The current poll of Iowa establishes that President Trump is in deep trouble in a state that he won by nearly 10%. Yes, it is possible for a Republican nominee to win the Presidency without Iowa (Dubya did so in 2000) or with New Hampshire (Dubya did in 2004 and Trump did in 2016). It is also possible for a President to win re-election while losing a state that he won in his first bid just barely but then lose it by 10% or more (as did Obama with Indiana). It is hard to see how President Trump can get disapproval ratings low enough to win Michigan or Pennsylvania outright in a binary race. He won both states, and he has little room for any losses if he loses those two states in 2020.
These are the states that President Trump and Hillary Clinton got within 10% of each other in 2016:
Iowa 9.41% 404/410
Texas 8.98% 368/404
Ohio 8.07% 350/368
Georgia 5.01% 334/350
North Carolina 3.66% 319/334
Arizona 3.50% 307/319
Florida 1.19% 278/307
Wisconsin 0.76% 268/278 (victory threshold in 2016)
Pennsylvania 0.72% 248/268
Michigan 0.22% 232/248
New Hampshire 0.37% 228/232
Minnesota 1.51% 218/228
Nevada 2.42% 213/218
Maine 2.96% 210/213
Colorado 4.91% 201/210
Virginia 5.32% 188/201
New Mexico 8.21% 183/188
*I do not quite know where the electoral vote for ME-02 goes. Neither do I quite know where the electoral vote for NE-02 goes.
I have the state, the margin of victory/loss, and the difference in electoral votes between winning and losing the state.
Any state decided by more than 8% really isn't close, and if a Presidential nominee is trying to win it late in a close race, then one has an incompetent campaign because it is wasting resources of money or candidate's time. The states in this list that Hillary Clinton won and that Donald Trump won are in dark shades of red or blue. States outside the 4% margin of error in polling are in medium shades of red and blue. States that Hillary Clinton barely won are in pink. States that Donald Trump won are in pale blue if beyond the victory line or in purple if at or below the victory line. For the latter, Hillary Clinton needed them and did not get them. This fits a model in which 2016 was a fair-and-square election and that 2020 will also be. Should 2020 not have a fair-and-square election, then democracy is dead in the USA and returns only in revolution or under a MacArthur-style regency -- except that the MacArthur-style regent will not be an American. As Germans, Italians, and Japanese can attest there are worse fates than military defeat -- like being relatively-privileged slaves or serfs in an Evil Empire.
If one goes from running as a Man of the People to being an enabler of the worst expressions of pure plutocracy, one might hurt approval ratings going into the next election. But the American political system is as plutocratic as it can be, with people largely ratifying the choices of well-organized, well-heeled elites.
If elections of 2020 be free and fair, then current trends in polling suggest that going from appeals to mass vulgarity and meanness to crass endorsement of pure plutocracy is not such good policy. Disapproval for President Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania is in the low 60s, which indicates that those states are likely to vote even with such states as New York and Massachusetts in 2020. To win re-election, President Trump will need to win states with approval ratings now in the low fifties. That does not look easy -- unless he or his campaign cheats. Cheating could include use of intimidation -- as in collusion with mass employers who warn people to be sure to vote Republican if you ever want to work again except in a labor camp that will make one place in which I used to work (low pay and ferocious competition between workers for keeping the low-paid jobs that they hold and which hold little opportunity for advancement) look like a pampered existence in contrast.
Any question that I have about the values for disapproval are of the age of the poll in use (as in Minnesota) or that I really have a poll suggesting both age and a measure of low favorability (as in Arizona). Texas? Sure, it's Texas, but the latest poll is a corroboration of an earlier poll.
OK -- what about Utah? We need remember that Donald Trump got only 45% of the vote in Utah in 2016. I am tempted to believe that President Trump is an unusually-poor match for Mormon values. The usual Republican nominee for President has no such problem... but let a third-party or independent candidate run with a conservative platform and Obama-like family values, and that candidate either so splits the conservative vote that the Democrat wins or that the independent candidate ends up in first place. But note well -- that's a state in which only six electoral votes are at stake. Note also that such a nominee could split the conservative vote in states that usually go for Republicans like Indiana, which is a more significant prize. But if the Democrats win Indiana they are also winning Ohio, a state that President Trump won decisively in 2016.
OK -- what if the Democrats are rifted? Then Trump wins! But I see the high levels of disapproval for President Trump even with an economy humming along and with no looming disasters of foreign policy. In a 4T, people take their politics seriously if they have a meaningful choice, whether it is between FDR and Willkie or whether it is between feigning enthusiasm for the Duce or ending up a political prisoner. Trump better resembles Mussolini than he does FDR in political choices.
I have yet to see any polls for Georgia or Ohio. But if the Trump steamroller upon liberalism were successful, then one would not see him faring so badly as having disapproval numbers in the low sixties in states (Michigan, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania) in states that he either barely won or lost, or have disapproval numbers of the low fifties in states that he won by high single digits such as Iowa and Texas.
Trump had a chance to solidify his win if he had a Reagan-like talent for convincing workers that they are better off trusting management than 'union bosses', that pay cuts that lead to economic growth, that cuts in entitlements enhance the willingness of people to work if they are unemployed (or even disabled) and work even more diligently if they already have jobs, and that tax cuts for the super-rich spur investment instead of elite indulgence. Trump economics are like fascist economics -- an insistence that workers first deserve more pay through mass suffering in the workplace and poverty at home so that the rich-and-powerful have the means with which to reward workers better -- except, knowing how greedy and self-indulgent bastards are with helpless people under their brutal command, that workers get nothing but fear and suffering.
