2020 Predictions Updated
The Center-Left Coalition is in Danger
Over the last few weeks evidence has trickled in that leads me to update my priors. The Center-Left coalition is in some danger.
My current predictions are:
- Center-Left Coalition (49%) (-2%)
- Radical Middle Breakout (5%) (stable)
- Right-Nationalist Coalition (46%) (+2%)
Below in include the list of categories of evidence that I identified as affecting probabilities of the three scenarios. I have made no changes in the categories.
The probability of a Center-Left Coalition forming and winning the 2020 election has decreased because a growing chorus of voices in the anti-Trump center attacking leading candidates as being too deferential to Left narratives and issues (C-L- ii).
The probability of a Radical Middle Breakout hasn’t changed because the growing weakness of the Biden candidacy (RMB -ii) offsets the boost that would be offered by the evidence of a growing elite consensus that the Party needs to tack to the “middle” (RMB-iv).
The probability of a Right-Nationalist coalition consolidating and winning in 2020 is enhanced by outbreak of conflict among key components of an anti-Trump coalition (R-N — iii) and the lack of much evidence that the economy is weakening fast enough to play into voters’ perceptions or an international embarrassment of significant proportions to scare away Trump’s remaining supporters among more conservative business-people and the suburban upper-middle class.
I welcome comments and questions.
The type of evidence that increases the likelihood of a successful Center-Left (CL) Coalition would be: (i) good performance by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in early primaries, especially among voters in areas that supported Trump in 2016 and especially in purple states that could influence the electoral vote; (ii) continued indulgence by elite editorialists of the policy “excesses” of leading candidates as not undermining their ultimate “reliability” (in the minds of the business and the meritocratic classes) as they are clearly obligated to try to steal Sanders’ thunder in the primaries; (iii) re-emergence of unemployment and other serious domestic economic worries; (iv) continued stability in the Trump coalition making creation of the broadest anti-Trump coalition necessary.
The type of evidence that increases the likelihood of a Radical Middle Breakout (RMB) and its ultimate victory would be: (i) poor early primary performance of Sanders, Warren and (after her attempted take-down of Biden) Harris; (ii) continued strength in the Biden candidacy; (iii) surprise emergence in the primaries of a reliable “moderate” Democrat (Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Booker, Bennet or O’Roarke) who can attract voters initially in Biden’s camp without promising “shiny objects” to the Left; (iv) intensifying the campaign in the elite media and among the pundit-class generally about the dangers of too much “socialism” and the risks of a Center-Left electoral strategy specifically; (v) erosion of generalized elite support for Trump due to scandals and/or international crises or embarrassments; (iv) evidence emerging over the primaries that a significant segment of voters is sufficiently radicalized or disillusioned to make it unlikely that they would vote in the general election for the moderate Democrat who appears able to win the nomination. All these would make a bet on a more narrow Democratic coalition seem smart or at least smart-ish.
The type of evidence that increases the likelihood of a Right-Nationalist (R-N) coalition victory would be: (i) no economic surprises and no surge of unemployment; (ii) no scandals or international crisis or embarrassments that make Trump look like a poor bet; (iii) outbreak of open conflict between Center and Left elite and activists as reflected among Democratic candidates and wars of words around issues of economic populism and privilege; (iv) a galvanizing national emergency that allows Trump to look like a successful leader.
