Trump's path of least resistance to 270

[MT Treasurer]

I’m pretty sure it’s this:

270
268

[Technocracy Timmy]

278-260

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Trump will win all his 2016 states PLUS New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota AT THE VERY LEAST

Gardner will keep the CO-SEN seat and Doug "barely beat an accused child molester by 1.5 points" Jones will lose in a MASSIVE landslide. Oh, and Collins will either win or her GOP replacement will.

Nick Freitas will take down Mark Warner in VA-SEN and the GOP contender will take down Gary Peters in MI-SEN.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, that looks right to me. I think he could lose NE-02 in that map as well, but then the House would just elect him anyway, so it doesn't matter.

[pbrower2a]

273-265

Iowa is not voting a second time for Donald Trump.  If he is losing Wisconsin, he probably loses Iowa.   

[IceSpear]

273-265

Iowa is not voting a second time for Donald Trump.  If he is losing Wisconsin, he probably loses Iowa.  

Yeah, clearly a Clinton +5 state is more likely to vote for Trump than a Trump +9 state. #analysis

This would be like saying Obama would be more likely to win Georgia in 2012 than Colorado.

[Person Man]

Colorado will be a tough nut to crack. I still say Wisconsin but who knows how I will think on Wednesday. Are the first midterms indicative of how the reelection will go? No..but we will at least learn a few things.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, clearly a Clinton +5 state is more likely to vote for Trump than a Trump +9 state. #analysis

This would be like saying Obama would be more likely to win Georgia in 2012 than Colorado.

Timmy is a psychic:

278-260

[Technocracy Timmy]

Yeah I didn’t expect my joke answer to get replicated almost perfectly so quickly.

[pbrower2a]

I did miss Colorado on the map.  Colorado would have to revert to its pattern of voting for a Republican nominee for President every time but once between 1964 and 2008. Colorado used to be a Republican state. Then again, so was California.

It may be crude to say that Colorado is demographically New Mexico without the high rate of poverty, but sometimes crude explanations are right with respect to state-level politics.

Iowa and Wisconsin have polled badly for Trump in recent months, and I don't see either going for him in 2020. Trump got several one-time wonders, states in which Republicans might not win the Presidency in for a very long time -- like Texas for Carter in 1976.

After a few months of Trump, many Democrats regretted that Obama had gotten re-elected. A second term for Mitt Romney would be far better than one disastrous term for Donald Trump, at the least for free trade and foreign policy. It is going to take a Trump defeat in 2020 to make Republicans recognize what a disaster Trump is. Trump will be so bad that Democrats will begin speeches with the words "At least Ronald Reagan..." or end them with the taunt "Ronald Reagan would have never made that mistake!"    

[adrac]

I agree with OP. Colorado and Nevada are not happening.

[Bidenworth2020]

Trump will win all his 2016 states PLUS New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota AT THE VERY LEAST

Gardner will keep the CO-SEN seat and Doug "barely beat an accused child molester by 1.5 points" Jones will lose in a MASSIVE landslide. Oh, and Collins will either win or her GOP replacement will.

Nick Freitas will take down Mark Warner in VA-SEN and the GOP contender will take down Gary Peters in MI-SEN.

are you actually serious? or is this trolling?

[Florida Man for Crime]

I’m pretty sure it’s this:

270
268

Precisely correct.