There’s abundant evidence that if it were held today, a general election rematch of Joe Biden and Donald Trump would show the 46th president in serious trouble. He’s trailing Trump in national and most battleground-state polls, his job-approval rating is at or below 40 percent, his 2020 electoral base is very shaky, and the public mood, particularly on the economy, is decidedly sour.
The standard response of Biden loyalists to the bad recent polling news is to say “The election is a year away!,” as though public-opinion data this far out is useless. But it’s only useless if Biden turns things around, and while there’s plenty of time for that to happen, there has to be a clear sense of what he needs to secure victory and how to go about meeting those needs. Vox’s Andrew Prokop provides a good summary of possible explanations for Biden’s current position:
“One theory: Biden is blowing it — the polls are a clear warning sign that the president has unique flaws as a candidate, and another Democrat would likely be doing better.
“A second theory: Biden’s facing a tough environment — voters have decided they don’t like the economy or the state of the world, and, fairly or not, he’s taking the brunt of it.
“And a third theory: Biden’s bad numbers will get better — voters aren’t even paying much attention yet, and as the campaign gears up, the president will bounce back.”
The first theory, in my opinion, is irrelevant; Biden isn’t going to change his mind about running for reelection, and it’s simply too late for any other Democrat to push him aside. And the second and third theories really point to the same conclusion: The president is currently too unpopular to win in 2024 and needs to find a way to change the dynamics of a general-election contest with Trump.
There’s not much question that Biden needs to improve his popularity at least modestly. There is only one president in living memory with job-approval ratings anything like Biden’s going into his reelection year who actually won; that would be Harry Truman in 1948, and there’s a reason his successful reelection is regarded as one of the great upsets in American political history. There are others, including Barack Obama, who looked pretty toasty at this point in a first term and still won reelection but who managed to boost their popularity before Election Day (Obama boosted his job-approval rating, per Gallup, from 42 percent at the end of November 2011 to 52 percent when voters went to the polls 11 months later).
Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.
First, this would be the exceedingly rare election matching two candidates with presidential records to defend, making it inherently a comparative election (it has happened only once, in 1888, when President Benjamin Harrison faced former president Grover Cleveland). In some respects (most crucially, perceptions of the economy), the comparison might favor Trump. In many others (e.g., Trump’s two impeachments and insurrectionary actions feeding his current legal peril), the comparison will likely favor Biden.
Second, Trump is universally known and remains one of the most controversial figures in American political history. It’s not as though he will have an opportunity to remold his persona or repudiate words and actions that make him simply unacceptable to very nearly half the electorate. Trump’s favorability ratio (40 percent to 55 percent, per RealClearPolitics polling averages) is identical to Biden’s.
And third, Trump seems determined to double down on the very traits that make him so controversial. His second-term plans are straightforwardly authoritarian, and his rhetoric of dehumanizing and threatening revenge against vast swaths of Americans is getting notably and regularly harsher.
So Biden won’t have to try very hard to make 2024 a comparative — rather than a self-referendum — election. And his strategic goal is simply to make himself more popular than his unpopular opponent while winning at least a draw among the significant number of voters who don’t particularly like either candidate.
This last part won’t be easy. Trump won solidly in both 2016 and 2020 among voters who said they didn’t like either major-party candidate (the saving grace for Biden was that there weren’t that many of them in 2020; there will probably be an awful lot of them next November). So inevitably, the campaign will need to ensure that every persuadable voter has a clear and vivid understanding of Trump’s astounding character flaws and extremist tendencies. What will make this process even trickier is the availability of robust independent and minor-party candidates who could win a lot of voters disgusted by a Biden-Trump rock fight.
So the formula for a Biden reelection is to do everything possible to boost his job-approval ratings up into the mid-40s or so and then go after Trump with all the abundant ammunition the 45th president has provided him. The more popular Biden becomes, the more he can go back to the “normalcy” messaging that worked (albeit narrowly) in 2020.
If the economy goes south or overseas wars spread or another pandemic appears, not even the specter of an unleashed and vengeful authoritarian in the White House will likely save Biden; the same could be true if Uncle Joe suffers a health crisis or public lapses in his powers of communication. But there’s no reason he cannot win reelection with some luck and skill — and with the extraordinary decision of the opposition party to insist on nominating Trump for a third time. Yes, the 45th president has some political strengths of his own, but he would uniquely help Biden overcome the difficulty of leading a profoundly unhappy nation.
I agree. I think it’s kind of pathetic how the Bush Administration and their apologists in Washington D.C. (i’m talking about their cable news supporters too) thought that what happened to Berg would suddenly transform their situation. I see the opposite happening. People are making the connection with Abu Ghiraib. It’s sad really. I also think the Berg beheading had less effect because his father openly blames the Bush Administration for the death of his son.
