Deus ex Machina?
In Greek theater, protagonists would often be painted into an unhappy situation towards the climax of a play–one that seemed all-but-impossible to escape. ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός (god from the machine) was a plot device frequently used to help abruptly solve apparently unresolvable problems–allowing for a more palatable, albeit less plausible, outcome to the story.
So far our investigation has found that U.S. presidents overwhelmingly win re-election and, if he appears on the ballot in November 2020, it seems far more likely than not that Trump will follow this trend as well. Might some fortuitous turn of events result in some other candidate being placed at the top of the Republican ticket in 2020 instead? Short answer: I wouldn’t count on it.
Impeachment is unlikely (in Trump’s first term)
Only two presidents have been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. The first was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The second was Bill Clinton, some 124 years later. Both men were acquitted in the Senate. In the history of the United States there has never been an instance where Congress successfully removed a sitting president.
In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the Reconstruction era for an instance where a president even faced a meaningful prospect of impeachment in his first term: The House impeached Clinton in December 1998, just after the midterm elections of his second term. Nixon resigned prior to any impeachment proceedings getting underway—in August 1974, just prior to the midterm elections of his second term. If Trump eventually does face impeachment, it will also likely happen in his second term.
What about Comey? The Russians? Trump’s financial quagmires? Here’s the thing: scandals tend to only have consequences when one’s opponents possesses sufficient leverage to exploit them. This will not be the case for Trump in the foreseeable future. Consider:
Impeachment would require a majority in the House. Actually removing Trump from office would require at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate as well.
Without massive Republican defections, Democrats will not be in a position to impeach Trump in the House, let alone achieve the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to actually depose him. The 2018 elections will not change this reality:
As a function of the default effect, the particular seats which happen to be open this cycle, the DNC’s unpopularity, and Republican dominance of state governments–which has allowed them to draw key congressional districts in their favor – it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to gain even a simple majority in the Senate in 2018. A 2/3 majority is out of the question. As for taking the House? Even less likely.
Pre-Midterms Update: Given the extraordinarily high numbers of Republican representatives who are resigning, retiring or otherwise not seeking reelection –it is now highly-plausible that Democrats could manage to win a slim majority in the House. This is what most are currently predicting (for instance, FiveThirtyEight). However, the Senate remains unlikely, and the broad point of the above paragraph remains unchanged: Democrats will not have the votes to remove Trump from office (absent massive Republican defections) prior to the 2020 elections.
The Democrats will likely gain some seats in 2018, but they probably won’t be anywhere near the majorities required in both chambers of Congress until at least the 2022 midterms.
Could Trump instead be declared unfit for duty in accordance with 25th Amendment? Even less likely than impeachment:
First, the Vice-President and a majority of his Cabinet would have to turn on him. Then, if Trump protested his ouster (which he would), it would take a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers of Congress to prevent him from regaining power. But of course, if Congress had the votes to accomplish this, they’d de facto have more than enough votes to have simply impeached Trump in the first place. And again, it seems highly unlikely that they would have those votes prior to November 2020.
In other words, we can count on Trump surviving his first term–and therefore, most likely, winning a second.
2/4/2018 update: In the 2018, the GOP delivered a perfectly average result for an inaugural midterm following a change of party in the White House. One more reason to think Trump is likely to conform with the historical base rates in 2020 rather than diverge therefrom.
However, the Democrats did take enough seats to take control of the House, and promptly tried to impeach Trump. Perfectly in line with the dynamics detailed above, they did not get any defections from Republicans for this bid — and as a result, Trump was acquitted by the Senate, just like Bill Clinton. No president has ever been removed from office by impeachment. Trump is no exception. Again, historical patterns seem to be holding. Bad news for Democrats.
Dim prospects for a Republican primary challenge
It is exceedingly rare that a sitting president fails to win his party’s nomination after only one term in office. In fact, there are only five such examples in the history of the United States: John Tyler (1841-5), Millard Fillmore (1850-3), Franklin Pierce (1853-7), Andrew Johnson (1865-9) and Chester A. Arthur (1881-5).
On its face, five occurrences sounds like a lot—we’ve only had 45 presidents in total. However, a curious pattern emerges in these examples (other than the fact that they all occurred within the same 40-year span and more than a century ago): John Tyler assumed the presidency following the 1841 death of William H. Harrison. Millard Fillmore was appointed following the 1850 assassination of Zachary Taylor. Johnson, of course, took office in the aftermath of Lincoln’s assassination–and Arthur after James Garfield was killed.
The last time a sitting president faced a significant primary challenge was Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency following Nixon’s 1974 resignation. What do all of these people who struggled to stay on the ballot after their first term have in common? None of them were ever elected to presidency to begin with.
In the history of the United States, there is only one single example of an elected president who failed to win his party’s nomination for at least two terms: Franklin Pierce. This was a precedent set more than 160 years ago.
And in those rare instances when a president was denied a nomination they sought, they have often retaliated very effectively against the party that spurned them:
After failing to win the a nomination from either of the major parties in the primaries for the 1844 election, John Tyler formed a third party, the Democrat-Republicans, and vowed to spoil the election for the Democrats unless they changed their platform (to call for the annexation of Texas). Ultimately, the Democratic Party conceded to his demand–and nominated James K. Polk for the presidency to assuage any doubts about their sincerity. Tyler, satisfied with their selection, chose not to stand in the general election and endorsed Polk instead.
After failing to win the Whig Party’s nomination in the 1852 election, Millard Fillmore ran as a spoiler candidate (at the head of the “Know Nothing” American Party) in the following cycle. Although he finished in last place, he siphoned off more than enough votes from Republican (formerly Whig) candidate John Fremont to allow their mutual opponent to emerge victorious instead.
Teddy Roosevelt served two terms (1900-08) and initially decided not to run for a third term. However, after a four-year hiatus, he wanted back “in”–and sought to reclaim the Republican nomination in 1912. After his bid was rejected, he ran as a third-party (Bull-Moose) candidate. He ended up finishing in second place behind Democrat Woodrow Wilson–absolutely destroying the prospects of the candidate Republicans had chosen over him (incumbent William Howard Taft). No party has since failed to extend their nomination to a president who sought it.
With this history in mind, let us consider the prospect of Trump facing a primary challenge in the lead-up to 2020:
Trump’s nomination was, more than anything, a thorough and widespread repudiation of the Republican establishment by its base—a revolt that seems likely to expand further through 2018. Yet it is precisely this wing of the party that seems most likely to mount a primary challenge against Trump in 2020.
It is not clear who would lead this revolt: none of the candidates Trump vanquished in 2016 could plausibly steal the nomination in the next cycle. It wasn’t even close.
Other establishment Republicans, such as Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, have tried to position themselves in opposition to Trump. However, the most immediate result Flake has seen from these attempts has been increased interest in a primary challenge against his own Senate seat, and a steep dive in his own poll numbers. Why? Trump is more than twice as popular as Flake in Arizona (compare here v. here)—a disparity which grows even wider among likely Republican voters. Considering that he would be unlikely to win even his home state in a primary challenge against Trump, it seems totally implausible that Flake could win enough votes nationally to clinch the nomination. A similar dynamic holds among most other would-be contenders.
Trump remains extraordinarily popular with Republicans—with an approval rating consistently above 70%. But even in the unlikely event that a challenger somehow managed to steal the nomination from him in 2020, they would stand no chance of actually winning the general election. Trump would likely make sure of that himself:
Throughout the 2015 primaries, Trump repeatedly threatened to run as an independent if he didn’t win the Republican nomination. If the party rejected him in 2020 they could be absolutely certain he would follow through on that threat–perhaps by aligning himself with his former Reform Party. Most of his base would likely follow him. He would likely siphon a number of voters who would’ve otherwise voted for Libertarian or Green candidates as well—because he would stand a meaningful chance of ending the two-party stranglehold on politics. If he managed to maintain or expand his margins among registered Democrats in the process, he might even end up with a plurality of the vote! He’d certainly end up mounting the most significant third-party challenge since Teddy Roosevelt—guaranteeing, at the least, that the Republican would lose.
Indeed, even if he chose to simply sit the election out, his base would never vote for a Republican-establishment usurper. Many would stay home on election day. Some would vote for third-party candidates. Others would hold their noses and vote for the Democrat out of spite. These abstentions and defections would likely prove lethal for the Republican nominee even without a third-party bid from the Donald.
In short, Trump is the GOP’s only option if they actually want to win in 2020.
This calculus is probably not lost on party leadership either. In fact, despite mainstream Republicans’ distaste for the president’s rhetoric and methods, the reality is that Trump getting more done than most people realize: He has been quietly reshaping government regulations and operations in ways favorable to conservatives. He has reversed-course on a number of pivotal cases before the courts—and is reshaping those courts in ways that will benefit the GOP long after his tenure. Over the course of two terms, he may end up radically transforming the U.S. Supreme Court for that matter. He is currently on course to dramatically reform the Federal Reserve. The RNC will not be keen to jeopardize these gains, and would likely try to suppress any erstwhile revolt for fear that it would hurt their chances in the general election.
