Bold Predictions for November

[Calthrina950]

After all the concerns about a 2016 redux and "underestimating Trump"; four years of bedwetting, overanalysis, and "learning lessons"; and excessive focus on/obsession over the "WWC" Obama/Trump voter, Donald Trump's presidency is ended by the "silent" suburban voter who couldn’t stomach voting for Hillary Clinton and considered Trump the lesser of two evils in 2016, record Democratic turnout across the country (but especially in metropolitan America, where we see unprecedented numbers for a Democratic presidential candidate in cities like Atlanta, Austin, and Bozeman ), and Biden's inroads among voters 65 and older. Biden flips MI, PA, AZ, NE-02, and two other states. States with the strongest D swings include MT, KS, TX, and AZ (which votes to the left of most, if not all, other battleground states). Everyone says that they saw it coming all along, that Biden was always far better-positioned than Hillary Clinton, that an incumbent like Trump never had a chance, that 2018 was an obvious sign of things to come, that Democrats did not hit a ceiling in Sun Belt urban/suburban areas in 2016 and 2018, and that they never doubted that Trump only won in 2016 because of the historic unpopularity of his opponent.

Biden doesn’t gain that much ground in most areas which trended strongly Republican in 2016 (with some exceptions like counties with a large number of Native American and "anti-incumbent" voters, especially in MT), but he manages to either make small inroads or at least hold his own in those states (e.g., only losing IA by 6-7 points, and losing OH by 4-5 points), which is more than enough to win the election. Democrats finally give up on Iowa as it turns out to be Trump's best swing state and Ernst wins reelection despite the Democratic onslaught, not least due to her #retailpolitics.

The Senate is incredibly close and not called on election night, with the closest races (decided by less than five percentage points) being MT (which is one of the last races to be called, as Daines does worse than Gianforte and Rosendale and the race is nip and tuck throughout the night until the wee hours), NC, GA-R, MI, TX, KS, and ME. MI and TX in particular are more competitive than initially expected, as Cornyn barely outperforms Trump and Peters actually runs behind Biden. Both GA seats go to a runoff, and Perdue just barely receives fewer votes than Ossoff in the first round as his Gwinnett GOTV Gang falls asleep at the wheel and his Cobb County Connections abandon him. There’s more split-ticket voting in smaller states (MT/AK/KS/ME) than expected. McSally and Gardner lose pretty badly (Gardner by more than Jones), and Tommy Tuberville picks up AL by an embarrassing margin after national Republican groups + Trump come to his rescue (he barely outperforms Roy Moore in urban AL and even slightly underperforms him in a few suburban counties, but is pulled across the finish line by presidential year turnout among Republicans/Republican-leaning independents, the absence of a lopsided enthusiasm gap, and Trump's 22-point margin in the presidential race in AL).

LOL That is a pipe dream.  You are basically saying 2016 was a fluke.

Yes it was.

Right all those WWC voters will magically flip to dems. The truth is both things are happening. GOP is continuing to lose more college educated whites while democrats continue to lose more WWC. Biden def does worse with WWC than Hillary which is why MN will flip and Trump keeps all the midwest states. He will lose GA or AZ before he loses the Midwest.

While I don't think Minnesota will flip to Trump, I nevertheless agree with the overall thrust of what you say here. Before I undertook my hiatus, I marveled on another thread how Tom Wolf won reelection in Pennsylvania by a wider margin in 2018 than in 2014, despite winning fewer counties overall. And for that observation, I was mocked. But now, I will bring it back again, so as to make a broader analysis of what we will see in the Midwest this fall.

If you look at Wolf's first gubernatorial victory in 2014, before Trump's upset in Pennsylvania, you'll notice that he carried the typical suburban counties that are now solidly Democratic (i.e. Delaware, Chester, Montgomery) and the other counties that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. However, he also won several rural, ancesterally Democratic working-class counties that were once a key part of their coalition:

You'll also notice that he did reasonably well throughout much of the interior regions of the state as well, breaking 40% in several counties where Hillary Clinton barely managed 30%.

In 2018, however, Wolf's coalition changed:

As one can see, he significantly improved in the Philadelphia suburban counties, breaking 60% in all of them except swing Bucks County (Bucks went to him by double digits, closely matching his overall statewide margin, as it matched the statewide margin in 2016). Chester County, in particular, went from being Wolf +4 in 2014 to Wolf +23 in 2018. He also significantly improved in Allegheny County, gaining 10 percentage points there compared to 2014, and flipped wealthy exurban Cumberland County. However, Wolf lost Greene, Fayette, Cambria, Schuylkill, Carbon, Lawrence, Northumberland, and Clinton Counties, which he had carried in 2014. He also did significantly worse in Luzerne County, winning it by 5 against Wagner while he had carried it by 12 against Corbett.

To summarize, Wolf gained college-educated suburbanites who are trending Democratic, but lost white working-class voters who are trending Republican. The exact same patterns will manifest themselves in Pennsylvania (and in Wisconsin and Michigan as well) this year. However, another critical point is that Wolf's gains among suburbanites outweighed his losses among white working-class voters, which is why he won by a wider margin last time than in 2014. I wouldn't surprised if this happens with Biden. If Biden can come close to replicating Wolf's numbers in the Philadelphia suburbs and Allegheny County, then he will win Pennsylvania, even if he loses further ground to Trump in the rural and working-class areas.

