Do you think Trump will win in 2020?

Politics & Elections
421

Did you (or BobLibDem) read the article? It has plenty of (likely) important facts that are relevant to this thread but haven’t been mentioned yet.

To give just one: the suburbs of Milwaukee are the only northern/coastal suburbs to be still leaning toward Trump, polls indicate. The MATH is such that these people will very likely have an outsized influence on whether Trump is re-elected. So, it’s logical to argue that we should spend at least a little time trying to figure out what people in Waukesha, Wisconsin are thinking, and urge the Democratic Party powers-that-be to plan accordingly (and perhaps each of us should make our own primary vote/caucus “vote” based in part on this).

422

Was reacting to the snippet that Kolack posted. There was nothing profound in it, but it seemed like he was thinking it was advancing some kind of point.

No one is arguing that campaigning heavily in battleground areas is a bad idea. The MATH is a big ole duh. It’s elementary that winning comes down to racking up the votes needed to get the necessary EC votes.

The crux is how much should the Dems contort themselves in an effort to win voters that haven’t seen enough of Trump to soundly reject him yet, despite all the shit he’s done. Trump is letting all his flags fly right now, so it’s clear that if someone is still leaning towards him or even just feeling mildly indifferent about him, Dems will need much more than typical elbow grease to win votes from them. I’m skeptical there is anything they can do without basically becoming Republicans, and that spells doom as a result of a demotivated base.

423

True, that is the dilemma as I see it as well. There might be a way to do both, to a degree - figure out what fires up (to vote, and vote Dem) BOTH the base AND a carefully selected subset of moderate Republican leaners. Not all “independents,” not all “undecided no-college-degree white men,” just a mathematically important subset. That’s when detailed info like “suburban Milwaukee” can be helpful.

424

The middle ten minutes of this 20-minute podcast with Nate Silver and a Pennsylvania electoral politics scholar speaks exactly to what I just asked — what do suburbanites in Pennsylvania (and Wisconsin) care about?

One positive trend is that many 18-35-year-olds are moving to these suburbs. Now we just have to make sure they VOTE.

425

I hate how “bubble” is abused as a concept, but we see it on full display here in YWTF’s post and there is no not using the word to describe it.

It seems incomprehensible to someone from many our perspectives that anyone who is not completely soundly rejecting Trump at this point, maybe even slightly leaning towards him given a good economy and all, is actually winnable. If disgust at all he does is not enough to vote against him no matter who it is and no matter what they are selling, then, hell, short of our candidates being Republicans they are gone.

It aint the case, and it is not just the moderate Republican leaners. There are, we all know, voters who are willing to look the other way about issues and rhetoric that do not impact them directly, but who can be moved by arguments about how Trump is failing them, especially if there is an alternative message being offered that they can see themselves signing on to. Disgust at Trump won’t change their votes; his failing them and having a good alternative can.

In rural Wisconsin dairy is the biggest player and that industry is in crisis. Farms, especially family farms, are folding, and tariffs are making a bad circumstance much worse and with much less chance get better. Some are staying patient that Trump’s approach will pay off … but if, what a shock, it does not? They might not be so in his camp in 2020.

Trump has not cut taxes for people like them. He’s instead used massive debt to concentrate more power and wealth in the hands of the very rich like himself and his cronies.

Healthcare is another issue that Trump’s policies have failed THEM.

Pollution increases due to cuts in oversight, such as water in rural and exurban districts that is unsafe to drink, is an issue that matters to them … Evers won against Walker partly with a focus on it. Trump is failing them there too.
Interesting analysis of the numbers by type of district over time by 538. Biggest D-ward movement in 2018 from 2016 was in the “sparse suburban” districts, which actually flipped to D from R. Those voters need to be kept.

You are not going to lose college-educated white voter share or turnout or even the young progressive subgroup, let alone urban voters overall, to the GOP by making sure you message strongly on those issues that can decrease the size of a Republican wins in rural-suburban and rural districts and by working hard to keep and build on the dramatic gains in the sparsely populated suburbs as well as those more densely populated.

I just don’t think these voters per se think of themselves as some homogenous clump of moderate GOP leaners. They care about the issues that matter to them. If they feel that Trump has failed to deliver and the D candidate is really listening and hearing them, respecting that they have real issues that matter, and offering some viable alternative, they’d vote D in significant numbers. If the D candidate only focuses on issues of “the base” and Trump plays up how they matter most, they may give him another term to make his approach work.

426

I want to emphasize we’re way, way out and a lot can happen between now and then, but just looking at the map, my gut feeling is that, barring anything out of the ordinary (i.e. major economic contraction, disastrous war, etc), Trump is on track to win in a very tight, possibly historically tight, election. He’ll lose the popular vote, and possibly by an even greater margin than last time, as Democrats will probably run up the score in places like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and perhaps California (depending on turnout). But Trump will use his money and organization to grind out the purple states.

