My current assessment of the 2020 Presidential election among imaginable swing states:
![[Image: genusmap.php?year=2004&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]](http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2004&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_p=1&type=calc&AL=0;;6&AK=0;;4&AZ=2;;2&AR=0;;6&CA=0;;6&CO=1;;5&CT=0;;5&DE=0;;5&DC=0;;9&FL=2;;5&GA=2;;5&HI=0;;7&ID=0;;6&IL=0;;5&IN=0;;5&IA=2;;2&KS=0;;5&KY=0;;6&LA=0;;5&MD=0;;6&MA=0;;6&MI=1;;2&MN=1;;4&MS=0;;5&MO=0;;5&MT=0;;5&NV=1;;5&NH=1;;5&NJ=0;;5&NM=1;;7&NY=0;;6&NC=2;;5&ND=0;;5&OH=2;;5&OK=0;;6&OR=0;;5&PA=1;;2&RI=0;;6&SC=0;;5&SD=0;;5&TN=0;;5&TX=2;;7&UT=3;;7&VT=0;;6&VA=1;;2&WA=0;;5&WV=0;;6&WI=4;;1&WY=0;;6&ME=1;;5&ME1=0;1;5&ME2=4;1;4&NE=0;;5&NE1=0;1;5&NE2=4;1;4&NE3=0;1;6)
Wisconsin is the tipping-point state in 2020, and it is in white. Red is for states that the Democrats must win to have a real chance, and blue is for states that Republicans really must win. Wisconsin looks like a necessity for both Trump or his Democratic challenger. Lightest shades are for the most critical states and darkest shades are for those that indicate a landslide is building. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia each have at least 13 electoral votes, and Clinton won only one of them. That is more important than Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). Colorado and Minnesota seem more out of reach for Trump now, as is Maine. I don't have a post-midterm poll for either Pennsylvania or Virginia. But at this stage I assume a near 50-50 electoral map. Trump is not winning Minnesota or Colorado without also winning one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps Virginia. New Mexico, in deep red, is the only state that was between 7% and 10% against Trump in 2016, and although it does not kill the hopes of the Democratic challenger if Trump wins it, its loss by a Democratic challenger indicates that Trump has solved more than enough problems to get re-elected. Trump is apparently not gaining ground in any state that he lost by 10% or more, so we can forget states like New Jersey and Oregon.
The drop-off for Trump is in general by smaller margins. Iowa has polled close to Wisconsin rather consistently since the 2016 election, but it has been more consistently R than Wisconsin. Iowa can decide the election should something funny happen in a small D-leaning state like Nevada or New Hampshire. Iowa under some circumstances could be more critical than its six electoral votes ordinarily indicate. Arizona could have much the same effect, except that Trump is not going to lose Arizona if he wins Nevada, let alone Colorado.
Middle blue is for several electorally-large (the smallest of them, North Carolina, has a full 15 electoral votes), and every one of them is a killer for any prospect of a Trump re-election. It is nearly impossible to distinguish them now, but together they comprise 78 electoral votes and, with the single electoral votes at risk in Maine and Nebraska of voting contrary to the rest of their respective states, the range of uncertainty that I now see in the 2020 Presidential election. The Democrat need not win any one of these states, but any one of these kills the Trump bid for re-election. The states in question are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio in the sense that Michigan or Pennsylvania going for Trump in 2020 seals a Trump victory -- but even more severely. Because no Presidential election has ever been decided by one or two electoral votes, I'm putting the potentially 'stray' electoral votes of Maine and Nebraska in yellow -- a flashing yellow that means that you must prepare to stop, but you probably won't have to. That is 80 electoral votes in yellow and medium red, a tier of states and districts hat could about as easily all go for Trump or all against him should Trump lose Arizona and Iowa.
(Yes, at this point I see Trump losing both Arizona and Iowa because polling in those states has been bad for him and both voted majorities of their vote for Democratic nominees for House seats. Maine-02 was ambiguous due to ranked-choice voting which might not apply to the Presidential election of 2020). States in this tier all gave Republican majorities for House elections, suggesting that Democrats have their work cut out to win any of them.
Texas has 38 electoral votes, and it is a bigger category than any but two categories on its own. But Texas looks to straddle 400 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee -- any Democratic nominee, and that is where Texas has been since at least 1992.
No Democratic nominee has won 400 or more electoral votes since LBJ did in 1964.
