What If The 2020 US Presidential Election Had a Different Outcome?

The Actual History

The 2020 United States presidential election took place against the unprecedented backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Incumbent Republican President Donald Trump faced Democratic challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden in a contest that would become one of the most contentious in modern American history.

The campaign was shaped by several major factors: the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic, which by Election Day had claimed over 230,000 American lives; an economic recession triggered by COVID-19 lockdowns; nationwide protests following the murder of George Floyd; and the September death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat was quickly filled by Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Due to the pandemic, states expanded mail-in voting options, resulting in record-breaking early voting numbers. By Election Day on November 3, 2020, nearly 100 million Americans had already cast their ballots. The increased reliance on mail-in voting, combined with varying state regulations on when such ballots could be counted, meant that final results were not immediately available on election night.

As early returns came in, Trump initially showed strong performance in several battleground states. However, as mail-in ballots were counted in the following days—predominantly from urban areas that favored Biden—the Democratic candidate gained ground and eventually overtook Trump in key states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona. On November 7, major news organizations called the election for Biden after projecting his victory in Pennsylvania, which pushed him past the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Biden ultimately secured 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232, and won the popular vote by over 7 million votes (81.3 million to 74.2 million), with turnout reaching its highest level in over a century at 66.3%.

Trump refused to concede, claiming widespread election fraud without providing substantive evidence. His campaign and allies filed over 60 lawsuits challenging the results, almost all of which were dismissed for lack of evidence or standing. Recounts and audits in multiple states reaffirmed Biden's victory. Nevertheless, Trump continued to dispute the results, pressuring state officials and the Department of Justice to overturn the election.

These efforts culminated on January 6, 2021, when Trump addressed supporters at a "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington, D.C., urging them to march to the Capitol where Congress was certifying the Electoral College results. Thousands of Trump supporters subsequently stormed the Capitol building, resulting in five deaths, multiple injuries, and extensive property damage. The riot delayed but did not prevent the certification of Biden's victory, which was completed in the early hours of January 7.

Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021. His administration prioritized COVID-19 response, expanding vaccine distribution and pandemic relief through the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. Other significant policy achievements included the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included major climate change provisions. In foreign policy, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan, strengthened NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and reoriented American strategy toward competition with China.

Trump remains an influential figure in the Republican Party and announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election in November 2022.

The Point of Divergence

What if Donald Trump had won reelection in 2020? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the electoral outcome was different enough to secure Trump a second term, fundamentally altering the course of American politics and governance during a critical historical period.

Several plausible mechanisms could have led to this divergence:

Narrower margins in key battleground states: In reality, Biden's victory came down to relatively thin margins in several states. Had approximately 44,000 votes across Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin flipped from Biden to Trump, the Electoral College would have been tied at 269-269, sending the election to the House of Representatives where Republicans controlled a majority of state delegations. In our alternate timeline, these marginal shifts—perhaps due to different voter turnout patterns or campaign resource allocation—tipped these states to Trump, along with a narrow victory in Pennsylvania.
Different COVID-19 dynamics: The pandemic was central to the 2020 election. If the "October surprise" had been positive vaccine news rather than a surge in cases, Trump might have received a boost in public approval. In this alternate scenario, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine efficacy announcement came in mid-October rather than November 9 (after the election), allowing Trump to claim vindication for Operation Warp Speed.
Altered debate performance: Trump's combative performance in the first presidential debate and subsequent COVID-19 diagnosis disrupted his campaign momentum. In our alternate timeline, Trump adopted a more disciplined approach in the first debate, focusing on economic recovery messaging while Biden made several noticeable verbal gaffes that raised voter concerns about his age and mental acuity.
Different mail-in voting patterns: In reality, Democrats embraced mail-in voting while Republicans largely voted in person, creating the "red mirage/blue shift" phenomenon that fueled conspiracy theories. In our alternate scenario, Republican messaging on mail-in voting was less negative, resulting in more balanced partisan utilization of mail-in ballots and less pronounced late shifts in vote tallies.

The most plausible path combines these factors: slightly altered campaign dynamics, marginally different voting patterns, and COVID-19 developments that collectively shift just enough votes to change the outcome in key states, resulting in a narrow electoral victory for Trump with 278-260 electoral votes.

Immediate Aftermath

Election Aftermath and Transition

In this alternate timeline, Trump's victory would have been narrow but decisive enough to avoid the protracted legal challenges that characterized the actual 2020 election. Nevertheless, the close margin would have provoked intense reactions across the political spectrum:

Democratic Response: Democrats and progressive activists would likely have mounted significant protests in major cities, contesting the legitimacy of Trump's victory given his loss of the popular vote for a second time. However, Joe Biden, maintaining his longstanding commitment to democratic norms, would have conceded once the results were clear, though many in his party would have been deeply dissatisfied with this decision.
Republican Consolidation: Trump's victory would have been interpreted by Republicans as vindication of his policies and approach, strengthening his control over the party. GOP lawmakers who had privately hoped for his defeat would have quickly aligned themselves with the president, recognizing his enhanced political capital.
Social Division: The country's political polarization would have intensified. Pro-Trump celebrations would have contrasted sharply with despair and anger among Democrats, particularly among communities of color who had mobilized heavily against Trump. Unlike the January 6th Capitol riot that occurred in our timeline, the most significant post-election protests would have come from the left, though likely without the same level of violence or breach of government institutions.

Second Term Cabinet and Administration

Trump's second term cabinet would have reflected his increasing preference for loyalty over traditional qualifications:

Cabinet Reshuffling: Trump would have replaced officials perceived as insufficiently loyal during his first term. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo likely would have remained, but Defense Secretary Mark Esper would have been replaced immediately with someone more aligned with Trump's "America First" doctrine, possibly by Christopher Miller (who briefly served as Acting Secretary in our timeline) or another loyalist.
Justice Department Focus: Attorney General William Barr, who had disappointed Trump by not pursuing his political opponents aggressively enough and by not supporting election fraud claims, would have been replaced by a more compliant figure like Jeffrey Clark, who had shown willingness to use the DOJ to advance Trump's agenda.
Increased Role for Family: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump would have taken on even more prominent roles, with Kushner potentially receiving a formal cabinet appointment based on his self-perceived successes with the Abraham Accords in the Middle East.
Administrative Purge: The second term would have seen an accelerated implementation of Schedule F, the executive order Trump signed in October 2020 that would have reclassified thousands of civil servants to remove their employment protections, enabling a massive replacement of career government employees with political appointees loyal to Trump.

Pandemic Response

The COVID-19 pandemic would have continued under dramatically different management than occurred in our timeline:

Vaccine Rollout: Operation Warp Speed would have been celebrated as a Trump administration triumph, but the vaccine distribution would likely have had a more decentralized approach with less federal coordination, resulting in greater disparities between states. Trump would have strongly opposed vaccine mandates and may have actively discouraged certain public health measures.
Policy Approach: The focus would have rapidly shifted to economic reopening regardless of case counts. The CDC and other health agencies would have faced continued political pressure to modify guidelines to align with Trump's preferences for minimal restrictions on businesses and schools.
Dr. Fauci's Role: Dr. Anthony Fauci would likely have been marginalized or removed from his position, replaced by figures more willing to align public health messaging with Trump's political preferences, such as Dr. Scott Atlas, who advocated for a herd immunity approach.
Economic Relief: A second Trump stimulus package would have been smaller than the American Rescue Plan passed under Biden, with more emphasis on business tax cuts and less on direct payments to Americans or funding for state and local governments.

Legislative Agenda

With a Republican Senate (as the Georgia runoff dynamics would have been different with Trump winning) and a narrowly Democratic House, Trump's legislative agenda would have faced constraints:

Tax Policy: Trump would have prioritized making the 2017 tax cuts permanent before their scheduled 2025 expiration, potentially succeeding with a simple majority through budget reconciliation in the Senate.
Healthcare: Another attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act would have been likely, though comprehensive replacement would have remained elusive. Administrative actions to undermine the ACA would have accelerated.
Infrastructure: An infrastructure bill would have remained a priority, but with more emphasis on traditional infrastructure like roads and bridges and less on climate-related investments, compared to the bill eventually passed under Biden.
Immigration: With renewed perceived mandate, Trump would have expanded restrictive immigration policies, potentially including more extensive border wall construction and stricter enforcement actions against undocumented immigrants.

Long-term Impact

Domestic Politics and Governance

Transformation of the Republican Party

Trump's second term would have solidified his takeover of the Republican Party, fundamentally reshaping its identity and ideology:

Ideological Shift: The GOP would have completed its transition from a traditionally conservative party to a populist nationalist movement centered around Trump's personality and policy preferences. Traditional Republican priorities like free trade and limited government would have continued to be supplanted by protectionism, restrictive immigration policies, and personality-driven politics.
Leadership Changes: Anti-Trump Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who in our timeline took principled stands after January 6th, would have been systematically pushed out of party leadership and potentially out of Congress entirely. The 2022 midterms would have served as a purge of remaining Trump skeptics within the party.
Institutional Impact: Republican state parties would have increasingly adopted loyalty to Trump as a litmus test for candidates, and party rules would have been modified to favor his allies and potentially his family members, setting the stage for a potential political dynasty.

Democratic Party Evolution

Facing a second Trump term, Democrats would have undergone their own significant transformation:

Progressive Ascendancy: The progressive wing of the party, led by figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, would have gained influence by arguing that Biden's centrism failed to energize the base. The party would have moved further left on economic and social issues in response to continued Trump governance.
Leadership Change: Nancy Pelosi, who had committed to stepping down from leadership after 2022 regardless, would have faced pressure to resign earlier after failing to deliver the White House. Younger, more progressive leaders would have ascended in the party hierarchy.
Strategy Shift: Democrats would have focused intensely on state-level organization and voting rights as they prepared for the 2024 election, believing that structural barriers contributed to their 2020 defeat.

Judiciary Transformation

Trump's second term would have dramatically reshaped the federal judiciary:

Supreme Court: Justice Stephen Breyer, faced with a second Trump term, might have attempted to remain on the bench rather than retire. However, if health issues forced his retirement, Trump would have appointed a third young conservative justice, creating a 7-2 conservative majority that would likely endure for decades.
Lower Courts: Trump would have continued his aggressive pace of appointing conservative judges to district and appellate courts, potentially filling nearly every vacancy in the federal judiciary with relatively young conservatives by 2024.
Legal Doctrines: With strengthened conservative majorities, courts would likely have accelerated the rollback of abortion rights, limitations on administrative agency authority, expanded religious exemptions, and constrained federal regulatory power.

Foreign Policy and International Relations

Realignment of Alliances

Trump's second term would have accelerated the realignment of America's international relationships:

NATO and Europe: Relations with traditional European allies would have deteriorated further as Trump continued to criticize NATO and potentially reduced U.S. commitments to the alliance. Countries like Germany would have accelerated plans for European strategic autonomy, while leaders like France's Emmanuel Macron would have positioned themselves as the de facto leaders of the Western democratic order.
Russia Policy: Trump's puzzling affinity for Vladimir Putin would have continued, potentially emboldening Russia. Without the strong U.S. support for Ukraine that materialized under Biden when Russia invaded in 2022, Putin might have been encouraged to pursue aggressive action earlier and with less fear of consequences.
China Relations: The confrontational approach to China would have continued but in a more unilateral fashion, with tariffs and economic measures rather than the alliance-based approach Biden has pursued. Trump's transactional approach might have reduced focus on human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Hong Kong in favor of trade concessions.

Middle East Dynamics

The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, would have been a centerpiece of Trump's foreign policy legacy:

Expanded Normalization: Additional Arab states might have normalized relations with Israel under U.S. pressure and incentives, potentially including Saudi Arabia, which has shown more reluctance in our timeline.
Iran Policy: Maximum pressure on Iran would have continued, with even tighter sanctions and potentially increased risk of military confrontation. The prospects for reviving the nuclear deal would have been eliminated entirely.
Israeli-Palestinian Relations: The already dim prospects for a two-state solution would have diminished further, with Trump's administration continuing to favor Israeli positions and potentially supporting annexation of parts of the West Bank.

Afghanistan Withdrawal

The withdrawal from Afghanistan would have proceeded differently under continued Trump leadership:

Implementation: Trump had committed to withdrawing from Afghanistan, but the execution might have been even less orderly than the problematic withdrawal under Biden. Trump's impatience and transactional approach to foreign policy might have led to an even more abrupt exit with less concern for Afghan allies.
Taliban Relations: Trump's administration had negotiated directly with the Taliban, excluding the Afghan government. A second Trump term might have seen even more concessions to the Taliban in exchange for a superficially successful withdrawal that could be portrayed as a foreign policy victory.

Economic and Social Policy

Economic Direction

Trump's second term economic policies would have centered on deregulation, tax cuts, and trade protectionism:

Regulatory Environment: Environmental regulations would have been systematically dismantled, with agencies like the EPA and Interior Department continuing to favor industry interests over environmental protection. Corporate oversight would have been reduced across most sectors.
Tax Policy: The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions would have been made permanent before their scheduled 2025 expiration, and additional tax cuts favoring higher-income Americans and corporations would have been pursued.
Trade Wars: Tariffs would have remained a central policy tool, with expanded measures against China and potentially new ones against European allies. The resulting trade disruptions would have increased costs for American consumers and businesses while creating ongoing uncertainty in global markets.

