John Kerry leads George Bush 48-44 percent of Florida RV’s, according to a new Florida Insider Poll conducted 10/12-14 — a 7 point gain over the previous Insider poll taken just before the 3rd presidential debate.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
May 19: Will Abandoned Pro-Choice Republican Voters Flip?
Amidst all the talk about the impact of a likely reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, I thought a history lesson was in order, so I wrote one at New York:
Last week, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have codified abortion rights, died in in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 49. All 210 House Republicans and all 50 Senate Republicans voted against the legislation. This surprised no one, but it’s actually odd in several ways. While Republican elected officials are almost monolithically opposed to abortion rights, pro-choice Republican voters didn’t entirely cease to exist, and this could become a problem for the party if, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the right to abortion at the end of this term.
Though polling on the issue is notoriously slippery, our best guess is that a little over a third of Republicans disagree with their party on whether to outlaw abortion (while about one-quarter of Democrats disagree with their party on the topic). These Americans have virtually no representation in Congress with the limited exceptions of Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (both GOP senators support some abortion rights, but they are still opposed the WHPA and are against dropping the filibuster to preserve abortion rights).
Ironically, abortion rights as we know them are, to a considerable extent, the product of Republican lawmaking at every level of government. The most obvious examples are the two Supreme Court decisions that established and reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion. Of the seven justices who supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that struck down pre-viability-abortion bans, five were appointed by Republican presidents, including the author of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, and then–Chief Justice Warren Burger. All five justices who voted to confirm the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey were appointed by Republican presidents as well.These pro-choice Republicans weren’t just rogue jurists (though their alleged perfidy has become a deep grievance in the anti-abortion movement). Today’s lock-step opposition to abortion rights among GOP elected officials took a long time to develop. Indeed, before Roe, Republicans were more likely to favor legal abortion than Democrats. In New York and Washington, two of the four states that fully legalized pre-viability abortions in 1970, Republican governors Nelson Rockefeller and Daniel Evans were at the forefront of abortion-rights efforts. They weren’t fringe figures; Rockefeller went on to become vice-president of the United States under Gerald Ford. Pre-Roe, various other Republican officials supported more modest efforts to ease abortion bans; among them was then–California governor Ronald Reagan, who signed a bill significantly liberalizing exceptions to an abortion ban in 1967.
The anti-abortion movement’s strength in the Republican Party grew steadily after Roe in part because of a more general ideological sorting out of the two major parties as liberals drifted into the Democratic Party and conservatives were drawn into the GOP. To put it another way, there has always been ideological polarization in American politics, but only in recent decades has it been reflected in parallel party polarization. But that doesn’t fully explain the GOP’s shift on abortion policy.
Beginning in 1972 with Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, Republicans began actively trying to recruit historically Democratic Roman Catholic voters. Soon thereafter, they started working to mobilize conservative Evangelical voters. This effort coincided with the Evangelicals’ conversion into strident abortion opponents, though they were generally in favor of the modest liberalization of abortion laws until the late 1970s. All these trends culminated in the adoption of a militantly anti-abortion platform plank in the 1980 Republican National Convention that nominated Reagan for president. The Gipper said he regretted his earlier openness to relaxed abortion laws. Reagan’s strongest intraparty rival was George H.W. Bush, the scion of a family with a powerful multigenerational connection to Planned Parenthood. He found it expedient to renounce any support for abortion rights before launching his campaign.
Still, there remained a significant pro-choice faction among Republican elected officials until quite recently. In 1992, the year Republican Supreme Court appointees saved abortion rights in Casey, there was a healthy number of pro-choice Republicans serving in the Senate: Ted Stevens of Alaska, John Seymour of California, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, William Cohen of Maine, Bob Packwood of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, John Warner of Virginia, and Alan Simpson and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Another, John Heinz of Pennsylvania, had recently died.