In reality, a challenge by some establishment Republican might even help Trump in the general election. Again, given his consistently-high approval ratings among Republican voters, he would likely squash his opponent without too much trouble. But then he’d also be able to emphasize the establishment’s apparent desperation to oust him, thereby bolstering his credibility as an opponent of the status quo. This would likely increase enthusiasm and turnout among his base–while simultaneously enhancing his appeal among Independents and Democrats.
Rest assured: if Trump wants the Republican nomination in 2020, he will almost certainly get it.
Could Trump choose not to run in 2020?
In the mid-to-late 19th century it was fashionable for presidents to serve only one term. Three presidents actually campaigned on the promise of serving for only four years: James Polk (1845-9), James Buchanan (1857-61) and Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-81). John Tyler (1841-5) had positioned himself to run for reelection, but was ultimately persuaded not to stand in the general election.
In the modern political era, there is only Lyndon Baines Johnson. As previously discussed, he assumed the presidency in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, and then was elected by a landslide to a full term of his own in 1964. His tenure was extremely consequential—however, he found himself embattled on all sides throughout his presidency. By April 1968 he’d had enough of the Oval Office. Although he was eligible to run for a second full term, he announced that he would neither run for office nor accept the Democratic nomination for president in the forthcoming election.
Then again, according to his son’s biography, in 1992 George H.W. Bush had also strongly considered not running for a second term. Of course, Bush Sr. ultimately did choose to stand for reelection and, after a lackluster campaign, lost to former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton–capping off a 24 year span of nearly-unbroken Republican control of the White House (excepting Jimmy Carter’s short tenure from 1976-80).
Could Trump find himself in a similar headspace as these men in 2020? If so, would he decide to follow LBJ’s precedent? Or would he, like George H.W. Bush, find it too difficult to let go?
From the beginning of Trump’s candidacy, there have been persistent rumors that he never truly intended to win the Republican nomination, much less the presidency; that he never wanted to govern the country at all. As the 2016 race approached its climax, Trump insinuated to a reporter that even if he did win the presidency, he might not actually accept the position. In a recent interview, Trump lamented the loss of his old life, which he loved. Some of his closest friends predicted this unhappiness and urged him to drop out prior to the election.
Trump’s pride and resentment render him unlikely to resign or accept attempts to push him out. His competitiveness and vanity would compel him to try his best to win if he does appear on the ballot in 2020. However, simply refusing to stand for a second term may seem like an appealing option for escaping the Oval Office if Trump desires to do so: he’d be leaving on his own time, on his own terms–just choosing to walk away from the most powerful office in the world–when he likely could have won a renewed mandate. What could demonstrate Trump’s greatness better than that?
Of course, it should be emphasized once again that this type of wishful thinking followed Trump at every stage of the past election cycle: he didn’t really want the nomination and wouldn’t accept it, he didn’t really want the presidency and wouldn’t accept it, etc. The lesson: attempts to peer inside Trump’s head have generally proven unreliable…let alone trying to determine where his heart will be a few years from now. So while this is a prospect that observers shouldn’t write off, I wouldn’t exactly hold my breath for it either.
An interesting note on 2024
The good news for Democrats (such as it is) is that 2024 looks very good for them in terms of raw odds. If they did manage to win in 2020, they would be favored as the incumbents in the next cycle (and their ex ante likelihood of reelection in 2024 would be 80% if we start the clock with FDR).
On the other hand, in the more likely scenario that Democrats lose in 2020, unless Trump proves to be a transformational figure on the level of FDR or Reagan (the two exceptions to the trend I’m about to describe), 2024 is likely to go in their favor at least:
While it is very rare for a party to remain in the White House for less than 8 years, it is also very rare for them to hold the presidency for longer than that (likely in part because the “default effect” doesn’t transfer well: The bias towards incumbents is much weaker for would-be successors, even vice-presidents or other trusted lieutenants. Hence the wisdom of term limits). Assuming Trump does win in 2020, the ex ante odds of Republicans winning a third term would be a much lower 22.2%.
That is, almost regardless of the outcome of the 2020 race, Democrats will be the statistical favorite for 2024…for whatever that’s worth in the interim.