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.
Here’s how I see the refusal of both Clintons to acknowledge the fact that she is defeated: neither saw Obama coming; and neither can accept defeat graciously, especially in light of their initial anticipation at the beginning of the primary campaign that Ms. Clinton simply would walk away with the nomination.
The Clintons have run a deeply flawed campaign and, much like Bush ceaselessly changing the goal posts in determining success in Iraq, they have tried to change the parameters of this campaign. Now, for instance, we are told solemnly by the Clinton campaign that the votes needed to win the nomination are significantly more than the number set by the DNC, when Michigan and Florida fell into primary date apostasy and lost their delegates as a result. Who are THEY to declare this? The Clintons will now dictate the rules of the DNC?
They have run an awful campaign. For starters, theirs has been a top-down and old-fashioned campaign (surprising for the long computer-literate Bill Clinton), relying on large donors and assuming unquestioning allegiance from various minority blocs – traditionally Democratic – who have gone over to Obama. When it appeared that Obama was taking the momentum, they resorted to racist-tinged comments and ads. And finally, the refusal of Clinton to deal with the facts on the ground instead of wishes in the air, has only added fuel to the fire of speculation that both she and her husband will stop at nothing to secure this nomination.
I had supported Bill Clinton during and after his Presidency; a New Yorker, I voted twice for Clinton for senator. I was a Clinton partisan when this primary campaign began. But, after Bill Clinton’s South Carolina remarks and the “3:00 AM” ad, as well as the continuing negative screeds from her camp, I have had done with the both of them.
This is a “change” election, much like 1932, 1960, and 1980. The Clintons are a day late and a dollar short, and they just don’t get it. Moreover, if the Clintons’ campaign is an indication of how the White House would be run, then I fear we would get another George Bush, only in a different candy wrapper.