I teach a course at the University of Chicago on presidential elections, and I hear the same kind of question from friends on both the right and the left. The Republicans I grew up with in western Kansas cannot understand why former US president Donald Trump is not far ahead in the polls, whereas the Democrats who surround me in Chicago wonder how it can possibly be that US Vice President Kamala Harris is not running away with the race.
These are the right questions for understanding contemporary US politics. For all its unusual aspects — not least Harris’s sudden appearance as the Democratic standard-bearer — the dynamics of this year’s campaign, like the two that preceded it, are typical of presidential elections going back at least 80 years. However, two features of this campaign do represent a significant departure from decades of historical experience. The first is cause for consternation among Democrats, and the second is a source of frustration for Republicans.
Start with the Democrats. Consistent with historical precedent, the nominee of the party that controls the White House is facing strong electoral headwinds. If Harris wins, she would be the first nominee of the incumbent party in 76 years to be elected despite a presidential approval rating below 50 percent at the time of the election.
Illustration: Yusha
Since polling began in the early 1940s, the only nominee to win under such circumstances was Harry Truman in 1948. He had a 40 percent job approval rating (although this was last measured four and a half months before election day).
Since then, seven candidates have tried to outrun an unpopular incumbent of the same party and seven have failed, most recently Trump himself, whose approval rating on election day in 2020 was 46 percent.
US President Joe Biden’s approval rating is 39 percent, six points below Harris’ approval as vice president (45 percent), analytics company Gallup said.
The relationship between presidential approval ratings and election outcomes underscores the conventional view that elections are referenda on the performance of the party in power. The problems that have beset Biden abroad (Ukraine and Gaza) and at home (migrants crossing the southern border) have raised concerns in voters’ minds. Biden has also presided over an election-year economy that has been good by some measures (growth in GDP), but not very good by others (growth in personal disposable income).
Voters might well be myopic or overestimate the control a president has over complex systems such as the economy, not to mention the decisions of ordinary people and world leaders. It is typical for voters to mete out too much blame for bad times and to give too much credit for good times. Either way, the president — and presidential candidates — can do little to affect such judgments. In politics, as in many endeavors, it is better to be lucky than right.
Thus, Harris is not running away with the election, because the “fundamentals” that structure elections are unfavorable to the Democrats as the party of the incumbent. The difficulties that Harris has had in pulling ahead are perfectly explicable as the normal pattern of US presidential elections.
Trump, on the other hand, has managed, to an unprecedented degree, to center elections on himself, thrilling many voters while appalling many others.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton in 2016 was the most unpopular presidential nominee in recent history, except for Trump. Moreover, the resistance to Trump has remained consistently high, with his unfavorability rating exceeding his favorability rating since 2016.
Similarly, Trump was extraordinarily unpopular as president. He is the only chief executive whose Gallup approval rating never cracked 50 percent while in office. His average job approval of 41 percent was the lowest ever, four points below former US president Jimmy Carter’s.
Never in history has the candidate himself been so central. Even former US president Ronald Reagan, renowned for his popular appeal, did not dominate elections the way Trump has (both to his advantage and to his detriment) through his personality. Reagan achieved his victories in 1980 and 1984 in circumstances much more favorable to his party; his “charisma” was more the effect of his electoral success than its cause.
The resistance to Trump began within his own party. Republican officeholders withheld their support until he had wrapped up the 2016 nomination. Republican-leaning newspapers endorsed his opponent or no one at all, and most Republicans in leadership were wary of his demagogy, incendiary rhetoric, rejection of long-standing Republican policy principles, and personal faults and deportment. Most came around to him, but some did not.
Others grew alienated during the grueling experience of the Trump presidency. For some Republicans (and independents), the last straw was his loyalty to himself over his party and country when it came to endorsing candidates and dealing with foreign allies and adversaries. For others, it was his pandering to evangelicals, his embrace of isolationism, and his indulgence of racist white nationalists. For still others, it was his attempt to steal the 2020 election, culminating in the uniquely shameful attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Most Democrats and many independents, of course, have resisted Trump from the start.
Thus, the reason Trump is not running away with the election is Trump himself. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Republicans would be the favorites in a normal year with a normal candidate. However, this is not a normal year, because Trump is not a normal candidate.
The US electorate’s decision is being influenced by the quotidian concerns that usually structure election outcomes and by one outsize personality. Never has the latter been such a key consideration. Hundreds of thousands of voters — perhaps millions — are putting aside their party loyalty, policy priorities and complaints about current conditions to stand against a candidate they consider unfit for the presidency and unworthy of election. We would soon know whether politics as usual or unusual politics would carry the day.
John Mark Hansen, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is a former coordinator of the research task force on the federal election system for the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, an independent, bipartisan commission which was cochaired by former US presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
RSS