Why Donald Trump is very likely to be re-elected

[Beet]

The reason Trump is likely to win again is very simple. Although he lost the popular vote last time, he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college. Presidents up for re-election in recent years typically win similar states their second time around. For example, Obama gave up the marginal wins of Indiana and North Carolina on his 2nd try, but otherwise the 2012 map was very similar to 2008. Similarly the 2004 map was almost the same as 2000.

It seems to me people against him are pinning their best first hopes on flipping Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This is going to be tough because many working class white voters who were part of the core Democratic base (such as those in Luzurne, Co.) are gone for them. Trump has a new coalition in these states that even Ronald Reagan did not have.

But let's be generous and say that Trump has a 50% chance of losing each of these states, even though he won them all in 2016. If nothing else changes from 2016, he would still have to lose all three to go under 270. The compound probability of three events is:

50% x 50% x 50% => 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 or 12.5%. In other words, while Biden is likely to flip at least one of the states, the odds of him flipping all three states are very low. Trump's has at least an 87.5% chance to of retaining at least one states even if he is favored in none of them, thus being reelected.

Now let's be even more generous to Biden and say he's favored with 65% odds in all three states.

65% x 65% x 65% => 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 = 27.5%. In other words, even if Biden is twice as likely to win each of Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin, Trump still had about a 73% chance to win at least one.

Now while the odds of winning a given state is by nature somewhat idiosyncratic and random, you could argue that I'm being too easy on Trump by not taking into account potential correlation between the odds. That is, if we know he loses Pennsylvania, then it likely means something bad about his overall popularity and thus his chances in Michigan. Fair enough. Let's say Biden has a 65% chance to win Pennsylvania, and if we know he wins Pennsylvania he has an 75% chance to win Michigan, and we know if he wins both Pennsylvania and Michigan he is a near lock of 90% to win Wisconsin too.

65% x 80% x 90% => 0.65 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 44%. Even in this case, Trump is still favored to win at least one.

What does this tell us? That Biden almost certainly needs another 2016 Trump state to win. And what will this state be? North Carolina, Georgia and Texas are trending D, but only North Carolina has recently gone Dem (once), in the Obama +9 landslide of 2008, and then only by a paper thin margin.

That leaves Arizona and Florida. Arizona has polls showing it competitive, but no Republican presidential nominee has lost there since 1996, and that was with Ross Perot acting as a spoiler. Yes, Kyrsten Sinema won, but only running as a Manchin-style centrist, and in a D +8 year she still only barely squeaked by against a horrible opponent.

Then there is Florida. I've never heard any Democrat having much hope about Florida.

In sum, it looks like the Democrats are overconfidently pinning their hopes on PA + MI + WI but their odds of denying Trump at least one win of the three are very low. (Yes I've made some simplifying assumptions here by keeping other states the same as 2016 but it gives a general picture.) They are saying stuff like Trump needs Florida (which he can lose and still win overall, if that's the only state that flips) more than Biden needs Arizona when the opposite is true.

[Bidenworth2020]

While I am glad you have moved on from the "muh Biden senile/rapist" stuff, this is a laughably bad post. You are attempting to convert your personal feelings about Trump's appeal into % chance and then are also acting like every state moves independent of others. How about this for why I think Biden is favored right now: Polls show him up 4-5 points nationally and in every key swing state.

[7,052,770]

States aren't independent coinflips like that. Whatever causes Biden to flip (or not flip) Michigan (or whatever state) is going to affect other states too.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Due to fact we have a budget deficit of 22T and all social programs can't pass. Donald Trump isnt likely to get elected, but the Senate may end up in a tie, giving Rs sway over legislation,  still

Even the military budget is being chomped on, Navy sailors have gotten Covid 19

[anthonyjg]

These aren’t independent results... you can’t just multiply them

[Alben Barkley]

These aren’t independent results... you can’t just multiply them

Trump fans ain’t too good at math, what do you expect?

[KaiserDave]

That's not how math works.....

[South Dakota Democrat]

These aren’t independent results... you can’t just multiply them

Trump fans ain’t too good at math, what do you expect?

That's why we need an Asian that's good at math.

(a quote from Andrew Yang, before anyone calls this racist/nonsensical)

[Illini Moderate]

I’m not refuting your point that Trump can still win. I even think it’s more likely than not that he will. But your logic, reasoning, and ill-fated attempt at using math within both is honestly just laughable. This might be the worst post I have seen on here actually.

