I think Trump’s odds in 2016 were, what, 1 out of 7? The dice rolled in his favor that year, but that doesn’t mean betting against him was dumb.
His polling numbers have also gone down. You can say the polls were a mystery in 2016, but in 2019 they are a mystery that have gone down. That shouldn’t make anyone more confident in Trump.
Hard to say, but he barely squeaked a victory in 2016, and things haven’t gotten better.
Nate Silver had him about 1 out of 3 in 2016.
It was 28.6% to be exact.. So, less than 1 in 3.
Even if true, it’s still smart to take 2/3 odds over 1/3 odds every time. Especially the second time. Doesn’t guarantee a win, but probabilities aren’t guarantees.
Maybe a poll guessing what 538’s odds are election eve? ������
I take 20% or less. Still too high for comfort.
Except for the “engineer a war” part, I’m fully in line with this.
Are you joking? John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, has wanted war with Iran for a long time. Who is the opposing voice?
I don’t think Trump wants a war with Iran because I don’t think Trump really conceives of wanting anything beyond cheating at a round of golf, having a nice lunch and watching flattering things on Fox. I don’t think Trump is engineering a war on Iran because he doesn’t engineer anything. What he does is sow chaos and look for opportunity to advance his interests. It’s incredibly dangerous that John Bolton is in the middle of this chaos, unopposed by a confirmed Secretary of Defense. This is very fertile territory for an “accidental” war. We are already seeing sparks fly and nobody is trying to de-escalate.
If the Democrats win Florida but don’t carry Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania they lose 261-277 in the EC.
Democrats have won statewide races in those three states in recent elections but not in Florida. The 2018 midterms were a disaster for Democrats in Florida. I am convinced that is an indicator the state is moving in a much more Trumpian direction. If the Democrats carry Florida in 2020 they will also carry the three Rust Belt states. The fantasy aspect of what I said is that focusing on Florida while ignoring those states will result in defeat. The Democrats shouldn’t write Florida off but the priority should be on bringing those three states back to the D column.
Just to highlight what Kolak of Twilo posted above: flipping FL to Blue, the Republican losing FL last election would have been an R win.
If the D loses those three they don’t need FL, if they win FL but lose those three they lose. Unless you ALSO flip AZ I guess.
In any case it doesn’t change the validity of the answer to the question: the popular vote won can be very large with an EC loss depending on where the votes are. Big vote margins in big states still only give the same number of electors and a few votes over the other way in the tipping point states still tip the EC.
Those three dont go together as a set, you know.
Demographically they kind of do.
They are fairly well correlated as states go and a focus on the issues that are most likely to deliver one is likely to similarly impact the others. They are also in 2020 all three demographically at the point that the same turnouts and shares of 2016 would have delivered wins there. AZ and FL, not. Clinton spent tons trying to win FL, it’s where she spent the most on ads and tied for for battleground where she spent the most days … which wouldn’t have done it for her if she had won it. If she spent a bit less money and time there and instead more in MI, WI (spent no days there), and PA, maybe the result would have been different.
I refer you to the chart on this old 538 article. MI and WI are very tightly correlated and PA not too far behind. (OH is also shifts pretty much in lockstep with MI and WI but is a few points more R as its start)
Jeez, it’s as if people have forgotten Iowa continues to exist after February 3 of next year.
Just 7 months ago, the Dems won 3 of Iowa’s 4 CDs, and nearly ousted Steve King in the fourth one. They’re in better shape to win IA than WI next year.
The Dems definitely need to win back PA and MI, I won’t argue that. But WI isn’t a must-win state; they can win Iowa instead, and AFAICT they’re more likely to win Iowa.
Elections have been won without Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, and Iowa, or a combination of those.
I think it would be interesting if anyone won anything without Ohio.
The Presidency has been won with Ohio every election year since 1964. And only once since 1944 has Ohio not picked the winner, and only twice since 1892!
I’m sure John Kerry would agree with me.
At this point, I would put the odds of a Trump re-election at better than 50/50. Of course “at this point” is almost a year and a half before the election, So I would give two-to-one that I will bet wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Did you predict 50/50 in 2016 also? If your prediction has changed, what factors have caused it to change?
