sign in sign up
<<
Home , Swing state

November 02, 2020

Economics Group

Special Commentary Michael Pugliese, Economist [email protected] ● (212) 214-5058

The 2020 Presidential Election: The Final Update Executive Summary With Election Day finally upon us, remains in the driver’s seat on the road for control of the White House. Biden’s lead in both the national polls and key battleground states exceeds ’s polling lead on Election Day 2016. As things stand today, a polling error roughly the size of the one that occurred in 2016 would likely not be enough to flip the election to President Trump. Control of the U.S. Senate appears more uncertain, but here too both betting markets and most leading political forecasters favor Democrats over their Republican counterparts. Of course, from sports to politics, upsets can happen, and that’s why they play the games. Could a polling error even bigger than 2016 break the election in ’s favor? Will high voter turnout or a surge in votes cast by mail be the source of this error? Might the key battleground states vote even further to the right of the nation as a whole? Only time will tell, and in this report we examine the 2020 election from numerous angles in an effort to present the facts as they stand. But regardless of how the election shakes out, we will update our readers in the coming days with our thoughts regarding the implications of the election results for the economy. Joe Biden Is in a Relatively Strong Position Headed into Election Day Joe Biden’s lead in the Real Clear Politics national polling average sits at +6.5 points, about a half- point better than his position in our last update. This is about double what Hillary Clinton’s lead Joe Biden’s lead was on Election Day 2016, and is just a bit behind ’s +7.6 point polling lead on in the Real Clear Election Day 2008. As we have noted in previous reports, the stability of the national polls in 2020 Politics national has been remarkable. Biden’s national polling lead throughout 2020 has been steady in the six-to- polling average ten point range (Figure 1). As can be seen in Figure 2, the 2016 race was marked by considerable sits at 6.5 points. swings over the course of the year, oscillating between periods where Hillary Clinton polled well ahead of Donald Trump and periods where the race appeared tied or Trump had a small lead. Figure 1 Figure 2 2020 General Election: Trump versus Biden 2016 General Election: Trump versus Clinton Real Clear Politics Polling Average Real Clear Politics Polling Average 55% 55% 55% 55%

50% 50% 50% 50%

45% 45% 45% 45%

40% 40% 40% 40%

35% 35% 35% 35%

Joe Biden: Nov-02 @ 50.9% Hillary Clinton: Nov-08 @ 46.8% Donald Trump: Nov-02 @ 44.4% Donald Trump: Nov-08 @ 43.6% 30% 30% 30% 30% Jan-2020 Mar-2020 May-2020 Jul-2020 Sep-2020 Nov-2020 Jan-2016 Mar-2016 May-2016 Jul-2016 Sep-2016 Nov-2016 Source: Real Clear Politics and Wells Fargo Securities

This report is available on wellsfargo.com/economics and on Bloomberg WFRE. The 2020 Presidential Election: The Final Update WELLS FARGO SECURITIES November 02, 2020 ECONOMICS GROUP

FiveThirtyEight’s election model assigns Joe Biden a 90% chance of winning, a noticeably stronger reading than the 71% chance it gave Hillary Clinton in 2016. Although this may not seem like a huge difference, remember that if the election were theoretically held 100 times with these respective odds, Joe Biden would win 19 more times than Hillary Clinton. Betting markets like PredictIt are less bullish on Joe Biden but still give him about a 64% chance of winning the election. Interestingly, this is reverse of what occurred in 2016; betting markets gave Hillary Clinton an 82% chance of winning on Election Day, 11 points higher than FiveThirtyEight’s model. Elsewhere, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball puts 321 Electoral College votes in the Biden column with 217 for Trump. As the early voting data have poured in, it is becoming increasingly likely that voter turnout will be especially high. More than 90 million people have already cast their ballot according to data It is becoming compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. For some context, about 138 million people voted in the increasingly 2016 general election. In a few states, perhaps most notably , more people have already voted likely that voter in 2020 than voted in total in 2016, although some of this is likely just due to population growth turnout will be (Texas has over a million more people today than it did in 2016). The expected jump in turnout is especially high. consistent with survey data that suggests unusually high enthusiasm to vote across both parties (Figure 3) as well as the 2018 midterms, which saw the highest voter turnout in a midterm election since 1914. Figure 3

Enthusiasm to Vote Appears Relatively High Percent More Enthusiastic about Voting Than Usual, Gallup Poll 90% 90%

