Michigan and Pennsylvania: describe a non-Trumpist path to victory for GOP

[Axel Foley]

Even on this forum, I read several neverTrump Republicans admitting that DJT was the only one with the power to defeat Dems in MI and probably PA too...but, numbers speaking, GWB in 2004 took more votes in Michigan than Trump did in his 2016 State-level victory, and in Pennsylvania Bush's voting percentage was nearly the same, if not major, respect to the Trump's one...so, a non-Trumpist, patrician, normal free-trade Republican, still has a winning path in these two States?

I'm asking for a Republican non-Trumpist victory map on county levels in MI and PA, and how it would figure out...

[100% pro-life no matter what]

In Pennsylvania, it would just look like Toomey's map with winning Chester and Bucks Counties (and losing the other Philadelphia suburbs by less), offsetting worse performances in Coal Country.  For Michigan, it would be a little more tough and would require big margins in socially conservative Western Michigan and in the Detroit suburbs.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Win nationally by 5 points

[Axel Foley]

The fascinating thing to me is that Bush 2004 did overall better than Trump in both States and still lost them by relatively safe margins...yeah, the difference I assume is to be found in Kerry winning the Pittsburgh suburbs, keeping Macomb close and performing better than Hillary in MI Upper Peninsula( excluding Marquette, I don't think Hillary exceeded 40% in one single county there, while Kerry clearly outperformed her in rural-blue collar Michigan)...but still after seeing this, I am stunned by Trump winning and Bush losing in these States...seeing Bush results in Philly suburbs and in the traditional Republican suburban areas in MI, it's really hard to believe he lost and Trump won.

[mieastwick]

Pennsylvania: the Toomey 2010 map (losing Luzerne county narrowly, winning Chester by over six points).
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2010&fips=42&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
Michigan: pre-Trump, the GOP last won a majority of the popular vote in the legislature in 2010. Couldn't even do so in 2014. But Snyder won in 2014, and this is his map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=2014&f=0&off=5&elect=0
John Engler's 1990 map is also useful for a closer election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=1990&f=0&off=5&elect=0

[Axel Foley]

So, Snyder won big in Kent and Macomb at the same time, also winning in Oakland and Kalamazoo( while Trump did really better in Genesee, home of Flint, perhaps surprisingly)...Trump also outperformed in the Upper Peninsula the Governor whose unendorsement he didn't forget...is this a path replicable by any of GOP 2016 contenders? Maybe Kasich?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Pennsylvania: the Toomey 2010 map (losing Luzerne county narrowly, winning Chester by over six points).
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2010&fips=42&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
Michigan: pre-Trump, the GOP last won a majority of the popular vote in the legislature in 2010. Couldn't even do so in 2014. But Snyder won in 2014, and this is his map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=2014&f=0&off=5&elect=0
John Engler's 1990 map is also useful for a closer election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=1990&f=0&off=5&elect=0

I really think Toomey's 2016 map is a better blueprint than his 2010 one.  Places like Luzerne were going to get much more Republican anyway.  The key, I think, is winning Bucks and Chester, though.

[mieastwick]

Yes, Kasich could probably replicate Snyder's victory path. Rubio was far too extreme for Michigan, though, and I doubt he could have won just by appealing to college Whites. He would have likely lost by four or five points due to his inability to win in such landslides in the rural and blue-collar areas as Trump did.

Toomey's 2016 map was greatly affected by Trump's, so I'm not counting it as a non-Trumpist path.

[moderatevoter]

Even on this forum, I read several neverTrump Republicans admitting that DJT was the only one with the power to defeat Dems in MI and probably PA too...but, numbers speaking, GWB in 2004 took more votes in Michigan than Trump did in his 2016 State-level victory, and in Pennsylvania Bush's voting percentage was nearly the same, if not major, respect to the Trump's one...so, a non-Trumpist, patrician, normal free-trade Republican, still has a winning path in these two States?

