Aaron Blake raises a point that really deserves some careful consideration:
Most polls have shown a majority of Americans — as many as 57 percent in one poll, but usually a slimmer majority — say they will definitely not vote to reelect Trump. It’s one thing to lack appeal to such a large segment of the population; it’s another for them to rule out supporting you entirely. If this segment of the electorate doesn’t budge, it would make Trump’s reelection very difficult; he’d have to hope these people simply don’t turn out to vote, that he could win with a plurality thanks to third-party candidates and/or that he could carry the electoral college without winning the popular vote (again).
When half or more of the country says it’s already certain it won’t vote to reelect you, you are headed for defeat. This is different than people lying about being undecided when they actually intend to vote for you but are too ashamed to admit it to a stranger on the phone. That phenomenon was widespread enough in 2016 to explain how Trump could win a state like Pennsylvania despite never leading there in a reputable opinion poll. People generally don’t go so far as to say that they’ve ruled out voting for you if there’s still a chance in their mind that they actually will.
For Blake, the conclusion is obvious. Trump must make his opponent equally unacceptable and hope that some third party bleeds off more of their votes than his. He might be able to repeat his 2016 performance and win the Electoral College even while coming in second in the popular vote. After all, just because someone concludes that they’ll never cast a vote for him doesn’t mean that they’ll cast a vote for the Democrat.
Another way of looking at this is that the eventual Democratic Party presidential nominee will win unless something catastrophically wrong happens. But, as Edward Luce of the Financial Times puts it, “The thing about freak accidents is that they do not keep happening.” If 2016 was really just a low probability fluke, betting on a repeat is a loser’s bet. Trump would be crazy to deliberately pursue a strategy that depends on lightning striking twice on the same spot.
On the other hand, if 2016 happened because the Democrats presented a uniquely vulnerable alternative to Trump, things could repeat themselves in a predictable manner. For Luce, the problem with Clinton was that she “offered a living, breathing picture of America’s reviled establishment.” For others, the problem was that she was uniquely unlikable or victim of sexism or that she didn’t campaign in Wisconsin or that she ran a lousy campaign or that she was a victim of foreign and domestic intelligence agencies ganging up against her. Figuring out what was made her so weak as a candidate might help people choose the right candidate to go up against Trump in 2020.
Right now, a strong plurality of Democratic voters think Joe Biden is the least likely to blow a winnable race. If Clinton’s problem was that she was “a living, breathing picture of America’s reviled establishment,” then those Democrats are dead wrong. If her problem was more that she didn’t have an endearing personality, then perhaps those voters are right.
One thing that seems more certain is that third party candidates are likely to help Trump more than the Democrat regardless of their ideologically tilt. In a two-way race, Trump is virtually doomed. But every vote that might have gone to the Democrat but instead goes to someone else is a win for the president. These votes make it possible to win a plurality of the vote even when a majority is ruled out. They also increase his potential for running another inside straight with the Electoral College. An attractive Libertarian candidate would ordinarily split the right and help the Democrat, just as Green Party votes tend to help the Republican. But with Trump already above fifty percent in the “hard no” category, the split on the right is baked in the cake. What he needs is as many of his defectors to settle on a third party alternative rather than doubling his troubles by casting a vote for his main opponent. Conversely, the Democrat needs to be as welcoming as possible to these Republican defectors.
A big part of Trump’s strategy will, by necessity, involve making the Democrat seem like an unacceptable alternative. This is why the Democrat will have a big motive to position themselves in the middle and will probably welcome attacks from their left that make them look like a moderate choice.
Joe Biden’s strategy seems to anticipate this, but it presents two risks. The first is that he’ll wind up alienating too much of the Democratic base to win the nomination. The second is that he’ll tamp down enthusiasm on the left and lose a turnout battle against Trump. All signs presently indicate that 2020 will be one of the highest turnout elections in history, and a referendum on Trump rather than on the Democrat. I don’t think Biden needs to worry about people turning out to vote in 2020. But he does have to win the nomination before he can begin running a general election campaign. I’m not sure he fully understands that the election he’s most at risk of blowing is the nomination fight.
3.5
4
Excellent analysis of the mechanics of the race. At the same time, any chance might you be overlooking some intangibles? Discussing them is usually an exercise in speculation (some of it being more useful and cogent, depending on who is doing it), but if we only look at tactics and strategy, aren’t we missing other dynamics that could just as easily be more important … and even persuasive? I’ve often said that changing the narrative in this country is important….and a significant failure by Obama (even as he saved our asses from some of the worst things the GOP gave us). Nobody ever talks about it. Reagan did it to our country’s detriment. When’s that gonna change? How about for 2020, when we need that narrative to change the most?
It would be interesting to see you go into some of these non-tactical aspects of the race in your writing.
My great fear is that the progressive ‘purity police’ in the Democratic Party will blow the election by insisting that any candidate other than Warren or Sanders is a Neoliberal establishment hack, damage the Dem ‘brand’ enough to scare off independents or old-school Republicans who might vote against Trump, depress the youth vote, and thus assure another 4 years of the orange menace. No Dem candidate will survive another display like the one Sanders diehards put on at the Dem convention in 2016.
