I’ve never been so pessimistic about the Democrats winning the 2020 election. They had no choice to impeach the president, and I support that decision. But it’s not going to matter much one way or the other for Trump’s chances at reelection. All you have to do is look at Boris Johnson’s thumping victory in the United Kingdom today to understand that no price will necessarily be paid by the right for what they’ve put the country through, nor for their relentless campaign of lies.
The real problem is the failure of the Democrats to understand that a polarization of the electorate based on race would disadvantage the party representing minorities and that a serious effort needed to be launched to prevent Trump from growing his strength in his strongholds. I wrote about this on November 10, 2016 and in a June 2017 feature article for the Washington Monthly, and everything I feared has come to pass. Even as Trump has hemorrhaged support in the nation’s suburbs, he has more than made up for it by growing his support in rural and small town areas. This growing divide helped the Democrats win back control of the House in part because Trump’s rural support did not manifest itself fully without his name on the ballot. But that won’t likely be the case in 2020.
Trump is looking very strong in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And the reason is precisely what I warned about beginning just two days after the 2016 election. At the moment, I have zero confidence that any of the Democrats running for president will win either state. On paper, Biden has the best chance, especially in Pennsylvania where he is very popular. But he seems to be befuddled and completely unprepared for the new world we are living in where his family can be attacked by a foreign power at the behest of Donald Trump without any real consequence. Elizabeth Warren has the next best chance, mainly because she has good policies that can appeal to old-time Democrats that are migrating to Trump. Her problem is that she can’t hold the suburbs. Sanders just had a heart attack and couldn’t hope to unite the Democratic Party. I don’t think any of the other candidates could win the suburban/rural split. Hillary Clinton was unable to do so, and the Obama coalition is no longer sufficient since it relied on significant white support.
Trump probably can’t win the popular vote in 2020, but I’m not even certain about that any longer. In any case, he doesn’t need to win it.
The ecumenical, pluralistic left was destroyed for good in the United Kingdom today. That looks like where the American left is headed too. And I’d put it down to a failure to take seriously the problems created by regional inequality and the decimation of small-town and rural America in the face of relentless monopolization and market concentration in the modern economy.
I think it makes sense to wait for the popular vote in Britain. I wouldn’t be shocked if the Tories dropped below 40% in the popular vote. Your analogy makes sense, because the Conservatives won where they needed to. It makes less sense to try and compare Corbyn to “the Democratic Party.” Corbyn’s problems were his policy on Brexit, his personal politics and the divisions in the left. My guess is you will see quite a few Lab to Con seats where the Lib Dems, SNP or Green Party vote was the difference.
I’d argue that the 2019 UK election was more like the 2016 US election. When the left splinters and the right unites, you can get a huge majority of the representation with a minority of the popular vote. The warning for Democrats is “Don’t nominate a tremendously divisive leftist,” and “Don’t give any openings for third parties.”
I doubt I was ever really convinced Corbyn could lead his way out of a paper bag. So far, I have not been wrong. Same goes for Bernie. For our purposes, we need sane leadership with reasonable and doable policies (given our own lived reality) who can stand to toe to toe w/45.
Someone as much like Clinton as possible! Worked so well last time.
Clinton derangement syndrome was always quite a sight to behold. Really had hoped that after 2016 receded into the very distant past (given the daily outrages that occur in the White House) that maybe a fresh start were possible. That was asking for too much.
Your intuition turns out to be mostly correct. Compared to last election, Conservatives were only up by +1.2, while LibDems were up by +4.2, and Labour was down a whopping -7.8. I don’t know enough about British politics to know what split the left: Brexit, a too-left platform by Labour, Corbyn’s personal unpopularity, or a combination of all 3. But the main lesson would seem to be a perennial one: when one side is split while the other is unified, the side that is unified wins.
Results from BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2019/results
Totals are out and that looks correct for Lib Dem vote in particular, since their very strong increase in absolute votes translated into a loss of one seat: looks like they were all in seats Labour should have won that went to Tories instead. And Sanders isn’t nearly as divisive as Corbyn and there’s no issue like Brexit, where Labour was so divided it couldn’t take a coherent position.
