He’s well behind in the polls, but can Donald Trump pull out a surprise vict- what? You’ve read that article? Six times? Yes, well your correspondent has been off for a while and was all set to return with a staggering contrarian take, and it’s gone and been done, and done.
The truth is that there’s so many indicators that Donald Trump is failing in the polls that pundits are now putting in a contrarian take as insurance, pure and simple, in case the universe has become several degrees more screwy than it was in 2016.
Trump is running behind Biden by 10 points overall, a huge margin, and he’s falling behind in key groupings such as suburban voters and women overall.
The widening of the gender gap is particularly significant, since it wasn’t universally present in 2016: despite his pussy-grabbing talk, Trump won a majority of white non-college educated women in 2016, and it was probably that unexpected burst of support in the rust belt states that got him over the line.
Such women have allegedly now deserted him, and the widening gap threatens to swallow his campaign. Trump is also failing in a couple of key states. Wisconsin is one, the surprise victory in ’16 that helped seal Trump’s majority. Florida is another, returned to true marginal status after the Republicans thought they had returned it to red state status. And they have also had to commit to full campaigns in Arizona and Georgia, two states which haven’t voted Democrat in decades.
But those happy numbers for the Biden campaign hide a slightly more tenuous situation than many are willing to admit. The paradox of this comes down to the state/electoral college system once again.
What has to be remembered is the scale of Trump’s victory in 2016. Team Trump didn’t just win it on Michigan and Pennsylvania. He won three distinct groups of states: the tending-republican marginals (North Carolina, Missouri, Iowa); the pure swing states (Ohio, Florida); and finally the “blue wall” of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Any one of these states (especially the last three) might have been stolen outright, but it was still a substantial achievement. And to win, the Democrats have to get most of them back. That’s where the margins come in. Some of these are pretty thin.
According to Real Clear Politics, Biden’s lead is 3.7% in Pennsylvania, and 1.2% in Florida. Trump is leading by 0.2% in Ohio. Those aggregates are taken from a mess of polls, good and bad, but together they indicate a borderline situation in three big states.
This is offset by small states going in the other direction — Minnesotta, at 6.6% for Biden is no longer a Trump target, as it threatened to be, and Biden leads in Arizona and Georgia — but it’s a far from done deal. If the Democrats simply can’t convert some small states — Iowa and North Carolina — and Trump fights hard in the big three, then Trump, with 304 of 539 electoral college votes, can lose any two states except Florida or Ohio and Pennsylvania together.
He can lose three in various combinations, including a trad red state, and still hang on. The trend towards Biden is going to have to be deep and uniform across the swing states for victory to be certain.
The hope is that Trump has alienated enough groups of people. But there are two reasons why he might not have.
Firstly, a basic resistance to any form of polling has spread deeper and further among those leaning towards Trump over the last four years. With the spread of QAnon and other conspiracies into the wider electorate, the number of people who now feel that any form of media activity is conspiracy and surveillance is substantial.
Secondly, the divide between the coasts and the interior of America is now so great that a level of residual support for Trump (including in north and central Florida) simply cannot be registered by a coastal-oriented media system.
This would be the ultimate revenge of the deplorables: that amid all the clamour of Black Lives Matter, Trump’s aggressive misogyny, Ruth Bader Ginsberg-olatry, etc, the progressive movement and the Democrats still have not turned real attention to the vast numbers of Americans whose lives have been sinking for decades, but whose plight does not fall into a race/gender frame.
Trump remains a representative figure for many such, even though he has done relatively little for them.
But there is no one else — except Q — and if Trump were to win again it will because of one last push against the tide of history.
So which direction is it going in? Absolutely no-one knows. But there’s no real doubt that Biden will win the popular vote. So if Trump were to eke out an electoral college win, it would be against a Biden majority of 4 million to 6 million votes.
That split would shake the republic to its very core. A nation desperate for relief from crisis would instead have of it four more years…
Thank god you’re back. The prospect of lockdown and the US election without Rundle dispatches was most grim.
Was it deliberate to not mention that even if Biden wins the electoral college (or looks like it) that Trump may refuse to go? I’m still worried that we could see civil war (or something like it) in the USA before this strange year ends.
