Over the weekend, Steve Berman and I had an interesting discussion on Twitter. (If don’t follow us on Twitter, you should. We’re both great follows, if I do say so myself.) Anyway, the exchange got me thinking about how the outcome of the 2020 election might have been different if there had been no pandemic. Steve and many others believe that without the pandemic and the associated economic downturn that Donald Trump would have cruised to re-election. I’m not so sure.
Let’s get in the Wayback Machine and go back to a time when you might think that Coronavirus had something to do with beer to consider the possibilities. Back in 2019, several polls showed that Trump already had an uphill battle for re-election. In March 2019, 46 percent of voters told a Hill-Harris poll that they would not consider voting for Donald Trump. Granted, that isn’t a majority but if a candidate has alienated nearly half of the electorate 18 months before the election, he’s in serious trouble. Another NBC News/WSJ poll in November found that 46 percent were certain to vote against Trump. Numbers were similar in the swing states.
As Dick Morris used to say, re-electing a politician is like deciding whether you want to stay married to your spouse. If you’re undecided, it’s a bad sign, especially since some number of voters who would consider voting for Trump would ultimately decide to vote against him. Of course, the picture is even more bleak if the voters are openly saying they want a divorce.
Things got even worse the next year. When Trump faced his first impeachment in early 2020, half of Americans approved of impeachment, and a plurality wanted him removed from office. These numbers indicate that a large number of moderates and independents, the voters who decide elections, had already soured on Trump.
It was sheer insanity for Republicans to nominate a candidate that half the country thought should have been forcibly removed from office during his first term. The electorate would have to be schizophrenic to give a second term to a man it thought needed to be removed only a few months before.
To be sure, there can be polling errors, people could change their minds, and a very bad Democratic candidate could have pushed voters to view Trump as the lesser evil. Unfortunately for Republicans, Hillary Clinton was not available and Democrats rallied to stop a Bernie Sanders nomination.
But what about the economy? Wouldn’t voters pull the lever for Trump because of the surging stock market and low unemployment? I wouldn’t bet on it.
For starters, the economy wasn’t nearly as strong as Republicans were claiming. Throughout 2019, the economy was slowing and Trump’s fingerprints were all over the impending recession.
Before the pandemic, the big problem facing the economy was the trade war. Donald Trump fired the first shots in the tariff wars with steel and aluminum tariffs that went into effect in March 2018. Trump’s tariffs were imposed not only on China but on most of America’s major trading partners.
The most immediate results of the trade war were billions of dollars in bailouts for Trump’s rural farm supporters who lost their export markets to retaliatory tariffs. Politico points out that by 2020 federal payments to farmers had more than doubled from 2018 levels. These subsidies were all that kept many farms afloat.
Worse, the tariff wars also severely damaged American manufacturing. The US manufacturing sector was in recession for all of 2019 per Federal Reserve data. That recession included job losses and slow hiring, particularly in the second half of the year. Many of these job losses were in the Rust Belt states which were must-win for Donald Trump.
Still worse, the rest of the economy followed the manufacturing sector into recession in early 2021. Economic data shows that the recession predated the pandemic in the US since the downturn started in February while community spread and lockdowns did not begin until mid-March.
Looking at the economic situation this way, the pandemic may have almost saved Trump. Rather than his trade policies being blamed for a slowly deepening recession that likely would have continued to worsen over the summer and early fall, Trump was given a scapegoat for the sharp, sudden downturn. By March 2020, the focus was shifted completely away from Trump’s disastrous trade war.
Indeed, the pandemic offered President Trump a chance to salvage his campaign if he could rise to the occasion. Most prominent world leaders received a boost in their popularity from their handling of the pandemic. Trump was the exception.
President Trump did get an approval boost in the last half of March 2020 (to 45 percent; his average approval rating never reached 50 percent in four years, which was yet another warning sign) but then it quickly plummeted once again.
One of the biggest mistakes of the campaign was when Trump placed himself at the forefront of the Coronavirus Task Force press briefings. Putting President Trump on national television in front of a country that had nothing better to do than watch television reminded Americans on a daily basis of how much they disliked Donald Trump and how incompetent the president really was.
But would have things been any better without the pandemic? For four years, Donald Trump showed his inability to surrender the limelight. No matter what was in the news, Donald Trump would have been in front of it. He would have been just as abrasive leading the country through a trade recession as a pandemic, but he might have been somewhat less visible.