I think Trump will lose PA and MI, but he will keep OH, FL, IA, FL, and NC. He will probably just barely keep WI and could conceivably gain MN. Another possibility is that we have a repeat of 2000 in which Trump files lawsuits and sends multiple outcomes to the courts.

427

You realize that given the states you named that “probably just barely keep WI and could conceivably gain MN” is what your prediction hinges on. If he doesn’t win one or the other he loses.

428

Understood.

I think it’ll be that close, and I’ve been fairly consistent in saying that I put Trump’s odds of re-election at just slightly north of 50%. The math right now actually isn’t good for him, but what I fear might happen is that once we find out who the nominee is, he will pull out all the stops. The race will tighten. And there are probably several paths to a Trump victory - certainly not an unlimited number of paths, maybe 2-3, but Trump could pull another rabbit out of a hat.

However, if the economy folds, if we have a war that doesn’t go so well, or if there’s a natural disaster response that presents Trump in a poor light, then he’s toast, I think. Short of that, though, I think he hangs on by a thread.

429

Curious why you think Trump could win Minnesota. The state has been blue since 1972; longest blue streak of any state in the nation. If there is any blue momentum that could cause Trump to lose Pennsylvania and Michigan (per your analysis,) then it would be highly contradictory for Trump to somehow have a wind at his back at the same time that could enable him to get Minnesota.

The only way Trump gets Minnesota is if there is such immense red momentum going for him that he essentially captures all of the rest of the Rust Belt at the same time.

430

I’m going to make a prediction here. Watch how Indiana goes. Trump carried the state by some 500,000 votes, and it has turned increasingly more conservative since Birch Bayh lost his Senate seat to Dan Quayle. But not only are farmers going through a bad year, but agricultural lenders are tightening credit, and Trump’s tariffs have hurt - of all things - the RV industry. Another year of this, combined with a heavy vote in NW Indiana, will spell real trouble for Trump.

431
  1. Fake News
  2. Obstructionist Democrat’s Fault
  3. Socialists! Goddamn Socialists!

Indiana goes for Trump.

432

I agree that Minnesota is a long shot, and for the time being, Trump is probably an underdog; I think he might be a little more likely to win in WI than in MN; however, I think the odds are fairly good that he wins one or the other (MN or WI).

As someone pointed out earlier, the tariffs could be a problem with WI dairy farmers; however, Trump can blame it on foreigners, blame it on the cheating Chinese and his base will probably eat it up, particularly as Trump wins with wedge issues. And wedge issues are where I can see Trump winning in MN, particularly if the mostly white electorate there begins to take a dim view of Somali-born Ilhan Omar and how she represents their state. This is also why I expect Trump’s racism and polarization to get really, really nasty. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

433

DSeid is right. A shorter, and admittedly oversimplified, way to put it: we need to get all the “good” people to the polls. We also need to get a certain number of semi-“bad” people to vote Democratic, in part by convincing them we aren’t disgusted by their semi-badness. We can’t do it without them, as unfortunate and distasteful as that may be.

As for MN? I live here and I promise you Trump is not going to break our state’s streak as the most consistent presidential blue state for the past half century.

434

Very little may be impossible but it is hard to say which is more improbable: a D win with Indiana or an R win with Minnesota? (Excepting some blow-out in which those states were no where near needed.)

MN flipping before the D has already lost all of PA, MI, and WI? What would have to happen for that to occur? Omar aint popular in swing states in general but she is one of Minnesotans own and I don’t think they like one of theirs attacked. We form all sorts of tribes.

IN? Even dropping Pence with insults with Pence getting so offended as to work against him … I can’t see it flipping without many others having already done so.

But yeah, watching Indiana could still be worthwhile, even if Trump wins it, as he is very likely to do. Trump approval there is stronger than in Ohio. Polling that shows weakness there as the margin and turnout of the base goes down with agricultural economy travails while suburban to urban turnout and margins increase … would be worth paying lots of attention to.

435

We need a certain number of “bad” people to not for Trump. If they vote Dem, 3rd party, or don’t vote at all, this is as a good as vote for Dems, just as long as Dem turnout in the battleground states is on fire.

I may sound like a Debbie Downer by being pessimistic that Trump supporters can be seduced by Dems, but actually, the optimist in me says that chances are good Trump will lose. Not because of Dems per se, but because I’m not seeing evidence that Trump has gained more support than he’s lost. Even if pro-Trump turnout is higher than it was in 2016, how likely it will be higher than the anti-Trump turnout? There is a lot of time between now and the election, which means plenty of opportunities for Trump to royally fuck up as his mental health declines, his impulsive bullying worsens, his policy mistakes compound themselves, and his criminal past catches up with him.

