Praying for a recession before 2020. It is the only way to guarantee a victory for the Dems.
Trump’s fate is tied to the economy. It is the only thing he can boast about (even though it is truly Obama’s economy). Luckily, Trump’s protectionist policies are weakening the economy and there are several indicators for an impending recession (one being short term bond rates exceeding long term rates (inverted yield curve) and two being falling oil prices). Further, Trump promised that the GOP tax bill would boost the economy. However, all that did was increase our deficit by 23% even as our GDP is slowing. Our economy is doing well at the moment but it is entirely financed and not sustainable. The New York Fed predicted a 33% (!) chance for a recession in the next 12 months. That chance seems more likely with every passing day with this buffoon in office.
26
Because of the Electoral College, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, the will and the rights of the majority, in a so-called democracy, continued to be frustrated by the minority. Are we going to have another election in which the President is elected even though he loses the popular vote? This situation is untenable. Either the United States is going to be a democracy, or it's not. If it's not going to be a democracy, then lets break it up. Let the white supremacists, gun lovers, patriarchy lovers, theocrats have their own country. I just don't want to be in the same country with them. In fact, people are voting with their feet. People are segregating in the United States moving to areas where there are other people who share their views. We're dividing up in fact. I live in California. We out west can have our own country. We'll do it our way and the midwest and the south can do what they want. How about these countries: "East United States"; "West United States"; "South United States"; "Midwest United States." Sounds good to me.
31
Wow. I'm a PhD and use statistics near weekly. My professional opinion from this data is that no one has a clue.
Wasn't Hillary soundly in the lead, according to the polls in 2016?
32
Interesting predictive analysis. Let's put it to the acid test...100% turnout, please! At least, then we'll really know where we stand.
(Where are those Canadian immigration requirements, honey?)
4
What validity do polls have THESE days?
I have a telephone land line (besides the cell phone), and NEVER answer the phone unless I recognize the name. I do see a number of calls from area code 202 and “Washington D.C.” as the caller ID, but I have no idea who that’d be.
Recently I did phone calling for our local Democratic Party, to get expired “vote by mail” people to renew their requests, and I got few respondents. Very grateful for those who did answer, and many were grateful to speak to me, but my success rate in reaching a person was much lower than I’d like.
It was mentioned in the article that these days it’s harder to get people to answer telephone polls, but I suspect the success rates are very low and sampling must be VERY problematic.
I don’t see “confidence levels” mentioned in recent polls. They should be. Aren’t confidence levels getting lower and lower?
17
Democrats benefit from “higher” turnout mostly in densely populated urban areas of ethnic diversity. But it wouldn’t help them much in winning the 270 electoral votes, without a viable candidate. This will require much partisan unity to nominate one.
The “crucial” battlegrounds are in the Midwest, with an overwhelmingly white population and “non-voters” being mostly among the blue-collar white workers.
Democrats can defeat Trump unless they swing too far to the left, turning off those who had supported Barack Obama and then Trump.
Although Trump is viewed favourably in the Midwest, especially among those without a college degree, nothing is set in stone.
Much is unknown about the state of the economy, which could be headed for a recession. Big business are critical of his trade policies. Congressional investigations and his legal woes could still change public opinion ahead of November 2020.
In 2016 “reluctant” Trump voters swung the election. They are still around. Although Trump said he could rely on a coalition of die-hard supporters to win, he would still try to convince the others to stick to the devil they know one more time.
7
Democrats benefit from “higher” turnout mostly in urban areas of ethnic diversity. But it wouldn’t help them much in winning the 270 electoral votes, without a viable candidate. This will require much partisan unity to nominate one.
The “crucial” battlegrounds are in the Midwest, with an overwhelmingly white population and “non-voters” being mostly among the blue-collar white workers.
Democrats can defeat Trump unless they swing too far to the left, turning off those who had supported Barack Obama and then Trump.
Although Trump is viewed favourably in the Midwest, especially among those without a college degree, nothing is set in stone.
Much is unknown about the state of the economy, which could be headed for a recession. Big business are critical of his trade policies. Congressional investigations and his legal woes could still change public opinion ahead of November 2020.
In 2016 “reluctant” Trump voters swung the election. They are still around. Although Trump said he could rely on a coalition of die-hard supporters to win, he would still try to convince the others to stick to the devil they know one more time.
In this rural area of the nation Trump won seventy five percent of the votes in 2016. The enthusiasm of his supporters is far greater now than it was then. There is increasing contempt for Democrats, particularly young Congresswomen playing the fool.
9
I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate in 2020, and then I will renounce. I’m done with you America.
6
As a Californian voter, my electoral count is locked up for the rest of my life...
I will pay the higher taxes and read the funny papers on Election Day.
6
This article seems like a lot of "sound and fury, signifyng nothing." The author's non-conclusion:
"There’s nothing about the composition of nonvoters that means a higher-turnout election would invariably make it easier for Democrats to win the presidency, or for Republicans to keep it."
It doesn't take a lengthy article full of polling and demographic statistics to come to this tepid conclusion. Moreover, the term "high turnout" is not a numerical abstraction. Obviously it matters which party/candidate achieves the higher turnout.
Perhaps the most significant criteria -- not mentioned in this article -- is which candidate/party can inspire voters the most, including some who might have voted the other way in 2016.
It's somewhat ironic that most of the liberal commentators and news anchors on outlets like CNN and the Times, talk about Trump inspiring his base all the time, but when it comes to their base (the Democratic base), they tend to urge compromise and the muting of their message to avoid losing votes.
A winning formula is to fight hard and convince all those working class voters who went for Trump in 2016 that there is a real alternative to his brand of demagoguery. Fighting hard doesn't just mean verbal baloney, it must include audacious policy proposals and a willingness to take back some of the billions or trillions that Trump policies have channeled toward the richest famlies and corporations.
13
@David Friedman the problem with this argument is it often pushed by candidates who have issue positions popular among the left wing of the Democratic Party but not the public at large. Abolishing private health insurance, suspending most immigration enforcement or making race-based reparations payments don't poll well. I suppose if Bernie Sander or Liz Warren were the nominee, some left-wing nonvoters from last time might turn out, but far more swing voters would be driven into the arms the GOP. This has been tried before, at the Presidential level in 1972 and more recently at the congressional level, often with disastrous results.
5
@ConsDemo
The only particular programmatic point that I mentioned was taking back some of the billions or trillions of dollars that Trump has funneled to the very rich. If Democrats can't win on that basis, then what purpose do they serve?
This reply begs the question of what might inspire "the public at large." The American people are not some inert mass that embrace policies and leaders just according to where they fall on an abstract political spectrum.
Prior to the civil rights movement, conventional wisdom in Democratic Party circles was that electoral victories required a close alliance with the Dixiecrats. People like Eastland. That embrace was broken by the audacity of the movement, not by bean-counting of votes and bowing to polls that reflect the public attitudes of the moment.
10
I'm through with the "expert" opinions of people by Nate Silver and all the other pollsters. Why are we so focused on some kind of complicated strategy that failed in 2016 and continues to divert us away from the stark choice that faces this country—compassion, inclusiveness, and love vs cruelty, divisiveness, and hatred.
19
@Sharon Mentyka
Because people care about numbers and statistics rather than emotions? If all you want to talk about is how bad Trump is, this article is not for you. This is merely a mathematical thinkpiece.
3
This is why it is important that a fund be established (or publicized, if it’s in place already) to help ex-felons in Florida to pay any fines/fees so that they can vote. Florida is important and ex-felons need to vote.
19
Trump is very likely to be re-elected. The Democrats and the opposition need to wake up to this reality. He is not going down without a fight. And no, the truth will not prevail. Policies, although they matter, will not decide this election either.
Trump is caught up in unimaginable scandals that no other president would survive. No scandal is big enough and his approval is actually increasing at the same time as the incompetence and moral decay of his corrupt administration becomes clear. This is because Trump is not a politician. He is a conduit for the many grievances of his supporters. This is a primal power play and his base will come out in force to defend themselves.
The economy is steady and Trump's detrimental actions are not likely to kick in significantly before the election. Fighting a campaign in these conditions will be hard. If the Democrats and the opposition do not wake up, they may not only lose the presidency but also the newly acquired House majority in down ballot races.
38
@The Hawk
Interesting take! So what kind of candidate do you think has the best chance of eclipsing Trump?
1
@The Hawk: You make some excellent points, but Trump's base is still about 42 percent of voters. If Dems and Independents came out to vote -- in ALL elections -- the Dems could carry the day. I saw a clip on TV, during the 2016 campaign, of an African-American man stated he could not be bothered to vote because "I got no dog in this fight." I wonder if he will continue to believe this after Trump has succeeded in killing Obamacare and depriving millions of people of health care insurance.
6
Trumplicans 94% all in for Trump. Dems have problem, Some vote for Jill Stein, some vote for Gary Johnson, many don't vote. Like rounding up cats.
9
As a lifelong registered Democrat, the more I grit my teeth on what Trump is doing to harm our country tweet by tweet, the more I resent the Democratic Party for having someone so arrogant and vacuous as Hilary Clinton as candidate in 2016.
Democrats better find a viable candidate to oppose the Evil Emperor in 2020.
As Californians we'll vote against Trump by the millions but knowing we'll have no bearing on the electoral college outcome is frustrating to say the least. Something is wrong here for sure.
13
@Jay S
If it's any comfort, look at the 2018 elections. There was a discernible Blue Wave in the Midwest, and Pennsylvania was already turning Blue. The vote for the House nationwide was even more pronounced. I can't see Wisconsin and Michigan voting for That Man again. He has his base, to be sure, but there are uncounted numbers of voters with buyer's remorse after taking a chance on someone "truly different". They got what they wanted, certainly, but only bigots and tone deaf Republicans are still with him, and those who identify as GOP constitute less than 20% of the voting public. November 3, 2020, can't come soon enough for me.
16
For Pete's sake - you know nothing about those who didn't vote in 2018. You trying to be defeatist? More voters, better chance of removing Trump. You're denying that with silly figures about something else. "Over all," indeed. Over all, you're taking a shot in the dark. His approval rating isn't great - but gerrymandering is doing well.
2
When I registered to vote the first time, the League of Women Voters came to my high school and set up a table in the cafeteria. You could register if your 18th (or older) birthday fell before the next election. Here’s what would be nice. League of Women Voters go to the high schools in your town and get everyone registered. And if you attend a majority Black high school I urge you to register Republican. You will still be able to vote for the candidate of your choice on Election Day (and cast a cynical vote for the weakest Republican candidate on primary day) and this will definitely confuse the gerrymanders. Perhaps it could even facilitate accessibility to polling places in your district. Now please I am not saying that there are NO BLACK REPUBLICANS. That would be a generalization. I’m just saying..Please.
12
Many lie about voting for the out-of-touch centrist Democrat in social media and then go behind the curtain and choose Trump. That's also why polls are junk fiction for the past five years. Democrats who believe the 2020 polls do so at their peril.
11
Corrected-
Trump is the best president America had since FDR, excluding Reagan who was also great. Trump will be re-elected in a landslide given his though ideology against migrants, china, Iran and the booming economy. The Demos Squad ensures this land slides win by its far-left socialistic, Anti-semic, racist and Anti-American ideology and rhetoric. Our Great beloved leader and president will be re-elected to keep America great again and Maybe like FDR and the squad help will be re-elected to a third term as well.
6
2020 is shaping up to be a vote for capitalism or socialism. There will be a lot of independents hold their nose & vote Trump. All republicans & most Christians will vote Trump. But most interesting will be the Hispanic & African American vote for Trump. It’s all about the economy stupid.
