If the pandemic never happened what would the results have been?

[Tekken_Guy]

What would the results of the elections have looked like without the pandemic?

[Tekken_Guy]

Trump most likely wins losing only MI in an election sort of like Obama won re-election in 2012 losing only IN and NC.   But without the 2020 spring/summer riots I suspect GOP would do a bit worse down-ballot than reality.

I can’t see how the GOP does worse downballot if Trump is winning re-election. Downballot results almost certainly would have moved in the same direction the presidential topline did.

[Tekken_Guy]

Biden was essentially the same kind of establishment candidate that Hillary was; if Trump had not been distracted by culture wars, he could have employed the same playbook he used against Hillary to win re-election.

Except, again, Biden was never as unpopular as Clinton. "Culture wars" like COVID-related restrictions and riots were probably the only reason the election was even this close.

He also very much did try to employ the same playbook he used against Clinton, it just didn’t stick.

And the riots probably don't happen without COVID, at least not nearly to the same extent that they did in real life.

I should add that I still think COVID overall was a net negative for Trump, but that had more to do with how his handling of the pandemic became entangled with/inseparable from his personal conduct/unpopularity. If he hadn’t acted like the narcissist he is, he could have turned it into a winning issue (or at least a neutral one) rather than one which continuously reminded everyone of his egomania.

It definitely was a winnable election for Republicans, and it’s one any halfway competent Republican President with that record would have won. Even Trump had an incumbency advantage in 2020, it just wasn’t enough against an opponent far more popular/uncontroversial than Clinton. Of course Republicans also underperformed the overall fundamentals in 2018, again under Trump — if you look back on the entire Trump presidency/candidacy, it’s entirely possible that Trump's unpopularity and unique issues as a candidate delayed/concealed a Republican realignment which is only becoming evident now (as opposed to after November 2014, if a more skilled figure had led the party and won the nomination in 2016/been reelected in 2020). This might also partly explain why Democrats seem to be struggling so much right now — the Trump elections actually made the country look more Democratic than it is. Of course this is quite a different view from "Trump was the most electable candidate in 2016," but it’s one I’ve held for quite some time now. This also explains why the "low-propensity Trump voters" theory never really materialized this year.

I think this is mostly right.  Trump was a below replacement level Republican candidate and delayed  the realignment.  A generic R should have won the PV in 2016.  The idea that he has some unique base that otherwise stays home or votes Dem has clearly been debunked at this point.

I still think Trump would have won reelection without COVID, but it would not have been an impressive result.  Perhaps he picks up a couple of Clinton 2016 states and basically ties the PV, but his ceiling was below Bush 2004 in the PV and below Obama 2012 in the EC.  Downballot R's would do substantially better, though.  The House pretty clearly flips back in no COVID world and Pence would be on track to win in 2024 unless the economy crashed for some other reason. 

I would go a bit further and say that all he really had to do was be Generic Northern R on COVID (moderately pro-mask/social distancing until vaccination) and he would have gotten this result anyway.

The flip side of this is that a more Southern base type R might have had a significantly worse COVID response than Trump and then lost more dramatically.  Imagine a President Cruz gutting the CDC and throwing a giant Easter party in 2020?

What House races would have gone differently?

Also, what about the Senate or Governorships?

[Tekken_Guy]

Biden was essentially the same kind of establishment candidate that Hillary was; if Trump had not been distracted by culture wars, he could have employed the same playbook he used against Hillary to win re-election.

Except, again, Biden was never as unpopular as Clinton. "Culture wars" like COVID-related restrictions and riots were probably the only reason the election was even this close.

He also very much did try to employ the same playbook he used against Clinton, it just didn’t stick.

And the riots probably don't happen without COVID, at least not nearly to the same extent that they did in real life.

I should add that I still think COVID overall was a net negative for Trump, but that had more to do with how his handling of the pandemic became entangled with/inseparable from his personal conduct/unpopularity. If he hadn’t acted like the narcissist he is, he could have turned it into a winning issue (or at least a neutral one) rather than one which continuously reminded everyone of his egomania.

It definitely was a winnable election for Republicans, and it’s one any halfway competent Republican President with that record would have won. Even Trump had an incumbency advantage in 2020, it just wasn’t enough against an opponent far more popular/uncontroversial than Clinton. Of course Republicans also underperformed the overall fundamentals in 2018, again under Trump — if you look back on the entire Trump presidency/candidacy, it’s entirely possible that Trump's unpopularity and unique issues as a candidate delayed/concealed a Republican realignment which is only becoming evident now (as opposed to after November 2014, if a more skilled figure had led the party and won the nomination in 2016/been reelected in 2020). This might also partly explain why Democrats seem to be struggling so much right now — the Trump elections actually made the country look more Democratic than it is. Of course this is quite a different view from "Trump was the most electable candidate in 2016," but it’s one I’ve held for quite some time now. This also explains why the "low-propensity Trump voters" theory never really materialized this year.

I think this is mostly right.  Trump was a below replacement level Republican candidate and delayed  the realignment.  A generic R should have won the PV in 2016.  The idea that he has some unique base that otherwise stays home or votes Dem has clearly been debunked at this point.

I still think Trump would have won reelection without COVID, but it would not have been an impressive result.  Perhaps he picks up a couple of Clinton 2016 states and basically ties the PV, but his ceiling was below Bush 2004 in the PV and below Obama 2012 in the EC.  Downballot R's would do substantially better, though.  The House pretty clearly flips back in no COVID world and Pence would be on track to win in 2024 unless the economy crashed for some other reason. 