80% 80%

70% 70%

60% 60%

50% 50%

40% Republicans 40% Democrats Independents 30% 30% 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Source: Gallup and Wells Fargo Securities What about the state polls? As we have written previously, watching the state polls is arguably even more important than the national polls. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about two percentage points, but lost the Electoral College in part because , the “tipping point” state that pushed Donald Trump to 270 Electoral College votes, voted about three points to the right of the nation as a whole. On average, Biden’s polling lead in the key swing states of , Wisconsin, , and is roughly two-to-three points bigger than Hillary Clinton’s was (Figure 4). One possible avenue to a Donald Trump victory would be for the 2020 “tipping point” state to shift further to the right of the nation, perhaps four or even five points instead of three. Figure 4 How Might a 2016 Swing State Polling Error Influence the 2020 Race? RCP 2016 Polling Average Actual 2016 Result Polling Error RCP Polling Average as of Nov. 2 Michigan Clinton +3.6 Trump +0.3 3.9 ppts Biden +5.1 Wisconsin Clinton +6.5 Trump +0.7 7.2 ppts Biden +6.6 Pennsylvania Clinton +2.1 Trump +0.7 2.8 ppts Biden + 4.3 Florida Trump +0.4 Trump +1.2 0.8 ppts Biden +1.0 Arizona Trump +4.0 Trump +3.5 -0.5 ppts Biden +1.0 Source: Real Clear Politics and Wells Fargo Securities

2 The 2020 Presidential Election: The Final Update WELLS FARGO SECURITIES November 02, 2020 ECONOMICS GROUP

In our previous update, we created a hypothetical Electoral College map that examined what would For President happen if these key swing states see a polling error about the size of the one that occurred in 2016. Trump to win a At the time, it suggested an Electoral College victory for Joe Biden of 308-230. Using that same second term, the methodology today would still yield a Biden victory of 308-230 (Figure 5). That said, this scenario polling error would appear to lead to races in states like Florida and Pennsylvania that would be quite close, probably does within a point or two. Thus, for President Trump to win a second term, the polling error probably not have to be does not have to be much bigger than what occurred in 2016. much bigger than what Figure 5 occurred in 2016.

Source: Wells Fargo Securities We think it is important to also emphasize that a sizable polling error could occur in either direction. We have noticed in conversations with clients that most of the focus has centered on the We think it is chances of a large polling error in Trump’s favor. Although this makes sense given that an error in important to Biden’s favor would not change projected control of the White House, it could lead to much more also emphasize sizable majorities in the House and Senate for Democrats. In the 2012 election, for example, the that a sizable polling suggested a fairly tight race, with Barack Obama up just 0.7 percentage points on Election polling error Day. Many political analysts projected a fairly close race in both the popular vote and Electoral could occur in College. President Obama would go on to win a fairly comfortable victory, with the polls at both the either direction. national and state level generally off by a few points in his favor (Figure 6). Under this scenario, Democrats could regain control of the Senate with a 3-5 seat majority instead of the 1-2 seat majority that may be more realistic if there is minimal polling error.

3 The 2020 Presidential Election: The Final Update WELLS FARGO SECURITIES November 02, 2020 ECONOMICS GROUP

Figure 6

The Polls in 2012 Missed in President Obama's Favor RCP 2012 Polling Average Actual 2012 Result Polling Error National Obama +0.7 Obama +3.9 3.2 ppts Michigan Obama +4.0 Obama +9.5 5.5 ppts Wisconsin Obama +4.2 Obama +6.9 2.7 ppts Pennsylvania Obama +3.8 Obama +5.4 1.6 ppts Florida Romney +1.5 Obama +0.9 2.4 ppts Arizona Romney +7.5 Romney +9.1 -1.6 ppts

Source: Real Clear Politics and Wells Fargo Securities At present, betting markets assign a 59% probability that Democrats take back the Senate and an 87% chance that they keep the House of Representatives. We would be very surprised if Republicans managed to regain control of the House. Depending on how you count it, Republicans Generic ballot need to gain a net number of House seats in the high teens. The average net change in House seats polling suggests over the last six presidential elections is seven, and majority control of the House of Representatives 2020 will be a has not switched parties in a presidential election year since 1952. strong year for Furthermore, generic ballot polling suggests 2020 will be a strong year for Democrats in Congress. Democrats in Generic ballot polling asks respondents whether they will vote for the Republican candidate or the Congress. Democratic candidate in their local Congressional race, without actually using specific candidates’ names. Note that in 2016, the spread between the two parties favored Democrats by just +0.6 on Election Day, a polling result that foreshadowed that year’s close election (Figure 7). Today, however, Democrats stand at +8.0 in Real Clear Politics’ polling average, not far off from the generic ballot polling average in 2008. Figure 7

U.S. Presidential Elections: The Generic Ballot Real Clear Politics Average on Election Day, 2020 Data as of Nov. 2 14% 14% Bars = Spread between R's and D's in generic ballot

