Despite the recent return of Democratic optimism associated with the Harris-Walz ticket, there are a few stubborn fears that keep partisans awake at night. Here’s a review of four of them that I wrote at New York:
Democrats are in a vastly better state of mind today than they were a couple of months ago, when Joe Biden was their presidential candidate and his advocates were spending half their time trying to convince voters they were wrong about the economy and the other half reminding people about how bad life was under President Trump. While it’s possible this would have worked in the end when swing voters and disgruntled Democrats alike took a long look at Trump 2.0, confidence in Biden’s success in November was low.
Now that the Biden-Harris ticket has morphed into Harris-Walz, there’s all sorts of evidence from polls, donor accounts, and the ranks of volunteers that Democrats can indeed win the 2024 election. But at the same time, as Barack Obama and others warned during the Democratic National Convention, the idea that Kamala Harris can simply float on a wave of joy and memes to victory is misguided. She did not get much, if any, polling bounce from a successful convention, and there are abundant signs the Harris-Trump contest is settling into a genuine nail-biter.
While the September 10 debate and other campaign events could change the trajectory of the race, it’s more likely to remain a toss-up to the bitter end. And many fear, for various reasons, that in this scenario, Trump is likelier to prevail. Here’s a look at which of these concerns are legitimate, and which we can chalk up to superstition and the long tradition of Democratic defeatism.
One reason a lot of Democrats favor abolition of the Electoral College is their belief that the system inherently favors a GOP that has a lock on overrepresented rural states. That certainly seemed to be the case in the two 21st-century elections in which Republicans won the presidency while losing the national popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). And in 2020, Joe Biden won the popular vote by a robust 4.5 percent but barely scraped by in the Electoral College (a shift of just 44,000 votes in three states could have produced a tie in electoral votes).
However, any bias in the Electoral College is the product not of some national tilt, but of a landscape in which the very closest states are more Republican or Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2000, 2016, and 2020, that helped Republicans, but as recently as 2012 there was a distinct Electoral College bias favoring Democrats.
To make a very long story short, there will probably again be an Electoral College bias favoring Trump; one bit of evidence is that Harris is leading in the national polling averages, but is in a dead heat in the seven battleground states that will decide the election. However, it’s entirely unclear how large it will be. In any event, it helps explain why Democrats won’t feel the least bit comfortable with anything less than a solid national polling advantage for Harris going into the home stretch, and why staring at state polls may be a good idea.
For reasons that remain a subject of great controversy, pollsters underestimated Donald Trump’s support in both 2016 and in 2020. But the two elections should not be conflated. In 2016, national polls actually came reasonably close to reflecting Hillary Clinton’s national popular-vote advantage over Trump (in the final RealClearPolitics polling averages, Clinton led by 3.2 percent; she actually won by 2.1 percent). But far less abundant 2016 state polling missed Trump’s wafer-thin upset wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, largely due to an under-sampling of white non-college-educated voters. The legend of massive 2016 polling error is probably based on how many highly confident forecasts of a Clinton win were published, which is a different animal altogether.
There’s no question, however, that both national and state polling were off in 2020, which is why the narrow Biden win surprised so many people. Two very different explanations for the 2020 polling error have been batted around: One is that the COVID pandemic skewed polling significantly, with Democrats more likely to be self-isolated at home and responding to pollsters; the other is that the supposed anti-Trump bias of 2020 polls simply intensified. The fact that polls in the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections were quite accurate is consistent with either interpretation.
So we really don’t know if polling error is a given in 2024, or which candidate will do better than expected. A FiveThirtyEight analysis of polling error since 1998 shows a very small overestimation of the Democratic vote across 12 election cycles. It might be prudent, then, to expect that Trump might exceed his polling numbers by a bit, but not necessarily by a lot.