Better they fight to the death within, than without.
A thing devoutly to be wished.
Mark, regardless of what we see, if Trump wins then the populations of allied western nations need take a hard look at the values of the nation we have depended on as our major ally. Regardless of the complexities of their electoral system the number of adult Americans who need support the most unstatesmanlike leader, possibly in global history, should be seen as undeserving of our support.
Yes, we wouldn’t want to trade or have other important relations with countries which echew democracy, abuse human rights, wage war upon the weak or threaten their neighbours… like Saudi, China or amerika.
Yes agreed Mark. First suppress the turnout, second disqualify as many votes as you can, third declare victory on election night, fourth use the courts to stop the counts in as many states as you can where you are ahead, fifth find as many ways to dispute accepted votes as you can, sixth get Republican state legislatures and governors to nominate electoral college members against the popular vote. Seventh, keep campaigning and holding rallies well past Nov 3. Throughout, signal to your armed supporters to “stand by”. What could possibly go wrong?
In 2000, because of Florida, Bush jr became President. The truly frightening thing about Florida in 2000 was not just that be-suited crowds of conservatives physically intimidated courts, or that the Supreme Court stopped the count – the worst is that stopping the process might actually have been a sane thing to do, given how chaotic the legal situation was, and how long an exhaustive resolution was going to take. Even so, good order depended on the compliance of Gore and his party.
Twenty years later, the legal situation in all states has only got more complicated, the Republican Party has only become more extreme, there is the possibility of multiple Floridas up and down the country, the Supreme Court is stacked, and the President is Donald Trump.
Biden needs his 10% lead in the polls at a minimum. If it lasts, it will probably translate into a 6% national vote margin, which in turn should deliver a large enough electoral college advantage for the Republicans to eventually concede, probably after a litigious but relatively orderly month.
If GR is right in his suspicions about the reality on the ground, then either Trump will win, or Biden’s margin will be too small to avoid some level of real conflict, from a “peaceful” coup, through civil disorder, up to civil war.
If there are armed militias outside courthouses and legislatures, absent a mass peaceful turnout in the streets led by the middle-class, it will come down to how the military and para-military react, and not just at leadership level.
PS Welcome back Guy, very welcome.
it should be deliberate. This article is about how Trump might win the election. What Trump will do if he is loses the election is not relevant to the subject.
You are correct Ratty, but it does depend whether you really mean ‘win the election’, or ‘win the presidency’. My comment wasn’t intended to be critical of Guy’s article, but rather trying to probe whether journalists are deliberately not mentioning the unthinkable, but increasingly likely, because of the potential that merely giving that thought airtime presumptively increases the risk of it happening. I have quite a few American friends with whom I worked with in the NZ Lange-Douglas government that are now in very difficult circumstances In Washington. And things, could go a lot worse soon.
Muldoon announced to his Cabinet, brandishing the Commission from the GG that, irrespective of the result, he had a right to govern until November 1984. At that point there was a near complete walk-out and about 20 hours later Muldoon had thrown the towel.
As Rundle conveys, it is very difficult to call it for a heap of reasons. However, the current discussion is so hypothetical as to not be worth entertaining.
Hi Erasmus. “Hypothetical”? The president has repeatedly declared that the only possible legitimate result is his victory. He has urged Republicans to vote in person. Provided he is ahead in enough states on election night, he will declare victory with a view to opposing in the courts any continuing count that threatens his premature college “majority”. Most Republicans will back him, as will his media supporters. The courts he has stacked will do the rest. That’s the game plan.
The guy, Keith, could tweet god knows what tomorrow. The conjecture, as presented, is a clear case of “ignore it until it happens”. The guy is full of locker-room rejoinders yet has more than twice the support of Pauline.
Keep in mind that it is “their system”. Frankly, I think Trump will be returned but I’m not losing sleep and that includes a physical stouch over the South China Sea
Glad to hear you are sleeping well, Erasmus, as am I in lock-down Melbourne. I think it matters a lot who will be the next president, but even more consequential will be how they get there. Trump tweets and says a lot of nonsense, but about what will happen on Nov 3 and after he has been remarkably consistent and like a drumbeat for the last 3 months – basically from when he began to seriously worry about how the virus was going to affect his chances. But as you say, we’ll see. Continue to sleep tight!
