An Election Like No Other In American History

This presidential election is unprecedented.  One candidate has mostly campaigned from his basement, appearing publicly as often as a ground hog.  The incumbent has crisscrossed America in the midst of a pandemic.  More Americans are voting by mail than ever before. And vote tabulations may take months.   

Talk about crazy.  The Coronavirus outbreak turned political conventions into virtual events robbing the parties of must-see television.  The presidential debates were chaotic, raising the question if they will become a relic of the past.  A mask evolved into the symbol of a party.  Forget donkeys and elephants.

Not since the 1918 midterm election have Americans trooped to the polls during an epidemic.  Despite the Spanish Flu that resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide, voters ignored the perils of the contagion and showed up in person to cast their ballots.  Patriotic duty was a higher calling in those times.

The U.S. Election Project, run by Professor Michael McDonald at the University of Florida, estimates more than 93.1 million Americans voted by November 1.  About 34 million voters braved long lines to tap the screens of electronic machines.  More than 59 million mail-in ballots have been returned.  

The data suggests a historic turnout of voters in this presidential election. Based on the Election Project's projections total turnout may exceed 150 million, compared to 138 million in 2016.  If that happens, it will mean 62% of eligible voters will submit ballots.  In 2016, 58.7% of registered voters cast ballots.

However, those lofty estimates are based on past voting behavior when turnout on election day is usually robust. That may not be the case this election. No one knows if the convenience of mail-in voting will alter the annual election day stampede to the polls. November 3 could prove to be a historic anomaly.

There is partisan debate over which candidate benefits most from a large turnout.  A Gallup Poll conducted in July reported 32% of voters identified as Democrats, while 26% were Republican.  However, when you include those who lean toward one party or the other, Democrats have a 21% margin.  

Polls, usually closely watched in presidential elections, have lost much of their cache after their research was thoroughly discredited in the wake of President Trump's thumping of Hillary Clinton.  Pollsters had Clinton winning by a double-digit margin.  Both campaigns are gulping grains of salt with the polls.

Even a few pollsters are proclaiming that if their data is wrong again the industry will suffer a black-eye that will leave permanent damage to their credibility.  Polls have been politicized just like everything else in the country, which accounts for the large dose of public skepticism.   

According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Democrat Joe Biden should be polishing up his acceptance speech right now.  The polls as of November 1 have the former veep clinging to a seven percentage point lead.  However, Biden's lead has slipped from the 10.3% point edge on October 11. 

In the battleground states, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.  Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan are rated toss ups in the polls with neither candidate holding a solid lead.  In the last election, Mr. Trump picked off a few states that had been Democrat strongholds.

Especially in tight races, the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics likely will tilt the outcome.  There are worrisome signs for Democrats. Mr. Trump captured 8% of the black vote and 29% of Hispanics in 2016, which was enough to beat Ms. Clinton by razor-thin margins in Rust Belt states.

An Emerson College poll shows Mr. Trump increasing his margin with both key groups.  The latest figures have 19% of African-Americans voting for the incumbent and 41% of Hispanics.  If those percentages hold on election day, it will make Mr. Biden's ascension to the Oval Office more difficult. 

The turnout among voters 18-29 will be closely watched too. Former President Obama racked up solid majorities in this demographic which voted in record numbers. However, turnout collapsed in the Trump-Clinton race. The question lingers if the 77-year old Biden can energize turnout among young people. 

Perhaps, the biggest question of 2020 is this one: Will high turnout result in the over representation of older, white voters relative to their share of the population? This group provided Mr. Trump with an edge in the 2016 election. But defections among this group could be the Achilles Heel for his campaign.

One miscalculation by Democrats may turn out to be fatal.  The Biden-Harris camp has turned the election into a a referendum on Mr. Trump's handling of the Coronavirus.  According to Gallup, the top issue with 90% of voters is the economy.  The virus ranks fifth, behind terrorism, healthcare and crime.

Mr. Trump received a pre-election bump with third quarter data showing a 33% rise in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a proxy for the country's economic growth.  The surge means that the American economy has clawed back most of its pandemic losses, sitting now at 3.5% below the year-end for 2019.

Polls do not tell you who will actually vote.  All that matters in every presidential election is which candidate is most effective in turning out their respective political bases.  In every election, there are turnout surprises and this one is guaranteed to be no different. 

However, headed into election day Pew Research Center's latest survey of registered voters shows an 11-percentage point "enthusiasm" gap between the two candidates.  Of those supporting Biden, 57% are "strong" backers.  Mr. Trump fares better with 68% of his likely voters expressing "strong" support. 

If media still matters, then Biden should get a boost from the fawning news coverage his campaign has been accorded.  Evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS are significantly more negative toward President Trump, according to The Media Research Center (MRC).