8
@JOSEPH
Sorry, but you are operating under a false premise. There is no either/or vote here, despite what you wish was true. If you hate public schools and infrastructure, Social Security and Medicaid for the elderly, then by all means you can rail all you want about so-called socialism. And unless you are wealthy, you vote against your own interests, which you are free to do. Finally, a robust economy in traditional times is certain to favor the incumbent, but these are NOT traditional times. In case you missed it, the 2018 election was just the dress rehearsal for 2020. Our country has had quite enough of That Man.
9
For Democrats 2018 was their replay of 2016. They thought Hillary had it in the bag and when she lost they turned out in droves the day AFTER election day to protest.
The edge is off the Democrats now; their attitude, especially among progressives is "Defeat Trump, BUT....." with the "but" being their woke values requirements for the candidate, rather than the attitude "Defeat Trump, PERIOD."
For Dems in 2020 it is all about the nominating process. They are determined to get the most diverse candidate on the ballot and declare victory regardless of the November results.
Pelosi is turning off the base.
The candidates are turning off the independents and moderates.
5
This is a useful analysis, as far as it goes. But it overlooks the insidious voter suppression efforts that the Republican Party continues to undertake in numerous states. For instance, though a referendum in Florida last year allowed former felons to vote, the Republican-controlled state government has adopted a law severely restricting that right by in effect imposing a massive poll tax on most of those former felons. This voter suppression could well make the difference in terms of whether Florida goes for Trump or his Democratic opponent next year.
12
I'm a True Blue proud Liberal, but I don't give a whoop about which party "benefits" from a large turnout. I just want as many people as can possibly vote to do so; and I want as many people as possible to be eligible, so that they can. The more, the merrier.
15
We will be fine.
America as a whole is better than this.
5
You do not need all these polls and numbers. The choice is clear a vote for trump is a vote for evil and the destruction of the United States. It is that simple.
20
Go to www.Vote.org - and you can check if you are registered- good to do so even if you think you are registered.
It will also give you information about your polling place AND send reminders to vote close to Election day.
Please do this now. Everyone needs to vote.
16
@Common Sense
Succinct and powerful. Well said.
3
"The president is strong among less-educated white voters."
He knows how to talk to them because he is one of them.
20
Each is us has a responsibility to help an 18 year old register to vote and to encourage a non-voter to vote this time. No voting for a third party candidate. All in for the winner of the Democrat primary. Let’s bring Trump who is a cancer on this country down! Susan Sarandon said Hillary was not so different than Trump. Really??
10
@Mary
Really
1
Careful, Nate. Your warning comes dangerously close to demoralizing those remaining American voters with morals.
6
Is this the same methodology you guys used to predict a 90% chance of Clinton victory in 2016?
If Yes, we'll there is no reason to believe anything written here.
But what is certain, is that Trump has awaken a group of racist voters who have not voted for a while. A group that did not feel represented by the Bush or McCain. That group will be voting comes 2020 and if that group represents 5 to 10% of the electorate, Trump chances of winning are higher than most pundits believe.
It doesn't help that Democrats are out there fighting for illegal immigrants more than they fight for Americans. Promising free tuition, healthcare etc...
2020 will be more difficult for Democrats than they imagine.
20
Huge turnout was good for Democrats in 2016!
4
They won the popular vote!
7
At the very next Democratic debate, one of the candidates (I don't care which) needs to say to all the others, let's raise our hands and make a pledge right now, that WHOEVER gets the nomination will get our full support because they couldn't be worse than what we have now.
End the Democratic circular-firing squad in 2020, and EVERYONE turn out to vote.
30
@b. norris No. I'm a Democrat and I won't be supporting Biden, Harris, or Buttigeg no matter what. We have gone down the road of compromise politics with centrist solutions over 40 years that deliver very poor results such as the Affordable Care Act, DACA instead of true immigration reform, Don't Ask Don't Tell, TARP, Iraq/Afghanistan involvement without declaring war, Medicare Part D, etc. No more ignoring bad voting records from Democrats and relying on future promises.
6
@b. norris Because they know what a second term would mean, I believe that the entire party and big name individuals will coalesce around the nominee.
3
@b. Norris
They already have one circulating from way back at the beginning.
Candidate Bernie Sanders was the first to sign.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary/
2
Let's be clear about this: No one will vote for AOC for President because AOC IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Anyone who is worried about what some have called "AOC and her squad" is either playing for Donald Trump or being played by Donald Trump. None of those people is running for President. Trump and his supporters want to focus attention on them at the expense of the real Democratic primary campaign. If you are concerned about the campaign, focus on the candidates. If you're focusing on someone else, you're just part of the problem.
36
@Stan Sutton Right. People should remember that the Squad represents 1.7% (4 of 235) of the Democratic majority in the House. They are certainly vocal and seem to expect more power than their numbers merit. But that's not the point, nor is it realistic. Are they and others of like mind moving the needle? It appears that way. But it is still a big legislative body and to get things done in the House nearly all Democrats will have to be on board.
Relax, already.
6
So it's July 2019, 16 months before the 2020 elections. And we NYT readers who are commenting on this article are among the minority of Americans who are paying close attention this early.
I have theory for why. To me, the 2020 election could mean the following:
1. The healing of America (any of the top 4 non-Biden Dems win)
2. Slouching ever closer to an irreversible national and world disaster (Biden, a.k.a "Clinton begat Obama who begat Hillary who begat Biden", wins)
3. The end of America (?) (do I have speak its name?)
Those outcomes might be a bit extreme, but consider the alt right (i.e. the persistent 42% who support orange hair). Those folks would have the same list as me, but they would reverse my parentheticals (i.e. a Trump re-up would heal America; Bernie/Warren would destroy it).
This suggests we're in some interesting days in America, to say the least.
6
Perhaps not as astute in old age but why oh why would pollsters survey noncitizen for a poll on voters choices for anyone for potential elected office.
Political correctness gone awry.
16
You will forgive me if after 2016 I no longer put any faith in polls or pollsters.
26
The GOP lost its way as a cohesive credible political force focused on financial conservatism. They have grabbed power at the local and state level through the flow of massive amounts of dark corporate money supporting the expansion of the extreme right. The Republican Party brought us the ignorant racist and sexual predator Trump.
However, Trump's so-called win was based on massive voter suppression particuarly in poor areas filled minorities that vote Democratic in 2016 only 24% of the eligible electorate went to the polls and voted for Trump. The majority of Americans want to restore decency and democracy to America. However, they must register and vote against Trump and the GOP in massive numbers.
We face the same political crisis the Germans and Austrians faced in the 1930's when they failed to stand up to rising fascism . This will happen again in the United States if voters don't go to every length to register and vote against Trump tyranny no matter how many obstacles the Republican Party places in their way.
16
As the Times and it's reporters wring their hands abaout the next elections effect on the Democratic party, it ought to be remembered, especially by the Democrats and especially by educated and left wing members of the party, that it was they-the most prone to vote and to vote for leftwing and democrat candidates, who ensured the defeat of Mrs Clinton in 2016, and thus , against all odds and (even against the UK oddsmaker "Ladbrokes" which had never before in the history of US e;lections it predicted, been wrong)-sank the Democrats and elected Trump-
Helped by angry and resentful black voters who had the peculiar idea that President Obama ought to have been given a third term.
The Times and Ladbrokes-which convinced Trump that he was going to lose the election- also convinced the left wing Dems voters to vote third party, to show Clinton they had more vote power then she.
If these erstwhile idiots-most young kids-vote for the Democrat in '20, Trump will lose. Support from blacks would help, too.
5
@meloop Oh, please. Clinton lost because she ran a terrible campaign, one more interested in first, trying for a landslide when the pols were in her favor, and second by then ignoring the advice to finish the campaign in the battleground states that she eventually lost. If you mean by your comment on ensuring Clinton lost because Sanders pointed out her Wall Street connections, bear in mind that nothing he said about her was untrue. Add in that she could barely mask her disdain for working class Americans and farmers, you have a fine recipe for losing an election to a candidate who should have been blown out.
9
Your analysis ignores the role of non-citizens voting.
7
@John Xavier III
Red herring!
So far the instances of voter irregularities have been mostly Republican strategies of co-opting mail-in votes, absentee ballots, various voter suppression tactics, etc.
Votes by non-citizens has yet to be shown as much more than yet another Republican tall tale in order to legitimize GOP voter suppression strategies.
Kind of like the GOP myth of the thousands of small farmers losing their farms to estate taxes; Republicans love to promote big lies with absolutely no factual basis because fear of any kind of Unknown motivates the party base. Cynical at best and often bordering on criminal in an open democracy that depends upon transparency and trust.
17
@John Xavier III
As it ought, since it is of such minuscule occurrence that is of no significance.
8
@John Xavier III: Fake news! Promulgated by Republicans to make their voter suppression efforts aimed at those who tend to vote Blue appear legitimate and necessary.
9
All of this is based on there being a legitimate election and that our votes count.
Trump does nothing legitimately.
He already had his winky-wink moment with Putin about how there won’t be any interference in our election.
The cynical side of me worries that the realist in me is right.
8
WOW! You really had to dig deep to try to prove that one. Democrats have always been the beneficiaries of a high turnout. And right now they are super motivated by extreme anger to turn out.
6
Well, as long as the Democrats keep blaming heterosexual white men for all ills under the sun and promote the postmodern gospel of multiculturalism and benefits for illegal immigrants, and will have trouble converting the Sun & Rust belts.
20
@Kai
Its all about the suburbs, not people who are angry about "multiculturalism", and the suburbs punted the Republicans in 2018.
They will again.
3
@Kai
I agree wholeheartedly. The Dems must stop making it sound as if ALL they care about are illegal immigrants. The repubs have already hijacked the whole issue, calling democrats socialists, communist, etc. Democrats do not want illegal immigration, they do not want OPEN BORDERS, they don’t want health INSURANCE for illegals. Please DEMS, get this straight. We will LOSE the White House again to a maniac. Stay focused on issues that effect the middle of the country - healthcare, drug prices, crazy tariff wars, jobs, deficit exploding tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, the SWAMPY personnel the Trump has put into positions of power, climate change that effects their farms etc
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE MIDDLE OF TBE COUNTRY!
11
@Bryan Why will they punt again? Republicans do not want a Democrat to be president. They will vote for Trump as they did in 2016. It's not all about the 'burbs, just like it wasn't all about the burbs in 2016, though Clinton and her crackerjack team thought it was and could not believe Republican women would vote for DT and not her. But for House members, it may be about the burbs, but not all the flipped seats were in or dominated by the 'burbs. If anything, it's "all about" winning states she lost. It's a national election and, whether one likes it or not, it's about the electoral college. In this sense the Senate presents the same problem: winning more states.
5
You can't trust the polls because many people will vote for trump but won't admit it to pollsters or strangers out of fear of being ostracized like some have been when they go to restaurants. It may happen again.
15
If that were true, Republicans would have over-performed the polls considerably in 2018. Instead, they under-performed by 1.1 percentage points.
There may be a very small "social desirability effect" showing up in poll vs. online surveys among white, educated voters, or so I've read. But there's no evidence of a massive Bradley effect.
I'm also not clear on how fear of being accosted in restaurants would cause someone to lie to pollsters.
3
You may be right, but we are talking about trump, not your garden-variety republican
1
In 2016, Trump had no record to defend. This time he will have to try to defend his terrible record. Any Dem has to be salivating at the opportunity to tear him apart. Off to prison he goes.
7
@ Dennis
This overconfidence is what prevented HRC from getting into the WH.
6
@Dennis The problem is that to his supporters he is doing great things. So long as the economy is good he still has a shot at winning again.
