Are you ready? Let's go.
Part I: One-Term Presidents
The three most recent (previous) presidents have all served two-terms. Will Trump continue that trend, or will he break the streak?
First, let's use a (kind of) arbitrary look-back period of one-hundred years. Casting our gaze back a full century of presidential history, let's see what the track record is for incumbents winning or losing re-election. We'll start with 1921. Warren G. Harding took office, but died just two years later. His successor. Calvin Coolidge, won election as an incumbent. Following him, we had 9 presidential incumbents win re-election, and 4 who did not. I'm not counting Kennedy, who was assassinated during his first term, and I'm not counting Trump, as he has, as of yet, neither won nor lost re-election. So, historically (at least within the last 100 years), the incumbent president has a 70% chance of staying on. Make of that what you will.
Next, again using 1921 as our starting point (which is technically 99 years ago), Republicans have occupied the White House for 52 of those 99 years. That is, ultimately, neither here nor there, just another factoid.
Part II: SCOTUS
Something that is perhaps a bit more salient, at least lately, is how many presidents have appointed three or more members to the U.S. Supreme Court in a single term. This is topical because of Trump's very fresh (as in just last week) appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Some folks have said that it is unprecedented for a president to have appointed three justices in a single term, but, really, it isn't. Eisenhower appointed 3 justices in his second term, All of Nixon's four appointments were done during his first term. 3 of Reagan's were during his second term, and now Trump has had 3 in one term. It may not be consistent, but it also isn't unusual.
Finally, four years ago, we (the American public) were informed by the Republican Party that it wouldn't be right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. It just isn't done. Let whoever wins the election decide, etc. And so, Merrick Garland never had his chance at even the full nomination process. But was that accurate on the part of the GOP, or just them playing politics? Let's look back, again using the past 100 years or so.
Following are the Supreme Court justices appointed during an election year:
So, in the last century, only four justices have been appointed during an election year. Obviously, it's rare, but it does happen. Kennedy's appointment would be the perfect corollary for what happened (or didn't happen) in 2016: an outgoing president, with no possibility of re-election, appoints a justice to fill a vacancy on the court. Simple. Except, in 2016, it wasn't. And now, four years later, with a president up for re-election, suddenly it's simple again.
PART III: Election 2020
Now that we've had some fun with historical perspective, it's time to look at the 2020 election. Again, we're just a couple of days away. Already, early voting numbers are outpacing those of 2016. Don't be too wowed by that. We're in the middle of pandemic, where lots of people are being extra cautious about their health. Of course we're going to see an uptick in vote-by-mail this time around. And, even if there ends up being increased turnout compared to four years ago, it could translate into enthusiasm for -- or against -- either candidate.
We also need to be cognizant of the Trump factor. Some have dismissed 2016 as a fluke, and that we shouldn't compare this election to that one. I'm not so sure. If nothing else, there is at least one common factor between the two elections, and that is Trump, himself. It seems we could see the same poll-beating results on Election Night like we did in 2016. After all, Biden's lead in battleground states isn't as big as it is in the national polls. Reading 538's timeline of how things might go on Election Night is very sobering.
There's also an interesting scenario at work regarding African-American males. Fewer of them voted in 2016 than in 2012, and those who did vote were not as supportive of Hillary Clinton as they had been of President Obama. Now we're seeing a somewhat vocal movement of black males toward Trump, and that cannot be ignored. Will it be enough to swing the election? Perhaps not, but we'll know better this coming Tuesday.
Speaking of November 3rd, let's get down to the prediction part of this post.
Part IV: The Electoral College and the Popular Vote
As far as nationwide turnout is concerned, I think we're looking at 2004 for an approximation of the percentage. That election saw 56.7% of registered voters cast their ballots, and I think that a rough guess of 57% for 2020 sounds about right. That will be higher than 2000 (51%), 2012 (55%), and 2016 (56%). I could be wrong, but this doesn't feel like a 2008 (58%) scenario, where a lot of folks were voting for someone (Obama). I don't really get the impression that a lot of people who are voting for Biden this time around are really voting for him, as they are voting against Trump. And that's fair. As for actual voting numbers... I dunno... 2016 saw roughly 129 million turn out. Let's bump that up to maybe 131?
And the spread? My guess is Biden 52%, Trump 48%. Looking at the five previous presidential elections this century, the highest percentage for a candidate (not necessarily the winning candidate) has been as follows: 2000 - Gore (48%), 2004 - Bush (51%), 2008 - Obama (53%), 2012 - Obama (51%), 2016 - Clinton (48%). I just can't see Biden doing better than Obama's 2008 numbers, despite what the national polls say. So, again, I think Biden will get 52% of the popular vote.
