Trump’s re-election, Part I
I confess to a less than sterling record when it comes to electoral prognostication. Some might even remember a column from fall 2015 listing the odds for the contenders for the GOP nomination that had a certain reality
TV star pegged at 250-1 against, ahead of only George Pataki.
Only about a month or so ago I predicted that the Republicans would suffer a big-time shellacking in the midterms, almost certainly losing the House and possibly even the Senate because of widespread revulsion over the behavior of that reality TV star who ended up president.
As is often the case, such prognostication failed to take into account the ability of the other side to shellac itself, which the Democrats might have done with their Brett Kavanaugh tactics.
Post-Kavanaugh, there is at least some modest evidence that the GOP has become as fired up about next week’s election as the resistance-fueled Democrats are, that the usual “pail and frail” (white and old) Republican edge in such contests when it comes to turnout might not have been entirely erased.
The Democrats still look like they will win enough seats to take the House, but it will likely be a close-run thing, with any resulting majority a narrow one. When it comes to the Senate, ground zero of the Democrats’ Kavanaugh debacle, the more likely outcome than gaining control is a loss of three or even four seats.
On net, and because such things are often judged based on expectations, this would amount to something of an electoral wash, perhaps even a victory of sorts for the GOP.
Seldom discussed, however, is how all of this could influence Donald Trump’s re-election prospects, with the hunch that Democrats taking the House will actually work in his favor, much like Republicans taking the House in 2010 helped Barack Obama win a second term.
Following that loss of the House, Obama’s legislative agenda was largely stymied, forcing him to resort in frustration to increased use of “pen and phone” (constitutionally dubious executive orders), but his re-election prospects improved by providing a convenient scapegoat for failure, the “obstructionist” Republicans controlling the House.
As the GOP rudely discovered between 2011-2013, it is impossible to govern from the lower chamber of Congress (or, for that matter, even with control of both chambers, as they acquired after the 2014 midterms, so long as the presidency is still controlled by the other side).
So if the Democrats take the House, Trump will have his foil just as Obama in 2012 had his, more so if House Democrats hand the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi and thereby provide Trump with an adversary voters detest even more than him.
Democrats could also play into Trump’s hands by using their control to do stupid things demanded by their increasingly deranged base, like withhold funding for his border wall, passing legislation repealing his tax cuts and abolishing ICE, and issuing articles of impeachment. They could even double down on their recent disaster by trying to impeach Kavanaugh.
Yes, Trump’s legislative agenda will be stymied, as was Obama’s, but like Obama he will still be able to use his pen and phone (as damaging as that might be for the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution) and on the issue that will matter most, federal court nominations, he will also likely have a bigger edge in the Senate that reduces reliance for confirmation upon support from red-state Democrats and perpetually queasy Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.
In all this it is worth noting the results from last week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, which put Trump’s approval rating at 47 percent, slightly above Obama’s (45 percent) at the same time in 2010. In other words, underwater approval ratings and the loss of the House doesn’t necessarily guarantee the loss of the presidency two years later.
While Never Trump members might hold out hope for an intraparty challenge to Trump’s renomination (Nikki Haley? Ben Sasse?) they should be aware that the prospects of success are meager — no such challenge has succeeded in modern times, even when the challengers have had names like Roosevelt, Reagan, and Kennedy, and the challenged presidents with names like Taft, Ford, and Carter.
Which is another way of saying that Trump will almost certainly, barring removal from office via impeachment, give the last speech on the last evening of the GOP convention in Charlotte, N.C., in August 2020.
After which his prospects for re-election will also probably be better than his still poor approval ratings suggest — in contrast to the 19th century, when presidents often failed to win second terms; since 1900 incumbents have won re-election on 14 of 19 attempts, including the last three with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama.
But the key for Trump, as in 2016, will be who the other side puts forth — elections more often than not involve choices between lesser evils and at some point the “resistance” has to coalesce behind a clear leader with a detailed program; sheer anti-Trump fury won’t be enough.
And does anyone think Trump is scared at the prospect of running against the likes of Bernie “free stuff” Sanders, Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, or Corey “Spartacus” Booker?