The states seem stratified in their partisan orientations. Trump has had consistently awful polling results in all states that he lost by significant margins except Virginia (which could reflect a large number of government employees scared to admit to a pollster that they hold Trump in contempt). Trump is doing badly in three states (Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire) that he barely lost in 2016. Nevada? Some polls have Trump doing sort-of-OK, but only in landline-only polls. Younger, poorer, and largely-Latino populations in Greater Las Vegas tend to rely exclusively upon cell phones.
It is clear that a Democrat must reasonably win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to win anything else that Trump won in 2016. Such is enough to get the Democrat to 278 electoral votes. Iowa is a bit more R than Wisconsin, so the only way in which those two states end up on opposite sides is as in 2004, when Dubya won Iowa and lost Wisconsin by razor-thin margins. Arizona now follows. Note that the McCain family has had enough with Donald Trump, and that could have some strange results. For a Democrat, Wisconsin is meat, Iowa (284) does not matter because there is no combination of states that can make it matter, and Arizona (295) is gravy.
Beyond that, it is hard to distinguish Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio based on polling. Trump polls badly in those states, but if he is losing one of them he might as well be losing them all. Between these states and a couple of districts that have voted contrary to their state majorities are 80 electoral votes. This is an unstable area in Presidential politics, as anyone who sees himself in the zone of losing 310-360 electoral votes starts making desperate gambles that neglect some states that he must win. The election gets close, or it collapses for the eventual loser.
Those four states and two occasionally-wayward districts are the difference between 295 and 375 electoral votes for the Democrat. Next comes Texas, the difference between 375 and 413 electoral votes. 375? Bill Clinton did that in the 1990s, roughly, and Obama came close to that in 2008. 400 or more? The last two Democratic nominees for President to win 400 or more electoral votes were LBJ in 1964
and FDR. Is Trump that bad?
It is clear that a Democrat must reasonably win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to win anything else that Trump won in 2016. Such is enough to get the Democrat to 278 electoral votes. Iowa is a bit more R than Wisconsin, so the only way in which those two states end up on opposite sides is as in 2004, when Dubya won Iowa and lost Wisconsin by razor-thin margins. Arizona now follows. Note that the McCain family has had enough with Donald Trump, and that could have some strange results. For a Democrat, Wisconsin is meat, Iowa (284) does not matter because there is no combination of states that can make it matter, and Arizona (295) is gravy.
Beyond that, it is hard to distinguish Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio based on polling. Trump polls badly in those states, but if he is losing one of them he might as well be losing them all. Between these states and a couple of districts that have voted contrary to their state majorities are 80 electoral votes. This is an unstable area in Presidential politics, as anyone who sees himself in the zone of losing 310-360 electoral votes starts making desperate gambles that neglect some states that he must win. The election gets close, or it collapses for the eventual loser.
Those four states and two occasionally-wayward districts are the difference between 295 and 375 electoral votes for the Democrat. Next comes Texas, the difference between 375 and 413 electoral votes. 375? Bill Clinton did that in the 1990s, roughly, and Obama came close to that in 2008. 400 or more? The last two Democratic nominees for President to win 400 or more electoral votes were LBJ in 1964
and FDR. Is Trump that bad?
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.