Climate Change and Environment

Environmental policy under a second Trump term would have had lasting global consequences:

Climate Agreements: The U.S. would have remained outside the Paris Climate Agreement, and international climate cooperation would have suffered from the absence of American leadership. Global emissions reduction targets would have been harder to achieve without U.S. participation.
Fossil Fuel Expansion: Domestic policies would have continued to favor fossil fuel development, with expanded drilling on public lands and offshore, reduced regulations on methane emissions, and opposition to electric vehicle adoption.
Scientific Isolation: Climate science would have faced continued political interference, with research funding redirected and scientific advisory boards stocked with industry representatives rather than independent scientists.

Immigration and Social Policy

Trump's second term would have seen the full implementation of his restrictionist immigration vision:

Border Policies: The border wall would have seen expanded construction, and more extreme measures to deter migration might have been implemented, including potentially permanent family separation policies.
DACA and Legal Immigration: The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would likely have ended, and legal immigration pathways would have been further restricted, with fewer family-based visas and reduced refugee admissions.
Social Division: Policies targeting transgender rights, diversity initiatives in education and government, and multicultural programs would have intensified cultural conflicts and potentially led to increased hate crimes and social unrest.

2024 Election and Beyond

The 2024 presidential election in this alternate timeline would have presented unique dynamics:

Republican Nomination: Constitutionally unable to run for a third term, Trump would have wielded enormous influence over the Republican nomination process. He might have endorsed a family member (likely Donald Trump Jr. or Ivanka Trump) or a loyal ally like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Democratic Resurgence: Democrats would have approached 2024 with similar energy to their actual 2020 campaign, portraying the election as essential to preserving American democracy. Candidates like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, or California Governor Gavin Newsom might have emerged as frontrunners, representing a new generation of leadership.
Electoral Landscape: The 2024 election would have occurred in a context of intensified polarization, potentially diminished voting access in Republican-controlled states, and with a significant portion of Americans believing that the system itself was fundamentally broken.
American Identity: By 2025, Americans' conception of their nation and its role in the world would have been fundamentally transformed by eight years of Trump's presidency, with deeper divisions, more widespread disillusionment with democratic institutions, and a more inward-focused national perspective that would take decades to reverse.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jonathan Rauch, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, offers this perspective: "A second Trump term would have tested America's democratic institutions beyond what we saw in the first term. Without the guardrails of reelection concerns, Trump would have felt emboldened to push presidential power to unprecedented limits. The most concerning aspect would have been the systematic replacement of career civil servants with loyalists under Schedule F, effectively transforming the federal bureaucracy from a professional, nonpartisan institution into a personal political machine. This would represent not just a policy shift but a fundamental change to America's constitutional order that could take generations to repair. The resilience of American democracy would have faced its greatest challenge since the Civil War."

Dr. Elizabeth Saunders, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Georgetown University, suggests: "In foreign policy, a second Trump term would have accelerated the unraveling of the post-World War II international order that America helped build. NATO would have been significantly weakened, emboldening Russia's expansionist ambitions much earlier. The power vacuum created by America's retreat would have been filled not by a coalition of democracies but by authoritarian powers - China and Russia primarily. When historians of this alternate timeline look back, they might identify Trump's second term as the period when American global leadership conclusively ended, not with a dramatic break but through the accumulated effect of abandoned commitments, alienated allies, and the deliberate dismantling of the diplomatic corps."

Dr. Marie Thompson, Professor of American Political History at University of Michigan, notes: "The most lasting impact of a second Trump term might have been on the Republican Party itself. In our actual timeline, the party experienced a reckoning after January 6th that, while incomplete, created space for some Republicans to challenge Trump's influence. In a second-term scenario, no such reckoning would have occurred. Instead, the GOP would have completed its transformation into a personalist vehicle for Trump and his family, potentially setting the stage for the kind of dynastic politics more common in emerging democracies than established ones. This would have fundamentally reshaped American politics for a generation, regardless of who won in 2024, as the two-party system would have featured one traditional party and one increasingly organized around loyalty to an individual and his heirs rather than a coherent ideology or policy platform."