Trump’s Re-Election Numbers Look Bad Two Years In, But So Did Other Presidents

Brandon Allen

Brandon Allen is an attorney in Charlotte who writes and tweets about polls and elections.

Related Post Roulette

37 Responses

  1. North says:

    The poll numbers just underline the general dynamic. Trump won (barely) via a trifecta of HRC’s unique personal baggage (and her campaign decisions), the cyclical liberal purity fetish and a number of black swan decisions by outside actors (chiefly Comey).
    Two of those three factors can be expected to be removed or inverted in 2020; HRC won’t be on the ballot and liberal purity politics can be expected to be mostly absent (or even inverted). As for outside actor intervention the odds seem to favor it being a factor against Trump rather than for him since it seems unlikely that the Dems will nominate anyone under any form of investigation (and lacking the House the GOP won’t be able to fabricate scandals as easily as they did with Benghazi and Emailgate).
    So I’d say Trump and his party are in an unenviable position though it does seem to hinge on how the Dem primary proceeds and concludes.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

      I suspect the Dem primaries are going to be fascinating in 2020. The nine states with votes currently scheduled on March 3 include the two largest states by population, and four of the 12 largest, totaling a third of the US population. By March 17, states totaling over half of the US population will have voted. New York hasn’t set a date yet — if they believe in favorite son/daughter and name-recognition effects, you would think they will also choose to go very early so that Gillibrand doesn’t get blown out in the first three weeks of March. It seems at least possible that by March 17 the field could be reduced to a small number of candidates most of whom skipped the February events altogether. Certainly if I were one of the three or four leading Dem candidates come Jan 1, 2020, I would be spending my time in California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Arizona — all of which vote by March 17 — rather than Iowa or New Hampshire.Report

      • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Agreed, along with the change in delegate rules and with no obvious single front runner it’s going to be a wild unpredictable event. But the field should winnow pretty fast.Report

        • InMD in reply to North says:

          Hopefully the winnowing goes in a pragmatic direction. I had a lot of respect for the Dem primary process in 08. Maybe the Bush/GOP fatigue and the grand pendulum was such that no Republican had a chance anyway. Still, the ability of a better candidate to defeat the inevitable, establishment figure seemed to me like a sign of real strength. The system got it right when all the pull was in another direction. Then 2016 happened.Report

          • North in reply to InMD says:

            Well here’s the thing: 2008 enabled 2016, the one followed from the other. HRC cashed in the chits she’d been collecting to get the nod in 2016 and the biggest and earliest of those checks were written for her in 2008 after Obama won the nomination. If that god(ess?) damned waste of skin Mark Penn hadn’t been involved in 2008.. ugh!
            That being said, I still think the Dems are functioning pretty well as a party, especially in contrast to the alternative.Report

            • InMD in reply to North says:

              Given that we can expect the field to exclude bizarre partisan media personalities and others with no policymaking experience of any kind I think you’re right. But this is where I have to add that I still see a decent possibility of getting it wrong. Very different circumstances but the gubernatorial election in my home state serves as an example of what a goofy primary can do.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to North says:

          The changes to delegate rules are purely cosmetic. The supers never did anything to alter an outcome by vote, and their pledged support was literally nothing more than endorsements from major politicians and party figures for one candidate over another.

          Which they’re still free to do and will undoubtedly do.

          At most, it was a purely optical change to shut-down a regular line of complaint by a tiny minority of people upset their candidate lost (this wasn’t new with Sanders. There’s always a group that does that. They’ll latch onto something and complain bitterly about it). Which would be worth it, except I’m sure the same people will simply decide it was something else nefarious. An inside job, or a media hit piece, or whatnot.

          Then again, since it doesn’t really change anything — it’s not like it matters.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Morat20 says:

            All Superdelegates did was make the obvious *REALLY* obvious.

            The fact that they want to make the obvious less obvious indicates something about the attitudes toward the thing that used to be the way it was for as long as anybody could remember.

            Then again, since it doesn’t really change anything — it’s not like it matters.

            This tells me that this won’t be the last thing that changes with the nomination process.

            I’m waiting to see what AOC says.Report

          • North in reply to Morat20 says:

            I agree it isn’t a substantive change but the optics have some mild weight as does the understanding of their new role. Basically I wouldn’t expect the party delegates to be very forthright about endorsing a single establishment candidate early.Report

      • Giuliani once tried a similar strategy of ignoring Iowa and NH.Report

        • Giuliani faced a very different calendar and map. He had to bet on Florida. Harris in California, O’Rourke in Texas, and Gillibrand or Bloomberg in NY (assuming they hold their primary in early March) all have built-in local name recognition that Rudy lacked in Florida.Report

    • Murali in reply to North says:

      liberal purity politics can be expected to be mostly absent (or even inverted)

      The current ascendancy of the left wing (e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) of the Democratic party makes me doubt that this is the case, or that it will be the case before the primaries start. 2024, sure, a democrat will win, but unless they get a liberal centrist (not Kamala Harris) on the ticket, they will basically be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like they almost always do.Report

      • North in reply to Murali says:

        I can grant that I could be wrong (as I not infrequently am on prognosticating) but I am old enough now to have watched the purity politics of liberalism across several presidential cycles now.
        I watched liberal purity politics depress turnout and siphon off more left wing votes to Ralph Nader in 2000 with youthful incredulity and it allowed George W manage to aww-shucks his way into office by a razor thin margin*.
        In the following 2008 cycle (and also in 2004) that fetish for liberal lefty purity was mostly absent or even inverted. There wasn’t a Nader figure or major lefty movement stymieing Kerry or Obama.
        Then in 2016 I watched with middle aged horror as that same liberal purity fetish, revived by eight years of Obama’s friendly administration, rear its head in the body of Bernie Sanders and hobble HRC’s campaign. Once again it enabled a Republican opponent to wriggle over the finish line by the narrowest of margins*.

        That seems like a pattern to me. I am predicting that even if the leftier candidates lose the nomination battle; which they most likely will because the Democratic Party and its voter base is a hell of a lot less left wing than Conservatives, Republicans, the mewling BSDI media and the Internet left wing mandarin’s say it is. I don’t expect that one of them will run an insurgency campaign and split the ticket or that leftier voters will stay home in a huff.

        *Which is not, however, to excuse Gore or Clinton for their own decisions. 2000 and 2016 were winnable had they made different choices. Not to try and distance themselves from their boss, an enormously talented political operator and a popular peacetime and economic prosperity president in the case of Gore and to run a low energy campaign taking things for granted that assuredly shouldn’t have been taken for granted in the case of HRC.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to North says:

          This is a great point. I’m not sure that the thirst for purity over pragmatism is gone this time, though. If anything, the argument seems to be that if Obama was bad, it’s because he wasn’t pure *ENOUGH*.

          You know why Clinton lost? Because she was compromised. You know who *WOULD* have won? Someone purer.

          Kerry represented pragmatism over Dean.
          Obama represented purity over Clinton.Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird says:

            Gone is a useless measure; ideologically nothing is gone, in our internet world, and nothing ever will be.
            Will purity politics be electorally significant in causing reduced turnout or defections to a further left 3rd party candidate like it was in 2000 or 2016? I think history suggests not and I haven’t seen much to suggest that history won’t repeat itself in 2020.

            Also I disagree on Obama over Clinton. He represented idealism, sure, but he sure wasn’t purity. He was a mostly blank screen and everyone projected their hopes onto him. Along with Mark Penn* (and the Clintons) shocking electoral incompetence early on it’s no surprise he won. Obama didn’t stake out any leftier or purer than thou positions vs Clinton beyond that he avoided the war vote while she voted in favor on them and refused to give up her reflexive hawkishness and eat a bug over her vote on the issue.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    Given Elizabeth Warren’s announcement that she’s running, I expect Trump’s numbers to go up a bit.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North says:

        The question “Do you approve/disapprove of X?” has an implied “Do you approve/disapprove of X compared to Y?” in it.

        Right now, the implied question strikes me as being “Do you approve/disapprove of Trump compared to Generic Democrat?”

        Hell yes, I disapprove of Trump compared to Generic Democrat!

        Change the question to “Do you approve/disapprove of Trump compared to Elizabeth Warren?” and you will see some answers change.Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          I guess I’m still confused; as Brandon indicates in the OP Trump has already had horse race polling done for head to head match ups where he’s paired with specific names (he polls pretty badly in that methodology). So why would Warren being formally running, as if anyone had any doubts she was running, boost Trumps numbers? Maybe if she gets the nomination it’d boost him (assuming that we buy the premise that she’s got a political tin ear and makes him look good in comparison)?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            Because the question will have officially changed from Generic to Actual.

