October 15: Biden Is the Early Favorite For Reelection Even If Dems Lost Ground in 2022
After absorbing a lot of Democratic gloom-and-doom about the midterms, I offered some silver lining at New York:
The 2022 midterms don’t look great for Democrats, who will try to buck history by hanging on to super-slim congressional majorities. Thanks to the particular lay of the land, Democrats have a decent chance of maintaining control of the Senate. But the House? Not so much: The two times since the New Deal when the president’s party won net House seats in a midterm (1998 and 2002), the president in question had sky-high job-approval ratings. Even if you believe Joe Biden’s plunge in popularity has been stemmed or even turned around a bit, he’s not going to have 60 percent-plus approval in November 2022 unless really crazy things happen. There’s just too much partisan polarization for that these days.
Thankfully for Democrats, even if they lose their congressional majorities next year, Biden himself won’t be an underdog for reelection in 2024. After all, the last two Democratic presidents were reelected after historically terrible midterms. Democrats lost 54 U.S. House seats in 1994 and 63 in 2010. Yes, they had bigger majorities going into those elections than Democrats have now. But they lost the national House popular vote by an identical 6.8 percent in both midterms, which is pretty bad, particularly since Democrats suffer from a voter-inefficiency problem in House elections (too many voters concentrated in too few districts).
It’s possible for a president’s party to lose a midterm so badly that bouncing back in the next cycle is all but impossible. Consider the man whose unique comeback accomplishment Donald Trump will be emulating if he runs in 2024, Grover Cleveland. The president Cleveland defeated in an 1892 rematch, Benjamin Harrison, was a Republican whose party lost an incredible 93 House seats in the 1890 midterms. This, mind you, was at a time when the House had only 332 members, which means the GOP lost over half their caucus in one cycle (an even worse percentage than in 1894, when Democrats lost a record 125 House seats during the midterm after Cleveland’s comeback triumph). In this era of polarization, nothing like that is going to happen to Democrats in 2022.
Looking more broadly at the power of incumbency, there have been 13 sitting presidents since World War II who were on the general election ballot. Nine of them won. The four losers all faced special circumstances. Gerald Ford had not previously been elected to anything more than the U.S. House; he ascended to the vice-presidency and then the presidency when disgraced predecessors resigned, and he pardoned the president who appointed him, the especially disgraced Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter was caught up in a historical realignment that he had held off four years earlier by carrying his native South, which then resumed a massive Republican trend. George H.W. Bush suffered from a terrible economy but then also a party split (third-party candidate Ross Perot won a lot of previously Republican voters). And we all know about Donald J. Trump, who was impeached twice and seemed determined to offend swing voters.
In retrospect, what’s most remarkable is that Ford and Trump very nearly got reelected despite their handicaps, exhibiting not the weakness but the strength of incumbency. And it’s with that perspective that any early handicapping of a potential 2024 rematch should be considered. Trump benefited from incumbency in 2020, as will Biden in 2024. So the idea that the 45th president has some built-in advantage over the 46th — absent the renewed election coup so many of us fear — doesn’t make a lot of sense.
What I really want to hear is that Bush’s intensive negative ad campaign ($6 million?) in the swing states is not working. Then I think we will know his goose is cooked. I have heard that the 527 campaigns plus Kerry are matching the Bush effort.
What a relief. Why is it that the political coloration of the organizations sponsoring or conducting the polls (NBC, WSJ, Fox) always seems to result in bias? How do their subjective wishes seem to get into the polls?
Here’s the commercial that will win the election (based on real footage, I’ve seen it):
Video:
Bush sitting at Booker Elementary on Sept. 11, 2001
VO:
On September 11th 2001, President Bush was in Florida at the Booker Elementary school for a planned photo op. By the time he arrived he already knew the first tower of the World Trade Center had been attacked. He proceeded with the photo op. In this unedited footage you can see the moment Andrew Card, his chief of staff notifies the President of the second attack.
Video:
Card leans in to whisper to Bush
VO:
Card is quoted as saying, ”
A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack”
Watch the President’s reaction.
(key over the video) HE KNOWS
VO:
The president went on with the photo op for a minimum of another 9 minutes (some witnesses say as long as twenty minutes), asking no questions, not acting, not responding to the crisis. At the same time Vice President Cheney was taken to a secure location. Weren’t the children potentially at risk? Wasn’t the president a target?
Would YOU call this steady leadership?
________________________
If you’d like to see the actual raw footage of Bush at Booker the file is large..25 megs…
but it can be downloaded here
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov
I took at look at the ARG poll, and I was fascinated by two of the findings: first, that Bush’s support among REPUBLICANS is softening. 17 percent of Republicans polled disapproved of Bush’s handling of the economy. Double-digit disapproval among Republicans on the economy cannot be spun into good news for Bush; second, among Independents, Nader actually draws support away from BUSH! I think that if Kerry can avoid a major, and I mean major scandal, he’s in an extraordinarily strong position to take the White House in November.
C. Ama
This may be slightly off on a tangent, but it is very timely given the recent events in Madrid. I am wondering about Bush’s consistently favorable ratings regarding “fighting terrorism” and his continual lead over Kerry regarding his ability to combat terrorism. I have heard repeatedly that a new terrorist attack could be an “external event” that would send people scurrying back to Bush, because of their confidence in his ability to fight it.
But it seems to me that another terrorist attack, particularly of the kind that we saw in Madrid (where two previously distinct terrorist groups may be acting together) is very strong evidence that Bush is not winning the war on terrorism. He is using poor judgment, his ideological bent is causing us to approach the matter incorrectly and his domestic “starve the beast” plan is limiting our ability to execute the war properly. I realize this is all speculation, but at what point do we believe that the public will turn on W on this issue (like they have all the others) and realize that he is botching this one too?
The thing I find most interesting here is the rumblings of discontent among Republicans about the economy and jobs. It would be interesting to see how this correlates with household income — my guess is that the discontent among Republicans is mainly among people of average-to-below-average income, who are beginning to figure out that, while they may be in line with Bush’s social conservatism, their economic interests aren’t being well served by the Bush administration.
Greg