While mulling some recent material from The Bulwark, I thought I’d explain something to the converted “Never Trumpers” the outlet represents, and did so at New York:
For a while now I’ve had a guilty-pleasure reading habit: The Bulwark, that semi-official outlet of Never Trumpers who view themselves as having definitively broken with the GOP thanks to their former party’s thralldom to Donald J. Trump. I share its contributors’ belief that they (the tribe usefully described by Miller as Red Dog Democrats) represent not just a self-promoting claque of elite scribblers but a real if marginal faction of the Democratic Party, having burned a lot of bridges on their way out of the GOP. Their views appear to parallel those of a significant number of suburban Republicans and independents who voted Democratic in 2018 and 2020. And given the very close balance between voters of the two parties, as reflected most recently in 2020, Democrats really can’t afford to contemptuously reject any potential adherents, however alien or even repugnant they might find their backgrounds.
So it’s understandable when Bulwark co-founder Charlie Sykes expresses frustration that Democrats refuse to consider their pleas for policy concessions on grounds of holding old grudges:
“The spending. The wokeness. The repeal of the Hyde Amendment. I could go on …
“These are difficult times for folks on the center-right, who’ve tried to join Democrats in a loose alliance to protect the Republic from Trumpism …
“Litmus tests are applied: it’s not enough to be pro-democracy, NTers are also expected to embrace the elements of the progressive agenda — from free community college, to abortion, rent moratoriums, police funding, transgenderism, CRT, social spending, and the candidacy of Greta Thunberg for sainthood.”
Sykes fears it’s all very personal, and warns, “If you cancel moderates/conservatives for their past sins, you don’t have a coalition.”
Here’s the thing, though: It’s not really about the Red Dogs. Yes, I’m sure it’s been tough for them to watch Democrats largely come together around a legislative program that’s significantly more progressive than the one advanced by the Obama administration. But Democrats have been coalescing around the basics of the Build Back Better agenda for some time now. That the famously moderate Joe Biden now embraces it is a sign of how the party has slowly evolved, not some sort of betrayal or surrender to the left. And anyone who paid close attention to the 2020 presidential primaries should have understood that there is less distance between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders than between Joe Biden and the Joe Biden of the 1990s.
Part of what has happened is simply a resolution of internal conflicts among Democrats that left them defensive and at times incoherent. A classic example is one that Sykes mentioned: abortion policy. For years, Democrats claimed to value reproductive rights even as they accepted significant limitations on them: e.g., the Hyde Amendment, which made abortion services, unlike any other medical services, ineligible for any sort of federal support. That amendment, along with acceptance of some largely symbolic restrictions on rare late-term abortions, and the whole “safe, legal, and rare” messaging introduced by Bill Clinton, represented concessions to a significant bloc of Democratic voters and Democratic pols who did not recognize reproductive rights at all.
That has changed over time. Anti-abortion Democratic politicians are a rare and shrinking breed, and there are now significantly fewer anti-abortion Democratic voters than there are pro-choice Republicans. Most Democrats, including Joe Biden, have made the leap into a more coherent and unified position. They aren’t going to turn back the clock to satisfy ex-Republicans, but they aren’t insisting on a “litmus test” just to annoy or exclude them, either. The same could be said for other policy tenets once beloved by a significant number of Democrats — from fiscal hawkishness to armed interventionism to an openness to “entitlement reform” — that remain attractive to the newest proto-Democrats. As for the idea that Democrats are some sort of rigid ideological cult: Come on, seriously? Look at what’s going on with the attempted enactment of the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. If this is an intolerant and exclusive political party, I’d hate to see a loosey-goosey one try to function. It may just be that the issues Red Dogs fret about may lie outside the still relatively loose bounds of party unity.
This doesn’t mean Red Dogs should despair, but it may mean another painful reevaluation of priorities, recognizing that most have already had to sacrifice a lot of old allegiances and even the habitual language used to make sense of the political world. In many respects, the Never Trumpers resemble their spiritual (and in some cases biological) predecessors, the neo-conservatives. These were people who broke with the Democratic Party out of a conviction that Democratic views on national security made continued party loyalty impossible. But most of them retained many views that horrified their new Republican allies until they accepted the inevitable role of a factional minority and grew to accommodate or even share the policy positions and ideological language of the GOP, which was increasingly dominated by conservatives with their own ideological-consistency demands.
Most Red Dogs have no illusions about the party they’ve left and understand their constituencies are too small to form a third force or demand concessions from a position of strength. Most, I suppose, will get used to the strange and sometimes lurid landscape of the Donkey Party. Others will embrace the posture of the gadfly, the people of no party or coalition. But it’s really not personal. It’s just politics.
The analysis on where Bushs’ gains came from was not bad, but it did not include a statement of methods. In other words, the reader is left to wonder by what the author means by “half is gains,” and so forth. Are these headings meant to express percentages of electorial or popular votes?
This is not suprising. During election night, one analyist after another talked about the importance of Bush running up the totals in Red States in order to make his election win seem more valid. Now we know how.
PS…the power of war to trump class predispositions is not exactly new..recall the Great Socialist Sell Out in France and Germany on the eve of WWI among many other examples
War unleashes all sorts of powerful counterintuitive emotions and behaviors and Bush made the very most out of it he possibly could have
In 2002, the Beltway Democrats defaulted the War on Terror and the War on Iraq to Bush hoping that in doing so, OUR issues, domestic issues, would come to into play.
Though the party by fits and starts came to appreciate the wisdom of Rove’s “hit em where they’re strongest”, it never fully shed the former mindset and two years later and indeed in the last two weeks of the campaign, felt the effects again.
Bush’s greatest achievement was turning the War on Terror away from a fact based debate on its conduct and turning it into a cultural values issue.
The IraQ war opened a window for reframing the War on Terror into a general camaign theme centered on Bush’s lies and incompetence.
Just as in the Bushevik slogan..The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad, so did the Demo road back to economic issues.
Lies and incompetence was a theme that the Democrats failed to pick up until very late in the game. IraQ and national security attacks brought the campaign out of its August to mid Sept slide but there was no hook at the ready to enable Kerry to benefit from the momentum gained….and he desperately neeeded one because the economy, if the econometric models suggest, just wasn’t weak enough to drag Bush down…
The determinants of this election were in place last year and dithering with our old mindset, we failed to act in a timely fashion to change the game
I live in North Jersey and there is no doubt that the Kerry margin of 7 poi nts compared to the Gore margin of 16 points was due to the fear of terrorism,25% of the 9-11 victims lived in NJ. Also the McGreevey scandal cut into the Kerry margin.When I look at the next 4 years,maybe its a blessing in disguise. The economy is going to come crashing down on Bush’s head in the next 4 years and a Pres.Kerry,unable to raise more revenue by a GOP Congress would have had the same problems Bush will have in the 2nd term.Would Kerry have turned out to be another Carter,a victim of economic circumstances beyond his control?Of course we will never know but something tells me the answer would have been Yes.
It doesn’t make me feel very optimistic for 08 to know that Bush had gains that were as across-the-map as this entry suggests. And widely distributed gains tend to dramatically undermine the voting fraud argument since not all states were doing e-voting.
For those pursuing the evote fraud angle, here is another website. The author is a computer scientist who has been warning of the risks since 2002. They are not strictly fraud risks but there are inherent limitations in the confidence one can have in any computer program.
http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/5 is greater than 1. Yes, I know yours is a rough approximation.
How come you have not discussed the possibility of voting machine Fraud in trying to explain the discrepancy between exit polls and actual results.
Even if there was no fraud, should’nt we have audit trails for electronic voting machines? It is really not hard at all to have these machines print out paper receipts. How can we call ourselves a democracy if we cannot verify that votes are counted correctly?
Diebold will not provide the source code because it is a trade secret??? Does this pass the laugh test??? A sophomore in computer science can write a program to total the votes correctly!
I await the county-level analysis with great interest. I’ve been thinking about Ohio, and used the 2000 Census data to get my thoughts in order.
Columbus is the biggest city in Ohio, the 15th biggest in the country (in 2000), and has suburban-exurban counties that are among the fastest-growing in the country. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Columbus, unlike northern Ohio, is rather prosperous. Given all these factors, a detailed review of voting patterns in such an area would be very informative. Note that David Brooks claims that just such places are where the Dems “just don’t get it” and the Republicans do. (NYT, Nov. 6). Nothing like real evidence to check such a claim!
I am very puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the exit polls and county-level results. Exit polls show Bush doing better in cities and worse in rural and small-town areas than in 2000. The county-by-county maps published last week in the New York Times show Bush and Kerry each improving their percentages where they had already been strong, except in three areas: (1) Bush did better in the coastal strip from Delaware to Connecticut. (2) Kerry did better in the rural swath from Minnesota to northern Idaho, where religious affiliations are more Lutheran than evangelical and there is a long history of isolationism. (3) Kerry did better along the Quebec border where Bush’s French-bashing could hardly have pleased French-Canadian voters.
One question: Could Bush’s urban gains and Kerry’s rural gains be artifacts caused by reclassifications of areas between the 2000 and 2004 exit polls? As a result of the 2004 census, have exurban Republican areas been reclassified from rural to suburban, and sunbelt cities reclassified from less than 500,000 to more than 500,000? It seems unlikely that such reclassifications could cause apparent shifts of the magnitude shown in the exit poll, but the question needs to be looked at.
Ruy,
I live in Florida, and was surprised how “red” we became given the 2000 vote. I know there was a big GOTV effort here and the negative adds were omnipresent. Do you have any insight into any other factors that resulted in us being so red this time? BTW, we had a hotly contested Senatye race and the Repub, Mel Martinez, won by only a slim margin (<200,000 votes I think).
How do these figures compare to the population distribution? From your description, it sounds to me like Bush’s margin increased by about the same amount in all three regions (red, blue, purple), but especially so in certain states (NY, FL, TX, etc.).
For example, you say that a fifth of Bush’s gain came from the purple states. But don’t they have about a fifth of the population? Or am I missing your point?
