Why Biden Might Lose ............ It's The Economy, Stupid

[stevenkesslar]

I thought it made sense to start a thread on the biggest reason Biden might lose in 2024.

‘Pathetic': Voters of color slam Biden’s performance on the economy

“Our economy is the lowest it’s been.”

 

Yes, it's one focus group.  But there's no way to be a Democrat and feel good about the fact that 2020 Biden supporters who are in his must-have target group feel the economy sucks.  It's not good news for them and their families.  And it is not good news for Biden and Democrats.  And poll after poll after poll say that's how most Americans feel.

It increasingly feels to me like this is, in part, a race against time.  And two key facts that contradict each other will be in conflict.

On the one hand, you can't take inflation that has already happened away.  And it seems clear the main thing that pisses people off about the economy is inflation.  That also registers in Biden's approval ratings.  Which happened to be at their worst in 2022 when inflation peaked.  So there is now months of data showing inflation is way lower than a year ago.  And for most of this year wage growth is outpacing inflation.  Especially for people at the lower end of the income stream.  But to a large degree, so far,  it just doesn't matter.  We could also do a whole psycho-social analysis about post-COVID malaise, too, I guess.  But let's not.  I read a very funny and sad narrative once about how Veep Mondale implored Team Carter/Caddell not to do that whole "America's tummy  doesn't feel good" thing.  Not only did it not work in 1980.  In 1984 Reagan was still able to smear "Vice President Malaise" all over poor Walter.

On the other hand, it's clear that Team Biden is now committed to spending over a year pushing the idea of Bidenomics.  Good for them.  I think it's better for them to be on offense than defense, regardless of what happens.  But what is actually happening is that, just for the last few months, the misery index is lower than when Biden took office.  It was 7.7 in January 2021, and it's 6.8 right now.  The polls are also clear that no one is particularly bothered by high unemployment - since we are riding a 50 year low.  So the real question is how low do inflation and the misery index have to go by November 2024 for people to actually feel better?

In that regard, it's interesting that when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1984, the misery index was way higher than today:  11.4.    The reason that may have worked well for Reagan is it was roughly half the 20.2 misery index when he clobbered Carter in Nov. 1980.  So if Biden spends a year saying broken record that Bidenomics is working, which is basically his version of 1984's "Morning In America,"  it may work.  Assuming inflation and unemployment actually continue to drive a historically low misery index.  I strongly agree with Alan Lichtman's bias that, in the end, it is important things like the economy that matter most.  And they are predictive of who will win.  I also agree with his assumption that voters are smart enough to tell when you are just putting lipstick on a pig.  Well, most voters.  Putting handcuffs on a pig may be a different thing altogether.

Which brings us to the other race against time element.  IMHO there are two key questions that will drive 2024, both of which are now reflected in threads here:  1)  will the economy get better, or worse? and 2) will Trump be convicted of any of his many crimes?

I think the good news for Biden is that if it's a binary choice of whether the economy will get better or worse, on the face of it there's a 50 % chance it gets better.  If the question is whether Trump will become less criminal, or less indicted, there is a 0 % chance of that.  🤫   So you could argue that the odds are more on Biden's side than Trump's.  I guess it could come out that Trump is innocent.  Because Hunter Biden was the one who tried to steal the 2020 election.  Maybe Hunter also made all those death threats to Republican Raffensperger's wife.  Stay tuned.

The final trend I've been watching for about a year is Biden's approval rating in comparison to Reagan's.    Just about two years in, which was the point in his term when the Reagan Recession was at bottom, Reagan actually had an approval rating in the high 30's.  Biden had a similar low earlier in his term, when inflation was peaking in 2022.  Right now, at the same point in his Administration, Reagan's approval rating was 43.4 %, compared to Biden's 41.2 %.  Not a huge difference.  What mattered from here on out is that the Reagan economy did in fact recover.  And Michael Deaver was successful in selling it as Morning In America.   So Reagan's approval gradually surged to the high 50's by November 1984.

Biden clearly has a similar plan.  And it may work.  Unless we come to find out that "Bidenomics" means "2024 recession."   I'm curious what crystal ball Team Biden has that they decided they are willing to take that gamble?  Or perhaps they felt they had no choice.

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

More bad news for Biden.  Two articles worth reading.  I'll summarize with a key paragraph from each.

