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.
zogby poll out saturday will have kerry up 2 in fla.
I live in Milwaukee–and have for the better part of 50 years. Sen. Russ Feingold (“McCain-Feingold”) is running for a third term against an opponent that is far right (to give you an idea how far: no abortion for ANY reason, period) and will win a relatively easy victory. I cannot imagine there will many “Bush-Feingold” ballots. The 4th Cong. District that is essentially the City of Milwaukee has an African-American woman as the Dem. nominee. Of course, this will spur voter turnout in the Milwaukee inner-city.
As far as zeitgeist is concerned, yesterday Kerry had the biggest political rally in state history in Madison, and the Milwaukee Journal (the state’s largest newspaper) endorsed Kerry in a long editorial. There is much more. But, Wisconsin is a state that I know well, geographically and politically. Kerry doesn’t get a free ride, he has to earn his votes. But, I just don’t see it happening for Bush. If, despite everything, Bush somehow wins Wisconsin, then simply color this state “red” for future elections. There is NO reason to believe this is the case.
My only fear is that Most of the states in play seem to be traditional Democratic ones. If Kerry takes the four then great (he could even lose Hawaii and one of the Maine districts and still hit 270 on the nose). But just losing one of FLOHPA makes the matah really tough. I’m not saying he can’t/won’t win, it’s just the battle seems to be uphill. Trying to keep my chin up though.
Wisconsin is turning out to be key.
Bush’s strategy is to take Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, figuring they will probably lose in Ohio and Penn.
The Wisconsin polls look slightly better for Bush right now, although I don’t think slightly better is good enough to carry it for him in a big turnout election. The point is, it’s a very strategic battleground state.
Back to national polls for a moment. For my course (I am a political scientist) I compiled data on the national horse-race going back to April. While trying to pick trends out of this polling data is risky, given how much the polls diverge from one another, something interesting seems to be happening.
If you graph over time the share of the two-party preference (i.e. throwing out undecideds and third-party supporters) that Bush is getting in the RV polls, the two candidates are getting closer to parity in the last week.
But if you go by the incumbent’s share of all RV respondents (i.e. including undecideds and others in the denominator), Bush is getting closer to 50%.
In other words, if these are real trends–a big if–the chances that Bush could win the popular vote are increasing. But, paradoxically, the race is simultaneously tightening, meaning a split of the popular and electoral vote could be getting more likely. All the more so given Kerry’s lead in state polls of several key battleground states that we have seen posted here.
The graphs I refer to are at http://irpshome.ucsd.edu/faculty/mshugart/pmp/links.html, at the link entitled “2004 polls update.”
While all this information looks good in favor of Kerry, we have to remember that there are even flaws as of now with Florida. Lets cross our fingers they can get it right this time
Any new numbers about the north central states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa? I think Kerry can be still have the edge without Iowa, but the other two have me nervous.
This late news from Hawaii is troubling too. What’s up with that?
No one’s panicking here, just curious.
Wisconsin? What about Wisconsin?
Kerry can take OH, PA, MI, and still lose without Wisconsin.
(And the Dems are spending $250,000 this weekend in … Arkansas.)
Hope you’re right about Florida .. and that Dems’ votes get counted there this year!
I noted the source for all data here is pollingreport.com. The LA Times web site has an interactive map based on pollingreport.com data. (I think, but may be wrong, that gives non-members access to their members only state-by-state polling data.) The map is a lot of fun because you can color it in based on most recents polls in each state or based on your obsessive desire to see this destructive, arrogant, insular administration bounced out of the White House. When John Kerry gets to 270 it plays “Hail To The Chief.” It is at least as much fun as “How Can Gallup….”
So, if the incumbent’s lead holds in FL, it would seem that the the race comes down to WI (and perhaps even HI)?
Can one of you smart stat-heads put this talk about Hawaii to rest? …. Gore won by 20 or so points in 2000 … I simply do NOT believe that W is ahead…. I’m sure there is some kind of major flaw in this polling…. Any details?
Thanks!
eg
are the average of the polls weighted for sample size?
would it not make sense to add all the samplings together for a state and then determine percentages?
[or are all samples exactly the same size?]
would it make a difference?