By Nick Catoggio
Tuesday, March
26, 2024
How early in the election cycle is too early to begin
looking for meaningful trends in polls?
Seven months out is too early, one of my editors
told me this morning. In a normal election, sure. But America doesn’t have
normal elections anymore.
A normal election would still have some suspense about
the result of the out-party’s presidential primary in late March, especially if
the frontrunner before voting began was facing scores of criminal
charges.
In a normal election, an incumbent presiding over a
strong economy wouldn’t have 73
percent of his own party telling pollsters that he’s unfit to serve
another term.
In a normal election, we wouldn’t be asked to choose
between two presidents, one current and one former, both disliked by more
than half the country.
And in a normal election, the outcome wouldn’t
meaningfully affect America’s
commitment to the constitutional order.
More germanely for our purposes, in a normal election,
the two candidates wouldn’t already enjoy worldwide universal name recognition
at this point.
Early trendspotting in polling has traditionally been a
fool’s errand, because one or both presidential nominees are little-known
outside their home states when the general election campaign begins. As voters
grow more familiar with their options, the numbers begin to move, sometimes
dramatically—but that takes time. It would have been useless to try to read
polling tea leaves this far out in a race between Joe Biden and, say, Ron
DeSantis given that few people outside of Florida have strong opinions about the
governor right now.
But a race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump? There’s
nothing new to learn about either. Strong opinions abound. So when the polls
move a bit, even seven months out, it’s tempting to conclude that something
is happening to soften some of those strong opinions in a meaningful
way.
And maybe something is. Analysts as esteemed as the New
York Times’ Nate Cohn have looked at the latest data and are open to the
possibility.
Today I want to flag two trends that might—or might
not—be emerging in the early polling, as either would be hugely consequential
if it pans out. One is the presidential race beginning to tighten, the other is
ticket-splitting in swing states.
Yes, it’s early. But it’s
later than you think.
***
In mid-December, Trump led Biden by 3.5 points in
the RealClearPolitics national
average. By the end of January, that lead had grown to 4.3 points.
Today, it’s 1.6 points.
In 20 polls tracked by RCP between late January and late
February, Trump led in all but one. In the 16 polls taken since then, Biden has
led in six and tied in another. If you include polls that RCP doesn’t
follow, he
leads in even more.
Individual pollsters have also seen movement. On Tuesday,
Morning Consult published
new data that found Biden gaining ground on Trump in six of seven
swing states. The incumbent now leads in Wisconsin by a point and is tied with
the Republican in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Winning those three Rust Belt
battlegrounds would all but assure his reelection.
Something is happening—maybe. And if it is,
there’s no shortage of possibilities as to why.
Start with the State of the Union. That speech wasn’t
a “game-changer” for the president, but the fact that it didn’t change the
game doesn’t mean it didn’t affect it at the margins. According to Morning
Consult, the share of voters who said vice presidential nominees are more
important this year due to Biden’s and Trump’s ages ticked down across all
parties after the president’s reasonably energetic performance at the SOTU.
Some left-leaning voters who were undecided about whether to risk giving him a
second term might be drifting back into his camp.
Relatedly, Biden has kept a conspicuously busier schedule
lately and mainstream media outlets are eager for American
voters to know
it. Some have even made a point of contrasting the president’s itinerary
with his opponent’s. “As Biden tours the country and visits swing states, Trump
is fundraising and playing golf,” a recent Associated
Press headline blared. The Democrat has visited seven battleground states
in the three weeks since the State of the Union, while the Republican has held
just a single rally since March 12.
Age is Biden’s greatest political liability. For all the
trouble he’s faced from inflation and has caused himself with immigration, I
suspect he’d be on a glide path to a second term against Trump if he were 10
years younger. Frequent public appearances are risky for him insofar as even a
single “senior moment” on camera might frighten voters, but the more visibly
active he is, the easier it’ll be for undecideds who really don’t
want a second Trump term to talk themselves into believing that Biden is fine.
And while there’s no way for the incumbent to convince
Americans that he’s getting younger, he can certainly neutralize the issue to a
degree by turning attention to Trump’s own age. Every verbal flub made by the
former president in public appearances is now quickly clipped and circulated on
left-wing social media, sometimes on Biden campaign
accounts. The president himself has taken to commenting
on those miscues in interviews. Allegations of dementia are now tossed
around by Trump’s critics as well; less than a week ago, the Washington
Post devoted a story to his family’s history of Alzheimer’s.
The message underlying this strategy couldn’t be plainer:
In a race that features two candidates, not one, who no longer have their wits
about them, you might as well take the guy who didn’t attempt a coup.
