Electoral College Outcome in 2020

[Panhandle Progressive]

Which party (and w/ what margin) wins the electoral vote next time?

[pbrower2a]

Using 100-DISAPPROVAL as a predictor of the 2020 Presidential election, I now see President Trump losing every state that he won by less than 10% of the vote. That means that 167 electoral votes from the following states:

Michigan
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Florida
Arizona
North Carolina
Georgia
Ohio
Texas
Iowa

and the independent-voting  Second congressional districts of Maine and Nebraska go to a Democrat who doesn't foul up. At this point, undecided voters are rather Right-leaning, and I am guessing that President Trump will win them back unless he faces further deterioration of his support. That can happen, but I am not predicting it yet. For example, a recent poll of Indiana had him underwater 48-47, but my system has him winning Indiana 53-47.

Disapproval is basically giving up on a politician.  Who the opponent is of an ill-regarded incumbent historically matters little at the time of the election, so the Carter tactic of branding Ronald Reagan as an extremist will not work.  Who the opponent is will matter in the subsequent election.
 

[cvparty]

Disapproval is basically giving up on a politician.
 

?

[pbrower2a]

Disapproval is basically giving up on a politician.
 

?

Yes. It is giving up -- especially in the "strongly disapprove' category. I cannot see what Trump can do to win back support necessary even for winning a squeaker election.

Approval:

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 36
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but negative pale blue
ties white
45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 39
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections. 

.....

100-DISAPPROVE is my prediction for a ceiling for the President, and it assumes that he will get all of the undecided vote because the undecided voters at this point are generally to the right of center and will likely vote on identity and ideology.

"Not voting for Trump" can include voting for the Democratic nominee or voting for some third-party or independent nominee. It is much more likely that such a non-Democratic nominee comes from the political Right.

 

[here2view]

I have Dems winning in the range of 280-320. Upper end if they get Florida.

[WilliamStone1776]

269-269

[cvparty]

high 300s for Dems. +400 if Texas lol

[here2view]

Democrat: 279
Trump: 259

Florida is a complete tossup but I'm giving the edge now to Trump since incumbent Presidents usually win there (Obama 2012, W 2004, Clinton 1996, HW 1992, Reagan 1984.)

Arizona, Iowa, and North Carolina are in play for Democrats as well. I still think Georgia is another election cycle from flipping, and Texas won't be in play until at least 2032.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Depends on the candidate, what Trump does between here and then, and the campaigns.

Worst case for dems:

Best case for dems:

GA barely flips here

Also i didn't change the PVs so don't pay attention to those.

[pbrower2a]

Texas goes for the Democrat before Indiana does this time.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I am hesitating to be make too many predictions about 2020. With Trump anything can happen. The only thing I do feel secure about saying is that Trump will not win the popular vote. I really don't see it happening, even if he does improve on his ~3 million vote deficit.

[pbrower2a]

How the states and districts fall:

DC  003-535
VT   006-532
RI   010-528  (Trump wins like FDR 1936/Nixon 1972/Reagan 1980)
NY   039-499
MD  049-489 (Trump wins like FDR 1932/LBJ 1964/Reagan 1980)
CA   104-434 (Trump wins like FDR 1944)
HI    108-430
ME1 109-429 (Trump wins like Bush 1988)
MA   121-417
DE   124-414
CT   134-406
WA  144-394
NJ    158-380 (Trump wins like Clinton 1992 or 1996)
OR   166-372
NM   171-367 (Trump wins like Obama 2008)
NJ    185-351
MI    201-336
ME* 203-335 (Trump wins like Obama 2012)
VA    216-322
CO   224-314
MN   234-304 (Trump wins like Truman 1948, JFK 1960, Nixon 1968)
NH   238-300 (Trump wins like Carter 1976, Trump 2016)
WI   248-290
ME2 249-289 (Trump wins like Bush 2004)
NV   255-273 (Trump wins like Bush 2000)
PA   275-263 (Trump loses like Gore 2000, Kerry 2004) -- TIPPING POINT!
FL    304-234 (Trump loses like Nixon 1960, Ford 1976)
AZ   316-222
OH  334-204
IA   340-198 (Trump loses like Humphrey 1968)
NC  355-183 (Trump loses like Dewey 1948)
NE2 356-182
GA   372-166 (Trump loses like Bush 1992, Dole 1996, McCain 2008)
TX   408-128
IN   419-119
MO  429-109 (Trump loses like Dukakis 1988)
SC   438-100
MT   441- 97
NE1 442-96
KY   450-88 (Trump loses like Stevenson 1952/1956)

Beyond this I have states that have not gone Democratic since 1996 in the Mountain and Deep South, or states that have never voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1964.
*at large for Maine.
 

