John Kerry and George Bush are tied at 47 percent of nation-wide RV’s in a head-to-head match-up, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted 10/1-3.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
December 18: Democratic Strategies for Coping With a Newly Trumpified Washington
After looking at various Democratic utterances about dealing with Trump 2.0, I wrote up a brief typology for New York:
The reaction among Democrats to Donald Trump’s return to power has been significantly more subdued than what we saw in 2016 after the mogul’s first shocking electoral win. The old-school “resistance” is dead, and it’s not clear what will replace it. But Democratic elected officials are developing new strategies for dealing with the new realities in Washington. Here are five distinct approaches that have emerged, even before Trump’s second administration has begun.
If you can’t beat ’em, (partially) join ’em
Some Democrats are so thoroughly impressed by the current power of the MAGA movement they are choosing to surrender to it in significant respects. The prime example is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the onetime fiery populist politician who is now becoming conspicuous in his desire to admit his party’s weaknesses and snuggle up to the new regime. The freshman and one-time ally of Bernie Sanders has been drifting away from the left wing of his party for a good while, particularly via his vocally unconditional backing for Israel during its war in Gaza. But now he’s making news regularly for taking steps in Trump’s direction.
Quite a few Democrats publicly expressed dismay over Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, but Fetterman distinguished himself by calling for a corresponding pardon for Trump over his hush-money conviction in New York. Similarly, many Democrats have discussed ways to reach out to the voters they have lost to Trump. Fetterman’s approach was to join Trump’s Truth Social platform, which is a fever swamp for the president-elect’s most passionate supporters. Various Democrats are cautiously circling Elon Musk, Trump’s new best friend and potential slayer of the civil-service system and the New Deal–Great Society legacy of federal programs. But Fetterman seems to want to become Musk’s buddy, too, exchanging compliments with him in a sort of weird courtship. Fetterman has also gone out of his way to exhibit openness to support for Trump’s controversial Cabinet nominees even as nearly every other Senate Democrat takes the tack of forcing Republicans to take a stand on people like Pete Hegseth before weighing in themselves.
It’s probably germane to Fetterman’s conduct that he will be up for reelection in 2028, a presidential-election year in a state Trump carried on November 5. Or maybe he’s just burnishing his credentials as the maverick who blew up the Senate dress code.
Join ’em (very selectively) to beat ’em
Other Democrats are being much more selectively friendly to Trump, searching for “common ground” on issues where they believe he will be cross-pressured by his wealthy backers and more conventional Republicans. Like Fetterman, these Democrats — including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — tend to come from the progressive wing of the party and have longed chafed at the centrist economic policies advanced by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and, to some extent, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They’ve talked about strategically encouraging Trump’s “populist” impulses on such issues as credit-card interest and big-tech regulation, partly as a matter of forcing the new president and his congressional allies to put up or shut up.
So the idea is to push off a discredited Democratic Establishment, at least on economic issues, and either accomplish things for working-class voters in alliance with Trump or prove the hollowness of his “populism.”
Colorado governor Jared Solis has offered a similar strategy of selective cooperation by praising the potential agenda of Trump HHS secretary nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as helpfully “shaking up” the medical and scientific Establishment.
Aim at the dead center
At the other end of the spectrum, some centrist Democrats are pushing off what they perceive as a discredited progressive ascendancy in the party, especially on culture-war issues and immigration. The most outspoken of them showed up at last week’s annual meeting of the avowedly nonpartisan No Labels organization, which was otherwise dominated by Republicans seeking to demonstrate a bit of independence from the next administration. These include vocal critics of the 2024 Democratic message like House members Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Ritchie Torres, and Seth Moulton, along with wannabe 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Josh Gottheimer (his Virginia counterpart, Abigail Spanberger, wasn’t at the No Labels confab but is similarly positioned ideologically).
From a strategic point of view, these militant centrists appear to envision a 2028 presidential campaign that will take back the voters Biden won in 2020 and Harris lost this year.
Cut a few deals to mitigate the damage
We’re beginning to see the emergence of a faction of Democrats that is willing to cut policy or legislative deals with Team Trump in order to protect some vulnerable constituencies from MAGA wrath. This is particularly visible on the immigration front; some congressional Democrats are talking about cutting a deal to support some of Trump’s agenda in exchange for continued protection from deportation of DREAMers. Politico reports:
“The prize that many Democrats would like to secure is protecting Dreamers — Americans who came with their families to the U.S. at a young age and have since been protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created by President Barack Obama in 2012.
“Trump himself expressed an openness to ‘do something about the Dreamers’ in a recent ‘Meet the Press’ interview. But he would almost certainly want significant policy concessions in return, including border security measures and changes to asylum law that Democrats have historically resisted.”