Biden is selling an economy on the rise. Voters aren’t buying it so far.

Quote

And former President Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, captioned a video he posted on social media recently: “The Biden Economic Bust will be replaced with the historic Trump Economic Boom!” The 2024 campaign, he said in the video, will be all about who can “rescue” the country from “the burning wreckage of Bidenomics,” which he said would be defined by “inflation, taxation, submission, and failure.”

Democrats beware: These Black voters are fed up, and looking for a political home

Quote

Mr. Beatty voted for Joe Biden in 2020, but that has become even more of a disappointment.

“Biden dropped the ball for me on inflation, so no I don’t think he’s doing a good job — not just because I don’t think he has the cognitive ability to do it effectively, but because he knows no one like us. And by that I mean middle-class America,” said Mr. Beatty, who is now a registered Independent.

There's a few things that both stories make clear.  The most important one is ............................. it's the inflation, stupid.  Had Trump been POTUS, there's no way he would have escaped the global inflation experienced by (name most any large industrialized nation, except China).  But since Biden was POTUS, he will be held accountable for it.

The other thing that is clearly a factor is all the stuff about age, and being out of touch.  There is one reasonably good comparison we can make on that, which I keep bringing up:  Ronald Reagan in 1983.  At this point he was still net unfavorable.  One 1983 poll showed Mondale beating him by 10 points.  Inflated prices won't deflate, any more than they did in 1983.  Biden won't grow younger, any more than Reagan did in 1983.  The gamble is obviously that a year from now, things will be different.

What we know now, that I mentioned above, is the misery index was 7.7 in January 2021 and it is now lower - 6.8.  So if Trump wants to talk about inflation and unemployment, right now it is lower than when Biden kicked his ass.  (New flash:  Joe Biden won the 2020 election.) No one in that second article is saying they are itching to vote for Trump.  If inflation and unemployment stay low, there's no particular reason to think Black voters who are disappointed in Biden or even Harris will decide MAGA is their political home.  As someone said in that article, most Republican efforts to reach out to Blacks are as cringeworthy as what Biden said in 2020 about how Blacks who vote for Trump "ain't Black." 

As an aside, some poll I read recently seemed to say that Black Republicans actually prefer Vivek Ramaswamy to Tim Scott.  I guess you could score one for diversity.  But it made me feel sad.  Scott, to me, is a good guy who articulates a right-of-center vision for a colorblind Main Street America.  Nikki Haley, to me, is a good gal who does the same.  I'm glad she is connecting.  Vivek is a culture warrior who is telling conservatives what they want to hear.  I'm biased.  But it says something to me about the true ugliness in the MAGA movement.  They just want their red meat.  And lots of it!

The S & P 500 was at 3850 or so when Biden took office.  It's at 4450 now.  Who knows where it will be a year from now.  But many prognosticators think it will set a new all time high, above the all time high it already set under Joe Biden.  If that plays out, which is what my money in the stock market is betting on, it undercuts Trump's argument about the great Trump economic boom and the horrible Biden economic bust.

All that said, this scares the shit out of me.  Is anyone else scared?

[forky123]

Biden has had to deal with pulling through Covid after Trump recommended Clorox, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a global gas and inflation crisis. Trump had to deal with where his next 18 holes were going to be and how to fool his supporters into believing a $1.5 trillion investment in billionaires was really a benefit to them. The latter being quite easy as his supporters have to share brain cells so they can breathe and waddle at the same time.

It should be scaring people. If Trump and co fix their way through the current legal issues and somehow win, the world is in for a rollercoaster of shite. Biden is a terrible choice at this particular time, he's too old. Where are the alternatives? If the dems keep trying to play things straight while the GOP try to see if there are any laws they haven't broken yet then the US will be the largest Banana Republic in the world (and the most dangerous).

[JKane]

Tell me what the alternative is, the rapist under four (so far) indictments who's clearly less physically (not to mention mentally) fit with an extensive record of lying about everything including his health?  

Or one of the sycophants who find his record of constant reaching of new lows to be inspiring?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[forky123]

That's kind of the problem, no democrats are stepping up but there are severe risks to Biden running. All it would take is a fall or illness and the election would be handed to GOP.

