TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 11: If Biden “Steps Aside” and Harris Steps Up, There Should Be No Falloff in Support
At New York I discussed and tried to resolve one source of anxiety about a potential alternative ticket:
One very central dynamic in the recent saga of Democratic anxiety over Joe Biden’s chances against Donald Trump, given the weaknesses he displayed in his first 2024 debate, has been the role of his understudy, Vice-President Kamala Harris. My colleague Gabriel Debenedetti explained the problem nearly two years ago as the “Kamala Harris conundrum”:
“Top party donors have privately worried to close Obama allies that they’re skeptical of Harris’s prospects as a presidential candidate, citing the implosion of her 2020 campaign and her struggles as VP. Jockeying from other potential competitors, like frenemy Gavin Newsom, suggests that few would defer to her if Biden retired. Yet Harris’s strength among the party’s most influential voters nonetheless puts her in clear pole position.”
The perception that Harris is too unpopular to pick up the party banner if Biden dropped it, but too well-positioned to be pushed aside without huge collateral damage, was a major part of the mindset of political observers when evaluating Democratic options after the debate. But now fresher evidence of Harris’s public standing shows she’s just as viable as many of the candidates floated in fantasy scenarios about an “open convention,” “mini-primary,” or smoke-filled room that would sweep away both parts of the Biden-Harris ticket.
For a good while now, Harris’s job-approval numbers have been converging with Biden’s after trailing them initially. These indicate dismal popularity among voters generally, but not in a way that makes her an unacceptable replacement candidate should she be pressed into service in an emergency. As of now, her job-approval ratio in the FiveThirtyEight averages is 37.1 percent approve to 51.2 percent disapprove. Biden’s is 37.4 percent approve to 56.8 percent disapprove. In the favorability ratios tracked by RealClearPolitics, Harris is at 38.3 favorable to 54.6 percent unfavorable, while Biden is at 39.4 percent favorable to 56.9 percent unfavorable. There’s just not a great deal of difference other than slightly lower disapproval/unfavorable numbers for the veep.
On the crucial measurement of viability as a general-election candidate against Trump, there wasn’t much credible polling prior to the post-debate crisis. An Emerson survey in February 2024 showed Harris trailing Trump by 3 percent (43 percent to 46 percent), which was a better showing than Gavin Newsom (down ten points, 36 percent to 46 percent) or Gretchen Whitmer (down 12 points, 33 percent to 45 percent).
After the debate, though, there was a sudden cascade of polling matching Democratic alternatives against Trump, and while Harris’s strength varied, she consistently did as well as or better than the fantasy alternatives. The first cookie on the plate was a one-day June 28 survey from Data for Progress, which showed virtually indistinguishable polling against Trump by Biden, Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer. All of them trailed Trump by 2 to 3 percent among likely voters.
Then two national polls released on July 2 showed Harris doing better than other feasible Biden alternatives. Reuters/Ipsos (which showed Biden and Trump tied) had Harris within a point of Trump, while Newsom trailed by three points, Andy Beshear by four, Whitmer by five, and Pritzker by six points. Similarly, CNN showed Harris trailing Trump by just two points; Pete Buttigieg trailing by four points; and Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer trailing him by five points.
Emerson came back with a new poll on July 9 that wasn’t as sunny as some for Democrats generally (every tested name trailed Trump, with Biden down by three points). But again, Harris (down by six points) did better than Newsom (down eight points); Buttigieg and Whitmer (down ten points); and Shapiro (down 12 points).
There’s been some talk that Harris might help Democrats with base constituencies that are sour about Biden. There’s not much publicly available evidence testing that hypothesis, though the crosstabs in the latest CNN poll do show Harris doing modestly better than Biden among people of color, voters under the age of 35, and women.
The bottom line is that one element of the “Kamala Harris conundrum” needs to be reconsidered. There should be no real drop-off in support if Biden (against current expectations) steps aside in favor of his vice-president (the only really feasible “replacement” scenario at this point). She probably has a higher ceiling of support than Biden as well, but in any event, she would have a fresh opportunity to make a strong first or second impression on many Americans who otherwise know little about her.
Good riddance to the distraction of the race based affirmative action debate.
Class and geography based admissions could achieve much better results.
Affirmative action based on race is an inter elites controversy, part of the (mostly useless) cultural wars.
Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t support race based affirmative action and those that do don’t obsess about it.
The left still has a general mess with many of the not so progressive views of working class “people of color”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html?fbclid=IwAR3X67kFr2D2a49YlvaD9tiRHhzlHVFwtc6tQklRZn_l6sXRmpW2CJXQkSY
If Democrats wanted to get rid of legacy admissions they could have done so one of the many times they have controlled Congress or Department of Education regulations.
Trying to ban legacy admissions via the courts is dangerous.
Legacy admissions are about class. If they result in fewer minority admissions it is only due to an indirect effect.
But it would be rich for Democrats to achieve the precedent of banning class based affirmative action via jurisprudence that would set the stage for also banning class based affirmative action in favour of poorer students.
Ban legacy admissions and next the right will ban privileges for Pell Grant and scholarship admissions.
Color blindness is required by the Constitution and entirely consistent with traditional left wing values, as explained by MLK and other civil rights era leaders.
Legacy admissions should be banned, but they are not the correct tit for tat neither in political discourse nor in judicial caselaw.
Class blindness has not traditionally been seen as required by the Constitution and civil rights law.
It is moronic that Democrats would make the analogy. The fact that they do just shows just how overtaken by elites the party is.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/high-court-ruling-dems-take-aim-legacy-admissions-rcna91983
“White Democrats (75%) are also significantly more likely than nonwhite Democrats (40%) to support broadening how gender is taught.
Clear majorities of both whites (68%) and people of color (57%) say transgender and sexual identity issues should be given less attention.
Similarly, both groups support limiting how gender identity is taught in schools (59% white and 52% people of color).
As may be expected, white Republicans (93%) are much more likely than white Democrats (20%) to want to limit how gender identity is taught in schools.”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_062823/?fbclid=IwAR0rBgVPOI7ntaIh_C3SSfoFQS3rqvaLchPYdRwQdqeuqHDD2MnGoMmaGl0
“A majority of Hispanic voters (58%), young voters ages 18 to 34 (57%), Democrats who backed progressive Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary (55%) and Black voters (52%) say they’re open to considering a third-party or independent presidential candidate in a Biden-Trump rematch.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dems-republicans-are-open-third-party-presidential-candidate-rcna91368?fbclid=IwAR2m8IoPEE8F7kcvlsZG0BL2wm6rl9flCkI9e0x598jwRrP-PqM4n2fMUjE
“Our findings suggest that work stress generally increased from 1995 to 2015, and that the increase was mostly driven by psychological demands.
People working in lower-skilled occupations had generally higher levels of job strain and effort-reward imbalance, as well as they tend to have a steeper increase in job strain than people working in higher-skilled occupations.
Most of the change occurred from 1995 to 2005.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032584/