Cheerleading an Epic Wipeout

Elections inspire polls, lots and lots of polls. A recent one suggested that Trump was edging ahead of Clinton in some battleground states. The reactions I’ve seen in response are rather interesting. Trump’s supporters are feeling good, Trump’s liberal detractors are ignoring it, and neverTrumpers are dismissing it. These reactions go hand in hand with two divergent predictions for the election’s outcome. On the Clinton side, the plethora of polls that show her holding her lead over Trump even as she weathers the email scandal’s denouement are held up as proof that she’s going to win comfortably. Nevertrumpers are alternately pointing out Trump’s massive negatives and the structural advantage that Dems have in the voting populace as further proof that Trump’s going to get thumped. Trumpkins are thumping, as well, but their thumping is the victory drum, and they are asserting a combination of momentum and a “hidden” Trump electorate that will guiltily vote for him in the booth despite denouncing him publicly.

Polls this far in advance of elections tend to have low predictive accuracy, but watching the way they change over time and in relation to events provides some useful information. Clinton’s email free pass and the Dallas shootings seemed to help Trump. These events remind us that, with nearly four months to go before the election, the electoral picture can change many, many times. Predicting outcomes this far in advance without acknowledging this reality is a bit hubristic. After all, who would have thought, 18 months ago, that Trump would be the last man standing in the GOP nomination royal rumble?

Nevertheless, people (myself included) have made and continue to predict the election’s outcome. Theres nothing wrong with that, and predictions supported with analysis can be informative even if they turn out wrong.

However, several such speak of not just a Trump loss, but an epic wipeout, even exceeding Walter Mondale’s 1984 drubbing. The latter – the prediction that Trump is going to lose in a historic landslide for Clinton, is a bit of a “bridge too far.”

Consider what that 1984 outcome looked like. Reagan won 49 states in 1984, but only pulled 58.8% of the popular vote. Even with a successful first term that witnessed a turnaround from not only the 1981-82 recession, but the national malaise that ran from Viet Nam through the Nixon resignation and the balance of the 1970s, and even with an election year GDP growth of over 7%, 40% of the voters rejected Reagan.

Consider, next, the other lopsided Presidential victories of the 20th century. Nixon won 49 states in 1972, but only pulled 60.7% of the popular vote. In 1980, with Anderson running, Reagan beat Carter 50.7%-41.0%-6.6%. In 1964, LBJ pulled 61.1% of the popular vote. In 1956, Ike pulled 57.4%. In 1936, FDR pulled 60.8%. In 1972, the Dems ran McGovern against an incumbent. In 1980, Carter had 4 lousy years on his resume. In 1964, LBJ had Kennedy’s death. In 1956, Ike was an incumbent. He also was Ike. In 1936, FDR was FDR and in the middle of the Depression.

These are the most lopsided elections in history, or at least the past century. None exceeded 61% for the winner, no matter how strong the winner’s favorables.

We have two candidates who are each utterly loathed by a significant fraction of the nation. The absurdity of Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination is matched only by the absurdity of Clinton’s continued popularity. The lopsided victories of the past, by contrast, featured a substantial disparity in popularity between the two candidates.

We also have a third party candidate currently polling in the high single digits, and a fourth party candidate polling in the mid single digits. In the post-WWII period, only in 1968 and 1992 did a third party exceed a low-single-digit share of the popular vote. As crazy and polarizing as our current election is, we should recognize the turbulence of 1968. The incumbent president tapped out of the race, the Viet Nam war was in full swing, the nation was undergoing a massive cultural revolution, the Civil Rights movement was a hotly contentious matter in the South, and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy had both been assassinated that year. That election saw Nixon squeaking out a popular vote victory 43.4%-42.7% over Hubert Humphrey (though he handily won the electoral vote 301-191-46), with segregationist George Wallace winning 13.5% of the popular vote (and 5 Southern States). Meanwhile, in 1992, Ross Perot drew nearly 19% of the popular vote. While he did not win any states, many believe that his presence in the race against a somewhat feckless and tired incumbent was the deciding factor in the victory of a relatively unknown Arkansas Democrat.

It is quite possible that this year’s third and fourth party candidates will, combined, draw a double digit percentage of the popular vote. They’d likely be drawing the voters most dissatisfied with Clump, and early polls suggest that they’ll be sapping both major parties’ tallies.

All in all, history offers nothing to suggest the massive Trump loss that some, both on the Left and on the Right, are predicting. Why, then, the predictions?

The Left would love to see an electoral romp for Clinton, both because it would validate an aggressively liberal agenda and because it would have a substantial effect down-ticket. If the Democratic Party could recapture the Senate this year, the Left could pursue its agenda far more easily than if it had to face a Republican Congress.

The segment of the Right that loathes both Trump and what his rise tells us of the GOP’s current composition and direction would love to replace him with someone else at the convention. I see all sorts of fantasies about changing the rules, unbinding the delegates, and picking someone more “Republican” than Trump to head the ticket. Predicting that Trump’s going to get slaughtered serves these fantasies, but I think that actually unseating Trump is not only highly unlikely, but would be an utter disaster for the party. Some would also like to see the party implode in the hope that, out of the ashes, something more properly conservative could be formed. I’ve opined in that direction in the past, but time, votes and events have shaped today’s GOP into something that traditional conservatives are unhappy with but powerless to change. Just as the Democratic Party has abandoned the working classes it long championed in favor of an elitist social liberal core, the Republican Party has abandoned its lip service to smaller government, free trade and market economics in favor of a nativist and protectionist foundation. The direction taken by the party is loathsome not only to many traditional conservatives, but to the libertarians who had held out hope that the GOP might actually give them a candidate they might consider supporting.

In sum, the cheerleading for a massive loss by Trump seems more rooted in wishful thinking and dissatisfaction with what reality tells us than in any rational analysis. With 116 days until the election and two national conventions still to happen, a whole lot can change, of course. As new information comes into play, we can (and should) adjust our expectations and prognostications. But, until such happens, we mustn’t confuse what we want to be true with what is true.

Meanwhile, I’ll stay with my May prediction that Trump is going to win. Trump’s performance since that prediction has been extremely uneven, with several unforced errors (errors for HIM, that is, which means they’re extra-egregious) and several missed opportunities contrasting with some well-executed speeches, statements and observations. But, Clinton is in many ways a gift that keeps on giving. The unsatisfying denouement of her email scandal is grist for Trump’s mill, she still has other ethical clouds (e.g. the Clinton Foundation) hanging overhead, and lacks any sort talent at extemporaneous speaking. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an action that mirrors the Angry Left’s utter lack of self-restraint, so violated protocol and propriety that even the New York Times took umbrage. Despite her subsequent apology, her words are going to ring in many people’s ears for a long while.

Make no mistake, though. My prediction does not match my voting intent. As I noted earlier this year, to me the Clump choice is between two different poisons, or as Charles Koch recently observed, between cancer and a heart attack. Fortunately, there are other options on the table. Barring some seismic event, I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson.