Trump will hold all of his 2016 states?

[Senator Spark]

No.

Which ones do you think he holds and which ones do you think he loses?

Trump might lose Michigan.

[krazen1211]

No.

Which ones do you think he holds and which ones do you think he loses?

Trump might lose Michigan.

Nah, Detroit continues to die out and the whites move in favor of the GOP.

[ElectionsGuy]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

[Bidenworth2020]

No.

Which ones do you think he holds and which ones do you think he loses?

Trump might lose Michigan.

Nah, Detroit continues to die out and the whites move in favor of the GOP.

predictions put detroit at stagnant population growth by 2019, it can't lose much more. also, dem will be doing better in the white vote with a non hillary person

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I don't know why the topic keep coming up, saying Trump will win MI,PA and WI, he will lose all three, MI, PA by 53-47% margins and WI by even less and can lose OH,AZ and /or FL due to the gubernatorial map in 2018, being tilted against the GOP. Plus, Dems have a friendly Senate map in NH,MI, VA, CO, NC and KS

[MarkD]

I'm still that rare bread of creature that thinks Trump is going to lose by a landslide, and that he will lose more than half of the 30 states he carried in 2016.

[TML]

I'm still that rare bread of creature that thinks Trump is going to lose by a landslide, and that he will lose more than half of the 30 states he carried in 2016.

Remember that Bernie Sanders led Trump by 12 points in the last hypothetical poll involving these two in 2016. If that margin holds, the situation you described is certainly plausible.

[twenty42]

Interestingly enough, no reelected president has carried all of their original states since 1984. I think AZ and MI go Dem, while MN and ME-AL go Republican.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Interestingly enough, no reelected president has carried all of their original states since 1984. I think AZ and MI go Dem, while MN and ME-AL go Republican.

MN will never go GOP and it hasn't since 1984

[South Dakota Democrat]

Interestingly enough, no reelected president has carried all of their original states since 1984. I think AZ and MI go Dem, while MN and ME-AL go Republican.

MN will never go GOP and it hasn't since 1984

False - Mondale won it in 1984.

[twenty42]

Interestingly enough, no reelected president has carried all of their original states since 1984. I think AZ and MI go Dem, while MN and ME-AL go Republican.

MN WI will never go GOP and it hasn't since 1984

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, he will lose MI, PA, WI, and FL, and probably a whole lot more.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, he will lose MI, PA, WI, and FL, and probably a whole lot more.

I believe Trump will lose MI and WI.

I believe he'll win FL more decisively. 

I think the key to Trump's re-election is to hold PA.  PA does have coal and oil interests there, and those workers are the type that have shifted to the GOP strongly, so we'll see.

I think IA is a state Trump could lose; it's the most idiosyncratic state he picked up from Obama.

[Greatblueheron]

No, right now I think he’ll win reelection by holding all his 2016 states except Michigan.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

[SN2903]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

Keep thinking that. He absolutely can run on change when he's an incumbent. The establishment of both parties still don't like him. He can still run against the democratic party which is moving farther and farther left. Trump will get millions of more votes than 2016 because many people in the middle were scared of his lack of experience.

[ElectionsGuy]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

While what all you said was true and there is some really interesting takeaways from the exit polls that translate into 2016 being the a perfect storm for Trump, you're not taking into account the current situation. Trump's image has improved over the last 2 years, he is going to pick up some voters that he didn't get in addition to losing some of what he got in 2016. That's essentially what Dems don't think is possible and where the thinking is flawed. Democrats also don't think there could be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. While its hard to think of someone worse, its certainly possible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

While what all you said was true and there is some really interesting takeaways from the exit polls that translate into 2016 being the a perfect storm for Trump, you're not taking into account the current situation. Trump's image has improved over the last 2 years, he is going to pick up some voters that he didn't get in addition to losing some of what he got in 2016. That's essentially what Dems don't think is possible and where the thinking is flawed. Democrats also don't think there could be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. While its hard to think of someone worse, its certainly possible.

Uh, no? His approvals are still garbage.

[ElectionsGuy]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

While what all you said was true and there is some really interesting takeaways from the exit polls that translate into 2016 being the a perfect storm for Trump, you're not taking into account the current situation. Trump's image has improved over the last 2 years, he is going to pick up some voters that he didn't get in addition to losing some of what he got in 2016. That's essentially what Dems don't think is possible and where the thinking is flawed. Democrats also don't think there could be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. While its hard to think of someone worse, its certainly possible.

Uh, no? His approvals are still garbage.

They're not good but they're better than his 'favorability' when he was running and better than they were even a year ago.

[White Trash]

I'm entirely spit balling here, but I see Trump holding onto Michigan and Wisconsin but losing Pennsylvania. I also think Florida is out of his reach by this point unless the administration really turns around its image and efficacy.

[RINO Tom]

I'm entirely spit balling here, but I see Trump holding onto Michigan and Wisconsin but losing Pennsylvania. I also think Florida is out of his reach by this point unless the administration really turns around its image and efficacy.