On a broader front, the New York Times has found significant support among Democratic governors to selectively cooperate with the new administration’s “mass deportation” plans in exchange for concessions:
“In interviews, 11 Democratic governors, governors-elect and candidates for the office often expressed defiance toward Mr. Trump’s expected immigration crackdown — but were also strikingly willing to highlight areas of potential cooperation.
“Several balanced messages of compassion for struggling migrants with a tough-on-crime tone. They said that they were willing to work with the Trump administration to deport people who had been convicted of serious crimes and that they wanted stricter border control, even as they vowed to defend migrant families and those fleeing violence in their home countries, as well as businesses that rely on immigrant labor.”
Hang tough and aim for a Democratic comeback
While the Democrats planning strategic cooperation with Trump are getting a lot of attention, it’s clear the bulk of elected officials and activists are more quietly waiting for the initial fallout from the new regime to develop while planning ahead for a Democratic comeback. This is particularly true among the House Democratic leadership, which hopes to exploit the extremely narrow Republican majority in the chamber (which will be exacerbated by vacancies for several months until Trump appointees can be replaced in special elections) on must-pass House votes going forward, while looking ahead with a plan to aggressively contest marginal Republican-held seats in the 2026 midterms. Historical precedents indicate very high odds that Democrats can flip the House in 2026, bringing a relatively quick end to any Republican legislative steamrolling on Trump’s behalf and signaling good vibes for 2028.
going to http://www.pollingreport.com and taking all 13 polls since the debate (excluding the quickies) the results are as follows:
Bush – 47.38
Kerry – 46.31
a 1% difference well within the average 3% margin of error.
Marcus
I believe the point is that the methodology used before did not reflect what are historic trends, and that these numbers coming out reflect where most people thought the election is: namely a tie between Bush and Kerry. Most of the points about weighing I think these new polls are suggesting at least anecdotally maybe true- ie, they as the id’ers return to historic norms- the race is indeed tied.
It’s funny how much someone’s opinion can change only after a few days. On September 26th, a frequent poster to this site advised readers of EDM to disregard the “spin” suggesting that the CBS/NYT poll was biased in favor of Bush. Of course, this was at a time when the CBS/NYT poll indicated that Bush was leading Kerry by 8 points. In fact, his words of caution to us “libs” on September 26th were as follows,
“This CBS poll appears to use a weighting that includes MORE Dems than Reps (See the end of the file), so I’m confused by all the Lib spin that suggests this poll is biased in favor of GWB because it oversamples Reps.
Of course, if the poll does not toe the Lib line that the race is a dead heat, then the poll is to be discarded – Sheeeeesh!!”
Of course, now that the polls (including Gallup and CBS) are reflecting the effects of Bush’s undeniably disasterous debate performance, we are now advised by this same poster above,
“This (CBS) poll has about the same credibility as the forged document story IMO.”
Message: we “libs” should take the CBS poll seriously only if it shows Bush ahead, but if it shows Kerry is tied or leading it must be total crap.
Sheeeesh, indeed.
The recent swing in the polls lends credence to the idea that party ID is indeed fungible. People felt good about Kerry after the debates and so they identified themselves as Democrats (came out of the closet, if you will) to pollsters. Hence we see party ID breakdowns that now more closely reflect 2000 exit polling.
> …their Abu Gharib ambush on GWB…
>
> Posted by Smooth azz at October 5, 2004 05:02 AM
Really? So you think that ABC is more responsible for Abu Grahib than GWB is? Fascinating!
It’s probably more important to watch Friday morning job’s report than Friday night’s debate.
That’s because, in addition to the monthly number, the feds. will issues benchmark revisions for the entire year. History shows they can be very large. The average upward revisions since 1979 has been 308,000.
Robust job growth would speak for itself, which is definitely good news for the president.
On the other hand, a weak report and I think we’re looking at another 2000 squeeker.
How can you or anybody possibly know the actual number of GOP/Dem voters will turn out in November?
technically your right, we can’t know for sure the actual number of gop/dem voters. But you could make the same comment about any age group, any religion, a city vs. suburb, racial groups, ect…… by your logic you can’t do polling.
American Research Group has Kerry up by 3 in new poll today, 47-44.
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/
The polls won’t matter – GASP – is Kerry and Edwards play it right.
I think Edwards AND ESPECIALLY KERRY have to attack attack attack in these next two debates. They can’t cede an inch of ground. If they get Cheney to come off looking half as angry, or mean as Bush that is a win. Kerry should try to drive Bush right over the edge on Friday. I think comparisons to his father, George H.W. Bush may do it. If Bush cracks again on Friday you can stick a fork in him, he will be done.