 

[Bumaye]

https://www.270towin.com/maps/7bXx9

Additionaly Mississippi and Texas are more likely to flip then Indiana and Ohio in my book. Iowa and Georgia are Toss-up.

[redjohn]

https://www.270towin.com/maps/7bXx9

Additionaly Mississippi and Texas are more likely to flip then Indiana and Ohio in my book. Iowa and Georgia are Toss-up.

Mississippi, where Trump has a net approval rating of 23, is more likely to flip than Ohio, where Trump has a net disapproval of 4? (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/)

[Bumaye]

If I learned one thing from the Democrats Primary the last time it is that approval ratings don't mean sh**t or God King Bernie would reign. I can already hear something something lesser of two evils garbage from Ohio.

[cvparty]

If I learned one thing from the Democrats Primary the last time it is that approval ratings don't mean sh**t or God King Bernie would reign. I can already hear something something lesser of two evils garbage from Ohio.

LOL imagine thinking ohio is more republican than mississippi

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Between 275 and 400 for the Democratic nominee. I don't see any way in hell that they do better than 400 EV or get less than 275.

[RINO Tom]

My current guess, which would give the Democrat 344 EVs:

[Kleine Scheiße]

If the Dems have a competent nominee:

[UncleSam]

Rofl the pipe dreams are alive and well in this thread I see.

Disapproval is almost meaningless when it comes to Trump. We saw that over and over and over again in the primaries, in literally all polling, and in the general in 2016. There are millions and millions of partisan Republicans who will 100% vote for Trump if he is their party’s nominee but who disapprove of him. There are also large numbers of disaffecteds who disapprove of both parties and politics in general who he does reasonably well with. He got 48% of the vote in Wisconsin while 36% of the electorate approved of him.

So no, 100-disapproval is no where near an accurate ceiling for Trump.

Trump won’t lose traditionally red states unless the Democratic nominee runs a flawless, 2008-style campaign AND the economy crashes. Barring both of those things happening Trump’s floor in the electoral college is somewhere around Romney’s 206 electoral votes + Ohio - North Carolina. After that, North Carolina, Iowa, and Florida would be tough lifts for any Democrat who doesn’t have strong regional support there, and it’s just not very likely that he would lose any of those if the election were held in an environment similar to the current one.

Dems can regain the Midwest pretty easily without having any miracles fall from the sky, though - Pennsylvania May be the toughest lift but I bet that Biden or Sanders or Brown would win it. The race to the left on economics would make it tough to take Hillary-style margins in SEPA though.

Oh and before everyone says ‘Hillary was AWFUL all my liberal friends think so’ that is total BS. Hillary had a fairly centrist image, had strong minority appeal, had massive campaign organization, and oh ya a billion dollars. She had one weakness among working class men that Trump exploited to win the electoral college.

What candidate will the Dems put up in 2020 who will replicate Hillary’s strengths without having the WWC weakness? Gillibrand, who is basically Hillary lite and who would get slaughtered in Macomb, driftless, and throw Scranton into tossup status? Who, by the way, has no where near the institutional minority support that Hillary had?

Booker is hated by progressives even more than Hillary was and doesn’t have nearly her resources. Brown is from the right area of the country and has progressive bona fides but lacks the infrastructure or minority support Hillary had. Harris is a California liberal who is just so easy to brand and dogwhistle against its unbelievable.

It’s so tiresome to see all these partisan hacks underestimate Trump time after time after time. It’s like you’re just waiting and hoping you’ll be able to remove him from office or people will start seeing things the way you do. Trump has a unique brand of appeal and in a high turnout general election he will Be an incredibly difficult opponent to beat. Incumbent presidents always are.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Rofl the pipe dreams are alive and well in this thread I see.

Disapproval is almost meaningless when it comes to Drumpf. We saw that over and over and over again in the primaries, in literally all polling, and in the general in 2016. There are millions and millions of partisan Republicans who will 100% vote for Drumpf if he is their party’s nominee but who disapprove of him. There are also large numbers of disaffecteds who disapprove of both parties and politics in general who he does reasonably well with. He got 48% of the vote in Wisconsin while 36% of the electorate approved of him.

So no, 100-disapproval is no where near an accurate ceiling for Drumpf.

