Why is This Race Even Close?

If you’re like me and received a degree in political science, you might as well rip it up.  All that you learned from your experience in college while majoring in poli-sci—the models, the theories, the trends, the paradigms, everything—has been turned upside down in this 2020 presidential election cycle.

We always believed that an incumbent president seeking reelection would defend his record and not do stupid stuff to create doubts. Yet, with Donald Trump, he has done and said many dumb things with some more serious than others. I pointed out some recent miscues here as if he was trying to lose. Still, he remained close in the polls. #hocopolitics

Throughout his term, he has been the recipient of bad press emanating from a host of tell-all books that have ripped Trump’s intellect, lack of curiosity, temperament, competence, judgment, honesty and a bevy of other flaws.  I cannot think of a case where an individual in the know wrote a flattering piece about Trump. They’ve all been scathing indictments from former administration officials, journalists, intelligence officials, his long-time personal lawyer, and even family members.  Still, he remains close in the polls.

Then came a stinging bombshell story in The Atlantic  whereby Trump reportedly denigrated wartime casualties and POWs as “losers” and “suckers.”  These remarks were essentially verified by several news outlets including Trump favorite Fox News. Trump’s denials as well as those from his allies rang hollow given his public disparagement of war hero and POW John McCain.

As for his defense by his press secretary and others in his administration, how would they know what he said or didn’t say unless they have been in his company 24/7?  Two people who did not step forward to defend Trump were notably former chief of staff General John Kelly and former Defense Secretary General James Mattis. How these revelations did not trigger outrage from veterans and POW/MIA groups is beyond me. I wonder how those on active duty with some serving in harm’s way felt after learning what their commander-in-chief allegedly said.  Still, he remains close in the polls.

Trump’s insufficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic will probably be the key issue during this cycle. We bore witness to his lack of seriousness and leadership as the coronavirus hit a second gear and triggered an economic calamity the likes of which the country has not seen in many decades. 

Recall, how he called the virus “the Democrats’ new hoax” and that it is under control and it will miraculously disappear. Trump played it down when he realized that the virus was targeting blue states and more specifically people of color. He scoffed at those who kept social distancing, wore masks and blasted mostly Democratic officials for not jumping in with two feet to re-open businesses and schools. They did so to help spread the virus further. Trump even suggested dubious and dangerous therapeutics like ingesting bleach. Still, he remains close in the polls.

Well, it hit the fan with the previews of famed journalist Bob Woodward’s book Rage, which is about to be made public. All the suspicions about Trump’s failures during the pandemic came to light, which have been backed up by audio of Trump’s own answers to questions covered by some 18 interviews with Woodward. Trump’s best retort is that the book is “fake,” failing to grasp that his own words were used and were damning. Still, he remains close in the polls.

Why, then, is the race so tight even though Joe Biden has held a steady lead? This isn’t 2016 when Trump was merely a TV star and failed businessman and was considered entertaining to some. His opponent had been reviled by the Republican hit machine for decades and couldn’t get from under the baggage she was carrying.

There isn’t that level of animosity towards Biden. Moreover, the Democratic Party is more unified given the imperative that Trump be defeated.

As opposed to 2016, Trump has a record, and it’s not very pretty. Yet, he remains close in the polls.

The answer seems to be that much of Trump’s unyielding support stems from the fact they hate the same people he does: African-Americans, the BLM movement, protesters,  immigrants especially Mexicans and Hispanics in general, Muslims, and liberal Democrats among others. Of course, there are others solidly in Trump’s camp but I believe that the bigoted MAGA folks are the core.  

Many supporters are QAnon conspiracy believers, coronavirus deniers, climate change deniers, and white supremacists.  They form the foundation of his base, and they are frothing at the mouth to see that Trump gets 4 more years.

With such a shoddy record, Trump should be way behind. But that’s under the old rules of politics. The country is deeply divided and few are undecided. The upcoming debates will be hyped and considered must-see TV.  Each side will claim victory though there aren’t that many persuadable voters remaining to make much of a difference either way. The fact check industry, however, should get a huge boost from Trump’s participation.

Like 2020, which has been the weirdest of years, one thing remains constant in this election cycle from how it was back in the day when I studied politics. This November’s election will be decided by who and how many actually vote. It’s that simple.

Nice Guys Finish First

During the heat of an election campaign we hear some people deride an opposing candidate as being a “nice guy” as if that’s a liability. (For the purpose of this post, the term “nice guy” in the vernacular applies to both genders.)  The context being the person has different values, positions and a faulty record, but his being a “nice guy” might carry him through the day. 

It could if history has anything to do with it.

One of the many axioms in politics is not to downplay a candidate’s likability.  This is not to suggest that likability is sufficient to win an election. Stances on specific issues, party affiliation, the current political environment, the opponent, oratory skills, the amount of money raised and spent, endorsements, record, biography, and voter turnout are among those factors in shaping an election.  #hocopolitics

But likability is a major strength especially if voters are not engaged on the issues or are not informed regarding the candidates.  It could be decisive with other factors being equal, and all politicians would be wise to make that an asset for themselves.

Throughout history, likability has frequently been a rationale for voters.  It became more prevalent starting with the Kennedy-Nixon contest in 1960 when television, for the first time, was a major element in the election campaign.  Most pundits opined that the televised debate between those two candidates was the turning point.  Nixon looked nervous, sweaty and pale on black and white television though he was the more experienced politician, while the young John F. Kennedy seemed alert, fresh and vibrant.  Of course, Nixon had been suffering from a cold and eschewed using make-up, but he won the debate on the merits.  Nonetheless, Nixon lost the night because of the optics.    

Voters around the country gave Kennedy a closer look and liked what they saw.  They fell in love with his beautiful, glamorous wife and young daughter, and Kennedy himself possessed strong oratory skills, charisma and was inspirational.  In short, enough of the voters liked him, his personality and his family to hand him a slim margin of victory at the polls.  Nixon, seen as glum, was doomed to falter to the more pleasant Kennedy.

There are exceptions, of course, but other presidential contests demonstrated how likability may have been a determinant.  There was the affable, sunny Ronald Reagan winning over the turgid Jimmy Carter.  Folksy, down-home Bill Clinton defeating the privileged George H.W. Bush (with a little help from Ross Perot).  Jocular George W. Bush losing the votes but winning the Electoral College over the stiff and sighing Al Gore (assisted by Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court).  And Bush again edging another stiff one, John Kerry.

Then you have the historic candidacy of Barack Obama—a far more likable chap than the cranky John McCain and mega-rich snob Mitt Romney—winning two terms.  He even gave a nod to the likability factor as he famously told Hillary Clinton during a primary debate, “You’re likeable enough Hillary.”  But that retort backfired on the political neophyte as it was seen as patronizing.

Those likable candidates mentioned above would have won those elections regardless of likability because there were overriding issues that interested and engaged the electorate. But there is no doubt that favorable trait played a role in their success. 

Any political advisor or consultant worth his or her salt would tell you that it is critical to be likable.  This is especially applicable in local contests when issues typically don’t rise to the level of national security and other broad concerns.  It could be a difference maker. 

The way to deal with that during a campaign is to either drive up the likable opponent’s negatives or improve their own favorability.  Those already holding elected office could look back and note that their likability may have helped put them in those jobs. 

The value of likability should never be underestimated even if elections are rarely won or lost based on that alone.  However, on most occasions it seems that nice guys do finish first.