I put it down to the failure to realize that Nothing Really Matters. You stole millions from a charity? Doesn’t matter! Affair with a porn star while your wife was pregnant? Doesn’t matter! Attacked dozens of women and raped children in international trafficking ring? Does not matter.
Our party keeps bringing Good Faith to a Vicious Lie fight. White Papers to a bonfire. We need a message that isn’t about policy and facts, which nobody, rural or urban, cares about. Or believes we can deliver. And even if we deliver it, they still don’t believe: ‘Keep the government out of my medicare!’ We need ‘the Republican Party is the party of literal traitors, in thrall to a KGB agent and a child molester.’ And we’re just too damn Serious to say that.
Yes, I agree,
There seems to be more racist people in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania than some people thought, and unless we feed their racism then we will never get them to vote for Democrats.
Their racism is so strong, that they will knowingly vote for Putin’s candidate rather than a, you know…American.
Yes, I agree.
.
It’s jarringly insulting to be told that I want to feed anyone’s racism, and a total dismissal of everything I have written on these topics for three years.
I feel your pain. But we can’t change people who have made up their minds about people of color or immigrants. But damn it they will not change my mind. Trump should be rightly thrown out on his ear and fuck those red hatted hate mongers.
Really? Why do you think that?
(I’m thinking about the changes in public attitudes in the US towards, for example, interracial marriage over the past two generations.)
Over time perhaps but seems like a heavy lift just now.
I guess I’m a bit more sanguine than you about the result in the UK. Rather than being a leading indicator, it seems to me a lagging one. Basically, the same phenomenon that hit here in 2016 finally hit there: working class voters who formerly voted left (or at least voted left sometime), turned to the right because of racism/nationalism. You have been 100% right about the danger of this, but we are already dealing with it, and the UK election doesn’t seem to provide any new information about Trump’s chances.
That said, I’m not optimistic by any means…I’m just as pessimistic as I was yesterday, with no change. I think Trump has a 50% shot, and that is far too much, given that a Trump re-election would lead to the dissolution of the U.S. government as a vehicle for rational public policy, and possibly the end of democratic governance in this country. As I see it, here is the lay of the land for the next election:
Favoring Trump:
• Incumbent presidents have a presumption of re-election
• The economy is good, and seems unlikely to falter before November (contrary to what I had long expected–Trump’s bullying of the Fed worked)
• There is no good Democratic opponent (I agree with you there)
• Trump’s votes are distributed optimally in the electoral college, which means that he can win even if he loses the popular vote
• Although we don’t yet know if there will be meaningful effects of black money or Russian interference, we can assume that any such effects will push things even further in Trump’s direction. (And the effects could be substantial – for example if the Russians directly intervene in the vote count, which they seem inclined to do)
Disfavoring Trump:
• Trump’s approval rating has never been over 43%. It seems hard to imagine it will go up. So the chance of him winning the popular vote would seem to be about zero. Basically, he is historically unpopular, and this seems unlikely to change.
I will make another pessimistic prediction: things are going to be pretty dreary no matter who wins. If Trump wins, he will preside over the eventual economic crash, and I expect that Trump Term 2 will be very similar to Bush Term 2, as the country suffers and groans under a President who has long since passed his sell-by date. If a democrat wins, it will be by a hair (273-267), leaving a R senate and Fox Nation intact and unrepentant. S/he will also have to deal with the eventual recession, with her hands completely tied by Republican opposition, and a wing-nut judiciary that will do everything it can to declare any remedying action unconstitutional.
And of course, this is all in the midst of a climate emergency that requires extraordinary government action and national unity RIGHT NOW.
Good post, a little too pessimistic for my tastes, but you hit all the necessary pressure points. I wouldn’t give Trump 50/50 odds. More like 25%. Which is insane.
I’m not sure what a ‘good Democratic opponent’ would look like, given that ones I suspect meets Martin’s qualifications can’t get through a Democratic primary.