A lot of election forecasts (or model-based projections) incorporate, to varying degrees, what are known as “fundamentals,” i.e., objective factors that are highly correlated historically with particular outcomes. There are models circulating in political-science circles that project presidential-election results based mostly or even entirely on macroeconomic indicators like GDP or unemployment rates. Others take into account presidential approval ratings, the positive or negative implications of incumbency, or historical patterns.
While forecasts vary in how to combine “fundamentals” with polling data, most include them to some extent, and for the most part in 2024 these factors have favored Trump. Obviously the substitution of Harris for Biden has called into question some of these dynamics — particularly those based on Biden’s status as an unpopular incumbent at a time of great unhappiness with the economy — but they still affect perceptions of how late-deciding voters will “break” in November.
A final source of wracked Democratic nerves is the very real possibility — even a likelihood — that if defeated, Trump will again reject and seek to overturn the results. Indeed, some MAGA folk seem determined to interfere with vote-counting on and beyond Election Night in a manner that may make it difficult to know who won in the first place. Having a plan B that extends into an election overtime is a unique advantage for Trump; for all his endless talk about Democrats “rigging” and “stealing” elections, you don’t hear Harris or her supporters talking about refusing to acknowledge state-certified results (or indeed, large batches of ballots) as illegitimate. It’s yet another reason Democrats won’t be satisfied with anything other than a very big Harris lead in national and battleground-state polls as November 5 grows nigh.
Mitch, on how many blogs will you be posting that? Having paged past it on four different sites now, let me say: you’re not doing your candidate any favors. Spam is bad PR.
What to make of this electability issue? I must admit it probably makes up more than half of my criteria for a candidate. I think all top four candidates have pluses and minuses.
KERRY:
Pros: Foreign policy expertise, presidential bearing, a professional and disciplined campaigner (if not inspired)
Cons: Aloofness, his long record in the senate provides a fat target
EDWARDS:
Pros: Inspired campaigner, likeable, a southerner
Cons: Lack of foreign policy expertise, less than one term in the senate
DEAN:
Pros: Energized base, Governor
Cons: Undisciplined campaigner, less-than-appealing personality, lack of foreign policy expertise
CLARK
Pros: National security credentials, great bio, likeable, a southerner
Cons: New to politics and prone to rookie errors, thin on domestic policy
I think there might actually not be that much difference between all of them (with the exception of Dean, who I do think lags behind the other three.) However, this is the one issue where I tend to bow to the Republicans. Who are they releasing negative info on? It stands to reason that that’s who they’re scared of. It’s Edwards and Clark. I think they’re probably the two guys that have the best chance, but like I said, there’s probably not that much difference between any of them.
I don’t share the concerns voiced here regarding the electibility of Kerry. I think he can take Bush. I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be very good. It is true that Kerry is ponderous, but I think he’s improved since Iowa. I have concerns about Dean because he just doesn’t have that indefinable “presidential” quality. Neither did Bush 2, but he wasn’t “elected” either. Clark hasn’t measured up to expectations (my own), and Edwards is terrific, but too green.
Back to Kerry. Yes. He’s a northeastern liberal, and Rove will, no doubt, hammer him, but I see Kerry fighting this with issues the Repubs are weak on: economy, war on terror, lack of wpms, healthcare, etc.
Just an aside: my brother-in-law, a veteran from the Korean War, was watching Kerry on tv yesterday, and said that he thought Kerry was a good man, although boring, and that Kerry would definitely get his vote. So, there was a recognition of Kerry’s low excitablity, but it didn’t affect his opinion of the man. I think a lot of men will feel this way.
I would love to see you (Rudy) do a piece on Kerry’s electability. I’m a Clark supporter because of the electability question, but I’d like to see your take. Also, would Bill Richardson as VP give us a real edge in Arizona and Nevada?
Thanks,
The Kerry of ’03 is not electable. The “04 version may be – he’s much better on the stump and with crowds, far more likeable than you think, though of course not in Edwards’ league.
