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

[Xing]

Let's say Trump narrowly loses these three states in 2020, but holds every other state he won in 2016. How does he win? Winning NH and ME-AL wouldn't be enough, so he'd have to either win MN (unlikely if he's losing the three states above), or win one of NV/CO/VA, all of which seem very tough for him. What would be his path to victory?

[Rookie Yinzer]

None.

He either stayed the same or lost margins from Mitt Romney in states like CO, NV, NH, VA, and MN. They were only close because Hillary did awful compared to Obama. His only path to victory is a candidate as scandal-laden, unpopular, stiff, and polarizing as Hillary Clinton or a viable third party siphoning votes from the left.

[Mr. Smith]

He flips Nevada and New Hampshire just as I suspected would be his winning map before the actual flips. Non-religious conservatives in NH and resentful SoCal transplants mixed with Cliven Bundy types in Nevada.

[OSR stands with Israel]

NV and NH

[Pericles]

NV and NH

This plus ME-AL.

[Lord Admirale]

VA + NH

[Inmate Trump]

Nevada is likelier than NH.  NH is way too anti-Trump right now.

Nevada doesn't look great for him either, but it's better than NH at the moment.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

If he's losing these three states, I really doubt he picks up any states he didn't win in 2016. Without MI, PA, and Wisconsin, there is no path to victory for Trump in 2020.

[UncleSam]

ME-2 would pretty much become a requirement.

After that, CO would get him to a tie, while NV + NH would be a win.

Alternatively, VA would be a win and MN would be a tie (win with ME-2).

I guess if you really want to push it you could cobble ME-AL with an upset due to local factors in New England (like CT) or in OR / NM, but those would never flip before he wins the Rust Belt or CO / NH / NV etc. anyway barring some extreme and unique circumstance.

Practically, the odds of Trump winning without any of PA, WI, or MI are somewhere around 5%. And of that 5%, probably 95% would be narrow NV+NH wins or a narrow VA win. Even those would be really surprising and likely a result of targeted messaging + local circumstances + campaign mismanagement by the Democrats in a vein similar to Michigan in 2016.

[Liberalrocks]

The above paths outlined by other posters would be the only way but in all likely hood they are not possible meaning he would have no path without winning these 3 states again. Last time I looked his approvals were extremely under water in all three with Wisconsin (despite the Michigan 2016 margin) looking to be his worst.

[pbrower2a]

Rigged election which makes voting preferences irrelevant.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Almost impossible.

[bagelman]

On top of a good economy and Trump being more mature, a third party candidate spoils the vote for Democrats in west and south. However, this ticket is unpopular in the midwest, allowing the democrats to flip those 3 states. Trump wins NV and CO because of Democratic vote splitting and wins. Trump also wins NH due to vote splitting, and legitimately flips Maine.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Colorado and Nevada. Basically a Bush 2004 victory without Virginia and New Mexico.

[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.

[cvparty]

new hampshire, maine, and nevada would be his best path (i don’t see trump flipping minnesota if he loses all three of michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania)

[MAINEiac4434]

Imaginary.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

None.

He either stayed the same or lost margins from Mitt Romney in states like CO, NV, NH, VA, and MN. They were only close because Hillary did awful compared to Obama. His only path to victory is a candidate as scandal-laden, unpopular, stiff, and polarizing as Hillary Clinton or a viable third party siphoning votes from the left.

I do believe Trump has no path without PA, WI, or MI, but your post is wrong. He reduced the democrat margin of victory in CO, NV, NH, and especially MN. Clinton was a bad candidate, but keeping your share of the vote roughly constant while third parties gain a significant chunk is still a swing towards you. Clinton got a lower share of the vote in 92 than Dukakis in 88 but it was undeniably still a swing to the democrats.

Once again, I'm seeing the assumption that all 2016 third party votes would go to the democrat in 2020, which is unrealistic and impossible to know at this point. It reminds me a lot of the assumption nearly every pundit made that, as more republicans dropped out in the primaries, all of their would be voters would coalesce behind a NeverTrump candidate, when Trump actually continued to gain as more dropped out and the "ceilings" drawn at 25% then 30% then 50% fell.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

None.

He either stayed the same or lost margins from Mitt Romney in states like CO, NV, NH, VA, and MN. They were only close because Hillary did awful compared to Obama. His only path to victory is a candidate as scandal-laden, unpopular, stiff, and polarizing as Hillary Clinton or a viable third party siphoning votes from the left.

I do believe Trump has no path without PA, WI, or MI, but your post is wrong. He reduced the democrat margin of victory in CO, NV, NH, and especially MN. Clinton was a bad candidate, but keeping your share of the vote roughly constant while third parties gain a significant chunk is still a swing towards you. Clinton got a lower share of the vote in 92 than Dukakis in 88 but it was undeniably still a swing to the democrats.

Once again, I'm seeing the assumption that all 2016 third party votes would go to the democrat in 2020, which is unrealistic and impossible to know at this point. It reminds me a lot of the assumption nearly every pundit made that, as more republicans dropped out in the primaries, all of their would be voters would coalesce behind a NeverTrump candidate, when Trump actually continued to gain as more dropped out and the "ceilings" drawn at 25% then 30% then 50% fell.

From what I've seen in polls, Trump has done a very poor job bringing back third party voters to him. Gary Johnson voters used to support Republicans by a 20 pt margin -- now it's about a 0 pt margin. Most third party voters still hate Trump.

From anecdotal experience, that's been mostly true too. Trump really hasn't improved his coalition at all. Plenty of people I know who voted him are kind of sick of him too.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Without all three, none, simply because it means any progress he made in the suburbs (which he would need in order to win Colorado/Virginia) is more than offset by either losses in rural areas or increased margins/turnout in urban areas (neither of which he could sustain and win in Colorado or Virginia).

He could maybe win New Hampshire and Maine, but that doesn't get him there. He can't win Minnesota if he doesn't win Wisconsin, though I believe he has room to grow there. I'm not optimistic about Nevada or New Mexico at all for him.

[Mr. Smith]

There is no way Trump wins NH, ME-AL and NV before he wins WI or PA. There isn't a path.

Sure there is.

The next Democrat does well enough in the Milwaukee burbs and maxes out Madison to make up the WWC gains in WI, and in PA, a slightly better performance in Bucks County and an even higher distance in Chester County would do it.


And in contrast, NH gets taken the same way Bush Jr took it in 2000, it almost happened that way in the first place...turnout goes down enough should do the trick actually.

As for NV, like I said, the Anglo retirees, Bundy ranchers, a few alarmed, but reluctant Mormons [if the candidate is even further socially left], and some casino owners should do it, just a flip of Washoe will do it.

Combine those and you've got the path, which frankly still seems more plausible than what actually happened with the unbelievable amount of lowered turnout overall in Wisconsin, amazingly yuge drop of black turnout in Wayne County, Michigan , and the really high rural turnout in PA.

[Cynthia]

There is no way Trump wins NH, ME-AL and NV before he wins WI or PA. There isn't a path.

Sure there is.

The next Democrat does well enough in the Milwaukee burbs and maxes out Madison to make up the WWC gains in WI, and in PA, a slightly better performance in Bucks County and an even higher distance in Chester County would do it.

And in contrast, NH gets taken the same way Bush Jr took it in 2000, it almost happened that way in the first place...turnout goes down enough should do the trick actually.

As for NV, like I said, the Anglo retirees, Bundy ranchers, a few alarmed, but reluctant Mormons [if the candidate is even further socially left], and some casino owners should do it, just a flip of Washoe will do it.

Combine those and you've got the path, which frankly still seems more plausible than what actually happened with the unbelievable amount of lowered turnout overall in Wisconsin, amazingly yuge drop of black turnout in Wayne County, Michigan , and the really high rural turnout in PA.

But Cortez-Masto won the state only winning Clark.

[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).

[Rookie Yinzer]

Clinton was a bad candidate, but keeping your share of the vote roughly constant while third parties gain a significant chunk is still a swing towards you. Clinton got a lower share of the vote in 92 than Dukakis in 88 but it was undeniably still a swing to the democrats.

Trump matching the margins of the Republican in 2008 and 2012 shows that his voters came out for him. Sure, technically it was a swing towards him, but it really shows that Clinton's base stayed home or voted third party. The 2020 candidate, most likely won't have the political baggage of Secretary Clinton, and even if they only get half of the third party votes back Trump still won't win these states.

I would say the same thing about the places where Trump performed horribly for a Republican, and the third party vote caused his vote share to collapse while Hillary performed similar to Obama, so the vote looked closer. Did places in Utah swing towards Hillary? Yes, but the 2020 nominee damn sure isn't winning there in 2020 because the closer margin had nothing to do with the Democrat and everything to do with the other side. Same applies in the states I mentioned in the original post. Trump made no inroads in the close states he lost to Hillary.

[TrumpBritt24]

He has some breathing room even without those states - http://www.270towin.com/maps/K1l2y