John Kerry Leads George Bush 49-47 percent of nation-wide LV’s, according to a Democracy Corps Poll conducted 10/20-21. The Poll also found that Kerry leads Bush 52-45 percent of LV’s in Battleground states and has a 50-41 percent lead among Independent LV’s.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 21: Don’t Dismiss the Power of Inflation Politics
All the talk of renewed inflation brought back some terrible memories for me, and I wrote about them at New York:
When I was a freshman college debater at Emory University in the fall of 1970, the national debate topic was not Vietnam, but the desirability of wage and price controls. Little did we know that just months ahead a Republican president would impose a wage-price freeze, long the anti-inflationary prescription of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But the surprise known in financial circles as the “Nixon shock,” nearly a half-century ago (on August 15, 1971) showed how pervasive the fear of inflation — running at just over 5 percent in 1970 — had become.
That’s ancient history now, even to those of us who remember the double-digit inflation of the late 1970s, and the particularly horrid scourge of “stagflation” (high inflation and unemployment simultaneously). Inflation seems to have been tamed by wise monetary policies. The periodic warnings from 21st-century conservatives that low interest rates and federal budget deficits would create inflation didn’t much bother me. It was like hearing an old priest chant a forgotten litany in a lost language — just one among many ritualistic arguments for the tight credit and reactionary social policies these people favored instinctively as a sort of class self-defense posture.
The current surge in consumer prices doesn’t necessarily change that picture; the current post-pandemic (we hope) economic environment was sure to produce a spike in wages and prices that cannot be projected into a future where something approaching normalcy will surely return (though the real-estate bubble is indeed troubling). But now I am beginning to hear echoes of the inflation panics of the not-so-distant past, which make me tremble.Like Tim Noah, I suspect there may be a generational lapse in understanding the politics of inflation:
“I don’t care to be condescended to by a bunch of Gen Xers and Millennials about my ’70s-bred fear of inflation. It feels too much like the condescension we Boomers directed toward Depression babies whenever they warned us that we were playing with fire in deregulating the financial markets. Poor dears, we thought, traumatized for life by the 1929 crash and one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
“The Depression babies turned out to be right, of course.”
Noah makes it clear he’s not arguing inflation per se is bad for the economy. It is, however, bad for progressive politics, and not just because “stagflation” probably killed the Carter presidency and ushered in the Reagan era far more than the Iranian hostage crisis or other better-remembered Democratic foibles. The deflationary economic strategies of the 1980s weren’t called “austerity,” but rather a corrective for undisciplined policies that fed wage and price spirals which in turned hammered the value of savings, the living standards of those on fixed incomes, and the political case for federal domestic spending.
Most lethally for progressivism, the conservative supply-side tax-cutting when combined with inflationary fears can create enormous pressure for public disinvestment and the shredding of safety nets (which is why reactionaries happily labeled the intended result “starving the beast”). We are still living with some of the long-term consequences of anti-inflationary backlash. As Noah points out, California’s Proposition 13 ballot initiative in 1978 and similar “tax revolts” were a by-product of price spirals that boosted tax assessments on property and income alike.
But sometimes lost in an examination of the right’s exploitation of inflation fears is the abiding fact that the left has no clear prescription for dealing with it, either, other than by denying its existence or significance (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly). Ironically, that was made most evident by the supposedly illiberal Richard Nixon’s surprising use of the great liberal instrument for taming inflation.
The veteran ex-conservative economic and political analyst Bruce Bartlett has penned an exceptional explainer on the background and consequences of the “Nixon shock,” particularly its international dimensions, and the role played by Treasury Secretary John Connally, who like his boss and ally Nixon was more focused on short-term politics than on long-term economic realities. What’s clear is that Nixon was convinced a recession induced by the Eisenhower administration and its Federal Reserve Board appointees designed to kill inflationary pressures also killed his 1960 presidential candidacy. As prices spiked in 1970, he was terrified the same thing could happen in 1972.
Nixon had inherited (and temporarily extended) an income-tax surcharge from LBJ that was designed to pay for the skyrocketing costs of the Vietnam War, but its effects were limited. So with his signature televised bombshell reveal (the one he deployed a month earlier to announce his trip to China), amid great secrecy, Nixon rolled out a combo platter of initiatives to fight inflation and international economic instability. They included a suspension of fixed currency exchange rates and the convertibility of the dollar to gold (to head off a raid on gold supplies triggered by a British demand for a major conversion); an import surcharge (to prevent a worsening of the trade balance); and most significantly for most Americans, a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to be followed by an indefinite period of controls by federal panels.
As political theater, Nixon’s speech announcing a “new economic policy” was, well, Nixonian. He began with dessert: an assortment of tax breaks and job-creation incentives balanced by mostly unspecified spending cuts; only then did he mention the wage-price freeze. After promising to “break the vicious circle of spiraling prices and costs,” Nixon moved on to his international proposals, which he downplayed as “very technical,” while assuring viewers that “if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.”
