It’s 180 days until November 3rd, election day, but who’s counting.  EVERYBODY.

In an effort to help viewers understand where the race currently stands, reporters and pundits are comparing the upcoming balloting to previous years.  And much of the discussion has centered how the coronavirus has upset Donald Trump’s game plan vis-a-vis Joe Biden.  Perhaps the best example is John Heilemann’s recent explanation of how elections are won in the spring, not in the fall.  (NOTE:  I am a big Heilemann fan.  The chronicle of the 2008 election he co-wrote with Mark Halperin, Game Change, is second only to Joe McGinniss’ The Selling of the President 1968 when it comes to insightful books about presidential campaign strategy.)

However, on this occasion Heilemann missed the mark.  He compared the upcoming election to similar situations in which an incumbent spent the first quarter of the year defining his likely opponent.  He gave three examples.  Bill Clinton, in 1996, presenting Robert Dole as an out of touch dinosaur from another era.  George W. Bush, in 2004, riding the coattails of the Swift Boat Brigade to characterize John Kerry as a flip-flopper and un-patriotic.  And finally, Barack Obama’s successful branding of Mitt Romney in 2012 as the wealthy kid who was oblivious to the lifestyles of the less rich and famous.

 With such a tried and true formula for re-election, one has to ask how stupid could Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush and their campaigns have been not to use the same tactic on Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, respectively.  For the record, I do not believe either of these former presidents was stupid.  The difference was not in their intention.  From the day be became the presumptive nominee, Carter tried to peg Reagan with being old, out of touch and too conservative for mainstream America.  And have we forgotten the year long effort to make us think the Democratic nominee’s real name was “Slick Willy?”

For those of you waiting for the day for live sports to return, the best I can do to ease your pain is a sports analogy, the prevent defense.  As my late father and others would say, “The only thing a prevent defense does is it prevents you from winning.”  And there lies the difference between the three successful incumbents and their less successful counterparts.  Defining your opponent is the ultimate offensive strategy.  Take it too him.  Pedal to the metal.  Substitute any cliche you want.  But you can only do that if you don’t have to worry about defense.

In political terms, that means not having to defend your own record.  Clinton was riding a booming economy.  W could take credit for not allowing another terrorist attack which many Americans thought was inevitable after Al-Qaeada’s demonstration of its capabilities on 9/11.  And Obama had the double whammy, being able to claim “Osama bin Laden was dead and GM was alive.”  Sure, their opponents could nit-pick policy issues and minor mistakes, but in general, there was no rabid sentiment for evicting the current White House tenant.

In contrast, Carter headed into 1980 with two albatrosses (or is it albatri) around his neck.  The embarrassment of U.S. hostages in Iran augmented by a failed rescue attempt.  And an energy crisis with attendant unemployment and inflation.  His prevent defense was a July 14 speech to the nation in which he attributed these conditions to “a crisis of confidence” among the American people.  Likewise, Bush 41, in the spring of 1992 was still trying to shake off the backlash from breaking his “read my lip, no new taxes” pledge.  It’s hard to go on the offensive when you’re spending all your energies shoring up the base.

Which brings us to November 2020.  Of the two elections when the incumbent lost, I believe the current situation is much closer to 1980 than 1992 for two reasons.  The first is obvious.  Due to no one’s fault but his own, Trump is clearly on the defensive, spending more time defending his response to a global pandemic and economic meltdown than working on solutions.  And even when he goes on the offensive, pointing a figure at Biden comes off as projection, reminding voters of Trump’s own shortcomings.

The second reason is characteristic of only the 1980 contest.  According to 1976 exit polling, 80 percent of Democrats voted for Carter and 89 percent of Republicans for Gerald Ford.  Exit polls four years later showed only 67 percent of Democrats supported Carter while 85 percent of Republicans pulled the lever for Ronald Reagan.  I believe what was good for the goose 40 years ago will be equally good for the gander this fall.

Therefore, I ask you, how many 2016 Hillary Clinton voters do you think will vote for Donald Trump this year?  Despite what some pundits are suggesting, Biden will not have to spend time, money or effort holding on to Clinton supporters.  In contrast, VOX.COM reported on March 20, 2020, roughly 10 percent of 2016 Trump voters are likely to vote Democratic this year.  That includes 20 percent of Trump voters under the age of 40.  Bottom line?  If both candidates were to hold their party’s respective 2016 support, Biden starts with a three million vote advantage.  But, if the VOX report is correct, a 10 percent shift represents another 6.3 million votes in the Democratic column and the same amount subtracted from the Republican total.  To add icing on the cake, this does not take into account the increase in Democratic voter participation in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

To date, the largest margin of victory in the popular vote was 1996 when Clinton defeated Dole by 8.2 million votes.  Barring any unforeseen shift in sentiment, the 2020 election could deliver one more superlative title to Trump,  one he would rather not hold–presidential candidate with the highest losing margin in the popular vote in American history.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP