July 28: Some Basic Realities For Democrats on Voting Rights
Watching an intra-Democratic argument on voting rights strategy intensify in Washington, I offered some advice to both sides at New York:
There has been an underlying disagreement within the mostly Democratic coalition favoring voting rights that was nicely captured in this New York Times report on Friday:
“A quiet divide between President Biden and the leaders of the voting rights movement burst into the open on Thursday, as 150 organizations urged him to use his political mettle to push for two expansive federal voting rights bills that would combat a Republican wave of balloting restrictions … In private calls with voting rights groups and civil rights leaders, White House officials and close allies of the president have expressed confidence that it is possible to ‘out-organize voter suppression,’ according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.”
Both sides in this argument are partly wrong. Those who expect Joe Biden to force the For the People Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act through the Senate via some major revision in the ability to filibuster are probably expecting the impossible. Yes, perhaps if Biden personally and insistently and abrasively lobbied Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema to abandon her very consistent defense of the filibuster, up to and including encouragement of a primary challenge to her when she is up for reelection in 2024, she might decide her current and very insistent independent-maverick “branding” isn’t going to keep working for her. But Joe Manchin? He would be thrilled to get attacked by a Democratic president or Democratic advocacy groups for insisting that he won’t support voting-rights measures unless at least some Republicans support them. His state is so very red that the threat of a primary challenge to the sole remaining successful West Virginia Democrat is a laugher.
Short of a nuclear attack on West Virginia, it’s hard to identify anything Biden might do to Manchin that wouldn’t run a high risk of backfiring. And he does need Manchin on the reconciliation bills Democrats are using to get around the filibuster to enact Biden’s social and economic agenda. It’s just too bad voting-rights bills don’t qualify for reconciliation.
Yes, it is intensely frustrating that Biden cannot bring himself to come out forthrightly for filibuster reform, but it probably doesn’t matter since it is not happening unless the Democratic Senate Conference gets bigger, making senators like Manchin and Sinema irrelevant on the subject. So at some point voting-rights advocates need to focus on that goal.
At the same time, White House claims that Democrats can “out-organize voter suppression” are partially wrong as well. Yes, restrictive provisions like voter-ID requirements, limits on voting by mail, and even voter-roll purges can be countered and perhaps overcome by intensive efforts to educate and energize the voters Republicans are trying to keep from the polls. But you cannot out-organize a partisan gerrymander, or a law that lets election officials or state legislators overturn the outcome of an election after votes are cast.
Voting-rights advocates will eventually have to play the cards dealt to them by the system as it currently exists. That means refraining from too much anger aimed at Democratic pols who have little choice but to concede defeat on some legislation and concentrate on legislation (i.e., those reconciliation bills with many items vital to the people whose voting rights are also under attack) they can enact with no margin for error in the Senate and little in the House. At the same time, Biden and his staff and Democratic “pragmatists” in Congress should never for a moment be cavalier about the legislative obstacles they face in defending democracy itself. They may have to accept a tactical defeat on voting rights in this Congress. But they should never, ever, give up on making it happen later if not sooner.
Stephen,
I wish I could say. I know that they lean conservative as a site. I believe that they use a pretty consistent rule for deciding what poll gets included. I found it somewhat unsettling that the ICR poll got included only when it showed Bush leading more than any other concurrent poll. I read their site, http://www.pollingreport.com, http://www.race2004.net, http://www.electoral-vote.com, http://www.electionprojection.com, and http://www.cookpolitical.com, as well as this site. Then I try to come to a common conclusion across these sites. It’s clear that all show the race to be close. Jeff’s point on another thread about turnout seems right on target. Beyond that, I think there are others here far more expert than I on such matters.
In the meantime, enjoy a pint of someone’s best bitter for me. There’s nothing quite like it.
A question from London. Watching your polls in the Us with great interest. Can you give me an assessment of the way in which the realclearpolitics website posts polls. Are they, as they say, ‘seekers after truth’, or are they biased, conscious or not?
Best,
Steohen H.
It’s a conservative site, but realclearpolitics has a nice analysis of the state of the electoral vote.
For Kerry, it’s all about Ohio, with New Hampshire and Nevada as secondary targets. They miss Colorado, either by outright win or by referendum getting him 4 votes.
For Bush, the targets of opportunity are Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Maine’s more conservative district.
They given Florida to Bush and Pennsylvania to Kerry, for now.
