Reading through the ambiguous to vaguely positive remarks made by Republican pols about the historic auto workers strike, one of them jumped off the page, and I wrote about it at New York:
One of the great anomalies of recent political history has been the disconnect between the Republican Party’s ancient legacy as the champion of corporate America and its current electoral base, which relies heavily on support from white working-class voters. The growing contradiction was first made a major topic of debate in the 2008 manifesto Grand New Party, in which youngish conservative intellectuals Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argued that their party offered little in the way of material inducements (or even supportive rhetoric) to its emerging electoral base. Though Douthat and Salam were by no means fans of Donald Trump, the mogul’s stunningly successful 2016 campaign did follow their basic prescription of pursuing the economic and cultural instincts of white working-class voters at the expense of doctrinaire free-market and limited-government orthodoxy.
So it’s not surprising that Trump and an assortment of other Republicans have expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the unionized autoworkers who just launched a historic industry-wide strike for better wages and working conditions. But there was a conspicuous, even anachronistic exception among nationally prominent GOP politicians: South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott. As NBC News reported:
“It’s the latest of several critical comments Scott has made about the autoworkers, even as other GOP presidential candidates steer clear of criticizing them amid a strike at three plants so far …
“’I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike. He said, you strike, you’re fired. Simple concept to me. To the extent that we can use that once again, absolutely.’”
Scott’s frank embrace of old-school union bashing wouldn’t have drawn much notice 40 or 50 years ago. And to be clear, other Republicans aren’t fans of the labor movement: For the most part, MAGA Republicans appeal to the working class via a mix of cultural conservatism, economic and foreign-policy nationalism, nativism, and producerism (i.e., pitting private-sector employers and employees against the financial sector, educational elites, and those dependent on public employment or assistance). One particularly rich lode of ostensibly pro-worker rhetoric has been to treat environmental activism as inimical to the economic growth and specific job opportunities wage earners need.
So unsurprisingly, Republican politicians who want to show some sympathy for the autoworkers have mostly focused on the alleged threat of climate-change regulations generally and electric vehicles specifically to the well-being of UAW members, as Politico reported:
“’This green agenda that is using taxpayer dollars to drive our automotive economy into electric vehicles is understandably causing great anxiety among UAW members,’ [Mike Pence] said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Other Republicans followed suit, with a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson calling out Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin — Democrats’ favored candidate for the state’s open Senate seat — for her Thursday vote allowing state-level limits or bans on gas-powered cars as choosing her ‘party over Michigan.'”
More strikingly, Trump, the 2024 presidential front-runner, is planning to hold an event with Michigan workers at the very moment his GOP rivals are holding their second debate next week, notes the Washington Post:
“While other Republican candidates participate in the Sept. 27 event in California, Trump instead plans to speak to more than 500 autoworkers, plumbers, electricians and pipe-fitters, the adviser said. The group is likely to include workers from the United Auto Workers union that is striking against the Big Three automakers in the country’s Rust Belt. The Trump adviser added that it is unclear whether the former president will visit the strike line.
“Trump’s campaign also created a radio ad, to run on sports- and rock-themed stations in Detroit and Toledo, meant to present him as being on the side of striking autoworkers, the adviser said.”
There’s no evidence Trump has any understanding of, much less sympathy with, the strikers’ actual demands. But in contrast to Scott’s remarks endorsing the dismissal of striking workers, it shows that at least some Republicans are willing (rhetorically, at least) to bite the hand that feeds in the pursuit of votes.
Meanwhile, the mainstream-media types who often treat Scott as some sort of sunny, optimistic, even bipartisan breath of fresh air should pay some attention to his attitude toward workers exercising long-established labor rights he apparently would love to discard. Yes, as a self-styled champion of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private- and homeschooling at the expense of “government schools,” Scott is constantly attacking teachers unions, just like many Republicans who draw a sharp distinction between public-sector unions (BAD!) and private-sector unions (grudgingly acceptable). But autoworkers are firmly in the private sector. Maybe it’s a South Carolina thing: Scott’s presidential rival and past political ally Nikki Haley (another media favorite with an unmerited reputation as a moderate) famously told corporate investors to stay out of her state if they intended to tolerate unions in their workplaces. For that matter, the South Carolina Republican Party was for years pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of violently anti-union textile barons. Some old habits die hard.
One of the useful by-products of the current wave of labor activism in this country is that Republicans may be forced to extend their alleged sympathy for workers into support for policies that actually help them and don’t simply reflect cheap reactionary demagoguery aimed at foreigners, immigrants, and people of color. But Scott has flunked the most basic test threshold compatibility with the rights and interests of the working class.
OK, OK.