[reader]

The Dems are crazy if they don't have a plan B in place by now. The only one who can defeat the former president is another former president: Obama.

 

[Moses]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:31 AM, stevenkesslar said:

Reagan's approval rating was 43.4 %, compared to Biden's 41.2 %

It is 39% already.

Quote

A poll from CNN and SSRS released Thursday pegged Biden’s job-approval rating at 39 percent — with 58 percent of Americans disapproving of his presidency thus far.

Quote

67% expressed that the party should consider nominating someone other than Biden, which marks an increase from 54% recorded in March

 

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Moses said:

It is 39% already.

Be a sweetie, and let's say we round it up to 40 %?  Okay?  🙂

Since you want to talk math, I have a comment and then a math question.  I'd love you to tell me how you think Trump wins.  I'll go first.

The comment is that I didn't start this thread to criticize Biden.  Or to suggest he should not be the nominee.  I started it because I think the economy is the reason Biden could lose.  I'll cite Clintonista Democratic strategist Doug Sostik, who recently told this to errant Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol.  If the 2024 election is about the economy, Trump has a strong case, he thinks.  If it is about whether people want more crazy, Biden wins.  Sostik said he thinks the 2020 and 2022 elections came down to whether people wanted more crazy.  And both times Democrats did well.  Asked what 2024 was more likely to be about, he said he thinks Trump will be the nominee.  Which will make it about whether people want more crazy.  Again.  So Biden wins.  I'm guessing you disagree.

I know what the polls about Biden running again say.  But it's not about whether Biden tops the ticket to me.  It's about the economy, stupid.  And, more narrowly, the inflation, stupid. What solves the economy problem, like with senile old Reagan in 1983, is if people feel the economy improves.  So far Biden is selling.  But the people he needs ain't buying, yet, as those articles I posted make clear.

So here's my question.  Right now Trump and Biden are exactly the same in the RCP favorability averages, 56 % unfavorable and 40 % favorable.  Ain't that sweet?  They're like two peas in pod.  😉   Even so, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want a Trump/Biden rematch.  So who do you think is more likely to be able to overcome that 40 % number, and win a majority or plurality?  Trump or Biden?

Call me biased, but I think Biden.  Simply based on the math.  I'll lay out my case, and you tell me yours.

As you can see from that poll, Trump has never been viewed  favorably by any more than 45 % of Americans.  If we go by his approval ratings as POTUS, the very highest he reached, for a matter of weeks, was 47 %.  He lost in 2020 by 46.8 % of the vote.  So something like 47 % seems to be his hard limit.  I can see one clear way to change that:  by making Donald Trump NOT be Donald Trump.  Which is what sucks about these trials, in particular.  When Republicans line up to testify next year about how they told Trump he lost the election, or Mar A Lago employees detail how Trump ordered them to obstruct the FBI, Independents will be thinking, "Yup.  Sounds like crazy Trump to me."

Biden won with 51.3 % of the vote in 2020.  Until about August 2021, his approval rating was over 50 %.  Did I mention that his approval rating crashed below 50 % right around when inflation crashed above 5 %?  Did I mention his approval rating hit bottom in mid-2022, when inflation peaked?  Biden' average approval rating was 37 % then and 42 % now, according to RCP.  Hence, whether I go by the poll numbers or what real people in those articles say, it's very clearly the inflation stupid.  And the economy, stupid.

So you can see where the math is headed, @Moses.  Trump's chances of cracking 47 % for the first time since .................. NEVER! ........................ is pretty low.  But if inflation continues to subside and the economy continues to improve, Biden has more than a 0 % chance of seeing his approval ratings improve.  50 % of Americans could vote for him, and did, not that long ago.  Why might his ratings improve?  The economy can and does change.  Trump can't and won't change.

Trump may be criminal, but he's not stupid.  I think he knows that to win, it helps to run in a split field.  Both in the primary and general.  In 2016, Trump did worse than Romney in 2012 (47.2 %) or Trump in 2020 (46.8 %).  He barely did better than McCain in 2012 (45.7 %).  The reason 46.1 % was enough to win in 2016 was a relatively strong third party candidate, and the electoral college in the Rust Belt.  So in addition to a weak economy, or a recession, Trump has to be hoping somebody like Manchin runs.  I don't think Cornell West does it.  But a recession and a No Labels third party candidate that could maybe get 5 % of the vote would open up a whole new MAGAverse.   Vlad would love it, I'm sure.