It has occurred to me, however, that maybe these polls just miss Democrats. In 2000, for example, I thought most had Bush with a consistent lead in the month before the election. I don’t remember a one showing a Gore lead. Since the election turned out to be a tie, one would have expected a distribution of polls on either side — some for Gore, some for Bush. I don’t remember it that way — am I wrong? And does it suggest some systematic, if perhaps small, bias in national polls?
American Research Group has a poll with Kerry up by 3 points in RV’s, whether Nader is in or not. It has showed Kerry consistently doing well, without the fluctuations in other polls. Wonder why?
I would really be interested in some attempt to reconcile the polls, which seem to come in two groups. My impression is that some have shown more volatility and gave a wider advantage to Bush post-RNC. Others have had less volatility all along, but more favorability to Kerry generally. On the other hand, I sort of thought Pew was one of the latter group and they’ve suddenly had Bush in the lead in their last two.
Help!
Has anybody seen the new ARG poll showing a slight Kerry lead? Ruy, how credible is this new poll?
Oops, I forgot the URL for the latest NH poll. Here it is, my apologies:
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/elect100404.pdf
Marcus,
That’s my point exactly: We don’t really know if the EARLIER or CURRENT ID mix is correct, do we??
For all we know, CBS/NY Times COULD HAVE padded their earlier polls with Reps, to pounce with a Kerry “comeback” story later, or it could be that Dems were more enthusiastic after the debate, and may have been more willing to respond to a pollster.
The fact is: We don’t really know the motive behind them suddenly reversing the party ID to now support Kerry. Given that BOTH entities are run by partisan Dems, CBS complicity in perpetrating a forged document fraud, and the NY Times open disdain & hostility for GWB, I don’t trust them at this point.
Finally, in response to Tony and others, I have no problem recognizing a poll that is favorable to Kerry – And will gladly acknowledge if & when he takes the lead. I’m just skeptical that the race has changed fundamentally from where it was prior to the debate because CBS/NY Times, Newsweak & CNN/Gallup decided to flips party IDs in their samples.
Cloudy,
Today the Columbus dispatch published registration information. In Ohio people do not declare a party when they register, so estimates of the impact are based on whether the location is heavily democratic or republican.
Yesterday alone, 20,000 people registered in Franklin County (Columbus) and 98,000 had previously registered, which brings the total of registered voters to 837,000. I read somewhere else that this is approaching or exceeding census estimates for the county.
Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) also received about 20,000 registrations yesterday, and they had received 235,000 voter registratin cards, 100,000 of them estimated to be new voters. The others probably name changes etc. I think if you haven’t voted in four years you have to reregister, so I think many were people who hadn’t been active who want to vote this year. Cleveland is heavily democratic, Columbus is predominately democratic.
In Hamilton County -Cinncinnati -(more Repub leaning), new registrations totaled 64,000 as of Saturday.
Even small, rural counties like mine, are getting record registrations, around 200 a day as of last week.
Typically that would be thought of as a problem in this repub leaning county, but this is no typical year. Some of these new votes include friends of my college aged kids who are voting Kerry.
Spent Saturday walking the neighborhoods with a Dem list that represented swing voters or undecided voters. Finding out if they had decided, trying to talk with undecideds. My impression, not very scientific, of course, but undecideds had already switched to Kerry at about 7-3. A few still undecided, but sometimes I think we ought to let some undecideds alone. I mean why should my well researched, passionate vote be canceled out by someone who doesn’t know who they are going to vote for as they walk in the booth?
More good news, I talked with folks who had decided to vote for Kerry after seeing the debate.
My prediction is that Ohio will go for Kerry.
Yard signs are more for Kerry here (again this is repub territory) and we can’t keep them stocked in the Dem storefront.
Those polls do not pick up on all the new registrations. Took my colleagues out to lunch last week to talk about why I’m voting for Kerry.
It will be all about GOTV now that everyone is registered.
Go Johnny go!
Smooth, are you kidding me? Clarke and Abu Gharib shook faith in Bush considerably. As I recall, Kerry was way ahead all that time. The NG story didn’t have much negative impact, not because memos were faked, but because NOBODY CARES about Bush’s NG service.
BTW – Where’s the outrage over the fake Kerry story from FOX (which was not only posted on its Web site but discussed on FNC) and the “who among us” quote made up by Maureen Dowd? Oops. Doesn’t fit the librul media paradigm. Never mind.
Smooth,
Love how you’re getting into the polling internals now that things aren’t going W’s way…
From the RealClearPolitics site, now using only polls from after the debates, Bush’s lead is down to 1.8% in a 3-way, mostly LV’s (total of 6 polls) and 0.4% in a 2-way, again mostly LV’s, total of 5 polls.