12% 12%

Actual House 10% 10% Result: D +10.7

8% 8%

6% 6%

Result: ??? Dems +9 4% Dems +8 4%

Actual House Actual House 2% Result: R +1.1 2% Result: D +1.2 Dems +0.6 GOP +0.2 0% 0% 2008 2012 2016 2020 Source: Real Clear Politics and Wells Fargo Securities Of course, only one-third of the U.S. Senate is up for re-election every two years, so the generic ballot is a more imperfect proxy when examining the Senate outlook. At present, Republicans maintain a majority in the Senate, with a split of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two Independents. Both of the Senate Independents caucus with the Democrats, making the de facto split in the Senate 53-47. Thus, if Joe Biden wins the White House, Democrats would need to

4 The 2020 Presidential Election: The Final Update WELLS FARGO SECURITIES November 02, 2020 ECONOMICS GROUP

net at least three Senate seats to win control of the upper chamber (when the Senate is split 50-50, the Vice President casts the deciding vote). Analyzing every competitive Senate race is beyond the purview of this report, and we would encourage our readers to check out some of the coverage of the races done by the nation’s leading Control of political analysts like Larry Sabato or Charlie Cook. Their ratings suggest the path to a Democratic Congress will be majority, should it come to pass, looks something like this: flip Republican-held seats in , just as and Arizona, and then pick up at least one more to offset a potential loss of a Democratic important as seat in . , Iowa and are all prime candidates for this fourth seat, control of the with North Carolina perhaps the seat most likely to tip the Senate to Democratic from Republican. White House For Republicans, limiting these losses will be key to holding the Senate, as would taking Alabama when it comes and perhaps Michigan, which has a sitting Democratic Senator who appears to be in a competitive time to analyze race against his Republican opponent. potential Control of Congress will be just as important as control of the White House when it comes time to economic policy analyze the potential economic policy changes that could occur once the dust has settled after changes. Election Day. We have already laid out in a previous report how different election outcomes could yield a variety of public policy moves post-election. Regardless of how the election shakes out, we will update our readers in the coming days with our thoughts regarding the implications of the election results for the economy.

5

Wells Fargo Securities Economics Group

Jay H. Bryson, Ph.D. Chief Economist (704) 410-3274 [email protected] Mark Vitner Senior Economist (704) 410-3277 [email protected] Sam Bullard Senior Economist (704) 410-3280 [email protected] Nick Bennenbroek International Economist (212) 214-5636 [email protected] Tim Quinlan Senior Economist (704) 410-3283 [email protected] Azhar Iqbal Econometrician (212) 214-2029 [email protected] Sarah House Senior Economist (704) 410-3282 [email protected] Charlie Dougherty Economist (704) 410-6542 [email protected] Michael Pugliese Economist (212) 214-5058 [email protected] Brendan McKenna International Economist (212) 214-5637 [email protected] Shannon Seery Economist (704) 410-1681 [email protected] Jen Licis Economic Analyst (704) 410-1309 [email protected] Hop Mathews Economic Analyst (704) 383-5312 [email protected] Nicole Cervi Economic Analyst (704) 410-3059 [email protected] Sara Cotsakis Economic Analyst (704) 410-1437 [email protected] Coren Burton Administrative Assistant (704) 410-6010 [email protected]

Wells Fargo Securities Economics Group publications are produced by Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, a U.S. broker-dealer registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and the Securities Investor Protection Corp. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, distributes these publications directly and through subsidiaries including, but not limited to, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, Wells Fargo Securities International Limited, Wells Fargo Securities Canada, Ltd., Wells Fargo Securities Asia Limited and Wells Fargo Securities (Japan) Co. Limited. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC. is registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant and is a member in good standing of the National Futures Association. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission as a swap dealer and is a member in good standing of the National Futures Association. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. are generally engaged in the trading of futures and derivative products, any of which may be discussed within this publication. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC does not compensate its research analysts based on specific investment banking transactions. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s research analysts receive compensation that is based upon and impacted by the overall profitability and revenue of the firm which includes, but is not limited to investment banking revenue. The information and opinions herein are for general information use only. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness, nor does Wells Fargo Securities, LLC assume any liability for any loss that may result from the reliance by any person upon any such information or opinions. Such information and opinions are subject to change without notice, are for general information only and are not intended as an offer or solicitation with respect to the purchase or sales of any security or as personalized investment advice. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC is a separate legal entity and distinct from affiliated banks and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company © 2020 Wells Fargo Securities, LLC. Important Information for Non-U.S. Recipients For recipients in the EEA, this report is distributed by Wells Fargo Securities International Limited ("WFSIL"). WFSIL is a U.K. incorporated investment firm authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. For the purposes of Section 21 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“the Act”), the content of this report has been approved by WFSIL, an authorized person under the Act. WFSIL does not deal with retail clients as defined in the Directive 2014/65/EU (“MiFID2”). The FCA rules made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for the protection of retail clients will therefore not apply, nor will the Financial Services Compensation Scheme be available. This report is not intended for, and should not be relied upon by, retail clients.

SECURITIES: NOT FDIC-INSURED/NOT BANK-GUARANTEED/MAY LOSE VALUE