I was very closely watching the saga of OMB’s disastrous effort to freeze funding for a vast number of federal programs, and wrote about why it was actually revoked at New York.
This week the Trump administration set off chaos nationwide when it temporarily “paused” all federal grants and loans pending a review of which programs comply with Donald Trump’s policy edicts. The order came down in an unexpected memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget on Monday.
Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge. Adding to the pervasive confusion, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately insisted on Wednesday that the funding freeze was still on because Trump’s executive orders on DEI and other prohibited policies remained in place. But there’s no way this actually gets implemented without someone, somewhere, identifying exactly what’s being frozen. So for the moment, it’s safe to say the funding freeze is off.
Why did Team Trump back off this particular initiative so quickly? It’s easy to say the administration was responding to D.C. district judge Loren AliKhan’s injunction halting the freeze. But then again, the administration (and particularly OMB director nominee Russell Vought) has been spoiling for a court fight over the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act that the proposed freeze so obviously violated. Surely something else was wrong with the freeze, aside from the incredible degree of chaos associated with its rollout, requiring multiple clarifications of which agencies and programs it affected (which may have been a feature rather than a bug to the initiative’s government-hating designers). According to the New York Times, the original OMB memo, despite its unprecedented nature and sweeping scope, wasn’t even vetted by senior White House officials like alleged policy overlord Stephen Miller.
Democrats have been quick to claim that they helped generate a public backlash to the funding freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded:
“A Monday night memo from the Office of Management and Budget ordering a freeze in federal grant and loan programs sent congressional Republicans scrambling and helped Democrats rally behind a clear anti-Trump message. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump as ‘lawless, destructive, cruel.’
“D.C. senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, warned that thousands of federal programs could be impacted, including veterans, law enforcement and firefighters, suicide hotlines, military aid to foreign allies, and more …
“During a Senate Democratic Caucus lunch on Tuesday, Schumer urged his colleagues to make the freeze “relatable” to their constituents back home, a clear play for the messaging upper hand. Schumer also plans on doing several local TV interviews today.”
In other words, the funding freeze looks like a clear misstep for an administration and a Republican Party that were walking very tall after the 47th president’s first week in office, giving Democrats a rare perceived “win.” More broadly, it suggests that once the real-life implications of Trump’s agenda (including his assaults on federal spending and the “deep state”) are understood, his public support is going to drop like Wile E. Coyote with an anvil in his paws. If that doesn’t bother Trump or his disruptive sidekick, Elon Musk, it could bother some of the GOP members of Congress expected to implement the legislative elements of the MAGA to-do list for 2025.
It’s far too early, however, to imagine that the chaos machine humming along at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will fall silent even for a moment. OMB could very well issue a new funding-freeze memo the minute the injunction stopping the original one expires next week. If that doesn’t happen, there could be new presidential executive orders (like the ones that suspended certain foreign-aid programs and energy subsidies) and, eventually, congressional legislation. Democrats and Trump-skeptical Republicans will need to stay on their toes to keep up with this administration’s schemes and its willingness to shatter norms.
It’s true, nonetheless, that the electorate that lifted Trump to the White House for the second time almost surely wasn’t voting to sharply cut, if not terminate, the host of popular federal programs that appeared to be under the gun when OMB issued its funding freeze memo. Sooner or later the malice and the fiscal math that led to this and other efforts to destroy big areas of domestic governance will become hard to deny and impossible to rescind.
Mady-
Yesterday afternoon, I looked at all polls with post dates of October at race2004.net. I excluded those with either a GOP or Dem designation. I used 3 way data, if available, when Nader was on the ballot, 2 way data, if available, when Nader was not on the ballot. If a given organization did more than one poll, I used the most recent.
Of the 11 polls in Florida, 4 had Kerry in the lead, 4 Bush, 3 tied. The unweighted (by sample size) average was Bush up by 0.5%.
Of the 11 polls in Ohio, 7 had Kerry in the lead, 4 had Bush in the lead. The average was Kerry up .8%
Of the 7 polls in Wisconsin, 2 had Kerry in the lead, 3 Bush, and 2 were dead ties. The average was dead even.
Of the 8 polls in Iowa, 2 had Kerry up, 5 Bush, with 1 tie, average Bush lead of 2%.
Of the 5 in New Mexico, 2 had Kerry up, 3 Bush, average Bush lead of 2%.
Of the 4 in Minnesota, 2 had Kerry up, 2 Bush, with an average Kerry lead of 0.75%.
Of the 9 in New Hampshire, 6 had Kerry up, 3 Bush, with an average Kerry lead of 3%.
So…each of those polls has both sides winning some of the time this past month. It’s hard for me to think of any of them as solid. And Wisconsin is probably the least solid of any of them.
Those 7 seem the key battlegrounds now, with the possibility of an Arkansas or Hawaii creeping in.
[Others states for which at least one independent poll has shown both both sides in the lead of at least 1% at some point last month, using only the most recent poll from the organization…:
Colorado, Bush 5, Kerry 1
Oregon, Kerry 7, Bush 1
That’s it. Hawaii, Arkansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and Nevada seem to have been close here or there…]
If all but the 7 listed above are considered solid, you’re looking at 228 EV’s for Kerry, 227 for Bush. Kerry can get the other 42 with Ohio, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and either Florida, Wisconsin, or [Iowa and New Mexico].
