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.
Why can’t we get some better trolls? Bring back S Robinson!
Bush didn’t win the debates. He won the spin war afterwards.
After the first debate, the consensus from pundits and undecideds was that Gore had won.
But it wasn’t long before the RNC served up its talking points and the media started parroting them and suddenly things were back onto script (Gore is a big fat liar).
Dave,
I don’t underestimate Bush as a debater. He has a great advantage of having the bar always set low. Fortunately for Kerry, the same seems to be happening. I remember the last time Ted Kennedy debated during his re-elction. It seemed everyone was expecting a bumbling drunk to be on the stage. He went on to destroy his opponent, the now governor Mitt Romney I believe, by having a firm grasp of all of the issues. I don’t think either has an advantage on the “low bar” issue. Thinking about it, I guess it’s pretty sad when you don’t expect a lot from the leader of the free world!!
Re: The debates
The recent issue (jul/aug) Atlantic Monthly had a good article on the upcoming debates. They were calling it assymetrical warfare.
Basic points: Do not underestimate Bush. He has ‘beat’ a number of qualified opponents in debates – including Ann Richards and Al Gore – by staying on point, on message. Kerry wins debates by out-thinking his opponents and staying in control and command of everything going on.
A very worthwhile read.
Mara,
I’m sure that Bush’s people going to try and minimize the height issue by wanting them to sit, etc. But, one of the debate formats is going to be a town meeting style. That will mean, no podiums, or anything else for Bush to hide behind. Even in the other formats, they will meet at center stage both before and after the debate to shake hands. But, I’m sure that the Bushies are probably going to try and stop that too.
The good thing is, Kerry will overshadow him on the issues , as well.
Keith,
I remember reading about Kerry agreeing to something that would equalize the height gap – sitting down or allowing Bush to stand on a soap box, something. Wish I could remember where I read it. Anyone else hear about this? I am serious.
I have no worries about Kerry’s speech. Being originally from Massachusetts, I have seen him speak on a number of occasions. If they are purposely setting the bar low, it will look like he hits a home run. Where he’ll really take it to Bush will be in the debates. I remember the one when he was in a tough race for the Senate against, the then popular governor, Bill Weld. He is great in a debate format. Plus, he’ll tower over Bush physically. Never a bad thing when you’re trying to look “pesidential.”
Political pundits are like sports reporters — today’s game is always the most crucial..at least until tomorrow’s rolls around. It’s obviously helpful if a candidate gives a solid speech at the convention (and most, even such dullards as Gerry Ford and Mike Dukakis, have been proclaimed to have done so). But the effects are ephemeral, and the election in the end comes down to basics: how is the incumbent doing, and is the challenger minimally acceptable as alternative? By the standards of today’s thinking, Reagan was a spectacular flop at convention 1980, since he couldn’t establish a convincing lead against an incumbent with 40% approval. In that case, pundit conventional wisdom is that Reagan “made the sale” at the late debate with Carter (so I guess there’s more than one “last chance”), but even there, post-debate polls didn’t show an instant jump: the race was considered too close to call right up until the returns started flowing in. So maybe Reagan was always going to get the anti-Carter majority, and none of the rest mattered.
For Kerry’s future, there are far more important things than his speech — specifically, continuing news from Iraq, and the upcoming economics/jobs reports.
Agree that Kerry’s speech is of limited importance. Remember, Gore gave a fine speech at the 2K convention, but it didn’t seem to have much impact on election day. The October-November ad blitz and the debates will be more important.
Bob–if you feel confident that your political beliefs are correct, I recommend that you test them by reading “We’re Right, They’re Wrong” by James Carville. If you’re sure that your way of political thinking is really what it should be, then what’s stopping you? I read “See, I Told You So” by Rush Limbaugh, and I was not convinced. If it gets too tough, just read this exerpt:
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/james-right.html
There’s always “Had Enough?” but that’s a pretty long one–it’s James Carville writing a book about the Bush presidency.
Hey everybody, we’ll make him look stupid instead of struggling with difficult questions!!
Hey, I never said that I didn’t go to Public (government) school! 🙂
“will” should be “with”
See, the effects are showing already!
Thanks for bumping my IQ down a couple of notches will your post, Bob.
You know, it must be nice for Democratic Despots to have a bunch of mindless followers for ‘Crats to vote for them. Some of the crap that I heard slithering out of Clinton (x2) just amazed me. How do you people believe that stuff?
Don’t worry, I am not a Bush supporter either…he is waaaay too liberal. Yes, Bush is a liberal. Kind of harsh, but a liberal in sheeps clothing.
Does anybody realize that Kerry has no plan, except that he has a plan? Hows he gonna reduce debe? hows he going to provide socialized health care, without turning this nation into a socialist one? does anybody read the great philosopher historians??
But alas, seems that the only thing we learn from history, is that we don’t learn from history. And liberalism is just what the mindless clinton coolaid masses need.
Ruy, I would be interested in your coments on the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll showing Bush in the lead?
Good article. I agree. It’s too late for Kerry to attempt to reinvent himself. Besides, that would only play into the Republican’s referring to the convention as the “extreme makeover.”
I’m also tired of hearing all the pundits talk about how Clinton or Edwards might overshadow Kerry. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Everyone knows who the nominee is. They’re all building up Kerry. Quit making controversey where there is none.
If the ability to give a rousing speech was so important to the public in choosing a president, then Bush would be a political dead man.