If the US Presidential Election Were Held Today

If the US presidential election were held today polls suggest Joe Biden would be elected.  Not only would it be a landslide popular vote victory but he would win a clear electoral college decision.  Right now the Economist gives  Joe Biden a 93% chance of winning.

            But the election is not today.  It is still nearly four months out.   Surveys or polls are not predictions, they are snapshots in time and are no guarantee of the future.  Additionally, national polls are worthless when it comes to presidential elections.  It is not that they are usually wrong—they did predict Hillary Clinton would win by about two percentage points in 2016 and she did.  But instead the road to the White House is through the electoral college and the only polls that really matter if at all are the ones in the critical swing states they will decide the election.  What happens in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is a lot more important than what happens in California, New York, or Alabama.  Despite how much Democrats are salivating, realistically Georgia and Texas, while competitive, are not swing states. At best, forcing Trump to defend these states means less resources for the states really in play.  For Democrats, don’t repeat the mistakes of 2016 and campaign where there is no realistic prospect of winning. 

A lot can happen between now and election days, with it then either being November 3, 2020 (actual election day) or in the case of some states such as Minnesota, when as early as September 19, 2020 early voting  takes place.  Approximately 38 states allow some absentee or early voting, complicating predictions because ballots are being cast over a period of many days or weeks.

Political scientists develop models to predict presidential elections.  Central to the models are presidential approval and national economic performance several months before the election.  Based on these variables Donald Trump should lose.  But these models too are flawed in that they overlook the finery of the swing states and the electoral college and they also seem to ignore the fact that campaigns really matter.   Hillary Clinton should have won  four years ago but ran a lousy  campaign.  In 1988 Michael Dukakis at one time had a 17-point lead over George Bush but lost because of bad campaigning, complacency, and race-baiting  (remember Willie Horton) by the latter.

The point is that four months until November 3, is an eternity.  Four months ago, was mid-March, just before the pandemic  kicked in.  The US economy was at 4.4% unemployment for March, up from 3.5% in February.  Joe Biden was struggling to shake off Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party nomination and it still looked like Trump was favored to win re-election.  The major issue—beyond Trump himself—was the fallout from the Senate trial and failed impeachment.

Since then everything and nothing has changed.  By that, this election was always going to be about Trump.  Unlike in 2016 where the election was a referendum on Hillary Clinton and she lost because people did not like her, in 2018 and now in 2020 the election is a referendum on Trump.  The pandemic and the economy have and have not changed that.  Yes, they have changed  the election  in that they are now issues and voters are judging Trump on how he is handling both. Evidence suggests his mishandling of them are impacting some support among his base. But they have changed nothing in the sense they both issues are merely surrogates for how voters think or feel about  Trump.

Think about it.  It has taken double-digit unemployment, a record crash of the economy, and 3,500,000 infections and 138,000 deaths to change the political dynamics of the 2020 presidential election.  Without the pandemic and the collateral damage, it has impacted on the economy, Biden might have had little chance of winning. Even  now, while the models say Trump will certainly lose, variables such as  changes in the economy, a lull in the pandemic, a horrible Biden campaign, or a ramped-up on steroids racial appeal by Trump that makes Willie Horton look tame.  And Democratic Party control of the Senate is not certain.

It takes a lot to defeat a sitting president.  Bush lost in 1992 because of a three-way split in the vote with Ross Perot running as a strong third-party candidate.  Prior to that, Jimmy Carter in 1980 lost to Ronald Reagan and in 1976 Carter defeated Gerald Ford.  In both those cases sitting incumbents lost because of extraordinary circumstances (1980 it was  the Iran Hostage crisis and oil embargo and in 1976 the Watergate backlash the pardoning of Richard Nixon). Prior to that it was in 1932 the last time a sitting presidential lost in a general election and that was when the Great Depression brought down Herbert Hoover to Franklin Roosevelt.  Only five incumbents have failed to win a second term.

            Trump is highly vulnerable but this is an extraordinary election.  Partisanship or polarization is so high it is, as noted, taking a national emergency a catastrophe to even begin to melt his base.  Voting in the age of Covid-19 might produce  distorted results that could change the election.  Already the litigation and court fights over early voting or voting rights portend how fragile franchise rights are and how the Supreme Court may impact how the 2020 elections are held.

