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.
Smooth Jazz,
I would acknowledge that there were some polls that seemed to show some momentum for Dubya, but I will stick to my point that the name recognition of Gallup makes them a little more influential than other polls. Thus I think a careful critique of their process is warranted.
It is interesting that the election is soooooo close that even the polls themselves are competing.
I do like ARG and Zogby, but I do consider other polls as well.
I also get the sense that besides political junkies like us, many people are just now taking a close look at the race and I think that this will bode well for Kerry. They already know ( and don’t like) GW.
True Believer
I don’t know what to make of Zogby, as his polling techniques differ significantly from most others. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong. Nobody’s perfect.
But I don’t buy the theory that he intentionally biases his polls (pre-or-post 9/11.) And as to the idea that he’s in the tank with the Democratic party, I might remind everyone of the 1996 election, when his surveys showed Bill Clinton winning with a significantly lower margin than other polls forecast–and Zogby was correct. (In fact, if I recall correctly, the weekend prior to the election he had Clinton’s margin shrinking to a dangerously low 2% or so over Bob Dole.) The GOP at the time hailed him as the best pollster in the business. Maybe he’s adjusted his methods since, but I don’t think he’s deliberately cooking the numbers just to favor Democrats.
pro-Kerry — then your average is more like 3-4 points than 6-9.
Posted by km at September 29, 2004 11:17 AM
The bigger picture on all of these results are that
Bush has not moved above the 47% approval rating
month after month for the past year, if you take out
the discredited media polls.
Three other factors, the past three presidents elected by the electoral college have not been
re-elected, no president with an approval rating
below 50% has been re-elected, and no president
with negatives on the economy and war has been
re-elected. The electronic media is doing it’s best
to put the best face on this story. The true strory is that Bush is in big trouble and lack of media coverage is the major factor dragging down Kerry.
Even with all of the misinformation coming out of the electronic media, Bush’s poll standings show
how much effect the 2000 election has on the voters
perceptions. If the new voters can overcome all
of the obstacles being thrown in their way Kerry
will win easily.
Km, Point well taken, but small (3-4) leads in general translate into decisive Electoral College victories, ie 300 EC votes for the winner. Whether GWB wins by 3-4 or 6-9 makes no difference to me.
Omar,
That was prior to 9/11 when Zogby was widely viewed as a balanced pollster. Since then he has aligned himself more closely with the views of his brother Jim, the President of a Bush hating Arab organization in the US.
As a case in point, Zogby completely blew the 2002 midterms: He had Dems Mondale (MN), Cleland (GA) & Carnahan (MO) all winning by comfortable marginsl, but they all lost.
A final point to consider regarding Zogby: A few months ago he suggested the race was Kerry’s to lose and has been making very Pro Kerry comments ever since. It’s in HIS interest to tilt his poll to match HIS pre-ordained POV.
Apparently in Smooth Jazz’s world, any poll that doesn’t show a substantial Bush lead favors Dems.
We’ve clearly got two universes of polls going on out there — one assuming a whopping GOP-ID-ing edge, and one assuming 2000 status quo. The first batch are bad news for Bush, since an incumbent really needs to crack 50% or he’s in trouble; the second group say he’s home free (though with the lowest re-elect percentage of any incumbent since Truman). It’s possible on or other of these sets of polls will break decisively before Election Day, but more likely, we’ll be in the dark till returns start pouring in.
I’m not sure the general public pays as much attention to polls as we do. The newly registered voters in lower income areas wouldn’t even have the time, trying to make ends meet. Now, if only Bush’s goons will let them vote!
i think this attack on Zogby is unwarranted. Zogby got the last 2 presidential elections dead on.
Smooth,
I certainly wouldn’t characterize ARG as a Democratic poll — I thought the opposite was true.
Additionally, if you throw in Rasmussen, Economist and Fox News — all of which are Bush by two or less, and none of which can be accused of being pro-Kerry — then your average is more like 3-4 points than 6-9.
New Economist poll is also a dead heat — 46-46.
I like their poll because it has such a large sample (about 2500), which for a nationwide poll is good.
Here’s the link:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/YouGovM.pdf
True Believer,
I hear you, but consider this: Wash Post/ABC, CBS, Pew, AP and Battleground, all came out with results similar to Gallup – GWB up 6-9 points among RVs and a similar margin among LVs. You can trash Gallup all you want, but if ALL other polls taken at a similar time show a similar result, then there is a degree of finality that is taking over, notwithstanding the offensive against Gallup.
At the same time, I would be careful about cocooning yourself with results from ARG & Zogby ONLY as the panacea of all credible polls. These entities are arguably Dem leaning, so you focus on them exclusively at your peril. At a minumum, I would average those 2 with all the other public polls to avoid getting false comfort from sympathetic Kerry surveys only.
Great points by Steve.
Very unfortunate that Gallup is such a “brand name” that the general public accepts their information without question.
Will be interesting to see if MoveOn’s anti-Gallup ad has any effect on the polling industry.
I am very hopeful that the Zogby-Arg polls will be more accurate and lead to a big election-night surprise for Kerry.
True Believer
There has been a lot of discussion
over how polls are skewed but even
the NYT article on Gallup doesn’t
begin to touch on the systematic
disinformation that comes from
the media reading the Gallup polls
along with the GOP talking points
right off the prompter.
It used to be the CIA’s job to
influence elections overseas.
Now Porter Goss has been charged
to merge all the intelligence
agencies together.
As we observe CIA disinformation
activity in Iraq begining to be
a factor in how people vote
in the US its worth noting
that how the polls are reported
is a self fulfilling prophecy.
The GOP uses pre-emptive strikes
to paint Kerry into corners where
he can’t get his message out
Issue: Bush is a deserter in time of war
PES: swifties
Effect: Vietnam and candidate service
records are old news, everybody served
honorably.
Issue: Republican Lies
Example: Bush inherited a recession
Tax break helps economy (as we can see)
War on Terror becomes Patriot Act
Exchange Freedom for Security
Unilateral urgency of WMD’s
becomes Liberate Iraq from ruthless dictator
who tortures people in Abu Garoube
becomes bring Democracy to the Near East
becomes nation building Bush campaigned against
becomes to argue not to stay the course in the
face of an unwinnable and disastrous popular
uprising and civil war is unpatriotic
becomes polls show American voters still
support Bush on issues of terrorism and Iraq
PES: Kerry is flip flopper
Effect: Long list of Republican Lies to itemize
becomes Kerry changing his mind
about what the issues are.
Issue:Anybody but Bush
PES: Kerry is a weak candidate
Effect: Internal Democratic
anybody but Kerry
weakens base support,
Bush is perceived as strong
and effective rather than
stubborn and incompetent
Issue: Debates
PES: Bush is ahead in the polls,
Kerry as underdog needs to win
Effect: post debate spin builds on
pre debate polling
It’s like that
Gallup, Strategic, Vision,
Survey USA, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post
all use the same old discredited
methodology.
Zogby, ARG, Rasmussen, TIPP/CSM,
and others that match their sampling
to the actual demographics get
better results.
Having polsters, pundits and
reporters less knowledgable about
the election than the people
who get their information from
the net is something new.
The next step would be to get to
the point where what we know
get’s disseminated with the same
force as cable news and radio.
Talking points should be poll
skewing not rules of debate.