That's my scenario.  What's your scenario?  How do you see Trump winning when 53 % of Americans never have and never will vote for him?

[KeepItReal]

17 hours ago, reader said:

The Dems are crazy if they don't have a plan B in place by now. The only one who can defeat the former president is another former president: Obama.

 

Actually I think Michelle Obama had a pretty decent shot.  But that's just me. 

[JKane]

There is by definition a plan B in place in case of Biden's incapacitation.  It's almost nobody's *first* choice but that doesn't change it.  Would Kamala have a harder time than a "spry" Biden, yes.  Would a LOT of people line up to vote for a ebola-laced ham sandwich on fire over Trump?  Also, yes (inclusive).  

Biden's the nominee.  Kamala is the VP nominee.  A vote against them (including the bullshit "no-labels" shills) is a vote against the continued existence of our democracy, as shown January 6th and by the bloviators saying right now "Trump or Death" and actively promoting further armed insurrection.  I'd fucking vote for Diane Feinstein over that (only thing worse than an ebola-laced ham sandwich I could think of).  

More likely is Trump not being the nominee on the Republican side as his health is, as mentioned, clearly worse plus his legal entanglements and the possibility of the 14th amendment keeping him off ballots... but I find the possibility of a smarter, more capable person who's learned from Trump following in his footsteps the most terrifying of these potentialities.  

Which is why hope is for Biden's continued good heath and actual accomplishments continue long enough to have a definitive "blue wave" that breaks the back of the MAGA fascist wing of the Republican party and either restores the party to sanity or makes it irrelevant forever.  

 

[reader]

31 minutes ago, JKane said:

Biden's the nominee.  Kamala is the VP nominee

They're not the nominees until next August when the convention decides the matter in Chicago. They are only the incumbents at this stage.

Should Biden become incapacitated during his term of office, the constitution provides that the vice president assumes the office.

But between now and the convention, others could still declare their candidacy for nomination.

There's also still ample time for either incumbent to withdraw their name from consideration.

 

 

 

[JKane]

1 hour ago, reader said:

They're not the nominees until next August when the convention decides the matter in Chicago. They are only the incumbents at this stage.

Should Biden become incapacitated during his term of office, the constitution provides that the vice president assumes the office.

But between now and the convention, others could still declare their candidacy for nomination.

There's also still ample time for either incumbent to withdraw their name from consideration.

 

 

 

 

Agreed but the pointless hand-wringing about a decision that is *all but made* based on... "he's 3 whole years older than Trump!" when he's also been surprisingly effective seems pointless.  Hell, Mitch is over here "beachballing" and they aren't replacing him!  Can something happen before August to change my mind?  Of course.  Is it likely and even if it did would the Democratic establishment change everything in favor of... nobody particularly compelling at this stage?  Nope.

If Democrats had a Barack Obama or even Howard Dean on the bench I could get passionate about, it still wouldn't change anything.  

But I stand by that it doesn't actually matter, because they can't run a candidate worse than Trump, and I am one of tens of millions who will walk over burning broken glass barefoot to vote against Trump or his bootlicks.  

 

 

[JKane]

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, JKane said:

 

Biden's the nominee.  Kamala is the VP nominee.  A vote against them (including the bullshit "no-labels" shills) is a vote against the continued existence of our democracy, as shown January 6th and by the bloviators saying right now "Trump or Death" and actively promoting further armed insurrection.  I'd fucking vote for Diane Feinstein over that (only thing worse than an ebola-laced ham sandwich I could think of).  

 

Interesting that all the likely Plan B's are from California. 

The betting averages RCP posts suggest that the most likely Democratic nominee, if it's not Biden, is my Guv, Gavin Newsom.  It's not clear how that would happen, since he just said there is no chance that's gonna happen.  Of course, they always say that.

I like watching Bill Kristol's interviews.  He is an inside player who clearly talks off the record with lots of very smart politicos.  So I believe him when he says behind the scenes lots of Democrats will say that they wouldn't mind if neither Biden nor Harris were the nominee.  But here's the thing, they say:  how do you actually make that happen?  The only way of course is Biden and Harris would both have to agree not to run.  Which is a little bit like saying that maybe Trump and DeSantis will decide not to run and somebody like Nikki Haley will be nominated.  Don't hold your breath.

