Firehouse (R) : Trump leads in PA, MI and WI against every democratic candidate

[pbrower2a]

Zero credibility.

[pbrower2a]

Contrast the polls of Firehouse Strategies to a pollster with a long track record:

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us12102019_uwhp13.pdf/

Biden/Trump: 52-41
Sanders/Trump: 51-43
Warren/Trump: 50-43
Buttigieg/Trump: 48-43
Bloomberg/Trump: 48-42
Klobuchar/Trump: 47-43

That is nationwide, and to some extent we have apples and oranges.  If the Firehouse Strategies poll  is true, then Trump is winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin but absorbing huge losses of support in states that he won by huge margins. The only way in which such is possible is if America has something like a 1976 electorate... which is even more absurd.

[pbrower2a]

Although he's not up by that much I def think Trump is ahead in all 3. Democrats seriously are running a pathetic campaign and anyone who says otherwise is simply blind to what is going on.

If Trump is up on the Democrats it is not by much -- and at a low level... maybe 43-41 in those states. That is worthless. For an incumbent at this point he needs to be putting away his opposition. He needs to be at a level in which he is close enough to 50% support that he can campaign a little as needed and win the critical states.

Trump is the incumbent, dammit! He owns the national agenda if he is halfway competent... but much of the topic in discussion is his moral inadequacy and his contempt for a majority of Americans.   

[pbrower2a]

OK. In anything close to an even election in the popular vote, President Trump wins. Howe is this? Figure that the Democrat is winning the following states on percentages like these. I ordinarily show margins, recognizing no practical difference between on track to win 56% of the popular vote in a state and being on track to win 80%. The only state that Republicans have won by a 20% or higher margin since 1988 that has more than twelve electoral votes since the 1990's has been Texas... except for Texas, Republicans tend to win electorally small states and win with small margins in medium-to-large states when they do win (such states have been AZ, CO, FL, GA, MI, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI) while Democrats run up huge margins in some states in which they have electoral locks.       

The 70% shade is for states in which the Democratic nominee will get 65 to 75% of the popular vote, and the 60% shade is for states in which the Democrat is going to get 55% to 65% of the popular vote. That gives impressive results for the Democrat for 208 electoral votes. But -- there are 330 other electoral votes... and if the Democrat has run up a 65-35 margin for 208 electoral votes and is close to even nationwide, then guess what that means for the other states. The Democrat is getting 42% elsewhere. OK, maybe the Democrat manages to eke out wins in Maine at-large, Minnesota (because it is Minnesota), New Hampshire, and Nevada.. and this time wins Michigan by a razor-thin margin. Trump gets re-elected with a 45% share of the vote nationwide as a portent of how the vote goes for the next twenty years.

Democrats are not trying to run up gigantic vote totals in sixteen states while neglecting the rest. They can do that without really trying; 2016 shows that such is a losing strategy. This is about what Republicans would let happen if they had locks on state legislatures and statewide public offices... and let foreign powers interfere with electioneering in places in which Democrats have no lock. Republicans will get away with such because the states that Democrats win reliably are generally better in social conditions (Nevada, New Mexico, and possibly Illinois and Rhode Island excepted) and Republicans will have no problems with rioters in states like Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (just mow 'em down)... maybe assign people's votes to their employers. 

OK, that is a bleak view. That is about how Hungary was between the two World Wars -- split neatly and almost evenly between the Hard Right and the Hard Left, but eventually the Right conceded Budapest to the Left and took complete control of everything else. The Right dominated in electoral politics, and eventually the fascist butchers took over as the Soviet Army got uncomfortably close.

OK, politicians cannot reliably bank votes in swing states.   

[pbrower2a]

OK. In anything close to an even election in the popular vote, President Trump wins. Howe is this? Figure that the Democrat is winning the following states on percentages like these. I ordinarily show margins, recognizing no practical difference between on track to win 56% of the popular vote in a state and being on track to win 80%. The only state that Republicans have won by a 20% or higher margin since 1988 that has more than twelve electoral votes since the 1990's has been Texas... except for Texas, Republicans tend to win electorally small states and win with small margins in medium-to-large states when they do win (such states have been AZ, CO, FL, GA, MI, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI) while Democrats run up huge margins in some states in which they have electoral locks.       

The 70% shade is for states in which the Democratic nominee will get 65 to 75% of the popular vote, and the 60% shade is for states in which the Democrat is going to get 55% to 65% of the popular vote. That gives impressive results for the Democrat for 208 electoral votes. But -- there are 330 other electoral votes... and if the Democrat has run up a 65-35 margin for 208 electoral votes and is close to even nationwide, then guess what that means for the other states. The Democrat is getting 42% elsewhere. OK, maybe the Democrat manages to eke out wins in Maine at-large, Minnesota (because it is Minnesota), New Hampshire, and Nevada.. and this time wins Michigan by a razor-thin margin. Trump gets re-elected with a 45% share of the vote nationwide as a portent of how the vote goes for the next twenty years.

Democrats are not trying to run up gigantic vote totals in sixteen states while neglecting the rest. They can do that without really trying; 2016 shows that such is a losing strategy. This is about what Republicans would let happen if they had locks on state legislatures and statewide public offices... and let foreign powers interfere with electioneering in places in which Democrats have no lock. Republicans will get away with such because the states that Democrats win reliably are generally better in social conditions (Nevada, New Mexico, and possibly Illinois and Rhode Island excepted) and Republicans will have no problems with rioters in states like Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (just mow 'em down)... maybe assign people's votes to their employers. 

OK, that is a bleak view. That is about how Hungary was between the two World Wars -- split neatly and almost evenly between the Hard Right and the Hard Left, but eventually the Right conceded Budapest to the Left and took complete control of everything else. The Right dominated in electoral politics, and eventually the fascist butchers took over as the Soviet Army got uncomfortably close.

OK, politicians cannot reliably bank votes in swing states.   

This is a freiwall map but Biden does best in TX, GA and AZ, than MI, WI and PA, we can have a diverse election

True... but such suggests a return to electoral politics characteristic of the 1970's, which seems highly unlikely. On the other hand, Barack Obama won big with electoral maps closer to those of Eisenhower wins than to any others, except that the Parties were flipped. Carter was the last Democratic nominee to win Texas.

In any event we have plenty of warning signs of a Trump defeat. One is that Texas is in contest.