Drumpf won’t lose traditionally red states unless the Democratic nominee runs a flawless, 2008-style campaign AND the economy crashes. Barring both of those things happening Drumpf’s floor in the electoral college is somewhere around Romney’s 206 electoral votes + Ohio - North Carolina. After that, North Carolina, Iowa, and Florida would be tough lifts for any Democrat who doesn’t have strong regional support there, and it’s just not very likely that he would lose any of those if the election were held in an environment similar to the current one.

Dems can regain the Midwest pretty easily without having any miracles fall from the sky, though - Pennsylvania May be the toughest lift but I bet that Biden or Sanders or Brown would win it. The race to the left on economics would make it tough to take Hillary-style margins in SEPA though.

Oh and before everyone says ‘Hillary was AWFUL all my liberal friends think so’ that is total BS. Hillary had a fairly centrist image, had strong minority appeal, had massive campaign organization, and oh ya a billion dollars. She had one weakness among working class men that Drumpf exploited to win the electoral college.

What candidate will the Dems put up in 2020 who will replicate Hillary’s strengths without having the WWC weakness? Gillibrand, who is basically Hillary lite and who would get slaughtered in Macomb, driftless, and throw Scranton into tossup status? Who, by the way, has no where near the institutional minority support that Hillary had?

Booker is hated by progressives even more than Hillary was and doesn’t have nearly her resources. Brown is from the right area of the country and has progressive bona fides but lacks the infrastructure or minority support Hillary had. Harris is a California liberal who is just so easy to brand and dogwhistle against its unbelievable.

It’s so tiresome to see all these partisan hacks underestimate Drumpf time after time after time. It’s like you’re just waiting and hoping you’ll be able to remove him from office or people will start seeing things the way you do. Drumpf has a unique brand of appeal and in a high turnout general election he will Be an incredibly difficult opponent to beat. Incumbent presidents always are.

I agree with you. I am not going to act confident that Trump will or won't win re-election at this point but he definitely should not be underestimated.

[pbrower2a]

Rofl the pipe dreams are alive and well in this thread I see.

Disapproval is almost meaningless when it comes to Trump. We saw that over and over and over again in the primaries, in literally all polling, and in the general in 2016. There are millions and millions of partisan Republicans who will 100% vote for Trump if he is their party’s nominee but who disapprove of him. There are also large numbers of disaffecteds who disapprove of both parties and politics in general who he does reasonably well with. He got 48% of the vote in Wisconsin while 36% of the electorate approved of him.

Trump won early in winner-take-all primaries, often with 30-50% of the popular vote in those primaries. He may have gotten support in those primaries from Democrats who thought that he was the worst possible candidate, and thus the easiest to defeat.  (If you are tempted to vote in the other Party's primaries to mess up the electoral prospects of the other Party -- don't do it!  You might end up with the worst possible result -- the nominee might be the one that you vote for, but he might win the election!) The best result is that you have a tough race between two strong opponents capable of forcing each other to clarify their positions. 

The disaffected just might not vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the one who has used that measure, it is reasonable in view of how it applied to Dubya in 2004 and to Obama in 2012.  It falls apart if something happens to President Trump, showing an electoral 'reality' that never materializes. Also, head-to-head matches (the Presidential horse-race) supplants it. It might also fail if the Democrats splinter along regional or ideological lines.

It is relevant should the President face a Third Party or Independent challenge from the (not necessarily Trump's) Right. I see the 2020 Presidential election well suited to the appearance of a John Anderson or a Ross Perot who challenges a weakened President.

Trump is far behind Obama at this time in 2009. Obama won only one state in which his disapproval ever went above 50% -- Ohio -- before the 2004 election (and in that poll he went to a mere 51% disapproval for a short time). But note well: we did have horse-races involving Obama and sundry Republican opponents such as Palin (not for long), Gingrich, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Christie, Walker, and of course Romney.  We have so many potential match-ups against Trump that nobody can decide which one fits best.

If the President has disapproval in the high forties, he can still win. 50% or over? Too many people have given up. I think it the best measure possible until we have head-to-head matchups that show regional and state-to-state strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, I look at the disapproval figures, and I see a President going down to defeat. The question is how big, but there is no legal difference between him having losing 59-479 or losing  259-279.
Sure, an incumbent President usually has plenty of advantages, including being able to take credit for something that goes right. But even a defanging of the North Korean nuke and missile programs will cause liberals to give more credit to Chinese leadership than to Trump.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I don't see him winning any 'traditionally-Blue (Atlas Red) states. I see him losing Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He will not be able to pick up Minnesota, New Hampshire, or Nevada as compensation.  I see him badly underwater in Iowa in many polls. He's not going to win Colorado (demographics) or Virginia (changing political culture that hurts Republicans).

