Since the Watergate reforms, a pattern has emerged in presidential elections that should inform any strategy Democrats pursue in unseating Donald Trump. Whenever the voters choose to switch parties in the White House, they always choose a candidate who contrasts sharply with the characteristics they most dislike about the person they last elected.
History
In 1976, voters passed the White House from Republican Gerald Ford to Democrat Jimmy Carter. Carter was not well-qualified for the job – he had been a one-term governor of Georgia – and he was hardly the most charismatic politician. What Carter had going for him was that he seemed strikingly honest and humble. In the average election year, honest and humble won’t get a candidate far, but this was a specific election, and in 1976, honest and humble were the most desired qualities. What voters hated most about the President they had elected last was Nixon’s corruption in pursuit of his own power. Voters were hungry for the honesty and humility Nixon so sorely lacked, and Carter had them in abundance.
Then, after four years of Carter being honest about the fact that he felt powerless to solve America’s problems, voters elected Republican Ronald Reagan, who projected all the self-confidence of John Wayne and the optimism that seemed a perfect antidote to Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence.”
The White House next changed parties in 1992. Republican George Bush was popular until the economy crashed, and voters didn’t see Bush trying very hard to solve it. Bush essentially told the American people not to worry our pretty little heads about it, that the problem wasn’t that bad and it would go away by itself. Democrat Bill Clinton worked hard to forge an economic plan of action endorsed by six Nobel Prize-winning economists. He held town halls where he convinced voters he felt their pain in that bad economy and he shared their desperation to end it. That made him the winner.
In 2000, the White House changed parties again, but that didn’t reflect the will of the voters so much as some malfunctioning election equipment and some political shenanigans. The next time voters chose to switch parties was in 2008. While George W. Bush was not on the ballot that year, he had set the stage for that election as surely as Nixon had set the stage for the Ford-Carter race. Bush was often viewed as a frat boy, showing little interest in knowing important details. Barack Obama’s personality was described most frequently as “professorial.” Bush had gotten us into a war that was growing unpopular, and Obama could boast he had opposed the war from day one. While technically, the choice was between Obama and John McCain, Obama was the one who most clearly contrasted against Bush, and the voters chose Obama.
The most recent party-switch was, of course, 2016, when we went from “No Drama Obama” to a man who is all drama all the time. That was no accident. Americans had spent eight years suffering through a sluggish economy under a president who never seemed particularly bothered. Donald Trump was a symbol of America’s frustration. Trump promised dramatic action, and he showed the intensity and the recklessness to deliver.
The Strategy for 2020
If Donald Trump is voted out of office in 2020, he will lose to someone who represents a counterbalance to the qualities voters most dislike about Trump. Pete Buttigieg is a good example of this. While Buttigieg lacks many things a candidate should have, he has a personality well-suited to defeating Trump.
Voters dislike Trump’s crassness, and Trump looks especially crass when compared to the decency and dignity Buttigieg projects.
Voters dislike Trump’s stupidity, and Trump looks especially stupid when compared to a Rhodes Scholar who speaks eight languages.
Voters dislike Trump’s condescending attitude, and Trump looks especially condescending when compared to Buttigieg, who shows nothing but respect for every person he addresses.
Voters dislike Trump’s selfishness, putting his personal interest and ego ahead of the nation’s wellbeing. Compare that to Buttigieg, who had the brains to go anywhere and chose a lifetime of low-paying public service in the military and in local government.
A race between Buttigieg and Trump would remind voters of what they dislike about Trump while offering voters an alternative that looks all the more attractive after Trump’s time in power.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has many of those strengths as well. The woman who volunteered for military service when she knew we were going to war can certainly offer a refreshing change from Trump’s self-centeredness. And her eagerness to reach out beyond her party’s base and speak to all voters (She’s as comfortable speaking to Tucker Carlson’s audience as she is Bill Mahar’s) would offer quite a contrast against America’s most polarizing president.
The danger for Democrats is nominating someone who contrasts against Trump in the wrong way – in a way that reminds voters of qualities they like about Trump.
Trump-voters tells us what they like most about him is his authenticity. As Dennis Miller puts it, "That guy won because, for better or for worse, his outer voice is an accurate depiction of his inner voice. And I don't think [voters] thought Hillary Clinton's inner voice and outer voice have ever even had a cup of coffee together."
Imagine how much more authentic Trump will appear if he runs against Elizabeth Warren, a woman who seems willing to say anything to pander to the politically correct. In her prepared opening statement at the first Democratic debate, Warren actually said the word “Latinx,” a term so PC that even Rachel Maddow and Julian Castro refused to touch it, but Warren wanted to sound more woke. Warren spent years claiming to be a “woman of color,” though after a much-publicized DNA test, she now admits she’s been white all along. Put Warren up against Trump, and Trump will look more authentic than ever.
In 2016, Democrats were relentless in calling Trump a racist. And while the word “racist” makes most white politicians run for cover and issue phony apologies in a plea for mercy, Trump never flinched. Across America, voters who have themselves been called racist (both fairly and unfairly) admired his courage and his strength. Trump himself clearly understands how this helps him. His recent “back where they came from” tweet begged Democrats to call him racist while it deliberately elevated those Democrats most likely to do so. And after his tweet got the expected reaction from Democrats, Trump’s popularity is higher than ever.
So imagine a race between Trump and Kamala Harris. She enjoyed her first climb in the polls by playing the race card against Joe Biden. It left Biden scrambling for cover, and it convinced many Democrats that Harris is a tough fighter. But what happens when she throws that punch at Trump? He just gets one more chance to show his voters how fearlessly he can shrug off being called a racist.
Lack of contrast can also be risky. Joe Biden portrays himself as a tough guy who can bully the best of them – like Trump! So with Biden vs. Trump, voters will be more forgiving of Trump’s eagerness to fight dirty, and they’ll see less advantage to replacing one with the other. Bernie Sanders, a crotchety old man with bad hair who yells a lot, may have his own trouble contrasting Trump.
There are many candidates running who would do great in a typical election against a typical Republican. But if Democrats want to win in 2020, fighting against Donald Trump, they must put up a candidate who is not merely better than Trump, but whose personality is well-suited to the mood Trump has put the country in, a candidate who contrasts strongly with Trump’s most unattractive personality traits and offers voters the antidote they seek.
Which candidate do you think is best suited to unseat Trump, and why?