When Polls Don’t Matter
Wildly unpopular policies in hyperpolarized times.
The latest Quinnipiac University poll is headlined “Majority Of Voters Oppose Deploying National Guard To D.C.”
In the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to Washington D.C. in an effort to reduce crime, voters 56 – 41 percent oppose the move, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today.
56-41 would be deemed a “landslide” were this about an upcoming election or referendum. And it would seem to be an indicator that Americans overwhelmingly see the use of military force for routine law enforcement in violation of our norms.
Which would be encouraging news if we lived in a democracy. Alas, we do not.
Thus, the breakdown is what really matters:
Republicans (86 – 12 percent) support the president’s decision to deploy the National Guard to the nation’s capital to reduce crime, while Democrats (93 – 5 percent) and independents (61 – 34 percent) oppose it.
Men are split about the president’s decision, with 50 percent supporting it and 47 percent opposing it, while women (63 – 33 percent) oppose it.
The starkness of the partisan divide is really something to behold. But here’s the thing: the only ones who need to be concerned with public opinion on this are governors of the states who are supplying the forces. They’re all in heavily Republican states. So, if anything, this boosts their popularity.
Given the extreme gerrymandering of our House districts—which is increasing as I type, thanks to the new arms race to carve out even more uncompetitive seats—this will essentially be a live issue in only a handful of the 435 races next November. Assuming this is even still a thing, then it’ll have, at best, a marginal impact on a handful of races.
Assuming troops are still deployed in this manner in November 2028—which is doubtful—it’s possible that it’ll have some impact in the six or seven “swing” states. But, even then, it’s hardly likely to be one of the top issues driving voter turnout. And, after three-plus years, people will likely have gotten used to it, anyway.
How long to the resignations and retirements from the NG start?
I agree with the headline more than the text. Don’t trust polls when they aren’t actually testing the thing that matters.
The issue isn’t whether people support sending NG troops into DC but whether it will impact voter turnout in November. And, even in the red states that are instinctually supportive, dragging community members away from their jobs and roles in the community, having them do landscaping work because you fired National Park staff, and then screwing them with 29 day deployments to avoid triggering full benefits isn’t going to help those Governors.
Best evidence we have currently for the actual mood of voters is the special elections – which has a pretty stark message. This week’s special for Iowa State Senate, in a Trump +11 district, went for the Democrat by 10.4 – breaking the GOP supermajority. Even if we see a reversion towards the mean in a general election, a 21 point shift is massive.
@SKI: Fair enough, although people tend to rationalize voting for their team. I never read anything into special elections, in that they’re such extreme outliers.
We are in a post-policy era. It’s just my team vs your team at this point.
Short of Newsom-style theatrics and mockery, I don’t see a way to defeat Trump if he is still alive in 2028.
Salience has to also be factored into the popularity/unpopularity of any issue. How salient is this? Not very IMO, unless something changes.
Ski points out the NG is doing 29 day “deployments” (As a former ANG member, this has long been, sadly, common practice) that seem to consist mostly of standing around and doing menial labor. The facts don’t really fit the narratives of the NG fighting crime or the NG “occupying” cities, which are being heavily pushed in the usual quarters.
Where I disagree with Ski is that Democrats are now the high propensity voting party. This means they will and have recently over performed in low-turnout elections. That also happened in the 2022 midterms, and many mistakenly interpreted that to mean that Democrats would do better in 2024 that actually happened. And the data from those two cycles clearly show the shift of high propensity voters to the Democrats and low propensity to the GoP. So I would not assume that good performances in low turnout special elections signify similarly good performance in a high turnout election. Democrats probably still have an advantage in the midterms though for all sorts of reasons.
Doesn’t matter. Trump may do things his supporters don’t approve of, but he sounds like them. Saying that the cities are dystopian warzones destroyed by liberalims is an act of leadership for Republicans. They’re just quibbling about details.
Contrast that with the Democrats and Gaza. The polls show that 75 percent or so of Democrats believe that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians. How do the party’s leaders sound? Like robots repeating mindless phrases about tragedy and Hamas, and then giving interviews where they distinguish between Palestinian children and Palestinian children of Hamas. It’s a very different scenario.
I’d also point out that the National Guard does not seem to be doing anything. I don’t know that much about DC, but in New York, there are enough militarized cops walking about aimlessly with assault rifles that seeing soldiers walking around aimlessly isn’t a difference.
