Current 2020 map based on Morning Consult tracking

[Progressive Pessimist]

Then the Democrat wins. That's good. Virginia is not voting for Trump.

[eric82oslo]

The ten states closest to being the 2020 tipping point right now, as of July 2018 and only of course if Trump remains atop the Republican ticket which after this wildest of weeks of course is highly questionable, perhaps/probably even unlikely:

1. Virginia
2. Nevada
3. Pennsylvania
4. Ohio
5. Iowa
6. Arizona
7. New Mexico
8. Maine
9. North Carolina
10. Michigan

[RINO Tom]

I'd personally guess that, as of today, we are looking at this:

[Nyssus]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

[RINO Tom]

I'd personally guess that, as of today, we are looking at this:

Guess or hope?

There’s no way the Democrat fails to crack 50% in NH if they’re winning IA, NC and OH. Also, AZ and GA probably flip as well in your scenario.

Forgot to flip the percentage for NH from what 2016 was set at.

FTR, my friend, I don’t care how NH votes, LOL.  I suggest you care less.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

[pbrower2a]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

The ones that Trump has indicate a troubled Presidency that needs to either turn  much around or cheat to be re-elected. Weird events could get President Trump re-elected, but I wouldn't bet on such happening.

Sure, Reagan was this far behind in 1982, but look what happened... But Reagan  successfully put an end to stagflation, and by 1984 price stability made many more comfortable. Those who got stuck with low pay in jobs? They could take second jobs in the fast-food places and shopping malls then in bloom.
 
 

[eric82oslo]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

We know, but then again, what are all you bored clowns gonna do for two years?

[twenty42]

2012 called...they want their map back.

[pops]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

[CookieDamage]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

Yeah with you disapproval within striking distance, not in the fifties like Trump is lmao

[pbrower2a]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

If disapproval is also low. 100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling to what an incumbent can get.  Disapproval is rejection, and changing the minds of people who already disapprove of the performance of an incumbent politician is difficult. Talk to them as a canvasser for your candidate and you will find that you give them even more cause to vote  against yours.

Politicians usually get re-elected, and when they don't, then something is amiss. An incumbent can usually pick up a huge chunk of the undecided with a spirited campaign, finding out what the undecided have as concerns, and offering solutions. That sounds like what Harry Truman did in 1948, and it obviously worked.

[twenty42]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

If disapproval is also low. 100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling to what an incumbent can get.  Disapproval is rejection, and changing the minds of people who already disapprove of the performance of an incumbent politician is difficult. Talk to them as a canvasser for your candidate and you will find that you give them even more cause to vote  against yours.

Politicians usually get re-elected, and when they don't, then something is amiss. An incumbent can usually pick up a huge chunk of the undecided with a spirited campaign, finding out what the undecided have as concerns, and offering solutions. That sounds like what Harry Truman did in 1948, and it obviously worked.

Except that a presidential election isn't an approval/disapproval poll...it's a binary choice between two candidates. If Trump's opponent has similar disapproval/unfavorability numbers, the metric becomes meaningless.

[pops]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

If disapproval is also low. 100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling to what an incumbent can get.  Disapproval is rejection, and changing the minds of people who already disapprove of the performance of an incumbent politician is difficult. Talk to them as a canvasser for your candidate and you will find that you give them even more cause to vote  against yours.

Politicians usually get re-elected, and when they don't, then something is amiss. An incumbent can usually pick up a huge chunk of the undecided with a spirited campaign, finding out what the undecided have as concerns, and offering solutions. That sounds like what Harry Truman did in 1948, and it obviously worked.

Except that a presidential election isn't an approval/disapproval poll...it's a binary choice between two candidates. If Trump's opponent has similar disapproval/unfavorability numbers, the metric becomes meaningless.

Re-election campaigns are usually about the incumbent.

[twenty42]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

If disapproval is also low. 100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling to what an incumbent can get.  Disapproval is rejection, and changing the minds of people who already disapprove of the performance of an incumbent politician is difficult. Talk to them as a canvasser for your candidate and you will find that you give them even more cause to vote  against yours.

Politicians usually get re-elected, and when they don't, then something is amiss. An incumbent can usually pick up a huge chunk of the undecided with a spirited campaign, finding out what the undecided have as concerns, and offering solutions. That sounds like what Harry Truman did in 1948, and it obviously worked.

Except that a presidential election isn't an approval/disapproval poll...it's a binary choice between two candidates. If Trump's opponent has similar disapproval/unfavorability numbers, the metric becomes meaningless.

Re-election campaigns are usually about the incumbent.

Bush 2004 and Obama 2012 weren't exactly swimming in popularity, but America judged both of them as the lesser of two evils.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Generic Dem
350-186

[twenty42]

Generic Dem
350-186

Aww...the only problem is that "Generic Dem" isn't going to be the nominee. The 2020 Democratic nominee is going to be a flawed politician with some skeletons in his/her closet, running against an incumbent president who may or may not have a good economy to boast about.