It takes terror to compel people to support a political leader who goes from a populist campaign to either pure plutocracy or to kleptocratic rule. Without such terror one gets a sense of betrayal by the masses that can cause an elected leader to implode at the next election.
These are the states that President Trump and Hillary Clinton got within 10% of each other in 2016:
Iowa 9.41% 404/410
Texas 8.98% 368/404
Ohio 8.07% 350/368
Georgia 5.01% 334/350
North Carolina 3.66% 319/334
Arizona 3.50% 307/319
Florida 1.19% 278/307
Wisconsin 0.76% 268/278 (victory threshold in 2016)
Pennsylvania 0.72% 248/268
Michigan 0.22% 232/248
New Hampshire 0.37% 228/232
Minnesota 1.51% 218/228
Nevada 2.42% 213/218
Maine 2.96% 210/213
Colorado 4.91% 201/210
Virginia 5.32% 188/201
New Mexico 8.21% 183/188
*I do not quite know where the electoral vote for ME-02 goes. Neither do I quite know where the electoral vote for NE-02 goes.
I have the state, the margin of victory/loss, and the difference in electoral votes between winning and losing the state.
Any state decided by more than 8% really isn't close, and if a Presidential nominee is trying to win it late in a close race, then one has an incompetent campaign because it is wasting resources of money or candidate's time. The states in this list that Hillary Clinton won and that Donald Trump won are in dark shades of red or blue. States outside the 4% margin of error in polling are in medium shades of red and blue. States that Hillary Clinton barely won are in pink. States that Donald Trump won are in pale blue if beyond the victory line or in purple if at or below the victory line. For the latter, Hillary Clinton needed them and did not get them. This fits a model in which 2016 was a fair-and-square election and that 2020 will also be. Should 2020 not have a fair-and-square election, then democracy is dead in the USA and returns only in revolution or under a MacArthur-style regency -- except that the MacArthur-style regent will not be an American. As Germans, Italians, and Japanese can attest there are worse fates than military defeat -- like being relatively-privileged slaves or serfs in an Evil Empire.
If one goes from running as a Man of the People to being an enabler of the worst expressions of pure plutocracy, one might hurt approval ratings going into the next election. But the American political system is as plutocratic as it can be, with people largely ratifying the choices of well-organized, well-heeled elites.
If elections of 2020 be free and fair, then current trends in polling suggest that going from appeals to mass vulgarity and meanness to crass endorsement of pure plutocracy is not such good policy. Disapproval for President Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania is in the low 60s, which indicates that those states are likely to vote even with such states as New York and Massachusetts in 2020. To win re-election, President Trump will need to win states with approval ratings now in the low fifties. That does not look easy -- unless he or his campaign cheats. Cheating could include use of intimidation -- as in collusion with mass employers who warn people to be sure to vote Republican if you ever want to work again except in a labor camp that will make one place in which I used to work (low pay and ferocious competition between workers for keeping the low-paid jobs that they hold and which hold little opportunity for advancement) look like a pampered existence in contrast.
Any question that I have about the values for disapproval are of the age of the poll in use (as in Minnesota) or that I really have a poll suggesting both age and a measure of low favorability (as in Arizona). Texas? Sure, it's Texas, but the latest poll is a corroboration of an earlier poll.
OK -- what about Utah? We need remember that Donald Trump got only 45% of the vote in Utah in 2016. I am tempted to believe that President Trump is an unusually-poor match for Mormon values. The usual Republican nominee for President has no such problem... but let a third-party or independent candidate run with a conservative platform and Obama-like family values, and that candidate either so splits the conservative vote that the Democrat wins or that the independent candidate ends up in first place. But note well -- that's a state in which only six electoral votes are at stake. Note also that such a nominee could split the conservative vote in states that usually go for Republicans like Indiana, which is a more significant prize. But if the Democrats win Indiana they are also winning Ohio, a state that President Trump won decisively in 2016.
OK -- what if the Democrats are rifted? Then Trump wins! But I see the high levels of disapproval for President Trump even with an economy humming along and with no looming disasters of foreign policy. In a 4T, people take their politics seriously if they have a meaningful choice, whether it is between FDR and Willkie or whether it is between feigning enthusiasm for the Duce or ending up a political prisoner. Trump better resembles Mussolini than he does FDR in political choices.
I have yet to see any polls for Georgia or Ohio. But if the Trump steamroller upon liberalism were successful, then one would not see him faring so badly as having disapproval numbers in the low sixties in states (Michigan, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania) in states that he either barely won or lost, or have disapproval numbers of the low fifties in states that he won by high single digits such as Iowa and Texas.
Trump had a chance to solidify his win if he had a Reagan-like talent for convincing workers that they are better off trusting management than 'union bosses', that pay cuts that lead to economic growth, that cuts in entitlements enhance the willingness of people to work if they are unemployed (or even disabled) and work even more diligently if they already have jobs, and that tax cuts for the super-rich spur investment instead of elite indulgence. Trump economics are like fascist economics -- an insistence that workers first deserve more pay through mass suffering in the workplace and poverty at home so that the rich-and-powerful have the means with which to reward workers better -- except, knowing how greedy and self-indulgent bastards are with helpless people under their brutal command, that workers get nothing but fear and suffering.
It takes terror to compel people to support a political leader who goes from a populist campaign to either pure plutocracy or to kleptocratic rule. Without such terror one gets a sense of betrayal by the masses that can cause an elected leader to implode at the next election.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.