I’ve seen several good, detailed, long-form articles setting out why Trump losing the election in no way equates to Trump leaving the White House. I’ve been predicting for many months that Trump will still be in charge at the end of January no matter how the voting goes. The Crikey site is very unfriendly to posts that include URLs, I have no idea why, but that stops me providing links. You should be able to find them with a web search anyway.
The Atlantic – The Election That Could Break America
The Boston Globe – A bipartisan group secretly gathered to game out a contested Trump-Biden election. It wasn’t pretty
And so on
SSR: what are your credentials for making this prediction?
An ability to read?
There are circumstances in which Trump might refuse to go: if, for example, Biden didn’t have a clear majority on or soon after election day and the result depended on counting the postal votes Trump has already rejected as dodgy, Trump might reject the count. Even a conservative Supreme Court would be unlikely to support him on that.
Rais says: “Even a conservative Supreme Court would be unlikely to support him on that.” [i.e. Trump, and state allies it should be remembered, rejecting on-going counts of postals etc].
I admire your sang-froid and confidence Rais, but the Supreme Court in 2000 overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling, stopped the recount in Florida at a point when Bush’s lead had dwindled to 500 or so, and so handed Bush the presidency. Their strongest argument was the lingering chaos.
This year, it is not “a” single clear majority that matters (unless you mean the College), but clear majorities in up to 12 critical states. It is quite possible that Trump will be ahead at some stage in the count, on the night and in the days after Nov 3, in most if not all of those states.
Why wouldn’t the current court, let alone one including Barrett, make similarly tendentious decisions in the multiple cases that are likely to end up with them?
They might. But if the objection is just that postal votes are subject to rigging there is little evidence to support that. For the sake of friends in the US one would hope that Biden/Harris wins. As far as US international behaviour is concerned it probably doesn’t matter who is president. The War Party will prevail.
“if the objection is just that postal votes are subject to rigging”
It won’t be, particularly at SCOTUS level. They will be deciding such questions as whether (Republican) State Legislature and governors’ decision to, amongst other things, stop counting votes, should be upheld or overturned. They will be making those decisions in a context of delay and chaos. This will itself become a critical part of the argument: best to avoid further chaos by deciding the election(s) on the basis of those votes neither side is objecting to.
Your strident views are….well…..strident.
Tell me what your credentials are for such confidence in these matters.
Not being a partisan cat’s paw?
As I suspected……I’ve entered front bar polymath territory……where anyone who disagrees with mob is ‘partisan’.
Last drinks ladies & gents & LGBTLMNOP’s.
In some ways you understate the danger. The Republicans have partisan judges loyal to them rather the law at various levels in both state and federal courts, not only the Supreme Court. They have for years colluded on gerrymandering, vote suppression and other anti-democratic measures. Forget about the courts acting as impartial referees, they play for one team only. The game is very firmly fixed, and the Republicans don’t intend to yield an inch.
That was the “Great Brooks Brothers riot” which was later shown, on examination of news footage, to be entirely composed of GOP staffers.
As with the S&S poster – “Labour isn’t Working” – for the tories in the UK 1979 election, the queue snaking out of the bru and up the street was made up entirely of their employees, regrouped and with changes of clothing to extend into the distance.
Amazing what people dependent on crumbs from the tables of the rich will do.
There is a case that RCP’s averages are inferior to Five Thirty Eight’s. Whether that’s true or not, readers should be advised that the latter currently has Biden’s lead in Pennsylvania at 6.2 per cent.
The Democratic candidate has outpolled the Republican in the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections for four electoral college wins. Should Trump be able to prevail, the question arises whether the Republicans have established a virtual permanent unassailable electoral college majority.
Oh well, they created a republic, not a democracy.
Biden is $1.54, Trump $2.84 – which one would you back?
Carl,
They’re not great odds for a Biden win. With the performance of Trump, Biden should be much shorter odds.
i live in a state electorate which is normally a safe Liberal seat. At the last state election, the Labor candidate was 7:1 against (a $1 bet would have won $7, I don’t know what a bet on the sitting Liberal member would have won, not much probably).