There are other factors that could plausibly be shrinking
Trump’s lead. Top Democrats have eased their support for Israel considerably
lately, which may be softening hard feelings among progressives towards the
White House. Team Biden has also gotten a jump on advertising in swing states
with a six-week
$30 million buy that’s still in progress. And simple public awareness
of Trump clinching the Republican nomination—with all
the insanity that portends for the next seven months and beyond—may
have tilted some undecideds into the president’s camp, temporarily or not.
The Biden comeback could be underway.
But what kind of pessimist would I be if I didn’t consider the grim
alternative?
***
Start with this, which makes me think that ending the
American experiment might not be a bad idea after all.
Trump’s favorability is underwater in the RCP
poll tracker, but his numbers are still marginally better than Biden’s.
Multiple impeachments, indictments, and a coup plot that played out in full
public view haven’t been enough to sour citizens of The Greatest Country in the
World on the Republican nominee.
Look closely at the national
head-to-head polling and you might also find less to “the Biden
comeback” than meets the eye. For starters, the president hasn’t actually
gained much support over the last five months: On November 1, he stood at 44.9
percent in polling and today he stands at 45.0 percent. In fact, apart from a
few brief dips, his share of the vote has remained stuck between 44 and 46
percent since last summer.
A ceiling of 46 percent is … not great for an incumbent,
especially when his challenger’s ceiling is higher. Trump touched 47.8 percent
earlier this month and has been north of 47 percent numerous times since last
fall. “The Biden comeback” may be less of a true comeback, it appears, than a
mere polling artifact of Trump’s numbers surging following big early primary
wins in Iowa and on Super Tuesday and then falling back a bit as those bounces
faded.
If you need further evidence, examine the president’s
job approval rating. On November 1, 40.8 percent approved of Biden’s
performance; today, 40.4 percent do. Not since September of last year has he
averaged as high as 42 percent in that metric and not since October 2021(!) has
he been as high as 45 percent. If Americans are brightening on a second Biden
term, even only insofar as they deem it preferable to a second Trump term, that
brightness should be evident in his job approval at some point, no?
You can dismiss all of this if you like by insisting that
the reality of a third Trump nomination still hasn’t fully hit voters and that
the numbers will shift meaningfully once it does. Maybe. But I would remind you
that Trump is winning right now despite having made no
real effort yet to woo disgruntled “Nikki Haley conservatives,” which
is likely to change as the election approaches. And that, unlike in 2020, there
are multiple significant third-party candidates this cycle who appear poised to
pull more votes from the left than from the right. And that the probability of
Joe Biden making it to November without demonstrating serious signs of advanced
age in public is exactly zero.
Any candidate polling this weakly against a figure as
morally and civically degraded as Donald Trump is one whom Americans
really, really don’t want to be president. That will not
change meaningfully before Election Day.
***
So maybe we should start thinking about races down
ballot. If the presidency is a lost cause, it will be crucially important to
have Democrats in charge of Congress.
But how likely is that? Typically, when a party wins at
the top of the ballot, its nominee carries its candidates to victory on his
coattails in close congressional races. That should be especially true in
modern America, one would think: The more hyperpartisan our politics gets, the
less we should expect to see voters splitting their tickets by preferring one
party’s candidate as president and the other party’s candidate(s) for lower
office.
So imagine my surprise when I stumbled across this data.
Emerson is just one pollster, you might say. Surely the
RCP averages in swing states show greater alignment between the presidential
race and Senate races.
But they don’t, it turns out. In Pennsylvania, Trump
leads by 0.2 points while Democrat Bob
Casey leads by 8. Nevada: Trump
by 3 points, Democrat Jacky
Rosen by 4. Michigan: Trump
by 3.5 points, Democrat Elissa
Slotkin by 1. Wisconsin: Trump
by 0.8 points, Democrat Tammy
Baldwin by 3 in the latest poll there. Arizona: Trump
by 5.2 points, Democrat Ruben
Gallego by 4 in the latest poll.
Montana and Ohio will be gimme victories for Trump this
fall. In the former, Democrat Jon
Tester leads the Senate race by 5.5 points. In the latter,
Democrat Sherrod
Brown leads by 5.
How seriously should we take this? Is it a real trend?
There’s a case that it is. It could be as straightforward
as younger progressive voters taking out their frustrations over Gaza on the
president, who sets foreign policy, when speaking with pollsters while
exempting their party’s Senate candidates from their wrath.
But I think there’s more to it, as I noted
last month when Democrat Tom Suozzi continued the Democrats’ hot
streak in special elections by winning comfortably in New York’s 3rd District.
Suozzi had many advantages, starting with the fact that the left’s
higher-educated base turns out more reliably for elections held at odd times.
But it’s strange that Joe Biden’s party has overperformed in congressional
races for the last several years, in particular in the 2022 midterms, given how
deeply and durably unpopular the president himself is. He should have “reverse
coattails,” yet he doesn’t. Why not?
