There’s a mini-debate among Democrats at the moment over the propriety of fighting against the deportation and imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia when other issues beckon, and I made my own thoughts known at New York:
As the story of the abduction, deportation, and detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia plays out in El Salvador and U.S. federal courts, the politics of the situation are roiling many waters. For the most part, Republicans are following President Trump’s lead in wallowing in the misery of Abrego Garcia and other deportees; exploiting unrelated “angel moms” and other symbols of random undocumented-immigrant crimes; and blasting Democrats for their misplaced sympathy for the “wrong people.” Even as Team Trump risks a constitutional crisis by evading judicial orders to grant due process to the people ICE is snatching off the streets, it seems confident that public backing for the administration’s mass-deportation program and “border security” initiatives generally will make this a winning issue for the GOP.
For their part, Democrats aren’t as united politically on the salience of this dispute, even though virtually all of them object in principle to Trump’s lawless conduct. Most notably, California governor and likely 2028 presidential contender Gavin Newsom warned against dwelling on it, as The Bulwark reported:
“Asked to comment on the ongoing standoff between Trump, El Salvador, and the U.S. judicial system, Newsom scoffed. ‘You know, this is the distraction of the day,’ he said. ‘This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it …’
“’Those that believe in the rule of law are defending it. But it’s a tough case, because people are really — are they defending MS-13? Are they defending, you know, someone who’s out of sight, out of mind in El Salvador? … It’s exactly the debate [Republicans] want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs. They don’t want to be accountable to markets today … They want to have this conversation. Don’t get distracted by distractions. We’re all perfect sheep.’”
Newsom is reflecting an ancient Democratic “populist” prejudice against non-economic messaging, which was revived by the 2024 presidential election, in which warnings about the threat to democracy and to the rule of law posed by Trump were widely adjudged to have failed to sway an electorate focused obsessively on the economy and the cost of living. And it’s true that the Abrego Garcia case arose precisely as Trump made himself highly vulnerable on the economy with his wild tariff schemes.
But the emotions aroused by the administration’s cruelty and arrogance in launching its mass-deportation initiative have struck chords with major elements of the Democratic base, particularly among those attuned to the constitutional issues involved. And it’s not a secret that even though Trump enjoys generally positive approval ratings on his handling of immigration issues, they begin to erode when specifics are polled. It’s also quite likely that whatever the overall numbers show, deportation overreach will hurt Trump and his party precisely in the immigrant-adjacent elements of the electorate in which he made crucial 2024 gains.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of communications strategies that turn message discipline into message bondage, persuading political gabbers and writers to grind away on a single note and ignore other opportunities and challenges. In the current situation facing Democrats, strategic silence on a volatile issue like immigration (which was arguably one of Kamala Harris’s problems during the 2024 campaign) enables the opposition to fill in the blanks with invidious characterizations. In politics, silence is almost never golden.
Perhaps more to the point, as G. Elliot Morris argues, there are ways to link messages on different issues that reinforce them all:
“One way to focus messaging on both the economy and immigration, for example, might be to show how unchecked executive power is dangerous. After all the most unpopular parts of Trump’s agenda — tariffs and deportations for undocumented migrants who have been here a long time and committed no crimes — are a direct result of executive overreach.
“The power that gives Trump the ability to levy extreme tariffs was given to the president when Congress expected him to be forgiving of tariffs on an individual basis as an act of diplomacy, not to plunge the world economic order into crisis. Similarly, the judiciary has said Trump’s deporting of Abrego Garcia, as well as hundreds of Venezuelans, runs afoul of multiple Court orders.”
Even if you conclude that “unchecked executive power” is too abstract a line of attack for today’s paycheck-focused swing voters, it shouldn’t be that difficult to hit two messages simultaneously, particularly since the message on Trump’s tariffs doesn’t require a whole lot of reiteration from Democrats: Voters can see it in the stock market, and soon enough they will likely see it in the prices they are paying for goods and services.
But the real clincher in persuading Democrats to take the Abrego Garcia case very seriously is this: Anything less than full-throated opposition to the administration’s joyful embrace of Gestapo tactics and un-American policies in deportation cases will undoubtedly dishearten constituents who already fear their elected officials are unprincipled cynics who won’t lift a finger to fight Trump without first convening a focus group of tuned-out swing voters. Politicians don’t have to emulate Senator Chris Van Hollen’s decision to fly down to El Salvador and meet with his imprisoned constituent to recognize that his willingness to do so was impressive and authentic. As he told my colleague Benjamin Hart in an interview earlier this week, “The issue here is protecting the rights of individuals under our Constitution … I do believe this is a place that we need to stand up and fight.” It’s hard to do anything else without shame.
Kerry deserves this and will win if it is God’s will! Please just go on with the next few weeks praying our new president will be President John Kerry!!
Roy: The Gallop credibility refers to their likely voter model. That is what’s being questioned as far as credibility. This poll was a registered voter poll which as far as I know is not in question.
Kerry is up 5 in that poll.
Note in the Likely voter poll, he’s only up 1.
Gallps LV model simply understates Democratic likely voters and is designed for a time when Democrats were pretty much lazy voters and had no ground game. that’s all changed.
So if you see a poll that usually leans toward the right too much like a Gallop LV showing a Kerry lead, YOU SHOULD LIKE KERRY’S CHANCES.
The same would hold true of a Strategic Vision poll that showed Kerry with a lead. You should like Kerry’s chances.
I like Kerry’s chances in Ohio. But we shouldn’t get too confident. IT’s all about GOTV. If we can turn that extra 4% of Registered Voters in that gallop poll for Kerry into Voters, we win.
I wonder why Gallup would poll in Ohio with Nader included. Nader isn’t on the ballot in Ohio.
And for those of you who are sure that Kerry will pull out Ohio, let me warn you that the Columbus dispatch reports people have been calling elderly voters to tell them that their polling places have changed. Combine that with J. Kenneth Blackwell’s resistence to provisional voting, and one might conclude that the GOP “fix” is in in the Buckeye State.
I would bet that Kerry would win Ohio in a fair vote. I’m not sure he’ll be able to win by a large enough margin to overcome the GOP plans to wrest the state away from the voters.
WHATS WITH IOWA AND WISCONSIN
Over the summer, I thought we would be in good shape in both of these states, primarily because they have traditionally been “anti war.” I wonder if there is some demographic change that is going on there that is turning them from a “blue-purple” to a “red-purple.” Forexample, here in West Virginia, the Democratic Party is getting killed by the long term loss of union jobs. I wonder if a similar dynamic is going on in the upper midwest. On the other hand, I dont think either state is seeing the type of demographic change that is helping the party that is described in Ruy’s EDM.
Another possibility is just that Kerry does not “play well” and has not campaigned well in rural areas. Some paper, I think it was the NYT, suggesting this is the case. However, this would not really explain why he is out performing Gore in Ohio.
Any thoughts?
Mark,
The GOP will try anything & everything to steal FL, so don’t count on those 27 EV.
Nonetheless, in keeping with what Cautiously Optimistic said above, if Kerry wins OH he could lose either WI or IA (not both) and still have 270 EV. The way things stand now, I think it is highly likely that Kerry will take OH + (WI or IA). He may well take all three.
Scott
Well, despite the hype posted here, I’m concerned. Bush is up by two nationally on Reuters and 2.5 on Rasmussen, and is winning in Slate’s electoral college forecast. These are all trending Bush in the last few days. I know that the swing states are what matters, but here and elsewhere it seems that Kerry has plateaued. I know that incumbents typically get their approval rating in final votes, but since we’re at war, I think that a good chunk of undecideds will hold their noses and pull for Bush anyway.
One thing I don’t get is the apparent disjunction between the polls in the battleground states and the national horserace polls.
I’m generalizing, and doing some averaging in my head, but it seems that when viewed in state-by-state polls or the polls of “battleground state voters” Kerry does better than he does in the national horserace.
This suggests that Bush’s advantage in the Red states is larger than Kerry’s in the Blue states. It would also suggest that Bush had more “wasted” votes (votes in excess of the margin necessary to win) in large states like Texas.
Is this really true? Kerry seems to be comfortably ahead in more large states than Bush. I’m thinking of Kerry’s lead in New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts compared to Bush’s lead in Texas.
Any comments?
This morning on Air America (Oct 22) , they had Zogby on the air. In his analysis, he said that one thing seemed sure, and that was that Bush’s support was firmly set. He saw little possibility for Bush to gain much in the polls. He thought that all the undecideds would break for Kerry and possibly before the election.
Remember, Zogby is considered to be the most accurate of pollers, and an incumbant who can’t top 50% is in big trouble. Of course, there’s the Electoral College.
Bush will not win WI (but if he does I’ll have to mover)
Consider:
1) In 2000 Gore won be a mere 5000 some votes but,
2) Nader got 90,000 votes (3.5%). He’d be lucky to get 1/10 that this time around. I live on Madison’s east side in one of the most liberal wards in the state (in 2000 Bush pulled in a whopping 80 votes (5%) while Nader got 337 (23%)) and I don’t know of a single person planning on voting for Nader. I flat out do not believe he will pull the 1-2% of the vote the polls suggest.
