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
-
May 19: Will Abandoned Pro-Choice Republican Voters Flip?
Amidst all the talk about the impact of a likely reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, I thought a history lesson was in order, so I wrote one at New York:
Last week, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have codified abortion rights, died in in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 49. All 210 House Republicans and all 50 Senate Republicans voted against the legislation. This surprised no one, but it’s actually odd in several ways. While Republican elected officials are almost monolithically opposed to abortion rights, pro-choice Republican voters didn’t entirely cease to exist, and this could become a problem for the party if, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the right to abortion at the end of this term.
Though polling on the issue is notoriously slippery, our best guess is that a little over a third of Republicans disagree with their party on whether to outlaw abortion (while about one-quarter of Democrats disagree with their party on the topic). These Americans have virtually no representation in Congress with the limited exceptions of Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (both GOP senators support some abortion rights, but they are still opposed the WHPA and are against dropping the filibuster to preserve abortion rights).
Ironically, abortion rights as we know them are, to a considerable extent, the product of Republican lawmaking at every level of government. The most obvious examples are the two Supreme Court decisions that established and reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion. Of the seven justices who supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that struck down pre-viability-abortion bans, five were appointed by Republican presidents, including the author of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, and then–Chief Justice Warren Burger. All five justices who voted to confirm the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey were appointed by Republican presidents as well.These pro-choice Republicans weren’t just rogue jurists (though their alleged perfidy has become a deep grievance in the anti-abortion movement). Today’s lock-step opposition to abortion rights among GOP elected officials took a long time to develop. Indeed, before Roe, Republicans were more likely to favor legal abortion than Democrats. In New York and Washington, two of the four states that fully legalized pre-viability abortions in 1970, Republican governors Nelson Rockefeller and Daniel Evans were at the forefront of abortion-rights efforts. They weren’t fringe figures; Rockefeller went on to become vice-president of the United States under Gerald Ford. Pre-Roe, various other Republican officials supported more modest efforts to ease abortion bans; among them was then–California governor Ronald Reagan, who signed a bill significantly liberalizing exceptions to an abortion ban in 1967.
The anti-abortion movement’s strength in the Republican Party grew steadily after Roe in part because of a more general ideological sorting out of the two major parties as liberals drifted into the Democratic Party and conservatives were drawn into the GOP. To put it another way, there has always been ideological polarization in American politics, but only in recent decades has it been reflected in parallel party polarization. But that doesn’t fully explain the GOP’s shift on abortion policy.
Beginning in 1972 with Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, Republicans began actively trying to recruit historically Democratic Roman Catholic voters. Soon thereafter, they started working to mobilize conservative Evangelical voters. This effort coincided with the Evangelicals’ conversion into strident abortion opponents, though they were generally in favor of the modest liberalization of abortion laws until the late 1970s. All these trends culminated in the adoption of a militantly anti-abortion platform plank in the 1980 Republican National Convention that nominated Reagan for president. The Gipper said he regretted his earlier openness to relaxed abortion laws. Reagan’s strongest intraparty rival was George H.W. Bush, the scion of a family with a powerful multigenerational connection to Planned Parenthood. He found it expedient to renounce any support for abortion rights before launching his campaign.
Still, there remained a significant pro-choice faction among Republican elected officials until quite recently. In 1992, the year Republican Supreme Court appointees saved abortion rights in Casey, there was a healthy number of pro-choice Republicans serving in the Senate: Ted Stevens of Alaska, John Seymour of California, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, William Cohen of Maine, Bob Packwood of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, John Warner of Virginia, and Alan Simpson and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Another, John Heinz of Pennsylvania, had recently died.
Partisan polarization on abortion (which, of course, was taking place among Democrats as well) has been slow but steady, as Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently observed:
“In a 1997 study, Carnegie Mellon University professor Greg D. Adams sought to track abortion votes in Congress over time. His finding: In the Senate, there was almost no daylight between the two parties in 1973, with both parties voting for ‘pro-choice’ positions about 40 percent of the time.
“But that quickly changed.
“There was more of a difference in the House in 1973, with Republicans significantly more opposed to abortion rights than both House Democrats and senators of both parties. But there, too, the gap soon widened.
“Including votes in both chambers, Adams found that a 22 percentage- point gap between the two parties’ votes in 1973 expanded to nearly 65 points two decades later, after Casey was decided.”
By 2018, every pro-choice House Republican had been defeated or had retired. The rigidity of the party line on abortion was perhaps best reflected in late 2019, when a House Democrat with a record of strong support for abortion rights, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, switched parties. Almost instantly, Van Drew switched sides on reproductive rights and was hailed by the hard-core anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List for voting “consistently to defend the lives of the unborn and infants.”
With the 2020 primary loss by Illinois Democratic representative Dan Lipinski, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, there’s now just one House member whose abortion stance is out of step with his party: Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar, who is very vulnerable to defeat in a May 24 runoff.
If the Supreme Court does fully reverse Roe in the coming weeks, making abortion a more highly salient 2022 campaign issue, the one-third of pro-choice Republican voters may take issue with their lack of congressional representation. Will the first big threat to abortion rights in nearly a half-century make them change their priorities? Or will they still care more about party loyalty and issues like inflation? Perhaps nothing will change for most of these voters. But in close races, the abandoned tradition of pro-choice Republicanism could make a comeback to the detriment of the GOP’s ambitious plans for major midterm gains.
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.