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.
This article was frustrating, in part because it ignores an important solution in one regard and perpetuates a myth in another.
It is true that large numbers or workers will tend to depress wages. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the government to set a floor in terms of wages and working conditions for all applicants to avoid businesses using the most exploitable labor. The various campaigns for an increased minimum wage are encouraging. Interestingly, the push to eliminate or alter tipped wages may even be more effective because immigrants are so heavily concentrated in that sector. Bring up working standards and wages will make these jobs more attractive to white and black workers and will help the Latino and Asian people working there now.
The issue of benefits needs more explanation to the general public. Illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for most Federal and state programs and this needs to be repeated as often as the truth that they are not even allowed to vote. Just like the renewed discussion of what an increase in the marginal tax really means, progressive need to counter the falsehoods that right wing and even centrist sources state. Why are there all these people speaking Spanish in line to receive Medicaid? It’s most likely because they are citizens. There are a few limited exceptions but I am waiting for compelling evidence that this loopholes are huge or there is fraud. From a federal government website message from 2014: “No federal funding to cover undocumented immigrants, except for payment for limited emergency services.” https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/outreach-and-enrollment/downloads/overview-of-eligibility-for-non-citizens-in-medicaid-and-chip.pdf
I do believe there is a limit to the overall level of immigration but I don’t think we have reached it if we are concerning about having enough workers to support the future economy as the article mentions. The ultimate lose-lose situation (which of course is a libertarian/Republican dream) is many workers with no benefits. Given that immigration from Mexico is down, lets focus on the later.
On the better benefits and salaries issue
1. Better salaries and benefits would increase the difference between wages in the US and other countries, thereby making it even more attractive. This is called the pull factor in immigration.
2. Labor laws in the US are poorly enforced, with workplace inspections in particular being very infrequent. This is why the article calls for enforcing labor laws against employers.
3. Levels of immigration are related to working conditions in the US and to enforcement of immigration laws. It may be true that current levels of immigration are low, but that doesn’t mean they will remain low forever. Conflicts in other countries are increasing and the number of potential immigrants is very high.
On the issue of the strain of immigration on public finances
1. This is probably the aspect that most liberals misunderstand and most pundit misrepresent. The working class understand how the strain works because they use public services more.
2. Immigrants may not be eligible to all public programs, but they are eligible to a substantial proportion either directly or indirectly.
3. Asylum seekers do receive some public benefits (including during the period their applicants are pending -which can take a lot of time and a very high proportion of which are rejected-).
4. More important the children of immigrants receive a lot of public benefits, whether documented or undocumented (eg public education). Ordinary people don’t make a distinction between documented immigrants and their undocumented or native born children. Native born children though have access to many programs that benefit their parents (ie their parents administer the money that their children receive).
5. Undocumented immigrants have indirect access to benefits for example via the use of hospital emergency rooms which are prohibited from turning away people.
6. Another example is jails/prisons, regardless of whether immigrants commit more crimes or not. And of course detention centers and supervision of absconding.
Most cost/benefit analysis for immigration don’t take into account the costs of native born children. The US is in this respect different to Europe where many countries don’t have soil citizenship.
I will agree with you that enforcement of existing labor laws is crucial. In fact, some of the campaigns against tipped wages stems from the fact enforcement of a minimum wage (if tips fall below that level) has not been sufficient in the service industry.
I don’t think increased wages and benefits will create much more of a pull because the rap against immigrants is that they settle for lower wages and thereby hurt all wage earners.
Finally, you seem to be saying that the issue of benefits really comes down to emergency services. Sorry, I am not in favor of banning people from ER rooms or schools. Putting aside all moral arguments, the latter will help create a permanent precariat class which is not in anyone’s interest. In fact, that is probably why Europe has more social tensions over immigration that the US.
Where the working class has succeeded in the past to improve things for themselves are the times they were able to mute ethnic, racial, and other differences (eg. skilled vs. unskilled). Pandering to resentments against others in the same economic boat or worse is not really a viable option. Yes, we have increased border security over the years (and probably a good thing) but that has not nipped xenophobia in the bud. Making sure there is a floor native and foreign born won’t fall through is a better answer all the way around.
That is the whole point of the article, which I don’t dispute.
The fact that the proportion of the foreign born is near an all time can’t be ignored. It has positive consequences electorally, but in policy terms it is more complicated.
I also agree that this is why Democrats must take both social and economic aspects equally seriously.
Let’s see what the House produces, if anything.
Shorter version: scapegoating immigrants is not fair or helpful.
My apologies for all the typos.
Why are “undocumented” immigrants undocumented? Because they are illegal immigrants. Speaking of their illegal conduct in euphemisms like “undocumented” or “unauthorized”, or ignoring the difference between legal immigrants and illegal ones, merely convinces the hearer that the speaker wants to evade the issue. If the Democrats want to speak credibly on this issue, the first thing they must do is abandon the doubletalk.