Beyond this, Texas is the only state that has a chance of going for the Democrat and being of any significance. I have seen unflattering polls of the President in such states as Alaska and Montana, but their three electoral votes make no difference. States close in 2008 that have not since been close (Indiana and Missouri) indicate that Trump has lost Ohio and Georgia, respectively.
Utah is in green in the event that something happens that has not happened in nearly a century (when Wisconsin went for LaFollette) -- a state going to a non-racist Third-Party or independent nominee. It is not going for any Democrat under any circumstance. I can imagine the Utah Democratic Party endorsing such a nominee, let us say a conservative with the blessing of the LDS hierarchy, which is a stretch of my imagination.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index....eab5d7f906
Wisconsin is the tipping-point state in 2020, and it is in white. Red is for states that the Democrats must win to have a real chance, and blue is for states that Republicans really must win. Wisconsin looks like a necessity for both Trump or his Democratic challenger. Lightest shades are for the most critical states and darkest shades are for those that indicate a landslide is building. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia each have at least 13 electoral votes, and Clinton won only one of them. That is more important than Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). Colorado and Minnesota seem more out of reach for Trump now, as is Maine. I don't have a post-midterm poll for either Pennsylvania or Virginia. But at this stage I assume a near 50-50 electoral map. Trump is not winning Minnesota or Colorado without also winning one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps Virginia. New Mexico, in deep red, is the only state that was between 7% and 10% against Trump in 2016, and although it does not kill the hopes of the Democratic challenger if Trump wins it, its loss by a Democratic challenger indicates that Trump has solved more than enough problems to get re-elected. Trump is apparently not gaining ground in any state that he lost by 10% or more, so we can forget states like New Jersey and Oregon.
The drop-off for Trump is in general by smaller margins. Iowa has polled close to Wisconsin rather consistently since the 2016 election, but it has been more consistently R than Wisconsin. Iowa can decide the election should something funny happen in a small D-leaning state like Nevada or New Hampshire. Iowa under some circumstances could be more critical than its six electoral votes ordinarily indicate. Arizona could have much the same effect, except that Trump is not going to lose Arizona if he wins Nevada, let alone Colorado.
Middle blue is for several electorally-large (the smallest of them, North Carolina, has a full 15 electoral votes), and every one of them is a killer for any prospect of a Trump re-election. It is nearly impossible to distinguish them now, but together they comprise 78 electoral votes and, with the single electoral votes at risk in Maine and Nebraska of voting contrary to the rest of their respective states, the range of uncertainty that I now see in the 2020 Presidential election. The Democrat need not win any one of these states, but any one of these kills the Trump bid for re-election. The states in question are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio in the sense that Michigan or Pennsylvania going for Trump in 2020 seals a Trump victory -- but even more severely. Because no Presidential election has ever been decided by one or two electoral votes, I'm putting the potentially 'stray' electoral votes of Maine and Nebraska in yellow -- a flashing yellow that means that you must prepare to stop, but you probably won't have to. That is 80 electoral votes in yellow and medium red, a tier of states and districts hat could about as easily all go for Trump or all against him should Trump lose Arizona and Iowa.
(Yes, at this point I see Trump losing both Arizona and Iowa because polling in those states has been bad for him and both voted majorities of their vote for Democratic nominees for House seats. Maine-02 was ambiguous due to ranked-choice voting which might not apply to the Presidential election of 2020). States in this tier all gave Republican majorities for House elections, suggesting that Democrats have their work cut out to win any of them.
Texas has 38 electoral votes, and it is a bigger category than any but two categories on its own. But Texas looks to straddle 400 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee -- any Democratic nominee, and that is where Texas has been since at least 1992.
No Democratic nominee has won 400 or more electoral votes since LBJ did in 1964.
Beyond this, Texas is the only state that has a chance of going for the Democrat and being of any significance. I have seen unflattering polls of the President in such states as Alaska and Montana, but their three electoral votes make no difference. States close in 2008 that have not since been close (Indiana and Missouri) indicate that Trump has lost Ohio and Georgia, respectively.
Utah is in green in the event that something happens that has not happened in nearly a century (when Wisconsin went for LaFollette) -- a state going to a non-racist Third-Party or independent nominee. It is not going for any Democrat under any circumstance. I can imagine the Utah Democratic Party endorsing such a nominee, let us say a conservative with the blessing of the LDS hierarchy, which is a stretch of my imagination.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index....eab5d7f906
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.