I agree. That dynamic could give us another 4 years of Trump and probably end the form of government we thought we had – giving us some awful, corrupt, fascist version that won’t be changed without violence.
That said, there also a danger that we nominate a candidate that is so centrist, they’ll be unable to take on the very large problems of our day – the kind of problems that certainly played some significant role in giving us Trump (people have been frustrated by a society that has grown sicker and meaner). Not to mention the existential danger of climate change.
Something bigger needs to change than just going back to some “safe” short term norm. Can a centrist candidate 1) motivate the base to turn out big in the general and 2) be easily moved to do radical change that is needed for our country and the world’s survival (world meaning civilization as we know it – because they world will survive long past our demise).?
One reason the debate over the filibuster matters so much is because it’s going to be impossible to do much of anything legislatively for any president of either party as long as the country is this divided and the Senate can block everything of substance.
But, assuming we maintain the filibuster, which is likely at least at the outset of the next presidency because most senators oppose the change, then the policies to focus on are the ones that can be carried out within the executive branch without the help of Congress. That means positions on Medicare-for-All are probably irrelevant but antitrust attitudes are still vital.
Filibuster and simply taking back the Senate are obstacles to overcome. Yup.
I keep coming back to bringing a change to the narrative – something aspirational and motivating to the majority of people in this country who are fed up this small-ball corrupt, incrementalist approach to governing our society. That could also play a role in changing what you say is the reality that we face – even if we were to beat Trump.
If Republicans can make an attempt at changing our reality – why not the Democrats? I know….long shot for sure given their weakness exhibited on something as obvious as beginning impeachment inquiry.
Even Michael Bennet is thinking along those lines, and it’d be nice to have an inspiring campaign. But I’m talking about how to blow a winnable election here. One way is to lose the nomination and the chance to run. Another is to win the nomination but in the process make yourself as toxic (or nearly so) as Trump. It shouldn’t be so hard to just avoid making yourself a pariah to the voters who’ve already abandoned Trump, but it seems like it may be a challenge for some.
So far Tom Perez has done a good job trying to ensure a fair process, no one is skewing it to the presumptive favorite, so that shouldn’t be a problem.
That’s kind of funny. My great fear is that the ‘pragmatism police’ in the Democratic will blow another election by insisting that any candidate who appeals to the dirty diehards is unelectable, and will instead try to appeal to old-school Republicans who might vote against Trump.
Dems better not take the 2020 election for granted. Some in the Libertarian Party will vote for Trump; his administration is chocked full of them. Also, a number of those in the right-wing fringe parties will vote for Trump too. He appeals to these people and they will hold their nose and vote for what they see as the LOTE. Trump could easily make up for some of those expected lost votes. If I were a Dem strategist, I’d be considering this factor.
I’ll take “Who are 3rd party candidates who will live in infamy?” for $400, Alex.
I imagine Dems in Maine are having flashback nightmares of their 2014 gubernatorial election, when Paul (“I was Trump before Trump”) LePage—despite never breaking 50% in the polls—won re-election thanks to centrist, rich-guy, independent Eliot Cutler pulling 8% of the vote away from veteran (member of Congress, ME Senate pres) Democratic pol, Mike Michaud.
(In a 2020 rerun version of that election, Trump is LePage, Biden is Michaud, and Howard Schultz is Cutler.)
It’s a promising sign for 2020 that Schultz (for the moment at least) has been driven from the race, and Biden appears to be in for a serious vetting by Dem primary voters…which could either strengthen him as a general election candidate, or weed him out for a tougher, more viable nominee.
You’re describing the strategy that Claire McCaskill rode into obscurity during the biggest blue wave in decades.
Candidates don’t win elections by running as the “moderate”. They win elections by telling voters what they’re willing to fight for. What is the “moderate” positiion on concentration camps, or Muslim bans, or gutting health care, or women’s rights?
Trump kicked off his re-election campaign with pastor calling for “every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.”
There isn’t a single Democratic candidate who isn’t “moderate” compared to that.
We already know Trump’s strategy. Whoever the Democrat is will be the most radical, extreme socialist in history, who wants to take away your guns and open your homes to the terrorists sneaking across the border with the Guatemalan caravans. Nobody is going to care whether that candidate is slightly to the right of Bernie Sanders on single-payer health care.
The Democrats have already lost unless the election is secured first, and there’s no indication that nobody is doing a damn thing to accomplish that.
It doesn’t matter who the voters are. It matters only who counts the vote. And our opponent has already announced that he will work with Putin to insure that he’s re-elected.
I think it’s a good time to consider emigration.
I am, in fact, quite sure that he doesn’t understand that the contest he is most in danger of losing is the primary.
Biden is showing us this so clearly, in fact, that I really do not think he will win the primary. He has been consistently showing himself to be completely out of touch with the Democratic base. When the inevitable gaffe comes, the wheels will come off the Electability Cart, and his voters will start heading for more palatable alternatives.