Cory Booker should be cleaning up with Pete’s voters, and it’s a sick joke to me that it’s not happening. He was the perfect choice. He would destroy Trump. But of course, Booker being a moderate that lefties could like is exactly why he’s not being picked. Booker was not my choice but he’s not supposed to be, and I’ll be damned sure to vote for Biden if it’s between him and Pete.
Anyway, I think the field is fine. Maybe too old. But that’s their own hubris.
Yeah, I don’t understand his failure to launch. I guess you need to capture at least one niche, people who are powerfully motivated to support you for one specific reason. He never really expressed that, far as I can tell. (Though neither has Buteigeig, far as I can tell …)
Wow I mangled the spelling. I thought I was only one letter off …
Warren/Booker 2020.
Do we think Booker could mount an effective charm offensive with his Wall Street connections for the benefit of Warren? If he can its a very nicely balanced ticket. And he does campaign very enthusiastically and charismatically.
Warren is not promising the central planning of socialism, but rather radically improved refereeing of the free market. A fairer game for all the players.
Honestly, Warren should appeal to capitalists who don’t like oligarchy. And there have to be many more of those than actual oligarchs, right? Or do they mostly aspire to punch that ticket?
So long as the economy stays strong I think there is little any of us can do to change Trump’s eventual win with either Biden or Warren. No one knows what will happen on that front though so I would stay strong on a progressive agenda. It does make one wonder given the probability of Trumps win why we do not hold off on filing impeachment and continue to build the impeachment case.
Jeez, talk about being a chicken Little. You’re talking about likely failure in an election 11 months from now, before we even have a nominee, based on election results in the UK today? Seriously? You used to be one of the more level headed bloggers but this is just silly. Sure Trump can win. But are really going to start spewing panic about an election still almost a year away based on this?
From the following, I don’t see how the UK vote has any relevancy to what is going on here in the US. Wikipedia on last month’s November US elections: “Democrats regained the governorship of Kentucky and held the office in Louisiana, despite strong campaign efforts by President Donald Trump for the Republican candidates. Democrats also took control of the state legislature in Virginia. Republicans held the governor’s mansion in Mississippi and expanded their control of the Louisiana state legislature and gained seats in the New Jersey state legislature. A major theme in the election results was a suburban revolt against Trump and the Republican Party in general, as these areas swung heavily towards Democratic candidates in local, state, and federal elections.”
Despite the obvious parallels between what’s going on in Britain and what’s going on here, I would not jump to conclusions. Perhaps the shared language (more or less) and traditions (more or less) tempt us to overstress the similarities. Britain (and I am thinking mainly of England, which is 75% of the population), is a VERY different country, with a very different culture, political system, and economic conditions. I lived there for nearly seven years, I know whereof I speak. I actually think England is a lot more f-d up than we are.
The bias towards Brexit is worse than the bias of our Senate towards rural/exurban voters. Labour didn’t stand a prayer. They’re experiencing the equivalent to the Democrats losing Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas in terms of political power. And it ain’t coming back. They’re Tories now.
BoJo is not the Donald. Brexit is not trumpism. Corbyn is not Biden, Warren, Sanders, et al. The UK is not the USA.
Engage potential voters everywhere. Make sure your voters have the ABILITY to vote and not get ratfucked. Don’t nominate someone who makes your voters want to stay home. Don’t panic and always bring a towel.
Do those things and we’ll win in 2020.
And on a personal level, keep lines of communication open with Obama-Trump levels. They are not totally sold on the dude and are not a lost cause. If tRump actually was exactly like BoJo and had an approval rating like BoJo’s was just before the election, then i’d be more concerned. Aside from his most hard core supporters, his antics are grating to the public. Any opponent with a calm demeanor will get consideration.
It would seem that, far from resulting in Brexit do-over, the Conservative victory has resulted in a Brexit reaffirmation, which should rightly spell the end of the Union of 1707, with Scotland taking steps to leave this longstanding political constellation. Politics in Scotland will be very “interesting”. RIP Great Britain.
Similarly, 2020 obviously will decide whether the American electorate reaffirms the results of the disastrous 2016 election (with the necessary caveats about “reaffirmation” when our failed constitution allows a minority faction to obtain/maintain political control) or whether the election of the Anti-prez was indeed a fluke.
Watching the Judiciary vote was instructive, with an unified diverse coalition of Dem reps, opposed by the serried ranks of “”conservative” white male after white male (there was one white GoOPer lady, I guess). There’s no doubt that National Trumpalism has (quite successfully) racially divided the country and progress on this front set back 50 years. A House Divided Against itself…etc, etc.
England has reaffirmed its traditional anti-continental attitude and is perfectly willing to suffer the consequences, which will be mostly economic, assuming the EU maintains a common front. Our failure in 2020 will have deeper consequences for the nation (and likely the world), as it will be the end of the old constitution and the transformation of the nation into a new form of fascistic state, motivated largely by a race hatred that trumps (sorry) all other principles.
May you live in interesting times, indeed.
Scotland only has five and a half million souls. Someone wants Boris to build a bridge to N Ireland. Guessing those two will like that.
We,OTOH,have forty million in Calif alone.
Then I guess we should all just give up. I donate monthly to the DSCC and to my current, preferred primary candidate.
I subscribe to this and to another progressive blog. I have login accounts with a number of others. I give monthly to the
Human Rights Campaign.
But never mind, I should cancel all of those subscriptions, cancel all my donations, and forget about it. We’re all doomed,
all is lost. Forget it.
Sorry for the snark, but I don’t see what other purpose that posts like this serve, than to discourage. That’s the last thing
that we need now.
Booman, you’re one of the more intelligent and insightful progressive bloggers out there, but defeatist posts such as these
(from you and others) are absolutely grating. I too have been given to many bouts of melancholy and despair over the past
three years, and I don’t need the help.
Trump is no pollical avatar demigod, whose 2020 victory is a foregone conclusion. Hilary Clinton did not lose in 2016 because
of that reason, or the ascendency of right wing populism. She lost because 1) her campaign made major tactical errors. among
them neglecting to shore up her support in Wisconsin and Michigan 2) the extensive and unprecedented intervention by Russia
3) James Comey’s 11th hour stink bomb that implied she was again under FBI investigations 4) a drop in Democratic turnout, that
depending upon who you listen to, was in the neighborhood of up to 4 million 5) the sorely mistaken polling and forecasting that
had Hillary a cinch to win, which likely lead to the complacency of many folks to stay home, and the feeling of many disgruntled,
Bernie or Bust people to criticize her, and viciously, in social media, on cable channels, which was another factor in driving down
turnout. Finally, Jill Stein and the other third party candidates siphoned votes from her. Again, people felt complacent enough
to cast their “protest” votes, thinking that it would make no difference.
Even with all of that, Trump “won” via the electoral college by a difference in votes in critical states that was a fraction of one
percent–the same states that many folks think she could have won had she not taken them for granted.
The rise of populism is of course a factor on what happened, but to focus on that, and to somehow assume that the template
of the Boris Johnson victory is applicable here is, I think, completely wrong. Can someone point out any parallels between
the things I listed above and what happened in the UK a few days ago? Yes, Russia did play a big role in hyping the Brexit
movement, but that’s apples to oranges.
I don’t buy the Groupthink that a Boris Johnson victory in 2019 equals a sure fire Trump victory in 2020. Respectfully, when
you say that Elizabeth Warren has the best chance, you rather contradict your own argument. A lot of folks I’ve been reading
over the past few days, with the same notions about the left, consider her to be one of the very candidates that should not get
the nomination, if we’re to avoid the same fate that has befallen Britain.
I’m all for thinking realistically, but I’ll be darned if I’m ready to concede this early.
Well, in any case, this should put to rest the idea that a leftist candidate can win the Democratic primary and expect the electorate to fall in line. Besides that, I don’t see a whole lot more to interpret in these results.