[Alben Barkley]

Trump can lose Florida and still win if he holds on to absolutely everything else, sure. Problem is if he’s lost Florida he’s probably also lost at least one other close state, and that’s all it would take. Why would Biden need Arizona more by comparison? It still makes no sense. Biden CAN absolutely win MI+WI+PA. As others have said, state results are not independent of one another, especially in demographically similar states that all voted about the same in 2016 and 2018.

Or if he is winning Florida, again just any one of those or AZ or NC would be enough. Fact is he’s got more paths to victory, with or without Florida, than Trump does without Florida. If he loses FL he is almost guaranteed to lose by sheer mathematical probability, whereas that is not the case if Biden loses AZ. Though he’s winning by high single digits there in some polls right now as well as FL, so it sure takes an awful lot of misplaced confidence to say Trump is almost guaranteed to win. I could make a much better case that Biden is almost guaranteed to win because all indications are it’s highly likely Trump will do at least a point or two worse than 2016 in the NPV, and that alone might be a big enough shift in the national climate to flip enough states to win.

[ProudModerate2]

The reason Trump is likely to win again is very simple. Although he lost the popular vote last time, he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college.

I didnt really even get to the math part of the OP statement.
I stopped reading right here.
There was no "decisive victory in the electoral college (in 2016)." Period.
It was a very close victory, decided by a total of only 77K votes spread-over 3 states, that gave trump a good electoral college numerical win.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

The probabilities of flipping similar states are highly correlated. If Biden flips any one of MI, PA, and WI, he's very likely to flip all three.

And that's not even considering the fact that Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina all look like viable pickups.

[Burke Bro]

How was his electoral college victory “rather decisive”? The 3 states that put him over the top weren’t even won by 1% each. As you yourself mentioned, all the states that Obama won by less than 1% in 2008 were won rather easily by Romney (Indiana by 10% and North Carolina by a much closer 2%).

[anthonyjg]

These aren’t independent results... you can’t just multiply them

Trump fans ain’t too good at math, what do you expect?

”You take senior joe’s EIGHTY percent chance of winning WEAK states like Virginia and Colorado and you take my FIFTY percent chance of winning GREAT states like Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, then I got 310 PERCENT chance of WINNING on ELECTION night”

https://youtu.be/WFoC3TR5rzI

[cvparty]

you really thought you did something here

[TDAS04]

Jimmy Carter won with almost as many electoral votes.  George H. W. Bush won with way, way more.  It didn’t hold up for them four years later very well, did it.

[ProudModerate2]

you really thought you did something here

Ouch.

[Beet]

you really thought you did something here

I have established that given the three propositions

(1) Trump keeps all his 2016 states minus Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin but does not win any Clinton 2016 states, and

(2) Biden is favored in all of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and,

(3) Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are heavily correlated,

Trump is still favored to win. I think I have demonstrated it sufficiently and it is non-trivial since prior to my post, most people here would have said Biden was favored if given the propositions above were true. The conclusion is that Biden would need at least one other state as a part of his core target (and not just as a "nice to have.")

[ProgressiveModerate]

Chances are, the rust belt states will flip together. If WI goes blue, I would be shocked if MI and MN didn't go blue as well unless Biden said something terribble about MI. I think Trump's path to an EC majority is much more delicate than Biden's because if he loooses FL or NC, it's pretty much game over for him, whereas Biden can afford to lose WI or AZ

[Xing]

Concern troll gonna concern troll.

[Devout Centrist]

Beet, you're assuming that these events are completely independent. They probably aren't.

For example, the probability of Biden winning Michigan given that he won Pennsylvania is higher than the probability of Biden winning Michigan alone.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'd also add that saying Arizona won't flip because it hasn't since the '90s is uniquely terrible logic.

[roxas11]

The reason Trump is likely to win again is very simple. Although he lost the popular vote last time, he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college. Presidents up for re-election in recent years typically win similar states their second time around. For example, Obama gave up the marginal wins of Indiana and North Carolina on his 2nd try, but otherwise the 2012 map was very similar to 2008. Similarly the 2004 map was almost the same as 2000.