I can see two scenarios where Biden is not the nominee.  The most obvious and likely one is he dies, or almost dies and has to resign.  As you said, Plan B is Veep becomes POTUS.  The interesting question then is, would someone like Newsom run against Harris, assuming there was time to do so?  I would not bet on it.  The polls say in a competitive primary, she'd beat anyone.  Including Michelle Obama, who btw says she has zero interest in being POTUS.  There would be a lot of public pressure to rally behind the new POTUS and let her focus on her day job.  Privately, the same politicos that gossip with Kristol would be saying our best chance of winning is to rally behind her.  Rather than have a divisive primary loaded with questions about whether people think Harris is not up to the job simply because she's a Black woman.

It's interesting that everybody speculates about whether Trump will end up in jail, and nobody speculates about whether he will end up in a coffin by next year due to a heart attack.  He'd seem to be a candidate for that, as well as Biden.

If I assume Biden dies or can't run and Harris is POTUS and the nominee, I think that could be exciting.  Immediately, age is an advantage for Democrats, who are presumably running against Trump.  Yes, people will say Kamala Harris is not up to the job.  That looks different when the alternative is Trump.  Whose problem is that 53 % or so of Americans are horrified by the idea of putting him back in a job they never wanted him to have in the first place.  

The cherry on the icing on the cake for me, in this situation, would be name some like Gretchen Whitmer Veep.  It obviously helps in Michigan.  It adds experience to the ticket.  And I think it would be a thrilling alternative to Trump.  It would be like the female version of Clinton/Gore in 1992.  Two younger figures that reinforce this dynamic image.  And I also include it because Bill Clinton, like Harris, is someone who many Democrats thought was a problem that would lead us to disaster if nominated.

It also solves the Hunter Biden problem.  Kick his sorry little ass out of the White House permanently.  I'm guessing Republicans would immediately lose interest in his art, bank accounts, guns, and past drug addictions.

All that said, I still go back to the economy, stupid.  If Harris is POTUS, she's still running on the incumbent Administration's record.  The economy is the main thing dragging both her and Biden's approval ratings down.  There is no getting around it.  Which is why they are at least trying to turn it into a positive.  Time will tell.

Which leads me to the other Plan B I can see for Democrats.  Assume by the end of 2023 the economy is tipping into recession, but despite that gas prices are on the rise again.  The S & P tanks and is back to 3500, or lower.   If we really want to speculate and channel 1968, assume Biden can't even get 50 % of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.  RFK, Jr. humiliates the sitting President by nearly beating him with 42 % of the vote. 

That's the kind of situation where I could remotely imagine Biden and Harris being begged privately to step aside, for the good of the party.  Like in 1968, it probably would not end well for Democrats.  I love to worry.  But these circumstances are so remote that I don't plan to spend time worrying about it.

 

[reader]

Think I'll continue wringing my hands. 🙂

[Mavica]

The obsession with polls, at this point in time, is laughable.  Biden hasn't even begun to campaign and probably won't until after the start of the new year - which is normal for an incumbent in Presidential elections.  All people are reacting to is the attacks of the Republicans.   A prescription for Valium would be appropriate - for poll obsessives.  

[forky123]

8 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

All that said, I still go back to the economy, stupid.  If Harris is POTUS, she's still running on the incumbent Administration's record.  The economy is the main thing dragging both her and Biden's approval ratings down.  There is no getting around it.  Which is why they are at least trying to turn it into a positive.  Time will tell.

Which is one of the reasons the GOP are once gain trying to force a default on the debt ceiling. A destructive act on the US economy and putting party over both country and the world economy. I wonder who would get the blame for that piece of economy sabotage?

[stevenkesslar]

10 hours ago, Mavica said:

A prescription for Valium would be appropriate - for poll obsessives.  

Will Chardonnay do?  😉

I agree with you, if we are talking about horse race polls.  The fact that Trump and Biden are tied, despite the fact that most people are negative about the economy,  is a bit encouraging to me.  As I said, I don't think Trump can do much better, since he never has.  I do think Biden can do better.  Again, because he has.  I think you agree.