7
There are about 3 million deaths in the US every year, mostly old age. A lot of older white Trump supporters among them. There are about 30 million black voters and 30 million Hispanic voters, so lets say 45 million of them who will vote against Trump. Asians and others? Anti-Trump. Women? Anti-Trump. And then the new young voters since 2016, probably 70 percent anti-Trump.
It looks pretty good to me. Just get out the vote!
5
@Jorge
Just get out the vote!
Yes, yes, yes!
6
@Jorge - Yep, as it is said, “progress happens in a hearse.”
2
If you are non-white, bring at least two photo IDs to your polling place. If you are a non-white veteran, wear your uniform. Double check to make sure Republicans haven't moved or eliminated your polling place. And when their phonebank calls, giving you the incorrect location for voting, just hang up.
19
If you give all 22 million illegal aliens amnesty, and let in all the economic asylum seekers and legalize them too, you would still lose. Americans are getting more than a little tired of you giving illegals, criminals and the the rest of the people that have never paid into payroll taxes, free medical, some section 8 housing and welfare benefits, and it is completely unsustainable. Unless you raise taxes. No problem, right?
10
@BorisRoberts
Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections. The Democrats won in 2018 without them.
And illegal aliens DO pay payroll taxes, including medicare taxes.
11
@BorisRoberts You raise a point about which their is considerable misunderstanding: medical care for theose detained at the border. Minimal care for treatment of disease, illness and injury is an international requirement, and one that the US has supported in the past, if only to try to ensure that treatment for Americans incarcerated for one reason or another. None of the candidates is talking about the sort of care American citizens can obtain (if they have the insurance to cover it or the money to pay for it).
But Democrats have done a lousy job of explaining that, as they have in explaining exactly what people would get for Medicare for All, and how it differs from what they have (or don't have) now.
7
The dems will do well if they promise to give the lower 2/3’s more economic strength instead of asking them to share more of what little they have left. Anything else is dismissed as intellectual arrogance and detachment from reality. People will help themselves as long as the tools for advancement aren’t being constantly put beyond their reach.
4
Voters are like jurors—they are smarter as a group than they are individually. If the economy is sound in 2020, they will look past Trump’s serious personal shortcomings and look at his policies. And they will ask if they are better off than they were 4 years ago. For many the answer will be yes. And, very importantly, all the Trump fearmongering for the last 6 years has come to nothing—so they won’t be afraid to vote for him. And finally, the Dems are engaged in a very nasty political civil war and the candidate they ultimately select will be deeply wounded. Especially after the GOP and it’s allies play the video of every Dem candidate at one of the debates supporting health care for illegal aliens—and one of them is the Dem nominee.
12
@ehillesum
Health care is legally required to be given to anyone who shows up at a hospital ER in need of care. Basic care.
Democrats do not want free HEALTH INSURANCE for illegal immigrants.
7
@Alberta Knorr. You might not but your presidential candidates do.
1
@ehillesum By that reasoning, Trump should have been fatally wounded by the GOP candidates who hammered him during the nominating campaign. But he wasn't, nor was Hillary by Sanders' criticism of her. She blew it.
Russia, Saudia Arabia, Israel and others will help Trump get elected in 2020.
4
@Jacquie
I fear you are correct.
2
This is just evidence Dems need to focus on getting the working class vote, not the "woke" vote and not the vote of any particular racial/ethnic group. When you have Gillibrand telling laid off rust belt workers in Ohio that they have white privilege you might get snaps of approval from woke college grads but you probably aren't going to pick up many more rust belt votes. Dems have got to convince the northern white working class that they are seriously a working class party and will focus on issues relevant to them.
9
@Nick, too late now.
1
@Nick Actually Gillibrand did a pretty good job with that when asked about it by real voters. Other than that, right on.
2020 will be the first time the baby boomer generation and older are the minority vote. Generation X and younger will be more than 60% of registered voters (pewsoicaltrends.org). This is significant because Gen X and younger are much more liberal than baby boomers and the silent generation. Also, 1/3 of the 2020 electorate will be non-white (fivethirtyeight.com). When you look at the voting trends of non white voters and younger voters, you can see why Republicans have used increasingly more aggressive and immoral tactics to limit nonwhites/young voters from voting. The writing is on the wall.
7
@wrbenner Any thoughts on getting the "slacker" vote to turn out for the Democrats?
1
We can analyze data all day long to try to tease out the results of an election that is sixteen months from now. I believe there are two issues that will destroy Trump and the GOP in 2020.
1. If SCOTUS overturns Roe, it is over for Trump and the GOP.
2. If SCOTUS overturns the ACA it is over for Trump and the GOP.
And yes, if either of those issues occur; the voter turnout will be massive.
15
It is important to get as many states as possible to re-enfranchise convicted felons and get them out to vote.
This is probably the most consistently Democratic group of underrepresented voters.
And it doesn’t matter what their crime was—just get them on the voter rolls!
4
@Josey What makes you thin that they will turn out and vote for Democrats?
1
@Harvey Green
The DNC and grass roots activists believe this. And presumably they have data which supports their view. I can only trust in their judgment.
1
If we were able to get rid of gerrymandering, two things would probably occur: more folks would vote and Republicans would not have a lock on many Congressional districts nor the electorial college.
8
Gerrymandering has no effect on the electoral college, except to a tiny degree in Maine and Nebraska (because they split their EVs by congressional district). Gerrymandering affects the US house and state legislative districts.
Republicans don't have a lock on the electoral college. It may look that way, since they won in 2000 and 2016 because of it, but if the popular vote were tied in 2004, 2008 and 2012, the Democratic candidate would have won the EC.
1
Democrats stayed home in 2016 because they thought Hillary had it in the bag, or they just weren't motivated to show up. Not so this time. Democrats are itching to vote.
10
Hmm...if only we knew whom those Midwest voters might prefer....oh yeah, Candidate Sanders won the Midwest last primary elec. Drawing in more POC and younger votes, than Trump and Clinton...combined!!!
Lets run Biden~!
Headshake, facepalm, snicker...
6
@Dobbys sock Sanders is now well known, being placed alongside a larger field of Democrats, and he's struggling.
Obama beat Clinton by a surprising margin in Wisconsin in 2008 too. I don't think the upper midwest loves Bernie Sanders as much as they dislike Hillary Clinton, even beyond what they're willing to tell pollsters.
This comment section is completely at odds with the group over at the new asylum rule article ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/us/politics/trump-asylum-rule.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage )
Over there the comment section is positive that if Trump can get ahead of the border crisis with what a lot of people are calling a sane idea, then he is a shoo in for the-election lest the Democratic nominee outflank him on immigration.
4
@Adrienne
What's the "sane idea"? Did anyone explain it? (because I don't know what "sane" looks like to Trump!)
3
This election will be, I feel certain, much simpler than the seemingly endless "paralysis by analysis" articles such as this one which will be coming out by the score until Election Day, some 16 months from now. The 2018 election showed the current occupant of the White House just how popular he ISN'T, and he wasn't even on the ballot! Sure, before the election, he wanted to make it a referendum on his Presidency, except when Republicans got their lunch handed to them in the House. After which he blamed those same Republicans for being losers, not with his program, not a reflection on him, and so on. Certainly HE wasn't at fault, being a legend in his own mind, of course. This time we have to finish the job by taking the Senate as well as the Presidency. Keep it simple. Stay humble and keep grinding. Come November 3, 2020, show up and VOTE!
12
The outlook for the DP IN 2020 must improve through total party collaboration. The infighting going on now is counterproductive. Pelosi is the linchpin here and it is incumbent on her to get the peace in the DP necessary for seizing the WH.
4
Trump's only hope is for massive turnout from the Evangelists, and it thus the Democrats job to split them up, with a drumbeat of talking points reflecting the fact that Jesus would find Trump revolting.
9
@Rob
I see trump's 2016 voters staying with him in 2020 and trump discouraging as many potential opposition voters into staying home.
3
Every vote should count the same -- no electoral college, which worked the way it was intended only the first 3 times, and even then put Jefferson and Adams in office as "partners."
We should use incentives to get the same citizen turnout that Australia does.
Campaign finance reform is desperately needed to reduce the influence of big-money propaganda in lying-to-get-power ("campaigning").
Ordinary Americans lack nonpartisan civic education.
6
@David in Toledo
We HAD campaign finance reform, which worked fairly well. It was called McCain-Feingold, and it reduced Big Money influence in our elections. Then came the Citizens United decision by a Republican SCOTUS, which unbelievably held that corporations had the same rights and status as citizens, and here we are today. Funny how the right railed constantly about "activist judges". If this is strict construction, I've been to the moon and back! One fight at a time. Until we wrest control of the levers of power from a Republican Party that has lost its soul, we can do nothing. Unless I'm talking in an echo chamber, which I sometimes fear, we have the means in the readership here to right the biggest electoral wrong ever visited upon this good country. Vote November 3, 2020 as though your way of life depends upon it, because it does.
6
@David in Toledo Whether or not all sorts of people agree with you or not, the EC is here to stay in the near term and perhaps much longer that that. I don't know where you get the Jefferson and Adams "partners" thing; Adams was President and Jefferson wasn't. They disliked each other, at least at that point.
The most important thing for the Presidency and the Senate is to win states; in the House localities matter more.
@Harvey Green Oh, I know that "the EC is here to stay in the near term." We would need a revolution to change it and other outdated features of our system, but as Jefferson knew, a little revolution now and then can be a good thing.
From 1797 through 1800, Adams was President and Jefferson was V-P, right through their bitter differences about XYZ and Aliens & Sedition. Then came the stupid Jefferson/Burr election and the EC was modified by Amendment 12. Modification was insufficient for century 21. The EC was fine in theory for 1788 and absurd (as is Wyoming = California in the Senate) for today.
1
How about ocusing on what's good for our country rather than partisan divisions? If Trump is defeated this will reverse the trend of Republican politicians saying racist things everytime they want to distract from their scandals and failures.
3
This analysis suffers from a glaring flaw. Elections are a choice between two alternatives, and we don’t know who the Democratic nominee is. And if you say that anybody is better than Trump - I disagree. The rhetoric that is emanating from the left-wing of the Democratic Party is truly terrifying for a liberal like myself. Breaking up tech companies? Nationalizing major industries? Outlawing private insurance? People who say those are policies of the European social democracies don’t know what they are talking about. These are policies of socialist dictatorships like Venezuela and the USSR. And now Prof. Krugman who I used to respect is calling for criminalizing science in the name of social equality. Yes, this is “only” rhetoric but in politics rhetoric generates agenda as anybody who has studied history knows well. I despise Trump but if he is running against a self-declared socialist, I will vote for him. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils.
8
I’m somewhat puzzled by your claims about the Justice Democratic platform since you seem to misrepresent their positions. Frankly, the claims sound alarmist. I’m not a Justice Democrat, but I welcome all manner of ideas to keep what’s left of our democracy alive. If you go back in time and look st much of what FDR did, he’d likely be vilified by the very moderate Democrats today.
6
@Mor Any of the 24 is a better choice than Trump and his band. No liberal would vote for him against any of the Democratic candidates. You are forgetting that this is not a monarchy and any president will have to get his or her agenda through Congress. Even in the unlikely event that the Senate should flip to the Democrats, in neither hte House not the Senate are they a monolithic party in lockstep with anyone, unlike the GOP in Congress, which now seems more like the Politburo during the Soviet era.
2
@Mor
R-I-G-H-T...you're a liberal but would vote for a fascist before a socialist.
Sorry, not buying it.
5
The rock solid Trump base consists of the NRA block, the racist block and the evangelical block. If you do not fit into one of these categories please, for the sake of our free nation, find a way to vote in the next election. The founding fathers foresaw our current power struggle and provided tools to retain control of our system of checks and balances. The key element is the vote. Without a check on this administration we are headed down the road to a totalitarian regime and future elections will be meaningless.
