AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org
5
was really the pundits in 2016.
Tom Bevan: You literally couldn't turn on your TV or your computer or your radio without
hearing someone say with this faux statistical certainty, “It's a 92.46% chance that
Hillary Clinton has this race in the bag.” I mean these were not just cranks on the
internet. This was David Plouffe who was on ABC News in September, saying,
“There's 100% chance that she's going to win this election.” This is Sam Wang of
Princeton University, et cetera, et cetera. I think the problem in 2016 … There's
definitely data to suggest that Hillary Clinton did have that race well in hand, but I
think if that was your preconceived narrative, you filtered that data through, but
the reality is that there were other data points that suggested that that race was
very competitive. Very competitive. That's why I think a lot of the pundits missed
that.
Tom Bevan: Now, to your point, Danielle, yes, there was … I think one of the big misses that
pollsters did not account for education. They did not account for the rural swing
in some of those upper Midwestern states and that's why Trump over performed
particularly in a place like Wisconsin. Do they have it in hand this time? Some are
waiting by education. Some are not. There's still some indication that there might
be some shy Trump votes out there. We'll have to see, but the problem for
Donald Trump is right now, it would have to be a very significant amount
Marc Thiessen: There was a Gallup Poll that came out, that said, “56% of Americans say they're
better off now than they were four years ago. 49% say they agree with Trump on
the issues, as compared to 46% for Biden” yet in your RCP average, he's basically
only getting 42% of the vote. That means there is a significant number of people
and Americans who agree with Donald Trump, like his stewardship of the
economy, think he's done a good job on policy, but just don't like him and don't
plan to vote for him again. I mean is the problem his personality? I get the sense
that that debate could have been the end for him in the sense that a lot of people
just looked at his performance, all the interrupting, and just said, “I can't take four
more years of this.” Is that possible?
Tom Bevan: Sure. Absolutely. I think that's why Trump missed an opportunity, even in a virtual
setting, to get back on the debate stage with Joe Biden. We've seen presidents
have bad debates initially. Obama had one in 2012. Ronald Reagan had one.
They bounced back in the next debate and so over the course of the three
debates, there wasn't a whole lot of change overall. I think that was an
opportunity for Trump to show back up and be a different Trump, perhaps a
better Trump, talking to voters instead of talking directly to Joe Biden, but he's
going to have to wait. Assuming that third debate even happens now, which I
think it's maybe a 50/50 proposition that even happens, he's going to have to
wait until the very end to get that chance. It's quite possible, I mean, but that's
another interesting thing.
Tom Bevan: Sean Trende was just talking about this the other day on our podcast. His job
approval rating is back up to 44.7%, but he's at 42%. So, who are these voters
who approve of Donald Trump, approve of the job he's doing, but are not going
to vote for him? Are they just lying? Are they saying they're undecided, when in
fact maybe they already have decided that they're going to vote for him? Or is it a
situation where, like you said, Marc, they like his policies and they like the job he