January 20: Biden’s Approval Rating Is High Enough to Beat His Most Likely 2024 Opponent
There’s been a lot of buzzing lately about the president’s job approval ratings, so I gave them a close look at New York:
Midterm elections almost always serve as referenda on the perceived job performance of the president. It’s no accident that just prior to the two recent midterms (1998 and 2002) in which the party controlling the White House gained House seats, which is rare, the president’s job approval ratings were in the 60s. On three other occasions (1962, 1986, and 1990), presidents with job-approval ratings of at least 58 percent kept midterm losses for their party in the single digits.
With Democrats currently holding a five-seat margin in the House, President Joe Biden would probably need one of those very-high-job-approval moments to save his party’s control of the House in the 2022 midterms. Unfortunately, in this era of partisan polarization, a Biden boom in popularity is improbable. According to the FiveThirtyEight polling averages, the president’s approval rating peaked at 55.1 percent on March 22. It’s currently at 42.1 percent, and it is “underwater” (below his disapproval rating) by 9.8 percent. If Biden can turn the fairly steady downward drift in his approval ratings around, he can certainly help Democrats mitigate midterm House losses. On two occasions, presidents with pre-midterm approval ratings in the 40s lost only a handful of seats: Carter’s party lost 11 seats in 1978, with a Gallup rating of 49 percent, and Obama’s party lost 13 seats in 2014, with a Gallup rating of 44 percent. On the other hand, Democrats lost 53 House seats when Obama was at 45 percent in 2010 and 63 House seats when Clinton was at 46 percent in 1994. So Democrats can almost certainly kiss their trifecta goodbye, barring something unforeseeable.
The Senate is invariably another matter, since the particular “class” of senators up for reelection in any midterm has a huge impact on partisan performance. In 2018, to cite the most recent example, Republicans managed to gain two net Senate seats despite losing 40 net House seats, mostly because Democrats had an incredible 26-9 disadvantage in seats they had to defend. It was a terrible Senate landscape for Democrats, who, by contrast, face a marginally favorable Senate landscape in 2022. Still, a pretty reliable Senate model devised by Sean Trende projects that Democrats are likely to lose control of the upper chamber in 2022 if Biden’s job-approval ratings haven’t rebounded to the high 40s by Election Day.
In the longer term, there is a definite silver lining to Biden’s current popularity woes, reflected in this ostensibly very negative headline at FiveThirtyEight: “One Year in, Biden Has the Second-Lowest Approval Rating of Any President.” Guess who had the very lowest at this point in his presidency? That’s right: Donald J. Trump, whose approval rating was at 39 percent a year after his inauguration. If, as is currently more likely than not, the 2024 presidential election is a Biden-Trump rematch, you have to like Biden’s odds for a second term if he can improve his public standing even slightly between now and then. Yes, ex-presidents usually become more popular after they leave office. But they generally don’t insist on making the low point of their presidencies a signature moment, and defense of it a litmus test for their party, as Trump is doing with the Capitol riot and his broader campaign to steal the presidency. It’s as if George W. Bush had tried a 2012 comeback (and hadn’t been term-limited) based on the eternal righteousness of the Iraq War.
With better skill than he has showed lately and a bit of luck, Biden can make the midterms a nick rather than a grievous wound to his party. Then, like his friend and former boss Barack Obama, he could win reelection two years after being underestimated.
The McCain campaign is shameless. Consider this idea; it may be over the top, but so is the Republican commerical about sex education:
——————
A few video clips of John McCain in ill health. A newspaper headline about his melanoma.
A clip of Sarah Palin saying something silly. A headline of her election as mayor of Wasillia, population 6000 [or whatever].
Voiceover: John McCain says he has the judgment and experience to be president. But despite his health history, he chooses an inexperienced new governor as his running mate. Why? To try to win over Hillary Clinton supporters.
Country First?
————————
I suggest this because I think the Republican willingness to put inexperienced mediocrities like Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers, Heckuvajob Brownie, et al., into high office is unpatriotic. They select on the basis of tactical advantage and ideological submission rather than merit.
“MILF” and “bimbo” — those are sexist terms when applied toward any woman. When you imply that Palin’s success is based primarily on her looks (“failed beauty queen” “second-rate beauty queen”), that’s sexist. She did legitimately win election to mayor and governor. It’s fair to question her qualifications for the vice presidency; it’s not fair to label her a “bimbo.”
When did Bill Clinton call voters “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards”? When did Bill Clinton express contempt and hatred toward his opponents? When did Bill Clinton call Pat Robertson a “Jew-hating Nazi he-devil”? You may have thought those things yourself, but Bill Clinton never uttered those words (or anything close to them). Bill Clinton did, however, stick to his core message “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You mistake lack of contempt and vitriol as weakness. You accuse people who don’t share your aggressive, denigrating tone as “lacking a spine.” I read Naomi Foner’s article; she’s arguing that we go after Palin’s positions. Hit her hard with her hypocrisy. Absolutely. But your language is way beyond Foner’s.
“Leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose.” Tough talk. There’s a big difference between a solid right hook and a sucker punch, head butt or knee to the groin. My problem with your approach isn’t the fight itself; it’s how you fight. This isn’t some ultimate fighting cage match. It’s not a silly playground game of one-upmanship. It’s a fight to get more people on your side. And there are lots of ways to do that.
Stop panicking. You’re like the soldier who can’t hold his fire and gives away his position. Have some confidence in a candidate and a campaign that has done pretty damn well so far. So McCain is getting a good bump in the polls. If you thought that the country was just going to reject McCain out of hand and lovingly embrace Obama, then you completely misunderstand Americans (but of course you do, because you hold them in such contempt).
And by the way, though I do not expect anyone to believe what I or anyone says simply because we say it, I’d like to point out this article..written by a WOMAN…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-foner/were-in-big-trouble_b_124686.html
She does not seem to have a whole lot of trouble hitting Palin where it should hurt either. And she is just one of many women who undoubtedly feel the same way.
And she, unlike me, actually gets paid to say this stuff.
I’m no frothing lunatic from the woods, people. I am someone who, like many many others, is beginning to see how much Obama is in trouble. Very serious trouble….owing a lot to what I have been talking about…not enough attacks, and too much cerebral dancing.
That is the second time you have accused me of sexism..either grow a spine and come after what I say with an actual argument, or leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose. But I am not about to give the MILF a pass simply because she happens to be a woman..anymore than black candidates should get a pass because they are black, or anyone should get a pass simply because of race or gender.
If wanting to hit Palin hard, because she deserves to be hit hard because of her extremism, her lies, and her positions makes me a sexist, you have a warped definition of the word. There are plenty of able women out there…Palin is not one of them, and if I see her weakness as the fact that she is a failed beauty queen with an empty head, i will say so, just as much as I will come after McCain for being a foul tempered old fool.
And you want a name? Bill Clinton. For all his many many faults, he was not afraid to hit back dirty and often during campaigns, and he is the only Democrat elected to the White House twice in the last 30 years.
I am not sure what polls or studies you are reading my friend, but we are losing this race, and the Democratic Congress that we control has the lowest aggregate approval rating in the history of Congress. The reason? They are all being led be milquetoast diplomats like yourself afraid of getting scratched in a real, honest to God fight with Republicans…the ones who actually know how to attack and..say it with me…WIN.
ThinkingGuy:
Just who do you think is going to be persuaded by your sexism, contempt and hatred? The “John Q. American” you mock? Women (who just LOVE the term “MILF”)? Independents?
Please show me one Democrat who has won an election using your suggested tactics. Democrats have won, and are continuing to win, local, state and Congressional elections because they’re finally begin to understand the “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards” that most us more reasonably — and correctly — call our neighbors, co-workers and friends. Sorry all those folks aren’t up to your standards. But they’re the ones you have to win over if you want to be elected to national office.
Not sexy enough.
We Democrats are getting skinned alive in this election, despite all of history and all of the numbers a mere six months ago giving us a free ride to take the biggest electoral vistory in a generation. And the reason why? Sexiness.
You got a gone toting MILF and a lying mean spirited POW on the other ticket. You think ads that talk about issues and graft from Wasilla are going to speak to John Q. American, (aka. John Q. Redneck) no.
The voting public, as it proved by the re-election of Bush, are lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards. If we do not hit back with as much venom, we will lose, as we always do.
How about an ad showing Palin as the second rate Beauty Queen, Jew Hating nazi she-devil that she is? This is what we need to do, because everyone else is doing it.
Define her as the evil that she is.
Spot on. And here’s the ad I would propose:
The idea is to mimic the MasterCard “priceless” ads in tone, structure and imagery. [All claims and figures need to be rigorously fact-checked.]
Opens with an establishing shot of Wasilla, Alaska, cut to interior shot of an ice hockey rink with kids playing on the ice. Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: WSJ headline “Palin’s Hockey Rink Leads to Legal Troubles: Misstep leads to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs”
VO: “Cost overruns caused by Mayor Sarah Palin’s mismanagement of a major city project: $1.3 million dollars.”
Still shots of “Washington lobbyists” shaking hands (ideal would be a picture showing Palin shaking hands with one of the lobbyists she hired). Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: Washington Post headline: “Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds” $26.9 Million Dollars for a town of 6,700 people.
VO: “Amount that lobbyists, hired by Mayor Palin, secured in federal earmarks for her town of 6,700: $26.9 million dollars.”
Moving overhead shot of Ketchikan, Alaska airport, zooming in to proposed location of “bridge to nowhere.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: headline from Anchorage Daily News: “Palin touts stance on ‘bridge to nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop”
“Amount of taxpayer dollars Gov. Palin kept for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ she initially supported and was never built: $223 million dollars.”
Clip of Gov. Palin from Republican Convention “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: universal “no” sign (red circle with diagonal line) stamped over still image of Palin at podium.
VO: “A candidate who says one thing and does another: absolutely unaffordable.”
VO and graphic: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Can Trust.”
Can do a companion version for John McCain.