9
The young Democrat bomb-throwers are ensuring massive turnout for Trump. Will someone please remind them that:
1) there is still an Electoral College
2) 65% of the country is white
3) Half of all those are the despised straight white males, and they vote.
16
@Someone else It's not the misogyny of white males that will get Trump re-elected, but the misandry of progressives and angry women. Trump is a complete jerk, but he's playing AOC and her Squad, and the rest of the Democrats, like a cheap violin.
9
@Someone else: Your analysis is off. The portion of the country that is white is not more than 62%. Not quite half of those are men. Not all of those men are straight. Many of them are not despised. And quite a few will vote against Donald Trump. You're correct that there is still an Electoral College.
4
Trumpty Dumpty will see (seize) a new term,
Unless Dems can act to take out this worm.
Buttigieg, Warren or Harris could win,
To keep Trumpty out of the White House again.
But Trumpty is desperate and surely he knows,
If not re-elected, to prison he goes.
8
A massive disadvantage for Trump this time around will be the simple fact that he is not running against Hillary Clinton. How many people voted for Trump simply because they could not stomach a vote for Clinton (whether justified or not)?
I believe that Biden/Buttigieg would have a perfect balance of inspiring older generations to vote for a man they feel they know and is competent while simultaneously encouraging the younger generations (that traditionally stay home on election day) to vote for a ballot containing someone they see as smart, progressive, and understanding to their generation.
8
@Billy
and, like me,
how many didn't vote for president because they couldn't stand either candidate?
In a high turnout election, Trump will lose. That doesn't guarantee that Democrats will capture the Senate or win every competitive state level contest.
7
My feeling is the opioid epidemic will depress turnout in Trump country. If you are high, voting won't be one of your priorities. There have been multiple plant closures in Ohio, closures of coal mines, and various other events that may depress inhabitants of Red States. With few options for employment at a similar level, the past decade has shown that drugs are the option for many.
1
My time and energy for 2020 will be working to increase voter registration instead of campaigning for a specific candidate. If you are under 30, and this sounds worthwhile to you, please consider doing the same. Concentrating on getting out 18-30 year olds is most important to defeat Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the other Trump enablers.
33
I know the Dems don’t want to hear this but the only candidate that can beat Trump is Biden. He may be a moderate and have a checkered past according to ideological lefties but he is pragmatic and can appeal to less educated whites. Any attempt to ram down the throat of middle America the leftist agenda of Medicare for all, reparations, and open borders is going to lose.
33
That was my first reaction, too. I hope AOC and the rest of the squad read this!
10
@Paul
I kind of feel like you don't want to hear the fact that Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris ALL poll better than Trump. Sanders and Warren have a comfortable lead on Trump. Harris is within a margin of error.
Biden keeps sliding.
18
@John Marshall It's not enough to poll better than trump. Hillary got more votes then Trump. You have to look at the polling in the battleground states. As we learned to out sorrow, it isn't about the numbers in the popular vote, it's about the numbers at the electoral college.
17
Why does Pelosi not want to get rid of Trump? She must know he will try to rig the next election.
5
@nigel cairns I hope you understand that the House, which Nancy Pelosi leads, does not have the power to remove the President. The House has the power to impeach — which means “accuse” — the President. An impeachment is then put to trial by the Senate, controlled by Republicans, which has the sole power to remove the President from office. If you consider whether or not Republican senators will be willing to remove the leader of their own party you may see why this is a little more difficult than the House simply voting articles of impeachment. Removal from office requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate. So 19 Republican senators would need to break with the majority of their party. If you can list the 19 Republican senators with the courage to do this, please share immediately.
6
We need massive voter registration if we want to defeat Trump! There are too many people who don't vote so it needs to be a priority to people. Don't complain about your government of you don't vote!
13
There’s two dynamics at play: You can encourage people to come out to vote, and you can discourage people from voting.
You can be sure Republicans are using both, and particularly the discouraging part by removing polling places from minority communities and setting up roadblocks to registration and voting.
And, then there’s the Supreme Court sanctioned outright disenfranchisement of voters via gerrymandering.
But there will likely be a lot of discouraged Republican voters in the next election, too. The extreme positions of Trump and his Republican sycophants appeal to his base, but not to the more passive Republican voters. These folks may never vote for a Democrat, but they are likely to stay home if the outrageous antics of Trump, et al, continue, as they are sure to do.
Democrats could be helping that dynamic by overriding the Fox News propaganda wall by holding well earned impeachment hearings.
Nancy???????????
6
I won't be fooled again. I didn't believe that an obvious fraud, bigot and self-admitted serial sexual assaulter would win a majority of votes here in Wisconsin. He did. He could do it again. Just read the recent piece about the farmers who still support him, in spite of how much money he has literally cost them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/business/economy/farmers-trump-trade.html?module=inline
It is all hands on deck. The farmer fools in the story will vote for him again. We better make sure that there are others to vote him out.
30
The difference between 2016 and 2020 is that Trump will now run on a record which was not the case in 2016. With that in mind, the critical questions are: how many Clinton voters, so impressed with Donald Trump's performance will switch their vote to him; how many Trump voters turned off by Trump's machinations will now vote Democratic in 2020. Compare the size of these two groups. Which is bigger?? Trump's margin of victory in the electorial college was about 70,000 in three states, so all you need is a switch of 35,000 for him to lose.
Now lay over this comparison, the dynamics of the 2020 election - demographics, turnout level for each party, etc. Just one example- how many 2016 voters have died since then and how many of those voted for Trump versus Clinton (This group is dominated by seniors over 65, white and male). Also what is the amount of new likely voters in 2020 and how will they break Trump or Democrats?
On a qualitative basis, my gut feeling is that the demographic trends kill Trump and the Republicans and when you add Trump's performance to the mix it just gets worse.
8
I used to think the margin was 70,000 in three or four states, but if you look at the actual results, in each state more than 100,000 voted for the libertarian candidate. If there is no such candidate in 2020, I would expect most of those voters would break for Trump.
3
Dis- and mis- information will also greatly affect voter turn out. GOP strategy is to use fear to suppress and hate to manipulate. Dems - what ya got? C’mon - clock is ticking...
7
Largely depends on how many Ruskies will be included!
9
The silent majority in this case isn’t wearing a red hat.
5
Very interesting analysis.
I am a college educated well traveled 78 year old and I will vote in my first presidential election in 2020. During the Vietnam War I served as an officer in the US Navy, unlike our president I was not a draft dodger. My first ancestor came to this country and settled in Jamestown, VA in 1608.
7
@Butch Burton I am curious, why have you never voted before? I registered to vote on the day after my 18th birthday (my birthday was on a Sunday), and have never missed an election since--my first election was 1974.
7
"Huge turnout"?! What an absurd claim. Presidential election turnout is far below 50 percent of potential electorate, and has been for decades (41.9 percent officially in 2014). The usual scam media reports on voter turnout are carefully crafted to reference against registered voters to hide this reality. Many if not most election age persons do not register. Voter age numbers are significantly undercounted based on census numbers. Presidents are chosen by little over 20 percent of the electorate. The vast majority of working people see no difference between Demoplicans and Republicrats, twin parties of the ruling rich. Off year elections regularly get turnouts of a third of the electorate, and sometimes less than 10 percent. Not voting, far from apathetic, is a well considered reaction to a two-party dictatorship with no fundamental differences in how best to serve the rich. The current Trump-Pelosi love affair being a good example. Perhaps they will name their monstrosity the Trump-Pelosi Wall.
5
Sadly, we have a large proportion of voters in this country, that have been literally brainwashed. They believe everything DT says, even if so many of his lies are easily provable. This is a very real and serious threat to our Democracy and we have to find a way to effectively combat it.
5
Exchange the letters DT for Pelosi, and I still cannot tell difference between the parties.
@BorisRoberts I'm sorry, but if you can't tell the difference, your not paying attention. And Nancy Pelosi is not running for president.
1
I know this: If you Vote for Trump and ANY GOP candidate in 2020, you are Dead to me. This includes any extended family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. But that action, you have shown yourself to be a dishonorable person, at the very least.
No more compassion, understanding or sympathy. You won’t deserve it, and I’m tired of being “ nice “. That’s OVER.
26
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Don't feel too bad about it, Phyliss, everyone it seems has maybe friends and co-workers, but certainly family, who own incomprehensible views of this despicable man. I, too, am out of compassion and tolerance for them.
5
Simple formula:
1. fickle youth need a reason to vote
2. youth are progressive
3. Sanders or Warren will get youth out in droves
4. Harris or Mayor Pete might do so as well
5. Biden is Hillary 2.0 ... danger zone!
19
@Peter
How about moderate Republicans and Independents who may be afraid of Medicare for All?
It's tricky.
1
@S Kaller I think once the nominee is chosen among the top non-Biden four, that person will have multiple opportunities, and long-form answers to explain exactly how Medicare for All will work for them.
Right now, for the uninformed, it's just a slogan that Fox and GOP (is there a diff?) is currently slandering.
But by January or March, the moderates and independents will start paying closer attention, and they'll learn that there isn't anything for them to fear (unless they work for an insurance or pharma company) and much to look forward to.
3
Get trump out - I can go with anyone - I’d even bring back Reagan.
Just vote him out.
6
why should I vote?, when regardless of my vote, in CA democrats will continue to take advantage of winner takes all? Until there is direct representation vote, I shall stay home.
7
@salvador: Your feelings and thoughts are certainly understandable, but things change only by direct participation--the vote is one way to achieve this. I hope you will reconsider your choice by next year's election.
1
@salvador There are local elections in which your vote matters.
4
@salvador
A lot of us are going to stay home.
At least we will not have to stomach the nonsense that goes on in both "parties".
3
This could come down to whether the DNC attempts a fifty state strategy, which they stopped during the Obama years promptly losing 1,000 seats nationwide. But, they are so-o-o wise. Nobody can lose as well or as often as they do.
Turnout is not sexy. It doesn't get headlines. It requires the hard slog of knocking on doors, calling potential voters, registering voters, and providing a strong get out the vote effort on election day.
That takes resources. Democrats, fund get-out-the-vote efforts regardless of which candidate is your personal darling because that won't matter at all if we don't win control of the Senate, keep the House, and flip statehouses and governorships all across the country. Yes, the presidency is nice, but it isn't the whole story by a long-shot.
Flipping state legislatures is necessary to prevent further gerrymandering following the 2020 election. Flipping the Senate is necessary to get any legislation passed in that horribly constipated body. McConnell is the blockage. Fund his opponent in the race.
Governors in many states have veto power over redistricting following the census. If the legislature is Republican and gerrymanders, a Democratic governor is a backstop.
Yes, it would be nice not to have a tweet storm from the toddler in the WH every time he needs attention, but it won't change anything else if we neglect the other races.
The presidency can be thought of as the icing, but the state races is where the cake is baked.
20
@nora m
well said - join us in the turn PA Blue off year election work.
3
If the Democrats take back the White House and Senate while keeping the House, the very first legislation to be enacted and signed into law must be a requirement that every citizen vote under penalty of fine and a national election holiday.
3
Ha!
You think Trump and the GOP are going to respect the outcome of the 2020 election?
It's already too late. Trump can say or do anything and the Senate GOP stands mute.
5
The biggest threat to Democratic turnout is intra-party bickering among moderates and progressives. The Democratic leadership has the moral obligation to unify the Democratic Party and not engage in their typical circular firing squad approach to party fragmentation. This means Pelosi and Schumer must learn to incorporate and not simply reject out of hand the progressive elements of the party.
12
Yea this is the same paper that predicted that Hilary Clinton would easily win. I have no confidence in the NYT predictions. The only thing that moderate voters don't like more than Trump is the democrats who are sliding way left listening to the foolish late 20's foursome.
