Royce Carroll
The 2020 election was undoubtedly a pivotal election for the United States. The Trump administration had been marked by a series of dramatic and sometimes chaotic controversies as well as a series of important policy events, including significant changes in foreign policy. This also came with a series of breaks with political norms, which led to widespread concern about the erosion of democracy. While Trump has been unpopular overall, his base of supporters drawn to his populist message has been extremely stable–despite negative impressions of his performance with regard to the COVID-19 crisis. While Biden enjoyed broader support during the campaign, very high enthusiasm among Trump’s support base counteracted this to make for an uncertain outcome in the electoral college. In addition, both sides are increasingly motivated by negative partisanship, focused more on undermining and disempowering the opposite party. This contentious context meant that both sides perceived high stakes for the election outcome, which was seen as a referendum on Trump as an individual more than a comparison between the policy records or proposals. Turnout, was therefore substantially higher than recent elections, reaching levels not seen in over 100 years.
With both sides increasing in participation, the dynamics did not shift dramatically from 2016, with many of the same close states the same as those seen in 2016. Biden was widely viewed as likely to win the popular vote, but the electoral college outcome depended on less certain ‘swing states.’ In 2020, campaign attention focused in particular on the three traditionally Democratic-leaning states that Trump won unexpectedly by small margins in 2016 — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — as well as Florida, a traditional ‘battleground’ state narrowly won by Barack Obama. Biden also had polled well in other states where Trump won by comfortable margins in 2016, particularly North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia. Meanwhile, some states considered battlegrounds during the last several elections settled into the partisan pattern established in 2016, such as Colorado and Iowa leaning more strongly Democratic and Republican, respectively.
Like Hillary Clinton in 2016, Biden underperformed expectations generated by many state-level polls. Polling showed Biden persistently ahead in many competitive states needed for winning the electoral college, some of which he ultimately won by very small margins. Meanwhile, other states reported as close in polling ultimately resulted in Trump victories of 3-6%. Such polling discrepancies have been attributed sometimes to social desirability bias — voters under-reporting their support for Trump — but this is not firmly established. Polling accuracy was undermined at minimum by the persistent issues of substantial non-response bias and inaccurate models of predicted turnout.
Putting aside the unexpectedly small margins that Biden relied on in key states, the outcomes were arguably within the range of expectations, with Biden narrowly winning back the industrial “rust belt” states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. More significant to Democrats in terms of gains was their narrow wins in the historically Republican-leaning states of Arizona and Georgia. Georgia in particular was seen as challenging territory, but benefited from an especially energetic local party effort that worked to register new voters.
Less surprising was the fact that Trump was the early count leader on election night in many states where he ultimately lost when counts concluded. The reason for this was the large number of mail-in ballots, which were common due to the pandemic conditions, and which in many key states were counted only after same-day ballots were tallied. Democrats were more likely to use the mail-in voting methods for a variety of reasons, including that the Trump campaign actively discouraged this among its supporters. As a result, states that counted votes mail-in votes after same-day voting, such as Pennsylvania, saw Biden’s votes concentrated among the votes counted latest in the process. Although the projections began to take shape in Biden’s favor by a day later, several days of additional counting were needed to complete counts.
Trump made clear before the election that he intended to challenge the outcome in the event of a loss, with a focus on questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. After the election, this effort became focused on invalidating mail-in ballots using arguments related to matters such as the arrival time and ballot verification processes. Trump has also requested recounts in several states. At this moment, legal efforts initiated so far do not appear to be successful and recounts are not expected to alter results.
Demographically, Biden’s most overt strategy was to appeal to suburban white voters, especially women, across various metropolitan regions, which had already moved away from Republicans in 2018. This aim was largely achieved, notably facilitating Biden’s wins in Georgia and Arizona, but also in states that were lost overall such as Texas and North Carolina.
Despite efforts to reach out, Trump did not gain substantially among Black voters, but Biden also failed to restore the Black support for Democrats present during Obama’s presidency. Trump did gain substantially among Hispanic voters, however, returning to support levels seen by Republicans in the past, after considerable emphasis on outreach. Trump’s broad anti-immigration rhetoric — a signature of the 2016 campaign — was more narrowly focused in 2020. Trump was therefore better positioned to appeal to Hispanic voters that had supported Republicans in the past. Trump’s improvements in Texas border counties were especially notable in a state where his performance declined overall compared to 2016.
Improvements with Hispanic voters were most important in Florida, where Trump strongly emphasized political issues pertinent to communities connected to Latin American countries. Trump focused on opposition to the region’s leftist leaders in order to target Florida’s Venezuelan, Colombian, and Cuban populations. Trump specifically emphasized his opposition to Maduro, Petro and Castro. Combined with motivated Republican support in rural areas, Trump’s strategy to reach Hispanic voters in Florida appeared fruitful.
The overall pattern of the 2020 election continued the deepening rural-urban split that has emerged as the parties have become more homogeneous on cultural matters and starkly divided on these issues. Perhaps more importantly–and ominously–broader social identities have crystalized around the partisan divide, such that ideological divisions have given way to an ‘affective’ polarization characterized by deep group antagonism. These divides shape both the environment leading up to the election and a potentially acrimonious aftermath, which presents a highly uncertain pathway to political reconciliation.
In line with Biden’s relatively small margins, Democrats underperformed expectations in Congressional elections, losing seats in the House and failing to make sufficient gains to ensure control of the Senate. This was in part because some Democratic gains in 2018 were made in Republican-leaning districts. In addition, a number of “split ticket” voters opposed Trump while supporting other Republicans. The question of whether Republicans control the Senate is not yet resolved because Georgia’s two races require a runoff because no candidate won a majority. Democrats would need to win both seats – a difficult task despite considerable resources focused on the state.
Assuming that Republicans continue to control the Senate, the emerging dynamics will likely most resemble the pattern of gridlock seen under Obama, though perhaps even starker. The Republican Senate Majority leader has made explicit the intention of his majority to block not only legislation but also likely a wide array of appointments in order to minimize the policy impact of a Biden presidency. In the background will be a historic degree of partisan polarization, which may be further exacerbated by Trump supporters’ perceptions about the integrity of the election.
