Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendly Jared Golden of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of a Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trump’s death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
Zogby’s words before the debate were that the election was still Kerry’s to lose. After, he said that Bush’s bounce is officially over.
Like Bush, his followers argue to convince themselves, not others, that Bush is ahead.
Any pollster worth his or her salt has to know that Bush is trouble. He has so few firm voters this late. By most indicia, only 40% of the public is firm in its support of Bush, with another 6-7% weak and persuadable.
I’m 79% sure that is correct.
party weighting does make it alot close in the pew poll. With party weighting Bush is at 45.93, Kerry at 44.34 and undecideds at 9. With that tiny of a margin, and undecides at about 9, kerry is in good shape.
See the zogby thread for how i broke down the numbers.
CBS shows an even race (from down 8-9 % last week).
We don’t know how long this will last, but it seems indisputable that Kerry got a bounce out of the debate. Pew doesn’t show the bounce, and WasPost shows a smaller bounce, but overall, there is definitely a bounce. Rasmussen’s robots will probably start showing it too.
Yep, you can be a strong leader right up to the point where you turn around and see that most of your followers have defected to the smart leader.
Bill, for what it’s worth, even if Kerry wins this thing, i still expect polls to show that people think that bush is the “strong leader.” That image has been carefully crafted over a 36-month period by people who are real pros at hammering home a simple message, and repeated and repeated by an unthinking media. It’s really asking too much of most voters – who are busy, after all, leading their lives, not reading blogs – to reason through how shallow a claim it is. The best that Kerry can hope to do is dent that image, not overcome it, and i think the best way to dent it is to call a spade a spade and label Bush a liar on a regular basis from here on out….
Pew Research has Bush 48 Kerry 41, only a one point bounce for Kerry.
I know we should ignore likely voters, so we will ignore that it’s closer 49% to 44% among likely voters.
Actually, Kerry doing better among likely voters is consistent with a few other recent polls. Looks like the debates charged up Kerry base, so that’s an accomplishment anyway, if it lasts.
Meanwhile, internals still a problem for Kerry:
Changes mind too much to be commander in chief:
49% yes, 41% no
Strong leader:
Bush 57% Kerry 32%
And these next two call into question just how effective Kerry was in the debate:
Has a clear plan on Iraq:
Bush 35% Kerry 26%
Bush made major mistakes in Iraq and terrorism:
Yes 46 no 50%
Even if Party I.D. is skewed:
Bush still pulls 9% of democrats, vs 5% that Kerry pulls from repubicans. Independents 35% to 33% for Bush.
I haven’t seen the Washington Post/ABC poll being referenced here, but if the alleged 5-point Bush lead is on the mark, then that’s still a bit closer than before. It also makes it a near-outlier compared to the latest raft of polls, although whether Kerry’s debate gains will last is of course unclear. Is the Post the new Gallup? Speaking of Gallup I also wonder why Kerry does slightly better with LV’s than RV’s in their last two polls. Maybe our criticisms had an impact and they changed the LV formula, but I doubt that.
And I heard that Dan Rather (yeah, say what you will) is dropping hints about a new CBS survey that shows major change in the race (this from a firm whose polls have lately been on the pro-Bush side of the scale.) Exactly what kind of change was unspecified, but I haven’t seen anyone showing major gains for Bush over the last week or so.
I’ve got the internals at my blog:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
In short, Gallup’s latest poll is based on a party ID breakdown that almost totally reflects the 2000 exit poll turnout, and not their suspect GOP-advantage models of the last two polls. Make of it what you will, but basically there was a 16-point swing in party ID amongst those participating in their likely voter sample this time. You’ll have to decide for yourself how credible that is, and whether the problem rests with Gallup’s methodology or whether we have a highly volatile and fluid electorate, as Gallup has been claiming all along.
I just don’t find it credible that there would be such a swing in the Registered Voter poll results (Bush down from a 11% lead to a 2% lead in one week), and that there would suddenly be 8% more respondents self-identifying as Dems and 8% fewer self-identifying as Reeps in a week as compared to last week’s sample, when the only change was the first debate.
Now Gallup does say that the first debate had a huge impact, but if it did, then why does the ABC News/WashPost poll say (if in fact it does this afternoon) there was no impact, and Zogby say that Kerry got only a 2% bounce?
goethean,
Thanks for making that point on state polls. We have almost nothing post-debate on them at this point. Wait and see.
And another big of negative info….Pew is out and shows only a 1% gain (from an 8% Bush lead to 7%) among RV’s, and Bush actually gaining in LV’s, going from a 1% lead to 5%.
I got this from http://www.pollingreport.com.
Again, I expect our Republican friends to suddenly start favoring the polls they did not like a short while ago, while not mentioning at all the polls they did like a short while ago. That sort of approach is one of the best reasons to vote Democratic. Certainly it’s one of the things that’s moved me from thinking I might vote Republican 4 years ago (I didn’t) to being unable to even imagine voting for anyone Republican for a good time to come.
At this point, depending on the poll, we’re seeing anything from Kerry +3 to Bush +7. This is better than it was a short while ago, but, here’s my mantra again….close.
Go out and talk to folks to get them on the Kerry side of things, especially in Ohio.
I’m expecting that the prime outcomes of the debates will be a slight move in Kerry’s direction and a media that’s actually willing to question Bush and his surrogates rather than taking all hook, line, and sinker.
To coldeye:
I think the zogby poll is’nt really all that bad of news for kerry.
As we all know, undecides usually lean toward the challanger, and this poll has 8 percent undecided.
Bush’s job approval rating and “reelect vs.someone new” is also extremely low.
Also about half of nader voters 4 years ago switched at the last minute to gore, I believe this is likely to happen again.(especially in swing states.)
Also, those state polls don’t reflect the swift in public opinion that has taken place since the debate, almost all of them were taken wholly or mostly before the debate.
> Second, Bush still leads in the electoral vote in
> almost every poll.
>
> Posted by coldeye at October 4, 2004 01:07 PM
I don’t think that there’s been enough state polls since the debate to actually determine this.
Looks like people are on to the problem with not knowing the internal details of these things when trying to interpret the numbers. Even when using the random dialing techniques, there are reasons why you can get unpredictable, but significant voter ID biases on any give outing. For example, are urban people more likely to be away from home on weekend than rural people, do people screen calls more at different times in the week, and is this biased urban/rural. The more polls favor rural areas, the more likely to have republican bias. So, without the internals, we have no way of knowing who representative the poll is.
Let’s not even discuss the problem of assuming 55% turnout as Gallup does and weighting the data acccordingly.
“I wonder if our Republican friends will now be touting the virtues of Zogby!”
No need to wonder. See schmoojazz’s post above.
Smooth, it’s called a URL. Please post those and use exceprts to make the case, just for readability’s sake.
As for the Zogby poll, you know and I know that (a) it’s a long way to Election Day, and (b) Kerry has the momentum coming out of last week’s debate. Barring nasty surprises, it’s becoming more and more Kerry’s race to earn and win–unless, of course, one of the candidates stops to fix broken-down cars (clearly the most important quality in a leader), in which case all bets are off.
Josh Marshall is reporting the the forthcoming ABC News/Washington Post poll has Bush holding on to a measurable lead. Thoughts, Ruy? Is this a case of LVs versus RVs again?
UhOh, Looks like WP/ABC, according to KerrySpot at NRO, is about to come up with a no Kerry bounce poll – ie Bush up 5?. We shall see soon enough.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410041514.asp
KerrySpot
Oct 4, 2004
THAT NEW POLL WITH BUSH UP 5? COULD BE WASHPOST [10/04 03:14 PM]
Apparently Rush Limbaugh just mentioned a poll that should be out tomorrow showing Bush up 5.
We at NRO have heard through the grapevine that this is the ABC News/WashingtonPost poll. No specific numbers yet, though.
Why do they keep putting Nader in those polls? He’s clearly not a national candidate. Around this time in October 2000, Nader was polling at 3%, ended up at 2.7% and was on the ballot in all 50 states. Now he’s polling at 1% and is on the ballot in only 25 states, only 5 or 6 or six of which are truly tossups. Including him gives a distorted picture of the race at this point. He should only be mentioned in individual state polls where it makes a difference.
Given that the Gallup polls have been overpolling Republicans so heavily, and their methodology gives no indication that they’ve corrected the problem, is it safe to assume that Kerry is actually ahead anywhere from 2-5 points?
The post-debate Zogby phone poll is out. It shows Kerry with a 2% gain in a head to head, now trailing by 1%, but no change in a three-way, trailing 3%.
I wonder if our Republican friends will now be touting the virtues of Zogby!
It’s interesting that there was little change. But it’s also interesting that it shows this thing very close, as do the other post-debate polls.
Keep on working in prep for Nov. 2!