I the Democratic electorate is as delusional as you two in this respect, Trump may win despite his best efforts.
This has been a refrain from both sides for the last half dozen or so elections. “Clinton won’t leave office!”, “W won’t allow an election!”, “Obama will cancel the election!”, “Trump won’t respect the results of the election!”
We held elections in the middle of the freakin’ Civil War. If Trump is defeated, he will leave office on January 20, 2021. If re-elected, he will leave office on January 20, 2025. Period.
Is it accurate to label 2018 a “disaster” for Florida Democrats? The Dem candidates lost the Senate seat and governorship by 10,000 and 33,000 respectively out of over eight million ballots cast. The House went 16-11 against them, true, but the state won’t be voting by House district for President next year.
Trump won Iowa by 10 points while losing the national popular vote by 2.
It was within 1 point in Wisconsin.
It’s more likely to shift IA by more than ten than shift WI by less than one?
Midterms were a wave election. Might win IA in a wave election, a landslide. But will already have won.
I don’t think I voted in the poll linked to in the OP, but I thought Hilary would win - not necessarily in a landslide, but pretty easily. I didn’t want her to win, but I thought she would.
I didn’t want Trump to win either, so I voted for the Libertarian candidate - not because I thought he had any chance, but if the Libertarian party in my state got 5% of the vote they would get major party status and would appear automatically on future ballots and they wouldn’t have to do the signature and petition thing anymore.
That didn’t work either.
Trump won.
The advantage in a Presidential election is to the incumbent. That isn’t always a lock, as witnessed by Carter, Bush 41, and Ford, but a race between an incumbent and a challenger has a different dynamic than one between two non-incumbents, and the incumbent usually has the edge.
The economy is doing quite well. That gives a large advantage to an incumbent President, whether he or she is actually responsible for the economy, or not. (Usually not.) Obviously that could change in the next year and a half, and maybe even it can be plausibly blamed on his dumb trade policies. But unless it does change, the advantage is still Trump.
The times when the incumbent lost usually have some over-riding factor to offset incumbent advantage.
Ford pardoned Nixon, the economy sucked, and Ford said stupid stuff about Poland, and it was still close.
Carter lost because the economy sucked, and because he said stupid stuff about malaise and Reagan offered hope and confidence. It wasn’t particularly close, though.
Bush 41 lost because the economy sucked, and because Reagan’s coat tails wore off after four years. And because Bill Clinton was the best pure politician of his generation. He (Clinton) was really, really good at politics. Bush 41 was a stellar resume and not much charisma. Also, Ross Perot. It wasn’t close, very much - Clinton got less than half the vote, Bush got way less than half the vote, and then Clinton was re-elected (also with less than half the vote) because the economy was doing well.
A lot depends (of course) on who gets the Democratic nod. Sanders? Trump, easily. Warren, Booker, Harris? Trump, easily. Buttigieg? Trump. Biden? Closer, but still advantage Trump. Biden suffers from some of Hilary’s drawbacks - he’s not black, so he won’t get the black turnout that Obama got, he is a gaffe machine and it will take some spin to get around that. Mostly, he is like Hilary and Bob Dole and John Kerry and even Bush Sr. - not necessarily popular or beloved on his or her own - it’s just their turn.
As mentioned, polls mean virtually nothing at this stage. And my track record as a prognosticator is on a par with the Psychic Hot Line.
Regards,
Shodan
The only way Trump wins is if Democrats somehow commit a major gaffe that trips them up. Otherwise, Democrats have a 1-mile lead in this marathon.
Reading about Iran shooting down the drone today… makes me wonder if thump wants to engineer some kind of military conflict (just short of an all-out WAR) that will blow up right around the time of the election and distract everyone. Kind of like Munchausen’s by Proxy, where he brings the country to the brink of disaster so he can play the hero and save the day. I’m not saying he’s capable of actually planning and executing this, but that he has some vague idea that a “sort-of” war might be just what he needs to secure the win (re-election).