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.
Regarding Steve’s question above, on election day undecided voters historically tend to vote 2 to 1 for the challenger (sometimes 3 to 1) so what you tend to see is a late movement for the challenger compared to the final polls.
The net effect of all this is that the incumbent’s actual poll number (Bush) reflects his ceiling, the max he can get, where as the challenger’s real number will be much higher than his current polling.
So where Bush is below 50% he is likely to be overtaken by the late surge for Kerry (according to the rule of thumb)
Please help me to understand. In the individual state
polls. If Bush is leading (by whatever margin), then
what differance does it make if he is below 50 ?
WaPo tracking poll just out shows Bush margin over Kerry by 1%–down from 4% yesterday. (But another Hawaii poll shows Bush up one point). T.J.
The two Nevada polls are encouraging, as are Rasmussen’s statewide polls for Michigan and Iowa. Also, Rasmussen shows Bush and Kerry separated by less than 1/2%. The ABC tracking poll now has Bush up by a mere 1%, while stating that Kerry had his best day of polling yesterday (Saturday) since October 2nd. That conflicts with Zogby who reports that on Saturday Bush reached 50% for the first time, with Kerry at 43%. Confusing, isn’t it? I think that this wide disparity in the polls reflects the fact that Kerry has large undereported support among young voters who 1) have only a cell phone, or 2) are more likely to be unavailable when surveyers call. I firmly believe that the nation will be surprised when this previously unheard from block of voters flock to the polls in record numbers.
I hope I’m not just seeing through blue-tinted glasses, but this and other recent posts seem to support the “undecideds breaking for challenger” assumption:
In both FL and NV, whichever poll finds the lower number of undecideds also has a better Kerry number. And in my home state of TN, a just-released Mason-Dixon poll –
http://tennessean.com/elections/2004/archives/04/09/60256115.shtml?Element_ID=60256115
– shows Kerry going from 16 points down to 12 down, *exactly* matching a 4-point decrease in undecideds from a month ago. I don’t hold out much hope for TN, but if this kind of evidence continues to mount, we may be in for some very pleasant surprises wherever Bush is at 49% or less.
And from this perspective the 43-43 “tie” in Hawaii is nothing to lose sleep over–unless of course you can use your insomnia to make GOTV calls to an appropriate time zone.
Nevada’s polls are open. I’m on my way up to work the precincts. Start the surge for Kerry!
Best Bumper Sticker of 2004 campaign was found in Puerto Vallarta, Mx:
“Pull the Cheney…Flush Bush”…only eight more days…hallelujah..goyo
WOW!!!
Maine Kerry 50
Bush 49
Zogby Intl..(I know)
This will be the week of the Great Breakout
Polishing the Ann Richards Turkey Fork
Ruy, what do you make of the Hawaii poll that has it dead even at 43%, with 10% undecided. I spend part of the year there and Hawaii’s about as Democratic as it gets so its shocking. Friends in Hawaii say it’s unlikely that Bush could win there, a little campaigning by Inouye for his veteran buddy Kerry is all what’s needed I was told.