I think Kasich would've won at least Pennsylvania, if not both states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pennsylvania: the Toomey 2010 map (losing Luzerne county narrowly, winning Chester by over six points).
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2010&fips=42&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
Michigan: pre-Trump, the GOP last won a majority of the popular vote in the legislature in 2010. Couldn't even do so in 2014. But Snyder won in 2014, and this is his map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=2014&f=0&off=5&elect=0
John Engler's 1990 map is also useful for a closer election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=1990&f=0&off=5&elect=0

Toomey 2010 doesn't work at higher turnout levels. It barely worked for him, which is why when we saw the Philly numbers, he thought Sestak had won.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pennsylvania: the Toomey 2010 map (losing Luzerne county narrowly, winning Chester by over six points).
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2010&fips=42&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
Michigan: pre-Trump, the GOP last won a majority of the popular vote in the legislature in 2010. Couldn't even do so in 2014. But Snyder won in 2014, and this is his map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=2014&f=0&off=5&elect=0
John Engler's 1990 map is also useful for a closer election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=1990&f=0&off=5&elect=0

I really think Toomey's 2016 map is a better blueprint than his 2010 one.  Places like Luzerne were going to get much more Republican anyway.  The key, I think, is winning Bucks and Chester, though.

Toomey would not have won Luzerne or Erie without the rise of Trumpism.

[Axel Foley]

But is a Toomey '10 or a Snyder '14 doable  in a presidential year?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pennsylvania: the Toomey 2010 map (losing Luzerne county narrowly, winning Chester by over six points).
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2010&fips=42&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
Michigan: pre-Trump, the GOP last won a majority of the popular vote in the legislature in 2010. Couldn't even do so in 2014. But Snyder won in 2014, and this is his map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=2014&f=0&off=5&elect=0
John Engler's 1990 map is also useful for a closer election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&year=1990&f=0&off=5&elect=0

I really think Toomey's 2016 map is a better blueprint than his 2010 one.  Places like Luzerne were going to get much more Republican anyway.  The key, I think, is winning Bucks and Chester, though.

Toomey would not have won Luzerne or Erie without the rise of Trumpism.

Based on what? He only lost Luzerne by 1.4% in 2010. The White Working Class shift to the GOP was not entirely driven by Trump.

I don't think Trump created this. This was created "for" Trump, by the years of actions by the GOP establishment and government policies over the past 30 years.

That is why I referred to it as "Trumpism" as opposed to "Trump". But yes, the situation has been developing for years and Toomey tapped into somewhat in 2010 as did many tea partiers by running against the bailouts either directly or indirectly.

[Lord Admirale]

Pennsylvania has been headed swing due to the declining urban populations, so it's entirely possible for another Republican to win PA. Michigan is much harder.

I'd say that a different Republican winning PA (lets say Rubio since he was the most likely Republican to win the nomination AND the presidency) would have a much different map. Erie and Northampton counties go Democrat (narrowly), while the Philly suburbs that supported Romney and Bush go Republican. Then, you'd have a Republican win Pennsylvania.

I need to do some research on a Republican winning Michigan since that has been a stalwart Democrat state from Bubba until now.

[uti2]

Pennsylvania has been headed swing due to the declining urban populations, so it's entirely possible for another Republican to win PA. Michigan is much harder.

I'd say that a different Republican winning PA (lets say Rubio since he was the most likely Republican to win the nomination AND the presidency) would have a much different map. Erie and Northampton counties go Democrat (narrowly), while the Philly suburbs that supported Romney and Bush go Republican. Then, you'd have a Republican win Pennsylvania.

I need to do some research on a Republican winning Michigan since that has been a stalwart Democrat state from Bubba until now.

Except Santorum won his PA 2000 senate race, while Gore easily won the state. Congressional races =/ Presidential races. In addition, the GOP downballot was padded by Hillary's GOP outreach strategy.

[Kingpoleon]

252 R - 224 D - 62 Tossup

Florida, or at least any two of MN, VA, or WI, would push a Republican to 270. I think MI+WI is more distinctly Trumpist than MI+PA.