Voting numbers, in and of themselves, are fairly meaningless, as we select the U.S. president via the Electoral College. Casting our gaze there, we can lock-in a certain number of electoral votes for each candidate, by virtue of the fact that, at this moment in time, certain states are simply going to vote for whomever has the R or D behind their name. With that, we can say with some certainty that Trump can count on at least 126 electoral votes, and Biden has a lock on 215. There are 538 total, and 270 are needed to win. Here is the breakdown for the state we absolutely know will be in Trump's column (and their Electoral votes):
Alaska - 3, Utah - 6, Idaho - 4, Montana - 3, Wyoming - 3, North Dakota - 3, South Dakota - 3, Nebraska - 5, Kansas- 6, Oklahoma - 7, Missouri - 10, Arkansas - 6, Louisiana - 8, Mississippi - 6, Alabama - 9, Tennessee - 11, Kentucky - 8, Indiana - 11, West Virginia - 5, and South Carolina - 9.
Meanwhile, here are the states Biden can count on (and their Electoral votes):
Washington - 12, Oregon - 7, California - 55, Nevada - 6, Colorado - 9, New Mexico - 5, Illinois - 20, New York - 29, Virginia - 13, Vermont - 3, Massachusetts - 11, Rhode Island - 4, Connecticut - 7, New Jersey - 14, Delaware - 3, Maryland - 10, and the District of Columbia - 3.
Minnesota and New Hampshire are often cited as states that have gone Democratic in recent presidential cycles, but that Democrats shouldn't take for granted. I agree, but am feeling pretty sure that they'll once again go blue, so we'll add them to the mix. That gives Biden 229 Electoral votes (known as EVs from here on out). I also think we could see a repeat of Maine's voting split from 2016, which would put Biden up to 232, and Trump at 127. At this point, it may seem like advantage: Biden, however, the battleground states favor Trump.
Democrats have been salivating over Arizona, Texas and Georgia (and not for the first time), and the polling in those states has been tight but, in the end, I think they'll go for Trump. That gives the president 192 EVs. Those three states are definitely more in-play than they have been in the past, but they haven't reached the tipping point just yet. Also, the GOP state-level control of George and Texas in particular makes it an uphill battle for Democrats. We might as well add the North Carolina log to that fire. And, with probably the final pre-election poll out of Iowa giving Trump the edge (along with it having been fairly Republican-friendly in the 2018 mid-terms), let's give Iowa to Trump, as well. Now he's got 213 to Biden's 232.
It's not all bad news for Joe. He's consistently been ahead of the president in Michigan and Wisconsin, and by a greater margin than Clinton was in 2016, so I'm going to guess that those states will go blue this time. That gives Biden 258 EVs, just 12 shy of the all-important 270 that's needed to win the presidency. But then Ohio and Florida come roaring into the picture. Trump's had a slight edge in the former, and the latter is a toss-up, which gives me flashbacks to 2016. I'm not even going to fret about those two states, and am going to just put them in the Trump column. This gives the president 260 EVs to Biden's 258 (so, basically, pretty much dead even). All that leaves us with is the Keystone State.
Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, during World War II, and has the nickname 'Scranton Joe' (we won't mention the nickname Trump has given him). The state has attained outsized importance in the election. Biden has to win in it in order to win the presidency. Of course, he could end up having a really good night, where states fall blue like dominos and he wins in a landslide, but I just don't think the evidence -- and prior experience of a Democrat vs. Trump -- is there for that. It will be a close election, it will be a long night on November 3rd, and it will ultimately revolve around Pennsylvania.
The folks at 538 have already warned us that results in the Keystone State will take longer than a lot of other places and, depending on how close the vote total is there, we may not know who won the presidency until Wednesday of next week, at the earliest. Of course it will be a long and difficult process. Nothing in 2020 has been easy, and it is unlikely, given the evidence (and misleading information from the president's team), that our U.S. presidential election will be any different. I hope to be proven wrong on that, but we'll know soon enough.
At any rate, I think Biden will prevail in Pennsylvania when all's said and done, so here's what the final Electoral College map should look like:
Click the map to create your own at Part V: The House and Senate
Some final thoughts: It is highly likely that Democrats will retain control of the House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate has been much more of a contest, and there have been certain points along the way where it seemed as though the Republicans might lose control of it. As we enter the home stretch of the election, however, it seems doubtful. It's just a feeling I have, coupled with the fact that if the presidential election is going to be really close, then that likely means the lack of a blue wave, which means the Senate is going to remain in the hands of the GOP.
See you at the polls.
Comments
Post a Comment