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.
Well, barring an Al Quaida sideshow, then Kerry has it pretty much sown up..
However, I tend to think that even if the Bin Ladin clan staged an event, the Kerry crew still has a hope. I personally believe that desparate times, require desparate action and as such, any event by Al Quaida should drive the DEMs into stating in no uncertain terms that the ability of Al Quaida to successfully stage an event 2 -3 years after Bush was given a mandate to secure the nation, is living proof of his inability to get the job done. As such, he is leaving all of america and he people vulnerable and open to further humiliation, global embarrasment, open fear and general suffering.
This is the tact that would have to be used in order the right side up the cart. Any other apporach would be too weak and would lead to a Bush victory. The DEMS need to prepare for this eventuality and dont put it past the GOP to latch onto such an event for political gains.
> He can’t
> count on the economy because its heading down
> hill at a rapid rate.
Well, at *best*, the record will be mixed — but I think Kerry already has enough fuel to keep the economic fire burning through Nov. 2 even if “Shrub” gets lucky from now on. There is supposedly an old rule saying an incumbent needs half a year of good news on the economy to convince voters they’ve turned the corner. I don’t think a temporary upswing in new jobs created this fall will do the trick — particularly since fuel prices are expected to remain high for the rest of the year.
> He cant count on being a war president because
> that was is yet to produce results.
Maybe the Afghani elections will turn out to be smashing success, but I would not exactly count on that either. As you say, Iraq will remain bad for the foreseeable future.
—
I think the Administration’s best bet might be in the “lost and found” category. Found! WMD evidence, at last. Found! bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi(sp). The latter isn’t such a big stretch, but even Saddam’s capture didn’t cause a lasting bounce.
> It seems to me that his only hope is to smear
> kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt,
Won’t work… Kerry/Edwards and their base (which is angry as hell, as am I) have made a conscious effort to put on a positive face. Their message is patriotic, positive in tone and generally upbeat — the 527s are doing the Dems’ dirty work for Kerry. It will be pretty hard for “Shrub” and “Right Wing Dick” to launch a smearing campaign after the Boston convention. Incumbent presidents have rarely done that at such a late stage in the campaign.
> along with getting his rank and file to rally
> around the waggon and get every possible
> republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Probably their best bet, I agree about that. However, this means pandering to the extreme religious right at every opportunity. Doesn’t seem like a workable strategy as Kerry/Edwards are working very hard at wooing centrist voters abandoned by the GOP!
> ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is
> always there and the GOPs would use it…
No. Emotional spin about Willie Horton, gay marriage, flag burning, liberal flip-flopping etc. work only if the playing field is essentially level and if the GOP candidate has no negative baggage from the past. This is why the Bushes won in 1988 and 2000. Kerry would have been toast if he had tried to run as well. But 2004 is different since most voters really are only interested in the incumbent president’s track record. And that track record looks pretty bad right now, in so many areas.
—
Apart from Kerry self-destructing in the debates, there is one major wild-card though. Al Qaeda might want to keep its “useful idiot” good-enemy American president in power, by staging another major attack killing thousands of Americans. Unless it turns out the Administration really screwed up homeland defense before 9/11 pt.II (a distinct possibility, alas), it’s bound to deflect negative attention away from “Shrub”. Don’t forget he *was* quite effective as a cheerleader in late 2001, when his approval ratings were in the 80-90% range (a boost of 40-50%). It could conceivably happen again — especially since Kerry would have little choice but to suspect campaigning and voice his unconditional support of the Admininstration’s policies.
MARCU$
I hope someone with status will get the courage really soon to declare that Bush’s terror announements are 80 percent politricks and 20 percent concern about American safety.
Someone mentioned that if Al Quaida pulls off an event before the elections that it will play directly into Bush’s hand and the country will rally behind him. Personally I tend to agree with that but only if the DEMS allow it to be this way.
Actually, well marketed and laced with good PR, any event of such a nature can be billed as a catastrophic failure of Bush to secure the country after 2 – 3 years of skirting and politicising the issue.
Truth be told, it would be the absolute truth because he had the time and pretty much the budgets to get the job done. So, if this event does happen, I hope that the opposition, who ever they are, is ready to clad the media with this kind of message on every front.
And by the way…. it is possible that not every event of a negative nature in the world might not be the Bin Ladin clan? Is it possible that there are other terrorist groups not linked to Bin Ladin? Is it possible that there are terrorist groups deep with in the US who are ready and waiting to do just as much devasatation as the purported Al Quaida before Nov 2?
Why do we blame every single event on Al Quaida? The reasons why I ask is because no one seems to be doing the research to refute the GOPs constant claims on the subject and the worse fear of all is that this two eyed approach to Al Quaida certainly leaves room for other groups to creep up on our blind side and do just as much damage.
Sometimes I wonder how much free PR Al Quaida gets from this administration and the world… Sometimes I think that these guys have gone pretty dormand and are hibernating… but then some event pops up and its Al Quaida again. hmmm..
If these events are truly always the Bin Ladin clan, then they are super organised and much more sophisticated than any army in the entire universe and then it makes me wonder why spend so many trillions on US military power and these guys are carrying out warfare on donkeys and motor bikes. Strange.. but we find out exactly whats going on here.. it doesnt make sense to me.
cheers
Leslie, Leslie…. you sound nervous. If you are this nervous now, can you imagine the butterflies on elections night? LOL.. LOL…
There comes a point when you simply have to let go and let the system do its work. Before that time, you can make sure to mobilise people in the area who are willing to ensure that the right systems are in place. Beyond that, there is not much more that can be done and you will have to sit quietly and wait for the results.
I would like to think that the DEMs have people on the inside looking after these issues. If they dont, then you have plenty reason for concern as this current admin doesnt allow for much trust.
Start talking to the powers that be, in the party.
Cheers
I’d feel a whole lot better if Florida (and some other states) weren’t using electronic voting machines without paper trails. It wouldn’t be so bad if Jebbie wasn’t the governor there and if the executives of the companies that count the electronic votes weren’t best buddies with Dubya et familia. I hate to sound like I don’t trust the Bushes; it’s just that I don’t trust the Bushes.
The more desperate things become for the Republican Party, the more nervous I get. Karl Rove and his band of meany men are ruthless, and I don’t even want to think what they have up their sleeves for October.
I agree that it’s way, way, beyond Bush’s control by now. He’s a passenger.
The only conceivable way he could win would be an event which causes people to abandon reason and react emotionally. But it’s getting late even for that. Once people have made up their mind against him, a catastrophic event would be less likely to cause a change in their thinking than it would have in 2001, when all but the most partisan voters were keeping an open mind about him, and everybody knew he’d be President for three more years no matter what.
I think that time has run out for Bush. I am sure that he was banking on a much better economical report at this time so the he could have a somewhat solid platform on which to launch his economical policies at the convention. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened and now he has to find something on which to run his campaign.
He cannot run it on his record because it has nothing within it by which he can stand. He cant count on the economy because its heading down hill at a rapid rate.
He cant count on being a war president because that was is yet to produce results.
It seems to me that his only hope is to smear kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt, along with getting his rank and file to rally around the waggon and get every possible republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Beyond this, his days are numbered… The whitehouse is Kerry’s to lose and not Bush’s to win. He has already lost it, so kerry now needs to do what he needs to, to collect the keys.
I am pretty sure that his time has run out. I cant think of any possible report that can show the economy in some radical upswing, I cant think of anythiing that can be done to suddenly create peace in Iraq, I cant think of anything that can change his foreign policy instantly, I cant think of anything that can retract those fleeting truths which he has been laying on the american people in the past two years, I cant think of anything that cause his to get his first elected term in the whitehouse…
ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is always there and the GOPs would use it… and I am sure they are about to unleash it..
Cheers
I am particularly encouraged by the way the dreaded “outside events” have gone so far in August. Remember: this month will belong to “Shrub”. He will get lots of media coverage once the GOP convention starts in late August. Kerry won’t get as many good opportunities to make his case e.g. due to the Olympics. So the Republicans are planning a big media blitz. But the first week of this month has been dominated by unexpectedly bad news about the economy, and additional violence in Iraq. This is deadly stuff, since it re-focuses voter attention on this Administration’s track record in 2000-04 while rendering Kerry’s negative “intangibles” (=aloof French-lookin’ Taxachusetts aristocrat out of sync with All-American values etc.) increasingly irrelevant.
Time is running out for “Shrub”. He is the incumbent trying to defend his 1st term achievements. He cannot change the subject to Kerry’s shortcomings as a candidate, unless he has good news to report about the economy or the War on Terror. Right now it seems he needs to place his bets on Pakistan managing to catch bin Laden shortly before Nov.2.
MARCU$