People will hold their nose and vote for Trump in the mid-west since they know the alternative is a democratic party that cares more about school busing from 30 years ago than actually improving this nation. Can't see how the economy could get any better at this point by the way.
13
If election day was on Saturday or it was made a national holiday, how many people would show up to vote? Just asking.
There are so many step we could take to make voting easier, but oops, that would involve too much and America loses again.
5
@Steve The majority of states, including Maryland, have early voting, including voting on weekends and/or mail in ballots for all. There is no excuse not to vote.
1
@jfdenver
And I am always one of the first in early lines. Just the same, Saturday would help an awful lot of people.
1
If we have a record turnout and Trump gets re-elected, I think it's time to consider that the country is on a steep slope to a failure of democracy and it will involve the globe, not just the U.S.
From my perspective, the initial compromises in the constitution to get the U.S. moving from English colonies to being its own country are really what got us here. Some might call those compromised serious flaws. I know that I do.
4
Your dreaming Nat, half the country wouldn’t know where to vote if it were the next house:
3
If the people in this country who at present are annoyed, dismayed, sicked, nauseated and are considering suicide as a result of Trump's behavior all turn out to vote against him in 2020, he will lose by a landslide to any candidate the Democrats put up there, maybe by two or three landslides.
9
... sickened ....
3
@ A Stanton
Nahh. Many of those who might admit that Trump is sickening are still so entranced by how well he responds to their hatred and fear of everything unlike themselves that they will vote for him no matter what.
Just a thought: Doesn't the whole Blasey Ford episode feel like a hit job?
She has brought out for one job, paid and then she quietly disappeared.
Why is there no follow-up from either side? Almost as if both sides are happy that the fools aka base on either side is energized.
3
Nate is back!
Here is hoping for a lot more columns from him, he seems to be the only ne not wearing blue glasses as we careen into 2020.
I would say the only certainty, is that his fans will vote red, no matter what, and the left wing, fringe liberals would vote for Annabel the Doll if she was running Democrat.
The real question, is how much of his solid red base will go vote.
If you add that base, plus whomever else votes for him, it’s a land slide. Just looking at money raised, he outscores Democrats by $100k last quarter, if that was any indication, it still looks like a win. And based on the fact that there is not a single candidate dressed in blue who can unite the Democrats beyond ‘any one but Trump’, he still wins in a land slide.
Meantime logic would say that if the president did many stupid things, he would be poison, but seems this one is immune.
Should the Democrats just get hip to that fact and call it a day? Start ground work on 2024? Or continue burning money and time on a loosing race?
1
Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Michigan.
Oh, and maybe Florida.
1
There is a significant chance Trump will lose by 4 million votes or more yet win the EC vote and be a minority President for another 4 years. What will it take for us to get rid of the EC? The GOP know that it is their only clear current path to winning the White House.
4
So form the data presented, at this point in time 476 days before the election, the chances are 50/50 that either trump or a democrat win the election. The bottom line is nobody knows.
Trump is making it a race between white nationalists and everybody else. If he wins, the repercussions will be unalterably damaging.
Meanwhile, the white supremacist who killed and injured people in Chancellorsville is getting another life sentence for his crimes. In the next trump era, if trump wins, he would be a hero.
If McConnell, the GOP and SCOTUS have their way, no one will show up to vote except Republicans. With all the fingers that have been placed on the scales by those mentioned above, it will probably take 60% of the vote to record significant wins for Democrats. Even if Trump and his cabal lose, the GOP and Trump’s private attorney, Mr. Barr, will attempt to have SCOTUS step in as it so infamously did in Bush v. Gore. If that happens, all bets are off.
This is what happens when a democratic process is perverted by a shameless minority intent upon making America white again. When the President of the United States openly and repeatedly talks and acts like we’re in Berlin in the ‘30s and a major political party remains completely silent, we are no longer living in a democracy. We are in deep, deep trouble and if the 2020 elections don’t change the political scene, we will be living in a tin-pot authoritarian state. And then the ballot won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
9
As someone who has studied statistical analysis, I find this article extraordinarily uninformative. While the numbers show one thing, the numbers projected against the backdrop of actual voting history shows something else entirely. In other words, focusing on the numbers is essentially focusing on a vacuum composed of statistics. It does not take statistical analysis to know that a rock-solid 30% of voters in the 2020 election will be for the entire Republican ticket. Another 15-16% will break either way. Without a Clinton the national ticket (or a Bush or a Roosevelt or a Kennedy–the absence of a simple propaganda reference), the 2020 election will revert to sectional interests politics.
Thanks for this analysis.
The American people need to be better informed on how elections have consequences. Hopefully enough of us will learn before it is too late how harmful consequences can and do happen - and have already happened.
See https://www.legalreader.com/republican-racketeers-violent-policies/
2
Voter apathy has been appalling for decades. Here's hoping the polls are mobbed...by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans with a brain and a conscience.
7
To be blunt, it is shameful for a country to have an approval rating above single digits for a lying moral degenerate like Trump.
18
I still find it troublesome in the day of almost universal internet and media access, we still give disproportionate advantage to land mass instead of actual people. Why should Wyoming with a population less than a million have the same Senate power as California with 40 million people? Can anyone really say that is fair representation?
When I talk to friends and relatives outside the U.S., they are incredulous we do not have representation based on one person, one vote. I agree. We need to abolish the electoral college and move to the popular vote. Without it, we are not being truly represented in our country.
30
@Sue Salvesen
Problem is, you will get a lot of resistance from those who benefit from the EC. It will be hard to pry it from their cold dead hands.
2
@Sue Salvesen Easier said than done. The coastal elites have always treated us with contempt and cared little for our problems. Do you think that we will roll over and let you diminish our voices even further? A better option would to moderate your views to appeal to the entire country.
You say:
(For ease of comparison, those without an opinion of the president have been excluded from measures of the president’s approval rating.)
IMO, it's a bit disingenuous to exclude any description of the unopinionated "for ease of comparison." I for one would like to know the demographics and geographic distribution of that group. If it is of statistically significant size in the right states, such information may provide clues as to whether they can be influenced for good or ill. Isn't that precisely what happened in 2016?
3
From watching the historic turnout among voters of both parties in 2018, combined with Mr. Trump losing the popular vote in 2016, and the large numbers of people who seem to be avidly scrutinizing this presidency, I'll predict that the 2020 election will be unprecedented in a number of ways:
1) more Republicans will vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election because they've had enough of Mr. Trump, particularly among Republican voters of color;
2) voter turnout will be the highest in our nation's history for a presidential election;
3) it will not be a "close race"--Mr. Trump will be soundly defeated.
Overall, I believe this president's behavior has engendered in a great number of people a strong sense of urgency in participating in the political process--people who might otherwise have been silent or complacent are now heartily dedicated to active democracy--these will be the voters we'll be seeing more of in 2020 who will make the difference.
12
@Cate your mouth to God's ears, sister. And I don't even believe in God.
3
@Cate I hope that you are right.
3
@Cate I hope you're right.
2
The beauty of numbers is that they tell the whole story. Of course it's "their" story -- it's up to the reader to decide how seriously to take it. IMO the important story for the 2020 presidential election is personal, not numerical: Will Democrats come up with a compelling candidate who will inspire Americans' broad support? How do we calculate the probability of THAT?
2
If 2020 is going to be decided by infrequent and low-information voters, the D's can need to keep their messages simple and focused on issues everyone cares about. Start with health care, maybe green jobs (not climate change), and add a couple other basic issues.
It's been frustrating watching the D's get out-maneuvered on by the R's for decades, going all the way back to Reagan, because they couldn't win the branding wars with this hard-to-reach group.
Sophisticated policy ideas are great, but so too is the ability to winnow these down to simple messages on basic bread-and-butter issues that anyone can understand.
That dual ability is what I'm looking for in a candidate. Is Paul Krugman running?
7
Many Trump supporters, that I know, don’t read past a headline. Therefore, I agree w you.
2
Democrats need to focus not on simply increasing general turnout, but more specifically African American, Latino, youth and unmarried women turnout in battleground states. Increased in turnout among these groups would have changed the result of the 2016 Electoral College vote.
14
@Slate Hardon
One of these days you will figure out its Identity Politics that's decimating your party. Nov, 2020 will be that day.
2
This is very interesting, but I would have loved a greater focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Carolina, the only states that matter in the presidential race. Or the focus could have been on the early primary states, which will winnow the field. Regional numbers don't mean much.
And I would also love a focus on those who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012, vs. those who stayed home or voted for Trump.
I think the key to all this is Black men, who voted for Obama but stayed home in 2016. They have to be drawn to the candidate - so far, Biden is doing well in this demographic. Look at the recent poll results in South Carolina, which shows Biden miles ahead of anyone else.
Biden isn't my preferred candidate, but I won't hesitate to vote for him if that's what it takes in the end.
9
So how do you explain that there was an exceptionally high turnout in the mid term elections and the major beneficiaries of it were the Democrats? There is no real reason to question the conventional wisdom that low turnout elections tend to benefit Republicans because older whites make up a larger proportion of voters and vice versa. I'm sure 2020 will be a high turnout event, even some of my Republican friends can't wait to remove this incubus and return to what they perceive as normalcy.
8
@John
Explain how the Dems were the 'major beneficiaries' please. For context consider the following:
Bill Clinton lost more House Seats than did Mr. Trump, and lost Senate Seats when the Mid-terms following his election were held. Lost seats in the Senate, and more in the House than Trump.
Saint Obama lost more House Seats than did Mr. Trump, and Lost Senate Seats when the Mid-terms following his election were held. Lost seats in the Senate, and more in the House than Trump.
So do explain how the Dems were such a 'major beneficiary' of that turnout? Dems LOST seats in the Senate, and gained FEWER Seats in the House than Republicans did when democrats faced their first mid-term after winning the Presidency.
For what its worth, none of the above factors in any way the record number of incumbent Republicans who left their seats open in 2016. That had more to do with the flip than anything else.
2
@GregP Democrats won the House with a margin of just under 8%. The fact that they only had a net gain of 40 seats is largely due to aggressive gerrymandering from Republican state governments.
In the Senate, the Democrats lost seats in states where the partisan lean was greater than their 8% victory margin, including North Dakota (R+33), Missouri (R+19), and Indiana (R+18). Florida (R+5.4) was the one state where they underperformed by a few points. And they held some very red states as well, including West Virginia (R+30) and Montana (R+26). They also picked up a seat in red Arizona (R+9).
Considering how many seats Democrats had to defend in very red states, it was a very good election year for Team Blue.
It bears repeating: Trump only won the Electoral College, and that was at the slimmest of margins. His base will remain his base. But I fail to see how anyone who was on the fence, but gave him a chance, votes for him again. I can see no scenario in which a 2016 Hillary voter turns to Trump in 2020. I fail to see how greater voter turnout helps him, unless there are a whole lotta Trump supporters who for some reason didn't vote for him last time.
The Dems must get 100% behind whoever wins the nomination. All of them. It is theirs to lose.
And don't forget the even more-important Senate.
48
@myasara
Trump won the Electoral College very comfortably -- it was not close at all (304 to 227).
Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20. Democrats need to learn that you don't win presidential elections by piling up votes in NYC in California.
9
@Ian
No, you don't. And I think the Democrats have learned all too well not to ignore these states going forward. But he only won them by 77,000 votes across three states. Not even by 1 percentage point in each. That's not comfortable at all.
I find it extremely unlikely that those 77,000 are a lock to vote for him again. Without them, he loses.
"Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it's fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 77,000 votes out of than 136 million ballots cast. According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes)."
https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/the-election-came-down-to-77-744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated
2
@myasara
"The Dems must get 100% behind whoever wins the nomination. All of them."