If anyone’s not noticed, SJ will criticize the polls most in favor of Kerry while not addressing the polls in favor of Bush. Good to see Ruy being evenhanded and posting all the polls.
I’ll happily take a 0.4-1.8% Bush lead at this point. If Kerry can keep it at that, the late break should go his way and be enough to put him over the top.
This will probably be my only post today. Lots of stuff on my plate.
Jazz
Several polls show that actually contrary to your propaganda the differential between men and women for Kerry was at a nadir (not only according to CBS, but also Newsweek and other polls).
This poll weights respondents to reflect the percentage of votes in the 2000 election that came from heavily Democratic, heavily Republican, and swing counties. News reports (the best ones in the Times, to be fair) make clear that new voter registration is much heavier in Democratic than in Republican counties. The poll results which are weighted to the 2000 voting pattern will not reflect this.
Also, the poll is weighted for education and not for income. This will fail to correct the bias of low-income Kerry voters being unrepresented in the sample, and may actually increase the bias through the weighting process. (See my comment on the last CBS-Times poll.)
again, another periodic update on the website for helping with voter reg in swing states, including the blockages of registrants:
http://acthere.com/
By the way, the Kerry camp has been allowed by the FEC to start raising money for a fund for any post-election litigation and such
About the “gap gap”. We have two dimensions and TWO kinds of gap gaps now. Before, there were differences in the amount of bounce from the debates, but all the polls agreed the race is now within two % + or -. Now there are two polls that have minimal bounces AND still show a large lead of 5-7 points remaining for Bush. Of the debate bounce, either they see one or two percent increase at most and no more, or well over 5% and nothing in between. Over now eight polls (NY Times, ABC, Pew, Zogby, Gallup, Carville, LA TImes, and NEWSWEEK, there is not only no consensus, the results don’t even spread along any sort of continuum.
If one averaged them all out you would probably get about a four percent bounce net, leaving about a two percent lead to Bush — my guess that’s where the truth is. And Cheney v. Edwards should help at least another notch, though not nearly as much.
I really wonder again if there are any surveys of the new registrations to see the party breakdown and location of the new voters, probably concentrated in swing states such as Ohio, Nevada, and (probably less likely to affect pres campaign, MO). If the news of record registrations is true this could easily decide the election.
A few substantive political points
AGAIN, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE FLIPFLOP ISSUE BE CONFRONTED FORCEFULLY AS A “MERE SPIN” AND SOON, POSSIBLY BY EDWARDS IN THE DEBATE. He’ll need to back it up, eg showing the bogusness of the exploitation of the ‘voted for it before voted against it blooper’ as well as the weakness of the claim on NAFTA and the Patriot Act, challenge the media, and secondarily, note that Kerry’s campaign could easily match all the supposed Kerry flipflops at their own website and then do it. “Mere spin” can then at least mitigate the solidified flipflop cliche that has 60% of voters saying Kerry just tells people what they want to hear.
I also hear much talk about the draft, but little attention to the possibility of a draft that doesn’t require MILITARY service, although allowing it to be fulfilled by noncombat military duty (with those signing up for combat duty of course exempt). This could be the deciding issue of the election easily.
Some of the incredible spins on Kerry from the debates, from people in mainstream media and watchdogs who should know better. The ‘global test’ issue cast as a requirement for PRIOR world acceptance by Safire, the $200 billion scored for being too high as there’s some official (VAST UNDER)estimate of the money costs of the war. Those costs don’t cover long term commitments like paying for those injured or disabled over the long term, shifting costs on to state and local governments, eg from National Guard callups, hidden and delayed military costs (even wear and tear), etc etc etc. Kerry if anything UNDERestimates the costs of the wars like everyone including the media does. This is a pet peeve of mine. Pre-emptive war was read by Safire to mean pre-emptive NUCLEAR war, which Kerry never suggested, and numerous observers are completely confused about N Korea, including some media watchdogs. Biden pointed out that the Chinese WANT us to go into bilateral negotiations to SUPPLEMENT, as Kerry suggested, the multilateral approach. Yet these misstatements are not only repeated by the Bush campaign but by highly respected journalists, commentators and watchdogs that people trust. People need to watchdog these.
In the interests of honesty I’ll point out that I am much more dovish than Kerry and way to his Left, just preferring him to Bush. I also didn’t join the many of my colleagues who followed the Ralph ‘if Roe v Wade gets overturned, so what?’ Nader juggernaut in 2000 (even as they supported Hillary against Lazio.
******************************************
The flipflop issue needs to be effectively countered soon so the last weeks of the campaign can successfully focus on DEFICIT, JOBS, MEDICARE SCAM, ENVIRONMENT, and MEGATAX CUTS for the RICH in the midst of all this.
I still say the machine agenda is a better predictor of who will be the next prez than all this.