[Mr. Smith]

Well whaddya' know, Wisconsin stands a chance to be left of Michigan for the first time since 1988.

[pops]

This is where I think the states are. It's dependent on the Democratic nominee, though.

No Toss Ups
Trump/Pence - 331
Democrat - 207

Remove "Tilt" States
Trump/Pence - 274
Democrat - 201

Remove "Lean" States
Trump/Pence - 260
Democrat - 188

Safe States Only
Trump/Pence - 213
Democrat - 183

[pbrower2a]

Approval ratings in 2018 do not, by any means, indicate 2020 electoral results.

To add some fuel to this, you really only need about 42% approval as an incumbent to win an election.

If disapproval is also low. 100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling to what an incumbent can get.  Disapproval is rejection, and changing the minds of people who already disapprove of the performance of an incumbent politician is difficult. Talk to them as a canvasser for your candidate and you will find that you give them even more cause to vote  against yours.

Politicians usually get re-elected, and when they don't, then something is amiss. An incumbent can usually pick up a huge chunk of the undecided with a spirited campaign, finding out what the undecided have as concerns, and offering solutions. That sounds like what Harry Truman did in 1948, and it obviously worked.

Except that a presidential election isn't an approval/disapproval poll...it's a binary choice between two candidates. If Trump's opponent has similar disapproval/unfavorability numbers, the metric becomes meaningless.

There are better metrics, and as the election gets closer, those metrics become available. Of course we have the previous election, which is usually highly relevant. Few states switched sides from 1992 to 1996, from 2000 to 2004, or from 2008 to 2012. So the last three Presidential elections involving an incumbent have been similar in result to the election in which the incumbent President was elected. But go back in time, and you find that the elder Bush, who won his first election lost by a large electoral margin lost  his re-election bid by a large margin. Before that, Reagan won by a landslide margin in 1980 only to win by a crushing landslide margin in 1984 -- and defeated a troubled incumbent who barely won in 1976. In fact one does not find an incumbent President winning in much the same 'electoral style' as did Clinton, the younger Bush, and Obama until the two elections involving Eisenhower in the 1950s.  

Just because a pattern has held three times does not establish a likelihood of repetition.

Elections involving an incumbent usually have the achievements and failures of the incumbent as the focus of the election. Of course, should Trump lose only two states that he won in 2016, he wins -- unless one of the states that he loses is Florida (less likely than Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) or Texas (36 electoral votes, and otherwise a joke as a prospect). But should he lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin or one of those states and Florida and picks up nothing, then he loses despite having an electoral result similar in result.

So what are better metrics than approval and disapproval? Obviously, match-ups between nominees, but that availability will not emerge  until 2020. The Democrats have a huge 'quarterback controversy' unlikely to resolve itself. Indeed, we may have an election in which a significant Third Party or independent campaign emerges, and we cannot tell whether that would take votes from the Republican nominee or from the Democratic nominee or even whether such would have a significant effect.

Better than what I have for 43 states, Dee Cee, and the five independent-voting Congressional  districts is the answer to a polling question, essentially "Do you expect to vote to re-elect Donald Trump or do you expect to vote for someone else?" I have that for seven states (AZ, FL, MI, MN, NH, OH, and WI), which is no random scatter of states of at most marginal relevance to Election 2020. All of them are either traditional swing states or were very close in 2016. Except for one of the states (New Hampshire, with four electoral votes) the question is asked by a pollster with which I have some familiarity and respect (Marist).  

Results for six of the states are:

AZ 35-57
FL 35-54
MI 28-62
MN 30-60
NH 41-50 or 41-57
OH 34-58
WI 31-63

Except for Ohio (a usual swing state in which Trump did extremely well for a Republican nominee) all of these states were within  5% of going one way or another. We all have good reason to believe that in a close election in 2020, a basic premise that most of us had in 2016, that these states would as a group generally be close in 2020.  

The problems with this measure in New Hampshire are

(1) that the question is asked by a pollster new to us, and
(2) that this pollster subdivides answers into "strong" and "weak" likelihood of voting for or against Donald Trump. Only 37% of polled voters in New Hampshire say that they have a high likelihood of voting for Donald Trump, which is awful for a Republican. Only 4% say that they have a slight chance of voting for Donald Trump, which is itself weak... and I can add those because strong support and 'squishy' support is what one gets in an election. 50% say that they will definitely not vote for Donald Trump and 7% say that they are unlikely to vote for him.

But this said, "Will you or will you not vote to re-elect Donald Trump?" is unambiguous enough for six states, and... the President is not going to pick up Minnesota (which, if he did, would suggest that he is gaining support), he is unlikely to win New Hampshire even with the most generous interpretation of the question... and he is not going to win any of the five states in Marist polling that he lost, including a state that he won by 8% in 2016.

Just look at the Ohio result. 58% of polled voters suggest that they will not vote for him. That means that Trump has a ceiling of 42% of the popular vote in Ohio in 2020, and that Democrats have invariably cracked that level except in three-way Presidential races or blow-out losses. (Bill Clinton ended up with just less than 40% of the popular vote in Ohio, but that was in a three-way contest with Perot getting over 20% of the popular vote).