The ‘already voted’ lead for George Bush is a non-issue. Not only do I not trust any sample that small (81 respondents), technically speaking the MOE on those numbers is +/- 11. So, the Bush “lead” breaks down this way:
Bush: 38 to 60
Kerry: 23 to 45
Do you consider that to be a reliable range of voting behavior thus far? Neither do I. Besides, there is no evidence that people who vote early are representative of the population as a whole. Worry about these things at your stomach’s peril.
Regarding the YouGov poll, the sample size is higher because its an Internet survey. The Harris Poll also has a large number of respondents for its online poll. I’m really interested to see how the Internet polls do this year, because they’ve shown Kerry in a much stronger position than the telephone polls. Its an apples-to-oranges comparison to the telephone polls, because the data collection and weighting procedures are very different. YouGov has shown consistent leads for Kerry and well under 47% support for Bush. Harris’ online polls have been closer, but Bush support levels have been around 47 as well.
This could be the year of the Internet poll if Kerry wins by the margins that both Harris and Economist are suggesting.
Andy,
On early voting, most states that allow it are Red States. And early voters historically tended Republican. The big exception this year is Florida, where early voting in Broward and Miami – very Democratic – is through the roof. So I wouldn’t pay much attention to early voting nationwide when, with the exception of California, early voting is concentrated in the West and South. No New England state except New Hampshire allows early voting.
Same question here, maybe Ruy can comment the recent Zogby polls. What’s up with these? Michigan going red? That would be devastating.
But it seems not only his polls are volatile. New York Daily News quotes him declaring Kerry the winner while Bob Novak writes that Zogby told him Bush is winning. He explains that away with Kerry picking up 5 percent in Tuesday alone.
Too much coffee? (Or should I have some?)
> WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
I am also worried about a rumor on NRO’s insufferable “Kerry Spot” website [http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp ]. According to an unnamed “source close to the [Bush] campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels”, “the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers”. “The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones – Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.”
“Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup – Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Let’s hope the ‘wingers are deluding themselves, again. So far, I think the missing Iraqi explosives story has helped Kerry, since the WashTimes story about Russian involvement has been refuted. The public debate during the final week has so far been almost exclusively about “Shrub’s” past mistakes. No worried rumors about the Kerry campaign or anything.
MARCU$
I am puzzled by the Zogby polling. There are huge differences in the poll results of his “interactive” net based polling and these tracking polls which are so volatile. One example is New Mexico where last week Kerry is shown as up by 11% and is now down several points. I don’t believe in those kind of swings in the course of a week. Same with Michigan. His contradictory polling results undermines any sense of conficence in them. Can someone explain this?
1. The Economist Poll is so out of line with other polls as to not be credible; at no time did the Economist poll show Bush with over 45% approval or with any lead of over 1 or 2 points- a result which (like Gallup’s polls showing 10-15 pt Bush lead) is so far out of line with other polls as to be suspicious.
2. The Democracy Corps poll shows that of people who have already voted (8% of electorate) Bush leads 49-34. This means that Kerry can still be ahead by 2 points or so among people voting on 11-2 and still lose the election.
Reading the Economist poll, it is devastating to Bush. Over 3000 samples! And they endorse Kerry, after endorsing Bush the last time (we were in London then, we are here now, taking care of business.
WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
There now have been a couple times in a row when I have been dissappointed in some of the internals in the Democracy Corps poll. Here are some of my “least favorite results.”
If I am reading the tabs right, about 8% of the sample had already voted. Among that group BUSH had a substantial lead, somewhere around 13% or so. This is bad enough as everything I have been reading (at least in the battleground states) seemed to indicate that it was the Democrats who were voting early.
What makes this result even worse is that this same block of early voters voted for the congressional Democratic Party candidate almost at the same rate as the Republican candidate. I think the Dems were at like -3. This means that Kerry is running about 10% behind the Congressional Democrats in the sample used in the poll. I know that there are a thousand possible rationals why this can be true and not a bad sign for Kerry, but I am uncomfortable with the result.
Also, I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time in a row that more people are getting an increasingly negative feeling about Kerry then about Bush. To clarify what I mean, due I guess to the negative campaigning, voters are becomming more negative about both candidates. However, the rate of increased negative feelings is higher for Kerry then for Bush.
Finally, I didnt like some of the results on personal attributes. Im not referring to the “strong leader” or “better commander in chief” numbers, I expected Bush to have much better numbers there. But I am dissappointed to see Bush do so well on questions like, “he is on our side,” “cares about people like me,” and “in touch with day to day reality (thats not exactly how the question is phrased but you know what I mean)”.
I know that I am “missing the forrest for the trees” in a way as Kerry is up by 3 in the poll. Still, some of that support is soft and I wonder if it will stick in light of some of the Bush attribute numbers.
By the way, Im not one who typically “freaks” at every poll result. Basically, I have been thinking Kerry will win by 3 since the debates. I still do. I am just posting this to see if anyone has some comments.
Do you have any comments on the poll internals? Are they any more reliable than all the others out there? Or should we simply consider them as part of the poll “noise”?