Labeling the Dem nominee as a liberal won’t work for Repubs – that’s not how they beat Gore. They beat Gore on personality and character.
I have to say, I think even the ’03 Kerry is better than Gore. I’d prefer Clark or Edwards, though. Dean dropped on my list after IA; I think he’s clueless about managing the media and his own image, let alone being poorly positioned on policy. I now think he’s flat out unelectable.
I’m with you, Upper Left. I think Kerry is far too Gore-ish. I’m a big fan of both Gore and Kerry, and I think both of them would make good presidents. But I don’t see how stiff, aristocratic Kerry can beat the charming, affable Bush.
No, that puts it too strongly. I don’t see how Kerry is more electable than any other major Democratic contender, including Dean. I think, as Ruy’s posts show, Bush is vulnerable, and he’s vulnerable to anyone. The electability question is not about who is electable and who isn’t. It’s about who is more electable than whom.
And I think Dean is more electable than Kerry, but less electable than Clark or Edwards.
I admit it, I am obsessed with the electability question.
For months I have been arguing that the CW on Dean’s “unelectability” is wrong. But as Dean kept getting hammered by his opponents and the media, you could watch him loose momentum and then start to slide in Iowa. The tag was that Dean was a New England, liberal who would end up like Dukakis.
Now Kerry is the “frontrunner.” Who is Kerry? Kerry is a New England, liberal (Ted Kennedy’s best buddy) with a twenty year-long voting record for Karl Rove to exploit. Kerry has most of the same problems Dean has with few of Dean’s positive attributes.
I find it truly ironic that in the Dems frantic efforts to come up with an electable candidate, they are now supporting the guy who would be easist to portray as a conventional, doctrinaire liberal.
Frankly, I don’t know who I support at this point: Dean is damaged, but looks like he will do well enough in NH to claim a comeback. Dean also has the money and the organization to continue fighting. Clark is showing his lack of experience as a politician; showing his vulnerability to the “not a true Dem” charge; and showing that Kerry’s win and Edwards strong second have taken the anti-Dean wind out off his sails. Edwards (my second choice after Dean) is getting a little momentum and will probably be the frontrunner in SC, but it is questionable whether he has the money or the organization to go national.
Do others share my concerns about Kerry’s electability? I can’t get over the image of Kerry as a tall Dukakis. Yes, he has a couple of medals to pin on his chest, but he opposed Gulf War I, and as the Max Cleland experience shows, the Repubs can assail the patriotism of anyone. Kerry’s stiff ponderous style and his often rambling, unfocussed speaking style really concern me. Kerry looks O.K. but I think he is too open to attack and ill-prepared to defend himself.
To put it in another way, I have been trying to argue that Dean’s centrist record as Governor would eventually overcome his superficial image as a ultra-liberal. On the other hand, Kerry’s superficial image as a moderate, careful alternative to Dean will ultimately be undermined by his doctrinaire, liberal record as Senator. Irony is everywhere.
Good questions, tstreet. It’s nice of Ruy to present the poll statistics, but there’s no context to really judge their significance. If somebody did that sort of thing, it would be invaluable.
Does anyone know how this thud compares to past SOTU by Bush and others. An historical perspective might be interesting and instructive.
As for Dean, it’s only going to get worse as he leasves the cold confines of New Hampshire. It is now between Kerry and Edwards, with Kerry with a seeming slight edge in electability. The current polls bear that out. Still hoping for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Experience and magic, a hard to beat combination.
Perhaps Dean could play a useful roll in a future Kerry/Edwards administration. Now if I could just peel that Dean bumper sticker off my car. In a perfect country, one not so freaked out by fear and terrorism, perhaps Dean could prevail, but not this year. While he is generally right on the issues, I just don’t think he has the resonance to go all the way. But if Kerry and or Edwards can win, they will owe Dean a note of thanks.
Off Topic rant, spiel, pitch… what have you:
Why Support Howard Dean…?
Ever since former Vermont Governor Howard Dean entered the race for president two years ago, he has been the leader in setting the debate. Dean stood up to George W. Bush when few others would and pressed other Democrats to do so as well. Howard Dean has energized the base of the Democratic Party, and as the candidate of hope, vision, courage, and experience, has created a real chance for at victory for working people in 2004…
Dean Delivers Health Care
While other candidates endlessly talk about healthcare, Howard Dean, who is also a medical doctor, has delivered it. While Governor of Vermont, Dr. Dean provided healthcare coverage for 99% of children under 18, for low- and middle-income families, for seniors and the disabled, and for expectant mothers in the state. He also required that mental illness and substance abuse receive the same coverage that serious physical illness does. Gov. Dean also provided a prescription drug coverage program for seniors and the disabled while Congress talked about it. Because of a strong commitment to helping seniors live productive lives at home, Gov. Dean shifted funds from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care, so more seniors could live with dignity in their own homes. Gov. Dean’s vision for the future includes an effective and practical kind of social responsibility. His Success By Six program in Vermont places a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, with visits to the homes of all new parents who request help (91% do). This long-term vision is designed to help prevent child abuse, which has dropped 45%, which in the long run, creates healthy, productive, fully functional family support that will keep these children out of prison when they grow up. Gov. Dean did all this, while balancing the budget, cutting taxes and not by slashing funding for education, police, fire departments and other vital services.
Job Creation and Fiscal Responsibility
In his eleven-year tenure as Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean created 20% more good-paying jobs, lowered the unemployment rate, and raised the minimum wage. He also balanced the budget year after year–and he did so while cutting taxes twice, responsibly, and while providing funding for health care, school reform, and the protecting the environment. When Gov. Dean took office in 1991, he inherited a record deficit. When he left office eleven years later, he left the state with a record surplus and a solid rainy day fund in case of an economic down-turn. Because of Gov. Dean’s fiscal management skills, he was able to pay down the debt and take Vermont from the lowest bond rating in New England to the highest. With the Bush Administration giving trillions of dollars of irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy and shifting the taxes to state and local governments while charging it to our children and grandchildren in the form of debt, the country is going to need an experienced fiscal manager to pull us back from the brink of economic disaster.
The (right kind of) Money to Win
On January 1, 2004, the Dean campaign announced another quarter of record-breaking fund-raising, citing $15.38 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. This put Dean at $40.78 million for the year. But with nearly 300,000 contributors and an average contribution of under $100, Dean is not beholden to special interests or fat-cat donor, but to us, the people. In addition he can go back to the well again and again. It’s a source of funding that is unlikely to dry up, making a 50-state primary strategy possible to fight for restoring American prosperity to everyone. In addition, in a savvy general election strategy, the Dean campaign decided to forgo matching funds. Giving up this public financing will make Gov. Dean financially competitive with George W. Bush and his millions of dollars from fat-cat special interests. By opting out of the tax funded campaign system, the Dean campaign is not required to adhere to limiting primary spending limits – limits that would surely cripple any Democratic presidential campaign by March of 2004 and allow Bush to attack our candidate without the ability to respond. With Gov. Dean’s proven record of balancing budgets, expanding healthcare and creating jobs, they had better worry. Everyday people, when they learn who Gov. Dean is, and look at his record will see that he is a REAL leader and support him.
You should too.
The above is from a new two-sided flyer “Tired of affordable healthcare?” which is part of the “Re-Select Bush” guerrilla campaign I have up on my Gore4Dean website. (http://www.gore4dean.com/why.html)
This piece shows on one side, Washington/Bush’s failure to address the serious issue of affordable healthcare. The back has the above copy which lays out the solid record and real reasons why everyone should support Howard Dean. PLEASE download and distribute it as far and as wide as possible.
p.s. if you are so inclined to donate to Dean for America, please consider hitting the bat via my Dean Team bat on my website for the effort.