First, right out of the gate, I know I have been wrong at this before … me and just about every other pundit thought that the blue wall would hold in 2016 and Hillary Clinton would get a respectable, if narrow win. (At lot of us did get the popular vote margin right – I predicted a 2% edge in the popular vote – but practically every major prediction did not model a plausible electoral college outcome where one could win with a 2 point popular vote deficit – elections won on comparable or closer margins (i.e. 1968, 1976) were reflected in more states. )
It might at first glance seem crazy to predict the race nearly a year ahead of time, (we don’t even know who the Democratic nominee will be!) this does come with the caveat that this is subject to change – my model’s assumptions are listed below.
Firstly – This model assumes that the incumbent, Donald Trump, will end up running again after handily securing the Republican nomination. This means that even if he is impeached (which seems greater than even chance), that the Senate does not convict and remove him from office.
Secondly – if it isn’t Joe Biden who becomes the Democratic nominee, that the Democrats will nonetheless put someone on the ticket that would lead for a balanced appeal to the industrial heartland and suburban middle class. That might be the biggest ‘if’ – it is safe to say that one of the Republican strategies for 2020 has been to portray the Democrats as a radicalized party out of touch with the American heartland. President Trump has not shied away from attacking members of ‘The Squad’ – those four first term congresswoman – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY); Ilhan Omar (MN); Ayanna Pressley (MA) and Rashida Tlaib (MI) who have been placed to the left end of the spectrum in the Democratic Party. This model’s assumption is that the Republican attempt at portraying the Democratic Party as radical will at best have a limited effect, that if not Biden then one of the other contenders, whether Senators Warren or Sanders, or Mayor Pete Buttigieg, will be able to establish a connection with the electorate independent of any portrayals of particular members of Congress, and any of the aforementioned will be deliberately mindful of the delicate balance between core base enthusiasm/turnout and broader appeals and bigger tents. The assumption also is that Donald Trump is seen by many as such a polarizing figure that his detractors will be more apt to consciously avoid splitting the vote, especially with (liberal-leaning) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 86, being in the news with intermittent health issues. (More on that later on.) This will be specifically reinforced by the third factor below.
Third Factor – a greater than 50% chance that there is at least an economic slowdown that will give middle class and mid-western working class voters a reason to seriously consider the Democratic Party. Most analysis of the 2016 election concluded that Trump’s appeal to mid-western blue collar economic anxiety tipped the balance in breaking through the blue wall, the 1992 adage that ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ may have worked in Trump’s favour in 2016 but might hurt his re-election prospects in 2020. Already economic analysts have described the current economy as being in the longest economic expansion in the history of the United States – there are probably enough risks between trade conflicts, corporate debt, consumer debt, inverted yield curves, etc. to suggest that if nothing else, the economy is apt to run out of steam. But even if the next economic recession is delayed past next year’s election, see factor number four below regarding approval ratings.
Fourth Factor – approval ratings. Depending on what poll one wants to believe, or if one even believes the polls, the fact is that most scientific, credible polls, in aggregate, are showing a huge disapproval deficit for Donald Trump, unrivaled (at least thus far) by any other President since the end of the Second World War. While some of the approval ratings of Presidents at various times have dipped below Trump’s (i.e. President Carter) the actual number of people who disapprove of his performance has been consistently far stronger, and much more consistent over time than any prior occupant of the Oval Office in the past 70+ years. We know that 3 Presidents with (at times) better approval ratings have gone on to lose re-election (Ford, Carter and Bush senior); we can further note that polling in the Trump area has remained remarkably consistent – his approval numbers have consistently been in the low to mid-40s and his disapproval numbers remain around 50 to 55 percent. Unless there is either some way that he is able to grow support, the opposition is badly split, or there is some unforeseen event that causes the nation to rally around their chief executive (i.e. a major natural disaster or terrorist attack), it is unlikely that he will get more than the approximate 45 percent of the popular vote he received in 2016, and with the exception of that election, no President in recent memory has won an essentially 2 person race (where the top two candidates win 90%+ of the vote combined) with that level of support or less. Further, with most aggregate polling showing all main Democratic contenders leading President Trump by at least 4 points (see RealClear Politics polling averages as of 11/30/19), no recent elections have shown a electoral college-only based win where the winner’s popular vote deficit was greater than 2% (again, 2016 being unprecedented). If the economy still continues to remain strong, the above map will change, with margins growing tighter, but not enough for the Democrats to loose their overall advantage.
Fifth Factor – Over the course of 230 years of Presidential history, there has not been a time where the two main parties have consistently traded off holding the White House after 2 terms, with each executive serving both full terms. The closest thing might be the period between 1952 and 1976 – a period of 24 years, if tumultuous at times then at least relatively prosperous – and even then where in two of those instances – Kennedy and Nixon – those initially elected did not serve the full 8 years. That the current trend of 8 years D, then 8 R, and then back to D, then R has continued since 1992, which will be 28 years, an unheard of amount of time for such a methodical rotation of power. Given increased polarization and less economic stability, it is likely that this cycle will be disrupted, sooner than later.
Final Factor – the United States Supreme Court. The fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, at 86, is experiencing periodic health issues and the court already has a conservative majority, liberals, and pro-choice voters in general, will likely be more motivated to show up to the polls than pro-life voters, who are not as apt to see a conservative majority change anytime soon. Add to this the fact of the age of the other President Clinton appointee, Stephen Breyer (confirmed back in 1994, now aged 81), it is not out of the question that the President elected in 2020 could possibly appoint 2 justices, both replacing justices seen as more liberal that is currently 5-4 conservative-leaning. The oldest conservative-leaning member, Justice Clarence Thomas, is currently 71. Thus in 2020 social moderates and liberals who might be concerned about abortion and gay marriage will see themselves having more to lose, and much more on defense, even as the the Supreme Court will remain in a conservative leaning direction for sometime to come. One might take issue with the labels of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ leaning justices, or believe that the essential threat to such rulings as Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v. Hodges (the landmark same-sex marriage case) on a 5-4, or 6-3, or even a 7-2 conservative leaning court are grossly over-stated, but for predictive purposes for elections, perception matters. My overall model is predicting that the liberals will perceive a greater threat to their values than conservatives in the ongoing fight over Supreme Court composition, which could fuel Democratic pickups in such states as Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, where at least 2/3rds of voters do NOT identify as evangelical Christian (65% in North Carolina, 74% in Arizona and 76% in Florida), according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
In conclusion, this is not to say that the dynamics of the race can’t change, or that President Trump couldn’t win re-election, that is certainly possible. This model basically incorporates what I believe will be the most significant factors (economy, high disapproval, Democrats/liberals more united and more on defensive with Supreme Court) and projects the most likely outcome with each of those factors weighted appropriately. While recent elections have been more predictably unpredictable, and other factors could emerge that could significantly change my projections, any potential new factors will need to be very significant to change the underlying dynamics as outlined here.
November 3, 2020
Democrats – 55 % in popular vote and 358 electoral votes
Republicans – 42.5% and 180
Others – 2.5% and no electoral votes