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.
Jim J:
Michael Jordan publicly supported Bill Bradley in 2000. I don’t have any other information on his past and current political activities.
“The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.”
Obviously, people don’t like to admit they voted for the “loser” (even when the “loser” actually won).
Bush has been in the White House for the last 4 years, so many people remember voting for him who didn’t.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
Posted by James E. Powell at October 24, 2004 04:06 AM
==========================
oversampling Bush 2000 voters
IMO
DemDude :
I list polls from latest to earliest and do not count any from earlier than the 17th.
Also, I try to look more heavily at the ones that depict the situation of Nader being on or off the ballot accurately for the state.
Iowa:
Strategic Vision (GOP poll) shows Bush with a 1 point lead there (48-47)
Zogby with Nader shows Kerry up (48-51)
Mason Dixon shows Bush up 6 49-43.
M-d has been leaning heavily to Bush.
CONCLUSION. BUSH ISN’T UP 6. Look at the first number in each of these 49,48,48. That’s bad for the incumbent. Even M-D shows a bad # for Bush. Up 6 just doesn’t jibe. They’ve played with the definition of “Likely Voter” here most likely undersampling Kerry voters) Had they had Bush over 50, I might trust the up 6 a bit more.
Of the polls without Nader we have
Rasmussen Bush up 2 48-46
Central Surveys Kerry up 1 45-46
Strategic Vision Tie 46-46
Zogby Kerry up 48-51
(I dropped a Susa poll because even SUsa has changed it’s numbers 3 times.)
But even counting Susa’s poll Race.com projects Iowa within 5,000 votes. It’s definitely IN PLAY AND TOO CLOSE TO CALL.
Arkansas:
Polls with Nader (he’s on the ballot)
Opinion Research. Tie 48-48
Zogby Bush 50-48
Only polls this week with Nader on the ballot.
Usually 50 is the magic number. This appears a bit harder than Iowa.
Polls without Nader
Zogby Tie 49-49
Susa 51-46
Race 200’s projection model at the moment there has it within 300 votes!!! 300 votes!!! Send the Big Dog Boys!!! But given Bush over 50 in a couple polls, this one is actually going to be a bit harder than Iowa IMO.
Co: Cirulli Bush 48-42
Zogby Bush 49-48
Rasmussen Bush 50-45
Gallop, 51-45
Colorado is clearly an uphill fight but there’s some close races downticket there that are really close that Kerry can have an impact on. Plus, he can hit Nevada (Polls show the race closing there and New Mexico, pretty safe for Kerry, on the same trip.)
As to NC.
Rasmussen 51-45 Bush
Zogby 51-47 Bush
Susa 50-48 Bush
Only polls this week The Race.com model projected about a 200k Bush lead.
Not that Polls or Projections are completely accurate, It’s all about GOTV, GOTV, and NC is worth some effort, but the indication here is that NC will be a more difficult target than any of the other states you listed.
But I’d like to see him come down south. I’d make the drive over to R/D/CH just to see him. It really wouldn’t hurt to make a whistle stop in his travels between Florida and Ohio Would it???
Well, I don’t think that the Republican party as it is now could nominate a Pataki or a Guliiani. Those guys are too centerist for the right wing core.
I haven’t seen anything on what’s happening in the Colorado referendum on the allocation of electoral votes. The outcome could mean a crucial 4 EVs for Kerry. Does anybody have any info on how it’s looking?
Good article on front page of LA Times today about newly registered voters and how they might (or might not) affect the election.
You are assuming MJ is a Democrat. Do we know this to be true? Frankly I would tend to doubt it. He loves his money too much.
Obsessives (self included),
At some point you “just need to believe” – we all know we can find information on the web to assure or assail our desires. Someone mentioned “having a beer with Bush” — Yikes! First, you would need to be prescreened and agree to drink Coors – not on your life.
I too have had some peptic upset with Zogby, however, I am certain he will provide assurances as we move forward. I suspect today’s numbers will have us all a twitter. Relax and make sure to work on GOTV. Sanity will win out over Bush.
Jody
As something to demonstrate the subjectiveness of “Likely voters” there’s an article on Harris’s website today that says “Bush up by 8, or 2, depending on your definition of Likely Voter”.