Per this analysis, for Kerry, losing Ohio means he has to get New Hampshire, Nevada, and some Colorado votes, while holding New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
If he wins Ohio and New Hampshire, even if he loses Wisconsin and the Maine district, Kerry wins, if he can hold Iowa and New Mexico.
So…it seems time to focus on Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Maine.
In the back of my mind, I see some opportunity for Kerry in Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida, and some danger in Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
All I am going to say is that in doorknocking and registering voters. I have reached and registered people without phones who are adamantly opposed to Bush.
If the dems turn those voters out to vote GWB should be very very afraid on Nov 2……
Gallup would never try to develop a model to sample the phoneless…
Post Debate 2: We did well enough to keep the Big Mo’ so let’s keep at it. GOTV is crucial. So enjoy the post debate glow, and if you have not done so already, sign up for GOTV drives.
SJ-
Sorry, I fail to see the problem with choosing a sampling from people who watched the first debate. Anymore than I fail to see the problem with sampling only people who watched either one of the debates, no matter what the outcome of either one. It’s just as valid an assumption that people who watch the debates are likely voters than any criteria Gallup is using. What seems to be your main gripe is not the methodology, it’s that it shows Bush doing worse than all of the other polls (except those you arbitrarily dismiss as “partisan”).
But all of the polling shows that even a majority of Republicans felt Kerry did better in the first debate, so it does not defy reason that Kerry would score somewhat higher with the subset of people who watched that debate. Likewise, if Bush did better in that debate it would likely show him doing better overall than other polls that did not only sample that subset. I doubt that Ipsos knew going into their polling that Kerry would “win” the debate, but conspiracy theorists might believe that.
ARG and Zogby are Dem polls? I must’ve missed that. BTW, go ahead and ignore the AP poll if you want. Every other poll shows the race basicallly tied and Kerry with all the momentum. Tracking polls have him gaining, and even the Time poll that had Bush up 12 a month ago has it tied.
As for state polls, that poll for Colorado you dismiss is by Gallup, which is hardly pro-Dem. And most of the states Mr. Abramowitz cites have multiple polls, which he averages, hardly a Dem conspiracy tactic to boost Kerry.
The race is far from over, but Kerry’s debate performance has changed the dynamic, at least in the short term. Anyone who can’t see that is in denial.
Smooth: I suppose you also wouldnt change a thing about Iraq and that the economy is turning a corner. Are all of you in complete denial?
What happened to MO, NV, OR, & WV? These four states also appear to be swinging.
Jazz’s comments are somewhat valid, but let’s limit the reposting of an entire link.
-DS
There is no question, despite the protestations of Smooth Jazz to the contrary, that Kerry is on a roll. Smooth Jazz discounts as partisan polls that give him bad news like Zogby. Smooth Jazz should be aware that Zogby called both the 96 and 2000 elections accurately. While showing Kerry ahead in the battleground states Bush has a 1 point lead in the popular vote. Instead of trying to go to great lenghths to debunk polls that he doesn’t like he should go back to the right wing web sites and figure out what to do about it. It seems to me there is only one valid point to make about these polls and it comes out on the Democratic side: If the reports about new registrations are accurate in Democratic areas of battleground states and a reasonable number of these new voters turn out, pollsters just may be UNDERESTIMATING support for Kerry. Whatever the argument we will find out for sure on Nov. 2nd providing ALL legitimately cast ballots are counted this time.
Jazz, there’s some food for thought here. However, one word: hyperlink. Learn it. Live it. Embrace it.
Smooth Jazz-
That’s potentially interesting news on Ipsos. I went to the website, but would have to pay to actually use it.
As you point out, there report comes from a Bush partisan, so perhaps should be taken with of salt, though I’m sure he worked very hard at it.
It’s particularly interesting to me that he only selected 6 polls to look at as the non-Ipsos. At the RealClearPolitics site, I see 10 polls conducted post-survey, using a 3-way race. From these, I get a Bush lead of 48.0-45.9, which is a bit closer than the author’s 49.2-45.5. He wouldn’t by any chance be inclined toward cherry-picking would he? I’m perfectly willing to believe that Bush is up by 2.1% at this point. In fact, if I add in the two Ipsos polls (using two-way numbers from the AP one, since they seem not to have gone three-way), only narrows it to 47.6-46.3. If he’s interested in fighting over a difference of less than a percent in the Bush lead, he should be my guess. Seems like a sign of desparation to me, though.