3) Turnout is clearly key, but the Kerry base of Milwaukee and Madison is more densely popluated than the rural Bush base so it should be easier to drag the lazy-but-probably-Kerry voter to the polls than their Bush counterparts
4) Polls are all over the place in WI just as they
were in 2000. See this article from Oct 24, 2000 in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct00/poll24102300a.asp
Sounds a lot like this year
5) Its our turn dammit!
This is not a suggestion that KE should back off on Florida…but we absolutely must have an electroal edge that allows us to win without FL. The Leninists on the GOPpie side can and will pull out all the stops there, and have the established infrastructure to get away with it.
A small data point in support of that argument. My 80-something y.o. in-laws live in Piniellas County. M-in-law is registered Dem, F-in-Law a Repug.
Her absentee ballot comes without a pre-paid addressed envelope, his comes with. She ends up mailing in hand addressed that gets returned for insufficient postage. She resends. She checks around their home to see if others got or didn’t get a return envelope. 2 Repugs and 1 Dem did, 2 Dems did not, and 1 of those 2 Dems got theirs back for incorrect/no-such address.
Not even remotely a definitive study, but 3-of-5 Dems didn’t get a return envelope, and 2-of-5 geriatric Dems had the opportunity to just let it slide and skip resending. If an eighth of the 2-of-5 don’t bother to resend or screw up again, that’s 5% of the intended-Dem absentee vote.
Moreover, there’s the liklihood of other schemes to be put into play.
Again, not suggesting we blow it off…way too many popular and electoral votes. But we’d better nail it without needing it. How about AZ, AR (send Clinton, Clark & Edwards full-time) & IA. Or VA & NC.
Zogby today is reporting that Kerry and Bush are basically even among seniors. Zogby calls this another “ominous” sign for Kerry. I admit language like this gives me a chill. But is that something of an exaggeration given that Zogby is showing the two of them statistically tied (I think it’s 47-45 Bush). I would think there are more than a few “ominous” signs he could find for Bush, too, but doesn’t seem to want to discuss them.
Gotta love Gallup. There’s just no way Bush is doing better in Colorado (my home) than Wisconsin. No way. Also, I’ve been in WI recently. The independent groups and the Dem party is so wired and organized I felt like I was in Marine boot camp. They’re going to pull it out. Iowa is not looking good, but I’m pretty confident that will be our only Gore-state loss.
Quinnipac now has Kerry 5 points ahead in Pennsylvania. There can be no doubt now — the momentum is clearly in Kerry’s direction. Ahead in Ohio, ahead in Pa., tied or ahead in Florida, ahead in Iowa, closing in on Wisconsin and poised to “steal” New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada and perhaps other states from the Red column.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11379.xml?ReleaseID=486
If Kerry is roughly even nationwide, but running ahead by 6-7 points in the battleground states, where are all Bush’s extra votes coming from?
RUTS, baby! (Running Up The Score, to borrow a college football term)
The numbers I’ve seen for the Solid Red and Blue states (2.004k.com, as of this morning) generally show Kerry up by 10-15, and breaking 20 in only a few strongholds like RI, NY, and over 30% only in DC, a 20%+ total of 38 EVs. In CA, Ill, he’s not over 20, and in MA he doesn’t clear 15!
Bush, on the other hand, is RUTSing like Kansas State. Against Army. At Home. On national TV. For Homecoming. He has leads of 20 or more in a baker’s dozen states totalling 106 EVs. In four states, UT, WY, OK, and NE, he’s at 30% or more. Bush has successfully mobilized his red state base – too bad it doesn’t count for much beyond national telephone surveys.
EVs by (Mar)gin, for (Bu)sh and (Ke)rry
Mar Bu Ke
30+ 20 3
20+ 86 35
10+ 41 105
6+ 48 84
Florida is the big one. If Kerry wins Ohio he can still lose. If he wins Florida, he wins.
Mark
With all the polls coming out now, here are my feelings.
I don’t see any way Bush wins Wisconsin. I know the polls there are showing a close race, but I think Kerry will pull out Wisconsin.
I’m feeling much better about Ohio. Everything seems to be trending Kerry’s way there.
–Scott
“Will vote early, wish I could vote often.”
brit hume (fox special report with britte hume- thursday)interviewd republican pollster john mccaughlin on LV v. RV.
mccaughlin stated that in determining who is a LV his firm simply asked polled party if they were a likely voter. he admitted this was a very loose “screen” and went on to criticze LV screens in general as being unrelaible.
Ruy, I’m no fan of Bush, but I have to ask why this Gallup poll showing Kerry leading 50-44 among RV’s in Ohio is credible, while practically every other Gallup poll has been discounted at this site?
It’s worth noting that if Bush wins FL, WI, and IA, then Kerry loses, even if Kerry wins OH & PA. So, we can’t focus all of our attention on OH. Nevertheless, I think Kerry will ultimately win both OH and WI (and perhaps IA too).