The Labor candidate won.
Offered those odds i’d back Trump. Maybe i’m Misreading the swing state polls, but they don’t look much better for Biden now than they did for Clinton at around this point in 2016
So much for one man, one vote. Good luck with changing the Constitution, US!
TC…How can the US claim to be a democracy when a small group of people…the Electoral College…decides who will govern….NOT the people who voted? Totally weird situation!!
No real difference to the role of our Senate…….so what’s your point?
The Australian government is formed by the party or group of parties that commands a majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate plays no part in the formation of the government.
They did in the Whitlam dissolution if memory serves and Whitlam had a majority in the House of Representatives and a recently elected one at that.
I suggest that the up-voters and your good self take a look at the Wikipedia entry for the Electoral College. As an aside, if 10 to 12 persons from each state were randomly selected that sample could emulate the voters across all states (collectively) with near certainty. A tutorial as to the theory is available from yours truly upon request.
Could – near certainty! Nuff said.
Yes, I know what you’re getting at, but you overcooked the books a bit with 10 or 12. The margin of error there can be significant. (can be)
Thanks for the opportunity to help you DB and it is always good to hear from you.
A day or so ago I mentioned a quite famous Russian statistician Pafnuty Chebyshev. Taking DC to be a State (and the midpoint between 10 and 12), we have a sample of 11*51 or 561 voters. So long as the sample is entirely random (ie equal chance of selection), according to Chebyshev we need only 450-ish to emulate the voting population (man in concert being an absolute certainty)
At a decent university, it is a 2nd year exercise in Inference to emulate (or simulate) such a situation. Anything that I mention on Crikey is directly from standard texts.
As to the ‘certainly’ please substitute ‘would’ for ‘could’.
I’m sure that it’s clear but for completeness, the above will provide an accurate forecast for a binary Biden | Trump result. The std error will improve as the results aggregate. Wack it to 50 for mom & the kids to feel more comfortable but the point is that, with the caviet applied, a decent sample will reflect the population.
Simulation of the Electoral College is (obviously) different. However, a cluster and stratified sample of (e. g.) 125 voters each per State will ‘romp it in’. The description is easy. The hard part resides with the pragmatics.
The Australian House of Reps is no different and there are countless state and federal examples where a party has one a two party preferred majority without forming government, ie Beazley in ‘98. Arguably the US system is cleaner since tying the electoral college to State boundaries intrinsically prevents the adjustment of boundaries to suit one party.
If they don’t mention global warming, public housing, free education, asylum seekers or free public health, they’d all have a far better chance. Al Gore springs to mind. 2PP is the biggest problem facing most western societies. The electoral college, totally lacks any form of democracy.
Wow, that is breathtakingly ignorant.
Very few western societies have 2PP.
As BtB below notes, few countries have 2PP and most that do are also rigorously proportional, a’la D’Hondt (hi, Tazzy!).
Our Senate is similar, STP & proportional within each state. In the Reps. this power is further ameliorated by disparate electorate sizes, aka gerrymandering.
BTW, the US, UK & Canada persist with the centuries old FPtP, from the days of rotten boroughs, the least fair and most iniquitous system ever devised for crushing hope in democracy.
(By chance RN has an excellent prog. on rotten boroughs just last week.)
Democracy?…..
The US is a kleptocracy eos
Pennsylvania and Philly in particular is a Blue as it gets and I include S.F. However, when it came down to the wire a good deal of support dissented Hillary. As to republics the founders (aided by some French heads) engineered a system quite different to that presided by George III.
A system of government is only as good as comprehension of the electorate and their desire to participate in the process. Mike Moore has displayed for the world the comprehension of their (own) government by recent graduates. Most haven’t a clue as to the V.P happens to be; much less the spheres of responsibility for all aspects of government. Not too different in Australia – BTW.
Good to have you back!
Seriously relieved to see you back in harness Guy.
As for the insane world of US polling, I figure it’s best to assume the worst, so the celebrations will be even sweeter, when (and if) the orange monkey goes down.