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.
ok, eventhough i believe Nader will be no factor, few if any kerry or bush supporters are going to go to Nader, its going to be hippies and kids that wouldn’t vote otherwise. Also problem is that Nader is in only 32 states and may be in less than those. Polls are nationwide. Regardless looking at 3 way polls Bush is ahead by 5%. Averaing out both since many polls do both 2 and 3 way its at best a 4% race, hardly anything to be concerned about. there were several times in Sept and Oct 2000 where both Bush and Gore were 4% ahead or behind. The WP/ABC has equal number of D/R and the AP is heaily toward R.
Regardless a 3-5% gap in late Sept against a sitting president in a time of war is not that bad at all. if bush were not 5% behind Kerry would you say he might as well resign since the election is lost?
Nice try rambdan, but I have 2 points:
You cannot just look at the 2 way; Nader is in 32 states including some of the key states (ie PA & FLA) where the race is close. To just leave Nader off completely misrepresents a key dynamic in this race…Secondly, you left out 2 polls, WP/ABC & AP/IPSOS, which show GWB with a 8-9 point lead.
Kerry’s statements on Allawi were correct and needed to be said. Kerry cant be faulted if there are not enough intelligent people in the market capable of handing and digesting solid truth.
If the American people prefer to swallow chocolate coated crap, then Kerry cant be expected to take the wrap for that.
Bush has been proven over and over to be grossly incompetent, some have labelled him a blatant liar, he himself has questioned his own intelligence. If the people of America prefer this kinda person in the white house, then please dont blame Kerry for people’s lack of intelligence. People usually get the government they deserve.
Personally, I am in that crowd who says that Kerry is doing fine. He is doing, mostly, the right things and has said, for the most part, the right things.
I think Kerry has had a pretty good 14 days and I think this will be reflected in the poll stats from the coming 10 – 14 days.
Look, its the people’s choice. They decide if they want intelligence, integrity, level headed decision making, expert foreign policy decisions, rock solid domestic policies, a strong army, a quelling of terrorism as would be given by Kerry, or if they want to continue to live in fear of another 9/11, have a deficit that cant be counted on a regular scale, have insurance for a select few, continued mass murders on Iraq and plenty shadowy forms of truth, as would be continued by Bush and his cohorts.
Kerry has done enough and is doing a fine job and as such I cant think of any reason why he should beg the electorate to exercise intelligent judgment if its not there. There is really nothing that Kerry can do to make people intelligent and smart. Nothing.
I see a strong consistent figure in Bush all right — a man who said clearly that the war on terror can be won, then changed his mind, then changed it again, saying it could be won.
And what about that trip to Mars anyway ?
One word: outlier. Majority of polls all show the race is a dead heat. If Pew’s numbers are consistently all over the place, and they are known to eschew weiting by party ID, well, I think it’s pretty obvious what’s happening with their data.
I was going to point out to LL Smooth J that a busy candidate in the midst of a heated campaign can indeed by VERY tired at noon on any given day. I was going to do this until I realized that the whole point of Smooth Jazz, et al., posting here is to bog down yet another progressive site in the mud of distortion and non sequitur — an accurate description of not only George W. Bush’s campaign, but his entire presidency as well.
Hey, I have no doubt that Bush will win, even though the Gallup numbers are clearly dreck. Best of luck to all of you, even Smooth J and company, over the next miserable four years. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Four more years!
“Kerry was caught in another Whopper today: When interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, he said the “I voted for it before I voted against it” quote resulted because it was late at night and he was tired.
It turns out when he gave that speech in Huntington, WV, it was 12:00NOON.”
That’s not a whopper; if you want to see a whopper, revisit George Dubya Custer on WMD’s in Iraq (by way of Salon Magazine’s article on Bradley’s 60 Minute expose that wasn’t).
WMD’s in Iraq, now that’s a whopper!
> Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM
> who came here to, among other things, thank us
> for our sacrifice.
Some Americans don’t appreciate sacrificing our own country’s national security in an attempt to liberate others.
Seems like a conservative stance to me.
I find the Pew results somewhat disappointing, but can’t dismiss them out of hand. I do wonder why they’ve been bouncing around so much, though. Three weeks ago they had Bush up by 16 (?!) then a tie and then by three and then by eight at a time when most other surveys show Kerry either gaining or the race remaining essentially static. I don’t think that the Allawi comments had much of an effect, at least a lasting one, and their young voter results noted by a previous poster are at variance with Newsweek’s extensive poll of that age group. (But such voters are volatile and unpredictable, so maybe Pew’s right.) But maybe Pew’s onto something; the race might be more fluid and changing more frequently then most analysts think. Maybe. I don’t know.
But since I don’t know Pew’s methodology, I won’t write them off as wrong, though I don’t think they’re uniquely right, either. They’re just one more ingredient to be tossed into the stew pot of polls and analysis.
‘Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM who came here to, among other things, thank us for our sacrifice’
I think you miswrote — a man who cannot control his own country, his own capital city or even his own compound,. whose every moment is guarded by American troops, whose tenure is temporary till January came to America posing as an indepdent leader.
‘But ask yourself how many swing voters appeciated the assault against a foreign leader expressing his gratitude to us. And could this have helped to swing Pew and almost all the other most recent polls against Kerry.’
I don’t think Kerry’s comments on Allawi had any impact at all except among people who believe Allawi is Thomas Jefferson, reborn. Most people recognize he’s not a true leader and most of us also recognize brown-nosing when we see it.
And other polls haven’t shown a move away from Kerry this week either.
If I had to guess, I would put the real difference midway between these 2 numbers, which amoungs to a difference of 5 or so points. Still a lead for Bush, but not an insurmountable lead.
Btw,
Kerry was caught in another Whopper today: When interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, he said the “I voted for it before I voted against it” quote resulted because it was late at night and he was tired.
It turns out when he gave that speech in Huntington, WV, it was 12:00NOON. Some may consider this trivial, like his Christmas in Cambodia lie; But when fair minded undecided consider the ALL of Kerry’s misquotes and prevarications, they don’t see a consistent, strong, honest figure.
I can’t see how he can get any traction in polls with these kinds of misstatements.
Until we see what percent of the Pew sample was R’s, D’s, and I’s, we should reserve judgment. Andrew Kohut, a leading figure with the Pew organization, is an outspoken opponent of sample weighting on Party ID. This could just be Gallup all over again. In fact, we now know that Pew’s poll was done by Princeton Survey Research Associates, the same firm that does Newsweek’s polls (which have included disproportionate numbers of Republicans relative to turnout in the ’92, ’96, and 2000 elections).
Indeed, another poll released yesterday, by Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor (polling agency TIPP) showed Kerry leading 46-45 among likely voters.
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Man, the trolls are out today. Must be a special, “build up to the debates” campaign going on. I’m fairly happy where JK is right now. About 5 points down or so, with the debates coming. All that’s happened in the past month is Republicans and Republican leaners have “come home” before Democrats. Happens every four years. If you recall, Bush was much more than this far ahead four years ago, but then, predictably, those last 5-6% worth of marginal Democratic voters came home, and it ended up a tie. Kerry is in better position now than Gore was about three weeks out, after the 2000 debates. He’s fine.
Kerry does have some work to do. The cumulative impact of these polls, for all their biases, should tell us that people need to feel more secure about the idea of President Kerry. He still has this opportunity and ability to do so, but it’s not getting any earlier in the race. Depending upon any number of issues (real news, debate gaffes or strokes of genius, which pile of hay the debate pundits choose to eat from), things could go in any number of directions.
As for hanging the poll swings on the Allawi-Kerry news thread, I can’t agree or disagree. I just haven’t seen it come up in the places I usually visit for news. True, Dick Cheney made the claim, but I have yet to count his as an Everyman sort of figure.
Coming back to Smooth’s much-less-than-smooth characterization of Kerry, this race in some ways does boil down to the idea of putting lipstick on a pig. Bush has done a deft job of convincing the public that Kerry needs the makeup. To the extent that no candidate is perfect, Kerry has some reframing to do.
The amazing part to me, however, is that people are seriously considering voting for Bush on the rationale that although makeup could never conceal his own piglike qualities (Smooth chose the metaphor…I can only work with it), at least he’s consistently a pig. It’s not rational, but it’s the game.
On a humorous note, this all calls to mind the old Adlai Stevenson line where he was told that he could count on the vote of every thinking person in America. Stevenson replied (paraphrasing from memory) “That is good to hear, but I need a majority to win.”
put a fork in kerry, he is done.people just do not like him and unless bush makes a major flub in the debates kerry is toast. the media is working real hard to re-elect bush so the debate spin will be all pro bush unless he messes up so badly they can`t spin it.it will tighten at the end ,but the reality is this election is not tied and that bush has a solid lead.
Plenty of talk about party I.D. But in this poll, 15% of the democrats support President Bush, while only 7% of the republicans support Senator Kerry? Independents back the president by 8 points. All in all, it’s hard to rationalize these results based on faulty weighting.
The president leads among women by 3, while Vice-President Gore won their support by 11 points in 2000. Young people back the president 48-42 (Rock the Vote indeed). Clearly, Senator Kerry is having trouble holding the support of people that have traditionally backed democrats.
Wrong candidate, or wrong campaign. Either way, when you have to “reintroduce” (McCurry’s term) your candidate on September 30th, you’ve got serious problems.
Can you explain the internals of the new Pew Poll, especially their samplin of republicans and democrats. The result is worrisome, unless it has the same flawed sampling techniques exhibited by Gallup.
When I went to the Pew site, I saw no information on the realative Republican Democratic sample size.
Wow,
You guys do a good job in pasting lipstick on a pig, but only the typical cocooners will buy your spin IMO: That the 3 point GWB lead last week is comparable to an 8 point lead in the same poll TODAY. You post the 2 polls side by side, matter of factly, and without perspective, as if nothing happened between the 1 week period between survey coverage.
I have news for you, if you’re willing to listen. Kerry made a fool of himself dissing the Iraqi PM who came here to, among other things, thank us for our sacrifice. Even Kerry flack, Joe Biden, cringed on TV while acknowledging he sought to assure PM Allawi after Kerry stepped in it.
To be sure, I know that the typical Michael “FahrenHype 911″ Moore and Whoopi ” Kiss My ___” Bush-Hating types, including many on this forum, loved Kerry’s offensive against Allawi; But ask yourself how many swing voters appeciated the assault against a foreign leader expressing his gratitude to us. And could this have helped to swing Pew and almost all the other most recent polls against Kerry.