Between 1936 and 2012, 11 out of 14 presidents seeking a second White House term were re-elected. This success rate convinced many that, as with other elected offices, incumbency offers distinct advantages for the presidency.
But what if this conventional wisdom is now wrong? What if, in an era of profound distrust and ingrained political disaffection, incumbency has turned into disadvantage? And if so, can an incumbent somehow channel the discontent and still win?
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
There are no snappy answers here, because the political moment we inhabit now is truly uncharted. The distinct combination of hyper-partisan polarization, widespread mistrust, and two extremely unpopular presidential frontrunners atop two very unpopular mainstream parties is unprecedented, and extremely dangerous.
But to face it squarely and think productively about the future, we have to stop pretending the old theories of presidential elections still apply.
The
Today, these advantages seem less clear. Instead, growing disadvantages have supplanted them: Unrelenting media scrutiny; a bruising political environment; pervasive anti-politician bias; and above all, a spiraling hyper-partisan doom loop of animosity and demonization that imposes a harsh starting ceiling on any president’s approval.
For much of the 20th century, presidents could benefit from incumbency because voters were more likely to judge presidents on their individual character, not only their partisan affiliation. Winning a presidential election relied on keeping some of that cross-partisan support, which was there for the taking.
Presidential approval ratings went up and down based on real-world events. A foreign attack could unite the country behind a president, as it did on 9/11. A booming economy (even one juiced by short-term stimulus right before an election) could boost presidential approval.
Beneath this variable support were media and partisan elites on both sides who sometimes withheld criticism, and at other times unleashed it. Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 earned sky-high approval at moments of foreign conflict because elite Democrats publicly rallied behind them. Both lost that support when partisans on both sides re-calculated. But this reservoir of potential cross-partisan support gave presidents some room to maneuver, even to influence events, and appeal to cross-pressured moderates.
Today, the
Yet, in an era of anger, campaigns continue to rely on demonization. It’s a dangerous tool with spillover consequences. No wonder a
In 2020, dissatisfied change voters contributed to the anti-MAGA majority. They wanted Trump out of office. So, they showed up for Biden. Now, who knows? In 2020, Biden could promise an end to the craziness of Trump, and a presidency of unity, healing, and normalcy. In 2024, he’ll be just another unpopular incumbent, in a political environment still screaming for something different.
The problem goes beyond the upcoming election. When perpetually dissatisfied voters hold the balance of power amidst hyper-partisan polarization, elections can become democracy roulette if there are not two dominant parties equally committed to the principles of liberal democracy (and right now, in America, there are not). Recent democratic breakdowns in Venezuela and Hungary, for example,
If Democrats want to win in November 2024, they will need to tap into the sour emotions out there, instead of just pretending all is grand. Younger and working-class voters are especially feeling forgotten. Democrats really, really need these voters. So maybe less Mission Accomplished, and more I Hear Your Frustration. And yes, maybe a fresh face, who can at least offer novelty and change, and who hasn’t (yet) been beaten down by right-wing propaganda.
Regrettably, the sole proven tactic is to run against Donald Trump as a supervillain hell-bent on destroying democracy. It’s worked
Overnight solutions to this collapse don’t exist. But longer term, American democracy needs new ways to re-connect the dis-connected and dis-engaged. This means giving voters more meaningful connections to national politics.
Practically, this requires better political parties. Not the two hollow, donor-driven parties that have alienated so many Americans and driven the
To make this all possible, we need not just organizing, but powerful institutional changes that create new opportunities for parties to form. My preferred reforms are
But for the next 11 months, we need to understand one big thing. The old rules of presidential elections don’t apply anymore. Americans are deeply frustrated. Few believe things are going well. The parties and candidates who can channel this better will win this time. Perhaps Democrats can do this. But unless they can turn that discontent into meaningful post-elections changes that help more Americans feel heard and connected, the dissatisfaction will only get worse. The radical responses will grow more extreme, and the next election may go the other way. Except, if this continues much longer, one day, there might not be another election.