I double checked and my memory is correct.  About a year before they were re-elected, polls showed Reagan losing to Mondale, Clinton losing to Dole by 9 points, and Obama losing to Romney.  In Fall 1982 6 in 10 Americans said Reagan should not seek a second term.  Does this sound in the least bit familiar?

Quote

US president in dead heat with rival as ABC-Washington Post poll shows public unhappiness with state of economy

That's from June 2011.

So much for horse race polls

How unpopular is Joe Biden?

The job approval and favorability polls are what worries me.  The rule of thumb is that any incumbent under 50 % is potentially in trouble.  I underlined the word potentially. 

I like that 538 page because it compares where Biden is now to where every other POTUS who  has been polled was at the same time.  And where they ended up.  So right now Biden's favorability is ahead of where one POTUS was:  Carter, who lost.  He is tied with another POTUS who lost, Trump.  He is 3 points behind where Obama and Reagan were at the same time.   And 6 points behind where Clinton was at the same time. 

I think favorability numbers now matter, because they almost always change slowly.  So by this point in their first term the favorability ratings for Obama, Reagan, and Clinton, as well as the economies they governed, were all at least starting to recover.   And by election day all three of them ended up at 50 % favorability, or higher.  That's not happening with Biden, yet.  At some point, but not yet or even soon, Biden just runs out of time.

And I know I am being schizo.  And I am drinking Chardonnay.  Because for somewhat different reasons than you, Alan Lichtman would agree that polls are of utterly no use.  Period.  Since I think Lichtman is right, both in his broad theory and in fact, I guess I should not care about polls.  But if I go with Lichtman and forget about polls, it leads me to the same place:  it's the economy, stupid.

I know I have posted this multiple times, but it's my gold standard.  Alan has predicted every race since 1984 correctly, in advance.  Some people think the whole theory is bullshit.  Other seize on one part of it and argue, "This time is different."  But, so far, every time he is right.

So in case that chart looks complicated, I'll decode it quickly and easily.  History says if the economy is good, it is almost impossible for Biden/Harris to lose.  The key number above is having 6 false keys.  That's when the party in power (in this case Democrats) lost the Presidency every time going back to the Civil War.  So far, Biden has 3 false keys.  1) Democrats lost seats in the midterm ("party mandate").  2) He does not have a foreign policy success.  3) He is not charismatic.  Which Lichtman defines as some like Ike, or Reagan in 1984, or Obama in 2008,  who can win a landslide by transcending partisan divides.

Based on what is happening right now, let's add a few more false keys.  Republicans could impeach Biden.  There could be a No Labels third party run that gets over 5 % of the vote.  That's 5 false keys.  Still not enough to toss out Biden, if history is a guide.  As long as Biden has the economy on his side.  Realistically, the only thing on that list that could add a 6th and fatal key against Biden is a military defeat.  Presumably in Ukraine.  Vlad is working hard on that.  But I'm skeptical he can pull it off.  Again, all of this is premised on the idea that we're not in a recession, and the economy is growing.

I put up that chart again because this is precisely why I'm not a fan of the idea of replacing Biden through a bitter, contested Democratic primary.  Again, Democrats are currently down 3 keys.  If the candidate is not the incumbent, and she is nominated through a divisive primary, Democrats lose two more keys.  That's 5.  Meaning nothing else can go wrong.  Add an impeachment of Biden, or a third party candidate that gets over 5 % of the vote, and a shitty economy, and Democrats have 9 keys against them.  The last time that happened was 2008.  History says that instead of Biden winning in a landslide as Veep, he would lose in a landslide as POTUS.

I've seen interviews were people argue this theory may be right, in general.  But this time is different on some key point.  Specifically, a lot of people clearly feel in 2024 that if it would be better for Democrats if the incumbent did not run.  And we instead had a contested primary.  Even if it is divisive.  What we know for a fact is that two years before he won in one of the biggest landslides ever, 60 % of Americans said Reagan should not seek another term.  Turns out that was less about Reagan, and more about the economy, stupid.  Lichtman has already said that unless there is some dramatic change in Biden's health, he thinks age will prevent him from winning in 2024 about as much as it prevented Reagan from winning in 1984.