I think the best Dem strategy is one that tailors messages strategically, depending on the audience being targeted. A strong, unifying, and passionate pro-Dem rallying cry needs to be articulated to energize the liberal base. A fact-driven anti-Trump message needs to be communicated over and over again to fence sitters. A mixture of both is needed for everyone else.

With that in mind, ads that show Trump making stupid, hypocritical, and offensive sound bites and tweets are a perfectly sensible course of action if you want to hammer the point that Trump is bad for the country and depress turnout for him. That should be Dem’s goal as much as trying to win votes from republicans and independents. We shouldn’t be making the pursuit of perfection be the enemy of the good.

436

My “analysis” (I haven’t really much at this point, TBH) is based on the…“hunch”…that Trump’s polarization begins to work in ways that aren’t yet visible. The way that happens is that Democrats (progressives) begin reacting in ways that make moderates uncomfortable. I don’t think this has happened yet, but I am seeing signs that it could unfold this way, and if it does, then the results might surprise us. One risk in this scenario is that the left splinters and either inspires newcomers to run as independents or green party candidates, or even causes some Democrats currently running to jump ship and do the same. This threat comes from both the progressives and the moderates within the party. The danger is that they stop tolerating each other, that the intra-party divide starts to take a personal tone.

Of course none of this may happen - and I would love to have this post for us to look back and have a good laugh over.

437

The reactive behavior by Democrats is the problem. Moderates and progressives have to be proactive and explain what they intend to do to make people’s lives better. Allowing Trump’s tantrums and bad behavior to dominate every news cycle is a losing strategy for them.

438

Sorry to harp on math, but it really isn’t the case that it is as good for previous Trump voters to not vote or to vote third party as it is to vote Dem. A vote that stays home or votes third party is of half as much impact as a vote that flips. You know this, as you would call it, “no duh” item.

Your post also seems to accept a myth that there was some surge in non-college educated white voter turnout that drove 2016. There wasn’t. Overall they turned out at about the same as in 2012, about 59%. They just broke more resoundingly R-ward than they ever had before. Their turnout is a pretty consistent thing it may in fact be harder to depress it (or elevate it for that matter) than to get a less poor share of it. The latter has been done before, in fact every time before. If every other D nominee not named Hillary, including the one named Obama, has been able to do better with the demographic, then a D nominee this time should be able to as well. No reason they cannot. And again every one that flips is worth two that stay home.

That said you are correct in your cautious optimism. It is sort of the flip side of Obama’s turnout of the Black vote. There really was only going downhill from there, or at best maintaining. Likewise Trump’s share of the non-college educated white vote was record breaking, and even if it doesn’t drop off (and I think it could if they are listened to, spoken to, and emphasis is given to the issues and positive messaging I have highlighted already, rather than the wedge ones that Trump will try to make it all about), going higher is improbable. Meanwhile if 2018 is only partially repeated he will have lost more of every other demographic and turnout of demographics that oppose him will be up.

I see *zero *evidence that “ads that show Trump making stupid, hypocritical, and offensive sound bites and tweets” would have any impact on depressing his turnout and some that they would have the exact opposite impact as his base eats that shit up. Enumerate how he has failed to deliver for them and of course how his actions have served the cause of hate and division, sure. That is different.

439

Was there a reason you neglected to include the last part of what I wrote, which is “…just as long as the Dem turnout in the battleground states is on fire”? It’s almost as if you are looking for a reason to argue with me. Gee, why is that? :dubious:

The contest will be determined by what happens in the three swing states where Trump eked out a victory. I love the way this article lays how razor thin the margins were. If even a small fraction of 2016 Trump voters in these states abandon him, it is not necessary for them to vote Dem for Dems to win.

Is it even possible to argue against this point without being ridiculous? I’m not sure, but if that is what you’re in the mood for, have at it.

Uh, no it doesn’t. Between the two of us, only you have this fixation with non-college educated whites.

440

I apparently did not understand that the first section was a complete non sequitur.

It may be that we even agree!

On fire turnout with Obama level Black turnout and all other Dem leaning groups coming out strong can win as long as Trump has no gains in his turnout or share. He can have the exact same and he’d lose. It might still be uncomfortably close in those battleground states but still. If some stay home or more go third party it helps a bit. If some flip it helps a lot more.

A modest improvement in D performance with white non-college educated voters, not even to Obama or Kerry or Gore level, just less poor than HRC did, can win those same key battleground states even with the same HRC turnout among D leaning demographics. It would really not take all that many flipping for it to not be all that close. Get better than HRC turnout of D-leaning demographics too and those states are blow outs.

What I am fixated on is the mantra I hear from some in these threads that all that matters is appealing to “the base” and exciting them. Getting that vote out, playing to your strengths, is of course important, but do it in ways that do not also help Trump play to his strengths. Undercutting his strengths can be done at the same time as playing to your own. It is not all that matters.