06-01-2019, 01:23 AM
A state that Trump barely lost in 2016 (Maine), seems to be spiraling away from him. Sure, the state has only four electoral votes, and the only effect of such a collapse in Maine is one electoral vote (MR-02 did go for Trump), but 34% approval and 58% disapproval suggests that the sate is off the table in 2020.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f4eda1_fd...fac763.pdf
(Yeah, yeah -I expect kinser to tell us that the only poll that matters is the electoral result and that until then anything is possible, and that I lack the imagination to see how so wonderful a leader as President Trump will not only get re-elected, but will get re-elected in a landslide of historical proportions). Right -- and I see no chance for the Baltimore Orioles making it to the World Series this year.
Because the 2016 Presidential election was so close, President Trump must induce the close states of 2020 to remain close, ideally giving him some gains. His barest losses of 2016 (Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and perhaps Virginia) have mostly been going into the zone of disapproval that one associates with such states as California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Sure, he loses the election if he loses any three of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin... or one of those and Florida. He can forget all of his bare losses of 2016 as prospects for a re-election. (Iowa does not figure in this calculation, as it can decide nothing this time except for a Senate seat).
OK. It is possible for one to win re-election if one loses two states that one won in the previous election and gains nothing, one of those states going wildly against the President. Obama picked up nothing from 2008 to 2012, but he could get away with losing Indiana and North Carolina. He had a cushion of 95 electoral votes from 2008 and lost 34 of them in 2012 -- and would have still won had he lost another 29 (Florida).
But the state is Maine, which has but four electoral votes. So what? Trump might lose ME-02, which won't make a difference?
It's the Senate seat. Susan Collins has been coasting on a reputation as a moderate, the most liberal Republican since Jim Jeffords went Independent. Her approvals used to be in the high 50s, which is well into the safe zone for an incumbent. This poll shows her underwater at 41-42, which is a huge drop. She has voted the Party Line a few times too many, and 'having concerns' is not the same as voting one's conscience or voting as constituents might wish.
Political collapses often begin with sudden reductions of approval ratings. (Slow erosion is also possible). Although her disapproval is not up much her approval rating has gone down from 57 (safe) to 41 (shaky at best). At this point any incumbent Republican Senator with an approval where that of Susan Collins has been is not going to go into the zone of loss as the result of 'slow erosion'. Much of the fall of approval of Susan Collins is into 'undecided' territory. Approval seems to erode into 'undecided' territory before it becomes disapproval.
The nomination of Bart "I like beer!" Kavanaugh as a Justice of the US Supreme Court may have doomed the Senate majority of the GOP in the 2020 election.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f4eda1_fd...fac763.pdf
(Yeah, yeah -I expect kinser to tell us that the only poll that matters is the electoral result and that until then anything is possible, and that I lack the imagination to see how so wonderful a leader as President Trump will not only get re-elected, but will get re-elected in a landslide of historical proportions). Right -- and I see no chance for the Baltimore Orioles making it to the World Series this year.
Because the 2016 Presidential election was so close, President Trump must induce the close states of 2020 to remain close, ideally giving him some gains. His barest losses of 2016 (Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and perhaps Virginia) have mostly been going into the zone of disapproval that one associates with such states as California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Sure, he loses the election if he loses any three of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin... or one of those and Florida. He can forget all of his bare losses of 2016 as prospects for a re-election. (Iowa does not figure in this calculation, as it can decide nothing this time except for a Senate seat).
OK. It is possible for one to win re-election if one loses two states that one won in the previous election and gains nothing, one of those states going wildly against the President. Obama picked up nothing from 2008 to 2012, but he could get away with losing Indiana and North Carolina. He had a cushion of 95 electoral votes from 2008 and lost 34 of them in 2012 -- and would have still won had he lost another 29 (Florida).
But the state is Maine, which has but four electoral votes. So what? Trump might lose ME-02, which won't make a difference?
It's the Senate seat. Susan Collins has been coasting on a reputation as a moderate, the most liberal Republican since Jim Jeffords went Independent. Her approvals used to be in the high 50s, which is well into the safe zone for an incumbent. This poll shows her underwater at 41-42, which is a huge drop. She has voted the Party Line a few times too many, and 'having concerns' is not the same as voting one's conscience or voting as constituents might wish.
Political collapses often begin with sudden reductions of approval ratings. (Slow erosion is also possible). Although her disapproval is not up much her approval rating has gone down from 57 (safe) to 41 (shaky at best). At this point any incumbent Republican Senator with an approval where that of Susan Collins has been is not going to go into the zone of loss as the result of 'slow erosion'. Much of the fall of approval of Susan Collins is into 'undecided' territory. Approval seems to erode into 'undecided' territory before it becomes disapproval.
The nomination of Bart "I like beer!" Kavanaugh as a Justice of the US Supreme Court may have doomed the Senate majority of the GOP in the 2020 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.