With more than 600 cases in the United States alone, the media has begun to speculate about the potential impact of the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the 2020 presidential election. President Trump recently called his response “terrific,” adding that his management of the crisis will “help, not hurt” him in November. History, however, suggests otherwise. Decades of social science research has shown voters tend punish incumbents for disasters, including events that are seemingly out of their control.
Ironically, President Trump’s obsession with the strength of the economy—the backbone of his reelection bid—may prove his undoing. Days after the first U.S. cases were reported, President Trump bent over backwards to ensure investors that the disease will not impact the economy. Following a 3.5% drop in the market, he tweeted the stock market looked “very good.” He later added fuel to the fire when he told a Fox News town hall that “people are now staying in the United States, spending their money in the U.S., and I like that.”
Pandemics almost always wreak havoc on the economy. However, few elected officials are foolish enough to repeatedly draw attention to the markets, particularly during the early stages of an outbreak. President Trump’s unsuccessful attempts to assuage investor concerns has inextricably linked his management of the crisis to the economy, which has opened him up to additional criticism should the virus trigger a recession.
Nor did the president demonstrate nearly enough urgency when the first cases of COVID-19 were reported outside of China. From his repeated claims that the crisis was very much under control to his woefully insufficient emergency funding request, President Trump squandered a golden opportunity to get ahead of the crisis. It’s plausible President Trump’s lackadaisical attitude during the early stages of the outbreak will define voter perceptions of his handling of the crisis.
Of course, hindsight is always perfect. Just ask former President Gerald Ford, whose swine flu vaccine killed at least 30 Americans and sickened hundreds of others with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a devastating immune system disorder.However, Ford’s swine flu debacle aside, it typically behooves presidents to over-prepare rather than be caught guard. In 2004, for example, President George W. Bush requested $7 billion to help ready the nation for a potential H5N1 avian influenza pandemic. Although the much feared bird flu pandemic never came to fruition, President Bush was applauded by the public health community for investing in preparedness programs.
Finally, President Trump’s unrelenting misinformation campaign may come back to haunt him. In February, he speculated that the virus would “miraculously” disappear in the spring. Weeks later he told White House Fox News host Sean Hannity that the World Health Organization’s 3.4% mortality rate was “really a false number.” And just last Wednesday, he falsely blamed former President Barak Obama for his administration’s inability to acquire an effective COVID-19 test.
To be sure, President Trump has always had a propensity for conspiracy theories and alternative facts. However, his falsehoods often involve villains, actors, and institutions that are largely unfamiliar to most Americans (e.g., the deep state, the swamp, Burisma, etc.). The coronavirus is different. In this instance, he is spreading misinformation about something that will likely have a direct and tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans. To the extent that his claims about the disease deviate from the lived experience of voters, then President Trump’s may find himself in the midst of his worst credibility crisis to date.
Conventional wisdom tells us the coronavirus could spell disaster for the president in the fall. This said, there is nothing conventional about President Trump, who has been mired in controversy since the moment he took office. So far he has weathered almost every political firestorm thrown his way. Time will tell whether the coronavirus is different.