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.
Would you please inform the national media of this, particularly ABC Radio News and its Bus girlfried, Ann Compton?
Chandler won because of name value, not because he’s a Democrat. And he is in for a far tougher fight this summer and fall.
I haven’t seen any discontent towards the GOP in my state, not in anywhere besides the metro areas. To most Americans, GOP = heroes on terror and purveyors who keep the homosexuals and liberals in line. Sad but true.
I’m in North Carolina (granted, the most solidly Democratic part of it, but still…) and I sense a shift. The small-L libertarians I know are peeling off in droves and I’ve heard several Republicans I know state that they were considering staying home on Election Day because they just don’t like Bush. He still has a good-sized number of partisans – particularly in the churches – but I think an Edwards candidacy would actually put North Carolina in play. Hard to tell whether Kerry would have the same effect, but if the military is becoming disillusioned with their state under GWB (I’m pretty far from the military bases, but the NG families I know are mighty unhappy), I wouldn’t be surprised to see them vote Kerry in larger-than-usual numbers.
For what it’s worth, by 2008 I fully expect both NC and Virginia to be legitimate Democratic targets.
Hi everyone, i live in the upper left too in a heavily democraic area but my brother lives in Wisconsin and he keeps me posted about attitudes and values out there amongst the new barbarians. he isn’t seeing a shift at all except a vague sense that the rebubs might favor the rich… his coworkers and neighbors, if they discuss politics at all, still express a sense of pride in what they see as a successful war against terrorism. i know the polls say people don’t care about the war but that might be because of the widespread misperseption that the war is over and we won. Democrats need a coherent principled foreign policy. right now we are allowing the Bush administration to put forth the idea of a war against terrorism. Our politicians aren’t attacking this concept or exposing Bush’s real agenda ( eventual domination of Syria, Libya, Iran etc.) No one would vote Republican if they new they were voting for Perle’s fifty years of war aginst Islamic oil-producing nations.
perhaps our alternative could be a foriegn policy of global co-operation to achieve environmental goals .This would include energy independence as well as humanitarian assistance to impoverished nations
I have been scaring and deptressing myself with kaplan’s book The Ends of the Earth, the journal of his travels through the chaotic and socially psychotic nations of west Africa, the middle east and indochina. We are in real danger from the religious fanaticism which is growing out of the poverty and cultural dislocations caused by overpopulation, deforestation, and over-rapid urbanization. Also a recently published pentagon study defined global warming as a national security issue. We need to provide leadership in building sustainable communities as the cornerstone of our foreign policy becasue this is the only effective way to decrease trerroism and prevent wars for resources.
Especially after the Chandler victory in a Repub district in the Repub south of KY.
Not so sure about Partnership for America. Might not resonate. Sounds to much like domestic partnerships which leads to civil unions to gay marriages. But on the right track.
It is a great idea of running against Reaganomics when Reagan even rasied taxes three times. Bush is putting forth these same failed voodoo trickle down theories that where debunked by Clinton when he rasied taxes on the top 2%. This will resonate with the people. It wasn’t that long ago that everyone had jobs and were getting better jobs than they had. Must also point out that the Repubs at the time were against it and it worked and they are against it again becuase it will work. The Repubs don’t want to see this policy enacted and work a second time. Because the public will see that supply side economics doesn’t work. We must start attacking this.
Agree completely with the transit idea. Our governements(state, local, and federal) should also have fleet services that use alternative fuel vehicles/renewable means of energy. Some municipalites have done this. They ordered a fleet of some type of hybrid car in CA somewhere I believe. One step would be to move all the transit systems towards hybird/alternative/renewable energy. Should be a major push towards these environmentally safe and terrosim safe technology.
chris-
nice set of ideas, especially on the support of transit.
I don’t have any of the math worked out, but some of these can be encompassed in the “Green Tax Shift” idea promoted by some environmentalists.
Simply put, we try to move the burden of taxation off things that are good for people to produce (i.e. income) and towards things we do not want them to produce. (i.e. pollutants)
It is time to raise the gas tax, and it is time to require superior fuel economy among ALL vehicles (not just cars, SUVs are currently exempt). Much of the increased revenue from new gas tax revenue would fund better public transport throughout the country.
Indeed, this is one of the major sticking points of the ongoing debate over the re-authorization of the TEA-21 transport bill before Congress.
