There are many people who are not thinking, right now, of the 2020 United States presidential election. But, at the same time, there are many people who are.
For those wanting Republican incumbent United States president Donald Trump out of office—which means having to unseat him—they are looking to the coronavirus (COVID–19) pandemic and the economy as catalysts should it turn out the 2020 Democrats win a pickup of the presidency.
They could end up getting what they supposedly want.
The 2020 Democratic presidential nomination will likely to go to Joe Biden. Now, please never mind for the moment whether any of the theories about Biden ending up not going on to become the official nominee will actually play out.
Think in terms of: Republican [Incumbent U.S. President and White House Party] vs. Democratic [Opposition Party Challenger and Nominee].
Historical patterns, in most previous United States presidential elections in which an opposition-party challenger unseated an incumbent president, resulted in a national shift (from the previous election cycle) in the U.S. Popular Vote of at least +10 percentage points.
We have seen ten incumbent United States presidents unseated. Five occurred during the 20th century. All five applicable 20th-century election cycles saw that prevailing challenger nationally shift at least +10 points.
(The U.S. Popular Vote has been recorded since 1824. One prior incumbent, an 1800 John Adams, was unseated. So, I take into consideration nine applicable cycles. Six of the nine—with the 19th-century example of 1840 Whig Party challenger William Henry Harrison having unseated Democratic incumbent Martin Van Buren—apply overall.)
• 1912: Democratic challenger Woodrow Wilson unseated Republican incumbent William Howard Taft. The 1908 Margin: Republican +8.53. The 1912 Margin: Democratic +18.65. The 1908-to-1912 National Shift: Democratic +27.18.
• 1932: Democratic challenger Franklin Roosevelt unseated Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover. The 1928 Margin: Republican +17.43. The 1932 Margin: Democratic +17.76. The 1928-to-1932 National Shift: Democratic +35.19.
• 1976: Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter unseated Republican incumbent Gerald Ford (never elected vice president or president). The 1972 Margin: Republican +23.15. The 1976 Margin: Democratic +2.06. The 1972-to-1976 National Shift: Democratic +25.21.
• 1980: Republican challenger Ronald Reagan unseated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. (This was the only occurrence, during the 20th century, of two consecutive elections having switched the White House party. They were also the unseating of incumbent presidents.) The 1976 Margin: Democratic +2.06. The 1980 Margin: Republican +9.74. The 1976-to-1980 National Shift: Republican +11.80.
• 1992: Democratic challenger Bill Clinton unseated Republican incumbent George Bush. The 1988 Margin: Republican +7.73. The 1992 Margin: Democratic +5.56. The 1988-to-1992 National Shift: Democratic +13.29.
What this does to an electoral map is take at least ten states and flip them. You can figure an average net gain of +1 state with each percentage point that becomes nationally shifted in the direction of a pickup winning Republican or Democrat. (This is also true in presidential elections in which the White House party switches. Those are term-limited cycles, when incumbents are ineligible, and the nation has to elect a new president. This was applicable in more recent years such as 2000, 2008, and 2016.)
• 1912 Democratic pickup winner Woodrow Wilson went from 1908 Democratic nominee William Jenning Bryan’s 17 states to 40 states. (Included in states count, but they were not pickups, were first-time participating states New Mexico and Arizona. They were admitted into the union that very year.) A net gain of +23 states.
• 1932 Democratic pickup winner Franklin Roosevelt went from 1928 Democratic nominee Al Smith’s 8 states to 42 states. A net gain of +34 states.
• 1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter went from 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern’s 1 state (plus District of Columbia) to 23 states. A net gain of +22 states.
• 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan went from unseated 1976 Republican incumbent and nominee Gerald Ford’s 27 states to 44 states. A net gain of +17 states.
• 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton went from 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’s 10 states to 32 states. A net gain of +22 states.
In 2016, the Democrats—after having won the two previous election cycles of 2008 and 2012 (with Barack Obama)—lost with nominee Hillary Clinton having carried 20 states (plus District of Columbia). A 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency, with the unseating of a Republican incumbent president (specifically Donald Trump), with this historical pattern, would see that pickup winning Democrat: win the U.S. Popular Vote by at least +8 percentage points (from Clinton’s +2.09; had 2016 been a normally aligned pattern, Democrats’ margin would have been an estimated –2); experience a net gain of at least +10 percentage points in the U.S. Popular Vote (going from –2 to at least +8); and win in the Electoral College with the 2016 electoral map along with pickups of least +10 states to finish with a minimum of 30 states. (The above map, with those in yellow, show the involved states in such a scenario.)
Now, I haven’t been checking too many sites lately for election prognostications. But, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball shows a map estimate which remains essentially the same as months ago—perhaps going back to, say, 2018. Crystal Ball’s estimate is that the 2020 Democrats may flip Michigan while other states which Democrats should be able to flip—Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are most obvious—are either in tossup or, like with bellwether Florida, Lean Republican hold. In a presidential election which switches the White House party, and with several percentage points nationally shifting toward the opposition party and its nominee, plenty more be happening.
Listed in order on the Republican side (Democratic in parentheses) is a reminder of their 2016 margins. (The 2016 Republican pickups appear in italics.)
— (—) Maine’s 2nd Congressional District +10.28 (–10.28)
21 (30) Iowa +9.41 (–9.41)
22 (29) Texas +8.98 (–8.98)
23 (28) Ohio +8.07 (–8.07)
24 (27) Georgia +5.10 (–5.10)
25 (26) North Carolina +3.66 (–3.66)
26 (25) Arizona +3.50 (–3.50)
— (—) Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District +2.23 (–2.23)
27 (24) Florida +1.19 (–1.19)
28 (23) Wisconsin +0.76 (–0.76) — Tipping-point state (the Republicans’ cumulative 270th electoral vote for Trump—which would have been the Democrats’ cumulative 278th electoral vote for losing nominee Hillary Clinton—from Election 2016)!
29 (22) Pennsylvania +0.72 (–0.72)
30 (21) Michigan +0.22 (–0.22)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
A Note on Future Topics: I have plans to post more on this type of topic beginning in May here at Progressives Chat. I will do so for the six consecutive months of May to October. This will serve as a segue to the general election in November. There will be a number of them. But, they will not be with every scheduled blog topic date. So, here is hoping this particular topic is insightful.
No comments:
Post a Comment