To make it even simpler, there are only three instances in that chart above when the overall economy sucked, and both economic keys worked against the incumbent party:  1992, 2008, 2020.  In all three cases, the incumbent party lost.  Even when the incumbent POTUS (like W. in 2008) was not running.  Which is why I think it's the economy, stupid.  Not Biden or Harris or age or race. 

[Lonnie]

On 9/9/2023 at 8:43 AM, stevenkesslar said:

Biden just runs out of time

It's time for the senile old bastard to retire and turn this mess over to the border czar.

[stevenkesslar]

So thanks to the Freedom Caucus impeachment inquiry, we are now set for a gigantic compare and contrast in 2024.

Pretty much all the dirt on Joe Biden boils down to whether he took a bribe, directly or indirectly, from Ukraine.  A surprising number of people are open to believing these unproven allegations.  Which may have something to do with Biden's low approval ratings.  If Monikagate boiled down to, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," Burismagate may boil down to what the meaning of "some involvement" is.

Meanwhile, there will be absolutely no doubt whatsoever whether Trump had "some involvement" in some very minor shit.  Like trying to steal the 2020 election.  Or creating an evil environment where Trumpies thought it was cool to threaten to kill the family of a Republican Secretary of State.  Or inciting the MAAGverse to jubilantly and patriotically beat the shit out of the cops they love.  How could senile old Joe possibly match the festive lies and pure evil of Trump and his  MAGAverse?

Oh.  Did I mention a Senate Republican Committee already went through all this stuff in 2020, and couldn't find anything Joe Biden actually did wrong?  Oh.  Did I mention Republicans like Ken Buck are publicly admitting there is zero evidence of Joe doing anything impeachable, so far?  Oh.  Did I mention a bunch of moderate Republicans think this is mostly a strategy to create a backlash, so that Democrats take the House in 2024?

Republicans are definitely rolling the dice.  I get that at one level this is payback for trying to impeach Trump over Ukraine.  But Ukraine was all about Trump's obsession with digging up dirt on Joe Biden.  So add a government shut down.  And it does create the impression that Republicans care more about digging up dirt on Joe Biden, endlessly, than on actually making sure the government sends out Social Security checks or keeps parks open.

I think the conventional wisdom is that Clinton's impeachment hurt Republicans in 1998, leading to the demise of poor nasty Newt Gingrich.  

For a contrarian view, my sage Alan Lichtman argues the opposite.  "Scandal" is one of the 13 keys he argues has helped end Presidencies.  He argues that Clinton won the battle in 1998, but lost the war in 2000 when Republicans won the Presidency.  He makes a good case.  There is poll from 2000 I saw, which I won't bother to dig up since it debatable anyway, that a significant minority of independents chose W. because of concerns like "moral values."  

The problem for the MAGAverse is twofold.  Most people agree that Bill Clinton did bring scandal on himself, and did lie.  There is plenty of evidence that Hunter Biden brought scandal on himself.  None so far about Joe Biden.  So it is not clear whether this ends with "scandal" for Joe Biden, or just "backlash" for House Republicans.  Second, even Karl Rove said the October 2000 surprise about W. having a DUI almost cost him the Presidency.  Since it undercut his "moral values" pedigree.  Does anyone who is not a comedian even think Donald Trump has a moral pedigree?

It's a pretty good bet that 2024 is going to confirm that Donald Trump is an evil lying narcissist.   While Joe Biden may not be a saint, I have a strong hunch he will look very "not criminal" by comparison.

[stevenkesslar]

And now for an opposing point of view:

Inflation was so bad last year that real household income tumbled the most in 12 years, causing families severe economic pain

Quote

The 2.3% drop in incomes — which was the most since 2010 — marked the third-straight annual decline, which has been a feature of past recessions like the global financial crisis, the dotcom bubble and the downturn in the early 1990s. Last year, American families faced the the largest annual increase in the cost-of-living adjustment in over four decades.

I'm not sure I agree with the word "severe."  But it probably helps explain how a lot of people feel.  And it is certainly the tone Republicans are using.  What isn't said, and Biden (or Trump) can't say, is that it could have been far worse but for all the stimulus in 2020 and 2021 that avoided a global depression.  Like what we had after the last pandemic a century ago.  Voters will focus on the pain they feel, and not how it could have been worse.

