While mulling some recent material from The Bulwark, I thought I’d explain something to the converted “Never Trumpers” the outlet represents, and did so at New York:
For a while now I’ve had a guilty-pleasure reading habit: The Bulwark, that semi-official outlet of Never Trumpers who view themselves as having definitively broken with the GOP thanks to their former party’s thralldom to Donald J. Trump. I share its contributors’ belief that they (the tribe usefully described by Miller as Red Dog Democrats) represent not just a self-promoting claque of elite scribblers but a real if marginal faction of the Democratic Party, having burned a lot of bridges on their way out of the GOP. Their views appear to parallel those of a significant number of suburban Republicans and independents who voted Democratic in 2018 and 2020. And given the very close balance between voters of the two parties, as reflected most recently in 2020, Democrats really can’t afford to contemptuously reject any potential adherents, however alien or even repugnant they might find their backgrounds.
So it’s understandable when Bulwark co-founder Charlie Sykes expresses frustration that Democrats refuse to consider their pleas for policy concessions on grounds of holding old grudges:
“The spending. The wokeness. The repeal of the Hyde Amendment. I could go on …
“These are difficult times for folks on the center-right, who’ve tried to join Democrats in a loose alliance to protect the Republic from Trumpism …
“Litmus tests are applied: it’s not enough to be pro-democracy, NTers are also expected to embrace the elements of the progressive agenda — from free community college, to abortion, rent moratoriums, police funding, transgenderism, CRT, social spending, and the candidacy of Greta Thunberg for sainthood.”
Sykes fears it’s all very personal, and warns, “If you cancel moderates/conservatives for their past sins, you don’t have a coalition.”
Here’s the thing, though: It’s not really about the Red Dogs. Yes, I’m sure it’s been tough for them to watch Democrats largely come together around a legislative program that’s significantly more progressive than the one advanced by the Obama administration. But Democrats have been coalescing around the basics of the Build Back Better agenda for some time now. That the famously moderate Joe Biden now embraces it is a sign of how the party has slowly evolved, not some sort of betrayal or surrender to the left. And anyone who paid close attention to the 2020 presidential primaries should have understood that there is less distance between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders than between Joe Biden and the Joe Biden of the 1990s.
Part of what has happened is simply a resolution of internal conflicts among Democrats that left them defensive and at times incoherent. A classic example is one that Sykes mentioned: abortion policy. For years, Democrats claimed to value reproductive rights even as they accepted significant limitations on them: e.g., the Hyde Amendment, which made abortion services, unlike any other medical services, ineligible for any sort of federal support. That amendment, along with acceptance of some largely symbolic restrictions on rare late-term abortions, and the whole “safe, legal, and rare” messaging introduced by Bill Clinton, represented concessions to a significant bloc of Democratic voters and Democratic pols who did not recognize reproductive rights at all.
That has changed over time. Anti-abortion Democratic politicians are a rare and shrinking breed, and there are now significantly fewer anti-abortion Democratic voters than there are pro-choice Republicans. Most Democrats, including Joe Biden, have made the leap into a more coherent and unified position. They aren’t going to turn back the clock to satisfy ex-Republicans, but they aren’t insisting on a “litmus test” just to annoy or exclude them, either. The same could be said for other policy tenets once beloved by a significant number of Democrats — from fiscal hawkishness to armed interventionism to an openness to “entitlement reform” — that remain attractive to the newest proto-Democrats. As for the idea that Democrats are some sort of rigid ideological cult: Come on, seriously? Look at what’s going on with the attempted enactment of the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. If this is an intolerant and exclusive political party, I’d hate to see a loosey-goosey one try to function. It may just be that the issues Red Dogs fret about may lie outside the still relatively loose bounds of party unity.
