There’s an old saying that while history doesn’t repeat itself, it often rhymes. Will this presidential election rhyme with 2016?
In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton led the national polls at the end of September by 3 to 4 points. Her opponent, Donald Trump, was focused on carrying a small number of key states that most pundits didn’t think he could win, but ultimately did.
This year, Kamala Harris is leading national polls by 2 points in the RCP average; she’s also struggling to establish leads in key swing states that will determine the winner. Polls show Trump leading Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, albeit it by small margins, and about tied in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Only in Michigan does Harris have a much of an edge.
Why is Trump doing better in swing states than in the national vote? Television ads may be the answer.
Trump’s ad spending is targeted to those seven states and, more importantly, the messaging in those ads is much more disciplined and cogent than that which comes from media coverage of his speeches, interviews, and tweets. In short, Trump’s campaign is doing better framing the choice for voters in the seven swing states than in the ignored 43 states, which include California, New York, and – yes – my home state of Louisiana.
Harris’ campaign is also targeting ads to swing states, but her seven-state messaging is probably no better than her national effort.
Could it be that 2024 will be a replay of 2016, when that year’s Democratic nominee won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College to Trump?
As we know, America has doubleheader presidential elections: one, to win the popular vote, and the other, to win swing states that deliver an electoral vote majority. It’s possible for victors to lose the former and achieve the latter. For example: Democrats carried the popular vote in five of the last six elections, while Republicans won the electoral vote (and the presidency) in three of them.
Keep in mind that one-fourth of the 2016 electorate disliked both Trump and Clinton, according to exit polling. But in the end, these voters broke for Trump by 11 points. They saw him as the “change candidate.” There was probably a “hidden” and largely unmeasurable Trump vote, maybe a point or two, that polls didn’t catch. We don’t know whether that will be the case this time.
In 2016, Clinton’s campaign expected her to secure an electoral vote majority by carrying the “blue wall” states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Astonishingly, Clinton’s campaign did little conventional polling in the final weeks to test that assumption (a mistake Harris’ campaign won’t make). As a result, the last-minute Trump surge in those states was mostly missed by polls and pundits.
Trump won the 2016 election despite the 64% of voters who thought he was not honest or trustworthy, the 63% who didn’t think he had the right temperament to be president, or the 70% who were bothered by his treatment of women. But beneath the surface, there were other currents churning: 69% of voters were “dissatisfied” or “angry” with the federal government; “bringing change” was the candidate quality that mattered most – and Trump won that contingent by a lopsided 82% to 14% margin; and 62% of voters thought the economy during a Democratic administration was either “not good” or “poor.”
Could those currents churn again? Perhaps, but there are big differences between then and now. In 2016, Trump had not been president and didn’t have a record. Then, he was fresher and eight years younger; he hadn’t been impeached, indicted, or convicted. His opponent had negative ratings almost as high as his – and Jan. 6 was known mostly as the date Led Zeppelin fans had trashed the Boston Garden.
In 2016, Trump was the outsider, a businessman against the politicians. This time, as a former president, his status as change agent is far less pronounced. In his favor, however, are new issues he didn’t have eight years ago – namely inflation, the Afghanistan pullout, and Joe Biden’s border policies.
Are we ready for a replay of 2016? Ask Trump and Harris: They’re the ones who will either make it happen – or stop it.
