(updated due to a twelve new polls, some of which show huge swing since the last polling data)
That's one way of looking at it. I look heavily at vote shares. One must draw a line somewhere to show that some tipping-point state defines victory and loss. This could be percentage of the vote or margin. As an example of what I mean by a tipping-point state, if one takes the margin of the Obama victory of 2008, he would have won the Presidency had he won Iowa (which he won by about 9%) and every state that he won by even more. He would have lost the Presidency had he not won Iowa and every state that he lost outright or won by less than the margin by which he won Iowa. Likewise Dubya won in 2004 because he won Ohio and every state that he won by a larger margin. Had Kerry won Ohio (and that year a marginal gain that would have won Ohio would have also won him New Mexico and Iowa) he would have won the Presidency. In 2000 -- we all know about Florida.
Of course it is possible for an incumbent to have disapproval in excess of 50% in a state and still win the state -- if the opponent is an unusually-weak campaigner, takes grossly-unpopular stances, or has such problems as looming scandals. So if it is a choice between Donald Trump and someone that he and his Party can characterize as even worse, then Trump could win. But if one has a disapproval rating over 50% in a state, then such indicates that one is not relating to voters or that one is doing things offensive to them. To win despite such one needs a very weak or flawed opponent.
So far I see Donald Trump as one of the worst Presidents in American history, one-and-out for having no idea of what the Presidency entails and making mistakes that nobody else would make as President. Any President will offend some sensibilities, and in a time of extreme polarization of the body public nobody will be able to satisfy much more than about 50% of the people. But a half-way effective President will get a sure 45% approval and be able to campaign to get re-elected.
Maybe it is excessively simple to take the disapproval rating of an incumbent from 100 and use that number as a ceiling for what he will get. But this tool seems as good as any. I expect a spirited contest among Democrats for the nomination for President in 2020, and that that will bring out the best. Democrats are much less likely to fall for a demagogue best described as a mirror image of Donald Trump. I can see, based upon the generational change that has aged the Boom Generation and matured Generation X that Democrats could end up with either the Gray Champion (a 60-something Boomer) or a mature Reactive who is a clone of Barack Obama in agenda, ideology, and attitudes toward institutions and process if not in ethnicity, gender, and region. Republicans will be stuck with either Donald Trump or some stereotypical reactionary who would give all power to the economic elites.
Defeating an incumbent is usually difficult. Bad policies that begin popular often take time to show ill effects, after which the incumbent has no price to pay because there will be no Third Term or because the incumbent has a safe seat due to the culture of his state or district. Democrats have a chance of nominating a "new FDR" (but I can't say who that is) or a "new Obama". Republicans have no chance of nominating a right-wing version of FDR or even another Ronald Reagan, as they will almost certainly be stuck with an incumbent with serious flaws. Successful politicians do not inflict pain without expecting good results from the policy that inflicts that pain (example, Ronald Reagan taking harsh measures against inflation, with eventual benefits in reductions of interest rates, but at the cost of lowering expectations of most Americans).
I have a chart of how the states trend toward a generic Democratic nominee based on the disapproval of Donald Trump. It is possible to win if one has a disapproval rating just under 50 but otherwise anything from difficult to impossible. You can argue against the position of any state. Most obviously, "But Texas hasn't gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 1976" makes much sense, much as "But Virginia has not voted for a Democratic nominee since the LBJ blowout of 1964" in 2008. Or, for that matter, the common knowledge that West Virginia will deliver its electoral votes to a Democrat in anything short of a Republican landslide -- that common knowledge being repudiated in 2000 and ever since.
DEM stands for how many electoral votes a Democrat would get before carrying a state or district, REP what the Republican nominee (I now assume Trump) would get, the disapproval rating for Trump in the most recent polling data (I estimate 80 for Dee Cee), ΔEV for the number of votes that the Democratic nominee would get if the states to the right of that column would get if winning the states to the right, and STATES for the state or district that would go for the Democratic nominee (maybe more precisely, against Trump).
DEM REP DIS ΔEV STATES
000 538 80 03 DC
003 535 71 58 CA VT
061 477 66 11 MA
072 466 65 14 NJ
086 452 64 10 MD
096 442 62 29 NY
125 413 61 13 VA
138 400 59 24 CT HI WA
161 377 58 20 IL
181 357 57 45 CO MI MN WI
222 312 56 15 DE NM OR
241 297 55 32 ME* NH PA RI TIPPING POINT/ZONE
273 265 54 11 AZ
284 254 53 06 NV
290 248 52 53 FL IA OH
343 195 51 36 TX
381 157 50 37 GA NC UT
418 120 48 16 IN WV
434 104 47 06 AR
440 098 46 19 MS MO MT
459 079 44 12 ND SC
471 067 43 16 LA NE* SD
487 051 42 29 ID KS KY TN
516 022 39 22 AL OK WY
538 000
*Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes.
ME-01 is more Democratic than Maine at large, which is more Democratic than ME-02 (which went to Donald Trump in 2016). Maine-01 is somewhat urban southern Maine, including Portland, and ME-02 is very rural, comprising central and northern Maine.
NE-02 (mostly Greater Omaha inside Nebraska) is less Democratic than ME-02, so in a normal election it is more likely that Maine gives an electoral vote for a Republican than that Nebraska gives an electoral vote to a Democrat. But NE-02 went for Barack Obama in 2008. It is much more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-01, eastern Nebraska (including Lincoln and some parts of Greater Omaha) is slightly more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-03, including very rural central and western Nebraska (including Scottsbluff and Grand Island) is one of the most Republican districts in the USA, and is so strongly Republican that
(1) it can easily swing the state at large Republican, and
(2) it could conceivably offer the single electoral vote for a Republican nominee for President.
Descriptions of the states and their districts are
ME-01 -- very strong D
ME at large -- strong D
ME-02 -- very weak D
NE-02 -- weak R
NE-01 -- strong R
NE at large -- very strong R
NE-03 -- almost as reliably R as the District of Columbia is reliably D
With allowance for the age of some of the polling data (oldest of which is a Gallup composite of statewide data from January to July, which I average as April data) that likely underestimates disapproval ratings of the President in some states, I get some idea of how badly President Trump will do in many states. On the whole I have a reasonable average of disapproval of the states lower than those of recent Gallup polls of nationwide tracking. Sure, California (55 electoral votes) is huge, but it is only a little more than a tenth of the population of the USA, and even Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey New York State, and Virginia -- 97 electoral votes altogether) are shown close to the national average of disapproval of the President.
To win while winning all states in which he now has disapproval of 54% or less, he would have to pick off five or more electoral votes from states in which he has current levels of disapproval of 55% or more. Conveniently those would have to be the ME-02 (which President Trump won, and for which I have no polling data) and New Hampshire (one of his barest losses in a usual swing state). That is stretching things.
But that leaves President Trump with practically no room for error. He could conceivably lose only one more electoral vote, the unlikely loss with nothing else of NE-02, which means that there would be a 269-269 split of the Electoral College with the Presidency chosen in the House of Representatives. President Trump is doing so badly that he could hand the Democrats a majority of House seats in this unlikely scenario.
The problem that President Trump has in the polling isn't that he has 71% disapproval in California. It is that he has 54% disapproval in Arizona, 51% disapproval in Texas, 50% disapproval in North Carolina, and 52% or 53% disapproval in three states in four states (Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio) that Obama won twice. Yes, you can say "but it is Arizona, which hasn't gone Democratic in a close race in a century (1948 was not close even if the newspaper headline read "DEWEY WINS!", "but it is Texas, which hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1976", or "but it is North Carolina, sort of a freak in 2008". You can say such things, but President Trump will need to win every one of those states.
Take the Trump chance of winning every one of those states individually, and really New Hampshire because it is in the set-up condition to give Trump a probabilistic chance (it will be between 0.00 and 1.00 for each), multiply them all, and you get the chance of President Trump getting re-elected. If any of those states slides out of reach, then he is one-and-done. To reset the chance for being re-elected he must reset the public discourse on him in states in which he is faring badly.
You can argue about any single state, but even with 268 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee in states in which disapproval of Donald Trump is 55% or higher, President Trump has many ways to lose -- as in, any state in which his disapproval is under 55%.
He actually lost Nevada in 2016, and he could easily do so again. But if Nevada doesn't get him, Arizona might. Or Florida, Iowa, or Ohio. Texas (of all states!) could utterly reject him if he bungles the response to Hurricane Harvey. The Hispanic vote in Texas is growing rapidly, and Texas is no longer below-average in educational achievement for white people. Then there is North Carolina. These seven states are dissimilar enough and scattered enough that the President could not offer a one-size fits all approach that could secure all seven states, and he would have to spend resources of advertising funds and personal appearances wildly in an effort to keep them all.
(So why did I not mention Georgia or Utah? Utah doesn't go to a Democrat unless the Democrat is a Mormon, and I see it more likely that a third-party conservative nominee wins Utah than does any Democrat. Utah isn't going for a Democratic nominee unless either Arizona or Nevada goes for the Democrat. Georgia does not go for a Democratic nominee unless both Florida and North Carolina also do so).
Quote:If you put all states with a disapproval of less than 55% in his column, he's still relatively close to 270 electoral votes.
That's one way of looking at it. I look heavily at vote shares. One must draw a line somewhere to show that some tipping-point state defines victory and loss. This could be percentage of the vote or margin. As an example of what I mean by a tipping-point state, if one takes the margin of the Obama victory of 2008, he would have won the Presidency had he won Iowa (which he won by about 9%) and every state that he won by even more. He would have lost the Presidency had he not won Iowa and every state that he lost outright or won by less than the margin by which he won Iowa. Likewise Dubya won in 2004 because he won Ohio and every state that he won by a larger margin. Had Kerry won Ohio (and that year a marginal gain that would have won Ohio would have also won him New Mexico and Iowa) he would have won the Presidency. In 2000 -- we all know about Florida.
Of course it is possible for an incumbent to have disapproval in excess of 50% in a state and still win the state -- if the opponent is an unusually-weak campaigner, takes grossly-unpopular stances, or has such problems as looming scandals. So if it is a choice between Donald Trump and someone that he and his Party can characterize as even worse, then Trump could win. But if one has a disapproval rating over 50% in a state, then such indicates that one is not relating to voters or that one is doing things offensive to them. To win despite such one needs a very weak or flawed opponent.
So far I see Donald Trump as one of the worst Presidents in American history, one-and-out for having no idea of what the Presidency entails and making mistakes that nobody else would make as President. Any President will offend some sensibilities, and in a time of extreme polarization of the body public nobody will be able to satisfy much more than about 50% of the people. But a half-way effective President will get a sure 45% approval and be able to campaign to get re-elected.
Maybe it is excessively simple to take the disapproval rating of an incumbent from 100 and use that number as a ceiling for what he will get. But this tool seems as good as any. I expect a spirited contest among Democrats for the nomination for President in 2020, and that that will bring out the best. Democrats are much less likely to fall for a demagogue best described as a mirror image of Donald Trump. I can see, based upon the generational change that has aged the Boom Generation and matured Generation X that Democrats could end up with either the Gray Champion (a 60-something Boomer) or a mature Reactive who is a clone of Barack Obama in agenda, ideology, and attitudes toward institutions and process if not in ethnicity, gender, and region. Republicans will be stuck with either Donald Trump or some stereotypical reactionary who would give all power to the economic elites.
Defeating an incumbent is usually difficult. Bad policies that begin popular often take time to show ill effects, after which the incumbent has no price to pay because there will be no Third Term or because the incumbent has a safe seat due to the culture of his state or district. Democrats have a chance of nominating a "new FDR" (but I can't say who that is) or a "new Obama". Republicans have no chance of nominating a right-wing version of FDR or even another Ronald Reagan, as they will almost certainly be stuck with an incumbent with serious flaws. Successful politicians do not inflict pain without expecting good results from the policy that inflicts that pain (example, Ronald Reagan taking harsh measures against inflation, with eventual benefits in reductions of interest rates, but at the cost of lowering expectations of most Americans).
I have a chart of how the states trend toward a generic Democratic nominee based on the disapproval of Donald Trump. It is possible to win if one has a disapproval rating just under 50 but otherwise anything from difficult to impossible. You can argue against the position of any state. Most obviously, "But Texas hasn't gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 1976" makes much sense, much as "But Virginia has not voted for a Democratic nominee since the LBJ blowout of 1964" in 2008. Or, for that matter, the common knowledge that West Virginia will deliver its electoral votes to a Democrat in anything short of a Republican landslide -- that common knowledge being repudiated in 2000 and ever since.
DEM stands for how many electoral votes a Democrat would get before carrying a state or district, REP what the Republican nominee (I now assume Trump) would get, the disapproval rating for Trump in the most recent polling data (I estimate 80 for Dee Cee), ΔEV for the number of votes that the Democratic nominee would get if the states to the right of that column would get if winning the states to the right, and STATES for the state or district that would go for the Democratic nominee (maybe more precisely, against Trump).
DEM REP DIS ΔEV STATES
000 538 80 03 DC
003 535 71 58 CA VT
061 477 66 11 MA
072 466 65 14 NJ
086 452 64 10 MD
096 442 62 29 NY
125 413 61 13 VA
138 400 59 24 CT HI WA
161 377 58 20 IL
181 357 57 45 CO MI MN WI
222 312 56 15 DE NM OR
241 297 55 32 ME* NH PA RI TIPPING POINT/ZONE
273 265 54 11 AZ
284 254 53 06 NV
290 248 52 53 FL IA OH
343 195 51 36 TX
381 157 50 37 GA NC UT
418 120 48 16 IN WV
434 104 47 06 AR
440 098 46 19 MS MO MT
459 079 44 12 ND SC
471 067 43 16 LA NE* SD
487 051 42 29 ID KS KY TN
516 022 39 22 AL OK WY
538 000
*Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes.
ME-01 is more Democratic than Maine at large, which is more Democratic than ME-02 (which went to Donald Trump in 2016). Maine-01 is somewhat urban southern Maine, including Portland, and ME-02 is very rural, comprising central and northern Maine.
NE-02 (mostly Greater Omaha inside Nebraska) is less Democratic than ME-02, so in a normal election it is more likely that Maine gives an electoral vote for a Republican than that Nebraska gives an electoral vote to a Democrat. But NE-02 went for Barack Obama in 2008. It is much more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-01, eastern Nebraska (including Lincoln and some parts of Greater Omaha) is slightly more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-03, including very rural central and western Nebraska (including Scottsbluff and Grand Island) is one of the most Republican districts in the USA, and is so strongly Republican that
(1) it can easily swing the state at large Republican, and
(2) it could conceivably offer the single electoral vote for a Republican nominee for President.
Descriptions of the states and their districts are
ME-01 -- very strong D
ME at large -- strong D
ME-02 -- very weak D
NE-02 -- weak R
NE-01 -- strong R
NE at large -- very strong R
NE-03 -- almost as reliably R as the District of Columbia is reliably D
With allowance for the age of some of the polling data (oldest of which is a Gallup composite of statewide data from January to July, which I average as April data) that likely underestimates disapproval ratings of the President in some states, I get some idea of how badly President Trump will do in many states. On the whole I have a reasonable average of disapproval of the states lower than those of recent Gallup polls of nationwide tracking. Sure, California (55 electoral votes) is huge, but it is only a little more than a tenth of the population of the USA, and even Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey New York State, and Virginia -- 97 electoral votes altogether) are shown close to the national average of disapproval of the President.
To win while winning all states in which he now has disapproval of 54% or less, he would have to pick off five or more electoral votes from states in which he has current levels of disapproval of 55% or more. Conveniently those would have to be the ME-02 (which President Trump won, and for which I have no polling data) and New Hampshire (one of his barest losses in a usual swing state). That is stretching things.
But that leaves President Trump with practically no room for error. He could conceivably lose only one more electoral vote, the unlikely loss with nothing else of NE-02, which means that there would be a 269-269 split of the Electoral College with the Presidency chosen in the House of Representatives. President Trump is doing so badly that he could hand the Democrats a majority of House seats in this unlikely scenario.
The problem that President Trump has in the polling isn't that he has 71% disapproval in California. It is that he has 54% disapproval in Arizona, 51% disapproval in Texas, 50% disapproval in North Carolina, and 52% or 53% disapproval in three states in four states (Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio) that Obama won twice. Yes, you can say "but it is Arizona, which hasn't gone Democratic in a close race in a century (1948 was not close even if the newspaper headline read "DEWEY WINS!", "but it is Texas, which hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1976", or "but it is North Carolina, sort of a freak in 2008". You can say such things, but President Trump will need to win every one of those states.
Take the Trump chance of winning every one of those states individually, and really New Hampshire because it is in the set-up condition to give Trump a probabilistic chance (it will be between 0.00 and 1.00 for each), multiply them all, and you get the chance of President Trump getting re-elected. If any of those states slides out of reach, then he is one-and-done. To reset the chance for being re-elected he must reset the public discourse on him in states in which he is faring badly.
You can argue about any single state, but even with 268 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee in states in which disapproval of Donald Trump is 55% or higher, President Trump has many ways to lose -- as in, any state in which his disapproval is under 55%.
He actually lost Nevada in 2016, and he could easily do so again. But if Nevada doesn't get him, Arizona might. Or Florida, Iowa, or Ohio. Texas (of all states!) could utterly reject him if he bungles the response to Hurricane Harvey. The Hispanic vote in Texas is growing rapidly, and Texas is no longer below-average in educational achievement for white people. Then there is North Carolina. These seven states are dissimilar enough and scattered enough that the President could not offer a one-size fits all approach that could secure all seven states, and he would have to spend resources of advertising funds and personal appearances wildly in an effort to keep them all.
(So why did I not mention Georgia or Utah? Utah doesn't go to a Democrat unless the Democrat is a Mormon, and I see it more likely that a third-party conservative nominee wins Utah than does any Democrat. Utah isn't going for a Democratic nominee unless either Arizona or Nevada goes for the Democrat. Georgia does not go for a Democratic nominee unless both Florida and North Carolina also do so).
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.