Will Donald Trump lose by double digits?

[Human]

Absolutely not.

I strongly dislike Trump, but the people on here who claim that Trump will lose by double digits are absolutely absurd. Stop being hacks. This country is too polarized for any candidate to win by double digits. I know that polls are currently showing Hillary winning by double-digits, but she is just experiencing a post-clinch bounce. I predict that Hillary will defeat Donald Trump 52%-45%-3%.

[fldemfunds]

Absolutely not.

I strongly dislike Trump, but the people on here who claim that Trump will lose by double digits are absolutely absurd. Stop being hacks. This country is too polarized for any candidate to win by double digits. I know that polls are currently showing Hillary winning by double-digits, but she is just experiencing a post-clinch bounce. I predict that Hillary will defeat Donald Trump 52%-45%-3%.

I wouldn't say it's probable, but it's possible. If the "conventional wisdom" this cycle is that "conventional wisdom" is being upended, then that probably includes the potential for landslide wins.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, it'll be around 52-45%.

[Redban]

Not possible -- the current electorate is too polarized. 45% will vote GOP no matter what, and 45% will vote Democrat no matter what. Then, you will have the usual 2-3% go for third party candidates.

Obama's 2008 victory is likely the biggest win possible in today's environment. That year, the Democrats had everything right while the Republicans had everything wrong (Palin, unpopular wars, economic collapse, high oil prices, unpopular Bush, charismatic Obama, 2-term incumbent fatigue, etc).

That even Obama in 2008 couldn't get 10% indicates that Hillary in 2016 will not get there, especially since the primaries show that GOP base is motivated right now.

[Virginiá]

I dunno, I think it is possible but not likely.

I wish everyone would stop saying "everything is too polarized", though. How exactly does anyone know the maximum winning margins a Democrat or Republican can get when the country is as polarized as it is? What data is backing up these blind assertions? Because so far I see folks throwing out Obama numbers and labeling it the maximum but I never see a reason why those numbers specifically are the maximum.

Clinton winning Obama-like margins with various demographics, with +2 - +3 extra points of the white vote and modestly increased turnout with Hispanics would bring Hillary to 55% territory, so it's not impossible at all. The electorate is not the same as 2008, or even 2012. Every 4 years minorities gobble up more and more of the electorate and that increases Democratic support along with it.

So maybe she can't crack double digits, but can we at least stop acting so confident when we talk about polarization?

[ProudModerate2]

This whole notion that the GOP will automatically or "no matter what" get 45% is ridiculous.
The Republican Party is in shambles and divided at this time. If this keeps up, or gets worse, through November there is no guaranteed floor from the Pub electorate.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Probably not. He has some time to recover and redeem himself.

[Redban]

I dunno, I think it is possible but not likely.

I wish everyone would stop saying "everything is too polarized", though. How exactly does anyone know the maximum winning margins a Democrat or Republican can get when the country is as polarized as it is? What data is backing up these blind assertions? Because so far I see folks throwing out Obama numbers and labeling it the maximum but I never see a reason why those numbers specifically are the maximum.

Because in 2008, everything was going right for the Democrats (i.e. motivated base, great candidate, strong primary turnout) while everything was going wrong for the Republicans (i.e. Bush's approval ratings, Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising oil prices, Sarah Palin, and the massive economic collapse).

If the Democrats couldn't get a 10% landslide in such an extremely favorable year, then they will not get it in 2016, which is much less favorable (See Republican primary turnout).

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Lastly, several studies and surveys have found increased polarization. Here is one (among many):

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.

And this shift represents both Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median (middle) Democrat, compared with 64% twenty years ago. And 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, up from 70% in 1994.

[fldemfunds]

If the Democrats couldn't get a 10% landslide in such an extremely favorable year, then they will not get it in 2016, which is much less favorable (See Republican primary turnout).

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Lastly, several studies and surveys have found increased polarization. Here is one (among many):


Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.

And this shift represents both Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median (middle) Democrat, compared with 64% twenty years ago. And 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, up from 70% in 1994.

McCain was a much more traditional Republican candidate. Also there is data showing Obama lost 2-3% just because he was black. So to say it could never happen isn't entirely accurate. Also, it's entirely possible that if the division among Republican elites continues, it could contribute to depressed Republican turnout.