Aside from the consequences of the gimmick as policy and going forward (imagine Delta Force going after ICE protestors), it’s a meaningless change in daily life for people for cities.
If major political actors’ wildly unpopular acts will have only a marginal impact on the 2026 midterms, what, then, will have an impact — if anything?
People don’t leave a cult when their cult becomes more extreme, they embrace the extremism. They don’t leave cults because they have doubts about the cult leader, they rationalize. When things go seriously wrong – say their compound catches fire – they blame others, outsiders. The cult will endure. Those people are not reachable. Write them off.
The vast, vast majority of people are simply not capable of admitting a major error. They’re dishonest, morally weak, stubborn and stupid. A good comp might be the Roman Catholic church where, even after it became clear that the RC was engaged in widespread child rape, and even more widespread enabling and covering up of child rape, the churches did not empty out. But they did develop slow leaks.
Trump has a rock solid 45%. That has not shrunk, but crucially, it has not grown. Of that 45% maybe ten or fifteen percent – so about 5-7 points – may be turned around because of reality. That’s it. You won’t see hemorrhaging til Trump dies and we get the inevitable knife fight between factions.
@Michael Reynolds:
I think that’s right. I would just add that 45% isn’t a majority. There are gettable/persuadable voters out there, but Democrats need to do more than rely on Trump’s unpopularity, especially considering the Democratic brand is still polling very poorly, on par with the GoP. Democrats need to be for things that resonate with a majority of the public, not merely against what Trump is currently doing, like the NG activations, which most people don’t see and don’t care much about.
@Andy:
Could not agree more. I don’t know what Democrats are and I am one.
@Michael Reynolds:
I’m in agreement with you on these numbers. I follow polls fairly regularly, and in my recollection the lowest I’ve seen Trump’s approval rating in both terms was 36%. When he bottomed out last term, I think he averaged 37-38%, so that’s his firm floor. 36% could be an aberration or just some noise in the data, but if he starts to consistently show 34% or lower we will know something has shifted in his base.
Quinnipiac’s newest poll has him at 37% approval. I’ll be watching to see if other polls show him in the 37, 38% range–if so he’s hit his floor.
At which point, I’m sure, the bloodthirsty, bareknuckle brawlers that are Messrs. Schumer and Jeffries and their coterie of cracker jack advisors will undoubtedly launch a series of brilliant political attacks to really cut him off at the knees, dragging him down to sub 30% and bleeding out his base of support.
Re polling on the popularity of the D Party. Were you to ask me today if I approved of the Democratic Party, I would answer no.
In 1968 I wrote in some local yuck for prez. I knew it was a mistake, but given Vietnam and the Chicago Convention, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Humphrey. Otherwise, I’ve voted in every election I’ve been eligible for and always for the Dem. Yes, I vote straight ticket. Party largely defines who they get their money from and who they’ll club together with to get things done. And it’s been obvious since Goldwater that Republicans were nuts. I’ll continue to vote for every D, I’ll donate money to Ds, and I’ll volunteer with the local party.
But right now it’s hard to say I approve of the Democratic Party.
The degree of partisan identification in the US is really remarkable.
It still seems to me that this is at least in part a product of the unique American political system of public registration as a “party supporter”, a system utterly alien to most other OECD democracies.
This appears to have a social effect of entrenching such alignment, and relating it to general “cultural”, and even personal, identity.
Which probably makes it much harder for people to readily switch parties, or for new parties to arise, and more inclined to “groupthink”.
Given it’s long-standing and entrenched nature, there appears no plausible easy exit for the US from this pernicious pattern.
That’s not to say that similar parisanship never arises in other countries; but it tends to be unusual, and often related to basic ethnic or religous identity issues.
See Northern Ireland, or Belgium.
In short, in partisanship terms: “sucks to be you.”
🙁
It strikes me that Democrats have a Hollywood-like problem. Hollywood is run increasingly by numbers people, by business weasels (the official term) who think in terms of demographics. This group and that group. Men over here, women over there, young, old, urban (Black), Hispanic, hardcore IP fans, etc… And they forgot their core job: making good movies and TV shows.
