Red Wiggler can you direct me to your sources for those state demographic trends and projections?
[This](Red Wiggler) is what I can find. In their projection of changing demographics this are the result of the same turnouts and shares of each group as 2016 in 2020 as one simulation:
In that 2016 run in 2020 the next closest to flipping D would be, in order: FL; NV; AZ; and GA. OH is after that.
They run several alternative scenarios too.
Push White non-college educated white vote back to 2012 level and it is an electoral blow out of 347 to 191. Lots of others some that are good Trump outcomes.
For example
Cool stuff to dive into.
But short version is that by demographics alone Trump is in trouble in the battleground states. And any swing of white noncollege-educated away from Trump 2016 results would have outsized EV impacts. Regain the Obama-Trump voters (2012 white noncollege-educated support) and the popular vote win becomes modestly larger but the EV win is huge, 347 to 191, even flipping OH back.
…Trump is in trouble against a GENERIC Democrat. Once the field narrows I would expect to see Trump’s numbers improve in some states, possibly dramatically depending on which one of the Democrats is put in the poll.
No idea what I did wrong but wrong did I do it. Here.
Tested and works. “America’s Electoral Future Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition” by Center for American Progress, Brookings, Bipartisan Policy Center, and PRRI.
The point of that specific simulation is not against a GENERIC Democrat, it is against the turnout and share of 2016 that Clinton got applied to changing demographics.
It is NOT a prediction but it does run alternate simulations if he does better or worse with different demographics.
Cosigned. It’s not such a slam dunk as Kolak indicates to simply focus on the “Northern Path”. In a way, singlemindedly doing so could potentially be the kind of mistake Hillary made in 2016 in not being imaginative enough about the potential for states to be in play beyond the conventional wisdom.
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.
But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.
One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.
But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.
One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.
But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.
One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
I know you understand what the word “prioritize” means. That’s what I am saying is crucial. Make those states a priority. Failure to do so will lead to the re-election of DRT. Why is that such an issue for certain posters? Florida, Texas and Arizona (!!??!!) are fantasies in 2020. Sure, spend some money there but, ignore the “Northern Path” as you call it and it will end in defeat for the Ds. It cost HRC the election in 2016 and doing so again in 2020 will lead to the same result for ::GENERIC DEMOCRAT::.
Florida is hardly “fantasy” - it’s definitely in play and Democrats should compete for it. I don’t disagree that WI, PA, MI, and OH are where we should start, but I hope we don’t write off Iowa, Arizona, or Florida. They aren’t fantasies if the Democrats can connect with voters. If I were Democrats, I would be spending a lot of quality time with senators in “purple” states and talking strategy with them, and plotting ways to effectively reach voters in these states whilst not alienating their base. Economics and environmental issues are probably good places to start.
As just said above the discussion is about which states to prioritize, where to focus. Unless the report I cited is wrong in their projections, in terms of winning the presidency, the answer does seem to be a slam dunk.
Same 2016 demographic turnouts and shares applied to 2020 would have PA, MI, and WI, as the key states to win, the closest, and the tipping points of the election. They need to be the focus, the priority. Demographic shifts would give the advantage to a D who did exactly as HRC did, but of course results can shift. HRC lost partly because she did not adequately prioritize those states.
There are other reasons for fighting in other states, such as helping bring some impact to Senate races and further downticket, and having other paths possible. But don’t risk those states in any way.
FL and AZ are not fantasies. OH is getting closer to one and IA even more so.
But any election that has the D presidential nominee winning those states had that nominee winning without them.
Put another way - any generic D should be able to win PA, MI, and WI with any reasonable effort there. Biden, who connects better than Clinton did with white noncollege-educated and Black voters both, would, for example, be highly likely to do better than she did there and with shifting demographics she’s have won there in 2020. Even with shifting demographics winning AZ and FL instead (and without those three you need both) are heavy lifts, possible but unlikely without a sizable national margin that has also already won PA, MI, and WI.
100% that the D nominee cannot allow Trump to completely control the narrative. They have to get white noncollege-educated voters thinking about something other than immigration.
So many thoughts. And some of them self-contradicting. Which I hope is an indication that there are so many variables in next year’s election and not just a symptom of my inherent indecisiveness.
Demographics matter. I think we covered elsewhere some time ago that as early as 2018, analysis showed that re-running the election with the major demographics voting the same way and in the same percentages would result in a Hilary win. So we can deduce from that that Donald needs some things to change to win re-election. He needs Dem turnout to be tepid again. Or he needs to win over new voters and/or increase his own turnout (in part to make up for a bunch of his voters dying in the interim). Do we see the latter happening? Also, there is nearly universal agreement that Hilary was the worst candidate the Dems could have selected. If this is actually true, why would blue turnout decrease with a different candidate? Do they have several candidates even worse than Clinton?
Wisconsin is crucial. But North Carolina just elected a Democratic governor, I see no reason to take that state off the campaigning table.
The nightmare scenario: Trump loses the popular vote by six million, holds Wisconsin and every other '16 red state, wins by a single electoral vote and we spend four more years listening to him crow about it.
He is the incumbent in a strong economy. His re-election should be a no-brainer. Only Donald Trump and his inherent assholery is making this close.
Good points, except that it is hardly universally believed that Bernie would have done better. I believe he would have lost the popular vote, but we cannot ever know. (Trial heat polls, conducted when the GOP’s Bernie oppo-research powder was still dry, are less than worthless.)
I do believe the Maryland governor would have beat Trump, but he got zero traction in the primaries.
Whereas I still think that Obama’s 50-state strategy was the right move. Obviously he didn’t spend equal time on all 50 states, but he made an effort to compete in all of them, giving him multiple possible paths to the Presidency, and keeping him from being dependent on any single “key state” (or even a small group of them). And it worked. Clinton did the opposite, relying on a single path (the “Blue Wall”), and then lost when the Blue Wall crumbled.
Plus, a 50-state strategy helps in the states you’re trying to focus on, too. When Obama campaigned in Nebraska, it didn’t just send a message to Nebraskans. It let the whole country know that he cared about farmers, and that influenced farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. And it sent a message of unity, that energized and mobilized his supporters everywhere.
Really good post here, especially the last paragraph. I completely agree, and I’d add that Clinton’s mistake in skipping red states was a pattern with consequences beyond just the republican-leaning states; that undoubtedly hurt her image in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where she lost states because Trump dominated suburban and rural counties. You can sense it just by watching her on television: she didn’t seem comfortable campaigning in these areas.
Differences included that Obama was very well funded so could afford to spread the field, and was a movement candidate who shuffled some alignments.
Trump will likely have more money to throw around than any D will and none of this field generates Obama 08 excitement. Obama 12 didn’t either and fell back from the 50 state approach.
Clinton did NOT pay enough attention to MI and WI. Or even PA. If only she had she’d be president today.
