The rules pretty much don’t apply to Trump, and I don’t see why the historical ones would in his favor in 2020 either. Sure, he (might) have a decent economy still in 2020, maybe one better than what Obama had in 2012 (although the bottom looks set to fall out at any point) - but every other thing about him looks set to drag him deep down by 2020.
I’ve seen several articles all warning of the dangers of dismissing the presidential incumbent advantage - usually bringing up historical trends like “Presidents usually get reelected, and since 1980, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama all were” - but again, a lot of rules just don’t apply to Trump. These political pundits are bringing up these history cites as if the current president were some boilerplate Republican like Jeb or Romney, not Trump.
Even with a decent economy, Trump’s approval is already in the pits, and his constant tweeting and the exhaustive media coverage of him only ensures further fatigue. Is there anything that would generate something resembling “incumbent advantage” or do we throw all the rules out the window as far as Trump’s reelection is concerned?
Yes, he will have a huge incumbent advantage. Beyond just the usual name recognition and things he can point to as accomplishments (whether or not they are things for which he was responsible), he will have the enormous advantage of having proven that he can win an election and be president. Prior to 2016, he was something of a joke candidate. In 2020, while people may not like it, he will be the president. I think that unless the Democrats put up just the right person, he has a reasonable chance of being reelected.
Of course he will. He will likely have no primary competition, so that’s a huge advantage already. Plus, the press is required to report on everything he says, which they don’t have to do for any Dem candidates (or Pub candidates, when a Dem is the incumbent). Plus, he’ll have the full backing of the party and have giant fund-raising advantages.
OK, “essentially required”. He’s the President of the United States and that person will always command press attention. If he holds a press conference, the press will show up. If he gives a campaign speech, the press will report on it. This is not the case for, say, Pete Buttigieg.
To the OP, I don’t think I understand the question – he’ll have the same incumbent advantages that any other incumbent has (except see below), right? He’ll have other advantages and disadvantages, relative to other incumbents, but he’ll have plenty of incumbent advantages. Contrast this to Jimmy Carter, another incumbent who had to face a primary challenge – the RNC said they basically won’t accept that (I think).
Whether the economy is good or bad seems like a different kind of advantage/disadvantage than an incumbent one. That is, he still has the advantages he gets due to being an incumbent (money, press, name recognition, to name a few) whether the economy is good or bad.
Recent polling suggests that although Trump enjoys incredible support from Republicans and scared-Republican-“independents”, roughly 1 in 3 would vote for someone else as their party’s nominee for 2020. And that’s almost 2 years out.
G.H.W. “Poppy” Bush? Well, that’s an interesting case. Very popular, superficially pretty reasonable, but seen as betraying a “no new taxes” promise to a certain hardline (read: loony) faction in his party. And he lost. Don’t discount the effects of being seen as a promise breaker, even to extremists.
Some, but minimal. He is hugely unpopular and already lost the first election by 3 million votes.
And that was against Hillary Clinton, a candidate I do not think was a very good choice or very popular for the Democrats.
He’ll get the nomination by default, so that is one advantage. He will then suffer the disadvantage of having shown everyone what he is like as President. If the Democratic Party just nominates a middle of the road “OK” candiate, they should win. Flipping Michigan*(where I am) and a couple other states would not be too hard.
*Note: Michigan just overwhelmingly elected a female Democratic candidate governor. Michigan should likely go to Trump’s opponent in 2020.
For clarification: “Incumbent advantage” in the general election (D vs. R.) Not in the Republican primaries, although even then we might see a primary challenger.
Of course he will. The incumbent advantage is not an aspect of the man or the policy. It’s the advantage of having won before, of being well known, of political inertia, etc. And, yes, not having to waste energy or messaging on a primary campaign.
Other things can offset that advantage, of course, but it is still there.
For almost seventy years a simple rule — a party retains the White House for exactly 8 years, then loses it asap — has had only two exceptions. Both the exceptions were associated with the immense popularity of Ronald Reagan: his victory in 1980 and his coat-tails extending to Bush in 1988.
If the economy is good in late 2020, the GOP will be favored to retain the White House. Those reluctant to vote Trump in 2016 because of his inexperience and his tantrum nature will then think he’s more experienced at being President than anyone else, and his tantrums didn’t lead to nuclear holocaust after all.
Young people will put the Democrat in 2nd place in their voting, but it won’t be enough. The millennials will split their franchise roughly:
There’s also Carter, so that makes 1/3 who lost re-election since 1980 inclusive. Bush Jr. also had the the 9/11 don’t change horses in midstream advantage, and he still just barely won.
I’m not sure this is entirely an advantage. Maybe it will win some people over, but I think there are also people who voted for him, or for third-party candidates, because they thought he couldn’t win. I can’t find the exact numbers, but IIRC the third-party vote collapsed to its lowest level in decades in the midterms.