Democrats have the numbers disease in spades. This demo, that demo, Black, brown, gay, straight, this income or that, etc… And then there’s all the in-the-weeds voter analysis down to city blocks. Narrow targeting rather than crafting broad appeals. They forgot their core fucking job: solving problems, making life better for people. All people. And inspiring. Like Hollywood: tell a good story. The New Deal, Civil Rights, Morning in America, or, yes, Make America Great Again. Paint a picture. Point to a destination.
While people may disapprove of the Democratic Party per se, there’s plenty of Democrats who are popular. And while plenty of Democrats disapprove of the party itself, how many are unlikely to vote for their local Democrat based on that?
I wonder what actual military people poll on this? They would get fired, ie lose any job of importance, if they expressed any dissent but maybe some will do a poll.
Steve
@Michael Reynolds:
It makes me think of the political approaches of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
(I’ve been reading political biographies of all three recently.)
None of whom, in private, ever ignored the political arts of coalition building and cultivating interest groups.
But always, in public, and it seems based on their basic personal ideals and concepts, crafted politics based on a broad, non-group, national appeal, and the national interest.
Similarly, the most effective UK and European political groups of the 20th Century (UK Labour, UK Conservatives, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats) generally eschewed frequent former reliance on class-groups, for an open “rational national interest” based politics.
The US Republicans appear to be falling into a trap of basing their appeal on a specific coalition (evangelical, rural, fearful, resentful) thus opening a considerable opportunity-space to a party of the rational national interest.
Politics based on party-internal purity-tests may generate impressive short-term cohesion; but tends by its nature to be exclusionary.
Which does not equate to abandoning principles or a core message.
Just not being dicks about it.
I suggest a seance to call up the spirit of Harry Truman. 😉
@Andy: Ski points out the NG is doing 29 day “deployments” (As a former ANG member, this has long been, sadly, common practice) that seem to consist mostly of standing around and doing menial labor. The facts don’t really fit the narratives of the NG fighting crime or the NG “occupying” cities, which are being heavily pushed in the usual quarters.
With all due respect, this is the kind of centrist bullshit that got us to this spot. And also with all due respect, you’re not here, you’re not seeing it daily, you’re not experiencing the occupation of DC. This isn’t a “both sides are wrong, and it’s not what it seems” moment, this is “one side has sent people with guns to keep the city’s population in line, the other side is doing what it can to minimize the damage.”
What do you think distinguishes this military group – fatigues and guns and everything – from an occupying force? Is it because it’s America? Is it because you can yell at the occupiers and not be shot? Is it because the occupiers aren’t controlling all access to the city? Because it’s not war?
We’ve got suspended laws, demands from the DOJ for maximum charging, checkpoints on random roads, and violent takedowns of protestors, all done by not-paid-by-the-District federal agents with not-from-DC military forces in tow. They park where they want, they do what they want, they physically attack who they want. (And they’re being ordered around by a dottering old racist: The District is 41% black, 11% Hispanic.)
Donald Trump does not legally control DC, but he has raised a personal gang to do just that. He has usurped the power of the city’s government and overridden the power of Congress (both of which are theoretically supposed to be in charge of the city) using the extremely flimsy pretext of some sort of “emergency”. This is literally an uninvited foreign military force currently holding and controlling DC outside the laws of the country.
It is an occupation. Full stop.
I assume, or at least believe it’s likely, that troops will be deployed in as many swing states and districts as the regime can arrange in November 2o28, pursuant to a declared state of emergency. They’ll be demanding to see the papers of anyone who they think might vote (D), consequently being one of the top factors deterring turnout.
@ptfe:
No, it’s not. It’s not, in any way, a legally recognized occupation, and it’s not being run as such.
These are a relative handful of Guard personnel compared to the resident and commuting population, in regular Title 32 status, which comes with clearly defined roles for what those personnel can be used for and what they can do, and I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they are doing anything outside that authority. They certainly are not Trump’s “personal gang.” They haven’t actually done much of anything, according to multiple reports from multiple outlets across the political spectrum, and your characterization that they are “people with guns to keep the city’s population in line” is disputed by the same reporting that says they are mostly standing around in tourist areas and also occasionally picking up trash and helping the cops – which mostly involves more standing around.
But let’s see what the Mayor thinks:
You say occupation, that the NG in DC is an armed gang to keep the people in line, meanwhile, the Mayor of DC says they’ve been helpful, but are not an efficient use of resources. Seems like a pretty big discrepancy in perspectives!