Thanks for the tip/dictation. If the Dems try another pre-election coronation with a bad candidate there are plenty who will vote for Trump as the least worst option.
Some Dems come across to many as crazier/more dictatorial than Trump... maybe mull over the reasons for that.
3
Today trump has fewer voters than when he lost the popular vote by 2.8 million. He only won the Electoral College because he drew to a straight flush. This is unlikely to happen again. He was seen as an unknown quantity and even a 'moderate' to some voters compared to Mrs. Clinton. He's no longer has that advantage.
He has not expanded his base. The only thing he has done is forcefully alienate moderate voters in the states he carried in 2016. Roughly 60% of the voters strongly oppose him vs the roughly 40% who strongly favor him. If the Democrats do their due diligence he will lose in November 2020.
17
Watch it happen again...because the next time he will draw a Royal Flush.
@C Feher People forget about Stein and Johnson. 11 Million people who voted in 2016 did NOT vote for 45.
2
@C Feher
You know this how? You heard it on the news? What was the projection on the eve of the Election in 2016? Hillary had a what? A 98.4% chance of winning? He has more than expanded his 'base'. He has proven he will at least try to do what he says. He is in for 4 more years and you cannot blame anything this time on Russia.
3
I find it shocking that The Upshot would publish a column about voter turnout without printing one single word about the effects on voter turnout of Republican Party voter suppression efforts.
After the Roberts Five, the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court, vacated the Voting Rights Act, dozens of Republican state legislatures introduced scores of voter suppression bills specifically aimed at stopping Blacks and immigrants from voting. And in addition, Republican officials have engaged in strenuous efforts to shut down voter registration drives, to scrub voter roles of minority voters, and to shut down polling places in minority communities, or to move them to out-of-the-way locations that are hard to get to.
But The Upshot doesn't spend a single word, a single sentence, telling readers about the effects of these anti-democratic attempts to keep minorities from voting?
Shame!
72
@Sean
The article was trying to predict the effect of turnout in 2020, based on data from 2016 and 2018, which were affected by voter suppression, as 2020 will be. We all know voter suppression happened but there is no quantitative data on its effect, so in its absence it has to be assumed it's a constant.
2
Very informative analysis. One point to add is that many non-citizens are actually legal permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship but have chosen not to apply for various reasons such as the cost. It’s possible that, compared to previous election cycles, more people in this group will register for citizenship and vote out of self preservation due to Trump’s threatening rhetoric and policies towards legal immigrants.
8
@Aoy
Possibly some may, but it is a process that requires several steps and takes 14-19 months. In short, any non-citizen who wants to vote in November 2020, had better start applying for citizenship right now.
1
@Professor M Not sure that you are very current on the citizenship process. Outside of highly photographed small groups of people that applied for citizenship, even those that do apply have been waiting at least an additional 2 1/2 years since the Trump administration began and practically shut the process down. Except of course for his wife's parents.
3
I think it impossible to predict how many angry, seething, fed-up voters around this county will rise up and get to the polls or send in their ballots to remove Donald Trump from an office he never had any business filling. I believe it's in the millions and still another year plus of his craziness yet remaining. He has never been president of the people, merely a self-advocating egomaniac loose cannon of a man who for some reason strikes fear in the backbone of 99% of the GOP in Congress.
145
@B Colorado. I do so hope you are correct!!
8
@B Colorado
And it's diatribes just like yours that feed the fire for the GOP.
They simply have to quote you and tell their folk, 'see, the Liberals do not take you seriously, go vote and show them how much he is a president of the people'.
True or not, that statement will be made when comments like yours surface, and it just solidifies the base.
Personally I still do not see a way that Democrats win.
5
@AutumnLeaf Nothing in B Colorado's comment was a diatribe. Even most Republicans know Trump's unfit for office (point 1). They know he's antagonized millions (point 2) that's part of his appeal. Most of them would agree that Trump was an egomaniac (point 3). The base responds to other things, like "white privilege," "pro-choice," and anything with the word elite. The Dems may trip over those. But that Trump is unfit, antagonistic, and an egomaniac? No way.
6
Trump got every possible vote he could get in 2016 - I don't buy the idea suggested here that he may have room to grow. He can only win if the the majority who oppose him divide themselves. Dividing the opposition will undoubtedly be the Republican tactic in 2020 as it is their only hope for victory. Democrats, progressives, liberals and anti-Trumpists need to keep their eyes on the prize and stick together no matter what. Support the Democratic candidate, no matter who. If they do, Trump will be defeated and this national nightmare will come to an end.
178
@Frank Roseavelt
Exactly correct!
No third party please.
Bernie Sanders - drop out now.
Democrats will nominate whomever and Democrats and Independents - VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT NOMINEE!!!!
A vote for any 3rd party candidate is a vote for Trump.
20
@Frank Roseavelt
Correction - "this national nightmare will START to come to an end." The reasons for it's occurrence must be addressed.
14
The nightmare will end only in the unfortunately unlikely event that McConnell and other Republican senators can be ousted. We need the Senate back. Even more than we need the White House, perhaps.
5
Almost 7.9 million more people voted for president in 2016 than did in 2012. Clinton received fewer votes than did Obama; Trump received 2 million more votes than did Romney. Where did the other 5.9 million votes go? More than half of these additional votes went to the Libertarian and Green party candidates. These two parties more than tripled their vote counts in 2016 relative to 2012.
In 2016, 5.75% of voters did not cast their ballots for either Trump or Clinton - often several times the margin in the most closely contested states. It's simplistic and misleading to assert that increased turnout will benefit one of the major party candidates.
37
@Mike
Great observation. Putting statistics in the context of history. I wish this article would have done the same.
17
@Mike
Also, reports show that the Green Party, Jill Stein, had been supported by Putin. Her links have yet to be fully
publicized. From sitting at the RTV table with Flynn and Putin to her support of Russia's regime, to her anti-environmental and anti-green policies. Her presence weighed heavily on the midwestern battleground states.
2
@Mike great points and perhaps add the millions of votes H. Clinton received more than our current prez.
1
I am at a loss. The Democrats stand up and answer a question on national TV about giving medical benefits to illegal/undocumented foreigners who have crossed the border where they know they shouldn't. And do they expect that middle America, where hospitals are closing, and people are often without insurance, is gong to vote for them?
They then all state they want to make crossing the border, somewhere you shouldn't, less than a crime. So, of course, they would no longer be illegal. Really?
They need to appeal to a wider range of people. They should have said "We want to keep YOUR hospital costs down, your health cost low, it may seem contradictory, but we do that by providing medical care to everyone outside of our hospitals, in clinics, in doctors offices, but not where YOU end up paying the highest cost ." Or maybe they should have said, "I'll address this issue after I do something about the high cost of medications, about our fellow citizens dying at home because they can't afford insulin." Then I'll figure this out. But no, they fall into every single Republican trap.
Four more years of Donald will mean this is no longer America. It will make us into a country of hate, distrust and racism.
The Democrats need to wake up and offer an alternative to Trump that is aimed at addressing the problems and needs of our fellow citizens. We can't survive 4 more years.
103
@Jim Roche
I don’t think illegal immigrants should get Medicare for free, but some of the Democrats said they would allow illegal immigrants to get insurance if they pay into it. That’s a perfectly reasonable position that helps rural hospitals stay open by providing more revenue and helping them achieve economies of scale. Many nationalized health systems like the UK’s NHS provide services to foreigners for a fee.
Also, decriminalization is not the same as legalization. We could have a system like China’s hukou where illegal migrants aren’t eligible for most social services but they also aren’t jailed and mostly tolerated and allowed to work in the private sector.
6
@Jim Roche undocumented people receive care regardless of citizen status as it is now. This actually costs more in the long run and hurts our economy by diminishing the work force. I don't know about you, but I think all people regardless of status deserve healthcare. To me it's a right and not a privilege, but I can see where you are coming from. I just don't agree with it.
7
@Jim Roche
I wish you could run for office in the US. Since you can't please send your thoughts to the zillion candidates seeking to unseat the current prez.
1
Until we see how these statistics correlate with electoral college votes they don’t really have any predictive value. All we really know at this time is that the democratic candidate cannot assume a blue wall in the upper Midwest and decide not to campaign there, or similarly ignore other traditional democrat constituencies.
14
Like Biden not bothering to show up at Essence.
It depends on how strenuously the Republican party prevents people from voting. Take Florida during the 2000 election, for instance. They went all out on suppressing the minority votes, including putting people who never committed crimes on their "Felon" listings and blocking roads and doing vehicle searches on roads that were the only access point for getting to the place where one could vote.
The Good Old Boy system is still alive and well down south, an it's something the Republican party embraces whole-heartedly, since it involves swindling qualified voters out of their right to vote.
19
The 2000 stolen election. And to this day we are still paying for it.
Many Democrats want the wall.
Few Democrats want Medicare for illegals.
Add Nikki Haley for VP and it is over.
Immigration problem will grow as fast as the globe warms, bringing many to a better climate. The world has changed and the Democrats must change also.
7
Agree about Haley. That would be nail in coffin.
1
Voter turn out where is the question? In some states voter torn out or turn off will make no difference. NY, California, Illinois and Mass is in Democratic pockets no matter who is their nominee. The rest is up for grabs. Right now it is very hard to predict whether Trump will be reelected or replaced by the eventual democratic nominee. A lot will also depend on how voters who are still suffering from the pandemic Trump Derangement syndrome (TDS) will continue to not consider voting for Trump no matter what
3
@Girish Kotwal it is my unscientific projection that those afflicted with your interestingly diagnosed “TDS” will spread the infection to many millions of their fellow Americans and this disease will reach epidemic proportions, whose outcome will be celebrated like no other disease ever has the day after Election Day 2020.
Democrats have never been more divided, as the era of neoliberal corporatists has passed but the era of democratic socialists has not fully taken hold. Whichever side wins the nomination, the other side will run a third party candidate that gets millions of votes. But Trump can still be easily beaten.
6
I am from Germany originally where voting day is always a Sunday. You are automatically eligible to vote once you turn 18. When I was growing up, my parents treated voting day as a holiday. My construction worker father and stay at home mother would take me with them to the voting booth where you would meet your neighbors dressed in their Sunday finest. When you did not see one of the neighbors, you wondered whether they had fallen ill suddenly or even died. Not going to the polls was inconceivable. Once back home, we would be glued to the Telly for movie re-runs, eagerly waiting for the polls to close and the first results to trickle in.
Long story short: Lesson from my upbringing was VOTE!
63
@Ellen Wonderful story. This how it should be here. Sadly, it seems that Republicans don't want the working class in this country to vote.
3
No the overwhelming majority of working people don't vote because there is nothing to vote for under the two-party dictatorship of the Demoplicans and Republicrats, servants of Wall Street. In 2014 actual turnout was 41.9 percent. I guarantee you that workers made up 90 percent of non-voters. It's nothing more than a big circus to choose the Emperor's new clothes.
5
@AR If you really believe that you should be the first person at the polls voting for someone like E Warren or B Sanders. Or do you prefer to just not pay attention?
1
Who doubts that deep within the Trump mind there is a calculus formula assessing the electoral possibilities of being a wartime president?
Nixon ran a similar con to the White House.
Hugh
16
@Hugh Massengill
Perhaps I'm just refusing, again, to see a Trump victory, but just as a strong economy traditionally favors incumbents, so does our country at war. I can't conceive that either of these "traditional" views will apply in 2020, simply because there is nothing traditional at play here. Add to this fact that there have to be MANY Trump voters in 2016 who voted for him only because he represented something totally different, which of course, he was. I'm not talking about his base- he'll get his 40% from them- but I don't see him adding anyone to that core, no matter what. Our task is to make sure that the opposing majority turns out to defeat this monster.