Dude, welcome back!!

[pikachu]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

While what all you said was true and there is some really interesting takeaways from the exit polls that translate into 2016 being the a perfect storm for Trump, you're not taking into account the current situation. Trump's image has improved over the last 2 years, he is going to pick up some voters that he didn't get in addition to losing some of what he got in 2016. That's essentially what Dems don't think is possible and where the thinking is flawed. Democrats also don't think there could be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. While its hard to think of someone worse, its certainly possible.

Uh, no? His approvals are still garbage.

They're not good but they're better than his 'favorability' when he was running and better than they were even a year ago.

This is true, but it looks like most of that improvement has come from Republicans who voted for him but had an unfavorable opinion of him, not independents who hated both candidates. That's really not enough for a guy who only needs a 1% swing against him to be in big trouble.

[pbrower2a]

It'll be hard, I say most likely not, but a much higher chance of it than Dems give credit. He only has to win one of MI, PA, and WI in order to win holding everything else. That's why Dems need to push hard in FL, NC, and AZ. He'll very likely win IA and OH again.

I'm looking over the 2016 WI exit polls. There are some things that jump out at me:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/wisconsin/president

• Obama's favorability was 52%. Clinton's favorability was 42%.
• Trump's favorability was 35%.
• Voters who found both Trump and Clinton to be unfavorable broke 60% to 23% for Trump.
• 33% of voters found Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, vs 36% for Trump
• 52% believed Clinton was qualified for the job, vs 35% for Trump(!?)
• 65% of voters were bothered by Clinton's private email server, and they broke for Trump 71% to 22%
• 71% of voters were bothered by Trump's treatment of women, but 34% of them voted Trump
• 14% of voters made up their mind in the final week, and went for Trump 59% to 30%
• 25% of voters made up their mind in the final month, and went for Trump 57% to 34%
• Only 42% of voters strongly favored their candidate of choice, and Clinton won those voters 50% to 47%
• Candidate quality that mattered the most: Clinton overwhelmingly won every response except "can bring change," which Trump won 84% to 12%
• Trump won voters aged 18-24 by 2 points, while Clinton won voters aged 25-29 by 9 points, and voters aged 30-39 by 21 points (?!)

What are my takeaways? A lot of people in Wisconsin voted Trump who had severe reservations about him, and didn't even think he was qualified to be President. They did so because they were angry at the status quo, strongly disliked Hillary Clinton, and were swayed by events in the final weeks leading up to the election. Had the Democratic nominee been someone other than Hillary Clinton, that candidate would have beaten Trump easily.

This was a perfect storm for Trump. Now, there will be some things working in his favor - IF Wisconsinites believe the economy has improved for them, and they are more optimistic about their future. Incumbency will work in Trump's favor if that's the case. However, I think it would take a miracle for fundamentals to be good enough for Trump to retain the state. He will be just as unfavorable as he was in 2016. Possibly more so.

I realize it's a mistake to make too much of a narrative out of this data. And doubly so to make too much of anecdotal evidence. But it looks to me like, even with very strong fundamentals, Trump is not winning WI. In 2020, this state is going left of the popular vote. Possibly well left of the popular vote.

You can't run on change when you're the incumbent.
You can't run against Hillary Clinton when Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot.
You can't win with 35% approval and 35% believing you're qualified, unless your opponent is really, really, awful.

While what all you said was true and there is some really interesting takeaways from the exit polls that translate into 2016 being the a perfect storm for Trump, you're not taking into account the current situation. Trump's image has improved over the last 2 years, he is going to pick up some voters that he didn't get in addition to losing some of what he got in 2016. That's essentially what Dems don't think is possible and where the thinking is flawed. Democrats also don't think there could be a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. While its hard to think of someone worse, its certainly possible.

Assuming that nothing happens to the Trump Presidency, and that he seeks re-election...

1. He is the incumbent President. His approval numbers are abysmal; those for Obama at this time in 2010 were simply mediocre. Obama's Party lost control of the House of Representatives, which is likely to happen to Donald Trump.

Obama got re-elected by turning what was 46% approval around September 12, 2010 into 51% of the nationwide popular vote. That's not a particularly high improvement for as slick a campaigner as he was, but to that give some credit to Mitt Romney.  Approval numbers according to Gallup have had Trump consistently lagging Obama. So we are comparing apples to apples for very different Presidents.

2. Of course the states elect the presidents and the people do not. But I look at the polling figures for the states closest for Trump in 2016, and they are awful. Obama, I assure you, did not have numbers like those that Trump has. Take a look at the number 100-DIS(approve) for  states decided by 10% and that number is unambiguously below 50% in all such states except Georgia and Texas. If he must struggle to win either state, then he isn't going to win any of the states that he really must win.

