I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
While Gallup is finding Bush comfortably ahead of Kerry in Wisconsin, Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) is ahead by more than 20 over his GOP challenger. I know we’re famous for ticket-splitting, but it’s not very likely that we’d go overwhelmingly for a liberal like Feingold AND go for Bush. Gallup is no longer worthy of reading or reporting.
Dana, you speak of the love that I dare not speak its name – the SWEEP.
I hope it is coming, and I agree with your logic.
I’ve been telling anyone who will listen we are going to win by 5 million votes.
I hope we have enough to take back the House. We have to stop those crazy rightwingers by rooting out their nest.
The intensity on both sides is intense. I doubt that there will be a Democratic majority in either the House or the Senate.
But the intensity on the side of the Democrats is a good thing. The Republicans have had good turnout for years, but not the Democrats. I’m hoping that there will be some surprises on Nov 2nd.
Excerpt from James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans:
“We have decided that we’ll try Rumsfeld working with Gallup. He went to school with George [Gallup] Jr. at Princeton,” Colson told the president in July 1971. Nixon and Colson were eager to try to influence the results of major pollsters, notably Gallup and Harris, perhaps getting them to phrase their questions or to present their results in ways that were helpful to Nixon. “I mean, if the figures aren’t up there, we don’t want them to lie about it,” Nixon explained to Colson at one point. “They can trim them a little one way or another.” [Note 40: Nixon phone call to Colson, July 23, 1971, conversation 6-197, Nixon tape collection, National Archives.] …
RUMSFELD: Say, I want to just report, sir, about my conversation with George Gallup [Jr.].
NIXON: Oh yeah, you went to school with him, didn’t you?
RUMSFELD: I did. And I kind of want to be awful careful about telling people around the building that I’m talking to him. Because all he’s got in his business is his integrity.
Rumsfeld then informed Nixon an upcoming Gallup Poll would show that the president’s popularity had recently gone up. [Note 41: Nixon conversation with Rumsfeld, October 19, 1971, conversation 11-135, Nixon tape collection, National Archives.]
http://www.ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=2
Okay, call me paranoid, but maybe Gallup is deliberately”gaming its polls to give cover to the Republicans who appear to be doing their dead-level best to steal the election in Florida and in Ohio. If Bush “miraculously” pulls ahead by four or five points on election day, the media will simply point to these convenient Gall-up polls, announce Bush would have won anyways—look at those Gallup polls–tell Democrats that they should just Get Over It.
I’m predicting a Kerry victory—I think just too many Democrats will show up in the polls for the GOP to scare off or intimidate or spin away. And I also predict that Gall-up won’t be short of clients. CNN will continue to buy their services. Or (worst-case scenario) Gall-up will lose a few media contracts, but be more than compensated by all the new right-wing think tank business.
Question: Has any pollster come up with a methology for correlating the intensity of support for a candidate or party with final results?
In 1994 polls showed a fairly close Congressional election, but there was great intensity among Republicans (remember the “revenge of the white men?”) and they won Congress.
In 1986, however, there was greater intensity among Democrats, something not found in polls, and you had some huge upsets, like Wyche Fowler in Georgia.
My own guess on intensity shows it off the charts on the Democratic side, slightly elevated on the Republican. This points toward a huge Democratic swing, absolute control of Congress and a landslide for Kerry.
But I’m not a statistician, and I don’t know how you could measure it with a poll.
Any thoughts?
The Bushites are scared. Bush visited WI again today. Even the Rep that was on NPR admitted that WI appears to be trending towards Kerry Edwards.
Isn’t the best evidence that this is total horse—– the fact that Bush is campaigning frenetically in these states. I would have thought that 9% would mean going somewhere really close.
CNN & USA Today must fire Gallup
If this election proves that the Gallup methodology is flawed and their flaws show a tilt to one side then we should compell CNN & USA Today to fire Gallup. Recently CNN interviewed Gallup and asked him about the poll discrepencies…his answer was that their LV model was better. When asked about the ‘bandwagon effect’ (do polls effect how people view the candidates and do they become a Self-fulfilling Prophecy Frank actually said “would that be a bad thing?..people should factor polls into their decisions”.
Therefore if they turn out to be ‘idiots’ we should immediately do to CNN & USA Today what we did to Sinclair and force them to drop Gallup
Ok, it’s only a week before the elction and my paranoia is running rampant. Could it be that the Gallup poll is providing cover for rampant electronic voting fraud?
Happy Halloween!
Kilroy
Gallup is really walking the plank on this election. But a lot of the blame rests on CNN and USATODAY for spreading the baloney poll results around and paying Gallup a lot of $. An important goal is to try to get CNN and USATODAY to dissociate themselves from Gallup. It’s impossible for this election, but possible for the future.
Actually they will look like geniuses or SHILLS. I don’t think there’s a lot of doubt about which, but we’ll know in a week.
Read The Vulcans. There is chapter about Rumsfeld’s rise during the Nixon Administration. One of his duties during Dick’s re-election was to game the Gallup brothers. While Rummie wouldn’t get the Gallup poll to lie, he would get advance warning of the poll’s findings.
Seems this year, he is getting the Gallup poll to lie.
Their huge pro-GOP sample bias in Florida certainly speaks for itself. However, what about the latest Gallup poll for Ohio, which was released a day after their latest Wisconsin poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-10-21-ohio-poll.htm
It showed Kerry up 48-47 among LVs, and a startling 50-44 Kerry lead among RVs! Huh? Most Ohio polls are looking pretty good for Kerry, but 50-44? Isn’t that a bit much?