Further, Trump’s response to the pandemic did not drive his approval to its lowest point. For that, it took the George Floyd riots. By mid-July, Trump’s approval was 40 percent, although it did rebound before the election.
Who knows whether the riots would have happened without the pandemic? The Butterfly Effect means that changing the public health situation could have steered events along a drastically different course, but unjust police killings would have likely resulted in civic unrest at some point.
It’s also possible that the pandemic and lockdowns motivated members of Trump’s base to turn out who might have stayed home in a normal recession. The pandemic and lockdowns provided a convenient bogeyman with the idea that Democratic governors were purposely trying to slow the economy to hurt Trump and that masks and other mitigations were part of some nefarious plot to instill socialism or fascism or authoritarianism (take your pick). The pandemic also gave Trump allies an excuse to try to suppress absentee voting.
One thing would not have changed, however. As Steve Berman correctly noted yesterday, “In order to win, all Biden had to do was call a lid on the day at 9:00 a.m., get some rest, and let Donald Trump do all the talking.” Joe Biden didn’t have to beat Trump because Trump destroyed his own campaign on a daily basis. Trump’s penchant for self-destruction would not be any less without a pandemic.
The bottom line is that Trump was unpopular long before the pandemic. He was unpopular when he won in 2016 with less than a majority of the popular vote and he became less popular over time. Even people who think that he would have won re-election without COVID-19 mostly acknowledge that he had no real chance of winning the popular vote in 2020 and were banking on another Electoral College upset. This is an admission of his weakness, even in a good economy.
Although we can’t know exactly how the campaign would have played out without the pandemic unless we find a parallel universe in which the Coronavirus outbreak was controlled, the idea that Trump would have won without the pandemic is at least questionable and does not take into consideration the Rick Wilson truism that “everything Trump touches dies.”
At best, an election without the pandemic would have been uncertain. There would have been different issues and different concerns, but the one constant would have been Donald Trump. And the fact that Trump was the Republican candidate would have almost certainly been enough to cost Republicans the election, even without Coronavirus. When all is said and done, Trump was simply a bad candidate.
You may say that I’m a dreamer to claim that Trump was already so unpopular that re-election was a difficult prospect at best, but I’m not the only one.
If you haven’t subscribed to the Racket yet, click the button below to do so while it’s still free. And remember, with the Racket you get MORE than what you pay for!
You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook. Join the discussion online with our Racketeers Facebook group.
The Racketeers are Jay, Steve, and David. Click each name to contact us on Twitter!
As always, we appreciate shares. If you see something here that you like, please send it to your friends and tell them that all the cool kids read the Racket!
It's an interesting question David. That said, an exercise in fertility (intentional btw). It would take a fertile mind to sort through the controversy of AC (after covid) compared to WC (without covid). The one argument i would make is, the pandemic increased the vote totals beyond anyone's imagination. That alone hurt trump.
Th other argument i would make (as you and Steve kind of did), had trump acted like a responsible adult and led the country through and out of the darkness and into the light, he would have been re-elected. Yes he was unpopular, yes it would have been close, but he had the golden ring in his hand and instead of grabbing it, he shoved it up his ample ass.
Sorry for the ugly graphic, but the numbers of dead don't lie. The crushing impact of a leader who refused to support even the most modest of mitigation techniques is almost beyond comprehension. The man is and always has been a one man wrecking crew. He creates a tidal wave and then wonders why people drown?
While the question is interesting, the bigger jaw-scratchier is how and why so many people still support him. Why grown men who are smarter than many still cling to the big lie? How the Grand Old Party became the party of fools and miscreants? What the hell happened to "conservatives" that they could embrace a con man who was anything but a conservative? Those are the questions worth pondering.
The good news is, trump will always have to live with the fact he lost to a man who was/is well past his prime. For an narcissistic ego-maniac, that will devour him from the inside out no matter how many times he looks in the mirror and moans of the hoax.
I always wonder why Trump and his campaign felt it was effective to refer to now President Joe Biden as "Sleepy Joe" during the campaign. I mean, given that Trump spent so much time junk tweeting, as well as making the campaign and everything else about himself, that "Sleepy Joe" was actually an unintended compliment to Biden! Given that Trump never made any attempt to behave and comport himself in a responsible manner, Americans would end up preferring a boring, vanilla President that was, well, "sleepy". And sure enough, being sleepy was enough to give Donald Trump his walking papers.