When a flood of“News” adds up to “No News”: Why I am not updating my 2020 predictions…yet
It certainly seems like there is a great deal going on in politics. Impeachment investigations, polls, debates etc. But the daily flood of news masks a certain stability in the current race for President. Every day there are multiple “blockbusters” about the impeachment investigation, and indeed we know somewhat more about the circumstances around the President’s call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. But the overall political landscape remains strikingly the same. The President remains popular with his base which is between 35–40% of the national electorate and possibly bigger pockets of support in key swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. There is no sign that he will be challenged for the nomination from within the Republican Party. One has to continue to believe, therefore, that the chances of President Trump being re-elected remains very high. Given the President’s level of support among likely Republican voters, the chances that the Republican-controlled Senate will remove the President has to be seen as vanishingly remote. In previous posts, I predicted Trump’s chances of consolidating his Right-Nationalist Coalition was somewhat less than 50/50 but very close. Most recently I have put this likelihood at 46%. After sifting through the information available to me since I made that prediction in September, I see no reason to update the probability.
On the Democratic side, a number of things seemingly have happened. Elizabeth Warren’s debate-fueled surge has peaked. Bernie Sanders has overcome concerns about his health and his support has returned to double-digits in recent national polls. Warren and Sanders are both running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, if you combine the poll strength of both “economic progressive” candidates, it is clear that their voters are the strongest single force within the primary electorate. Their strength has continued despite the several months of steady media criticism leveled against the “radical” nature of their signature reforms and polling that shows that “most Democrats” prefer moderate candidates who are “electable.” Without going into the merits of the criticisms against Medicare For All (“M4A”) or the polling that has been used to undermine the “electability” appeal of Sanders and Warren, what remains stunning is the durability the structure of the Democratic nomination race. Joe Biden remains the front-runner in the early primaries and overall. Warren and Sanders are his closest challengers, and then there is everyone else. For all the clear advocacy for the emergence of a “moderate” alternative to Biden and various reports of mini “surges” of enthusiasm on the ground (especially in Iowa for Mayor Pete), national polling continues to show Pete Buttigieg only as high as 8% and Klobuchar at less than 3% support. This failure of a “moderate” to emerge to replace the sagging Biden has now driven former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to make preparations to enter the race for Democratic nomination and for former Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick to throw his hat in the ring. Because my prediction has been for a Center-Left Coalition to emerge and be successful in 2020, the continued support for the “left progressive” agenda and redistributive politics if anything has firmed up the likelihood that any successful Democratic Presidential candidate will need to make tangible promises to activists and voters who have been radicalized over the last decades and energized by the two insurgent candidates. Moreover, recent talk of a brokered convention strengthens my belief that there is a growing recognition across the spectrum that old fashioned political bargaining will be necessary to bring the largest coalition of anti-Trump voters together in the fall. The outcome of this process will be a Center-Left coalition that does not need the support of mainstream Conservative “never-Trumpers” who could be a force to fracture the rough consensus on some degree of structural change in the economy, jobs, wages and health care. There is no institutional alternative to a run for a Democratic nomination that includes states where substantial proportions of voters are likely to remain committed to Sanders and/or Warren until late in the process. No independent alternative will arise unless somehow miraculously Senate Republicans abandon Trump and vote for removal. That this eventuality is so remote, the chance of a “Radical Middle Breakout” remains very low, even though it remains the obsession of “Morning Joe” guests and like voices in the national media.
So my predicts remain:
- Center-Left Coalition (48%) (steady)
- Radical Middle Breakout (6%) (steady)
- Right-Nationalist Coalition (46%) (steady)
My predictions will likely not move based only on changes in polls. At this point we are close enough to Iowa and New Hampshire that evidence of this type will need to be votes, not polls. If the politics of impeachment move off of the current partisan standoff, that could drive updates.
Note on my methods: These are probabilities of a victory scenario coming to pass, not the percentage of the popular vote won by each coalition. The coalitions are not running in the election, of course. The coalition scenarios will instead be what propels a major-party Presidential candidate to victory in the electoral college and sway the results in Senate and House races. In my view, the Democrats retaking the Senate is not necessary for a Center-Left coalition “victory.” Taking the US Presidency and holding a policy-majority in the US House is enough. I recognize that this is a debatable point. If retaking the Senate is required to be counted as “victory”, the chances of a Center-Left victory fall below 50%. The types of evidence I announced I would rely upon are as follows:
The type of evidence that increases the likelihood of a successful Center-Left Coalition (CLC) 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 Coalition (RNC) 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.