Partisan polarization on abortion (which, of course, was taking place among Democrats as well) has been slow but steady, as Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently observed:
“In a 1997 study, Carnegie Mellon University professor Greg D. Adams sought to track abortion votes in Congress over time. His finding: In the Senate, there was almost no daylight between the two parties in 1973, with both parties voting for ‘pro-choice’ positions about 40 percent of the time.
“But that quickly changed.
“There was more of a difference in the House in 1973, with Republicans significantly more opposed to abortion rights than both House Democrats and senators of both parties. But there, too, the gap soon widened.
“Including votes in both chambers, Adams found that a 22 percentage- point gap between the two parties’ votes in 1973 expanded to nearly 65 points two decades later, after Casey was decided.”
By 2018, every pro-choice House Republican had been defeated or had retired. The rigidity of the party line on abortion was perhaps best reflected in late 2019, when a House Democrat with a record of strong support for abortion rights, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, switched parties. Almost instantly, Van Drew switched sides on reproductive rights and was hailed by the hard-core anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List for voting “consistently to defend the lives of the unborn and infants.”
With the 2020 primary loss by Illinois Democratic representative Dan Lipinski, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, there’s now just one House member whose abortion stance is out of step with his party: Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar, who is very vulnerable to defeat in a May 24 runoff.
If the Supreme Court does fully reverse Roe in the coming weeks, making abortion a more highly salient 2022 campaign issue, the one-third of pro-choice Republican voters may take issue with their lack of congressional representation. Will the first big threat to abortion rights in nearly a half-century make them change their priorities? Or will they still care more about party loyalty and issues like inflation? Perhaps nothing will change for most of these voters. But in close races, the abandoned tradition of pro-choice Republicanism could make a comeback to the detriment of the GOP’s ambitious plans for major midterm gains.
Despite Strategic Vision’s leanings, the Boca Raton News story has SV admitting that Kerry picked up 5 points in Ohio from the debates. No other specifics were given about their Ohio numbers.
The Newsweek poll that showed Kerry with a lead among men while Bush leads among women simply shows that that poll is absolutely worthless. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that the gender gap is about 8-10 points and that there is simply NO chance that Kerry will win the men while losing the women. Can’t possibly be true and any poll that shows otherwise is a complete waste of newsprint. The most ridiculous part is that Newsweek editors print this result with a straight face, without even bothering to mention that if true it would be an immense historic shift in voting patterns!
In answer to the Texeira pronunciation question, on the assumption that Ruy is too busy crunching numbers to respond, I have it on good authority that his last name is pronounced Te-SHER-a.
I will take a stab at the question about the newly registered voters:
According to zogby, Kerry has a small lead among newly registered voters 49-42.
I suspect that most of the undecides among the newly registered voters will go to kerry. I think it will end up being something like 55-45.
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10022
Hopefully this will help the democrats change the 39D to 35R. to 40D 34R, and with the massive get out the vote effort, maybe even a little better.
Teixeira, a Portuguese (and Brazilian) surname is pronounced “Teshera.”
partial answer to Bob H —
I’m sure you know much of this generally and are looking for specific numbers, but the polls of late have been showing an increasing divergence between ‘sure to vote’ voters — Bush lead, all the way to ‘registered’ — Kerry lead, sometimes substantial. It is difficult to say what level of turnout means which candidate gets what since it depends on WHOSE supporters turn out! A lot of the ‘registered’ voters not turning up as likely are probably recent registrants, including a large proportion of them young and concerned about the draft. THAT demographic’s turnout may well determine the presidential AND the Congressional outcome.
I understand that the number of new registered voters in CO. is so huge that the Sec. of State has said that people will have to work night and day to complete the data entry before 11/2. That augurs well for Ken Salaszar and Kerry/Edwards in that more new voters in that state are more likely to be Dem supporters than not. Anyone have a view on that?
I have been wondering about the simple advantage of always having your name listed first in the publishing of survey after survey. In the asking of the questions the names are usually rotated, but in reporting results Bush is almost always listed first. Bush, then Kerry? Why not Kerry, then Bush?
