Bush leads Kerry 45-42 and 48-40 in two polls of nation-wide RV’s conducted 9/17-21 and 9/22-26 respectively by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
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.
ok, eventhough i believe Nader will be no factor, few if any kerry or bush supporters are going to go to Nader, its going to be hippies and kids that wouldn’t vote otherwise. Also problem is that Nader is in only 32 states and may be in less than those. Polls are nationwide. Regardless looking at 3 way polls Bush is ahead by 5%. Averaing out both since many polls do both 2 and 3 way its at best a 4% race, hardly anything to be concerned about. there were several times in Sept and Oct 2000 where both Bush and Gore were 4% ahead or behind. The WP/ABC has equal number of D/R and the AP is heaily toward R.
Regardless a 3-5% gap in late Sept against a sitting president in a time of war is not that bad at all. if bush were not 5% behind Kerry would you say he might as well resign since the election is lost?
Nice try rambdan, but I have 2 points:
You cannot just look at the 2 way; Nader is in 32 states including some of the key states (ie PA & FLA) where the race is close. To just leave Nader off completely misrepresents a key dynamic in this race…Secondly, you left out 2 polls, WP/ABC & AP/IPSOS, which show GWB with a 8-9 point lead.
Kerry’s statements on Allawi were correct and needed to be said. Kerry cant be faulted if there are not enough intelligent people in the market capable of handing and digesting solid truth.
If the American people prefer to swallow chocolate coated crap, then Kerry cant be expected to take the wrap for that.
Bush has been proven over and over to be grossly incompetent, some have labelled him a blatant liar, he himself has questioned his own intelligence. If the people of America prefer this kinda person in the white house, then please dont blame Kerry for people’s lack of intelligence. People usually get the government they deserve.
Personally, I am in that crowd who says that Kerry is doing fine. He is doing, mostly, the right things and has said, for the most part, the right things.
I think Kerry has had a pretty good 14 days and I think this will be reflected in the poll stats from the coming 10 – 14 days.
Look, its the people’s choice. They decide if they want intelligence, integrity, level headed decision making, expert foreign policy decisions, rock solid domestic policies, a strong army, a quelling of terrorism as would be given by Kerry, or if they want to continue to live in fear of another 9/11, have a deficit that cant be counted on a regular scale, have insurance for a select few, continued mass murders on Iraq and plenty shadowy forms of truth, as would be continued by Bush and his cohorts.
Kerry has done enough and is doing a fine job and as such I cant think of any reason why he should beg the electorate to exercise intelligent judgment if its not there. There is really nothing that Kerry can do to make people intelligent and smart. Nothing.
I see a strong consistent figure in Bush all right — a man who said clearly that the war on terror can be won, then changed his mind, then changed it again, saying it could be won.
And what about that trip to Mars anyway ?
One word: outlier. Majority of polls all show the race is a dead heat. If Pew’s numbers are consistently all over the place, and they are known to eschew weiting by party ID, well, I think it’s pretty obvious what’s happening with their data.
I was going to point out to LL Smooth J that a busy candidate in the midst of a heated campaign can indeed by VERY tired at noon on any given day. I was going to do this until I realized that the whole point of Smooth Jazz, et al., posting here is to bog down yet another progressive site in the mud of distortion and non sequitur — an accurate description of not only George W. Bush’s campaign, but his entire presidency as well.
Hey, I have no doubt that Bush will win, even though the Gallup numbers are clearly dreck. Best of luck to all of you, even Smooth J and company, over the next miserable four years. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Four more years!
“Kerry was caught in another Whopper today: When interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, he said the “I voted for it before I voted against it” quote resulted because it was late at night and he was tired.
It turns out when he gave that speech in Huntington, WV, it was 12:00NOON.”
That’s not a whopper; if you want to see a whopper, revisit George Dubya Custer on WMD’s in Iraq (by way of Salon Magazine’s article on Bradley’s 60 Minute expose that wasn’t).
WMD’s in Iraq, now that’s a whopper!
> Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM
> who came here to, among other things, thank us
> for our sacrifice.
Some Americans don’t appreciate sacrificing our own country’s national security in an attempt to liberate others.
Seems like a conservative stance to me.
I find the Pew results somewhat disappointing, but can’t dismiss them out of hand. I do wonder why they’ve been bouncing around so much, though. Three weeks ago they had Bush up by 16 (?!) then a tie and then by three and then by eight at a time when most other surveys show Kerry either gaining or the race remaining essentially static. I don’t think that the Allawi comments had much of an effect, at least a lasting one, and their young voter results noted by a previous poster are at variance with Newsweek’s extensive poll of that age group. (But such voters are volatile and unpredictable, so maybe Pew’s right.) But maybe Pew’s onto something; the race might be more fluid and changing more frequently then most analysts think. Maybe. I don’t know.
But since I don’t know Pew’s methodology, I won’t write them off as wrong, though I don’t think they’re uniquely right, either. They’re just one more ingredient to be tossed into the stew pot of polls and analysis.
‘Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM who came here to, among other things, thank us for our sacrifice’
I think you miswrote — a man who cannot control his own country, his own capital city or even his own compound,. whose every moment is guarded by American troops, whose tenure is temporary till January came to America posing as an indepdent leader.
‘But ask yourself how many swing voters appeciated the assault against a foreign leader expressing his gratitude to us. And could this have helped to swing Pew and almost all the other most recent polls against Kerry.’