See more here:
http://www.transact.org/transfer/trans04/1_26.asp
I agree completely about broadening the goal, and I see a potential added benefit of doing so. It has seemed, and I’m not certain if there’s any actual data to support or refute this, that there has been the beginnings of a re-enfranchisement of disillusioned voters getting worked up enough to come back into the system to vote, contribute, or even campaign. The major turnout in primaries and caucuses thus far would seem to support this. I think a lot of credit needs to go to Howard Dean’s campaign for bringing these folks out of the woodwork into the fold, and I think that’s something that we need to acknowledge and embrace going forward.
My point is that to continue this, fostering an optimism for the Congressional seats as well as the White House could add a greater sense of personal empowerment in races where individual votes carry even greater weight. It could also add the psychological incentive to previously disenfranchised voters (or non-voters) that their efforts can have an impact on more than just the one front.
It’s an uphill climb, what with the DeLay redistricting machine and all, but if the tide indeed is changing, perhaps it can wash a few more away…
Agree completely that offering a complete, easy-to-understand set of principles would do wonders to both nationalize the Congressional elections and allow D’s to demonstrate vision. Rather than debating names, what should those principles be?
My offerings:
1. Tax policy should reward work, not wealth;
2. Rebuild our tradional alliances (stolen from W ’00);
3. Use environmental laws to both protect the environment and stimulate business regulation;
4. Spend the Highway Trust Fund to build effective mass-transit systems;
Thoughts?
DR has a link, in the Political Strategy section, to a new Greenburg atricle titled “Contesting Values.” I think it is outstanding. It definitely ties into the discussions we have been having about themes and values.
I love the idea of running against Reagan and Reaganomics. I also agree with his idea that Democtats need to stand up for our values. We have let Repubs be the party of values. Dem have values too: democracy, equality, diversity, and protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
We will never win back Congress and have a mandate for change unless we tell the voters what we stand for. The Repubs have stood for tax cuts, limited government, and strong defense. Dems need to stand for restored democracy, equality of opportunity, support for families, and strong world leadership through international cooperation.
I agree with franklyO about the desirability of an overarching theme for Congressional Dems. In a couple of posts I suggested “American Values, American Dreams,” but I never got any feedback.
Regarding, the suggestion for a “New American Covenant,” Didn’t Clinton already use something like that? I personally find that sort of overtly Judeo-Christian reference discomforting given the post 9/11 environment. It sounds too much like Bush’s “crusade” comment. The last thing we need to do is suggest to the Muslim world that we think God is on our side. However, I am a raging secularist, and I am sure things look a bit different in Texas.
FranklyO stated, “there is a wave of disgust …” I certainly sense something like that here in my little, upper-left, corner of the universe: Portland, Oregon. However, Portland is not by any means a representative sample of the country. This is an overwhelmingly Democratic city. I am curious about the impressions of others around the country?
New American Covenant?
–morris
Morris Meyer
Democratic Congressional Candidate
Texas 6th District
http://www.meyer04.us
Frankly0, I completely agree. As a suggested theme, why not “Partnership with America”? It sets up a nice contrast with “Contract for America”, which always sounded like a business contract to me. Conversely, “partnership” implies more of a community sense, of working together to solve the nation’s problems. In other words, more in line with Democratic policies.
Just to follow up: in 1994, the Republicans came up with the infamous “Contract for America.” The Dems need a like theme and gimmick.
Given the numbers, and the way this election is likely to play out, I think there is a very good prospect that Bush can be ousted by a relatively sizable margin.
What I wonder is whether the Democrats might not try to do think even larger and do something even larger: take back the Congress.
In many ways, it seems that there is a tide of anger and disgust sweeping much of the nation over the policies and actions not only of Bush, but of the entire Republican party, which is at base so little different from Bush himself.
In many ways, 2004 could be the obverse of 1994, when a large part of the public decided to throw the bums out — though back then they were the Democratic bums. I see no reason that the Republicans in Congress are not susceptible to the same kind of revulsion, in no small part due to their own abuse of power, and their smug expectation that that power can never be taken away from them.
But if the Dems are going to make that happen, it is time to sound that theme, and get the voters themselves thinking about how they can decimate the Republicans, one Congressman at a time.