The research group analyzed every episode of the three networks evening news from July 29 through October 20 and found 91% of Mr. Trump's coverage was negative.  Meanwhile, Biden had a 66% positive score.  Since Inauguration Day in 2017, MRC noted 90% of the Trump coverage has been negative.

When the voting tabulation begins November 3, expect agonizingly slow reporting of results in many states. Likely, more than a few states will be understaffed in verifying signatures on mail-in ballots. Three states are allowing mail-in ballot counting to continue past election day, further impeding timely results.

Both campaigns have assembled armies of lawyers and poll watchers to scour the nation sniffing for signs of voter suppression, ballot harvesting and mail-in ballot rejections.  Both sides already have been tussling in courts over mail-in voting. Presume a wave of court challenges and recounts after November 3. 

In the end, this campaign may not be decided by the voters.  It may come down to the candidate with the best legal team.  This bizarre election will likely lurch into the Twilight Zone.  The winner may not be known for weeks or months.  What else would you expect in 2020?

Demographic Data: Older Voters Are The Future

Conventional wisdom often is dead wrong.  Take the latest election hyperbole perpetuated by both major political parties.  Their widely accepted thesis is no presidential candidate can win without courting support from Millennials.  It has become the mantra of the 2020 presidential election.

In a recent column posted on Fox News, a political analysis appeared under the headline: "To Triumph in 2020, Republicans Will Need to Win Over Millennials." At the opposite end of the political media spectrum, NPR opined online, "The Game for 2020: Wooing Millennials."

This political obsession with Millennial voters is nothing new.  In 2016, virtually every political pundit forecast that Millennials would be the deciding factor in the presidential race.  Hillary Clinton won 53% of young voters, but lost the election.  So much for conventional wisdom.

Those who blindly embrace the theory of Millennial power have overlooked two easily discoverable facts.  One issue is a matter of simple demographic data.  The largest increase in voting age groups in the past few presidential elections has been Americans aged 65 and older, according to Census data.

The total number of citizens who reached voting age in the 2016 election increased by nine million from the 2012 presidential contest.  Of that number, six million or two-thirds were Americans aged 65 and over.  The country's electorate is graying, the opposite of what the media has portrayed.

An intelligent observer would expect the political parties to zero on seniors, especially in light of their propensity to show up on election day.  For the first time in decades, voters over 65 years old outnumbered those aged 18-34 in the 2016 presidential contest.  Let that sink in.

Somehow this fact has escaped the highly paid political consultant class.  Try this.  In 2008, Mr. Obama's win was fueled by the fact young voters outnumbered older ones by six million.  Eight years later, Mr. Trump was victorious because older voters exceeded youthful ones by more than a million.

For at least the next few election cycles, Census demographics underscore the importance of the senior vote, despite the media and political party hoopla about Generations X, Y and Z.  Pew Research estimates 23% of voters in the 2020 election will be 65-plus, the highest level since 1970.

Two trends are influencing this growth in older voters.  Birthrates have dwindled substantially since the baby boom period from 1946-1964.  And secondly, Americans are living longer than in any previous generation.  Those two data points are indisputable evidence of the Gray Wave.

The future should be clear by now.  In the war of generations, the old folks are winning at the ballot box.  Politicians ignore this at their own peril.  In fact, focusing on Millennials can actually alienate seniors because they tend to be more conservative than liberal-minded young people.

The other issue is the lower turnout rates for Millennials.  Analysis of voting over the last several decades confirms that people 65+ are more likely to cast votes than any other age group.  In the 2016 election, turnout for Millennials was 50%, compared to 71% for seniors, a yawning disparity.

Democrats are planning an urgent appeal to Millennials in 2020 to gin up enough excitement to motivate young people to show up.  The nadir for Millennial turnout was the 2008 election when Barrack Obama ignited youthful enthusiasm.  The turnout rate was still only 52%.

After looking at the historical data, Washington Post political columnist Phillip Bump concluded that a campaign that depends on the Millennial vote is "doomed to failure."  One political analyst in Mr. Bump's article noted that Millennials were "stuck to their phones and uninterested in politics."

Actually, that last comment may be another example of conventional wisdom gone awry.  The Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California found that today's Millennials are about as interested in politics as prior generations of American young people.

Studies show many Millennials are politically active in protests, demonstrations and on campuses.  However, they are less likely to vote or to influence others to go to the polls than their counterparts were in the 80's generation or the first wave of Boomers in the 1960's.

Tufts University reported that Millennials are often early in their careers with inflexible schedules that afford them less time to vote.  They also tend to be more mobile in these years, which could delay voter registration in their state.  But those things have always been true about young people.

Reviewing voting and Census data, a trend emerges that better explains this phenomenon. The numbers indicate that young people tend to have lower voter turnout in most every decade with a few exceptions.  As they get older, mature and their priorities change, they are more likely to vote.