[Xing]

It's possible, but highly unlikely. There are a lot of people who would vote for Osama Bin Laden if he had an (R) next to his name, of if he was running against Hillary Clinton.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If the Democrats couldn't get a 10% landslide in such an extremely favorable year, then they will not get it in 2016, which is much less favorable (See Republican primary turnout).

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Lastly, several studies and surveys have found increased polarization. Here is one (among many):


Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.

And this shift represents both Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median (middle) Democrat, compared with 64% twenty years ago. And 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, up from 70% in 1994.

McCain was a much more traditional Republican candidate. Also there is data showing Obama lost 2-3% just because he was black. So to say it could never happen isn't entirely accurate. Also, it's entirely possible that if the division among Republican elites continues, it could contribute to depressed Republican turnout.

Not to mention, I recall reading that the Obama campaign had huge technical difficulties on November 4th, 2008, which could have impacted BHO's toplines (see here). 2008 was by no means the high-water mark.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It depends on how well Hillary can repair her image.  Obama's job approval numbers are superb, and if he can sustain that through November and be an effective surrogate, it can go a long way.  Then there's Bernie Sanders.  And then there are the debates.  Trump has proved he is an ignoramus when it comes to many issues, and Clinton could annihilate him.

There's nowhere to go but up for the Hillary campaign (not saying it will go up, but there's a lot that can be mended), and I don't know what Trump can do to surpass 44%.

I am very committed to left-wing causes, but I would at this point vote a conservative Republican with Hillary Clinton's qualifications over Donald Trump running as a Democrat.  He is repulsive and unfit to hold office.  I have to imagine I have significant counterparts on the Right who feel the same way.  Never mind moderate swing voters.

[Mallow]

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Your argument is that 2008 was the high-water mark for Democrats. Your assertion is that 2008 was "extremely favorable" to Democrats. Ignoring the subjectiveness of the term "extremely favorable" for the time being, the conclusion nevertheless does not follow. In fact (using your own terminology), your only viable argument here (the only possible argument to show that 2008 was truly the high-water mark) is to show that every fundamental aspect of 2008 was essentially the most favorable to the Democrats that it could have been. Not only have you not demonstrated that (nobody is arguing that many aspects of 2008 were favorable, so listing things that were favorable is not enough), but others have demonstrated aspects of 2008 that were UNfavorable to the Democrats, at least to some extent (a black candidate, McCain being reasonably sane and standard competition, etc).

Whether or not the "favorable" vs. "unfavorable" aspects for the Democrats will win out in 2016 as compared to 2008 is anyone's guess, and I'm not going to argue it one way or the other. But your assertion that 2008 was indeed the high-water mark for Democrats is not based in objective reality--it's based on your own subjective preconceptions about which factors are most important.

[Ronnie]

Yes.

[Ebsy]

I'm thinking mid single digits at this point.

[tinman64]

No. The country is too polarized for anyone to win by double digits for some time to come.

[EliteLX]

In 2016, with the state of partisanship, the GOP would have to elect a molded avocado to lose by 10%+ in the popular vote.

[Crumpets]

I don't think it's probable, but I don't think that partisanship absolutely forbids a 10-point win. Consider this, Obama beat McCain by 7.27% in 2008. Suppose Clinton can win back the Obama '08-Romney '12 voters and get 1% of the voting population who voted for McCain to vote for her. That gets her to a 9.27% margin of victory - 53.93% to 44.65%. At that point, it just takes 0.73% extra to go to third parties from Trump, resulting in a 10-pont 53.93% to 43.93% win for Clinton. And just for the record, Trump's currently at 39.6% in the RCP average to Clinton's 46.4%. To get those numbers, Clinton would have to win about 63% of currently undecided voters. That's big, but that's not ridiculous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It'll be similar to Obama's 2008 margin.

[Virginiá]

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

In regards to your statements about political polarization, I didn't say there wasn't any. There is quite a lot indeed, as 2012's nearly non-existent split ticket voting rates showed. As others have stated various reasons, I'll just sum up what I think:

1. Race no doubt played a pretty decent part in the final vote count

2. McCain being McCain, as others have pointed out, may have helped blunt more severe losses. Combined with #1 this could be amplified

3. Had the recession started 6 - 12 months earlier, I'm sure we could have expected to see a larger landslide. Such a time frame would have meant that Bush/Republicans would have been even more thoroughly blamed for the recession, with Obama taking office during the rebound. Suffice to say, the entire political landscape might be very different right now, had the recession happened sooner.