I would go a bit further and say that all he really had to do was be Generic Northern R on COVID (moderately pro-mask/social distancing until vaccination) and he would have gotten this result anyway.

The flip side of this is that a more Southern base type R might have had a significantly worse COVID response than Trump and then lost more dramatically.  Imagine a President Cruz gutting the CDC and throwing a giant Easter party in 2020?

What House races would have gone differently?

Also, what about the Senate or Governorships?

Governorships the same, but Perdue wins GA without a runoff, James wins in MI, and McSally potentially wins in AZ.

In the House, Republicans probably win IA-03, PA-17, PA-07, NJ-07, NV-03, VA-07, MN-02, IL-14, WI-03, and MI-11.

How would that have changed how redistricting plays out in your opinion?

[Tekken_Guy]

Biden was essentially the same kind of establishment candidate that Hillary was; if Trump had not been distracted by culture wars, he could have employed the same playbook he used against Hillary to win re-election.

Except, again, Biden was never as unpopular as Clinton. "Culture wars" like COVID-related restrictions and riots were probably the only reason the election was even this close.

He also very much did try to employ the same playbook he used against Clinton, it just didn’t stick.

And the riots probably don't happen without COVID, at least not nearly to the same extent that they did in real life.

I should add that I still think COVID overall was a net negative for Trump, but that had more to do with how his handling of the pandemic became entangled with/inseparable from his personal conduct/unpopularity. If he hadn’t acted like the narcissist he is, he could have turned it into a winning issue (or at least a neutral one) rather than one which continuously reminded everyone of his egomania.

It definitely was a winnable election for Republicans, and it’s one any halfway competent Republican President with that record would have won. Even Trump had an incumbency advantage in 2020, it just wasn’t enough against an opponent far more popular/uncontroversial than Clinton. Of course Republicans also underperformed the overall fundamentals in 2018, again under Trump — if you look back on the entire Trump presidency/candidacy, it’s entirely possible that Trump's unpopularity and unique issues as a candidate delayed/concealed a Republican realignment which is only becoming evident now (as opposed to after November 2014, if a more skilled figure had led the party and won the nomination in 2016/been reelected in 2020). This might also partly explain why Democrats seem to be struggling so much right now — the Trump elections actually made the country look more Democratic than it is. Of course this is quite a different view from "Trump was the most electable candidate in 2016," but it’s one I’ve held for quite some time now. This also explains why the "low-propensity Trump voters" theory never really materialized this year.

I think this is mostly right.  Trump was a below replacement level Republican candidate and delayed  the realignment.  A generic R should have won the PV in 2016.  The idea that he has some unique base that otherwise stays home or votes Dem has clearly been debunked at this point.

I still think Trump would have won reelection without COVID, but it would not have been an impressive result.  Perhaps he picks up a couple of Clinton 2016 states and basically ties the PV, but his ceiling was below Bush 2004 in the PV and below Obama 2012 in the EC.  Downballot R's would do substantially better, though.  The House pretty clearly flips back in no COVID world and Pence would be on track to win in 2024 unless the economy crashed for some other reason.  

I would go a bit further and say that all he really had to do was be Generic Northern R on COVID (moderately pro-mask/social distancing until vaccination) and he would have gotten this result anyway.

The flip side of this is that a more Southern base type R might have had a significantly worse COVID response than Trump and then lost more dramatically.  Imagine a President Cruz gutting the CDC and throwing a giant Easter party in 2020?

What House races would have gone differently?

Also, what about the Senate or Governorships?

Governorships the same, but Perdue wins GA without a runoff, James wins in MI, and McSally potentially wins in AZ.

In the House, Republicans probably win IA-03, PA-17, PA-07, NJ-07, NV-03, VA-07, MN-02, IL-14, WI-03, and MI-11.

How would that have changed how redistricting plays out in your opinion?

Don’t think a whole lot would have changed.  

IA: Because this was done by commissions I don't see a whole lot changing. We probably still get the same 4-0 Trump map.

PA: PA-07 is naturally a more Democratic district than PA-08 on the presidential level and I don't think it is possible to change that without making dramatic changes. I'd think Republicans would make a deal with Democrats to add Carbon into PA-07 while PA-08 takes in all the blues parts of Monroe. As for PA-17 I don't think either party has any other seats at stake here. I guess Dems may trade it for a safe seat for Houlahan.

NJ: Do Democrats concede NJ-07 to being a Likely-to-Safe R Trump-won seat in exchange for an NJ-05 that's even stronger than the one they got?

NV: Do Dems concede NV-03 to Republicans and go all out on shoring up NV-04?

VA: This was also drawn by a commission, though with Freitas in congress I could see them putting all of Fauquier and Rappahanock in the seat in exchange for less of Prince William. Maybe as a trade of Dems get a safer VA-02?

MN: Probably stays the same. Reps probably flip the MN house back in this timeline so they may heve more leverage in pushing to protect Kistner's seat. I don't think there's a realistic way to get it to being an IRL Trump seat that keeps Dakota whole without a really bad gerrymander, though.

IL: Yes, Oberweis still gets nuked in redistricting though he'll have a slight chance at holding on given the bad 2022 environment. (EDIT: scratch that, if Trump won re-election in this timeline he's toast.)

WI: With WI-03 gone I could see Dems' priorities shifting to weakening WI-01.

MI: With James now a Senator, Esshaki can waltz into the new MI-10 as an incumbent, and Levin will get MI-11 all to himself.