Looking at today’s state polls, I think Wisconsin is up for grabs, while Iowa seems to lean slightly–but not irrecoverably–to Bush. Giving Nevada and especially Arkansas to Kerry seems a little overoptimistic, but not impossible. Probably the most important–Florida and Ohio–are split down the middle (if you discount what I hope is the out-of-whack Gallup result in Florida), with new polls divided on who is ahead, usually within the margin of error.
I think general polls of battleground states weight their sample so that more people are sampled from the largest states, with many more Floridians than Oregonians, for instance. But the samples from each state are almost certainly too small to reliably extrapolate results from individual states.
Zogby’s rolling tracking is showing a Bush lead on the basis of one day’s result having Bush +7. He’s up 3 which means the other days in the survey have to net a +4 to Kerry. Once that Bush +7 drops out in 2 days, it will be back where it was most likely.
I don’t know what’s going on with Tipp.
WaPo seems to be going Kerry’s way as is Rasmussen a bit (It was B+3) last week. So things are looking better.
Mady: There’s nothing addressing an analysis of the early votes that I know of. Are California and New York having early voting this year? I know many of the Southern States do and some of the northern states do not. Could that be the discrepancy? Also, I don’t know if that figure is an estimate based on exit polling, or an actual count.
In the state polls, Race.com has taken PA, NH, NJ, ME from undecided to Weak Kerry.
Mady: I checked most of the recent polls in WI. They’re mostly from SV, a republican outfit. I’ll wait for some more credible polls there.
Same is true of Iowa.
Mady,
Steve Soto at Left Coast has an analysis of early voters and it’s great for Kerry. Typically, early voters are elderly women in western states (most early voting states are in the West) – and trend heavily Republican. I believe Bush beat Gore among early voters in 2000 by 55-44 or something. So if Bush only leads by 4 now among early voters (and with a sample size of 170 voters anyway) then Bush is doing poorly.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
Also, a new Gallup poll (yes, Gallup) shows Kerry up 1 in Iowa. I have less confidence about Nevada but with OH and FL Nevada doesn’t matter.
Can anyone tell me a poll on how many 2000 bush supporters are not voting for him this time. Are the polls weighted in such a way that fails to this into account. There are many who simply will not vote for him this time. There are some who may not vote for Kerry but they are definitely not voting for Bush. This seems like it would be a significant thing to know.
I’m not sure, looking at the polls tonight most of which show Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada as pretty firmly Bush, where you find the information that those states will go to Kerry. Is it the potential for Democratic turnout, or some way of reading polling that I’m not doing? I’d love to believe with you, but I really think it is totally up in the air right now.
Also, no one addressed a question I had posted earlier–why is the voting that’s been done already showing a Repub lead? Any information on patterns, where people are voting early, which groups are?
probably Kerry
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Nevada
Florida
Ohio
Arkansas
Minnesota
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Oregon
New Hampshire
probably Bush
Colorado
Missouri
West Virginia
Virginia
Tennessee
Kerry is going to win BIG.
According to ABC (Noted Now) both campaigns are now putting resources into Hawaii, which seems to be genuinely in play. That is really not a good thing.
Kudos, commendations, and additional crown jewels to Ruy for being the best Donkey Rising, hands down, thumbs up!!
To Ruy and staff …. thanks a bunch! Many are greatful for your efforts. Including me.
Is it possible to give us some feedback on early voting? Either turnout or exit polling, or anything concrete? Anything more concrete on election turnout in general?
Again, thanks.
Do we know what Demo Corps. considers battlegrounds still? If it’s the entire 16 or so that originally existed (including WA, OR, etc), then this is not surprising or exciting.
Numbers that would be meaningful at this point should essentially be confined to PA, FL, OH, IA, WI, MN, NM, NV and possibly AR and CO. If these numbers include OR and WA and perhaps some others, then these aren’t that useful, since OR and WA will obviously inflate Kerry’s numbers since these are barely battlegrounds now. In fact, I’d argue that we could take PA off the list too to get a really good number of how Kerry is doing.
Here’s hoping that similar numbers exist for the states I mentioned.
-Jeff
Personally, I find the “battleground states” polls unenlightening.
America does not elect presidents nationally; it elects them on a state-by-state basis through the Electoral College. As we learned in 2000, it does not matter if a candidate racks up big vote-margins in one state (and win the national vote), only to lose a couple of others by mere handfuls and therefore lose the EC.
Subsequently, I honestly don’t care if John Kerry is building up a big vote-total in all 15 battleground states. Does this mean Kerry is doing well in all 15 battlegrounds? Or does it mean Oregon has gone whole-hog for Kerry while Kerry is losing the rest?
You can’t tell. Therefore, these polls are completely uninformative to me, and don’t give me any strategic information whatsoever.
I wish polling firms would stop doing them, and either do state-by-state polls which would give us real data by which to predict EC outcomes, or divert the resources to states (like Arkansas) which are seeing little polling but which might just well be coming into play (as the last Arkansas poll indicated).
Zogby has Bush up by 3 nationwide and also ahead in most of the battleground states…The brief lead Kerry had in the Rasmussen poll is gone and it is a dead heat again. Boy, I sure hope that all the good polls are the ones listed on EDM, but I can’t help but be a little nervous at this point. At least EDM gives me some hope though!