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.
W need young people and minorities turning out to vote. It’s good to see that the future has hope i’m 25 myself.
Just an observation: my 21 year old son said most of his friends from college are strongly anti-Bush and active in politics. However, he also hangs out with a large group of kids who went into blue-collar jobs after high school. Those kids are either pro-Bush or don’t care at all.
FWIW….
I don’t think Sully could ever bring himself NOT to vote for Bush. I’ve seen the way he almost breaks away and then comes rushing back for some reason or another.
I don’t really know about the others though.
By the way (a quick thought after scanning a number of well-known libertarian blogs):
Kerry/Edwards would be well advised to try to exploit the rift between social conservatives (who adore “Shrub” and “Right Wing Dick” no matter how much they screw up Iraq or the federal deficit) and libertarians. Most of the leading libertarian bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan, Jacob Levy and Dan Drezner are now leaning strongly towards voting for Kerry this year.
One nice soundbite in the current “values” flamefest would be for Kerry to publicly taunt the GOP for giving so much air time to Arnie, Rudy, John McCain as GOP convention speakers. Kerry should join forces with the Family Research Council(!) by saying the Bush Administration should show what its “values” are by giving a prominent place to guys like Ashcroft, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Henry Hyde etc.. Wouldn’t it be great if the New York convention would primarily showcase bible-thumpers, homophobes and other intolerants… That was a major reason why Poppy lost the 1992 elections to Clinton; the GOP convention in Houston had to give lots of room to disgruntled social conservatives, and it scared away the moderates.
As an aside, I have always thought Ruy’s book about the “Emerging Democratic Majority” might not necessarily predict the future even if the demographic/cultural trends turn out to be correct. Doesn’t it make sense to assume the Republican Party only will start to favor socially moderate fiscal conservatives at the expense of social conservatives, when that happens? After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger, William Weld, Michael Bloomberg & Rudy Giuliani have all been successful in heavily Democratic states.
MARCU$
Well that’s great news, then. Remember: the GOP automatically benefits from a low turnout on election day plus mis-informed voters.
BTW, didn’t some polls indicate a shocking number of Americans actually believe WMDs *have* been found in Iraq and that they *were* used against U.S. troops during the invasion?? No — I am not talking about the single artillery shell containing sarin found so far. I am talking about the whole shebang that Cheney strongly “suggested” would be found in Iraq by now.
It is frustrating isn’t it? If many people can’t even tell Osama’s Afghanistan from Saddam’s Iraq, or fact from fiction in general, it’s little wonder “Shrub’s” $200-million hate campaign of mis-information is quite effective.
MARCU$
As the mother of three – ages 25, 22 and 18 – I can agree with Sean that the members of the younger generation I come into contact with are heavily involved in this year’s election. It’s a frequent topic of passionate conversation among them. This is no generic election to them – they feel their own future is in the balance.
I keep seeing the name Adam Parkhomenko showing up places. He is only 18 years old. He is the one who tried to get Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for President this year. Does anyone have any contact information for him? There is info about him here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Adam+parkhomenko
I fear that the disparity between those in the know and those not in the know will grow wider and wider in the 18-29 (though I think that’s a little too large of a lumping in my opinion).
Wonky kids are great but I really wonder if that’s a percentage which is growing.
As an 18-29 year old I don’t see too much wrong with some cyber-worshipping but then, as someone who has actually given money to political campaigns, and followed primaries since 2003, I am admittedly not a typical 18-29 year old.
The ignorance of 18-29-year-olds is, to judge from my not necessarily representative experience of living in a college town, not conspicuous by the standards of the American electorate. And I also see among them an undiminshed ability to analyze what information they do absorb. Most heartening, I’ve met a hell of a lot more wonky kids than I would have dreamed, a few years go, of existing in 2004. In the the late 1990s, we all pretty much expected a cyber-worshipping, materialistic Dark Ages to to descend when the Baby Boomers left the scene. It still might happen, but at least cautious optimism is justified now.
I predict, safely, I think, that voter participation among 18-29-year-olds this year will be at least 20 percentage points above its 2000 level, and I am willing to wager $100 that it will be 30 percentage points higher. Any takers can e-mail me to negotiate conditions:)
There was a poll that Amy Sullivan (of politicalaims.com) pointed to that showed some pretty uneducated folks out there… Though I guess it’s good that Democrats have a favourable party ID…