2020 With President Trump

[Free Bird]

Go

[ElectionsGuy]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm moving to Canada the minute President Trump is elected in 2016, so I literally won't know or care how he or his party fares in 2020.

[Skill and Chance]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

This plus Georgia and maybe Montana, almost certainly flipping the senate.  And the House is already D controlled because 2018 would be like 57D/42R national generic ballot with President Trump.  For 2018 senate under Trump, Heller and Flake both lose and at most 1 Romney Dem loses.  Also, I'm assuming 2016 would be narrow for Trump, so probably D+2 in the senate.

[Figueira]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

[ElectionsGuy]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

Yes? What doesn't make sense about it?

[pbrower2a]

The Obama bull market has come to an end in the Crash of 2018, the economic decline is analogous to the one that made Obama President. The Republicans had gotten their national Right to Work Law... and wages have plummeted just as taxes have been shifted from the federal income tax to a federal sales tax. Civil strife has become at least as severe as that in the 1960s, often in places in which it would never be expected.  

The Democrats are expected to take back the Senate and the House... and whoever is their nominee for President is seen likely to win in a landslide.

  

[Figueira]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

Yes? What doesn't make sense about it?

WHOA, I'm stupid. Somehow I thought that was a presidential map when I saw it before, and that gray was swing states. I didn't see what subforum this was in.

Yeah, that map is reasonable, but I could see Montana, Alaska, and Georgia as potential pickups if it's a huge wave.

[Free Bird]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

Yes? What doesn't make sense about it?

Maine...

[ElectionsGuy]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

Yes? What doesn't make sense about it?

Maine...

Oh yeah, it should be >70%

[pbrower2a]

So here is the highly-reliable Lichtman test of '13 keys to the Presidency'.  Atlas Red  favors the Democrats; Atlas Blue favors the Republicans. Purple is for ambiguity, unpredictability, or gross uncertainty.

Don't say that I got my criteria from a left-wing source. Opinions are mine.

http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/do-the-13-keys-to-the-presidency-mean-obama-is-destined-to-be-reelected/

    The statements below favor re-election of the incumbent party.

    When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins the popular vote. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.


    1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.

Republicans probably maxed out in 2014 or 2016, and are unlikely to make further gains.  

   2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (Lichtman defines a serious contest as one that is not decided before the party’s convention.)

Unlikely to be otherwise. Even Hoover got no challenge from fellow Republicans.

   3. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Likely to be true.

   4. There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. (A significant third-party candidate is one with a realistic chance of getting 5 percent or more of the popular vote.)

This doesn't happen often, so I can discount this.


    5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Trump will struggle to maintain the Obama bull market. I think that he will be caught in a nasty recession.

   6. Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

It would be hard to top the Obama-era bull market.

   7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

The changes will be unpopular, but they will be changes. Even iof a President gets undersirable results from legislation that he proposes, such shows effectiveness if not wisdom. 

   8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

Donald Trump will offer plenty of cause for social unrest based upon his nativism.

   9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (A major scandal is one in which the president is personally implicated, for example Watergate or the Clinton impeachment.)

Unclear about what that would be.

   10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Unschooled as President Trump would be on the military or diplomacy, he can expect utter failure. President Obama had experience almost exclusively in elected office, but that gives him some idea of what to do.


    11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Highly unlikely with Trump.

   12. The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (National hero is defined as an individual who successfully leads a nation through war)

Trump might have needed some charisma to be nominated and elected. Unclear.


    13. The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Unpredictable at this point.


....Three reasonably-certain positives, six likely negatives, and four ambiguous or unpredictable.  He'd be a one-term President. If he barely got elected in 2016 he will offend too many people to get re-elected even if he gets lucky on some detail or another.  

[Nyvin]

It's too bad the Senate map in 2020 is so favorable to Republicans.

[pikachu]

There are a lot of variables for this... Why did he get elected? Is he popular? How's the economy? How did the midterms go? How big is the incumbency advantage? I'd guess we'd gain NC and IA because of unimpressive incumbents, but anything beyond that is really dependent on the answers to my questions.

[Skill and Chance]

It's too bad the Senate map in 2020 is so favorable to Republicans.

That's true, although the senate as a whole is basically a fair fight right now.  If we assume the Dem path to a senate majority in the long run is basically to win both seats in all of the states Obama won twice, then we would have:

2016: D+7 (IA, WI, IL, OH, PA, NH, FL_
2018: R+4 (MT, MO, ND, IN, WV), but Heller loses in NV
2020: D+3 (CO, IA, ME)

That would result in a 52D/48R senate in 2021 and probably requires a Democrat winning in both 2016 and 2020.  With a narrow Republican win in 2016-I could only imagine Trump winning narrowly- we might see something like this:

2016: D+2 (IL, WI)
2018: R+2 (R's pick up MO, WV, ND, IN), (D's pick up AZ and NV)
2020: D+4 (CO, IA, ME, NC)
Senate Tied

That's assuming Trump loses moderately in 2020.  And then CO and NV probably hand it right back to the GOP in 2022.  The best case for Senate Dems is a Democratic win in 2016 and a Republican president for 2022. 

[Kingpoleon]

... Can somebody primary Tillis ITTL? Please?

I at least want a sane Republican to be on the ballot there in 2020.

[pbrower2a]

The Obama bull market will not last forever. It is shaky enough now as it is, and it certainly can't be stained into a Trump Presidency. President Obama has either been very lucky with the economy or he has done some things right. Luck does not sustain itself, and it is hard to imagine Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress maintaining what President Obama has been doing right.

Beyond any question, Republicans want to destroy labor unions and promote price-fixing while privatizing as much of the public sector as possible... and such will create so much economic inequality that it will precipitate an economic collapse with mass dissent even in places that have seemed reliably 'conservative'.   

[Figueira]

House can possibly go to the Democrats. Around 220 for each party.

Is this map supposed to make sense?

Yes? What doesn't make sense about it?

Maine...

Oh yeah, it should be >70%

I mean, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Collins becomes governor and is replaced by a Democrat before 2020. Or does Maine not have off-year special elections?