Nixon’s wage and price controls were initially very popular (as polls had told the White House they would be) and did indeed hold down inflation through the reelection year of 1972, when Nixon won his famous landslide reelection over poor George McGovern, in part by goosing federal appropriations to create a mini-boom. By then the administration had moved on to a more discretionary system for regulating wage and price increases, which generated rumors of employers currying favor with generous donations to CREEP (the Committee to Reelect the President), the notoriously corrupt operation heavily complicit in the Watergate scandals that brought down the Nixon presidency. Between the suppressed and eventually unleashed inflationary pressures and the oil-price shock Nixon’s international economic policies helped create, the country paid a very high economic price for the brief respite from inflation the wage-price freeze earned him. He sowed the wind with even greater inflation, and his successors Gerald Ford (whose feckless “Whip Inflation Now” campaign was widely mocked) and Jimmy Carter reaped the whirlwind.
Before you dismiss these events from 50 years ago as irrelevant, consider how much Nixon’s short-sighted approach sounds like something President Donald Trump might have done if inflation had became a political problem during his tenure (or in, God help us, a future term). Indeed, any president mulling Nixon’s choice of recession-inducing fiscal or monetary policies might be tempted to resort to the easy-to-understand, if dangerous, strategy of wage and price controls in which the pain is mostly back-loaded, particularly in or near an election year. Old folks remember how it preceded Nixon’s landslide 1972 win, followed by a decade of economic pain and multiple decades of political misery for progressives.
Jim J:
Michael Jordan publicly supported Bill Bradley in 2000. I don’t have any other information on his past and current political activities.
“The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.”
Obviously, people don’t like to admit they voted for the “loser” (even when the “loser” actually won).
Bush has been in the White House for the last 4 years, so many people remember voting for him who didn’t.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
Posted by James E. Powell at October 24, 2004 04:06 AM
==========================
oversampling Bush 2000 voters
IMO
DemDude :
I list polls from latest to earliest and do not count any from earlier than the 17th.
Also, I try to look more heavily at the ones that depict the situation of Nader being on or off the ballot accurately for the state.
Iowa:
Strategic Vision (GOP poll) shows Bush with a 1 point lead there (48-47)
Zogby with Nader shows Kerry up (48-51)
Mason Dixon shows Bush up 6 49-43.
M-d has been leaning heavily to Bush.
CONCLUSION. BUSH ISN’T UP 6. Look at the first number in each of these 49,48,48. That’s bad for the incumbent. Even M-D shows a bad # for Bush. Up 6 just doesn’t jibe. They’ve played with the definition of “Likely Voter” here most likely undersampling Kerry voters) Had they had Bush over 50, I might trust the up 6 a bit more.
Of the polls without Nader we have
Rasmussen Bush up 2 48-46
Central Surveys Kerry up 1 45-46
Strategic Vision Tie 46-46
Zogby Kerry up 48-51
(I dropped a Susa poll because even SUsa has changed it’s numbers 3 times.)
But even counting Susa’s poll Race.com projects Iowa within 5,000 votes. It’s definitely IN PLAY AND TOO CLOSE TO CALL.
Arkansas:
Polls with Nader (he’s on the ballot)
Opinion Research. Tie 48-48
Zogby Bush 50-48
Only polls this week with Nader on the ballot.
Usually 50 is the magic number. This appears a bit harder than Iowa.
Polls without Nader
Zogby Tie 49-49
Susa 51-46
Race 200’s projection model at the moment there has it within 300 votes!!! 300 votes!!! Send the Big Dog Boys!!! But given Bush over 50 in a couple polls, this one is actually going to be a bit harder than Iowa IMO.
Co: Cirulli Bush 48-42
Zogby Bush 49-48
Rasmussen Bush 50-45
Gallop, 51-45
Colorado is clearly an uphill fight but there’s some close races downticket there that are really close that Kerry can have an impact on. Plus, he can hit Nevada (Polls show the race closing there and New Mexico, pretty safe for Kerry, on the same trip.)
As to NC.
Rasmussen 51-45 Bush
Zogby 51-47 Bush
Susa 50-48 Bush
Only polls this week The Race.com model projected about a 200k Bush lead.
Not that Polls or Projections are completely accurate, It’s all about GOTV, GOTV, and NC is worth some effort, but the indication here is that NC will be a more difficult target than any of the other states you listed.
But I’d like to see him come down south. I’d make the drive over to R/D/CH just to see him. It really wouldn’t hurt to make a whistle stop in his travels between Florida and Ohio Would it???
Well, I don’t think that the Republican party as it is now could nominate a Pataki or a Guliiani. Those guys are too centerist for the right wing core.
I haven’t seen anything on what’s happening in the Colorado referendum on the allocation of electoral votes. The outcome could mean a crucial 4 EVs for Kerry. Does anybody have any info on how it’s looking?
Good article on front page of LA Times today about newly registered voters and how they might (or might not) affect the election.
You are assuming MJ is a Democrat. Do we know this to be true? Frankly I would tend to doubt it. He loves his money too much.