It seems to me people against him are pinning their best first hopes on flipping Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This is going to be tough because many working class white voters who were part of the core Democratic base (such as those in Luzurne, Co.) are gone for them. Trump has a new coalition in these states that even Ronald Reagan did not have.

1. he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college.

George HW bush beat Dukakis in a landslide by 426 Electoral votes and Had a 90 percent approval rating just before the start of the 1992 election and he still lost

2. Obama gave up the marginal wins of Indiana and North Carolina
So you compare him to Obama 2012 yet for some reason you don't seem to think that trump will also be giving up marginal wins in states he won 2016

3. It seems to me people against him are pinning their best first hopes on flipping Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

These are 3 historically Dem states that trump barely won in 2016 and there is no Jill stein and gary johnson in 2020. Pennsylvania is Biden home state and the Republicans got beat badly during the 2018 midterms in Michigan . At best maybe he still can win Wisconsin but at the point I don't see him winning in Michigan or Pennsylvania again.


4.This is going to be tough because many working class white voters who were part of the core Democratic base

Something tells me many working class whites will not be happy about this on election day




5.Trump has a new coalition in these states that even Ronald Reagan did not have.
In 1984 Reagan carried 49 of the 50 states and unlike trump he won young voters, Woman and Hispanics

[AGA]

The reason Trump is likely to win again is very simple. Although he lost the popular vote last time, he had a rather decisive victory in the electoral college. Presidents up for re-election in recent years typically win similar states their second time around. For example, Obama gave up the marginal wins of Indiana and North Carolina on his 2nd try, but otherwise the 2012 map was very similar to 2008. Similarly the 2004 map was almost the same as 2000.

It seems to me people against him are pinning their best first hopes on flipping Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This is going to be tough because many working class white voters who were part of the core Democratic base (such as those in Luzurne, Co.) are gone for them. Trump has a new coalition in these states that even Ronald Reagan did not have.

But let's be generous and say that Trump has a 50% chance of losing each of these states, even though he won them all in 2016. If nothing else changes from 2016, he would still have to lose all three to go under 270. The compound probability of three events is:

50% x 50% x 50% => 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 or 12.5%. In other words, while Biden is likely to flip at least one of the states, the odds of him flipping all three states are very low. Trump's has at least an 87.5% chance to of retaining at least one states even if he is favored in none of them, thus being reelected.

Now let's be even more generous to Biden and say he's favored with 65% odds in all three states.

65% x 65% x 65% => 0.65 * 0.65 * 0.65 = 27.5%. In other words, even if Biden is twice as likely to win each of Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin, Trump still had about a 73% chance to win at least one.

Now while the odds of winning a given state is by nature somewhat idiosyncratic and random, you could argue that I'm being too easy on Trump by not taking into account potential correlation between the odds. That is, if we know he loses Pennsylvania, then it likely means something bad about his overall popularity and thus his chances in Michigan. Fair enough. Let's say Biden has a 65% chance to win Pennsylvania, and if we know he wins Pennsylvania he has an 75% chance to win Michigan, and we know if he wins both Pennsylvania and Michigan he is a near lock of 90% to win Wisconsin too.

65% x 80% x 90% => 0.65 * 0.8 * 0.9 = 44%. Even in this case, Trump is still favored to win at least one.

What does this tell us? That Biden almost certainly needs another 2016 Trump state to win. And what will this state be? North Carolina, Georgia and Texas are trending D, but only North Carolina has recently gone Dem (once), in the Obama +9 landslide of 2008, and then only by a paper thin margin.

That leaves Arizona and Florida. Arizona has polls showing it competitive, but no Republican presidential nominee has lost there since 1996, and that was with Ross Perot acting as a spoiler. Yes, Kyrsten Sinema won, but only running as a Manchin-style centrist, and in a D +8 year she still only barely squeaked by against a horrible opponent.

Then there is Florida. I've never heard any Democrat having much hope about Florida.

In sum, it looks like the Democrats are overconfidently pinning their hopes on PA + MI + WI but their odds of denying Trump at least one win of the three are very low. (Yes I've made some simplifying assumptions here by keeping other states the same as 2016 but it gives a general picture.) They are saying stuff like Trump needs Florida (which he can lose and still win overall, if that's the only state that flips) more than Biden needs Arizona when the opposite is true.

Stopped reading here.

[Ogre Mage]