John Kerry can make major gains among key demographic groups of discontented white voters: women blue and pink collar workers; rural voters; those under age 30; and senior women, according to a study of post-Labor Day polls by Democracy Corps reported 9/28. The study also identified other demographic groups Kerry should target for significant gains.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
April 18: Democrats Can Talk Tariffs and Foreign Dungeons At the Same Time
There’s a mini-debate among Democrats at the moment over the propriety of fighting against the deportation and imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia when other issues beckon, and I made my own thoughts known at New York:
As the story of the abduction, deportation, and detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia plays out in El Salvador and U.S. federal courts, the politics of the situation are roiling many waters. For the most part, Republicans are following President Trump’s lead in wallowing in the misery of Abrego Garcia and other deportees; exploiting unrelated “angel moms” and other symbols of random undocumented-immigrant crimes; and blasting Democrats for their misplaced sympathy for the “wrong people.” Even as Team Trump risks a constitutional crisis by evading judicial orders to grant due process to the people ICE is snatching off the streets, it seems confident that public backing for the administration’s mass-deportation program and “border security” initiatives generally will make this a winning issue for the GOP.
For their part, Democrats aren’t as united politically on the salience of this dispute, even though virtually all of them object in principle to Trump’s lawless conduct. Most notably, California governor and likely 2028 presidential contender Gavin Newsom warned against dwelling on it, as The Bulwark reported:
“Asked to comment on the ongoing standoff between Trump, El Salvador, and the U.S. judicial system, Newsom scoffed. ‘You know, this is the distraction of the day,’ he said. ‘This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it …’
“’Those that believe in the rule of law are defending it. But it’s a tough case, because people are really — are they defending MS-13? Are they defending, you know, someone who’s out of sight, out of mind in El Salvador? … It’s exactly the debate [Republicans] want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs. They don’t want to be accountable to markets today … They want to have this conversation. Don’t get distracted by distractions. We’re all perfect sheep.’”
Newsom is reflecting an ancient Democratic “populist” prejudice against non-economic messaging, which was revived by the 2024 presidential election, in which warnings about the threat to democracy and to the rule of law posed by Trump were widely adjudged to have failed to sway an electorate focused obsessively on the economy and the cost of living. And it’s true that the Abrego Garcia case arose precisely as Trump made himself highly vulnerable on the economy with his wild tariff schemes.
But the emotions aroused by the administration’s cruelty and arrogance in launching its mass-deportation initiative have struck chords with major elements of the Democratic base, particularly among those attuned to the constitutional issues involved. And it’s not a secret that even though Trump enjoys generally positive approval ratings on his handling of immigration issues, they begin to erode when specifics are polled. It’s also quite likely that whatever the overall numbers show, deportation overreach will hurt Trump and his party precisely in the immigrant-adjacent elements of the electorate in which he made crucial 2024 gains.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of communications strategies that turn message discipline into message bondage, persuading political gabbers and writers to grind away on a single note and ignore other opportunities and challenges. In the current situation facing Democrats, strategic silence on a volatile issue like immigration (which was arguably one of Kamala Harris’s problems during the 2024 campaign) enables the opposition to fill in the blanks with invidious characterizations. In politics, silence is almost never golden.
Perhaps more to the point, as G. Elliot Morris argues, there are ways to link messages on different issues that reinforce them all:
“One way to focus messaging on both the economy and immigration, for example, might be to show how unchecked executive power is dangerous. After all the most unpopular parts of Trump’s agenda — tariffs and deportations for undocumented migrants who have been here a long time and committed no crimes — are a direct result of executive overreach.
“The power that gives Trump the ability to levy extreme tariffs was given to the president when Congress expected him to be forgiving of tariffs on an individual basis as an act of diplomacy, not to plunge the world economic order into crisis. Similarly, the judiciary has said Trump’s deporting of Abrego Garcia, as well as hundreds of Venezuelans, runs afoul of multiple Court orders.”
Even if you conclude that “unchecked executive power” is too abstract a line of attack for today’s paycheck-focused swing voters, it shouldn’t be that difficult to hit two messages simultaneously, particularly since the message on Trump’s tariffs doesn’t require a whole lot of reiteration from Democrats: Voters can see it in the stock market, and soon enough they will likely see it in the prices they are paying for goods and services.
But the real clincher in persuading Democrats to take the Abrego Garcia case very seriously is this: Anything less than full-throated opposition to the administration’s joyful embrace of Gestapo tactics and un-American policies in deportation cases will undoubtedly dishearten constituents who already fear their elected officials are unprincipled cynics who won’t lift a finger to fight Trump without first convening a focus group of tuned-out swing voters. Politicians don’t have to emulate Senator Chris Van Hollen’s decision to fly down to El Salvador and meet with his imprisoned constituent to recognize that his willingness to do so was impressive and authentic. As he told my colleague Benjamin Hart in an interview earlier this week, “The issue here is protecting the rights of individuals under our Constitution … I do believe this is a place that we need to stand up and fight.” It’s hard to do anything else without shame.
I think Bush is ahead, but only by a couple of points. The country wants change, but isn’t sold on Kerry. Remember, it was only on election day 1980 that a race that was truly to close to call suddenly became a landslide for Reagan. In hte Carter/Reagan race the only pollster who got it right was President Carter’s polster Pat Caddell
Jazz
I don’t know who will win this one, but if Zogby shows Kerry ahead in a couple of weeks or more, you’d better listen to Aretha Franklin and give the Zogster r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
Find out what it means to me and roughly half the electorate.
He’s got the track record. Gallup does not.
From another jazz fan.
Another thing. Although I haven’t been too optimistic about Kerry’s chances in the past, some things have given me pause lately. The debates: Kerry’s expectations have been so lowered for these debates he can’t but exceed them. It looks like he’ll “win” no matter what happens, unless he spontaneously combusts. Secondly, Bush’s numbers seem to have mostly topped around 47%-48%. It’s almost as if he can’t get much higher. Kerry’s lower numbers may simply be a function of a de-energized base. If the debates re-energize them, his numbers will come roaring back.
Yeah, Zogby has a new poll out – Kerry has all the momentum now.
DanF, if proves they’re counting too many Republicans and not enough Dems.
I noticed something interesting about the 9/27 WaPo poll that gives Bush a 7 point lead:
Poll results by region
Bush and Cheney
East 44%
Midwest 58%
South 55%
West 41%
All 51%
Kerry and Edwards
East 51%
Midwest 35%
South 41%
West 53%
All 44%
So, if we are to believe this, Kerry leads large in the east and the west – the most populous regions of the country. The south is split very close to the “All”, so the only place that is lopsided is the Midwest. The LEAST populate region of the country. If we look at the most populated midwest states, it’s close in Ohio, but it’s a Kerry blow out in Illinois. It’s close in Michigan (but still solid Kerry lead). So what to make of this? People who live in populated regions DON’T talk to polsters.
And remember, people who live in populated regions are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Zogby just released a poll among under-30 males that does not look good for Bush. Sounds like another ripe target for Dems.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=871
To anyone and everyone who’s getting down about our chances or who’s worried, let me remind you:
Back in December 2003, Dean was said to be inevitable, and everybody had written off Kerry as the “dead man walking,” with no chance of winning.
But then, he and Edwards (also written off) clobber both of the suposed “leading” candidates in Iowa (Dean and Gephardt). When they say Kerry closes the deal they mean it.
Man, I can’t wait to see all the pollsters and talking heads who wrote off Kerry eat crow like they did last year.
Re:
“New Study Targets Key Groups for Kerry Gains”
To this non-statistician and Kerry supporter this doesn’t sound very rosy for Dems. Am I missing something?