Obsessives (self included),
At some point you “just need to believe” – we all know we can find information on the web to assure or assail our desires. Someone mentioned “having a beer with Bush” — Yikes! First, you would need to be prescreened and agree to drink Coors – not on your life.
I too have had some peptic upset with Zogby, however, I am certain he will provide assurances as we move forward. I suspect today’s numbers will have us all a twitter. Relax and make sure to work on GOTV. Sanity will win out over Bush.
Jody
As something to demonstrate the subjectiveness of “Likely voters” there’s an article on Harris’s website today that says “Bush up by 8, or 2, depending on your definition of Likely Voter”.
Turns out if you include everyone who says they will “certainly vote”, Bush leads by 2 points. If you discard people aged 18 to 24 who were old enough to vote in 2000 but didn’t, Bush’s lead is 8 points.
LVs can’t be trusted as different pollsters have different definitions.
It’s been said before, but it needs to be said again. Kerry needs to squeeze in a visit to NC, which never makes the battleground state lists, but where he is closer to winning (down 3) than IA ( -6), CO (-7) and AR (-5), according to most recent polls. These three states all have less than half of NC’s electoral votes (15) and they don’t have a homeboy on the ticket. I suggest Kerry-Edwards work the Black turnout in Charlotte and/or Wilmington, maybe take along former tarheel Michael Jordan to generate some excitement.
I would be interested to know how Democracy Corps screens for likely voters. Because the Gallup Poll seven question screen effectively eliminates first time voters. According to Gallup if you didn’t vote last time, don’t vote regularly and don’t know where your polling location is (just three of the seven criteria) you are ipso facto not a Likely Voter. Which effectively eliminates any non-anal voter under the age of 22. I remember my polling location because I voted there last time (see questions 1 & 2), but I have moved frequently and have never worried about the possibility of not finding it in my new location. Indeed I am not sure how a first-time voter could even find that information out weeks before the election without a trip to the County Courthouse.
LV vs RV never hit the radar screen until the Times/Newsweek double-digit Bush lead took the Blogosphere by storm. And the emphasis since then has been on Republican over-sampling. But I looked at the screening criteria and said “Man, they are pretending like Rock the Vote and Howard Stern don’t even exist”.
I firmly believe the long mythical young voter/new voter is going to show up this time. So if other polling outfits are using a screen similar to Gallup’s for their LVs they are measuring waves in the lagoon and missing the breakers crashing on the reef.
I am curious about something that I have seen in several polls, and in Democracy Corps polls more than once.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
There are always differences between the polls. This year the race is close and some show Kerry with a small lead and others show Bush with a small lead.
If one was comfortably ahead of the other, the polls would still differ with each other but they would point to the same “winner.”
Anybody know what’s up with the Honolulu Advertiser poll out today saying Bush up by .7 in Hawaii?
Remember… John Zogby outright predicted John Kerry would win the election last week. It’s in an article posted on his website.
I used to wonder why everyone always said it had to be a southerner to win the election. Now I understand… the democrats have to be able to peel a couple of those southern states away to be competitive. Imagine how much easier this would be with some southern states in play. I hope the republicans don’t wise up and start nominating NY Republicans like Guiliani or Pataki. Imagine trying to do this without NY.
As an aside I’d like to say it makes me mad that Bush is in this because of the “I’d like to have a beer with him” factor. Yea, I have a lot of friends I like to have beers with, but I wouldn’t vote for any of them for president. I wish more people could see beyond this.
As another aside, I’d like to say as a New Yorker, this is the first time I’ve ever been rooting for the Boston Red Sox. Good win tonight!
Justin
I wonder how much an impact Clinton can have.
Assuming Clinton can make a limited number of appearances, it is best for him to go to campaign rallies or would it be better for him to appear on Oprah, Leno or Larry King?
I’m not in a swing state, so I may be biased, but I would love to see the Big Dog on national television talking about his recovery and talking up Kerry.
But I would be satisfied if one of you fancy pollsters would explain why local news events in swing states can be more helpful than national appearances.
It’s all a matter of mental toughness. Fellow Dems need to stay frosty and keep working. You don’t see the Repubs getting all squirrelly when things get tight . . . we shouldn’t either Be prepared for anything. As long as Bush’s approval ratings stay low, Kerry is in good shape.
And help get out the vote!!
If I survive the anxiety bred by the uncertainty of this period and see John Kerry inaugurated as the 44th POTUS, it will be largely due Emerging Democratic Majority. Ruy Teixeira’s sanity keeps hope alive.
But I continue to be confused and troubled over the disparities between polls. I LOVE the Democracy Corps Polls because they put Kerry ahead. Of course I accept their results as the true picture. Yet a rolling poll published by Zogby/Reuters this morning Reuters had Bush up by 2 points. I hate Zogby/Reuters! How can there be so such differences between polls?
I am confident that the discrepancies in the polls this year will be fodder for survey experts for years to come.