Overcoming the “Default Effect”
Lessons from Jimmy Carter
According to the polls, most Americans do not approve of Trump. His ratings have been underwater for virtually his entire presidency so far. But it turns out, an incumbent’s popularity matters a lot less than one might expect. Perhaps even less so for Trump than most. After all, he won his first term despite record-low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. And he’d probably be able to repeat this feat if necessary:
Trump continues to enjoy staunch support from the voters who put him in the White House. He’s raised millions of dollars in small donations for reelection, pulling in twice as much money as Barack Obama in his first 100 days. And he’s already putting that money to use running ads in key states that trumpet his achievements and criticize political rivals.
Moreover, although most don’t like or trust Trump, polls show he does seem to be meeting or exceeding Americans’ expectations so far. In fact, an ABC News/ Washington Post survey from late April suggested that if the election had been held again at that time, Trump would have not only won the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well – this despite his declining approval rating.
We’ve previously explored how the reelection rate among U.S. presidents in Trump’s position is 89%. Granted, that is a really high number–but it’s actually not as impressive as it may initially seem. The reality of American politics is that incumbents overwhelmingly win. Consider congressional reelection patterns:
Since World War II, the incumbency rate has been about 80 percent for the House of Representatives and 73 percent for the Senate. Going into the 2016 election, Congress’ approval rating was at an abysmal 15 percent. Yet their incumbency rate was actually higher than usual: 97 percent in the House and 98 percent in the Senate.
Public dissatisfaction with the direction things are going–-and even low approval ratings of the specific politician seeking reelection—these only tend to matter when the opposition party simultaneously puts forward a particularly credible and compelling challenger. Presented with a choice between the “the lesser of two evils” the public tends to stick with “the devil they know.” That is, as a result of the “default effect,” what matters most isn’t how the public feels about the incumbent, but how they feel about the most likely alternative.
With this in mind, let’s return to Jimmy Carter–who set the inglorious precedent of being the only candidate since the Great Depression to spearhead a change of party in the White House yet fail to win reelection. Carter was unpopular, sure. But he wasn’t just unpopular—he also had the misfortune of having to run against Ronald Reagan. His opponent was well-known, well-liked and charismatic. He was subversive to the political establishment. He offered an inspirational and transformational vision for America that Carter and the Democrats couldn’t hope to match.
From this example we see a possibility for Democrats to overcome the public bias towards defaults: they need to nominate some kind of extraordinary alternative to Trump in 2020. By “extraordinary” I don’t mean someone whose victory would mark a milestone for some underrepresented demographic group (i.e. the first LGBTQ president, the first Latino, the first woman). As Democrats learned the hard way in 2016, this kind of novelty only carries you so far. Obama didn’t win in 2008 because he was black (if anything, he won in spite of this). A winning Democratic candidate would emulate what did make Obama’s initial bid so successful by offering a positive, compelling and ambitious new ideal for America to strive towards–one that can bring disaffected Democrats back into the fold (and drive them to the polls), yet also resonate beyond the party’s core constituencies.
Unfortunately, as things currently stand, the kinds of candidates being bandied about are instead in the vein of Kristen Gillibrand, Corey Booker and Kamala Harris. While these are all fine people with impressive resumes, none of them have demonstrated the potential or inclination to be groundbreaking Regan-level figures. The Democratic Party consistently makes this mistake: nominating competent neoliberal technocrats to run against populists. Perhaps the intention is to draw maximum contrast…in this, at least, they typically succeed. However, they virtually always fail at the ballot box (e.g. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and most recently, Hillary Clinton).
The Democratic Party is, itself, in bad shape as well: They’ve been hemorrhaging voters every election for the better part of a decade. Since November, their ratings have deteriorated even further while approval for Republicans has remained stable. Indeed, Democrats are viewed as being more “out of touch” with average Americans than Trump or the Republicans. Yet key players in the DNC still resist making substantive changes to the party’s platform and strategy. Hence it remains unclear how Democrats will broaden their coalition–or even prevent its continued erosion.
In short, a survey of Trump’s likely opposition seems to reinforce the idea that he is more likely to adhere to the overwhelming trend (reelection) than to follow the path of its sole exception: Jimmy Carter.
What About Third Party Challengers?
Of course, even if the Democrats nominate another candidate who would otherwise be destined for the dustbin of history, it is always possible that a particularly strong third-party challenger could turn the tide. Independent contenders’ capacity to sway the election would be determined by the extent to which they could poach more votes from Trump than his Democratic rival–especially in highly-competitive states and districts.
While perhaps not decisive, Thurmond, Wallace, Perot and Nader were certainly game-changers in the 1948, 1968, 1992 and 2000 elections. Could 2020 be next? Right now, there seems to be little reason for optimism:
Despite their solid performances in 2016–at least as far as third-party tickets are concerned–I don’t expect Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to do much better in 2020 than they did last cycle (assuming they again secure the nominations for the Green and Libertarian parties, respectively). The proposed Republican-Democrat unity ticket of Kasich / Hickenlooper hardly gets the blood pumping either.
Of course, surprises can always come from this space. Observers should definitely keep an eye on it. However, given the prospects currently before us, it seems more likely than not that Trump will win reelection.
However, the final step in this analysis is to explore the oft-discussed possibilities which would prevent Trump from being on the ballot in November 2020 at all—such as him being removed from office before the election, or failing to win his party’s nomination due to a Republican challenger, or the president simply choosing not to stand for a second term.