Turns out if you include everyone who says they will “certainly vote”, Bush leads by 2 points. If you discard people aged 18 to 24 who were old enough to vote in 2000 but didn’t, Bush’s lead is 8 points.
LVs can’t be trusted as different pollsters have different definitions.
It’s been said before, but it needs to be said again. Kerry needs to squeeze in a visit to NC, which never makes the battleground state lists, but where he is closer to winning (down 3) than IA ( -6), CO (-7) and AR (-5), according to most recent polls. These three states all have less than half of NC’s electoral votes (15) and they don’t have a homeboy on the ticket. I suggest Kerry-Edwards work the Black turnout in Charlotte and/or Wilmington, maybe take along former tarheel Michael Jordan to generate some excitement.
I would be interested to know how Democracy Corps screens for likely voters. Because the Gallup Poll seven question screen effectively eliminates first time voters. According to Gallup if you didn’t vote last time, don’t vote regularly and don’t know where your polling location is (just three of the seven criteria) you are ipso facto not a Likely Voter. Which effectively eliminates any non-anal voter under the age of 22. I remember my polling location because I voted there last time (see questions 1 & 2), but I have moved frequently and have never worried about the possibility of not finding it in my new location. Indeed I am not sure how a first-time voter could even find that information out weeks before the election without a trip to the County Courthouse.
LV vs RV never hit the radar screen until the Times/Newsweek double-digit Bush lead took the Blogosphere by storm. And the emphasis since then has been on Republican over-sampling. But I looked at the screening criteria and said “Man, they are pretending like Rock the Vote and Howard Stern don’t even exist”.
I firmly believe the long mythical young voter/new voter is going to show up this time. So if other polling outfits are using a screen similar to Gallup’s for their LVs they are measuring waves in the lagoon and missing the breakers crashing on the reef.
I am curious about something that I have seen in several polls, and in Democracy Corps polls more than once.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
There are always differences between the polls. This year the race is close and some show Kerry with a small lead and others show Bush with a small lead.
If one was comfortably ahead of the other, the polls would still differ with each other but they would point to the same “winner.”
Anybody know what’s up with the Honolulu Advertiser poll out today saying Bush up by .7 in Hawaii?
Remember… John Zogby outright predicted John Kerry would win the election last week. It’s in an article posted on his website.
I used to wonder why everyone always said it had to be a southerner to win the election. Now I understand… the democrats have to be able to peel a couple of those southern states away to be competitive. Imagine how much easier this would be with some southern states in play. I hope the republicans don’t wise up and start nominating NY Republicans like Guiliani or Pataki. Imagine trying to do this without NY.
As an aside I’d like to say it makes me mad that Bush is in this because of the “I’d like to have a beer with him” factor. Yea, I have a lot of friends I like to have beers with, but I wouldn’t vote for any of them for president. I wish more people could see beyond this.
As another aside, I’d like to say as a New Yorker, this is the first time I’ve ever been rooting for the Boston Red Sox. Good win tonight!
Justin
I wonder how much an impact Clinton can have.
Assuming Clinton can make a limited number of appearances, it is best for him to go to campaign rallies or would it be better for him to appear on Oprah, Leno or Larry King?
I’m not in a swing state, so I may be biased, but I would love to see the Big Dog on national television talking about his recovery and talking up Kerry.
But I would be satisfied if one of you fancy pollsters would explain why local news events in swing states can be more helpful than national appearances.
It’s all a matter of mental toughness. Fellow Dems need to stay frosty and keep working. You don’t see the Repubs getting all squirrelly when things get tight . . . we shouldn’t either Be prepared for anything. As long as Bush’s approval ratings stay low, Kerry is in good shape.
And help get out the vote!!
If I survive the anxiety bred by the uncertainty of this period and see John Kerry inaugurated as the 44th POTUS, it will be largely due Emerging Democratic Majority. Ruy Teixeira’s sanity keeps hope alive.
But I continue to be confused and troubled over the disparities between polls. I LOVE the Democracy Corps Polls because they put Kerry ahead. Of course I accept their results as the true picture. Yet a rolling poll published by Zogby/Reuters this morning Reuters had Bush up by 2 points. I hate Zogby/Reuters! How can there be so such differences between polls?
I am confident that the discrepancies in the polls this year will be fodder for survey experts for years to come.