3. President Trump has obviously done little to relieve those who held their noses and voted for him of their trepidation. The political stench is just as obnoxious now as it was in November 2016. This Presidency has been one of legal misadventures relating to corruption and abuse of power. Obama? It was dull. How dull? Republicans experienced few scandals.

What people held their noses about is still there.

4. Incumbent pols can run on their records and lose... which is a better chance than the certainty of loss that comes from running from one's record.

5. It is practically impossible to recover from disapproval numbers over 50%. Obama recovered from one that I know -- 51% (just barely, and once) in Ohio... and he barely won Ohio in 2012. Look at the alleged 'opportunity' states that he barely lost (New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, and Nevada -- and he has disapproval numbers over 50%.   The three closest states that he won? Likewise. One of the three will be enough for him to get re-elected. The closest? Oh-oh... the fourth is Florida. It and any one of the closest three states that Trump barely won is enough for a Trump loss in 2016.

6. Trump is not building support. His supporters who remain may be more fanatical than ever -- but that is how it goes with extremists. His 'squishy' support is very thin.

7. Nobody is dealing with favorability (even though it could have been a good proxy in early 2017, few use it anymore).

8. If you are saying that the Democrats can lose by nominating a real turkey, then think again. I remember the delight that Carter's people had that the Republicans had nominated what most Democrats thought the extreme, reckless Ronald Reagan. 49 electoral votes for Jimmy Carter in 1980 suggest that such wishful thinking was ill-advised. Carter had problems, and even if those were very different from those that Trump has, I almost expect the same results.

Carter is a decent fellow, practically untainted with personal scandal.  It may be an exaggeration to compare some bad luck of Jimmy Carter (being President during the Iranian hostage situation) to the pervasive corruption and despotic style of Trump... but I see Trump losing badly in 2020. barring electoral fraud, it is practically impossible for him to recover from bad numbers as he now has.

[MarkD]

Assuming that nothing happens to the Trump Presidency, and that he seeks re-election...

1. He is the incumbent President. His approval numbers are abysmal; those for Obama at this time in 2010 were simply mediocre. Obama's Party lost control of the House of Representatives, which is likely to happen to Donald Trump.

Obama got re-elected by turning what was 46% approval around September 12, 2010 into 51% of the nationwide popular vote. That's not a particularly high improvement for as slick a campaigner as he was, but to that give some credit to Mitt Romney.  Approval numbers according to Gallup have had Trump consistently lagging Obama. So we are comparing apples to apples for very different Presidents.

2. Of course the states elect the presidents and the people do not. But I look at the polling figures for the states closest for Trump in 2016, and they are awful. Obama, I assure you, did not have numbers like those that Trump has. Take a look at the number 100-DIS(approve) for  states decided by 10% and that number is unambiguously below 50% in all such states except Georgia and Texas. If he must struggle to win either state, then he isn't going to win any of the states that he really must win.

3. President Trump has obviously done little to relieve those who held their noses and voted for him of their trepidation. The political stench is just as obnoxious now as it was in November 2016. This Presidency has been one of legal misadventures relating to corruption and abuse of power. Obama? It was dull. How dull? Republicans experienced few scandals.

What people held their noses about is still there.

4. Incumbent pols can run on their records and lose... which is a better chance than the certainty of loss that comes from running from one's record.

5. It is practically impossible to recover from disapproval numbers over 50%. Obama recovered from one that I know -- 51% (just barely, and once) in Ohio... and he barely won Ohio in 2012. Look at the alleged 'opportunity' states that he barely lost (New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, and Nevada -- and he has disapproval numbers over 50%.   The three closest states that he won? Likewise. One of the three will be enough for him to get re-elected. The closest? Oh-oh... the fourth is Florida. It and any one of the closest three states that Trump barely won is enough for a Trump loss in 2016.

6. Trump is not building support. His supporters who remain may be more fanatical than ever -- but that is how it goes with extremists. His 'squishy' support is very thin.

7. Nobody is dealing with favorability (even though it could have been a good proxy in early 2017, few use it anymore).

8. If you are saying that the Democrats can lose by nominating a real turkey, then think again. I remember the delight that Carter's people had that the Republicans had nominated what most Democrats thought the extreme, reckless Ronald Reagan. 49 electoral votes for Jimmy Carter in 1980 suggest that such wishful thinking was ill-advised. Carter had problems, and even if those were very different from those that Trump has, I almost expect the same results.

Carter is a decent fellow, practically untainted with personal scandal.  It may be an exaggeration to compare some bad luck of Jimmy Carter (being President during the Iranian hostage situation) to the pervasive corruption and despotic style of Trump... but I see Trump losing badly in 2020. barring electoral fraud, it is practically impossible for him to recover from bad numbers as he now has.

Very good analysis. I think at the end of number 5 you meant the year 2020 instead of 2016, but all in all, you're to be congratulated. As I said above, I think Trump is going to lose by a landslide, and you've helped reinforce that belief.

[alancia]

This depends, but on the current course I think he may lose Michigan.