REVISITING TRUMP IN 2020

About three years ago, I declared in a white paper that “all things being equal” the Democrats were likely to have a solid hold on the presidency into the future.  Of course, things weren’t equal in the presidential race that year.

The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, brilliantly exploited raw populist nerves that the establishment of both major parties did not take seriously.  The Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton, was viewed less favorably than usual Democratic nominees, and she made some strategic mistakes, which resulted in a less robust voter turnout for her and, despite her 2.1 percent lead in the popular vote, a defeat in the Electoral College due to narrow defeats in three Rust Belt states that totaled a margin of 77,744 votes.

None of this is worth looking at deeply anymore.  While there is no guaranteed result in the 2020 presidential election, there are broad brush strokes that make the election’s path clearer than that of 2016.

1. As demonstrated in the 2018 midterm elections, registration of eligible voters and their turnout to vote are key to the Democrats’ fortunes. The more those voting reflect the eligible electorate, the more likely the Democrats will win the Electoral College (there is no doubt that the Democrats will win the popular vote).
2. The state of America and the relevant issues can move key constituencies, particularly in the swing states. These are predictable, and also not, as the president tends to be chaotic and unpredictable in policymaking. Again, there is no need for a deep dive.  We all hear every day in the media the continual analysis of the president’s actions, and Trump’s concomitant impact on communities and crucial electoral constituencies.  Through the reports and Americans’ discussions, we understand the political landscape and the impact on ourselves and the things that matter to us.

So what else does the electorate need to know and what can we do to ensure the results we want for America?

• Considering that the president’s favorability is low and that the public will much better be able to assess Trump after four years of actual performance – no “wishful thinking” justifications – we can assume that those states that did not support him the first time around will be less likely to do so the second time (also partly due to changing demographics that favor Democrats after four years). Though, clearly from past experience, the Democrats must monitor the situation in each requisite state and ensure that adequate robust get-out-the-vote and persuasion activities are in place to ensure victory.
• The three Rust Belt states that determined the 2016 presidential election (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and especially Wisconsin – which has been declared the “tipping-point state” for winning the 2020 presidential election) are the prime targets of both major parties. If the Democrats lose any of the three, there might not be a pathway for their nominee to beat Trump.  Without all of them, a Democratic nominee may not have the necessary electoral votes to win.
• This is so because while there are states that Trump won in 2016 which could be competitive, they may not be winnable yet for the Democrats: NC, FL, AZ, GA, and TX. These states have seen recent statewide narrow Democratic victories or surprising narrow Democratic losses.  Analysts had predicted that Democrats would be able to be competitive statewide in these places sometime in the next decade.  The next presidential election may be just a bit too early for cultural and demographic changes to take hold for the Democrats to win those areas.  And while it could happen and the Democrats should campaign in those states if they prove to be competitive, we should not rely on them as part of the Democratic presidential coalition as their outcomes are more uncertain.
• Finally, electability of the nominee is also a crucial component of any successful Democratic presidential strategy. Not all potential nominees will be necessarily alike in strength. Slightly lower appeal than others could be the difference between victory and defeat.  Granted that a year out from the election, the public does not know all candidates well yet and it is impossible to know at this time how the public will respond to them.  Nevertheless, relevant data must be considered.  As of today, the average result per RealClearPolitics of national match-ups between the leading Democratic candidates and Trump:  (It is generally agreed among political analysts that the average of the polling is the most reliable indicator of the state of a race.)

• 1. Joe Biden                    +9.9 percent
  2. Bernie Sanders        +6.0 percent
  3. Elizabeth Warren   +4.1 percent
  4. Kamala Harris          +3.5 percent
  5. Pete Buttigieg          +1.2 percent

With the margin of error usually running between +/- 3%-4%, this means that Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg today are running neck and neck with Trump.  Sanders has a modest lead and Biden a good one to generate a strong popular victory that could also secure the key states (remember that Clinton beat Trump by only 2.1 percentage points nationwide – so in 2020, the Democrats should plan for a higher margin of victory to ensure that they also carry the critical states).

In the end, what this all means is that the 2020 presidential election could again be close and it could also be unpredictable, depending on the Democratic nominee and the political circumstances.  An extraordinary effort is required to win in our very polarized and demanding nation.

Essentially, a vigorous and robust program must turn out supporters and ensure that strategy is not just adequate but provides a cushion for victory in the competitive states.

It’s as simple as that.