But it is also true that as voters age they have historically become more conservative than they were when they were young.  Despite this fact, political gurus are insisting today's voters in their 20's and 30's are unlikely to change their views as they turn older.  We have heard that one before, too.

While Republicans and Democrats chase after those rabbits known as Millennials this election, those turtles sunning in their wheelchairs and pushing their walkers will decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest.  That prospect is enough to make a young person to stay home on election day.

Sizing Up the Midterm Election

Leading up to the November midterm election, the most hackneyed headline is: "Democrat Voter Enthusiasm Surging." Virtually every mainstream media propaganda machine has churned out stories predicting a Blue Wave sweeping Democrats into power.  Forecasters are ignoring the past.

In the last midterm election in 2014, the country recorded the lowest voter turnout in history.  Even by midterm standards, turnout was a clunker.  An anemic 36.4 percent of eligible voters bothered to go to the polls.  That was five percent less than 2012, another disappointing year for turnout.

Going back to 1916, midterm voter turnout has been significantly less than presidential election years. Since 1970, midterm election turnout has been sinking.  In every single one of those years, both political parties claimed voter enthusiasm was soaring off the charts.  Reality always bites.

Midterms since 1970 have generated turnout in the 40-percent range.  By comparison, presidential election years historically attract higher turnouts, mostly in the 60-percent range. The highest voter turnout in the midterms in recent history was the 1962 election with 47.7 percent.

The 2014 midterm is a likely predictor for the upcoming election.  That year was the most expensive midterm in United States history with an estimated $3.7 billion lavished on election campaigns.  Even gobs of cash failed to nudge the enthusiasm needle.  Turnout was the worst in 72 years.

Experts have analyzed midterm elections and written weighty tomes about why voters stay home. Voters lack interest.  Midterms don't have the sizzle of a presidential campaign.  There are fewer candidates on the ballot.  There are more excuses than votes cast.  (That's hyperbole by the way.)

So why will this midterm be different?  Because the media tells us so?  New polling data indicates that despite all the  media hype, this midterm may see an uptick in turnout, but mostly in Blue states. The rest of the country may follow the midterm norm. Expect frosty voter interest.

Already the two parties are hyperventilating about the long lines of early voters foreshadowing a record turnout.  However, analytics have shown there is no correlation.  In fact, a Pew Research analysis of past elections concluded that heavy early voting indicates a reduction in total turnout.

Early voting is billowing because growing numbers of people prefer to skip the long lines on election day. In the 1996 election, Pew found an estimated 10.5% of voters cast early ballots.  By the 2012 election, the number had zoomed to 36.6%.  In some states, more than 50% of people vote early.

There is no scientific evidence that early voting signals an inflated turnout, regardless of media claims to the contrary.  None.  Nada.  Perhaps this election will prove to be an outlier.  But claims that swollen early ballots is a precursor to heavy turnout should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Millennials may be a better barometer of turnout.  A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found that only 28 percent of young people aged 18-29 say they will "certainly vote."  That compares with 74 percent of seniors.  Midterms are a snooze for Millennials.

Latinos, another reliable Democrat voting bloc, normally sit out the midterms. A Pew Research analysis found a record 29 million Latinos are eligible to vote this year.  However, Latino turnout in the midterms has declined every year since 2006, tumbling to a historic low 27 percent in 2014.

Despite all the hubbub over the influence of the Latino vote, no one mentions that 71 percent of Hispanics who are eligible to vote live in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona and Illinois.  At least three of those states are traditionally Blue Dog Democrat strongholds.

In recent elections, the media point to the power of suburban professional women voters. Democrats traditionally do well with this group.  But even with this geographic solidly in the Blue corner, Democrats have to energize young and Latino voters to gain a clear advantage.

History may turn out to be the Democrats' best friend.  The president's party has lost seats in Congress in 40 of the 43 midterm elections held in the United States.  It's almost impossible to buck the trend.  The exceptions to the rule occurred in 1934, 1998 and 2002. Will 2018 follow the script?

One unknown factor is  the rising voter approval for President Trump.  In the most recent national poll his approval scaled a peak of 47 percent.  Going into the 2014 midterms, former President Obama's approval stood at 43 percent.  Will that three-point gap made a difference?  No one knows.

Pundits are making predictions based on outdated forecast models.  Put no faith in them because their sophisticated tools have been proven wrong too often. (See 2016 Presidential Election.) Tell me which voters will turnout and I will be able to forecast the winning party with 100 percent accuracy.

Ignore the polling, excessive campaign spending, targeted voter appeals and the media hype and party evangelism. This midterm will hinge on how many people actually go to the polls.  It's that simple. The rest is just mind-numbing political mumbo jumbo.