Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, November 20 , 2018, 12:16 am | Fair 52º

 
 
 
 

Michael Barone: Democrats’ Nightmare Scenario for 2016 Elections

Last week, I set out a 2016 nightmare scenario for Republicans — not one that seems likely, but one that can be extrapolated from current polling.

In that spirit, let me set out a 2016 nightmare scenario for Democrats — again, not likely but a plausible extrapolation.

It assumes, first of all, that Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, or that her poll numbers have gone sharply down (they've declined somewhat over the last year, and could conceivably fall more).

And it assumes that voters' attitude toward the Obama administration remains roughly where it is today, with 44 percent job approval for the president.

At which point the Democratic Party has a serious problem. Like the Republican Party after it got crushed in 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party, after its pounding in 2010 and only partial rebound in 2012, has very few plausible presidential candidates apart from Clinton.

Polling matching other Democrats against possible Republican nominees is fragmentary and infrequent. But it shows that Joe Biden, presumably well-known as incumbent vice president, runs well under Obama's job approval and Clinton's higher numbers.

In polls over the last six months, Biden averages 32 percent against Chris Christie and gets 31 percent against Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and 29 percent against Paul Ryan.

I haven't seen polls showing other Democrats (except Clinton) running better. Possible candidates — Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer — are little known nationally. The first two have fashioned records suitable to heavily Democratic states while Schweitzer's home state has just three electoral votes.

In election years when a president is retiring, the vote for his party's nominee almost always tends to reflect the incumbent's job approval. You have to go back to 1896, when Grover Cleveland repudiated Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, to find an exception.

Over that period, only three incumbents saw their party's nominee win the popular vote by a significant margin — Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.

The numbers for Democrats now don't look good. The Pew Research Center reports that 65 percent would like to see the next president offer different policies and programs from the Obama administration's, while only 30 percent want President Barack Obama's successor to offer similar policies.

That's only slightly better than voters' reaction to George W. Bush's policies at this stage in the 2008 cycle.

Pew's numbers look eerily similar to the results of the 1920 election, the biggest repudiation of a president's party ever. Woodrow Wilson was president then, and his party's nominee, James Cox, won only 34 percent of the vote. Republican Warren Harding won 60 percent and carried every non-Southern state.

Wilson and Obama have some things in common. Both were happy to live in university communities. Both had minimal experience in high political office. Both got heavily Democratic Congresses to pass major legislation in their first terms. Both were cheered by crowds of thousands in Europe.

Wilson led the nation to victory in World War I, but his last two years were disastrous. He suffered a disabling stroke. His Versailles Treaty was rejected by the Senate. The nation was hit by inflation and recession, waves of strikes, race riots and terrorist bombings.

The Democrats' collapse in 1920 was the voters' response. It wasn't because of a weak ticket. Cox was a three-term Ohio governor who created the Cox Communications empire; today his 94-year-old daughter is worth $12 billion. His running mate was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The 2016 Democratic ticket, though perhaps weaker, likely won't fare as badly. Americans these days mostly vote straight tickets. Even in 2008, 46 percent voted for John McCain.

And certainly everyone hopes the nation doesn't suffer disasters like those of 1919 and 1920. But that election is a reminder that the bottom can fall out for a party.

Democratic nominees have received at least 48 percent of the vote in the last five presidential elections, going back 20 years. Obama has left them stronger than ever in central cities and university towns.

But the party has receded elsewhere. Bill Clinton in 1996 had better percentage margins than Obama in 2012 in 36 states. A ticket weaker than Obama in central cities and weaker than Clinton elsewhere might fall well below 48 percent.

I don't think a Democratic nightmare scenario is likely. But some numbers point in that direction.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.