2
In 1968 Nixon ran as the “peace” candidate. Once elected he expanded the Vietnam War.
@A Citizen.
True, the con was telling the South Vietnamese government to walk away from peace, so Nixon could say he had a secret plan to end the war. Peace wasn't available again for many years, and many, many American troops died, including some I knew. Kind of stunning really, to a person, like me, who served in Vietnam around that time.
Hugh
Looking at two elections, Nixon vs. Humphrey when young liberal/progressive voters stayed away from the polls because Kennedy was dead and clean Gene had withdrawn, and Trump vs. Clinton when Bernieites stayed away from the polls in droves, I'd say that the next election depends on all registered Democrats and anyone who wants to defeat Trump turning out to vote for whoever the party runs. It's never been more crucial to do our civic duty.
26
@ Rebecca- Don’t forget 2000, when well-meaning Nader voters (along with confused Palm Beach Voter’s) handed the election to George W. Bush by 537 popular and 5 judicial votes.
If this country votes to re-elect this thing again who calls himself our President then it deserves the government it elects and its failure as a country.
42
@YA True, but let's not forget "The People" of this country did not elect Dt. The antiquated Electoral College did.
4
@YA
The country didn't elect that thing; it lost the country-wide vote by several million and was elected by about 70,000 people in a few states. With a system like that the country deserves to fail and certainly will if the result is repeated in 2020.
6
I would have,I'm sure,got more from this article had I decided to study Political Science, rather than Fine Art, the fact that the vast ,and I mean vast majority of readers probably don't have a Political Science Degree, Was apparently lost on it's author's, or more importantly the editor.
4
"Which Party Would Benefit?"
Based on what we've seen so far, I would say the greatest beneficiary is the middle-of-the-road third party which has yet to show up.
2
If the Democrats could take the 'Mayor Pete' stand on religion, the healthcare plan of Bernie, the immigration
laws of Gov. Bullock, add all ingredients in one pot to make an old fashion soup, and for dessert, the sweetness of Williamson, we would feed the whole country.
4
If you want turnout, get a good candidate. Hillary was terrible, and Biden looks just as bad. Somebody who can intelligently articulate the details of their policies and how those specific policies impact people on a granular level will get support.
Old guard Dems who have nothing other than the willingness to believe that every election is finally their “turn” need to be shown the door. If we wanted Hillary, it would’ve been 2008. If we wanted Joe, it would’ve been decades ago.
45
@Mike
And who would that be? One of the other candidates rushing to take away private health care, have de-facto open borders, abolish ICE, allow illegal immigrants to get benefits, or pay reparations? Fat chance for any of them in the battleground states.
Register to vote and get ten percent off your next Amazon purchase!
3
@Peter Silverman
I meant: how about this idea, Amazon hasn’t gone for it (yet.)
2
It doesn’t matter
It could be millions more in NY or CA, but if we win the electoral college things won’t change
3
I wonder if there's a way to account for the Russian "vote."
12
Until we get rid of the archaic electoral system the only polls that matter are those that focus on the battleground states. These 12 states: WI, MN, MI, OH, PA, IL, NC, VA, FL, AZ, CO and ME, have all the power when it comes to choosing our next president.
What do I worry about besides these states?
I worry about fraud and nasty tricks being used to get trump elected. In republican controlled states they will make casting votes in democratic areas more difficult. Fewer polling places, using broken machines, removing names of eligible voters. They’re all going to use every trick available. If you can vote early do so. Help your neighbors get to the polls. Make sure all your neighbors are eligible to vote. Register now.
29
@Bill
I don't see that Ohio is a battleground anymore. Like Missouri, it has gone red. Maine has drifted blue and is likely to stay there.
I don't know if Nate was joking. Everything I've seen looks like trump will take the worst beating in the history of the office. Just look at the groups he has alienated. Blacks, Hispanics and women just to name the top three. Actually we should thank trump. Because he is so stupid and ineffectual, he fails in all aspects of the art of autocracy. Another Autocrat may not be elected again in the US for a hundred years.
10
@jerome stoll
Do not underestimate the power of the lies boosted by trump. echoed by Fox and amplified by the many trumpists who are making a ton of money in the grifter's government that trump runs.
4
Polling data today is next to useless. Didn't we learn anything from 2016? Sample size is skewed due to the fact that more people do not respond to inquiries than those who do. We can thank robo-callers for that. I don't know anyone who answers their phone anymore unless they recognize the number. Perhaps this is yet another unrecognized form of foreign interference with our election process. The creeps annoy us so we won't answer our phones and thereby distort polling data. And who is really polling us anyway?
15
This is all interesting; but I cannot read it without my bile rising over the fact that so many of my fellow citizens would vote this shallow, crooked, cruel and inept man.
110
@Frank I couldn't agree more. If you really want to get sick, follow that link to Five Thirty Eight. They have his overall disapproval rating at around 52%. In what reality are we living in that only half the country disapproves of this man? It should be at least 70% and I would *still* be horrified that 30% of the country approves of him. I'm beyond disgusted by all of this.
18
Now that you have given us the possible outcomes for our 2020 election, what can we do about it other then vote.If the
Uneducated want Trump , what does that say about misogyny,
Racist beliefs, lack of the ability to tell facts from fiction,
Media trashing for personal gain,greed,corrupt behavior on any
Subject you choose ,etc! All of which exists now ,and has been around for as long as our country has existed.
I think we need to pay attention to some of what’s being taught and not taught.
3
It is shocking and unsettling (and depressing) to me that 40+% of voters actually approve of this horror show we are living with. I absolutely fear that he will be re-elected and do not know how our country can endure if that happens. I am so disappointed in whom I used to call my fellow Americans, but now can hardly recognize them as human beings with hearts.
46
Simple the party that gives a majority of Americans what they need.
Assuming Trump is the nominee and the democrats nominate another identity obsessed, social engineering zealot like Warren, Harris, Hillary etc. instead of Biden, they will be giving Trump another term.
8
@Paul
One of the political parties is focused on giving Americans what they need: affordable health care, living wages, retirement security, worker and consumer protections, clean air and water. And Elizabeth Warren is leading the charge, with both the energy and the expertise to turn those plans into reality.
3
Stop wasting so much time on social media and do something meaningful by getting out the vote.
5
B Dawson: Polling procedures are set by each state, so times of poll openings, procedures for absentee ballots, etc. are not uniform across the U.S.
4
"For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.”
ditto
2
I wonder whether Mr. Cohn could offer an analysis of the possible effects of two factors that while in play now, will likely reach a crescendo in the weeks before the 2020 elections. One, Russian and other foreign interference via social media and two, the ceaseless news cycles riddled with misinformation by news organizations epitomized by Fox.
4
A lot to break down here, but see very little on women voters, who I have to believe will break hard for Dems -- unlike 2016.
Just don't see how the GOP overcomes that.
5
I suspect a larger turnout in 2020 will definitely favor the Republicans as a reaction to the "socialist" bent of the present Democratic Party, and the Democrats will get killed in the Electoral College.
7
In the 2016 election, I can tell you that huge turnout by Dems in my VERY conservative county was, in fact, matched by huge turnout by Republicans. I was a candidate, and would very nearly have won with my number of votes (I was within 50 of my traditional 'win number') except that nearly a third more people actually voted. The proportions of voter types stayed constant, but numbers were up by a lot.
Turnout matters - but don't be surprised if Trump doesn't pull another 'caravan of criminals' stunt or somesuch just prior to the election that will enrage and engage his fans.
We need high turnout in high-Democrat locations. Because Republican turnout, which you might think should be suppressed by appalling behavior like racist tweets, will not in fact be suppressed at all.
8
@M M
"We need high turnout in high-Democrat locations."
The above statement is totally wrong. The problem with Democrats is that during presidential elections, they pile on millions of votes in NYC and California but that does not help to win the country as a whole.
Democrats suffer from what political scientists call "clumping." Democrats win Democratic districts and states by high margins. Republicans win their areas by more modest margins but they still win.
You win NYC whether you win by 5 million or 5 thousand. Concentrating a high number of votes in safe Democratic areas does not win elections.
What this reminds us of is the rise of the illiberal voter. Trump should only get 33% approval - the "rump" rate, the percent of people always willing to support a demagogue. Instead he gets close to half.
Trump is a toy dictator, someone who acts like one but lacks the actual facility. He's not Teflon but soft dough. Stuff doesn't slide off him, it sinks in and disappears.
People love Trump because in his blundering 'bull in a China shop' way, they imagine a conflict they wish they could have. He affirms their self-doubts.
What these polls show is that educated Americans need to turn out. Their good fortunes and families will suffer plenty if Trump careens into war with China. This isn't fantasy. China's at fault, too. Undemocratic countries go to war when their trade gets blocked. Maybe only 50% of Americans understand this. They all need to vote.
7
Right after the Midterms, when Democrats had a historic victory, Nate Cohn wrote this article -- "Weak spots in Democrats' Strong Midterm Results Point to Challenges in 2020".
Even when Dems win by a landslide, today's media always seem to find a way to diminish the results for the Dems and flip it into good news for the GOP.
5
@Barbara The dems did well, but still lost 2 senate seats. This shows the electoral college weakness.
@Barbara T
Obama lost 63 seats in the House in his first midterm election.
Trump lost 44 seats in the House in his first midterm election.
Most of the press referred to Obama's midterm loss as a minor setback. They mostly referred to Trump's loss as a total landslide for the Democrats.
Really?
1
If Dem Governors of PA, WI and MI were as cynical as their GOP predecessors, they would be coming up with mechanisms to drive DOWN rural GOP turnout. Selectively purge the rolls of rural GOP counties and close polling places - “to save money,” of course.
7
A lot depends on the economy. If the inevitable Trump collapse happens before election day, it will have a major impact on the vote.
If Trump manages to coax the economy along for another 16 months, then he may have a fighting chance. Old, Fox News watching whites, many of whom have never actually seen an illegal immigrant, are convinced he is saving them from the apocalypse. And they are reliable voters.
6
There is no "trump era" - no "age of trump" - only years of trump disgrace.
Any complication or obsolescence in an electoral system, or distance from an easy and true democratic voting system, will be manipulated to the advantage of those who are most capable of that manipulation. To date that has proven to be Republicans.
This is why critically needed electoral reform in the U.S. will be so hard to achieve.
9
The "Blue Wall" of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin fell in 2016, which was incredulous to most. In 2020 there's a good chance that the "Red Wall" of Arizona, Texas, and Georgia might be obliterated. Once again, most people will be incredulous. And, incredulously, because of the Electoral College, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin won't matter in the least.
4
I don't buy it Nate. First of all, your analysis makes big conclusions from small differences in the data. More importantly, the Republicans don't believe this stuff. How do we know? Because they are stepping up their voter suppression efforts. Just the opposite of what they would do if they thought higher turnouts would favor them. Nope, Democrats still beat Republican when more voters show up and vote, just like always.
6
I think all people who would ever vote for Trump voted in 2016. I doubt Trump's base sat out 2016. The question is, has he added to his base. So far it the consensus is: No.
6
@GUANNA
The Northeast is an echo chamber. I have relatives from all over the country that did NOT vote for Trump last time.
They will vote for him next time around because they like how he has managed the economy and because of his stand on illegal immigration.
1
I've often thought polling stations should be open a minimum of 24 hours and no "early returns" to be permitted to be reported and in addition, polling stations should include the workplace for those unable to get off work and monitored to ensure employers cannot put their fingers on the scales. We simply cannot rely on early voting, absentee voting, etc., to ensure everyone gets the opportunity to vote.
