What is Trump's path to victory without WI/MI/PA?

[Shadows]

2020 election will see campaigning in even fewer states. MI/WI/PA/Iowa/Ohio/NC/Florida - Those will be the swing states. Perhaps Arizona maybe competitive as well.

There is no way Trump wins Virginia or NH. Those will be solid safe blue states at the Presidential level in 2020 with Trump as President. A Sanders or Warren type figure will lock a NH.

In the end, it will boil down to WI/PA/MI & Trump's approvals have fallen hard & he has governed as a far right figure in some areas. He would need a terrible uninspiring dull candidate with lots of scandals to win.

[Shadows]

NH will be a bigger win for Dems than VA. I think a Dem can win Virginia by 8-9% but in NH I can see a 12-13% margin if a Warren or a Sanders is the nominee. I just can't see Trump winning NH. Women & Young voters will be very polarized against Trump in NH in 2020.

The rust belt is his only hope. And he has to defend Florida & Arizona, both of which might be competitive, especially if the Dems gets 1 of the seats in Arizona in 2018 (Assuming McCain retires before then).

[Shadows]

Here are maps of the most recent approval polls, showing approval and disapproval.  At this point, my best guess for how the President does in a re-election bid in 2020 is basically 100-DIS as a prediction of his share of the vote.  It is far easier to raise approval ratings by cutting into the undecided vote than it is to cut into disapproval.

This approval map shows  electoral votes to the states on the approval map.

Trump approval, net positive

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

Trump approval, net negative

44-49%
40-45%
39% or lower

But raw disapproval numbers appear instead  of electoral votes here:

Disapproval (net negative for Trump) :

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

(net positive for Trump)
46-49% 
41-45%
40% or lower

Republicans will need a really-weak challenger from the Democrats (someone  inept as a campaigner? Someone tainted?) to re-elect President Trump.

The polls for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are now stale...  A couple recent polls from Florida and North Carolina suggest deep trouble for Republicans. The November 2017 election suggests that Virginia is gone for the Republicans. I expect to see no more polls (due to the Thanksgiving weekend) until mid-December. Michigan  and Wisconsin have few Puerto Ricans, but Pennsylvania does. I expect the next poll of Pennsylvania to look really bad for Trump.   

Trump can basically forget two of his three barest losses -- Minnesota and Mew Hampshire have seemed out of reach in most of 2017, and it will take a huge swing in the fundamental realities of electoral attitudes to make those states close. Nevada looks to be within range if everything goes right. Problem: everything must go right.

Among Trump wins in 2016 -- Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa are big trouble with disapproval ratings above 50. Ohio isn't lost, but it could easily get there. Recent polls of Trump approval in Alabama and Arkansas suggest that the president is losing some once-reliable supporters in at least those two states. Does anyone want to guess what '46' in Arkansas and '47' in Alabama suggest for

TEXAS?

Good analysis with maps! I just can't see Trump winning Minnesota. Maine 02 looks the only winnable part which Trump lost in 2016. Among the 3 key victories for Trump, Michigan looks toughest, Wisconsin next & then PA.

Rural PA is going to drive Trump & make him stay competitive in PA. Trump's only hope is a terrible Dem candidate & the best path looks like -> the Romney States + FL + NC + OH + PA.

It is fairly possible that Trump loses all of these 4 states, if Dems get a decent candidate who can run a good campaign.

[Shadows]

2020 election will see campaigning in even fewer states. MI/WI/PA/Iowa/Ohio/NC/Florida - Those will be the swing states. Perhaps Arizona maybe competitive as well.

I would take IA off that list and add AZ and GA.

Why would Trump abandon Iowa because the Democrats won't.

There is a considerable chance for a Dem to win by 6/7% or around Obama/McCain margins which would make Iowa 100% competitive.

Arizona & Georgia will probably be competitive in 2024, maybe 2020. But if I was the Democrat, I would try & lock in states like Florida, Michigan, PA rather than wasting resources on a state which may be like PA was for the GOP all these years. Dems would focus on locking down all of the Obama 2012 states.

[Shadows]

2020 election will see campaigning in even fewer states. MI/WI/PA/Iowa/Ohio/NC/Florida - Those will be the swing states. Perhaps Arizona maybe competitive as well.

I would take IA off that list and add AZ and GA.

Why would Trump abandon Iowa because the Democrats won't.

There is a considerable chance for a Dem to win by 6/7% or around Obama/McCain margins which would make Iowa 100% competitive.

Arizona & Georgia will probably be competitive in 2024, maybe 2020. But if I was the Democrat, I would try & lock in states like Florida, Michigan, PA rather than wasting resources on a state which may be like PA was for the GOP all these years. Dems would focus on locking down all of the Obama 2012 states.

If your post was only about Republicans conceding CO, VA and NV, then why the hell didn't you say so. You post implied both sides would contract to truly competitive territory.

It stands to reason that Iowa would come off the list in favor of GA and AZ. Both of which were closer, both of which are much more diverse and both of which have more electoral votes.

Of course it depends on who the nominee is, but if you go from winning the PV by 2%, to winning by 6% or 7%, just using a uniform swing means that AZ and GA flips while Trump still wins both OH and Iowa by 2% and 3% respectively.

If you don't apply a uniform swing then you have to figure that swings are larger with college educated whites and minorities (as well as minority turnout being higher), and smaller with non-college whites, then the situation becomes even more the case.

Consider also that GA now has automatic "opt-out" registration, 3 years means 3 more years of out of state Dems moving in, and 3 more years of the state getting that much more diverse. I think the "It's Happening GIF" will be needed four years sooner, especially if Harris is the nominee, or one of the New Yorkers or one of the Virginians.

Uniform Swing? If that was the case, Texas wouldn't have been to the left of Iowa & Ohio.

The swing is never uniform. It is pretty basic. Iowa & Ohio IMO will be swing states which will be competitive, which may start out as Lean R but if Trump loses by 6-7%, I can see him losing both these states.

If the Dem nominee does 4-5% better than Clinton, then a disproportionate amount of those swing states would come from the Swing States. Trump would roughly hold his margins in the Confederate non-swing states & there is very little one can do to improve upon Clinton's number in CA. As I said, Georgia, may or may not be a swing state. It may turn out like NC did for Democrats in 2016. Maybe Dems will lose it by 1-2% instead of 5%. The point is no-one knows. GA has 0 Democratic Senators & doesn't have a Dem Gov. as well.

If I was the Dem Nominee, I would try & lock all Obama 2012 states. And I would prefer Arizona over Georgia because Hispanic population is young & young Hispanics are progressive (even though Southern Hispanics are more conservative than Northern ones). There is a substantial College population & Phoenix is a big city. If Democrats can get high youth & Hispanic turnout, coupled with demographic trends & millennials replacing boomers, AZ could turn blue.

But in the end, I would prioritize the Obama 2012 states. Trump has no path without MI/WI/PA. He has to win atleast 1 of them.