A Tale of Two Narratives

There are two competing narratives about what happened in the presidential election of 2016. According to one narrative an incompetent doofus prevailed over the obviously more competent female opponent by virtue of Republican shenanigans and the antiquated electoral college. In the other narrative a wily challenger prevailed over an incompetent but highly credentialed unpopular female candidate, losing primarily states that have large electoral vote counts primarily because of their immigrant non-voting populations, a violation of the principle of “one person one vote”. I don’t believe that either narrative is entirely true or entirely false. I think that Democrats are relying too heavily on the imaginary story they’ve told themselves about the 2016 election.

At RealClearPolitics David Brady, Morris Fiorina and Douglas Rivers raise the disquieting possibility that whether Donald Trump is re-elected may depend on whom the Democrats nominate:

Is it really the case that any Democrat can beat Trump? On closer inspection, that outcome looks less certain. For starters, history shows that one shouldn’t put much faith in trial-heat polls 18 months ahead of a presidential election. Moreover one recent survey experiment by YouGov indicates that a surprisingly large proportion of the electorate – about 40 percent — reports that the choice between President Trump and a Democratic challenger depends on the identity of the Democrat. These voters are “in play” or “up for grabs.” There are more of them than there are completely committed Democratic or Trump voters.

YouGov polled 3,000 Americans between Feb. 28 and March 3. We asked our respondents how they would vote in an election between Trump and nine declared or potential Democratic candidates (Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren). To avoid voter fatigue we did not ask each voter to make eight decisions. Rather, each voter chose between Trump and three randomly selected Democrats, so roughly 1,000 respondents participated in each trial heat. If respondents said that they would vote for the Democrat in all three trial heats or Trump in all three, we then asked: Would you always (never) vote for any Democrat?

Democrats led in seven of the nine trial heats, but the “always Trump” and “never Trump” blocks were nearly identical in size: 36 of respondents said they would vote for the Democratic candidate in all three matchups and 35 percent said they would vote for Trump in all three. When asked the follow-up question, about one in seven said that there was a Democratic nominee who would cause them to switch parties. The good news for Democrats is that there are more Trump supporters who are willing to consider voting for a Democrat than vice versa. The bad news for Democrats is that 40 percent of the electorate say that their vote in 2020 depends upon the identity of the Democratic nominee. This is the largest segment of the electorate and consists of three groups:

• People who preferred Trump over a Democrat in one or two of the three trial heats and a Democrat over Trump in the others (4%).
• People who favored all of the three Democratic candidates in the matchups we asked them about, but in the follow-up question said that there was a Democrat who, if nominated, would cause them to vote for Trump (11%).
• People who were unsure of how they would vote in at least one of the three trial heats (26%).

Unregistered voters are disproportionately represented in the last group. Among registered voters, the Democratic advantage is larger (38% never Trump, 31% always Trump, and 31% depends), but nearly a third of registered voters are “available” for Trump depending on whom the Democrats nominate.

Read the whole thing.