Personally, more and more, I keep hearing people getting sicker and sicker of Bush. Their apologists are getting more defensive, etc.
For the first time since his (s)election, I sense he is toast. No more feelings that “he can” lose, or that “he might” lose. Now i’m definitely in the “he will” lose camp.
The Berg killing doesn’t necessarily distract from Abu Ghiraib. Most people don’t pay attention to the details, and they heard about the prison abuses in a cumulative way – drip, drip, drip. Then the Berg killing happens, and most people think “jeesus, it’s retribution for the prison stuff”, and then they might reflect that invading Iraq has just “opened the gates of Hell”. It’s all bad for Bush.
To me one interesting question about the latest, quite dramatic drop in Bush’s overall poll numbers is why they dropped just when they did.
I’d estimate the average poll number dropped from about 49% to about 44% — roughly 5% of the hardest percentage points we’ve yet encountered. Yet it did so over an event, the release of photos of prisoner abuse that would not, at first blush, seem to be the worst thing going on from a political point of view.
There are several possibilities here.
One is that it was simply the final straw, and that other things could as well have been that straw.
Another is along the lines I had suggested in some previous posts: that Bush’s overall approval numbers would not go down even on bad news from Iraq, so long as his approval numbers on handling Iraq were not distinctly more negative than his approval numbers. The underlying idea here is that shifting the focus to national security issues, as opposed to the economy, actually helps Bush, so long as his numbers on national security are relatively good. But once they go below water level, and particularly once they go below his numbers on overall approval, then those overall approval numbers will go down with them.
A still further explanation is that the prisoner abuse hurts Bush so much because they get at the only remaining defense he has had of the Iraq adventure: that we are the good guys bringing civilization and democratic ways to benighted Iraq. Most Americans respond positively to this view; it flatters us as a country and a people. The problem with the prisoner abuse is that it tears to shreds that image. No one can look at these pictures and feel that these soldiers are involved in something noble and uplifting. This fact has doubtless inspired many Americans to turn away with real revulsion from the Iraq war and its supporters.
I guess my own view about the true explanation is that it likely involves all three of the potential components I have mentioned above.
New Zogby Poll: Kerry 47 Bush 42. Bush approval down to 42%. Bring it on!
I’m a little skeptical about the HB&Staff ACT polls. Notice in the text that they don’t identify who they are polling (RV, LV, Adults, Democrats, etc). ACT and HB&Staff are certainly interested parties in this election as well. That they don’t reveal their poll questions also has me skeptical.
“Given George Bush’s lies about Iraq, healthcare, the deficit, etc. Whom would you vote for if the election were held today?” I’m guessing HB&Staff are not that crass in their polling techniques but it sure makes me question the results when they don’t provide the survey details.
There is a conflicting Oregon poll, by someone named Riley (is this a known pollster?), also through May 10, which has Bush at 44, Kerry at 39. Don’t know who is right.
Eldon, that poll was considered an outlier by many because they had the same size sample of Republican and Democratic voters, even though Democrats outnumber Democrats in CA.
This is all good news but the media and Bush won’t give up without a fight. November is an eternity from now and the Thug hate machine has just begun to fight. They will do *anything* to keep their power. It is going to get ugly.
How valid is the SurveyUSA poll in California, showing Kerry by only 1%? Seems hard to believe.
Now that’s a line I hadn’t heard before. The CIA did it to get REVENGE on Bush. George Tenet striking back just before he leaves town. He fell on his sword for Bush but nothing came of it.
I just hope Kerry doesn’t peak to early, got to have a simmer till the convention and then go strong to weather any hit from the NYC convention.
The Berg video has two main effects, one hurts Bush, the other helps:
1. It takes attention away from Abu Ghraib, and reminds us how bad the other guys are. This helps Bush.
2. It shows that al Qaida is still out there, and still killing Americans. The Iraq War was supposed to stop this sort of stuff. This hurts Bush.
The June 2004 Atlantic has a riveting graphic (pgs 54/55, paid online subscription only, unfortunately) which shows al Qaida is resurgent after 9/11. Kerry has an opportunity to publicize the ineffectiveness of the Bush response to al Qaida. This can turn the Berg incident in the long-term decisively against Bush.
One of Bush’s few remaining areas of strength in the polls is the War on Terrorism (hate that phrase, just like War on Drugs). How better to measure his effectivenes than the post 9/11 al Qaida terrorism upsurge.
Results. Results. Results. Swing voters tend to be results oriented. That’s why they are swing voters! They don’t have a strong ideological lens. They go with what works.
–tin-foil-hat: on–
I think the CIA manufactured the Berg video, not at the behest of the Bush campaign, but to attack it. They really, really don’t like this Administration. And, unlike us, they really do have data to back their feelings up. They just can’t show it to us.
–tin-foil-hat:off–
Good concise write-up of the aforementioned new CNN/Time poll from Ryan Lizza:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1661
Let’s be vigilant. This is when Rove and crowd bring out the most brutal attacks. Remember what they did to McCain in S. Carolina. What horrible rumors will they start about Mr. Kerry?
I don’t see why anyone would expect the Berg video to help Bush. I suppose they imagine that this just proves “how barbaric the towel-heads are” so of course everyone will vote for Bush out of fear.
I haven’t seen the video. But if you see the video, does it make you feel safer? Does it make you feel like we are getting a handle on the terrorism problem? If not, the incumbent isn’t going to benefit.
The line from get-your-war-on about the War on Terror really rings true: “Remember when we had a problem with drugs so we declared a War on Drugs and now you can’t buy drugs anymore? It will be just like that!”
Kerry in a landslide.
I saw a couple of posts on the warblogs about the Berg video being a major public breakthrough. Lots of quotes from TV types and editors about viewer/reader feedback, and all of it was “more Berg, less Abu Ghraib.” Also, lots of high search traffic numbers for the Berg video, although, given how hard it is to find an unedited version on a mainstream news site, search engines are the only way for the morbidly curious to see it.
But, if the upsurge in public interest in Iraq and the War on Terror is real, I’m not so sure the conservatives are right that the Berg killing will galvanize the public and make them forgive the Abu Ghraib abuses (and the screw ups in Iraq too). Rather, I’d expect a lot of people who’ve only been half paying attention (if at all), and who may have given the administration the benefit of the doubt on terror or simply not considered it much, are going to think, “after everything in Iraq, all the dead soldiers and civilians, all the money, all the mixed up reasons and leaks and coverups and who said what to whom, all the gunmen and bombings and mutilated Americans … after all that, weren’t we supposed to get these f***ers?” If the Berg killing does anything other than simply reinforce the existing polarization, it’s gonna cause a LOT more re-evaluation by those folks – and they’re not gonna decide they want another four years of this.
After all, when you poll 1000 people nationwide, only a couple dozen actively read blogs or internet news or political commentary or watch Fox or CNN more than a few minutes a week. Most Americans still get their news from local tv, the network nightlies, the front page of a newspaper, late-night talk or the water-cooler. Even on-line, its mostly MSN or Yahoo frontpages, larded with wire stories where they only read the headlines.
The thing about the Berg video is that it is coming at the worst time for Bush: it upsets the inattentives and makes them want to support their government’s efforts to retalitate and get justice, so they decide they want to do something about it. But when they try to learn more, all they will hear now is Abu Ghraib, insurgencies, State-DoD infighting, and declarations of failure by military leaders and defecting neo-cons. And that will be very bad news for the Bushies indeed.
I wonder what they’re saying at a Republican version of this site. Bush took Kerry’s lead by doing a press conference, and he lost it without any significant moves by either Bush or Kerry.
I mean, really.
I was pessimistic about the polls a couple of weeks ago and Ruy told us to stay cool that Bush’s low approval numbers would eventually show up in the head to head matchups with Kerry. I think Ruy is being proven right and that we finally have the Bastard where we want him. I hope I’m not crowing too soon but I think this is the beginning of the end for Bush. I certainly hope so.
You said it SqueayRat! Amen.
I’m so tired of the idea of a War on Terrorism. It’s as if WWII was the war on blitzkrieg, or a War on Drugs. Just venting.
As Kos pointed out the other day, the reason Bush’s numbers on the War on Terrorism are sliding so fast is that he and everyone else in Administration have insisted that Iraq is the new front in the WOT. So when his Iraq approval tanks, so does his WOT approval. Serves him right for being a liar.
Most shocking thing about the new CNN/Time poll if I’m reading the story correctly is the public’s view of Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism:
“But even in the fight against terrorism — one of Bush’s strengths in many polls — this poll showed a split over whether Bush is doing a good job. Forty-six of those polled said he was, but 47 percent said he was doing a poor job.”
I’m sure Ruy will have the answer momentarily, but that has to be the first time there’s been a net negative on Bush’s handling of the terrorism threat. It might even be the first time his approval on that issue has dipped below 50%.
Still, the public prefers Bush to Kerry on the issue by 49 to 42, and despite dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, prefers Bush to Kerry by 46 to 43. Not to state the obvious, but Kerry’s big task, IMO, is to present himself as a viable wartime President and defender of national security. Makes me think more and more that he should pick Clark as his VP.
New CNN/Time poll out today has Kerry leading Bush 49-44, and with 6% for Nader:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.kerry/index.html
It would be interesting to track these approval polls on the same graph as the poll where people believe that Saddam had nukes or had something to do with 9/11.
The media is not covering for Bush anymore, and this is the result.