[JoshPA]

In Pennsylvania, it would just look like Toomey's map with winning Chester and Bucks Counties (and losing the other Philadelphia suburbs by less), offsetting worse performances in Coal Country.  For Michigan, it would be a little more tough and would require big margins in socially conservative Western Michigan and in the Detroit suburbs.

and he won bucks county with less votes then trump gotten in bucks too keep in mind

[iratemoderate]

If Republicans thinking that backing off from a Trumpian approach to immigration will serve them well in the future, I have some beautiful beachfront property in Iowa to sell them. The issue of immigration (not merely illegal, but also legal) will only become more salient, not less, in these states in the elections to come.

[RINO Tom]

How about the paths of the several non-Trumpist Republicans who have won statewide races in both states over the last 10-15 years...?

[Santander]

How about the paths of the several non-Trumpist Republicans who have won statewide races in both states over the last 10-15 years...?

Massachusetts loves to elect Republican governors and even elected Scott Brown. That doesn't mean it would vote for a Republican for President. Governor and Senate races just aren't the same thing as Presidential races.

[MT Treasurer]

How about the paths of the several non-Trumpist Republicans who have won statewide races in both states over the last 10-15 years...?

Massachusetts loves to elect Republican governors and even elected Scott Brown. That doesn't mean it would vote for a Republican for President. Governor and Senate races just aren't the same thing as Presidential races.

He's right, though. Kasich wouldn't have lost WI and PA, and I'm pretty sure he would have won MI as well. Trump wasn't exactly popular in any of these states, it's just that Clinton was even less popular than Trump.

[RINO Tom]

How about the paths of the several non-Trumpist Republicans who have won statewide races in both states over the last 10-15 years...?

Massachusetts loves to elect Republican governors and even elected Scott Brown. That doesn't mean it would vote for a Republican for President. Governor and Senate races just aren't the same thing as Presidential races.

As TN Vol said below, is it really so hard to see Kasich winning Wisconsin with Walker's map and margins as opposed to Trump's?  I think you are being a tad bit disingenuous with the MA comparison, as it is a pretty extreme one ... MA is one of the most solidly and routinely Democratic states in the nation, WI, MI and OH have all been relatively close for a long time.  ESPECIALLY Ohio could have been won by several Republicans ... the only state where there is a shred of merit that the GOP nominee needed to be more "Trumpist" to carry the state is Michigan ... the other states have relatively easy paths to victory for a generic Republican, and I think both states will carry for any winning Republican for the next several decades.

[PragmaticPopulist]

How about the paths of the several non-Trumpist Republicans who have won statewide races in both states over the last 10-15 years...?

Massachusetts loves to elect Republican governors and even elected Scott Brown. That doesn't mean it would vote for a Republican for President. Governor and Senate races just aren't the same thing as Presidential races.

As TN Vol said below, is it really so hard to see Kasich winning Wisconsin with Walker's map and margins as opposed to Trump's?  I think you are being a tad bit disingenuous with the MA comparison, as it is a pretty extreme one ... MA is one of the most solidly and routinely Democratic states in the nation, WI, MI and OH have all been relatively close for a long time.  ESPECIALLY Ohio could have been one by several Republicans ... the only state where there is a shred of merit that the GOP nominee needed to be more "Trumpist" to carry the state is Michigan ... the other states have relatively easy paths to victory for a generic Republican, and I think both states will carry for any winning Republican for the next several decades.

This.

Walker's map isn't too much different than Trump's. Both of them narrowly won WI-03. The differences are that Trump did better in WI-07, while underperforming in the WOW counties.

[Kingpoleon]

I think Kasich would overperform in Western Pennsylvania. By winning PA-17 and all the Republican held districts, as well as vastly over performing in the suburbs in and surrounding Alleghenies County, he could take the state.

[Bojack Horseman]

I think here in Michigan, he'd have to win Oakland County by a fair margin, stay above 30% in Flint and Detroit, and run up Trump margins in the rural areas.