States can shift politically. Many people were astonished to see Dubya win West Virginia in 2000, a portent for how the state has gone. But let's not forget that back in 1952 Eisenhower picked up a raft of states (like Arizona, Florida, Utah, and Virginia) that had been 'solid New Deal states' that generally went Republican except in  all but the one Democratic blowout (and Virginia surprised many people in 2008, me included).  

The Democratic nominee will not need to win any 'traditionally R' states such as Indiana, Georgia, Arizona, or Texas to win the Presidency. But when a Republican has high disapproval ratings in such states that make those states look iffy, then president Trump has big problems to deal with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that may be the biggest problem for Trump. That may decide things. There is no legal difference between winning 59 and 259 electoral votes and falling short of 270; one still loses.

Whether Lizzie Borden 'took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks; when she saw what she had done, gave her mother forty-one" -- it surely didn't take that many. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will be enough to make the difference between 2016 and the Democratic win of the Presidency in 2020. Ohio and Florida are about ten whacks each; picking up Arizona or Georgia involves a bit less than twenty; Texas is around the 'forty whacks' zone.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who says that those working-class men will think so sympathetically about Trump in 2020? This man's ideology is a resurrection of McKinley or Coolidge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It will be up to voters. Remember that Barack Obama had all sorts of cultural baggage (He's from Chicago, he doesn't look like any prior President, he has a comparatively limited record of public service (sure -- he was 46 when going through the primaries!)... and he still won. Remember also that Ronald Reagan was a divorcee and had come from the moral cesspool that is Hollywood. Reagan was good for lots of liberal jokes -- and the jokes were on the liberals.

Trump may be so bad that many things that seem important in close elections aren't so important this time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disapproval is relevant. There already are exploratory committees for Third Party challenges from the Right. A Right alternative to Trump will hurt him far more than it will hurt the eventual Democratic nominee.

The negatives for the Democrats are obvious. They have a 'quarterback controversy'. Trump is the incumbent, and incumbents usually win. The economy is not in a recession, which is usually a powerful advantage for any incumbent, and time is running out for an economic meltdown that would crash Trump's chances as it did Hoover's. Sure, Trump might get some political benefit from the elimination of North Korean nuke and missile programs... but Carter got some credit for the Middle Eastern peace process for a time, too.

But so far I can't see the Democrats losing on splits on their nominee. Democratic voters despise Donald Trump enough that no sizable fraction of them will fall for some political Mordred. Trump is not taking full advantage of the economic situation for now -- but if the economy should tank, it will tank badly. (It takes a stock of large personal savings to rescue the economy from a market crash, and America is strapped in private and public debt that ensures that there will not be enough savings to rescue the economy if it should tank).

Can I see Democrats losing in 2020? Sure -- if Donald Trump can transform American political culture (especially with Putin-style electoral politics... there's plenty of time for that). Americans might be convinced that burning more energy is the way to prosperity if they are desperate enough, but I doubt that.  Trump offends plenty of liberal sensibilities, and so did Reagan... and look what Reagan did.

His biggest achievement is to push a tax break for the Master Class, one that will bloat the deficits for years while not creating more jobs or middle-class or working-class income. It isn;t popular except with the moneyed elites.

Trump made promises, and he has delivered badly on them. Infrastructure? What you got free or cheaply you will pay heavily for. The promises may have been appealing, but the conditions are appalling. It's like the credit-card for which I was approved: 20% interest rate and no gr4aqce period -- and a $45 annual fee.

No thanks! If I must furnish an apartment, then I will get my stuff at Goodwill, Salvation Army, or the like. I could live with 'Eighties technology in the 'Eighties, and I can do so now. No VHS tapes, though.

[DabbingSanta]

Flip FL, MI, PA, WI and carry everything from 2016 and Dems have already won with 307 EC votes.

[DabbingSanta]

Narrow Trump win (290 R, 248 D)

Narrow Dem win (307 D, 231 R)

Strong Dem win (353 D, 185 R)

(Edit: You could also flip Iowa, but my gut feeling is it will likely go Republican like Missouri did)

[Skill and Chance]

Either a big Dem win or a narrow Trump PV win that is not even close in the EC.  I don't think it will be a repeat of 2016.  Trump either comes back decisively from 2018 or he doesn't.  Currently favoring the latter scenario:

Trump/Pence 327 EV 48.9%
Democrats 211 EV    47.2%

Trend Map: