What Does Donald Trump's Path To Victory Look Like?
Ten days ago, an unthinkable proposition one year earlier became America's reality....Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for President. It's rather stunning that the nation hasn't spent these past 10 days in an aghast paralysis that such a development would be possible in the world's only remaining economic superpower, so it's rather striking that American life has gone as if this is business as usual. There are conflicting signals about Trump's general election viability with a variety of theories on what a Trump nomination means for the long-standing red-state/blue-state divide. Few of the smart guys saw the Trump phenomenon coming in the first place and many denied it was actually happening every step of the way, so perhaps quoting conventional wisdom is a poor choice all-around this cycle, but my sense is that they're right that the range of Trump's possibilities extend from a (relative) landslide double-digit defeat to an extremely narrow Electoral College victory.
There are two scenarios where Trump attains a narrow Electoral College victory, and the first is entirely uncomplicated. He could benefit from a combination of incorrect polling data and low Democratic base turnout. Polling has gotten less and less reliable in recent years with the demise of the landline, leaving even the best pollsters scrambling to accurately assess public opinion. So let's say polls show Hillary ahead by 7-8 points going into election day.....but their polling models were as far off to the Democrats' artificial favor as they were in the 2014 midterms. This could help suppress the Democratic base's turnout, thinking Hillary has it in the bag, while allowing Trump to sneak in and win a number of states with growing minority populations that would be out of reach for Trump if the minority vote came out at 2012 levels. Much as we're told that nonwhites hate Donald Trump with the power of a thousand suns, it is not without precedent for the Democratic Party's nonwhite base to sit out elections and I'm not yet convinced they will have the fire in the belly to oppose Trump or support Hillary at levels needed to stop Trump.
But for the second scenario, let's operate under the theory that minority voter turnout will rival that of 2012. If that's the case, Donald Trump's path to victory is only doable through an inside straight through the Rust Belt. Several quadrennial swing states have growing minority populations and have been trending Democratic for a few cycles now. If those minority voters turn out in respectable numbers, Trump is toast in Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and probably Florida. Florida is particularly important since previous Republican victories in the state depended upon strong GOP support among Cuban-Americans, but this demographic has been trending away from the GOP for a few cycles anyway and early indications this cycle is that they have no use whatsoever for Donald Trump. If the Cubans are gone from the GOP on top of other unfavorable demographic shifts in Florida, the Republicans have a nightmare on their hands trying to get to 270 electoral votes.
That only leaves a handful of swing states where Trump would have to vastly overperform John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even George W. Bush. There are only two blue states from 2012 that I think have an even-money chance of flipping to Trump in 2016, and they are Ohio and Iowa. I'm not formally predicting that Trump wins them at this point, but for the sake of this "path to victory" exercise, let's give Trump these two states on the strength of his populist, blue-collar message delivered to those state's demographically friendly white working class-heavy voters. Together, the two states are worth 24 electoral voters so add them up to the 206 electoral votes Romney got and we're up to 230. But the pickings get very slim very quickly after that.....
It's hard to gauge right now whether Trump's brand of secular and populist Republicanism will sell in the northeast better than the disastrous performances of prior Republican nominees or not, but even if it does, New Hampshire is the only northeastern state Trump would have a prayer of overcoming massive Democratic voter advantages. This state has been trending Democratic in recent cycles so it's a reach for Trump, but for the sake of the exercise let's give him NH's four electoral votes, bringing him up to 234.
Wisconsin is also theoretically doable for Trump. Ted Cruz did very well in Wisconsin's primary, indicating a coolness towards Trump's brand of politics, but at the same time, Trump's county-level victories over Cruz occurred in the vast rural counties of northern and western Wisconsin, which are the bellwether counties in Wisconsin, so if he can translate primary wins in places like Wausau and La Crosse into general election victories, he could narrowly win here. It's a longshot--and even more of a longshot in demographically similar but more inelastically Democratic Minnesota--but it's possible. So stack up 10 more electoral votes for Trump from Wisconsin and put him at 244.
It gets ever harder from there as we move onto Michigan, which Obama carried by nearly 10 points in 2012. There's a reasonable line of argument that Obama overperformed the Democratic baseline in Michigan in 2012 because of the auto bailout he supported and Mitt Romney opposed, and that the state is likely to be closer in 2016 without that built-in advantage, particularly given Trump's campaign pitch directed so specifically towards a state like Michigan. But there's little in the data to support such an abrupt rightward turn for the state, particularly with as horridly unpopular as its current Republican Governor is. The media's long-standing association with Michigan as a "swing state" seems to be driving the narrative more than anything else. I don't think Trump can win Michigan but if he does, it puts him up to 260 electoral votes.
And that leaves Pennsylvania. The media likes to throw Pennsylvania in with Michigan and Ohio as Rust Belt states, imagining that Trump's populist campaign message will lasso in retired steelworkers in the Pittsburgh collar counties by the hundreds of thousands. Certainly if this election was being held with the Pennsylvania demographics of 1988, that might be possible, but the media narrative ignores that for a generation now, Pennsylvania's elections have been won or lost in its growth zone which is the Greater Philadelphia area. And from everything we know about the socially liberal, upscale suburbs of Philly, they are not the kind of place where Donald Trump would have much appeal. In fact, the Republican that was probably best positioned to win over suburban Philly was the guy they ran four years ago, and Romney nonetheless fumbled. Trump would need to win an otherworldly number of votes in shrinking blue-collar counties to make up for what he seems very likely to lose in Greater Philadelphia.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say Trump manages to win Pennsylvania but doesn't get Michigan. That would be the difference of 260 electoral votes and 264, still below the 270 he needs to win. If recent turnout models hold and disqualifies Trump from victory in the aforementioned demographically unfriendly Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and Florida as I speculated, then Trump would need to run the table on Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to win a bare 270-268 Electoral College majority. And even with Iowa and New Hampshire on board, he has no path to victory without Pennsylvania, last won by a Republican in a Presidential election in 1988. It's a tall order to say the least, and would depend upon virtually everything going Trump's way in terms of suppressed turnout models amongst the Democratic base.
Trump's nomination victory proves anything is possible, and Hillary is a special kind of awful for a Democratic nominee that presents its own challenges for the Democrats. But it's really hard to see how Donald Trump is well-positioned to win over converts at this stage of the race that aren't already on his side, and Hillary would have to run the worst Presidential general election campaign since Michael Dukakis to allow Trump to gain at her expense to that degree. I'd give Trump about 10% odds at victory. The headwinds he's facing are enormous, and that becomes even clearer when you break down the states Trump needs to persevere in the Electoral College.
There are two scenarios where Trump attains a narrow Electoral College victory, and the first is entirely uncomplicated. He could benefit from a combination of incorrect polling data and low Democratic base turnout. Polling has gotten less and less reliable in recent years with the demise of the landline, leaving even the best pollsters scrambling to accurately assess public opinion. So let's say polls show Hillary ahead by 7-8 points going into election day.....but their polling models were as far off to the Democrats' artificial favor as they were in the 2014 midterms. This could help suppress the Democratic base's turnout, thinking Hillary has it in the bag, while allowing Trump to sneak in and win a number of states with growing minority populations that would be out of reach for Trump if the minority vote came out at 2012 levels. Much as we're told that nonwhites hate Donald Trump with the power of a thousand suns, it is not without precedent for the Democratic Party's nonwhite base to sit out elections and I'm not yet convinced they will have the fire in the belly to oppose Trump or support Hillary at levels needed to stop Trump.
But for the second scenario, let's operate under the theory that minority voter turnout will rival that of 2012. If that's the case, Donald Trump's path to victory is only doable through an inside straight through the Rust Belt. Several quadrennial swing states have growing minority populations and have been trending Democratic for a few cycles now. If those minority voters turn out in respectable numbers, Trump is toast in Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and probably Florida. Florida is particularly important since previous Republican victories in the state depended upon strong GOP support among Cuban-Americans, but this demographic has been trending away from the GOP for a few cycles anyway and early indications this cycle is that they have no use whatsoever for Donald Trump. If the Cubans are gone from the GOP on top of other unfavorable demographic shifts in Florida, the Republicans have a nightmare on their hands trying to get to 270 electoral votes.
That only leaves a handful of swing states where Trump would have to vastly overperform John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even George W. Bush. There are only two blue states from 2012 that I think have an even-money chance of flipping to Trump in 2016, and they are Ohio and Iowa. I'm not formally predicting that Trump wins them at this point, but for the sake of this "path to victory" exercise, let's give Trump these two states on the strength of his populist, blue-collar message delivered to those state's demographically friendly white working class-heavy voters. Together, the two states are worth 24 electoral voters so add them up to the 206 electoral votes Romney got and we're up to 230. But the pickings get very slim very quickly after that.....
It's hard to gauge right now whether Trump's brand of secular and populist Republicanism will sell in the northeast better than the disastrous performances of prior Republican nominees or not, but even if it does, New Hampshire is the only northeastern state Trump would have a prayer of overcoming massive Democratic voter advantages. This state has been trending Democratic in recent cycles so it's a reach for Trump, but for the sake of the exercise let's give him NH's four electoral votes, bringing him up to 234.
Wisconsin is also theoretically doable for Trump. Ted Cruz did very well in Wisconsin's primary, indicating a coolness towards Trump's brand of politics, but at the same time, Trump's county-level victories over Cruz occurred in the vast rural counties of northern and western Wisconsin, which are the bellwether counties in Wisconsin, so if he can translate primary wins in places like Wausau and La Crosse into general election victories, he could narrowly win here. It's a longshot--and even more of a longshot in demographically similar but more inelastically Democratic Minnesota--but it's possible. So stack up 10 more electoral votes for Trump from Wisconsin and put him at 244.
It gets ever harder from there as we move onto Michigan, which Obama carried by nearly 10 points in 2012. There's a reasonable line of argument that Obama overperformed the Democratic baseline in Michigan in 2012 because of the auto bailout he supported and Mitt Romney opposed, and that the state is likely to be closer in 2016 without that built-in advantage, particularly given Trump's campaign pitch directed so specifically towards a state like Michigan. But there's little in the data to support such an abrupt rightward turn for the state, particularly with as horridly unpopular as its current Republican Governor is. The media's long-standing association with Michigan as a "swing state" seems to be driving the narrative more than anything else. I don't think Trump can win Michigan but if he does, it puts him up to 260 electoral votes.
And that leaves Pennsylvania. The media likes to throw Pennsylvania in with Michigan and Ohio as Rust Belt states, imagining that Trump's populist campaign message will lasso in retired steelworkers in the Pittsburgh collar counties by the hundreds of thousands. Certainly if this election was being held with the Pennsylvania demographics of 1988, that might be possible, but the media narrative ignores that for a generation now, Pennsylvania's elections have been won or lost in its growth zone which is the Greater Philadelphia area. And from everything we know about the socially liberal, upscale suburbs of Philly, they are not the kind of place where Donald Trump would have much appeal. In fact, the Republican that was probably best positioned to win over suburban Philly was the guy they ran four years ago, and Romney nonetheless fumbled. Trump would need to win an otherworldly number of votes in shrinking blue-collar counties to make up for what he seems very likely to lose in Greater Philadelphia.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say Trump manages to win Pennsylvania but doesn't get Michigan. That would be the difference of 260 electoral votes and 264, still below the 270 he needs to win. If recent turnout models hold and disqualifies Trump from victory in the aforementioned demographically unfriendly Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and Florida as I speculated, then Trump would need to run the table on Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to win a bare 270-268 Electoral College majority. And even with Iowa and New Hampshire on board, he has no path to victory without Pennsylvania, last won by a Republican in a Presidential election in 1988. It's a tall order to say the least, and would depend upon virtually everything going Trump's way in terms of suppressed turnout models amongst the Democratic base.
Trump's nomination victory proves anything is possible, and Hillary is a special kind of awful for a Democratic nominee that presents its own challenges for the Democrats. But it's really hard to see how Donald Trump is well-positioned to win over converts at this stage of the race that aren't already on his side, and Hillary would have to run the worst Presidential general election campaign since Michael Dukakis to allow Trump to gain at her expense to that degree. I'd give Trump about 10% odds at victory. The headwinds he's facing are enormous, and that becomes even clearer when you break down the states Trump needs to persevere in the Electoral College.
posted by Mark at 3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home