Why a Trump 2020 victory remains on the cards
The US Democrats hold their latest presidential debate on Wednesday in a bid to narrow down the party’s still-large 2020 field of candidates. While Donald Trump’s poll figures remain weak, he remains the potential favorite in next year’s election, despite a highly unorthodox, controversial three years in the White House.
While a large body of US and international publics have long been critical of Trump, the fact remains that several key economic and political fundamentals are currently acting like “tail-winds” for his re-election in November 2020. This includes the generally robust economy, which continues to hum along in what became in July the longest-ever period of expansion in US history dating back some 121 months, and counting.
In October 2016, I wrote that Trump could pull off a surprise win, despite Hillary Clinton’s strong standing in polls. While that outcome was dismissed by some, a number of academic forecasting models pointed to his victory. A good example is the “time-for-change” model of Prof. Alan Abramovitz which has successfully predicted presidential elections for almost three decades. This forecast is based on three key predictive items — the growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the second quarter of election year, the incumbent’s approval rating at mid-year in Gallup polls, and whether the incumbent party has held the White House for one presidential term or more. In 2016, this model pointed to a Trump victory. In part, this is because it included a forecast reduction in vote share for the Democrats reflecting the fact that while presidents frequently win a second term, it is difficult for a party to win three consecutive terms of presidential power as would have been the case if Clinton had won after Obama’s two victories in 2008 and 2012.
Moreover, recent history favors presidents winning a second term with, for instance, the last three incumbents all re-elected.
So despite the fact that Trump is weighed down by a historically weak job approval rating, his prospects are far from sunk. Indeed, the Abramovitz model suggests Trump could prevail again, especially with real GDP growth of at least 1-2 percent anticipated next year. Indeed, in April, Abramovitz concluded with the then-latest data, that despite all the controversy of Trump’s presidency, he could receive between 263 and 283 electoral votes, with 270 needed for victory. Of course, this prognosis will improve (or deteriorate) in coming months for Trump the more that his approval improves (or sinks), and the faster (or slower) the economy grows.
Yet, while this means Trump is “still in the game,” his re-election is far from certain. And his chances will be further tarnished if the economy unexpectedly goes south.
The other reasons Abramovitz’s model may be stretched to breaking point in 2020 is that it is based on a number of other assumptions like other academic forecasts. First, it is taken for granted that both Republicans and Democrats nominate relatively mainstream presidential contenders with the capacity to bring their parties together after sometimes divisive primary seasons, and secondly, that both candidates conduct first class, effective campaigns to maximize their national support.
The unorthodox president may fulfill neither of these conditions. He is a wild, maverick candidate rather than mainstream Republican and, with a significant number of “Never Trump” conservatives, may not unify the party in a way that many predecessors have done. In these conditions, much will also depend on who the Democrats choose, and how effective the campaign is that she/he runs. And one of the key factors that will influence the party’s prospects of victory will be whether, and how quickly, it can unite around this nominee given the large amount of contenders still in play. After the policy and personal controversies from Trump’s presidency, many Democratic operatives are keen to avoid a bruising, introspective and drawn-out contest that exposes significant intra-party division to the national electorate, as happened in 2016. Then the contest between Clinton and Bernie Sanders saw key differences opening up which helped contribute to the party losing an election that was potentially winnable given wafer-thin margins of victory for the now-president in several battleground states.