Cutting the Pie
Winning Presidential elections in America in the past twenty years was pretty simple. The Republican candidate could depend on about 40% of the vote. The Democratic candidate could depend on about 40% of their vote. Whoever manages to persuade a majority of the remaining 20%, wins. Sometimes they haven’t even needed a majority. George Bush in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016 were able to “thread the needle” in the Electoral College to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote.
The battle became persuading the 20%, and getting a bigger slice of that voter pie then the opponent.
What this also means is that there is a voting group who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016. That’s hard to imagine, but it seems to be the case especially in the critical electoral states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It’s also true in Ohio; a state that gave 51.5% and 50.7% to Obama, then 51.7% to Trump.
Winning the Middle
So if you accept the historical divisions in America, then the election will be won by winning 11% of the middle voters. This requires that the successful candidate appeal to the Obama/Trump voters, by finding the odd commonality in those two men. There are two places where Obama and Trump touched a similar theme.
The first is the plight of the “working man.” It isn’t just about employment, but also about the fact that a “working wage” in America doesn’t provide enough for the “American Dream.” In households with kids, 63% had both parents employed (BLS). The America those parents grew up in usually had one parent working, making a wage that could provide for the needs of the family. Now that same family requires two wage earners, and is still struggling to live “the Dream.”
Change Gonna Come
The second is the desire for change. Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016 both represented “change” candidates, running against the current government and bureaucracies. Both times, voters wanted someone different, new, and not committed to current policy. And both times they got their wish. But once in office, Obama found himself stymied by his own Party in Congress, unwilling to move forward on his program of “change we can believe in.” He spent most of his political capital passing the Affordable Care Act, a moderate Republican measure, and it’s passage cost Democrats control.
For the next six years, the goal of the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) was to stop Obama from getting anything done. And, like it or not, McConnell was damn good at his job.
Trump ran on the “Make America Great Again” slogan, the idea that we could change “back” to an America where “things were better,” at least for the Midwest, white, working man. He promised steel and coal jobs that could provide for a family on one income. It was the kind of change a frustrated Pennsylvania (or Ohio) worker wanted to hear.
Traditional Pieing
So this was the “traditional “ model of campaigning. Hillary Clinton followed this strategy, and so did Trump. And, without getting into the impact Russian intervention, social media or the FBI had on the election returns; Trump seemed to narrowly get the best of it.
Candidates in 2020 running on the same theory would have to do the following. President Trump would need to convince folks that he has come through, and that the “change” he promised is here, or at least just around the corner. He needs good economic numbers to tell those Midwest, white, workers that they will see financial gains soon, and will have the opportunity to live the “American Dream” they hoped to find.
The Democratic candidate must not only convince those voters that President Trump didn’t come through for them, but must offer alternate plans that would help fulfill their goals. The Sherrod Brown “dignity of work” philosophy is particularly geared to that theme added to by his famous phrase “…whether they shower before work or after.” Democrats recognize the power of the worker. But they also know at the same time they need workers, they must get both a high percentage of minority votes, but also a huge turnout of minority voters. So while they speak to the 11%, they can’t forget about getting their 40% to the polls.
Pie Expansion
But there is an alternative theory to the 2020 election. Folks like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren hope to turn out a whole new faction of voters who generally haven’t voted before. The 20 to 35 year old voters have traditionally had a low turnout percentage. The most progressive wing of the Democratic Party hopes to reach those voters and get them to the polls. They are offering changes that will specifically impact those voters: reducing student debt, and protecting the environment.
The Trump campaign also has an alternate theory of 2020. They believe that there is a faction of Americans who normally don’t vote, but are being encouraged to do so now by the President’s rhetoric. This is the “Stephen Miller” strategy, named for the Presidential Advisor. He believes that you can bring this new faction to bear, by the high rhetoric and actions of the President towards immigrants on the Southern Border. This “fear of invasion” tactic attempts to create a black and white contrast.
The Trump Campaign claims that Democrats want open borders and unregulated migration. They say that those folks will come and commit crimes, spend your government money, and, most importantly, take you jobs. The President is trying to stop those things from happening to you. Building a wall, separating children from parents, and rounding up illegals is all part of the plan to “protect you” from their incursions. As President Trump himself said, you really don’t have a choice; you have to vote for him.
Place Your Bet
So the election of 2020 will determine which “philosophy of pie” is correct. For the Democrats, if the traditional pie holds true, then a more traditional candidate will likely be successful. There is no one more traditional than Joe Biden, and no candidate more poised to reach those workers in the Midwest. And Biden, in part through his association with President Obama, is able to energize the minority voters as well.
But if this is an expanding pie election, Biden may not be the right guy. The younger, more progressive candidates are more likely to appeal to the 20-35 voting block. Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker all fit that model. And while Bernie Sanders is much older, he still has the “outsider” and “maverick” appeal that reaches those swing voters.
Will the pie be sliced the same old way, or will it become a bigger pie? That is the critical question in the 2020 election. And it’s not just “any old” Presidential election in 2020, it certainly seems like an “inflection point” in American history. The result of 2020 may well determine the future of the America’s experiment in Democracy.
You do a fine job outlining two options for 2020. There is a third option. Remember “It’s the economy, stupid”? There is historical support for the idea that for both “change” and “new” voters the PERCEIVED state of the economy is a main driver.
So how is the economy? The news media, both liberal and conservative, say the economy is fine. There are only a few whispers, mostly from Elizabeth Warren, the the economy is strong only for the Privileged class, and weak for the working middle class.
In my opinion, she is right and they are wrong. The government borrowed a trillion dollars, gave it to big corporations and rich folks, so net profit grew, so stock values grew, which rich folks had money to buy. Since when is the state of the economy based on the value of stocks, especially when that value is artificially boosted, then put on steroids by record low interest rates and easy money.
The working middle class, in the meantime, has no more buying power than 20 or more years ago. Current low unemployment is largely due to replacement of better paying jobs with lesser paying ones.
Maybe the 2020 election hinges on the ability of the Democratic candidate to convince the working middle class (in six purple states) of these facts.