As to point 1, Bush did not in fact win TN by 6 or more points in 2000. He did make huge gains in our state, but we became a solid red state this time, didn’t start out that way.
More Analysis please
Thanks for the analysis. I’d like you to look into the area where Kerry got more votes, I assume that there are some counties, and thus demographics where Bush lost?
Also I’d like to have a statistical analysis of the importance of Demographic factors in the vote, e.g. that the best fit to the Bush/Kerry vote is based on a correlation of the form of:
. 0.80*(numer of times per year goes to church)
. +
. 0.30*(Lives in a red county)
. –
. 0.25*(Earnings in $100.000)
Note: The numbers and factors are not true, but just ilustrative of the way I’d like to see the influance of the various factors that seem to effect/predict Bush/Kerry, and of course even better, I’d like to see the same for Bush/Gore and Dole/Clinton, so that we can see what the important factors in peoples vote really is.
http://pages.ivillage.com/americans4america/id17.html
Kerry’s considering unconceding and having a recount. He asked people to send firsthand experiences of disenfranchisement to his brother’s law office and his office is eagerly counting calls that are encouraging him to unconcede and ask for a recount! There has been massive evidence of voting fraud (see bottom for links) and there are 2 organizations you can support to uncover hard evidence of this fraud.
In This Post:
(1) Call/fax Kerry’s senate office, the DNC, and the Ohio Democratic Party.
(2) If you have first handexperience of voter disenfranchisement (not just articles) contact his brother.
(3) Support Two organizations that are uncovering hard evidence of fraud: blackboxvoting.org and votewatch.us
(4) Kerry can still request a recount in Ohio (and he may have the best chance of winning with a recount there)and perhaps elsewhere! He has until they count the provisional ballots 11-15 days after counting the provisionals. (It doesn’t matter if he’ll have a hostile Congress to work with because even if he can’t get much done as president at least he would prevent the havoc and destruction of 4 more years of W in which our rights, environment,economy, social security, and our very lives are at stake!) .
When I called they put me through to someone who asked for my state: they seem to be adding them up! Contact Kerry at (202) 224-2742 – Phone (202) 224-8525 – Fax
email form:
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/contact/email.html
and urge him to unconcede and do a recount in Ohio (and perhaps elsewhere) Also contact the DNC about this since pressure from them either way would influence Kerry. This is their phone number: 202-863-8000 This is the page for their email address http://www.democrats.org/contact/
(5) If you have witnessed or experienced disenfranchisement you can contact his brother’s law office–they are collecting this information which will be vital in considering unconceding at CKerry@Mintz.com (Don’t just email articles or they will be inundated with emails. They already know about the articles.)
(6) Help These Two Organizations Prove Fraud
There is anecdotal evidence of widespread fraud with the paperless voting machines. There are two groups working to uncover hard evidence who need your support.
(a) Please support the work of http://blackboxvoting.org– which is the only group uncovering hard evidence of fraud of the paperless electronic voting machines–with donations and/or volunteer work–they need to raise $50,000 to file freedom of info act requests for as quickly as possible to pay for records and the fees some states charge for them. If you can’t donate funds: http://www.eservicescorp.com/form.aspx?fID=912 ,
please donate time.
E-mail to join the Cleanup Crew. (they need all types from doing grunt work, to lawyers and programers) crew@blackboxvoting.org
(Please also contribute tovotewatch http://www.votewatch.us .
They need $250,000 to do a professional statistical analysis of the election which can be used as hard evidence.
This is an excellent organization that has been conservative in its approach, using highly respected statisticians and developing trusted relationships with key media contacts. They are collecting and analyzing data to determine if there was fraud in the election as seems to be indicated by the 5% (or so) discrepancy between exit polls and reported results from the touch screen voting with no paper trail vs. the other types of voting where exit polls closely matched reported results.
If you decide to move forward with a tax-deductible contribution, please make your check payable to Votewatch (ID# 94-3255070) and send it to:
Votewatch
c/o: The San Francisco Foundation Community Initiative Foundation
(SFFCIF)
Attn: David Barlow
225 Bush Street
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104
This is an excellent organization that has been conservative in its approach, using highly respected statisticians and developing trusted relationships with key media contacts. They are collecting and analyzing data to determine if there was fraud in the election as seems to be indicated by the 5% (or so) discrepancy between exit polls and reported results from the touch screen voting with no paper trail vs. the other types of voting where exit polls closely matched reported results.
If you decide to move forward with a tax-deductible contribution, please make your check payable to Votewatch (ID# 94-3255070) and send it to:
Votewatch
c/o: The San Francisco Foundation Community Initiative Foundation
(SFFCIF)
Attn: David Barlow
225 Bush Street
Some sites with voterfraud info:
http://www.stolenelection2004.com
http://pages.ivillage.com/americans4america/id17.html
[URL=http://radtimes.blogspot.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html%5Dhttp://radtimes.blogspot.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html%5B/URL%5D
http://legitgov.org
http://democrats.com
250% of vote margin came from Karl Rove’s Bat Cave