            This will *NOT* move anyone who is on the “I would vote for The Devil Himself over Trump!” side of things.

            But in the mushy could-go-either-way camp? Yeah, I could see Warren moving numbers for Trump.

            And that’s before we get into what happens when the loudest Warren supporters get their hands on microphones.Report

            • Brandon Allen in reply to Jaybird says:

              FWIW, Warren actually leads Trump 47-41% in the twenty-three times they’ve been polled against one another since Trump took office (leads in twenty of them).Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird says:

              Heh, well according to that logic then the Dems are fished since there’ll be lots of specific people throwing their hats into the ring. If your analysis is correct after a few candidates declare and a few people on twitter and the internet start obnoxiously supporting them (left wingers mind, right wing twitter and internet nuts lack this power apparently) then Trump will have landslide victory numbers and will win every state.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                No, I am absolutely *NOT* arguing that the Dems are sunk before the election even starts. The more hats in the ring, the better. A fractious primary is pretty much exactly what the Democratic Party needs to win.

                That said, the Republican Party seems to be pretty good at defeating Democrats from Northeastern States (Massachusetts specifically).Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well there’s definitely gonna be a lot of hats in the ring. Personally I like Klobuchar.Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                I’ve heard a lot of good things about Klocuchar. However i also heard some Minn. liberals on a podcast wonder if her brand of nice wouldn’t work well in the rest of the country. They said part of her success comes from having a Minn. famous dad which didn’t mean she wasn’t good. Just that her success in Minn. wasn’t super predictive.Report

              • North in reply to greginak says:

                Happily the primary should sort that out.

                If Klocuchar’s reputation of middle of the road pragmatism, reliable but not crazy liberalism, organizational strength and general relatability is merited then that should show it pretty well in the primary and she’ll do well. Likewise in the general she’d be fearsome since she’d contrast spectacularly with Trump everywhere and punch over her weight in the Midwest which is a flat out must have territory for him and a region he already has potentially lost by running a bog standard republican administration for 4 years.

                If her famous dad and background legged her up and she’s actually only those things on paper? The knife fight primary she’ll have to endure will reveal that pretty fast.Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    The 2020 election can’t be analyzed in conventional terms, because the incumbent President, and his entire party, are not conventional.

    Conventional politicians and parties have a coherent suite of positions and attitudes that form an overall worldview.
    For example Reagan and Carter both had positions on economics, foreign policy, crime and culture which could be understood as a general worldview.
    One could accept it or reject it, but they were coherent and accessible.

    Trump, and the GOP which has been remade in his image, is a single issue candidate without an accessible worldview. Their sole issue, to the exclusion of all others is ethnic/ cultural resentment.

    His supporters have only this in common. They are divided on foreign policy and economic policy, but none of those matter. Regardless of how Trump behaves with regard to Syria or China tariffs, he won’t gain or lose a single vote.

    The election will be essentially a referendum on white male resentment.Report

    • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The election will be essentially a referendum on white male resentment.

      If this is what the DNC is thinking then God help us all.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

        I didn’t say we have to run solely as opponents of white male resentment.

        But we do have to acknowledge that the GOP has one and only one message to offer, of a world in which white men are in command.

        So the Democrat will speak to alleviating the effect of outsourcing; the Republican will speak about black athletes kneeling;

        The Democrat will speak about community policing; The Republican will speak about Mexican rapists and Muslim “No-Go” zones.

        The Democrat will speak about X; the Republican will speak about Merry Christmas, Jesus, school prayer, sophomores at Evergreen college, and men in dresses barging into little girl’s bathrooms.

        We can choose our messaging, but we don’t get to choose theirs.Report

  4. LeeEsq says:

    Trump will most likely lose the popular vote in 2020. His path to victory remains the same as it did in 2016, win via the Electoral College. One reason why Trump was able to win the electoral college is that his persona gave him a unique credibility with the residents of rust belt city while Clinton appeared to be an avatar of globalization. Luckily for the Democratic Party, Trump’s policies have caused him to lose this unique credibility.

    The Democratic Party should avoid the call to go full woke against Trump though. The best challenger needs to have a charisma to beat Trump and credibility in the rust belt because the Electoral College still exists. Identity politics can’t be entirely ignored because of the needs and wants that the Democratic base, the people who actually show up in primaries and caucuses to select the Presidential nominee, has.Report

  5. Kolohe says:

    That photo.Report