Democrats' ceiling in CA

[Sir Mohamed]

Democrats have won each presidential election in CA since 1992, and every time their voter share increased. Only 2008 to 2012 remained roughly at the same level. I believe this trend will continue in 2020. Trump is just a horrible fit for the Golden State; his approval ratings are weak even among CA GOPers. He received only 31% in 2016 compared to Hillary's 61.8%. She did better than Obama twice.

So what do you think which voter share is possible in 2020? If Trump's popularity remains at the current level by election day he could fall below 30%. With fewer third-party defections, I see the Democratic candidate cracking 65% easily. If 2020 is a 2008-style landslide and the nominee a good fit for the state (Kamala Harris?), even the 70%-mark should not be totally out of reach.

I also believe that if the Democrat is anywhere around 65% and Trump/ the Republican does not start winning TX by massive numbers, a victory in the national PV is absolutely impossible.

[Kamala]

Considering Trump is sitting at 71% disapproval in CA right now, I assume that's the ceiling for Democrats right now.

[Mr. Smith]

Never doubt the power of The Jeffersonians.

They will ensure that the ceiling is 65-66%

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Democrats are probably close to maxed out in the state at this point except for maybe on the congressional level. That's not to say that California is going to start to trend hard right but just that the current trends will start to level off somewhat. Anyway I will say 65% is a hard ceiling for Democratics.

[Kamala]

Considering Trump is sitting at 71% disapproval in CA right now, I assume that's the ceiling for Democrats right now.

I doubt it. A lot of people who disapprove of Trump in the state don't vote.

If it's Kamala Harris and she wins by 7 points+ nationally then she probably gets 71% of the vote here.

Well, that's what a ceiling means, isn't it?

[Liberalrocks]

I think the ceiling is 65-69% I just don't see 70% as achievable but would love to see it.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Two thirds of the vote so I'll say 67%

[Senator-elect Spark]

65-69%

[AN63093]

The last time CA trended R was 1996.  At some point you'd figure there'd have to be something of a "dead cat bounce," but I'm not convinced that Dems haven't maxed out CA yet.

Outrage from the Left over Trump hasn't seemed to let up, at least much, and Trump is also one of the worst possible fits for the state's demographics.

Then again, maybe fatigue over Trump will set in, turnout will go down, and Harris won't be the candidate.  In that case... I guess I could squint and see maybe the tiniest of R swings, but I still doubt it.

So maybe a ceiling of around 64-65ish?  Sounds like the safe guess.

Now your second point, Sir Mohamed, is actually the more interesting one- I think there is quite a good chance that we see another PV/EV split if Trump wins re-election.  I can't quantify the chances, except this may be the best chance of a repeat EC winner losing the PV in my lifetime.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

64 and most of the remaining GOP districts competitive for DEM's will flip in 2020

[Ye We Can]

65-69, outside chance of 70+. Until the realignment happens there's still room for Republicans to fall further into irreverence.

[Sir Mohamed]

Now your second point, Sir Mohamed, is actually the more interesting one- I think there is quite a good chance that we see another PV/EV split if Trump wins re-election.  I can't quantify the chances, except this may be the best chance of a repeat EC winner losing the PV in my lifetime.

I agree. Back in June, I calculated a hypothetical scenario, or actually the worst possible scenario I could imagine for Democrats, and Trump still lost the PV: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=265645.0

[Rjjr77]

in reality what does it matter? Popular Vote doesn't matter, and California doesn't give clues on how other states will vote.

[AN63093]

Well obviously it doesn't "matter," per se, but I still find the possibility of back-to-back PV/EC splits interesting from a "geeking out over election stats" perspective.

And it's possible the margins in CA could matter quite a bit some day.  For example, if there is a significant "re-suburbanization" trend and/or "re-settling" of the interior US by millennials who have finally grown fed up with living in tenement conditions in the Bay Area and actually want to be able to purchase a house without paying $1mil+.  Then it matters a great deal.  Assuming, of course, these trends happen, and that millennials don't change their voting patterns that much as they age.

If those trends don't happen, then yes, I would agree the Dems have a bit of a geographical diversity problem going forward.

[henster]

If you add Jill Stein's vote to Hillary's and give her half of Gary Johnson's then she'd end up around 65%, if a Dem could consolidate the write in vote as well they'd probably get 66-67.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If you add Jill Stein's vote to Hillary's and give her half of Gary Johnson's then she'd end up around 65%, if a Dem could consolidate the write in vote as well they'd probably get 66-67.

Bernie got 0.6% as an official write in, FYI.

[PragmaticPopulist]

High 60s. I think Democrats can still squeeze out more votes in Orange and Riverside counties.