Voter Enthusiasm Shifting Democratic In Wake Of Kavanaugh Fight?
The first poll taken in the wake of the Kavanaugh nomination fight suggests the voter enthusiasm gap is shifting toward Democrats.
One of the first polls taken in the wake of the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears to show that Democrats are more highly motivated to vote than Republicans as a result of the confirmation fight:
Republicans are touting the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as rocket fuel for the GOP grass roots in next month’s midterm elections, but it’s Democrats who appear more energized by the nomination fight, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
Kavanaugh’s confirmation is not popular: In the poll, which was conducted after last week’s Senate vote, 46 percent of voters said the Senate “made the wrong decision” in approving the controversial judge, while 40 percent said it was right to elevate him to the high court.
And following the GOP-led effort to push through his nomination, enthusiasm among Democratic voters has surged. More than 3 in 4 Democrats (77 percent) say they are “very motivated” to turn out and vote in the midterms — more than the 68 percent of Republicans who say they’re “very motivated.”
Prior to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, some polls had showed an uptick in GOP interest in this year’s elections. And it’s possible the fight over his nomination may have more positive effects for Republicans in key red states in the battle for control of the Senate — like Indiana, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota — than nationally, where Kavanaugh is less popular.
But the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll findings suggest that Republicans’ decision to confirm Kavanaugh lacks broad support and has animated Democrats with only four weeks to go until President Donald Trump’s first midterm elections.
More than three-quarters of Democrats, 78 percent, say the Senate made the wrong decision in confirming Kavanaugh, while just 11 percent say it was the right decision. Support for Kavanaugh’s confirmation among Republicans lags slightly at 73 percent, compared to 12 percent who say it was the wrong decision.
Independent voters are far less supportive of the decision to confirm Kavanaugh: 47 percent say the Senate erred in confirming him, while 34 percent say it made the right decision.
Asked whether it would make them more or less likely to vote for a Senate candidate who supported confirming Kavanaugh, 36 percent of voters say it would make them less likely — more than the 31 percent who would be more likely to vote for a Kavanaugh-supporting Senate candidate. Roughly a third said it would make no difference in their vote (22 percent) or had no opinion (10 percent).
A plurality of voters, 44 percent, said the confirmation process gave them a less favorable view of Kavanaugh — including 36 percent who said it made them view him much less favorably — while 30 percent said it made them more favorable toward him.
The poll also shows a spike in voter enthusiasm — particularly among Democrats.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation battle appears to be a significant motivator, as voter enthusiasm for the upcoming midterms has hit its highest point since Morning Consult and POLITICO began tracking the issue,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s vice president. “In this week’s poll, 70 percent of voters say they are very motivated to vote — including 77 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of independents. One month ago, 64 percent said they were very motivated — including 67 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans, and 55 percent of independents.”
As noted, this poll was taken largely after the Kavanaugh confirmation process ended on Saturday, by which time it was apparent which way the battle was going to end up. Prior to this, polling was beginning to indicate that the major impact of the Kavanaugh fight was an uptick in Republican enthusiasm that appeared to be helping Republicans in Senate races in states such as North Dakota and Tennessee. Since then, the question has turned to the question of whether the GOP would be able to maintain that level of enthusiasm in the wake of victory, or whether Democrats would benefit from the large segment of the public that continues to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination even now that it’s over and the fact that it’s generally the case that voters are more motivated by anger and outrage than they are by the desire to thank their political party for a victory that will be a month in the past by the time Election Day rolls around. This poll, while only one so far, would seem to suggest that Democrats will be more likely to benefit from the aftermath of the Kavanaugh fiasco.
This, of course, is the reason why President Trump and other Republicans are likely to keep the memory of the Kavanaugh fight fresh in the minds of Republican voters. As I said, there’s at least some evidence in the polls that the Kavanaugh fight has tipped the balance in the battle for control of the Senate, even though it seems unlikely to have much of an impact on the battle for control of the House of Representatives. Because of this, we’ve seen Republican candidates slipping ahead of their Democratic challengers in not just North Dakota and Tennessee, but also Arizona, Texas, and Nevada. Whether this is just a blip on the radar or part of a trend that will last for the next three weeks remains to be seen, though. If this new poll is correct and enthusiasm starts edging back in favor of the Democrats, then Republicans could easily see those gains slip away as we get closer to Election Day. This would seem to be especially true given the fact that there’s likely to be something that will have an impact on the race that will occur over the next three weeks. It may not have the same impact as the Kavanaugh nomination or 2016’s Jim Comey letter, but given how close some of these races are any impact at all could end up being significant.
The GOPs have three real accomplishments from 18 months in complete control of the government: Gorsuch, the tax cut, and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is too long ago for the average voter to remember and the tax cut went sour on them. Kavanaugh is basically all they’ve got.
It is hard to discern enthusiasm at the neighborhood level in my city, San Antonio. I think people are reluctant to discuss politics with their neighbors. It is too hot a topic. So analysts and pundits are relying on different tea leaves: polls, donations, rallies.
It is interesting that people were shocked that Beto O’Rourke pulled in $38 M in the last quarter.
The real statistic is that 800,000 people donated. People who donate will vote.
I’m one of the donors. I’m 64 and have been a Republican since 1972 and have never donated money to a politician or party before. This year I’ve donated to 3 differnt democratic candidates. I’m just a data point of one but do wonder if I am part of a larger trend.
And apparently this is happening all over the US. So much so that the Republicans are asking for some more of their tax cut back from the oligarchy.
Regardless, higher enthusiam and turnout is better for all of us than apathy and resignation.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You’re as dishonest as the piece you link to…I’ve noticed lately that some Republicans are whining about how “uncivil” Democrats have become—this from a party whose leader is the most uncivil president in American history…the humor and the projection are strong in these people…
Astounding enough the Democratic Party of 2019 is not the same party, and doesn’t stand for the same things, as the Democratic Party of 1869.
You can’t count on anything anymore. If do by mistake, you might end up looking like an idiot.
The last dishonest a-hole was banned. If you want to talk politics with grown-ups, grow up. No one here is impressed with your idiocy. Talk facts, talk reality, discuss reasonably, or fck off.
@NW Steve: It is also certainly not the party of the 1950’s and ’60’s, the party I knew. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter would not be allowed today.
If Trump could have nominated General Washington (“I cannot tell a lie”), they would have tried to dig up dirt on him. Senator Finstein would come up with a letter from last year from some secret person who claims that Washington did something, sometime, somewhere (Valley Forge?), and with some others (Ben Franklin?)! Evidently she has been watching too many “Perry Mason” reruns. Senator Finstein and some of the other senators should hang their heads in shame.
“The Case of the Spurious Letter”
Jake makes me more enthusiastic to vote against his ilk.
“Party of slavery party of hate. No facts attacking me .”
How about your Pennsylvania GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Wagner telling his opponent, Gov. Tom Wolf, “I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes.”
@One American: Oh honey, this is much scarier…
By the way, not to excuse anything Holder said, but he did clarify what he meant…meanwhile, Clinton was speaking the truth…
Ohhhhhh, so radical…
Wow. This looks to be playing out exactly how I thought.
It would have been so much better for the Republicans if they had held the Kavanaugh confirmation for as long as it took to actually investigate the allegations made against him, or even yanked the nom altogether. They could have campaigned on that. They could have used “Democrat obstructionism” and “the smearing of a good man” to drive their voters into a frenzy to the polls.
Anger is always a stronger motivation than gratitude.
Funny… Mike suggests that Jake not be such an obvious troll, and we have a few folks clutching pearls and saying that Mike is too harsh.
I’m the meantime, we have a president suggesting that Democrats are a greater risk to the U.S. than Russia, and we have the “proud boys” acting like stormtroopers on krystalnacht in NYC.
Yeah… Mike is the problem?
While I respect the office of the president, I do not respect the person currently in that office. They have proven themselves incapable of being a leader for the entire population and seeing beyond their own selfish motives.
When folks like Jake come and do nothing more than throw handfuls of shi# into a conversation, it just ensures that I’ll be filling out my ballot to help to overturn the House and Senate.
He has always been misguided, but at least one could engage. However after Nov 2016 he has just become a garden variety angry old man, perhaps revealing the real self.
He talks about facts and reasoning. But read his comments and you will find if you disagree you are just an idiot, racist, homophobic, xenophobic blah, blah, blah. But he does provide comedic value. He once informed me that he was superior and correct in his views because he got more thumbs up here. Now THAT’S entertainment.
“They have proven themselves incapable of being a leader for the entire population and seeing beyond their own selfish motives.”
“I won”. – Barack Obama
Trying to get her life back.
Please show me a single example–just one!–of when you have ever engaged in a constructive manner with another commenter here.
Again, another lobbing shi#, choosing to ignore perspective.
So, why and when did President Obama say “I won”? When, following the crash of the economy, he chose to move forward with a stimulus package that was able to turn around the collapse under President Bush.
And it was said AFTER listening to the concerns of Republicans that suggested that we choose austerity during the crisis, and not a stimulus.
And now, we see that Republicans at that time were against spending cash… NOW they are all-in on increasing the deficit, and having tax cuts that benefit mostly the rich.
So, on the one hand, a President setting a path to recovery for all Americans… and on the other one that says that if Democrats win the midterms that there will be violence and that freedom of the press and religious freedoms will be revoked.
For the whole story, read: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862
Donna – “David Dennison” is not name calling. It is an Trump alias, one that he (and his atty)chose to misrepresent.
It is documented that Pres Trump had several aliases where he misrepresented.
Does anyone really think trump is constructive?
@OzarkHillbilly: And really, a downvote for stating a simple fact? I didn’t even mention all the barriers between her and the life she left behind.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
Studies on independents indicate that the vast majority of them are partisans in all but name.
@Donna Simmons: I’m no fan of name-calling, and I try to avoid it whenever possible. (Which of course is yet another good reason to oppose Trump, who has engaged in more schoolyard name-calling than any other politician in memory.) But the liberals here–as well as the right-of-center hosts–routinely offer concrete arguments to support their views, and the Trump supporters, such as Guarneri here, just completely ignore it. Indeed, Guarneri basically does nothing but lob substance-free insults against people here.
@Donna Simmons: History is really not your strong suit, or else you would have known better than to have written that.
That is flatly untrue, Tyrell. ‘We’ did not hit Neil Gorsuch with accusations. Kavanaugh was ‘attacked’ because Kavanaugh is an arrogant, entitled mediocrity and political hack with credible charges of sexual assault against him.
No, Donna, I just get there faster than some people. Every single thing I’ve said about Trump was first denounced as mean and over-the-top, and eventually accepted as fact. Every. Single. Thing. My record is pretty close to 100%. I’ve had this two-bit grifter from Day One.
You don’t engage, you fraud. You pop in, toss off an insult and run away. You refuse to engage on facts. You refuse to engage in rational debate. You refuse to be honest. And the net result is that you are a null set, parentheses containing nothing of value. See, for people in reality it’s an utter waste of breath talking to people in a cult. You are no more able to discuss Trump rationally than a Scientologist is able to be objective about Tom Cruise.
And the idea that any Trumpaloon has any standing to discuss civility or morality is laughable.
@Michael Reynolds: Tyrell was parroting something Trump said a few weeks ago, about how Dems would vote against George Washington because of a “bad past.” Most likely this bizarre claim was pulled right out his tuches, but it’s possible he was confusing with Thomas Jefferson, who was in his day assailed by accusations that he’d had relations with a slave–which of course we know was 100% accurate.
I actually live where you claim to live and that is absolutely untrue. We are still part of the US, we still vote, and we’ll proudly send a 100% democratic delegation to the house and senate to oppose the clown you figuratively fellate here.
Yes. Those who vote against angry mobs are called “Democrats”.
Calling Democrats the ‘Angry Mob’ is Trump’s Biggest Lie Yet
The backlash is not against Pres Trump as much as it is those emboldened by Pres Trump.
This is what the “new normal” of the GOP is:
Source and more: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/10/13/far-right-skinheads-join-proud-boys-assaulting-protesters-new-york-city-following-gavin
Funny… I thought that was the platform that Trump ran on. At least that what his voters said they were.
And if you go to the
klan“campaign” rallies, there is still a LOT of angry people, nearly two years after Trump’s election.
GOP President, GOP Senate, GOP House. Stoked anger, nothing solved for them.
@Michael Reynolds: Yeah, but I can remember when Drew used to try to engage. I presume he stopped because he got tired of having his ass handed to him every time he tried to engage. I don’t blame him, you understand, but it’s in the same camp as bringing a knife to a gun fight.
So…let’s see…on another thread, Donna Simmons wrote:
…and on this thread, she wrote:
Hmm…would anyone care to explain that? Anyone at all…
@An Interested Party: Good catch!
@Donna Simmons: Oh, so you admit you just produce bullshit…hmm…you have the whiff about you of someone who has posted here in the past under another name…
@Donna Simmons: Yeah, sure, that’s why you waited until someone else caught you, because you wanted to make a point.
By the way I’d be fascinated by any clip you might post of CNN criticizing Kanye in a “racist” manner. I’m sure we all would be.
Sorry, not buying the “both sides do it” cop out. Weak sauce.
Most racists are Republicans. Not all Republicans are Racists. Some, I’m sure, are good people.
These folks, Not so much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBRXOAtyc8
For actual numbers based on self-identification, please read http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/trump_s_bigoted_base_by_the_numbers.html
Approve of Neo-Nazis: 12%
Favorable opinion of white nationalists: 19%
Believe that Whites are mort discriminated group in USA: 45%
Racist Views are acceptable: 17%.
Yeah. There’s more. Maybe you may want to look at what your friends believe.
@Liberal Capitalist: Hey, how the hell d’you get two links into that comment without it going to spam hell?
Justice has it’s own power!
(… I have no idea… I think three triggers it.)
@Liberal Capitalist: For months, it’s been always automatic spam hell the moment you put two links, and sometimes just one link does it, with no apparent rhyme or reason.
For a while I’ve been begging the hosts to correct various errors to OTB’s interface. These include: (1) More than one link causing our comments to be sent to mod queue (2) The preview button, which has been nonfunctional ever since the last system overhaul (3) Names and user info disappearing from the comment box after a refresh (4) Updates to a post not being displayed immediately, until hitting refresh (5) New upvotes/downvotes to older comments not showing up until a new comment is posted to a thread.
In the past few days, it seems like some minor changes were made. I’ve noticed that the upvote/downvote buttons don’t display the number zero, but otherwise the interface has the same problem of not updating its counter until a new comment is posted to a thread. Additionally, the hosts seem to have reestablished what I call the “Voldemort effect” on certain users who were banned–any comment that mentions their name gets immediately tossed. We discovered this a few days ago.
Oh really? I don’t recall Chris Cuomo trying to avoid renting out apartments to black people or arguing for the death penalty for innocent people of color or saying that most Mexican immigrants are “rapists” and criminals or questioning a judge because of his Mexican heritage or saying that most immigrants from Haiti have AIDS or referring to African countries as “shit-hole” countries…no, all that applies to Trump…
First of all, Kanye (not “Kayne”–where did you get that from?) admitted to mental-health issues in the course of his rant.
Second, the reason people have been ridiculing him is because his rant was ridiculous–inane, nonsensical, barely coherent. Do you disagree? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that his rant was competent, measured, thoughtful? You seem to define “racism” as any criticism whatsoever of a black Trump supporter. In other words, you’re behaving exactly as the false caricature often painted of liberals–crying “racism” in order to shut down debate.
@Tyrell: you do realize that Jimmy Carter is still a Democrat, right?
I knew she looked familiar.
And Donna posts no clips, just her dishonest interpretations of what was said on CNN. Again, “Donna” post us up a video of “racist” criticism of Kanye.
I’m pretty sure I can find a few, but they would be from FOX in 2005.
