Should Biden Go Big?

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)

We have had, with the exception of 2008, relatively close presidential elections in the past twenty years.  While 2012 was more of a blowout than you remember, and 2004 might be closer than I think is generally thought of (perhaps because it was the one time the GOP won the popular vote), these have been close elections, and so we're sort of taught that all elections will be close.

This is a part of the current conversation about Joe Biden.  Trackers have shown the race between Biden & Trump slightly narrow in the last month, but still with an 8-point popular vote margin, and with polls showing him frequently leading by double digits.  This would put Biden on track to not only beat Trump (you don't win the popular vote by 8-points and lose the electoral college), but also to win the popular vote by more than Barack Obama did in the landslide 2008 elections (Obama beat John McCain by a little over 7-points).  The conventional wisdom is that the race will narrow as we get closer to November.  This has been the case in the past, after all.  Obama saw a huge lead in September over Mitt Romney in 2012 before the race narrowed, while John Kerry led quite often throughout the fall against George W. Bush before faltering at the finish line.  The assumption is that the electoral college and popular vote are static, and they may well be...but I want to ask-what if they're not?

Trump is in a far, far weaker position than Bush or Obama were when they ran for reelection.  His approval ratings are lower, his matchup polls are lower, and his standings in critical states in the electoral college are lower.  While both Kerry and Romney had stretches where they lead, there hasn't been a stretch where Trump was in the lead-I can find only one poll this year where Trump led Biden in a matchup, and it was from the relatively dubious firm Emerson (to get a reputable pollster you have to go back to USA Today in December).  There is no indication right now that Biden will lose the popular vote, and there is almost every indication that he's the overwhelming (not absolute, but overwhelming) favorite for the electoral college.

Which begs the question-what should Joe Biden's strategy be for the fall?  Many people publicly chastised Hillary Clinton in 2016 for not shoring up her base against Trump, by reaching into states like Ohio when it was clear that Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania were not secure, and without them she would not be president.  The counter is that Biden is polling considerably better than Clinton.  There's not a lot to ultimately be gained from a practical standpoint from Biden shooting above 270 (there's the "will Trump concede questions?" that might be worth considering if it's worth him pushing for a bigger victory, but I'm not going to factor those in because I don't really know how to factor in a candidate's concession into my analysis since you can't predict Trump's outlandish behavior), so one could argue he should focus all of his attention on 270 and no more; the moral imperative for Biden is just to beat Trump.  But Biden also wants to be president, and if the rumors are true that he'll only run for one term, be a president that gets a lot of stuff done during his first term.  And the only way he's going to do that is with as many Democrats as he can possibly find in Congress.

So in this way, yes, I think Biden taking a few risks, at least to test the waters to see which might actually go for him, is worthwhile, but his outreach beyond the six core swing states that will surely be the "tipping point" states (AZ/PA/WI/MI/NC/FL) needs to be strategic and never overshadow those six states-if any of them start slipping, they need to be top priority.  Biden has two tiers-the seats that are showing as competitive based on current matchup polling (Iowa, Ohio, Texas, & Georgia) and the "stretch" seats where with some work he might be able to pull a heavy upset (namely Alaska, Montana, Kansas, South Carolina, & Missouri).

If Biden goes big, could he pull Theresa Greenfield (D-IA, pictured)
across the finish line and win the Senate as a result?

The first tier, weirdly enough, arguably the one we most associate with presidential politics (Ohio) is the state I'm least interested in for Biden.  Keeping in mind that, if he's pushing into these states he doesn't need them (his 270 should come from the Hillary States plus the six states I listed as "tipping point" states as those pose all of his path-of-least-resistance options), Ohio's 18 electoral votes are less valuable than any tossup congressional seats that might swing his way, and the only obvious seat that might transfer is Ohio's 1st congressional district (other reach seats like the 10th or 12th might add to this pot, but I need more polling to have confidence he'd be able to win anything other than the first).  One House seat is great if you can get it, but probably not worth it if the campaign has to be picky about where it's running.

The other three states, though, offer more bountiful prizes.  Each comes with at least one Senate seat (Georgia has two), and a handful of House contests.  Iowa has three competitive House seats and one Senate seat (where the Democrat has made some ground but probably needs a little more support to win), and considering it's the cheapest media market of the bunch, it's the state I'd wager Biden should most include alongside his six "tipping point states."  Georgia's Senate seats are a tougher grab because of runoff laws, but it also comes with two competitive House seats (one of which would be a pickup), and most importantly-it's the state that seems most likely to actually vote for Biden of the four based on polling & demographic trends.  If Biden is able to win the state outright, that would give him some insurance on the rest of the presidential election, and possibly get Jon Ossoff over 50%, which would be more than worth it because every Democratic senator Biden can get means his term-in-office gets exponentially more progressive & productive (I cannot stress how much different a Biden presidency with 50 Democratic senators would be compared to 53 or 55).

Texas is the most expensive state, and arguably the one state where the Democrats' remain decided underdogs for the Senate seat (as opposed to a Tossup in Iowa or a Lean R in Georgia).  But Texas if you win it, or even if you come close, comes armed with a mountain of House seats.  There are at least three tossup seats (21, 22, 24) and three where the Democrats are favored but added support couldn't hurt (7, 23, 32).  Add in the 10th (a Beto district), and reach seats like the 2nd or 25th, and you're approaching almost ten seats that could be secured by Biden if he won the state.  Texas is very, very expensive, but the evidence is there that this could go to Biden, and this is a lot of prize to leave on the table if they don't at least try to win here.

Dr. Al Gross, the Democrats' candidate in Alaska

Right now I don't see a lot of evidence that any of the reach states are worth investment in from polling, but I'd recommend the Biden team look out for it in case that changes.  Alaska has an independent streak, and polling shows Trump up but the race being close (and it has a competitive Senate & House seat that would be worth the time).  This is also true for Montana, though the Senate race there is much more competitive-on-paper, and as a result is even more worthy of their time.  South Carolina has one competitive House race and a theoretically competitive Senate Race if Biden is able to keep it close, but Jaime Harrison has enough money to make this competitive on his own.  Missouri has only one House seat on a federal level that will be competitive, but an increasingly vulnerable governor that would help with redistricting.

And that leaves us with Kansas, which I have thought all cycle is the state that everyone is sleeping on.  Kansas is very red, but it's also very college-educated, and as a demographic that is shifting hard against Trump, it's a state that I've been keeping an eye upon and am looking forward to any polls.  It also has an increasingly competitive House seat and a theoretically competitive Senate seat (I tweeted this, but I'm more-and-more of the mind that Barbara Bollier might be able to beat any Republican challenger at this point, and not just Kris Kobach).  If I was going to recommend at least some ground operation in one of these states, it'd either be Kansas or Montana considering the down-ballot rewards from Biden-friendly turnout.

So, yes, I do think that Biden needs to explore going outside of the lines a little bit here, as long as he keeps his six tipping point states at bay.  This is not just about beating Trump, but about Biden getting a chance at an actual presidency with real change (and definitely about him winning the Senate).  He's not going to get that by playing it safe and hoping that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plays nice.