If Trump's approval in 2020 is in the 20-29% range...

[Inmate Trump]

He doesn't have that far to go, as he's currently down to 39% according to the latest Gallup poll.

So say his numbers continue to decline, and by the 2020 election he is somewhere in the 20% range. Assuming he doesn't simply decide not to run, and if there is no serious third party candidate to screw things up, does he have any actual hope of winning with those kind of numbers?

Also assuming he doesn't get us into a war in the hopes of bumping up his numbers (I wouldn't put it past him to do something like that).

Feel free to post maps.  Here's mine:

Democrat: 333
Trump: 205

I feel like I'm being generous to the Fuhrer, but I think he only barely holds onto Texas and Georgia, and manages to still carry Ohio, but by a lesser margin than he did in 2016. I think North Carolina will be close but flips, with Arizona actually being a more decisive victory for the Democrat. Alaska and (to a much lesser extent) Montana flirt with swinging to the Dems, but ultimately go to the GOP again. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate wins Michigan and Pennsylvania, somewhere in the mid 50% for each, and Wisconsin and New Hampshire both in the lower 50s.  Minnesota goes back to being a stalwart Dem state. Florida is bipolar as usual.

[DPKdebator]

Nope.

[Blackacre]

Nope.

Agreed, the idea that Trump would carry Ohio and Iowa and Georgia and ME-2 with a 20-29% approval is kind of ridiculous. With approvals that terrible the map would look more like this:

[Tintrlvr]

Putting aside how realistic this scenario is, if his approval is in the 20s and he actually is the Republican nominee (doubtful in that circumstance), he probably wins only double-digit EVs, maybe only in a single-digit number of states. Spenstar's map minus South Carolina, the Dakotas and Alaska looks realistic to me.

[Blackacre]

Putting aside how realistic this scenario is, if his approval is in the 20s and he actually is the Republican nominee (doubtful in that circumstance), he probably wins only double-digit EVs, maybe only in a single-digit number of states. Spenstar's map minus South Carolina, the Dakotas and Alaska looks realistic to me.

I think he would win the Dakotas, considering he broke 60 in both of them in 2016. If we're taking additional states away from him, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alaska, (you did mention those 2) and Louisiana (and NE-1) would be more plausible than the twin Dakotas

[Duke of York]

Putting aside how realistic this scenario is, if his approval is in the 20s and he actually is the Republican nominee (doubtful in that circumstance), he probably wins only double-digit EVs, maybe only in a single-digit number of states. Spenstar's map minus South Carolina, the Dakotas and Alaska looks realistic to me.

I think the Republican base would still nominate him even if his approval rating was that low.

[Tintrlvr]

Putting aside how realistic this scenario is, if his approval is in the 20s and he actually is the Republican nominee (doubtful in that circumstance), he probably wins only double-digit EVs, maybe only in a single-digit number of states. Spenstar's map minus South Carolina, the Dakotas and Alaska looks realistic to me.

I think he would win the Dakotas, considering he broke 60 in both of them in 2016. If we're taking additional states away from him, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alaska, (you did mention those 2) and Louisiana (and NE-1) would be more plausible than the twin Dakotas

The Dakotas are much more elastic than Louisiana, Mississippi or Kansas (and Clinton was a particularly bad candidate for them). Kansas and NE-01 I could see as well, but probably not before the Dakotas.

Putting aside how realistic this scenario is, if his approval is in the 20s and he actually is the Republican nominee (doubtful in that circumstance), he probably wins only double-digit EVs, maybe only in a single-digit number of states. Spenstar's map minus South Carolina, the Dakotas and Alaska looks realistic to me.

I think the Republican base would still nominate him even if his approval rating was that low.

Maybe. Approval ratings in the 20s usually mean a sizeable chunk of your base has abandoned you as some people always approve of anyone. GWB got that low because conservatives abandoned him over immigration policy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump's approval rating has actually risen since late February:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[Lord Admirale]

Nope.

Agreed, the idea that Trump would carry Ohio and Iowa and Georgia and ME-2 with a 20-29% approval is kind of ridiculous. With approvals that terrible the map would look more like this:

Even bigger nope.