I have Trump approval at 42% in Ohio in an even later poll than that in which Marist asked the "re-elect/do not re-elect" question. Disapproval is at 49%, which is awful for a state that the President won by 8%. At this point I predict that the President will lose Ohio -- and Arizona, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.  

How often does an incumbent lose a state that he won by 8% or more in the election that got him to the Presidency in his re-election bid?

The elder Bush lost a raft of states (FL, NV, GA, NH, TN, AR, NJ, KY, ME, OH, and PA) that he won in 1988 -- but we can attribute that to partisan fatigue, lacking an idea of what to do in a second Presidential term, and an unusually-strong opponent in the next election following an opponent who stumbled at every turn. To that we can reasonably treat Michigan (7.90%) which is very close to 8% anyway.
 
Sixteen years earlier we go back to Jimmy Carter, who ended up losing Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee in the 1980 disaster for him. Carter did not win many states by huge margins, but certainly lost many by small margins in 1976.

Democrats do not need to nominate another Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama to defeat  Donald Trump.      

[Grassroots]

This is where I think the states are. It's dependent on the Democratic nominee, though.

No Toss Ups
Trump/Pence - 331
Democrat - 207

Remove "Tilt" States
Trump/Pence - 274
Democrat - 201

Remove "Lean" States
Trump/Pence - 260
Democrat - 188

Safe States Only
Trump/Pence - 213
Democrat - 183

What

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

My heuristic for how much trouble Trump (or Pence, lol) is in in 2020: graph how often Republicans mention Hillary Clinton on twitter.  The more Hillary is trending among Republicans, the more trouble Trump (or Pence, lol) is in.

I agree, 2018 approval polls are meaningless.

[eric82oslo]

Link to tracking website: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/


And this is the new map as of June 2018:

Dem: 246
Rep: 224
Toss up: 68


At this point as of June 2018, Virginia is the tipping point state, while Ohio is the closest state.


How I chose to shade each state:

Within 50 PP (percentage points): Toss up
50-99: 30%
100-149: 40%
150-199: 50%
200-249: 60%
250-299: 70%
300-349: 80%
350-> 90%

This month's map - as of July 2018 (only slight changes from last month):

Dem: 266 (+20)
Rep (Trump/Pence): 224 (no change)
Toss-up: 48 (-20)

A new month has passed, this time adding the 20th month - August 2018 - of approval polling for Trump. Here's the new full list:

1. Hawaii: -532
2. Massachusetts: -505

3. Vermont: -498

4. Maryland: -435

5. California: -392
6. Rhode Island: -367
7. Washington: -358

8. Connecticut: -314
9. Oregon: -313
10. Illinois: -304

11. New York: -279
12. New Jersey: -260
13. Minnesota: -254

14. New Hampshire: -214
15. Delaware: -206
16. Colorado: -201

17. Wisconsin: -193
18. Michigan: -171

19. New Mexico: -134
20. Maine: -128
21. Iowa: -112

22. Pennsylvania: -60

23. Virginia: -42 (tipping point)
24. Nevada: -33
25. Ohio: -18


26. Arizona: +41

27. North Carolina: +63

28. Utah: +102
29. Florida: +106
30. Georgia: +106
31. Indiana: +132
32. Missouri: +133

33. Nebraska: +158
34. Montana: +176
35. Texas: +177
36. North Dakota: +177
37. Kansas: +179

38. South Carolina: +243

39. South Dakota: +275
40. Alaska: +278

41. Arkansas: +309
42. Idaho: +321
43. Kentucky: +326
44. Tennessee: +338

45. Oklahoma: +360
46. Mississippi: +397

47. Louisiana: +431

48. West Virginia: +491

49. Alabama: +530

50. Wyoming: +632


The changes in ranking from last month:

*Delaware surpassed Colorado, and is now the 15th most anti-Trump/Democratic state
*New Mexico surpassed Maine, and is now the 19th most anti-Trump/Democratic state
*Florida is back ahead of or equal to Georgia, and is thus the 29th most anti-Trump/Democratic state
*Montana surpassed no less than three states - Texas, North Dakota and Kansas - and is thus the 34th most anti-Trump/Democratic state, although just barely


And here's the new map, encompassing January 2017-August 2018:

Dem: 266 (no change)
Rep (Trump/Pence): 224 (no change)
Toss-up: 48 (no change)

The biggest map change this month is probably Utah going from lean (30%) to likely (40%) Republican. Some states have also gone from strongly (80%) to super strongly (90%) partisan. Other than that the map remains relatively unchanged, with the same four toss up states as last month and with Virginia continuing to be the most likely tipping point state, followed closely by Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[CookieDamage]

Virginia is not a tossup or tipping point lmao

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Seems pretty unlikely to me as well, because you have a huge share of "white educated people" there, in esp. the Washington D.C. suburbs. I think Pennsylvania is more likely to be the tipping point state (assuming Michigan has shifted more to the Democrats once again, and Florida is more Republican than PA).