That is absolutely incorrect. In October of 1973 the Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against the Trump companies. Although the Trumps did not admit to any wrongdoing (because they never do, ever) they entered into a consent decree–which is what you do when you are guilty AF but don’t want to go to court over it.
There is coverage all over, from many, many sources, that cover this–the one thing that is clear is that saying “no one did anything wrong or illegal” is just flat-out false.
@Jake: Back to school, junior. This is a forum for adults.
@Donna Simmons: Fascinating that someone who has never ever ever ever ever posted here before is suddenly all over every thread, lecturing long-time posters on etiquette as she gives her “not in anger but in sorrow” screeds about being anti-Trump but forced to vote Republican because those Dems are just so uncivil.
I guess it’s a good thing that this forum is so welcoming that someone who has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever commented here feels so completely at home.
@Donna Simmons: “Turns out I was right, proving that NO ONE here is actually interested in an actual discussion.”
Asking you to back up your claims with evidence–as I did earlier when I provided you with a link to a study about independent voters, which you have yet to address–is not “spoon-feeding.” You made a vague reference to CNN being racist against Kanye West, but you provided no specifics–no quotes, almost no names. That’s certainly not helpful to me, as I don’t watch CNN and I don’t even have basic cable. I’m not going to watch hours of videos online just to see whether your claim about CNN can be verified.
The only thing approaching a specific example in your comments was when you claimed that Chris Cuomo “imagines Trump having racist thoughts.” I went to Youtube and took 5 minutes of my time to listen to Cuomo’s monologue to see if it at all fit your description. Here’s the gist I got from it. Cuomo:
(1) Criticized the excessive media attention on the president’s meeting with an entertainer
(2) Noted, quite sympathetically, that Kanye has admitted to struggling with mental health problems
(3) Credited Kanye with raising some legitimate points about jobs and other issues
(4) Described his slobbering adulation of Trump as undeserved, lacking in substance, and mostly a manufactured bid for attention
(5) Suggested that Trump craves the approval of a popular African American celebrity because of his low popularity among African Americans
Nowhere in this did Cuomo “imagine Trump having racist thoughts.” What Cuomo did do was make the educated guess that Trump is being driven by attitudes which he has overtly expressed in the past. For example, in 2016 his campaign spokesman claimed that Trump would win 100% of the black vote, and later Trump himself boasted that he’d win 95% of the black vote. Then there was that moment at a rally when he pointed to a black man in the crowd and referred to him as “my African American.” The notion that Trump craves the approval of African Americans (or more precisely, craves the perception among his white voter base–however false–that black voters love him) is hardly idle speculation, let alone “racism.”
Your (mis)quote of Cuomo was the only example, in your entire rant, that you used to back up your claim that CNN was being racist against Kanye West. The rest was pure vagueness–and you dare to suggest that someone who asks you for specifics is asking to be “spoon-fed.” But I worked with what I was given–one single stray comment by one anchor, which turned out to be not the way you described it–and found it wanting.
Now the ball is in your court. Are you going to address the specifics of my argument? Or are you going to launch into yet more insults while claiming we are the ones who fail to engage and do nothing but insult people?
Umm, not really…if you want to learn more, just put your cursor over the previous words “not really” (that’s called a link, sweetie) and click your mouse, you will then go to a site that proves everything I wrote to be true and not a “rant” or “out of context quotes” or “dumb”…if you need any further instructions, just let me know and I’ll be happy to help you…
Not sure if it’s Bunge. The style is similar, as is the affect of disaffected dem, but ‘she’ responds to other comments rather than posting and ghosting.
@Grewgills: I thought it might be the latest incarnation of J*nos, who always seems to adopt some new two-name persona every time “he” gets banned. There’s also the use of the Gish Gallop.
The only difference is that I cannot remember when “he” has posted under a feminine-sounding name before.
But then, my suspicion that Bunge and J*nos might be the same has grown considerably in the past few months.
Bunge used to respond to posts, but I use the word “respond” loosely. None of these commenter(s) have ever done any real “debating,” and they always ignore any points of substance.
I talk down to trolls who use multiple aliases…how desperate are you that you’ve been banned from this site and yet you still come back…