Internals from Gallup:
Expresses himself more clearly?
Kerry 54
Bush 41
+13 Kerry
Is a strong and decisive leader?
Bush 56
Kery 37
Bush + 19
As images from the debate fade in voters memory, isn’t it likely that voters will choose a strong leader over a strong talker?
Geez, i hate to be a negative voice in the face of good news, but the election isn’t being held today.
The dyanmic of this race has always been whether kerry could convince the majority of people who don’t think bush is doing a good job that he could do better. Between April and early August, he did that.
Then, the smear and hatefest of August took hold of the narrative, and bush edged back ahead, as the people on the margin (that is, those who don’t approve of bush’s policies but aren’t sold on the alternative) shifted back to “the devil you know.”
The debate and its follow-on (and interestingly, Kerry is now seen as having “won” the debate more decisively than in the initial polling, which suggests a dynamic in motion) now appear to have restored the status quo ante of July 31.
But we are talking about Karl Rove, George Bush, and Dick Cheney, people with a proven track record of dishonesty and smearing, and they have 5 weeks in which to redo August.
While the “global test” line of attack doesn’t seem, at least initially, to be working, they’ll back off and try another. This race is far from over.
PS. Yes, i’d like to know the Gallup internals too!
There’s nothing on the Gallup or USA Today site that gives polling internals…
Rove clearly received strong focus group polling that ads distorting the phrase “global test” would hit home with lamebrains. Professor Cole today demolishes this specious misinterpretation of Kerry’s analsis, see juancole.com, but the lie will have its hoped for effect. It’s devastating that as a result of Republican “liberal media” pressure and corporatism the mainstream media has abandoned playing any role whatever as independent watchdog over the campaigns; their abdication really permits gross manipulation and prevarication to run unchecked.
Time to come back down to earth. First of all, Zogby is out with his poll and Bush is still ahead by a couple of points. This makes four polls that have the race either even or within one or two points for either guy. Rasmussen’s tracking poll has Bush up by three.
Second, Bush still leads in the electoral vote in almost every poll. Third, there’s plenty of reason to believe that Carl Rove will pull something very sleazy in October if the race is still close. Finally, the debate on Friday should be a positive for Bush – it involves a forum where his “affability” can really shine and one he’s practiced in for the last four years.
Kerry is still the underdog in my opinion, but it’s close now, very close.
One bit of interesting news in the Zogby poll is that undecides have risen to 8%, and by a four to one margin they believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Historically in this type of situation, the undecides break in favor of the challenger on election day by large margins (if they show up to vote). So that’s good for Kerry.
I went to gallup and scanned all their content on this new poll and found nothing on the “party indentification split”. I would have to assume that their approach to panel composition is unchanged.
I think this clearly shows the debate has worked in Kerrys favor. I expect Kerry to gain on Bush even more in the next coming weeks. Hopefully Edwards will hold hiw own against Cheney tommarow night. I don’t think polls are fully accurate for many reasons and I think Kerry’s true numbers are higher than reported in any polls. Provided the absense of another terrorist attack before November 2nd or the convenient finding of Osama Bin Laden I expect Kerry to win the presidency on November 2nd.
Details!
But what are the internals?! I have learned from Ruy to look at the internals, % of Dems and Repubs, etc…Ruy talk to us! Tell us the low down!
See that? Mark my words, we’re seeing a leap similar to what Reagan experienced in 1980, where he went over the top in the final week of the campaign. Only Kerry’s going to do it in an even BIGGER way!
Thank you for the good news! If even Gallup has to acknowledge Kerry’s leap, the other polls will surely have it even bigger!
So if I understand this correctly, according to the always reliable Gallup, Kerry jumped between 8 and 10 points following the debate. If I believed Gallup in the first place those would be fantastic numbers. Following the next debate, perhaps we will see Gallup show Kerry-Edwards ahead 49-47…
Is this the same gallup poll that had Kerry trailing by 12? Is the party ID here still biased toward Repubs? If so, this is very good news for the Dems indeed. I guess the first debate went a LONG way toward turning opinions in favor of Kerry…. I can’t wait until Tuesday.
So if Gallup uses the same methodology as before, doesn’t that mean Kerry has a pretty big lead? Did they oversample Republicans in this poll, too?
Am I right in thinking that there must considerably more republicans than democrats (AGAIN) in this Gallup poll? How does Bush pull off the lead among RVs? Also, depsite a tie in the horserace, Bush enjoys big leads in some of the other questions.