There has been renewed chatter this week over the 2024 election. Over the weekend, Politico published a piece on infighting within the Biden administration. According to sources, Vice President Kamala Harris and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are locked in a struggle for favor and the position of successor to Biden. While Biden has mostly committed to 2024, there has always been speculation that he may not run for reelection. As Politico notes, “President Joe Biden says he intends to run for reelection in 2024. But not all Democrats believe him. Nor are they convinced his No. 2 would be the clear heir if he did choose to opt out.”
Discussions of the Democratic Party’s future are premature. Joe Biden has certainly had a rough time over the past four months. His approval rating has plummeted back down to earth from its January highs. He has become one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history not named Donald Trump. But the Democratic Party, for all of its hope in the next generation, should not consider moving past him just yet.
Having an incumbent president is one of the clearest advantages that a party in power can have. Incumbents have instant name recognition. There is no uncertainty about qualifications or inability to see a candidate in the role. Incumbents hold a commanding sway over the airwaves. No competitor can match the press availability and power over the news cycle of an incumbent president. The president always has a proposed bill, executive order, or foreign policy action that can sway headlines. Even Donald Trump has faded from the headlines over the past six months and mostly been replaced by Joe Biden, a development that many people did not believe was possible. Kamala Harris, despite her role as vice president, would not demand that level of attention.
Political history bears out this point. Presidents have won reelection during recessions (Harry Truman), disastrous wars (George W. Bush), and unfolding scandals (Richard Nixon). George W. Bush also won reelection with an approval rating less than 50%. Only five presidents in the past 100 years have lost reelection. Every circumstance has been shaped by some political earthquake that reshaped the electorate, from the Great Depression to Watergate and the emergence of the third party led by Ross Perot. That trend holds going back to the early 20th century as well, when William Howard Taft lost in a three-way race similar to 1992.
In addition, Democrats absolutely need all the help they can get from incumbency. Much has been made of the Democratic disadvantage throughout the American political landscape. Beginning in 2016, American politics started to realign along an education divide, one that led to a considerable Republican tilt in the Electoral College and the Senate. As expected, the current Democratic trifecta has done nothing to change this situation. Democrats may also have to contend with a flagging economy, a persistent pandemic, and an unscrupulous Trump campaign pledging to magically fix inflation, Afghanistan, and the rest of America’s troubles. Incumbency may be the tool that keeps the White House in Democratic hands for another four years.
There are always exigencies that could derail Biden from running again. He may have health problems or simply tire from one of the world’s most demanding jobs. But in the absence of those uncontrollable factors, Democrats need to remain united behind their president and spend as little time as possible angling for a 2024 alternative. The number one goal is still to deny Donald Trump a second term as president, and Joe Biden is the only person who has proven himself capable of that task.
Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline is not going to reserve itself, and likely will only worsen over the next 3 years. He will turn EIGHTY-TWO (82) years old in November 2024. Not sure how you can advocate for him to run for a second term without addressing that particular elephant in the Oval Office.Report
Buttigieg will never be anointed heir from a position in Transportation. The infrastructure bill is signed, and is full of transportation spending, though. Ask me in a year, if Pete’s the face of successful infrastructure spending and ready to be moved on to something bigger.Report
Heh… I get your joke. Like we can spend that money in a year!Report
Joe Biden 2012? Heck, yeah! Remember how he dismantled Paul Ryan in the debate? Good times.
Biden 2021, however, is not Biden 2012. If you start from 2012-2021 and extrapolate out to 2024 using some best guesses, you could easily come to the conclusion that it might be worth having a conversation about, okay, what if.Report
Biden ’16 would have been Biden’s moment.
Now he’s too little, too late, too old.
I hope he lives to a ripe old age on some lovely property in Delaware… but I don’t see him campaigning in 2024.Report
While I’m generally sympathetic to the thrust of the post I think it’s quite a bit too soon to be talking about. We’re only just barely coming up on the 1 year mark for fish’s sake.Report
I agree it’s too early to start the horse race itself; but its hard to see this horse running again.
