Trump will hold all of his 2016 states?

[christian peralta]

Does Trump manage to hold all the states that he won back in 2016, or he will lost some states, either a few of them like when Bush lost New Hampshire in 2004 or Obama lost Indiana and North Carolina in 2012 or in a worst case scenario similar to George H. W. Bush in 1992 (when he lost almost 20 states).

[SingingAnalyst]

Does Trump manage to hold all the states that he won back in 2016, or he will lost some states, either a few of them like when Bush lost New Hampshire in 2004 or Obama lost Indiana and North Carolina in 2012 or in a worst case scenario similar to George H. W. Bush in 1992 (when he lost almost 20 states).

Holding all of them is a tall order. Trump will probably lose MI at the very least, so I voted No.

[SN2903]

I think he does in the end and adds Nevada, New Hampshire and maybe Minnesota. Wisconsin is going to be really close though I could see it going Dem in 2020 but I think Michigan is fools gold for democrats. It's a great state for Trump like PA.

[redjohn]

I think he does in the end and adds Nevada, New Hampshire and maybe Minnesota. Wisconsin is going to be really close though I could see it going Dem in 2020 but I think Michigan is fools gold for democrats. It's a great state for Trump like PA.

Trump's not winning Minnesota while losing Wisconsin.

[pbrower2a]

Recent polls suggest that he will lose Michigan by 10% or so. Draw your own conclusion on how that will show up in other states that Trump won by 10% or less.

[Lognog]

Since FDR, only two presidents have been able to do that, Nixon and Reagan in their respective election campaigns (72 and 84), but those were massive land slides in which only one state and DC went blue. I have a hard time believing he will do this since pulling off a feat such only really happens during landslides and the fact that HRC was one of the worst candidates the democrats could have put forth

[McGarnagle]

I don't think he will flip any Hillary states.

I think that, if he makes it to 2020, he will most likely end up losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (and with them the election) all by at least 3-4 points, as well as possibly Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Iowa (yes, Iowa). I think Ohio is flippable too but may pose more of a challenge in that regard than it did six years ago.

If I'm wrong in 26-and-a-half months you can throw tomatoes at me.

[McGarnagle]

Since FDR, only two presidents have been able to do that, Nixon and Reagan in their respective election campaigns (72 and 84), but those were massive land slides in which only one state and DC went blue. I have a hard time believing he will do this since pulling off a feat such only really happens during landslides and the fact that HRC was one of the worst candidates the democrats could have put forth

This. I think the Democrats will win as long as they put forward a candidate with less baggage than Hillary. I also think Hillary's decision to support the 2002 resolution authorizing military force in Iraq was the most damaging to her political ambitions. I could see her having won in 2008 or last year, and Kerry having won in 2004, if they had not voted for that. It was arguably their biggest vulnerability.

[SN2903]

Since FDR, only two presidents have been able to do that, Nixon and Reagan in their respective election campaigns (72 and 84), but those were massive land slides in which only one state and DC went blue. I have a hard time believing he will do this since pulling off a feat such only really happens during landslides and the fact that HRC was one of the worst candidates the democrats could have put forth

This. I think the Democrats will win as long as they put forward a candidate with less baggage than Hillary. I also think Hillary's decision to support the 2002 resolution authorizing military force in Iraq was the most damaging to her political ambitions. I could see her having won in 2008 or last year, and Kerry having won in 2004, if they had not voted for that. It was arguably their biggest vulnerability.

Yes Hillary is a warmonger. Trump campaigned on largely staying out of war.

[Sirius_]

lol no

[Zaybay]

For him to do this, he would need to hold all the states that voted for him by less than 1%, which is impossible at this point.

WI- This is the state Trump is likely to lose in 2020 out of all three. While it gave Trump his best margin, he didnt actually do any better in it than Romney, in fact, he did worse. What happened was that AA turnout, along with D turnout, was so pitiful in the state that Romney's numbers were able to get Trump across. I doubt he will be able to keep D turnout low in WI enough to win it.

MI- A similar story to WI, but it wasnt AA turnout, but just general D turnout. Trump was able to greatly improve on Romney's numbers, implying an Obama-Trump voter effect, but from approval polling we have, and the fact that D turnout will not be low like in 2016, it seems that Trump will not be able to carry it.

PA- This state has the greatest chance of being won by Trump. The state has turned into a battle of voter bleed, the North West and North East vs the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs. The suburbs have been bleeding at a rather fixed rate, but it was the sudden destruction of D power in the corners that screwed Hillary in the state. If Trump can continue the voter bleed, then he wins, but approvals in the state suggest a backlash to him in these areas. Still, this will be his best state to retain.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I think he does in the end and adds Nevada, New Hampshire and maybe Minnesota. Wisconsin is going to be really close though I could see it going Dem in 2020 but I think Michigan is fools gold for democrats. It's a great state for Trump like PA.

I mean if we nominate a pos maybe, but otherwise I doubt it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NO

[Vosem]

Unlikely even if he is reelected -- usually only Presidents who win nearly every state (Reagan '84, Nixon '72, FDR '36 are the only examples since 1900) hold on to every state they won in their first go-around; often, even comfortable reelections where the President gains with the overall electorate with wide margins feature some state slipping away for some reason (FDR '40, FDR '44, Eisenhower '56, Clinton '96, Bush '04; Wilson '16 and Obama '12 were reelected with smaller margins but also fit here).

So, unlikely unless you think Trump is on track to win a >45-state landslide.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The House delegation will be aligned so that it protects the 279 friewal and Dems will net some conservative states in the gubernatorial elections in 2018, and 2022 doesn't get any better for the GOP

[Bojack Horseman]

Michigan is a safe flip, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are likely flips, and Minnesota will swing hard back to the Dems in 2020.

[OSR stands with Israel]

He will lose Michigan


I would say in 2020 its more likely he wins MN or NH than MI

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is unlikely to win the 279 friewal states and may lose OH,FL and/or AZ, due to the 2018 gubernatorial map, that's tilted against the GOP

[Progressive Pessimist]

He has a 50% chance of it, I think.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He loses MI, PA 53-47% and loses WI by a smaller 52-48 lead, he won't win the Midwest.

[SN2903]

He loses MI, PA 53-47% and loses WI by a smaller 52-48 lead, he won't win the Midwest.

Yes he will. The only state I think he may lose is Wisconsin. I think he wins MI, PA and possibly MN.

[SN2903]

He will lose Michigan


I would say in 2020 its more likely he wins MN or NH than MI

Maybe I still think the democrats are going overboard about MI. I think at the end of the day you have to have a candidate that BEATS him there and the democratic party is moving culturally away from where the midwest is. Minnesota is def moving toward a red state.

[Senator Spark]

No.

[SN2903]

No.

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

[Xing]

It's pretty unlikely he holds all three of MI/WI/PA, even if he wins.