I don’t think Kerry’s comments on Allawi had any impact at all except among people who believe Allawi is Thomas Jefferson, reborn. Most people recognize he’s not a true leader and most of us also recognize brown-nosing when we see it.
And other polls haven’t shown a move away from Kerry this week either.
If I had to guess, I would put the real difference midway between these 2 numbers, which amoungs to a difference of 5 or so points. Still a lead for Bush, but not an insurmountable lead.
Btw,
Kerry was caught in another Whopper today: When interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, he said the “I voted for it before I voted against it” quote resulted because it was late at night and he was tired.
It turns out when he gave that speech in Huntington, WV, it was 12:00NOON. Some may consider this trivial, like his Christmas in Cambodia lie; But when fair minded undecided consider the ALL of Kerry’s misquotes and prevarications, they don’t see a consistent, strong, honest figure.
I can’t see how he can get any traction in polls with these kinds of misstatements.
Until we see what percent of the Pew sample was R’s, D’s, and I’s, we should reserve judgment. Andrew Kohut, a leading figure with the Pew organization, is an outspoken opponent of sample weighting on Party ID. This could just be Gallup all over again. In fact, we now know that Pew’s poll was done by Princeton Survey Research Associates, the same firm that does Newsweek’s polls (which have included disproportionate numbers of Republicans relative to turnout in the ’92, ’96, and 2000 elections).
Indeed, another poll released yesterday, by Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor (polling agency TIPP) showed Kerry leading 46-45 among likely voters.
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Man, the trolls are out today. Must be a special, “build up to the debates” campaign going on. I’m fairly happy where JK is right now. About 5 points down or so, with the debates coming. All that’s happened in the past month is Republicans and Republican leaners have “come home” before Democrats. Happens every four years. If you recall, Bush was much more than this far ahead four years ago, but then, predictably, those last 5-6% worth of marginal Democratic voters came home, and it ended up a tie. Kerry is in better position now than Gore was about three weeks out, after the 2000 debates. He’s fine.
Kerry does have some work to do. The cumulative impact of these polls, for all their biases, should tell us that people need to feel more secure about the idea of President Kerry. He still has this opportunity and ability to do so, but it’s not getting any earlier in the race. Depending upon any number of issues (real news, debate gaffes or strokes of genius, which pile of hay the debate pundits choose to eat from), things could go in any number of directions.
As for hanging the poll swings on the Allawi-Kerry news thread, I can’t agree or disagree. I just haven’t seen it come up in the places I usually visit for news. True, Dick Cheney made the claim, but I have yet to count his as an Everyman sort of figure.
Coming back to Smooth’s much-less-than-smooth characterization of Kerry, this race in some ways does boil down to the idea of putting lipstick on a pig. Bush has done a deft job of convincing the public that Kerry needs the makeup. To the extent that no candidate is perfect, Kerry has some reframing to do.
The amazing part to me, however, is that people are seriously considering voting for Bush on the rationale that although makeup could never conceal his own piglike qualities (Smooth chose the metaphor…I can only work with it), at least he’s consistently a pig. It’s not rational, but it’s the game.
On a humorous note, this all calls to mind the old Adlai Stevenson line where he was told that he could count on the vote of every thinking person in America. Stevenson replied (paraphrasing from memory) “That is good to hear, but I need a majority to win.”
put a fork in kerry, he is done.people just do not like him and unless bush makes a major flub in the debates kerry is toast. the media is working real hard to re-elect bush so the debate spin will be all pro bush unless he messes up so badly they can`t spin it.it will tighten at the end ,but the reality is this election is not tied and that bush has a solid lead.
Plenty of talk about party I.D. But in this poll, 15% of the democrats support President Bush, while only 7% of the republicans support Senator Kerry? Independents back the president by 8 points. All in all, it’s hard to rationalize these results based on faulty weighting.
The president leads among women by 3, while Vice-President Gore won their support by 11 points in 2000. Young people back the president 48-42 (Rock the Vote indeed). Clearly, Senator Kerry is having trouble holding the support of people that have traditionally backed democrats.
Wrong candidate, or wrong campaign. Either way, when you have to “reintroduce” (McCurry’s term) your candidate on September 30th, you’ve got serious problems.
Can you explain the internals of the new Pew Poll, especially their samplin of republicans and democrats. The result is worrisome, unless it has the same flawed sampling techniques exhibited by Gallup.
When I went to the Pew site, I saw no information on the realative Republican Democratic sample size.
Wow,
You guys do a good job in pasting lipstick on a pig, but only the typical cocooners will buy your spin IMO: That the 3 point GWB lead last week is comparable to an 8 point lead in the same poll TODAY. You post the 2 polls side by side, matter of factly, and without perspective, as if nothing happened between the 1 week period between survey coverage.
I have news for you, if you’re willing to listen. Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM who came here to, among other things, thank us for our sacrifice. Even Kerry flack, Joe Biden, cringed on TV while acknowledging he sought to assure PM Allawi after Kerry stepped in it.
To be sure, I know that the typical Michael “FahrenHype 911″ Moore and Whoopi ” Kiss My ___” Bush-Hating types, including many on this forum, loved Kerry’s offensive against Allawi; But ask yourself how many swing voters appeciated the assault against a foreign leader expressing his gratitude to us. And could this have helped to swing Pew and almost all the other most recent polls against Kerry.