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.
Can someone explain why–as repeatedly reported– if Kerry leads among independents, moderates, new voters, young voters, women voters, etc, Bush has any lead at all? Aside from men voters, where is Bush’s support coming from? Thanks!
I don’t think you can trust these “tracking” polls. They’re conducted in a way that maximizes efficiency, not robust sampling. In order to reach a desirable number of completes, they simply burn through sample, meaning that they don’t make callbacks to numbers that do not answer. This greatly increases non-response bias and representativeness.
This isn’t about polls but is about post election strategy. I’m a lawyer and have done voting rights for 30 years. I have little confidence in the courts to handle the election contests in a non-partisan way. For simplicity imagine a repeat of 2000; massive voter suppression, court challenges, court rulings on partisan lines with incredible opinions. Then what? Like last time, Democrats fold up their tents and say nice non-partisan unfifying things and turn our democracy over to the anti-democracy party for four more years? Follow John Lewis to a sit-in in Washington?
ABC, Washington Post and Rasmussen all have Kerry UP in the race as of Monday.
I’d call that a good trend.
Bush’s team knows they are in trouble, which is why they are focusing on getting out their base and suppressing vote. They know they need to get all their people out AND stop Kerry voters by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Evidently Zogby had a very weird polling day for Bush on Saturday. On that day, Bush had a 7 point lead. It’s a clear outlier, because no other poll is showing this type of movement in either direction. However, Zogby has also said that in the Sunday poll, Kerry was up by two points. Friday numbers will be dropped off tomorrow, so I would expect the 3% margin to either remain the same or decrease slighly. On Wednesday, though, you will see a much bigger movement towards Kerry.
I think Ruy posted below about the volatility of the daily tracking polls and how they can have wild swings. If that’s what you mean, scroll down.
As Steve Soto points out at the Left Coaster, this is actually even better news than it seems. The internals of the current Gallup sample show that it is even more biased in favor of Republicans, but yet Bush’s lead went down! More Republicans, less support! Yow, that’s gotta hurt.
Zogby posted their one day results for Friday and Saturday nights. Bush took Friday 49-46, Bush also took Saturday 50-43. However, the three day rolling average for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday has Bush up 48-45. This means that Kerry took Sunday 46-45. Let’s give the poll at least two more days to flush the 49 and 50 out of the rolling average. Then we’ll see how good the President-select is doing.
Btw, WP has Kerry up 49-48 and Rasmussen has Kerry up 48-46. Gallup has Bush up by only 1 point among registered voters, with Kerry up by 2 in the Battleground States.
What was the party ID breakdown? Steve Soto has a post up, and says that Ruy Teixeira contacted him with a correction of sorts, but Soto doesn’t explain what the correction is. Can Mr. Teixeira clue us in? (Soto, at “The LEft Coaster,” has a post up saying Gallup’s party IDs are even worse than before, but then has an update — based on Teixeira — which seems to question his own post.)
I am scratching my head over some of the internals on the recentl polls. Zogby has Bush
leading among Independents by 12%. CBS
and Gallup according to this latest poll have
Kerry up by 5% by Independents. The only
explanation I can think of for this anamoly is
sampling error or respondents are making up
answers to all of the poll calls. They must be
getting tired of the calls. I am a political junkie
and I am growing wearing of these polls
What’s up with Zogby? Are they still weighting according to 2000 exit polls (democrat advantage in sample)? If so, shouldn’t their current numbers be cause for concern?
—————-
thats what i thought but then i looked up the 2000 poll of 9 days before the election and it showed the same 3 point bush lead that we see now.
It doesnt mean anything, its all within the margin of error.
I have the same concerns as chillmoth. Gallup is one thing, but Zogby is a more reliable organization, and they have Bush pulling ahead. Is there any reason not to be troubled by this, aside from the 50% rule which Zogby says might not be in play this year?
Gallup?
I call them Foul-up.
They’re doing the same thing they did four years ago. They’re showing Bush up, but they will close it to 2-3 points in a week and act like that makes up for bogus reports the past 3 months.
Both Kerry and Castor pull ahead in Florida.
http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html
Sometimes poll respondents are reluctant to express their true opinion.
1) They are talking to a stranger who may not be a legitimate pollster. Few people have heard of more than a few of the 20+ national polling organizations.
2) There may be someone else in the room listening, a person not sharing their opinion.
3) There is a reluctance to “go negative” on an an incumbent President. Especially if one is uncertain about who is calling.
In most urban areas. It is easy to acknowledge support of Democrats, even Nader. But in a suburban or rural community, it can invite unwanted attention if supporting anyone other than the Republicans.
The ballot is secret, but in telephone polling, Democrat support may be understated.
What’s up with Zogby? Are they still weighting according to 2000 exit polls (democrat advantage in sample)? If so, shouldn’t their current numbers be cause for concern?