4. Because of demographic changes, it doesn't actually take truly massive gains to reach a 10 point win. Using RCP's demographic results calculator, maintaining 2012 numbers and giving Democrats 3 more points of the white vote (so 2008 numbers) gives Democrats a 9 point win. That's almost there, and against Donald freakin Trump, such a bump isn't unrealistic at all. Remember, 39% - 43% is generally the amount of the white vote Democratic candidates have gotten since 1992. If you factor in lower Hispanic numbers Trump is probably going to get, you can get to 10 points easy. None if this is even remotely unrealistic.

Personally, I think the timing of the events and Obama's race were big factors. Anyways, as Mallow pointed out, your assumption seems to rest on everything being as good as it can get for Democrats in 2008, and it definitely wasn't.

So I stand by my assertion: People need to stop acting like Obama's 2008 margins were the best Democrats can do for the foreseeable future. That figure may be correct, but I don't think anyone here actually knows that and they are just going by it because 2008 "seemed" like a year where Democrats should have gotten some FDR-like landslide, which really is not an accurate assumption for numerous reasons stated.

If we're going to be so devout about each party's floor/ceilings due to partisanship, then there should be some reasons for such and not just near-blind assumptions.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Absolutely not.

I strongly dislike Trump, but the people on here who claim that Trump will lose by double digits are absolutely absurd. Stop being hacks.

How is this a prelude to a meaningful intellectual discussion?

[Torie]

I honestly think that he will. When such a high percentage of the electorate think that he is unfit to be POTUS, due to his temperament more than anything else, I just don't see many of those folks changing their minds. This election goes beyond polarization, and has indeed cracked polarization. It's in another category entirely. But hey, I have been wrong consistently when it comes to this insane election cycle, so pay me no mind.

[Seriously?]

Absolutely not.

I strongly dislike Trump, but the people on here who claim that Trump will lose by double digits are absolutely absurd. Stop being hacks. This country is too polarized for any candidate to win by double digits. I know that polls are currently showing Hillary winning by double-digits, but she is just experiencing a post-clinch bounce. I predict that Hillary will defeat Donald Trump 52%-45%-3%.

Most legit polls are showing a 5-7 point lead (2008/12 territory for Hillary). A few outliers with ridiculous D/R/I samples are showing a large Hillary lead. Is it possible to get a D+12 electorate? Sure. Anything is possible.

Is it likely? No way. Not the way this country is right now.

[Seriously?]

Your only viable argument here is that 2016 is more favorable to the Democrats than 2008 was or that 2008 was not extremely favorable to the Democrats in truth. Either are losing arguments.

Your argument is that 2008 was the high-water mark for Democrats. Your assertion is that 2008 was "extremely favorable" to Democrats. Ignoring the subjectiveness of the term "extremely favorable" for the time being, the conclusion nevertheless does not follow. In fact (using your own terminology), your only viable argument here (the only possible argument to show that 2008 was truly the high-water mark) is to show that every fundamental aspect of 2008 was essentially the most favorable to the Democrats that it could have been. Not only have you not demonstrated that (nobody is arguing that many aspects of 2008 were favorable, so listing things that were favorable is not enough), but others have demonstrated aspects of 2008 that were UNfavorable to the Democrats, at least to some extent (a black candidate, McCain being reasonably sane and standard competition, etc).

Whether or not the "favorable" vs. "unfavorable" aspects for the Democrats will win out in 2016 as compared to 2008 is anyone's guess, and I'm not going to argue it one way or the other. But your assertion that 2008 was indeed the high-water mark for Democrats is not based in objective reality--it's based on your own subjective preconceptions about which factors are most important.

Of course it was "favorable" to the Democrats. IIRC, the race was competitive despite having a RINO running as a Republican until the bottom fell out of the economy in October. Obama sailed away from there. It was as good as it gets for an opposition candidate of the party in power in an open election.

What you Sarah Palin haters on here don't get is that the pick of Palin energized the conservative Republican base of the party and helped the party unify. Many were ready to sit out the election until there was a conservative VP candidate to balance out the ticket.

[TDAS04]

It's possible that he could lose by 10-12 points, but I predict it will be more like 6-9.