8
Overall macro data is not terribly useful in assessing the likely effect of increased turnout on next year's presidential election, which after all is really 51 separate contests (each state's vote plus DC). The key lies in getting the best possible sense of in which states turnout is expected to increase, and among which demographic groups in those states.
As usual, Florida will be under the spotlight on this one. Can President Trump get at least the same, if not higher, turnout among rural whites in Northern and Central Florida as he did in 2016? Can the Democratic nominee finally crack the code in terms of increasing turnout among the various Latino populations there, the lack of which has bedeviled Democrats in Florida for several election cycles? (Even the Cuban vote there is up for grabs; younger Cubans are much more likely than older Cubans to vote Democratic.) Whichever side can get the better of the "who will turn out, and where" two-part question will win the White House next year.
3
@Rick
Florida is my home state. I can tell you that most of the national media doesn't understand much about this state.
Younger Cubans might consider voting for a moderate Democrat but they will never vote for a Leftie.
Last time around, Democrats were sure that hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico would turn out in droves for Hillary. They did not.
What everyone seems to forget is the huge number of Venezuelans that settled in Florida when Chavez came to power in Venezuela. They are now citizens and they vote solidly Republican because they loathe any candidate that is left of center.
2
High youth turnout - much higher than 2016 at least - is very likely to benefit Democrats. It’s difficult to see why Trump would get a higher turnout this time round when his net approval has fallen in pretty much all the swing states since 2016 and Hillary was so unpopular last time thus proving a motivational factor. A lot will depend on who the Democratic candidate is of course but someone who scores well with the key demographics in the Midwest will surely have a good chance.
8
Great article, but we need to also talk about who these people are.
Trump's rural deplorables vote for Trump, and he wasn't explicitly on the ballot in 2018. So expect this group to show up to vote in 2020, just as they did in 2016. He will stoke their fears and they will show up.
The Democrats' urban vote faces concerted and determined barriers to voting every year, and it gets worse and worse. This group was wildly enthusiastic about Obama, and they went to incredible lengths to actually register and actually vote in 2008 and 2012.
What we saw in 2018 was that suburban non-voters and some modest number of Republican women became engaged and they turned out to vote against Trump. In 2020, we should expect the 2018 suburban bump in Democratic vote to persist for any Democrat.
For me, the big question for 2020 is: will Democrats have a candidate who will inspire Midwest urbanites who came out for Obama but not Clinton to come out and vote again? And will Democrats do the very, very difficult work of actually registering and turning out these voters in cities like Detroit? A big part of this work is ensuring there are adequate voting facilities to allow voters to actually cast a ballot within 30 minutes of showing up at a polling place. Do NOT underestimate the difficulty of this work.
41
I'd like to see some poll tracking numbers for independent voters, who make up almost 40% of the electorate. If not for independents swinging Republican in 2016, Trump would not have won.
I know quite a few independents who now regret voting for Trump and plan to switch their votes next year to the Dems, as long as there is a reasonable candidate to run against Trump. That may partially explain Biden's high poll numbers at this juncture.
6
Interesting, but I foresee another Trump record in 2020: widest margin loss for an incumbent.
64
@Yves You must be better than Nate to say that and have data to back that up. Do you?
2
@Yves
I live in the heart of the battleground, northern Ohio. As a white Democrat, I have to keep my views to myself among my overwhelmingly Republican neighbors or I am persona non grata. The few of us who are Democrats have to turn on on our "Democrat Radar" to find and stick with each other. It's hard living in the closet. The Democrats have major work to do in Ohio to get out the Democratic vote and increase voter registration.
12
@Yves I think it depends on the dems nominee. I agree if they can go with Biden-Bullock; but if they go with Warren-Harris then it could be another Nixon v. McGoven 49 state to 1 blow out for Trump. The risk is that high.
7
It will be interesting when Trump loses to see if he invokes an emergency to stay in power. I don't see any scenario where he leaves willingly, or graciously.
150
@David Roy - Rudy Giuliani tried that in NYC when he was term-limited as Mayor.
9
@David Roy. There is absolutely nothing that supports this view.
9
@Thomas Smith Except that Trump has 'jokingly' referred to staying beyond 8 years on several occasions - both in speeches and on Twitter. Considering that he does not generally seem to be a man of good humour, I would find these jests worrisome, as verbal projections of what he would truly like to do.
29
So it all depends on which side gets more people to turn out, and no one knows a year and a half out which side that will be.
Isn't that always the way it works?
39
If you are sick of all of this, but don’t vote, then you are part of the problem.
Don’t let apathy win.
336
@D
If that was so evidently true, how come the red versus blue state comparison on all sorts of measures consistently shows that you have a much better chance at a longer, healthier, and more prosperous life if you are lucky enough to live in a blue state.
The notion that there is equivalent corruption and a corresponding lack of compassion or sense of duty toward the ideal of America between the two parties just doesn't hold up with regard to the actual numbers.
Yes, Democrats (definitely not all...) may sell their souls once but the Republicans (very evidently all...) will sell their own souls as well as their familys' as many times as they possibly can because they will lie to anyone, including the Devil - just ask the next time you run into a Satan incarnation...
15
@D That comment certifies that people like you are the biggest part of the problem. As if it makes no difference whether it's Trump in the White House, or Warren or Biden or Sanders or Harris. What sort of people will make up the next cabinet? What sort of people will head up the EPA and the Justice Department? Get the idea?
29
@Bill Seng
My vote truly doesn't matter - I am an independent and DC has a closed primary and is 99% democratic - so if I'm apathetic you're right.
I generally lean left - but after a while - watching the Democrats bend over backwards to accommodate every and all beliefs they end up with a scatter-shot message that is either too complicated or too milquetoasty and thus too easy to ignore.
Define policies that help all people and sell them - all this trying to cram every conceivable definition of a person's attribute like a starbuck's drink gets them nowhere.
Republicans sum it all up in a slogan.
Example Obama screwed up the health care debate - all he had to say was "When your neighbor goes to the hospital - do you want to pay for it? or do you want them to pay for it?"
Kitchen table issues always win.
6
I live in Ohio and I want to warn people that the Kavanaugh hearings energized Trump's base and made them come out in higher numbers in 2018. Normally, if there is a high turnout in the Democratic cities of Ohio (and they are Democrat dominated) the Democrats win on the statewide level. There was a high turnout in the cities in 2018 but the Dems lost on the statewide level because there was a very high turnout in the red part of the state. They were all convinced that the Dems had paid Christine Blasey Ford to go after Trump. They believe anything Trump says and anything Fox News says and the Republican establishment goes along with it. Beware.
278
@Joe This is why I think Ohio is a lost cause. I am not sure what happened there, and why it is so bizarrely conservative, but there is something about Ohio that makes it very difficult in today's environment for Democrats. A phenomena I see is the Catholic Church and the abortion issue. The Church stresses pro-life positions, and to "vote your Catholic faith." That is code of course for anti-choice. With many suburban Catholics, and evangelicals in the southern part of the state, Ohio may be a lost cause.
14
@Joe Democrats can't win, either, by tip-toeing around conflict. Those energized by Kavanaugh need to be offset by those energized by Kavanaugh's record.
28
If people choose Trump over a Democrat because they think Brett was shafted they should remember it was Obama and his choice for the court who were truly shafted. Claiming the Democrats did something wrong is absurd. These same people had no problem with Obama’s choice for the court not even getting a hearing. In other words the Brett issue is a nonissue. I find it ironic how trump supporters think democrats should just let trump and his party do whatever they want. Why bother even having a hearing? Why bother doing a background check? It’s only the Supreme Court.
Regardless. We all don’t need to be reminded how unfit Brett is for the court. His sniveling behavior and temperament should have disqualified him. We don’t pick our Supreme Court justices because they think they deserve it. Brett was given every benefit a white, upper middle class kid could want. There are plenty of them out there who don’t resort to rape when told NO. But in trumps world women are nothing but decoration. To be used as the man sees fit.
31
Voting should be mandatory, not an option. As a citizen you have rights and obligations, voting should count as one of these obligations. This is how it works in a couple of European countries for example. It is not a foolproof strategy against extremist parties, but at least it takes one variable out of the process, and avoids a lot of debate about participation and validity of electoral results (look at Brexit for example).
And if you are not happy with the candidates on the ballot, you can still vote blank or invalid.
Of course, this supposes that your government does the necessary for you to be able to cast your vote easily: sufficient polling stations near to you, vote on a weekend day...
68
@SJP
Hi. You mentioned that there are countries in Europe where voting is mandatory. Can you provide some facts, because I am not positive that a single democratic country has made voting in elections mandatory.
BR
2
@SJP
Agreed. Every citizen must vote and every ballot must have "None of the above" as the last choice.
5
Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg have mandatory voting in Europe according to CIA Fact Book.
7
If the percentage turnout of Democratic voters in Wisconsin had matched the turnout for any of the previous 3 presidential elections, Trump would have lost Wisconsin. Turnout matters.
242
@tom, Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by about 77,000 votes. The margin in Michigan alone was just 10,000 votes.
In addition, the turnout among African-American voters was down by 6 - 7% from 2012. That was also a significant factor.
29
@tom
Absolutely correct. The GOP turnout overall was pretty normal in 2016. What gave us this horror were voters on the left who stayed home or stamped their little feet like children and voted 3rd party.
Don't do it again!
45
@tom-Also not identity obsessing and social engineering like Hillary did instead of addressing issues that Wisc. needed like Hillary did not. She didn't even step into the state.
Trump demagogued the issues and Hillary had no answer except for I am not Trump, I am a woman, my anointed time has come and the era of the white man is over.
16
This is excellent analysis, but The Upshot is making a mistake in only looking at the presidential race. The races for control of Congress are even more important. I would love to see this same analysis done for Congress, which is more consequential in the long run.
137
@Ken L: The races for state governments are also hugely important. The Kochs and their ilk realized some time ago that far more gets done at the state than federal level. They have been busy purchasing governors and state senators and representatives ever since.
1
A major factor in turnout is that voting takes place on a working day which limits the number who can get to a polling station. It is the same in Britain, but here we have a vast number of polling stations so that waiting time is usually not more than ten minutes. From what I read in NYT it is normal particularly in Republican areas to have few polling stations which are awkward to reach so increasing the difficulty of workers voting.
I still think that elections should take place at the weekend though at my age I get a postal vote.
58
@irdac Queues at polling stations vary a lot in South Africa, generally being shorter in more affluent areas. However, there are huge numbers of polling stations, even in poorer areas, and voting day is a public holiday in South Africa. Furthermore, polling stations are open from 6:00 to 21:00 with everybody who is in a queue by 21:00 being allowed to cast his/her vote, however long it takes.
And if you're a citizen and at least 18 years old, you're on the voters' roll automatically.
Finally, the Electoral Commission is independent and elections are regulated nationally, not at provincial level.
Not perfect, but reflective of the quaint notion that elections should reflect the views of the nation, not of some selective sub-component of it.
The American electoral system continues to baffle me, however much I read of it.
110
I agree with you that Election Day is on a weekday and inconvenient for many voters.
However, many states allow Early Voting for a week or two weeks (including weekends) at polling locations throughout the community prior to an election.
14
@irdac
There is no such thing as a 'non-working' day anymore. Your presumption is that people work Monday through Friday with weekends off. That simply isn't true. There are also a couple of facts you may not be aware of.
Polls are allowed to open as early as 5:45 am and by law must remain open for 13 hours.
Registered voters can vote prior to any election either in person at an election office in their district or mail an absentee ballot. Please note there is no age restriction for voting by mail in the US - any registered voter of voting age can request a mail-in ballot.
The only way to make voting easier would be for poll workers to come to each citizen and collect the vote in person!
30