[Blackacre]

Nope.

Agreed, the idea that Trump would carry Ohio and Iowa and Georgia and ME-2 with a 20-29% approval is kind of ridiculous. With approvals that terrible the map would look more like this:

Even bigger nope.

I don't understand the nopes? Trump's approval rating being under 30% is a possible scenario for 2020, if not the most likely thing in the world. Or do you expect a President with a sub-30 approval to do better than that?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Nope.

Agreed, the idea that Trump would carry Ohio and Iowa and Georgia and ME-2 with a 20-29% approval is kind of ridiculous. With approvals that terrible the map would look more like this:

Even bigger nope.

I don't understand the nopes? Trump's approval rating being under 30% is a possible scenario for 2020, if not the most likely thing in the world. Or do you expect a President with a sub-30 approval to do better than that?

-Of course. Roughly as good as McCain's 2008 performance. Also, Utah is a Republican state. The MO-MT-IN trio is very likely to move together, but is unlikely to switch to any Dem nominee.

[Blackacre]

We might as well start a thread "What if his approval is in the 70/75% range".

Go ahead. I might provide a map!

[Ronnie]

We might as well start a thread "What if his approval is in the 70/75% range".

I think his floor is much lower than his ceiling is high, but it is possible it could briefly rise that high, if there's a massive terrorist attack and he doesn't totally botch his response.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

We might as well start a thread "What if his approval is in the 70/75% range".

I think his floor is much lower than his ceiling is high, but it is possible it could briefly rise that high, if there's a massive terrorist attack and he doesn't totally botch his response.

Oh, I agree. I'd say his floor is somewhere at 33% (unless he goes to war or something insane like that), his ceiling at 53%.

-I make more room for black swans, so I'm going with between 25% and 60%.

[Xing]

Of course this is extremely unlikely, but there's a reason these threads are called hypotheticals...

Trump would still win several core Republican states, but would lose pretty much any remotely competitive state. Spenstar's map seems right, though I'm not sure he'd lose MO, MT, TX, or UT, and I wouldn't rule AK out as a possible loss for him.

[pbrower2a]

For an elected incumbent running for re-election as Governor or Senator one can typically add an average of 6% or 7% to his approval rating at the start of the campaign season and get his share of the non-Third Party/Independent vote in a binary election against the average challenger. Because almost all Presidents were Governors or Senators, before becoming President, this is the best that I can do for predicting how an elected President wins or loses re-election.

 https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule/

This applies in normal elections and wave elections. This applies to politicians who have done very well and those mired in incompetence and scandal. This applies for both Parties, and in all regions of the USA. It adjusts for demographic change.  The logic is simple: while governing or legislating a politician must make decisions that dissatisfy some who voted for him in the previous election. Maybe people do not fully understand what the politician promises and misinterpret what he says, only to find that what was promised isn't what one really wanted.  The politician who wins 52% of the vote in the previous election usually finds approval ratings in the area of 45-46% three to five years later campaigns for his political life and ends up winning 52-48.

OK, but what about breaking scandals? The incumbent with a not-yet-broken scandal operates with more fear and less optimism than pols without such a problem; that is not good for a positive image. The news media usually avoid plugging that pol if they are already collecting material that will be announced at some time before the election. Such a pol already has depressed approval ratings before the fecal matter hits the blades of a spinning fan. So the approval rating goes from 38% to 9%... but people not in the media have no idea why Senator Snake is as unpopular as he is. The voters are the last to know that Senator Snake is collecting bribes or messing with children.

I used the model with Barack Obama in 2012, and it worked reasonably well. His approval ratings were just above 45% and he got just over 50% of the popular vote. Dubya was shakier in 2004, but he still barely won. Clinton in 1996? Ignore the Third Party nominee and the model works. Reagan 1984? Would you have expected otherwise? Nixon? Perfect timing for his re-election bid.

But note the caveats:

1. There must be a free and fair election or all bets are off. This has never been a problem in American history -- but we have a President acting much like a dictator. Lots of pols could go down with him, and he could take down some well-heeled special interests who have much to lose, including wealth and freedom, with him should he prove monstrously corrupt.