Which makes the Harris/Buttigieg slap fight all the more fascinating as I don’t think either will be in the race at the end.Report
Harris will never be ready for prime time. After his stint Buttigieg needs to move to some jurisdiction where he can plausibly win office higher than mayor. Dude isn’t even 40. He has time.
I don’t see how either would be the nominee no matter what happens with Biden.Report
A white gay husband and father actually has a decent shot at nomination after seasoning in a cabinet position. While there will be a lot of pushback from conservative quarters for being gay, he got the veteran vibe going for him, and lets face it his skin color is more acceptable to a lot of folks.Report
For whatever strange reason, your comment reminded me of Pedro from one of the first few seasons of “The Real World” who was a young gay guy living with AIDS. For those too old (or too young) to remember, he was culturally relevant at that time – and he did a lot to raise awareness about HIV in the early-90s. (He unfortunately passed away not long after the series aired).
I recall one time Pedro was freaking out about introducing his boyfriend to his conservative cuban parents. Not because he was a guy, but because he was black.
Anyway, that’s a long winded way of saying, you’re probably right.Report
I see it as an issue of experience. I’m also a fan of running former governors wherever possible, as opposed to legislators, cabinet members, etc. Obviously not a hard and fast rule but I think it grounds them in reality in a way people intuitively sense.Report
Very few former governors do well as presidential candidates though. Clinton was the last one, and Reagan before him.Report
W was Gov of TXReport
Yep – and I even worked in his administration.
so 3 out of what, 46? Not good odds, and frankly had W not had his family connections I doubt he’d have done so wellReport
https://governors.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GovernorsWhoBecamePresident_Biographies.pdf
17 of 46
The last third of the 20th century saw a good run starting with Jimmy CarterReport
I sit corrected.Report
Carter, FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Hayes, Johnson, Polk, Tyler, Van Buren, Monroe, and Jefferson. Slightly more than a third of the 46. I would say it had fallen out of favor, but former governors held the office for all but four years of the 32-year stretch from 1977-2009.Report
I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it, and I’m not really sure what’s meant by ‘don’t do well’ as presidential candidates. This century we had a lightening in the bottle candidate, an insider who preemptively cleared the field candidate and lost, and a please God save us both from Trump and ourselves candidate with no coattails and that was way closer than it shouldve been. I think cultivating governors is a better way to attack the weak points because of the way they have to win office and the way they have to succeed in office.Report
Change gay to guy and that sentence is just as silly.Report
Are you implying that there are standards beyond race / class / sex / orientation by which we can judge candidates, or people in general? Because that’s crazy talk.Report
That statement is violence and I am literally shaking.Report
Reagan didn’t look good until he threw a tiny commie nation up against a wall. GHW Bush looked unbeatable until he didn’t. Clinton got hammered on Hilarycare, and still won a second term. Trump looked like he was headed to late model Hoover/Nixon/Carter numbers until he passed some tax cuts and upgraded to bargain bin Gerald Ford.
I can’t say where the conventional wisdom on Joe Biden will go over the next three years. I can make some educated guesses, but those are still guesses. I remain the Buddhist Wise Man, “Time will tell.”Report
Always a correct assertion, albeit one that is not useful for us political prognosticating sorts.Report
I want to be sympathetic to the OP, but I really can’t.
Demos really need to rally around the flag, to where even if they lose in 2022 they keep the margins as small as possible. To that end, lots of Dems want to stand with Biden, but it’s not just that he’s unpopular, he’s unpopular and checked out. How are Dems going to rally around the Prez when he’d not even rallied around himself?
The fact that Kamala Harris is even less popular complicates things because the Dems aren’t going to be rallying around her. Tbh, it’s hard to say what the Dems ought to be working for.
They could start voting Republican and try to be good Americans I guess.Report