The latest Democracy Corps survey, conducted Oct 23-25 Shows John Kerry leading George Bush 49-47 in their national sample and 52-45 in the battleground states. The poll also found that Kerry is ahead by 22 pts among new voters and includes substantial additional information on the latest trends among population subgroups and target voters.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
December 2: No, Biden Doesn’t Need a “Sister Souljah Moment”
As a old guy and a history buff, this topic attracted me like catnip, and I addressed it at New York:
Seth Masket did something important and admirable at Politico this week: He examined the historical premise for some advice being offered to President Biden by many voices and found it to be ill-founded:
“Joe Biden needs a ‘Sister Souljah Moment.’ At least, that’s according to the quickly congealing conventional wisdom in Washington. That is, Biden and Democrats are in dire danger of losing control of Congress next year, and the one thing that could save them would be by bashing someone to Biden’s left on matters of race.”
The allusion is to a speech famously made by Bill Clinton in the summer of 1992 (when he had already nailed down the Democratic presidential nomination) to a conference of the Jesse Jackson–chaired Rainbow Coalition criticizing the organization for holding a panel the previous day that included Sister Souljah. The rapper had recently made remarks related to the L.A. riots that some interpreted as promoting the killing of white people (a claim she denied).
Jackson (who had expressed pride in Souljah’s appearance at his conference) was sitting on the stage near Clinton as he spoke and understandably felt blindsided and exploited by what Clinton said. So it has gone down in legend as a “moment” when a Democratic politician pandered to swing voters (and perhaps to white racists) by conspicuously separating himself from Black political activists. And that, as Masket notes, is what some commentators want Biden to do to stem the political bleeding over controversies surrounding racial justice, including Black Lives Matter protests, the “defund the police” movement, and the alleged influence of critical race theory in public-school classrooms.
The principal trouble with the claim Biden can do wonders via a little measured race-baiting, Masket explains, is that it didn’t do Clinton much good in 1992. A lot of factors lifted him to victory that fall, but clearly it was the economy (stupid!) and the temporary withdrawal of Ross Perot from the race that were most important. There is little-to-no evidence that the Sister Souljah “moment” had any particular effect on the contest. Yet the legend persists:
“Is it possible that Clinton got some help on Election Day from his bashing of Souljah five months earlier? It’s possible, but unlikely. Campaign effects just generally don’t last that long. It was a very old story by then, and it’s hard to even discern much of an effect when the story was fresh. Polling that year shows that voters were more likely to trust Clinton on issues related to racial politics, but that was true prior to the Souljah moment, as well.
“So why is it important to interrogate this piece of political lore three decades later? Because clearly many opinion leaders take it as an article of faith that a Democratic president can make himself more popular by bashing advocates for racial justice. The evidence doesn’t really support this, but they make the argument anyway.”
I would go a step further than Masket in debunking the “Sister Souljah Moment” theory. I say this not because I have any insider information on what was going on in the Clinton campaign (or in the candidate’s mind) before he made that Rainbow Coalition speech. But I was an early Clinton supporter and later worked for the decidedly Clintonite Democratic Leadership Council, and I sure didn’t think the incident was mostly about race. Obviously, racists in the electorate probably perceived it that way, though few of them at that point in history were likely to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. The broader perception at the time was captured by Tom Edsall’s on-site report on the speech for the Washington Post:
“Clinton’s frank remarks seemed designed to demonstrate his willingness to challenge core Democratic constituent groups and to begin to break his image in the public as a “political” person who would bend to pressure from major forces within his party …
“The power of the Perot campaign, and growing public animosity to both the Republican and the Democratic parties, has been interpreted in the Clinton campaign as a powerful message requiring the Arkansas governor to attempt to regain the status of an ‘outsider’ candidacy — a status first lost to former Massachusetts senator Paul E. Tsongas, then to former California governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. and most recently to Perot.”
Indeed, the idea that Clinton was triangulating against Black folks generally on race was not borne out by the reaction from, well, Black folks, other than those very close to the justifiably insulted Jackson, as Steve Kornacki later observed:
“Clinton did not suffer any discernible fallout among black voters; in fact, many black political leaders — some nursing their own grudges against Jackson — used the occasion to throw their support behind Clinton.”
That could be in part because even if you think Clinton was pushing off the left, he wasn’t exactly moving right. In the same speech in which he chastised Sister Souljah for allegedly smiling upon the hypothetical killing of white people for the sins of their race, Clinton sounded some familiar populist themes that were entirely congenial to his audience:
“The speech included repeated attacks on the Bush administration, with a well received line about Vice President Quayle — ‘I’m tired of people on trust funds telling people on food stamps how to live’ — and praise for ‘the real story of Los Angeles — that most people who live in that city did not burn, loot or riot.’”
So what would a more nuanced understanding of the “Sister Souljah Moment” tell Joe Biden?
First of all, Biden is in a vastly different position than was Clinton in 1992. There is no Ross Perot on the horizon, appealing to a huge block of swing voters temporarily estranged from both parties. When Clinton rejected Jesse Jackson’s advice to run a base-mobilization campaign, there were plenty of reasons to fear that identification of Clinton with Democratic orthodoxy would be disastrous: At the time of the Sister Souljah speech, Clinton was running third in many polls behind Perot and George H.W. Bush. And when Perot did (temporarily) withdraw from the race right after the Democratic convention (I was involved in speech preparations for that convention and remember when the word came down: No more criticisms of Perot!), he basically confirmed that Clinton had succeeded in redeeming his pledge to become “a different kind of Democrat,” as the Los Angeles Times explained:
“’When we started … there was a climate there where we could win outright,’ Perot asserted. But now, he said, ‘the Democratic Party has revitalized itself. They’ve done a brilliant job, in my opinion, in coming back.’
:Perot did not elaborate on that point. But Morton H. Meyerson, a longtime Perot confidant and campaign adviser, later cited the Democratic Party’s platform as something that ‘Ross feels good about.’
“Meyerson added: ‘The Democrats seem to be listening to the people.'”
Biden, by contrast is operating in a highly polarized climate with few swing voters and no Perot-like centrist to challenge him. He has zero reason to gamble on separating himself rhetorically from his party.
Second of all, while Clinton was dealing with decades of perceived Democratic subservience to the party’s interest and constituency groups, Biden is dealing with a conservative media environment in which nothing he says will effectively contradict assertions that he wants to defund the police, open the prison doors, impose “woke” speech codes and racial quotas on colleges and workplaces, and usher in a socialist revolution. It’s all preposterous, but Biden has already tried and failed to challenge the smears with rhetorical signals. Some hypothetical equivalent to the supposed message Clinton sent in the “Sister Souljah Moment” would mostly be heard by those who feared, not hoped, he was separating himself from his party under pressure.
And third, even if Joe Biden thought he needed to “push off” the left (as though defeating Bernie Sanders in the 2020 presidential primaries wasn’t enough “pushing off”), he should stay far away from racially inflammatory subjects. Biden would have never won the presidential nomination without the kind of staunch Black support that destroyed the potentially strong nomination campaigns of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, even though Biden’s history on racial issues was far more problematic than Clinton’s in 1992. Besides, now and in 1992, the idea that “the left” and “Black voters” are somehow synonymous is simply wrong.
If Biden feels the need to make it clear he’s still the moderately progressive Democrat who hates racism but is by no means a socialist or especially “woke,” he should just say so, as often as possible. No “pushing off” is necessary.
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!