During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) seemed to acknowledge that President Donald Trump, his own party’s nominee, was far from guaranteed to win a second presidential term.
Graham made the comment while speculating on how Americans will vote this year based on judicial nominations to the Supreme Court made by presidents belonging to each party.
“Republicans generally look at people of a disposition like Judge Barrett,” Graham said. “Democrats generally look at people of a disposition like Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan.”
“Now, y’all have a good chance of winning the White House,” Graham added, referring to the Democrats in the committee.
“Thank you for acknowledging that,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) responded.
“Yeah, I think it’s true,” Graham continued. “I think the public will go into the voting booth, and they’ll say, ‘Okay, I’ve seen the kind of judges Democrats will nominate, I’ve seen the kind of judges Republicans will nominate’ — that will be important to people.”
A number of polls have demonstrated that Trump is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden, and by a significant amount. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, for example, finds that just 41 percent of likely voters will back Trump for a second term, while 51 percent say they will cast a ballot (or have already done so) for Biden.
Of course, national polling data does not provide a final picture of the potential election outcome, due to the all-important Electoral College. According to the Constitution, a candidate must win a majority of Electoral College votes from states across the nation in order to become the president (since 1964, that number has been 270).
Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 while at the same time losing the popular vote against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. So how does he fare this time around, at this moment?
On that question, the incumbent president is also seemingly behind. Current projections from NPR find that Biden is likely to win 290 Electoral College votes in this year’s race, while Trump is set to attain 163 votes. Eighty-five Electoral College votes are still a toss-up, according to NPR’s predictions.
The Cook Political Report’s projections are identical to NPR’s — 163 for Trump, 290 for Biden, and 85 toss-up states.
In short, Trump’s path to victory is narrowing. To have a shot at winning reelection, he will have to flip voters in states Biden is projected to win (with at least 21 Electoral College votes among them), plus win all five toss-up states (and one of Maine’s congressional districts), in order to win a second term.
That will be an immensely difficult task to accomplish. Currently, polls in the six battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are averaging in favor of Biden, by 4.9 points on average according to data from RealClearPolitics.
It’s possible that Trump could turn things around between now and Election Day. Indeed, the gap in polling in battleground states between him and Clinton at this point in the 2016 election season was actually wider, and yet Trump still managed to win the election (by getting more Electoral College votes) less than three weeks later.
For many political pundits that year, it was considered a given that Clinton would cruise to victory. Instead, she narrowly lost in three key states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, securing Trump’s Electoral College win.
Still, the possibility of that happening again is minute, according to FiveThirtyEight, which notes that Trump only has a 13 percent chance of winning this year’s presidential race. Biden, conversely, has an 87 percent chance of winning.
All of these projections, of course, rely on the assumption that Trump will agree to respect the outcome of the election. In fact, Trump has refused to make such concessions, even before votes have been counted, leading many to worry about whether he will leave office if he loses in November.
A number of scenarios in which Trump refuses to accept the results have been considered. He may enlist Republican lawmakers in a number of states to bypass the popular vote completely, for example, granting him their Electoral College votes through state legislatures rather than by actual voters’ preferences.
Trump may also try to delegitimize the results by rejecting voting by absentee ballots. He has for months railed against the idea of mail-in voting, wrongly depicting it as rife with fraud. Millions of voters are voting by mail to avoid contracting COVID-19.
Many of Trump’s supporters have already signaled a willingness to come to the president’s aid, in some deeply disturbing ways. Perhaps anticipating a contentious election outcome, the president is mobilizing an “army for Trump,” asking for “all able-bodied men and women to stop the election from being stolen by Democrats.”
It’s unclear what this “army” is meant to do — if this is a literal call for physical intervention — but the call itself, and the language used by Trump, indicates he may try to hold on to power through questionable and potentially violent means, in spite of how the electorate votes.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.