think maybe something in the polling methods of at least one (or all of the pollsters) may be broken. They shouldn’t be getting such conflicting data from their surveys. Maybe they should stop calling people and just start reading chicken entrails.
Here’s the link on the latest USAToday Gallup poll:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20040916/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp
Since this is an AP (Mouthpiece for the DNC) story, the USAToday poll number is buried near the end of the article.
Kay & Bel,
Thanks for responding to my posting but here’s a news flash: GWB LEADS KERRY 54-40 IN NEW USA TODAY GALLUP POLL.
Comments??
To Smoothie,
We’ve had Mr. Personality for 3 1/2 years and look where it’s gotten us!!
Jim,
Thanks for responding to my posting, but internals from all the recent polls I’ve seen – including USA Today/Gallup, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, Time, and LA Times – show GWB shredding Kerry insofar as being a stronger leader (20 points), more effective against terrorism (20 – 30 points), Iraq (15 – 20 points), Economy (Prez ahead 5 points to even), yaddayaddayadda.
Kerry is even losing women voters for crying out loud. About the only internal that Kerry leads is the Enrironment and possibly healthcare. Whoppee, you can start cheering now.
My original question has still not been answered – The moderator & the posters on this board have very little to say about all the reputable polls showing Kerry getting cleaned out in battleground state polls, and even Gore states such as PA, NY & NJ, but a lot to say about Harris interactive polls, and Dem leaning ARG & Pew polls.
The more I hear Bush speak, the more I know he is an empty suit dolt with the personality of a lamp post or worst.
I cant imagine that on a day like today, when Iraq is vomitting like a sick drunk and blood is literally flowing down the streets that he can declare “Freedom is On The March In Iraq”. This guy seems to be a mental derelict.
The more he speaks, the more he cracks me up with silly statements. Actually, the things he say are direct insults to the american people because he implies that the people have no real idea whats happening in Iraq or the US for that matter. Gee.
There are so many nonsense statements that he has made over the past year that it amazes me to see he can still run a race and be tied or even lead Kerry.
I dont blame Kerry one bit.. I point my finger at the nuts who can put the country aside and stick with someone like Bush.. . I point my finger at the people who can be influenced by a person with such limited intelligence, low potential. A person who is so prone to failure and questionable truths. A person who steps all over his face if he dares to speak without a script.
if Bush should win this race, it would be a terrible indictment on the people of the US. How could anyone vote for a person like this? WOW!!!!
What an interesting person.
Hey Smooth, I guess Fox News is liberal too. After all, their polls have Bush with a one point lead and five points behind in Battleground States.
As far as Kerry, I personally preferred Dean. However, he’s still a smart man with some good ideas. Sure, he isn’t always exciting, I’ll admit that. But at least he’s not some Orwellian double-talker who’s intellectually lazy (and takes pride in it) and who can’t listen to reason.
Smooth Jazz,
Where have you been for the past few weeks?
Apparently you have not been analyzing the
internals in the polls. You are determined not
to allow evidence or reason to cloud your ideology.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk – When I read these posts I cannot help but thing of the old Blood, Sweat and Tears 1960s hit: SPINNING WHEELS!
Read my bytes: Pew, ARG, Harris & Zogby are like Democracry Corps; basically flaks for Kerry, and invariably will tilt their polls to buttress the guy – In effect, to keep his supporters from getting too discouraged. Besides I wouldn’t trust interactive polls by Harris & Zogby, since they are targeted at a discrete audience: subscribers to those sites, which are primarily Libs.
I still haven’t seen you comment on the ABC poll showing GWB up 3 in PA, the Mason-Dixon Poll showing GWB up 3 in MN, SUSA showing GWB up 5 in NJ & 12 in OH, and 5 in FLA. In other words, what makes ARG, Pew & Harris reliable in your view, and all these other polls showing GWB ahead in key states unreliable?. Don’t worry, you don’t have to answer; I can see your MO.
Sooner or later, the Dems will realize that they nominated an empty suit dolt with the personality of a lamp post, whose only shot is to ride the ever dwindling coterie of Bush haters.
Lets not ignore the Pew poll out today showing the race tied. It had Bush and Kery dad even. Last Friday it had Bush it had Bush up by double digits.
Also check out ARG Bush #’s in NH. Ouch!