2. The incumbent must be elected and not appointed. One assumes that an incumbent already knows how to campaign for the office that he holds. Appointed pols have never shown their ability to win the election for the current office, and might be inept campaigners. The record for appointed Governors and Senators winning re-election bids (and this also applies to Representatives) is awful.

Gerald Ford demonstrates this. He was not a truly bad President; he became Vice-President without having ever won a statewide election, so he did not really learn how to campaign. He could lose to one of the weakest campaigners ever for the Presidency. But this is not germane to 2020 if Donald Trump or Mike Pence is President.

3. There must not be a significant Third-Party or independent nominee. Should Donald Trump be running against a divided Democratic Party, then he could win with 25%  or so approval. But should the Republican Party be significantly split with pol from a dissident wing of the Party be running against him, then he is likely cooked in that election.

4. It can't predict how good a nominee the challenger is. If Donald Trump is facing the New FDR as an opponent, then he is going to need much more than an approval rating than 45%. 

5. It can't predict how votes will be distributed in the Electoral College unless one applies it to statewide polls. residential election is a contest of fifty unequal states, five roughly-equal Congressional seats, and one city.

6. It can't predict the presence or absence of voter suppression that can decide a key state. That is a choice of governors to do out of Party loyalty or to reject on principle or for ineffectiveness in that election. A Democratic nominee  has far better chances of winning Florida or Wisconsin if those states have Democratic Governors in 2020.

7. It can't predict weird events happening, and it can't predict the effects of those weird events. Please don't ask me what those 'weird events' could be. 

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Should we also predict what would happen if we're attacked by killer klowns from outer space and the Browns win the Super Bowl before the 2020 election?

[Sorenroy]

For an elected incumbent running for re-election as Governor or Senator one can typically add an average of 6% or 7% to his approval rating at the start of the campaign season and get his share of the non-Third Party/Independent vote in a binary election against the average challenger.

So, assuming this holds true for Trump (which I very much doubt), he would end up with anywhere from 26 to 36 percent of the vote. Assuming a universal 25.77% swing in the two way vote, we get the following:

Average Democrat — 476 EV (64%)
Donald Trump — 62 EV (36%)

If Trump falls on the low end of those numbers (26% of the vote), he only wins Wyoming and NE-3.



For reference, here are the 2016 two way results:

Donald Trump — 306 EV (49%)
Hillary Clinton — 232 EV (51%)

[pbrower2a]

Should we also predict what would happen if we're attacked by killer klowns from outer space and the Browns win the Super Bowl before the 2020 election?

It's not that absurd. Now if you have the Killer Klowns from outer space and the Detroit Lions winning the Superbowl...

In all seriousness, Donald Trump is the sort of person who either becomes a dictator or gets forcibly removed from office in countries other than the USA. The Seven Days in Mayscenario is getting unusually relevant with an erratic President who offends so many sensibilities. The military and the intelligence services could at least trust President Obama even if they disagreed with him. The same military and the same intelligence services do not trust Donald Trump even if they agree with him.

Otto von Bismarck had this to say:

"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America."  

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/ottovonbis134218.html

How charmed are we as a nation?

Maybe not as much as in Bismarck's time. We have never had so clear a sociopath as Trump as President, and even when America had the weak leaders other than Lincoln between at least Polk and T. Roosevelt, government didn't matter so much in America.

It is too early for me to predict that Donald Trump will ever have an approval rating below 35%. He will likely find some way to consolidate support. After all he is the only one who can achieve the Christian and Corporate State that could meld the desires of the Religious Right and American economic elites at the expense of everyone else.

But back to the Bismarck quote -- I'd guess that Providence abandons a Great Power that falls for a sociopathic leader.

[Sir Mohamed]

You virtually can’t win with these numbers. Under such conditions, all 2016 gains from 2012 would flip back as well as NC and AZ on top. GA may hold on by less than three points while TX is within five or six points. Nevertheless, as much as I hope that his approvals get that bad, I don’t think it will happen. Trump’s floor approval is around 33% I would say. His hardcore supporters are behind him no matter what he does.