I Haven't Seen Anything Like This So Early In A Campaign

Even in 1980, the incipient Reagan landslide seems to have taken Democrats, or at least those speaking for public consumption, by surpise. In 1972, especially after the Eagleton fiasco, there was never any serious expectation that McGovern could beat Nixon, so that election is an outlier -- but even then, the real pessimism didn't even take hold until McGovern was nominated. In the 2024 cycle, we're seeing gnashing of teeth and rending of garments a full year before the election.

The closest equivalents to the current environment that I can remember were in 1988 over Dukakis and 2004 with John Kerry, when, after the Democrat conventions, "sources" spoke to reporters without attribution about how badly those campaigns were going. But again, this was during the summer and early fall before those elections, not during the fall a full year ahead, and few people are now publicly trying to maintain a happy face. And the Democrat insiders aren't just talking on background, certainly not David Axelrod:

“I think he has a 50-50 shot here, but no better than that, maybe a little worse,” Axelrod said.

“He thinks he can cheat nature here and it’s really risky. They’ve got a real problem if they’re counting on Trump to win it for them. I remember Hillary doing that, too.”

This was in Politico a week ago:

Just under one year before the presidential election, Democrats should be concerned but not panicked about President Biden’s standing.

. . . For Biden to win reelection, however, he must make changes. I spoke with dozens of Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans about what the president can do on personnel, presentation and strategy to improve his prospects. Their suggestions (pleadings?) are below.

The level of despair was striking. Since beginning this column a year ago, I’ve written repeatedly about the chasm between what Democrats say in private versus public about Biden. Yet perhaps not since Trump’s 2016 election have the party’s leaders and lawmakers been so alarmed.

What’s notable is both the uniformity of these anxieties — there’s no faction in denial — and how they mirror the discontent of the broader public.

Also in Politico a day later:

Earlier this fall, President Joe Biden’s top aides met a pair of progressives who had arrived in the West Wing with reams of data and a private warning: “Bidenomics” wasn’t breaking through.

. . . The meetings — the extent of which have not been previously reported — included sitdowns with members of Biden’s inner circle, as well as top aides charged with shaping Biden’s political and policy strategy ahead of 2024. They offer a window into a White House well aware that its economic message wasn’t resonating, even as it’s repeatedly dismissed such fears as overblown.

This reminds me of the public soul-searching in 2004 as John Kerry's campaign went awry, but keep in mind that this was only in September of that year, just two months before the election:

Following the Democratic convention in late July, Kerry was ahead (or tied) in most polls, a majority of Americans viewed Iraq as a mismanaged war and more had an unfavorable view of President Bush than of Kerry.

The mirror image is now true. What went wrong?

According to veteran strategists, three things: attacks on Kerry's Vietnam War record went unanswered, a Democratic convention went positive instead of driving a wedge between Kerry and Mr. Bush, and the Kerry campaign lacked a cohesive overall message.

"They only have two gears on their campaign: coast or fight. Like they did in 2003 when they almost lost it to us," [Howard Dean adviser Joe] Trippi says, speaking of Howard Dean's near victory. "[Democrats] stayed really positive and the mistake was not taking Bush on in the convention."

As of today via the UK Daily Mail, we're hearing similar tones, except that it's ten months earlier in the cycle:

The President has seen repeated questions over his fitness for office, with polls and pundits suggesting it is a huge problem with less than a year to the 2024 election.

When asked to respond to concerns about his age by the New York Times, the White House swerved and tried to rattle off a list of his achievements.

. . . But some of his staffers still believe he needs protecting, with a new strategy being set out to stop him falling or getting lost on stage like he has on multiple occasions.

. . . But John B. Judis, a longtime political strategist and author, suggested Biden's age has made him look less presidential.

'He doesn't look and speak the part,' Judis said. 'He's not a commanding or charming presence on a presidential or presidential election stage.'

Mr Judis's point is the most telling. Joe can't hold traditional press conferences or one-on-one interviews with any reporter who asks serious questions about his family business deals, the state of the Ukraine war and his plans for it, the border immigration crisis, crime, or homelessness. The same goes for debates -- it wasn't clear during the 2020 campaign that Joe can perform coherently for only brief periods (in my view, when he's kept from alcohol, despite his protestations of never having had a drink).

And it isn't just the most recent polls showing even Nikki Haley leading Biden in swing states. James Carville was saying the same thing in September:

Democratic Party leaders are not listening to their voters' concerns about President Biden's age, as they push Biden forward as the party's primary candidate for the 2024 election, a prominent Democratic strategist warned.

"The voters don’t want this, and that’s in poll after poll after poll," James Carville told the New York Times. Worrying these fears could lower voter turnout, he conceded, "You can’t look at what you look at and not feel some apprehension here."

. . . According to a CNN report, Biden's aides are terrified of losing to Donald Trump in a potential rematch as several polls show the two in an essential tie.

CNN reported last week that polls showing no clear lead between the two candidates in a hypothetical rematch were leaving aides with "existential stress" as members of the media continue to question whether Biden should run for re-election at all.

Again, we're looking at a level of pessimism among Democrats about an incumbent Democrat so early in the cycle that it's unprecedented. The pessimism about McGovern, Dukakis, and Gore was about candidates running against an incumbent, but Biden is an incumbent. There was much less pessimism about Carter's chances in 1980, and it was nowhere near as great a year ahead of that election -- in part because Reagan was an unknown quantity at that time, and it was by no means certain that he'd be the nominee. Trump is a known quantity, he's the likely nominee, and voters are making up their minds very early in the cycle.

I don't think Joe can turn things around; he's too much of a known quantity. For the odds to change, one or both sides will need to find another nominee, but as of right now, even if the Republicans have to fall back on Nikki Haley, the polls suggest even she would beat Joe.