            If the 2020 presidential election were held today arguably Joe Biden would win.  But it is not being held today and if history tells  us anything, a lot can still change, especially at the electoral college level, between now and November 3.

A Close 2016 Presidential Election that Favors...

To the dismiss of many Democrats and political pundits, the presidential race is again tightening up.  For weeks Clinton enjoyed a near double-digit lead in national polls and solid leads in the critical swing states.  Yet recent polls suggest nationally the race is closer, with at least one poll–CNN putting Trump ahead (although with a margin of error that might question that)–and a recent NY Times article suggesting a closer race but one with Clinton still leading.  The Washington Post still sees a decisive lead for Clinton in the critical swing states, but again polling suggests even in the swings a tighter race.  The point is that for the last three or so weeks partisans and pundits have committed one if not many of the seven deadly sins of punditry that I recently described.
The point is that the presidential race is close and may be so right to the wire.  Nate Silver gives Clinton (as of September 9) a 69.5% chance to win, I place it closer to 60-65% chance.  Early voting will start soon, more FBI Clinton e-mails will be released, Wikileaks will release some, and then there are the debates.  Many variables can still affect the election and there is no guarantee that  Clinton can cinch an easy path to 270 electoral votes, especially when her disapprovals are as high  as Trump’s and this is an anti-establishment year and she is the face of the status quo.
Over the last few weeks I have given several talks to various groups about the election, with three questions or issues repeatedly surfacing.  Let’s consider these issues.

Popular Vote v Electoral Vote
Remember presidents are elected by the electoral vote which is a 51 state race (50 states plus District of Columbia) to reach 270 electoral votes.  One can win the popular vote as Al Gore did in 2000 yet lose in the electoral college.  I see this split again as a real possibility.  One scenario: Clinton racks up large popular vote majorities in Democratic-leaning states but loses in the swing states.  Alternatively, Clinton wins the swing states but huge anti-Clinton voters overall give Trump a popular (if we can say popular this year?) vote victory.

Sexism
Clinton has many self-inflicted wounds and is a flawed candidate but she is also a victim of horrible sexism.  I have been doing a quiz this year in my talks asking the audience what percentage of the voting population will not vote for a woman regardless of who it is?  I think it is approximately 30%.  This means Clinton starts off with nearly one-third of the voters who will not  vote for her.  What do you think?  Is the percentage higher or lower than 30%?

Turnout
Everyone wants to know what turnout will be this fall.  This is hard to predict.  I can see a scenario where turnout is depressed because no one likes the two major presidential candidates or a scenario where we see high turnout as voters come out to vote against Trump or Clinton.  Both are  plausible scenarios.  With that I am asked who is advantaged with high or low turnout?  Traditionally  I would argue Democrats would be favored with high turnout but this election high turnout could  favor Trump.

Third Parties
Since nearly 60% of voters say they do not like Trump or Clinton, will third parties benefit this year?  I am skeptical.  Partisan attitudes have hardened and it seems unlikely that many voters will beak to a third party, especially with a lingering but false belief that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.   Instead I see it more likely that some voters stay home or not vote for the presidential candidates.  This non-voting may not make a difference in many states but in some swing states it could tip a race.

How will voters break?
I was in graduate school at Rutgers University during the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan.  The race was very close until about 72 hours out.  Polling then indicated that the undecided  voters were breaking strongly for Reagan, deciding that they did not like the status quo.  I see a scenario like that repeating itself.  Yes early voting many complicate this but undecided voters will not vote until November 8.  I could see a close race until about November 5, and then a major shift in voting as undecideds make up their mind.  Whether those numbers will be enough to offset any candidate advantages from early voting is not clear but I could see one candidate winning the early  voting and another winning on election day.  Right now my guess is that a last minute break by voters favors Trump over Clinton in a year that favors the anti-establishment.

What happens after the election?
Stalemate.  See almost no scenario where the next to years produces a real break from the current deadlock we see.  No one party will win sufficiently commanding majorities in Congress plus the presidency to break current impasses and since neither Clinton nor Trump really are running with serious or significant narratives (they are arguing they should be elected because the other person is worse) their mandates will be weak.
But assume Clinton is elected, what then?  Two predictions.  First, Congress will do everything it can (the Republican-controlled House) to shut her agenda down.  Second, the House sometime before the 2018 elections will impeach Clinton in a straight party-line vote.  This will then  give the Republicans the bragging rights to claiming they impeached both Clintons.