Hi everyone,
Well, I am very happy to see this poll as I live in Palm Beach County (Jupiter) Florida and I have to say that I was getting very worried about Kerry’s numbers and him not being able to gain any ground on Bush. I also have to say that the Repulicans down here are very hungry for a Bush win and I see more Bush stickers on cars that I do Kerry stickers. I am apart of the democratic club down here and the democrats don’t appear to be very motivated. I can’t believe it since this was such a democratic county. Julia
If you track Dale’s Electoral College Breakdown, the numbers slowly get better and better. He doesn’t post this latest florida result, and if he did Kerry would be ahead. I also agree that the Bush/Rove campaign is spinning in circles right now trying to get a grip! Yes!
Much Kudos to Our Guy for a brilliant performance in the debates with an historical result of turning the race around!
“He would rather protect his rich friends than help you all in the middle class”
That’s a democratic campaign that stands up and fights!
I think this election will be determined by two factors: turnout and fraud. Maybe the high Democratic turnout will cancel out the Republican fraud.
Neither factor can be assessed by polls right now.
New newsweek poll puts kerry down by 2 among reg. voters, and down 50-44 among likely voters.
However, This poll seems extremely strange. It has Bush with a lead among women, and kerry with a lead among men. I somehow don’t believe it.
This election has reached the tipping point. BC04 is flying apart at the seams, the media (pathetic as they are) have juicy stories just landing in their lazy laps — Voter highjinx abounding, more Bush docs, Iraq spiraling and the Dow puckering. Is there enough time? Kerry 52% Bush 46%, Kerry +40 EVs
How does one pronounce
TEIXEIRA?
The new Newsweek poll shows Bush ahead by a few points with registered, more ahead with likely, voters.
What was interesting in the article, and the first time I’ve seen it broken down was this concerning new voters: “Kerry now leads Bush 57 percent to 36 percent among those who identify themselves as first-time voters”
Turnout.
Addy
Can Ruy make some comments about how turnout is likely to affect the race, and what he guesses it might be? Kevin Philips discussed this last night on NOW, and seemed to imply that a 55% turnout combined with Bush approval at 47% or so means Bush is swept into the trash. 55% would seem to favor the good guys?
Altough this post is not about polling I felt it was an important read in attracting conservative swing Republicans.
“The conservative case for Kerry ”
Clyde Prestowitz
Washington, DC
http://tinyurl.com/4g7ov
As a former Reagan-administration official, registered Republican, born-again Christian, and traditional conservative, I am going to vote for John Kerry. So are many other old-line Republicans. Here’s why…
TERROR … Oct.27 …. I’m not afraid of no stinkin terror, I have a handy supply of duck tape & plastic
It’s been noted on another thread already, but the Washington Post poll (ending Oct. 10) shows a tie, both in LV and RV in Florida.
This is all great news to me. In my heart, I think I’d started to concede Florida to Bush. Having it in play is huge. Assuming Kerry gets Pennsylvania (and I saw one report that Bush was pulling out of there to focus on Ohio and Florida), then either Ohio or Florida would likely be enough to put him over the top. It gets a bit tricky with other states, but it would look awfully good. I’m very excited about having two big targets to pursue instead of just one.
Speaking of seniors in the swing states, there are huge numbers of “snow birds” who travel between FL and the northern swing states of OH, PA, MO and WI. And many of them have children who are aware of the health care problem.
It makes sense that Rove wants to keep inserting distractions like Mary Cheney in order to prevent focus from resting too long on any substantive issues.
I guess we should expect that on October 27 there will be a “terror alert”.
Furthermore, Strategic Vision is a Republican pollster. More so than other pollsters, Strategic Vision show stronger support for Bush. Yet even they say that Kerry picked up many points in Ohio, Wisconsin etc
This poll is particularly encouraging, partly because Insider pollster Matt Towery is a Republican. The analysis argues compellingly that health care reform gives Kerry serious traction with seniors, who have the highest turnout rates. I hope the Dem campaign takes note and runs strong health care reform ads in OH, PA and MO, as well as FL.