My theory is that Biden’s age is such a singular
political liability for him that it ends up insulating his party from him down
ballot. If voters perceive his deficiencies on policy as mainly a function of
him not being up to the job, then it’s hard for them to attribute his failures
to younger Democratic officeholders. To repeat a point I
made in February: “If you’re the sort of person who views America as
functionally leaderless right now due to the president’s questionable health,
it might be easy to view Tom Suozzi and other congressional Democrats as
independent actors rather than servants to the White House.”
But don’t take my word for it. The Republican State
Leadership Committee has begun advising state-level candidates not to
make their races a referendum on Biden because, in Axios’ words,
the president “doesn’t hurt candidates down ballot in the way some presidents
have in the past.” An internal poll for the group found that not even half of
voters say they’re less likely to support a state candidate who supports
Biden’s reelection despite the fact that disapproval of his performance now
stands north
of 56 percent nationally.
Biden might be sui generis as an
incumbent—too disliked to be reelected himself yet somehow also too personally
debilitated to have his political sins held against his party.
Split-ticket voting might be less common than it used to
be, but it’s not as unusual as you might think. Candidate
quality drove some dramatic splits in the 2022 midterms, as a forlorn
Mitch McConnell might tell you. This year, “double-hater” voters who
dislike Trump but consider him slightly less unfit than Biden might nonetheless
prefer a Democratic Senate to hold him in check given the loose talk
about “retribution” and suspending
the Constitution that emanates periodically from Mar-a-Lago.
The early Senate polls could be detecting a real trend.
But what kind of pessimist would I be if I didn’t consider the grim
alternative?
***
The obvious counterpoint to all of the above is that most
Democrats who are leading in a Senate battleground right now are incumbents.
The two exceptions are Arizona and Michigan, where the races are for open
seats, and in Arizona, voter skepticism of Kari Lake might plausibly soften as
voters start to scrutinize the progressive Gallego.
That is to say, nearly all of these Senate contests are
traditional ones of the sort I described at the start of this piece, in which
one candidate is very well-known and the other much less so. The well-known
candidate, typically an incumbent, will lead early by dint of greater name
recognition, but the numbers can shift sharply as the unknown begins to make an
impression on voters. How much of a “trend” is a dog-bites-man story like that,
really?
Consider this data point, too, from pollster Patrick
Ruffini:
That’s a big enthusiasm gap among
so-called MAGA Republicans between turning out for their hero and turning out
for candidates down ballot. Maybe they’re telling pollsters disproportionately
that they’re undecided in Senate races, as they don’t care enough about those
contests to have developed an opinion about either candidate. If so, that would
explain why Democratic Senate candidates enjoy small leads right now.
But we wouldn’t expect those leads to hold on Election
Day. Most MAGA Republicans who turn out for Trump will end up voting for the
party’s nominee for Senate too, however dispassionately, simply because they
will have an R next to their name. Hardly anyone leaves a line on their ballot
blank unless they strongly disapprove of all of their choices, and most of the
GOP’s Senate nominees won’t offend populist sensibilities. The polls could, in
other words, be underestimating Trump’s own coattails down ballot—and not
for the first time.
Meanwhile, to the extent Democratic candidates are
benefiting from an impulse to restrain a second Trump presidency by ensuring
his opponents control the Senate, voters may eventually realize that there’s
all but zero chance of that scenario happening.
With Joe Manchin retiring, West Virginia’s open Senate
seat is destined to flip from blue to red. That will leave the Senate
50-50 even if Democrats manage to defend all of their
battleground seats (unlikely), which means Trump’s vice president would provide
the tie-breaking vote in a deadlocked chamber. For Democrats to retain a
majority, they would need to flip a red seat somewhere to get to 51. And the
prospects of that are
grim, especially with Larry Hogan now a serious threat to flip
another blue seat in Maryland.
The Senate is going red, one way or another. The
presidency is probably going red too, especially if swing voters currently
inclined to vote for Democrats down ballot are already signaling a willingness
to cross over at the top of the ballot to vote for Trump. And it’s later than
you think.
But both of these polling trends will be worth watching
this spring and summer as voters get to know the Republican Senate challengers
better and try to cope with the fact that Trump and Biden really are their
only options to lead the country. I expect we’ll settle into a miserable
homeostasis with Trump narrowly and reliably ahead while some 10 to 15 percent
of the electorate absolutely refuses to make up its mind until October, when
both sides will unload every dirty political trick they can think of. And even
then, many of those undecideds will end up opting for third-party candidates,
denying the eventual winner of the election anything close to the forceful
legitimacy of 50.1 percent of the vote.
There’s no “good” outcome in the offing, only shades of bad. That’s what a country gets when it chooses not to have normal elections anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment