I want to push back on the "Biden under-performed" take. Yes, result didn't live up to late polls. But polls are not the only benchmark. /1

From 1900 through 2016, 17 incumbent presidents stood for reelection (FDR thrice), winning 13. Losses occurred twice with major third party candidates (Taft 1912, Bush 1992), once during the Great Depression (Hoover 1932), once during large recession (Carter 1980). /2

*Seated presidents do not often lose reelection.* The US is in very difficult economic times and perhaps this is one reason people perceive Biden should have done better. But it is an usual recession of uncertain length. /3

We should also appreciate that this sitting president does not feel bound by ethics, legal constraints, or honesty, unlike most predecessors. The power of the presidency is vast. We know of some of his efforts (Ukraine, USPS, etc.), but likely there are others. /4

An incumbent using the powers of the presidency unconstrained in support of reelection should not be discounted. Could those efforts be worth 1, 2, 3, 4 points? I think yes given political science evidence on incumbency advantage, retrospective voting, disaster relief, etc. /5

Biden is going to win the popular vote by 5+ points and probably more than 300 electoral votes. Is this an under-performance for a challenger against an unconstrained incumbent in ambiguous economic circumstances without major foreign wars? /6

Reasonable to conclude this a solid win, even if not as impressive as the polls might have suggested it would be last week. /end