Here's the Fed chart on real family incomes going back decades.  So, as Lichtman's Keys would argue, it's the economy, stupid.  But it's other stuff, too, stupid.  A multi-year decline in real incomes did hurt Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2010.  But Obama/Biden won in 2012, anyway.  Incomes were at a plateau in 2000, but Gore still needed more.  The last time it seems like a multi-year decline in incomes may have contributed to the demise of an incumbent was Bush 41 in 1992.

Biden built the strongest safety net in U.S. history. Now it’s collapsing around him.

The child poverty rate more than doubled in 2022 as Covid-era aid programs expired, erasing major economic gains for the poorest Americans.

 

That's the other sad headline, and a chart that shows long term child poverty rates.

I would not bet on whether this hurts Biden, or helps them.  He has already laid the tatters of the strongest safety net ever at the feet of Republicans who refused to extend the child tax credits.  Which helped Hispanics the most.  And were more than any other single measure responsible for the stunning decline in child poverty.  The Republicans will no doubt howl, "Inflation!"  Without explaining how child tax credits that slashed poverty in the US caused inflation all across Europe.

What the 2020 and 2021 experiments did prove is that hard work is necessary, but not sufficient, to slash poverty rates in a country where it is harder than ever to get by on a "working class" wage.  Clearly, child tax credits targeted to the middle and bottom helped more than Trump's tax cuts.  Which mostly went to the well off.  

Obama and Biden won in 2012 in part because Romney and Ryan were seen as hostile to the bottom 47 %.  While Trump may try to sell himself, again, as the working class billionaire, Biden has the receipts for how his ideas actually helped the Americans working the hardest just to get by.  Until the Republicans killed them.

[stevenkesslar]

As always, Ron Brownstein nails it.   

Granted, the man is verbose.  I always believe true intelligence is measured in whether all deep thinking can be communicated in one simple tweet.  😉 

But, other than that, Brownstein is spot on:

Why ‘Middle-class Joe’ Biden may need upscale voters more than ever in 2024

Quote

Perhaps even more ominous for Biden were the results of an ABC/Washington Post poll this spring that directly asked Americans whether Biden or Trump had done a better job of managing the economy. Biden slightly led among college-educated voters, but those without degrees picked Trump by over two-to-one.

All of these measures suggest that Biden’s vulnerability on the economy is greater among voters without a college degree than those with advanced education. Polls show that the reverse is also true: Biden’s opportunities to regain support, particularly against Trump, are greater among those with a degree than those without one.

Quote

One reason is abortion. Majorities of voters with and without a college degree consistently say in polls that abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances. But support for legal abortion is greatest among those with more education.

The belief that Trump constitutes a threat to American democracy also appears greater among voters with than without college degrees.

I think that sums up exactly why it's a jump ball, if the election were held today.

It is ironic that Biden has worked harder than any other Democratic POTUS in my lifetime to pander to the working class and non-Whites.  And he may win re-election because he is, at the very least, less distasteful to lots of suburban Whites, who are middle class or affluent.

If you want even more verbose (ugh!) thoughtfulness on the same issue of how or whether Biden can win in 2024, here's more:

The Democrats' Oliver Anthony Problem

Get ready for more education polarization.

That's Ruy Teixeira's latest screed about how a minority of woke progressives are naively bending over backwards to alienate centrists that are required for a Democratic majority.  I mostly agree with Teixeira.  That said, if real wages rise for Hispanics and Blacks and working class Whites in the next year, I think a lot of Biden's problems go away.  While woke progressives may be annoying, I think there is massive evidence that Biden's biggest problem is the inflation, stupid.  And the resulting  losses in real wages, stupid.  But that turned around this Spring.

The irony is that if Brownstein is right, it may not matter.  And the fact that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are predominantly - what's the word?  WHITE! - may help Biden.  Because those states are full of White suburban voters who make enough to not care as much about what a hamburger or a gallon of gas costs.  They care far more about Donald Trump being an evil lying prick who is a threat to democracy, apparently.  Who knew?  😉

[forky123]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Granted, the man is verbose. 

Oh, the irony.

[forky123]

[EmmetK]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:32 AM, Lonnie said:

It's time for the senile old bastard to retire and turn this mess over to the border czar.

Or more accurately, the senile old fool needs to retire and face criminal charges for his involvement in the Biden crime family's corruption and influence peddling schemes.