This doesn’t mean Red Dogs should despair, but it may mean another painful reevaluation of priorities, recognizing that most have already had to sacrifice a lot of old allegiances and even the habitual language used to make sense of the political world. In many respects, the Never Trumpers resemble their spiritual (and in some cases biological) predecessors, the neo-conservatives. These were people who broke with the Democratic Party out of a conviction that Democratic views on national security made continued party loyalty impossible. But most of them retained many views that horrified their new Republican allies until they accepted the inevitable role of a factional minority and grew to accommodate or even share the policy positions and ideological language of the GOP, which was increasingly dominated by conservatives with their own ideological-consistency demands.
Most Red Dogs have no illusions about the party they’ve left and understand their constituencies are too small to form a third force or demand concessions from a position of strength. Most, I suppose, will get used to the strange and sometimes lurid landscape of the Donkey Party. Others will embrace the posture of the gadfly, the people of no party or coalition. But it’s really not personal. It’s just politics.
The last 2 polls in NJ prior to this show a 5-8 point lead for Kerry in NJ. Q* is showing a 3 point lead for Kerry, whereas they earlier had it a tie, so Kerry has picke dup 3 points.
There are plenty of reasons to believe NJ will be closer than in 2000. But Gore won by 16 points. Kerry can give up half of that and still win.
SJ — nice work desparetly spinning.
Rawls posted an interesting Missouri poll from surveyusa.com.
In looking at it, there’s an interesting data point; on page 9 of 25 of the doc, it indicates that voters who identify themselves as Military/Veterans (I couldn’t find anyhting in this doc that elaborated on how they asked about that category) the two candidates were 48-48.
It’s only a data point, but if connected with others, it might suggest the interesting conclusion that Veterans/Military are less subject to the smaears on Kerry’s record than the non-veterans/military identifiers.
I dunno about you Smooth, but every poll I’ve seen from NJ shows Kerry ahead by 8-10 points.
Frankly, I feel sorry that you fell for Bush’s “blue feint.” Last time it was CA, this time NJ. This is a classic Bush tactic. Like when he campaigned (for governor) in strongly Democrat El Paso, but lost El Paso County anyhow.
> If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally.
The operative word being “if.”
Hi Ruy,
Just thought I’d bring this to the attention of your board: We’re still in it in Missouri.
I wish the Kerry / Edwards campaign would come to Missouri instead of writing us off. Its a neck and neck race here and we could use some coattails.
http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/MO041005wpresvgovysenx.pdf
A bit more detail:
Coldeye gives the “nearest integer” figure from Rasmussen’s homepage. The “daily snapshot” in the Premium Members’ area has a Bush lead of 0.3%, down from 0.9 yesterday; but in the 16 Batleground States Kerry is actually up by 1.5.
RV: 48% Kerry and 45% for Bush ?
LV: 47% Kerry and 46% Bush?
That does not sound like a tie to me. It sounds like a slim lead. But I am no polling or statistics expert.
I understand it is difficult for Republicans to face the fact that Kerry is improving in the polls as the Quinnipiac Poll points out.
Smooth-
I’m sorry, New Jersey has just as much a chance of going for Bush as Georgia does for Kerry. There’s no chance it will happen.
Also, Rasmussen also has the race finally tied again. It remains to be seen whether Kerry will regain the lead in that poll as well.
Today’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Kerry pulling into a tie with Bush for the first time since the Repub convention.
Bush’s approval rating declined significantly as did his ratings on the economy and Iraq.
Oh well, Here we go again: The Mass/NH based ARG poll with the obligatory Kerry “lead”. Read my bytes: If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally. To Wit:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11375.xml
(Note: Click on the Oct 6 link)
Quinnipiac University
Oct 6, 2004
Polling Results
October 6, 2004 – Debate Gives Kerry 3-Point Edge In New Jersey, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; But Voters Say Bush Acts More Like A Leader
Democratic challenger John Kerry has moved into a very narrow 49 – 46 percent lead over President George W. Bush among New Jersey likely voters, with 2 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 48 – 48 percent Bush-Kerry tie among likely voters, with 2 percent for Nader, in a September 21 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University.
Among registered voters backing President Bush, 82 percent say they are voting more for the President. Among Kerry supporters, 42 percent say they are voting more for the Democrat while 52 percent say they are voting more against Bush.