The Mayor and Trump both also agreed that the federal law enforcement takeover shouldn’t be extended past the 30-day limit (which would require Congressional approval). So there’s that non-trivial fact.
What got us to this point is a multitude of factors, especially the incompetence of the Democratic Party and the Biden and Harris campaigns that allowed Trump to win in the first place. As a reminder, I was a pretty big supporter of Biden for the most part and voted for Harris. If you want to blame someone, blame the campaigns and all the people who gaslit about Biden’s ability to serve another term, among other own-goals.
Part of it is also the tendency to constantly turn the rhetoric to 11 about all things Trump. However, for some reason, many seem not to have noticed that turning the emoting up to 11 and catastrophizing everything hasn’t worked well as a political strategy, hasn’t convinced people who need convincing, and hasn’t done much to actually prevent any of the things he’s actually doing. Meanwhile, Trump is getting what he wants and altering conditions on the ground, and not in the ways you’ve described. More from that CNN report:
This is likely to be over soon with a win for him politically. Trump will take the win, brag about how much crime he, and he alone (in his mind), solved, and move on to the next thing.
@Andy: He will probably get a win out of it among his supporters. However, crime was already decreasing for the year so it’s not really clear how much of that was due to the NG being there. My guess is that some of it is related. However, I think if you flood almost any large city with thousands of extra police or NG you will get a temporary drop in major crimes. What happens when they leave?
Still, if the concern were crime there are several cities with higher crime rates than DC and probably a couple dozen or so with higher rates than Chicago, the next target. Pretty clear these are just political stunts paid for by the taxpayer.
Steve
This article has a breakdown of some of the arrests. It’s small amounts of weed, coke, and Molly, plus guns. But what are the guns being used for? None of the people might be anything other than guys who cross a few shadowy lines that are now crossed all the time. They don’t seem to have serious records. They party and they carry guns, but what are they up to otherwise?
There’s a truth people aren’t saying. American men have a serious problem when it comes to substances and guns. Also, gambling. This goes from special ops in Ft Bragg to random men in suburbia to the Secretary of Defense. The goal of MAGA is to bust black men and demonize cities for being exactly like everywhere else.
@steve222:
This kind of highlights part of the problem. Yes, crime was already decreasing, but it was still high. Trump can point to the official statistics, which show a decrease. Meanwhile, Democrats are afraid to admit that crime was still too high in DC, because they don’t want to enable Trump or feed his narrative. And therefore, they can’t and really haven’t presented any alternative other than stating over and over again that the trendline was already going down. It was the same problem with statements over the last couple of years that inflation was decreasing. Yeah, the rate was decreasing, but it was still high for a long time, and prices were still going up, and people were still pissed. Saying that something bad is decreasing is not a very effective argument, IMO, unless it’s paired with something else like concern and a plan to make it decrease even more. Schor’s studies of ad effectiveness, for example, showed that Harris’ most effective ads were about aggressively going harder on cost of living issues.
The guy may be an idiot, but he’s successfully taking advantage of the D tendency to treat good trends as if that’s good enough. Yes, his supporters will love just about everything he does. Yes, his haters will hate everything he does. The contest is won or lost at the margins, and what people who aren’t in the bucket for either side will see is, IMO, very much in Trump’s favor at this point. IMO all the talk about a militarized hostile occupation will be seen as yet another D exaggeration, while Trump can claim a win based on DC’s own statistics. Then, in a couple of months, when everyone has forgotten about this to focus on the next Trump outrage du jour, no one will notice or care if the crime numbers go back up.
This is Trump’s MO, and Democrats have not yet figured out a way to effectively or consistently counter it.
On a more meta level, to continue my response to ptfe, the prevailing rhetorical strategy among many here and lefty Democrats generally is to continue to attempt to police mild heterodoxy by exaggerating minor disagreements. I’m firmly in the anti-Trump camp, yet get criticized all the time for not emoting at level 11, when I think something is really at a level 7 or 8. We’re in directional agreement, but that never seems to be good enough, and many here seem determined to try to make me an enemy instead of an ally via the tyranny of small differences. It’s a framing that, surprisingly, some people still actually find persuasive. Let me assure you, it’s not.
Anyway, I’m traveling this weekend (25th anniversary with my spouse, yay!), so I will be offline. Hope you all have a great weekend and Labor Day.