[Calthrina950]

After all the concerns about a 2016 redux and "underestimating Trump"; four years of bedwetting, overanalysis, and "learning lessons"; and excessive focus on/obsession over the "WWC" Obama/Trump voter, Donald Trump's presidency is ended by the "silent" suburban voter who couldn’t stomach voting for Hillary Clinton and considered Trump the lesser of two evils in 2016, record Democratic turnout across the country (but especially in metropolitan America, where we see unprecedented numbers for a Democratic presidential candidate in cities like Atlanta, Austin, and Bozeman ), and Biden's inroads among voters 65 and older. Biden flips MI, PA, AZ, NE-02, and two other states. States with the strongest D swings include MT, KS, TX, and AZ (which votes to the left of most, if not all, other battleground states). Everyone says that they saw it coming all along, that Biden was always far better-positioned than Hillary Clinton, that an incumbent like Trump never had a chance, that 2018 was an obvious sign of things to come, that Democrats did not hit a ceiling in Sun Belt urban/suburban areas in 2016 and 2018, and that they never doubted that Trump only won in 2016 because of the historic unpopularity of his opponent.

Biden doesn’t gain that much ground in most areas which trended strongly Republican in 2016 (with some exceptions like counties with a large number of Native American and "anti-incumbent" voters, especially in MT), but he manages to either make small inroads or at least hold his own in those states (e.g., only losing IA by 6-7 points, and losing OH by 4-5 points), which is more than enough to win the election. Democrats finally give up on Iowa as it turns out to be Trump's best swing state and Ernst wins reelection despite the Democratic onslaught, not least due to her #retailpolitics.

The Senate is incredibly close and not called on election night, with the closest races (decided by less than five percentage points) being MT (which is one of the last races to be called, as Daines does worse than Gianforte and Rosendale and the race is nip and tuck throughout the night until the wee hours), NC, GA-R, MI, TX, KS, and ME. MI and TX in particular are more competitive than initially expected, as Cornyn barely outperforms Trump and Peters actually runs behind Biden. Both GA seats go to a runoff, and Perdue just barely receives fewer votes than Ossoff in the first round as his Gwinnett GOTV Gang falls asleep at the wheel and his Cobb County Connections abandon him. There’s more split-ticket voting in smaller states (MT/AK/KS/ME) than expected. McSally and Gardner lose pretty badly (Gardner by more than Jones), and Tommy Tuberville picks up AL by an embarrassing margin after national Republican groups + Trump come to his rescue (he barely outperforms Roy Moore in urban AL and even slightly underperforms him in a few suburban counties, but is pulled across the finish line by presidential year turnout among Republicans/Republican-leaning independents, the absence of a lopsided enthusiasm gap, and Trump's 22-point margin in the presidential race in AL).

LOL That is a pipe dream.  You are basically saying 2016 was a fluke.

Yes it was.

Right all those WWC voters will magically flip to dems. The truth is both things are happening. GOP is continuing to lose more college educated whites while democrats continue to lose more WWC. Biden def does worse with WWC than Hillary which is why MN will flip and Trump keeps all the midwest states. He will lose GA or AZ before he loses the Midwest.

While I don't think Minnesota will flip to Trump, I nevertheless agree with the overall thrust of what you say here. Before I undertook my hiatus, I marveled on another thread how Tom Wolf won reelection in Pennsylvania by a wider margin in 2018 than in 2014, despite winning fewer counties overall. And for that observation, I was mocked. But now, I will bring it back again, so as to make a broader analysis of what we will see in the Midwest this fall.

If you look at Wolf's first gubernatorial victory in 2014, before Trump's upset in Pennsylvania, you'll notice that he carried the typical suburban counties that are now solidly Democratic (i.e. Delaware, Chester, Montgomery) and the other counties that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. However, he also won several rural, ancesterally Democratic working-class counties that were once a key part of their coalition:

You'll also notice that he did reasonably well throughout much of the interior regions of the state as well, breaking 40% in several counties where Hillary Clinton barely managed 30%.

In 2018, however, Wolf's coalition changed:

As one can see, he significantly improved in the Philadelphia suburban counties, breaking 60% in all of them except swing Bucks County (Bucks went to him by double digits, closely matching his overall statewide margin, as it matched the statewide margin in 2016). Chester County, in particular, went from being Wolf +4 in 2014 to Wolf +23 in 2018. He also significantly improved in Allegheny County, gaining 10 percentage points there compared to 2014, and flipped wealthy exurban Cumberland County. However, Wolf lost Greene, Fayette, Cambria, Schuylkill, Carbon, Lawrence, Northumberland, and Clinton Counties, which he had carried in 2014. He also did significantly worse in Luzerne County, winning it by 5 against Wagner while he had carried it by 12 against Corbett.

To summarize, Wolf gained college-educated suburbanites who are trending Democratic, but lost white working-class voters who are trending Republican. The exact same patterns will manifest themselves in Pennsylvania (and in Wisconsin and Michigan as well) this year. However, another critical point is that Wolf's gains among suburbanites outweighed his losses among white working-class voters, which is why he won by a wider margin last time than in 2014. I wouldn't surprised if this happens with Biden. If Biden can come close to replicating Wolf's numbers in the Philadelphia suburbs and Allegheny County, then he will win Pennsylvania, even if he loses further ground to Trump in the rural and working-class areas.

Clinton made those same types of gains against Trump though, and yet it still didn't guarantee her victory there. And so, what's to say any different chances will happen for Biden this year?

Clinton did make the same kinds of gains against Trump, but not to the scale that Wolf (or Casey for that matter) did in 2018. It has been a gradual process, and Trump's position in the Philadelphia suburbs has not improved compared to what it was in 2016. 2018 shows that it's possible for the Democrats to win Pennsylvania off the backs of the collar counties alone, and Biden-whose connections to the state have been well publicized-stands to profit off these trends. He will also win back at least a few of the voters in the Scranton-Wilkes Barre area who went to Trump, and combined with his suburban gains, that will tip the state his way.