The question now for Warbler (someone who does try to predict things) is on the Romney road map, what states can Trump win that Romney couldn't?
OK back to this. There's no point going over the ground as to why Trump can't win, it's been widely covered and much of the reasoning behind it stacks up. There are some things in his favour however which need showing respect. The same people who say he can't win have been saying it since July. Many of them didn't even see him getting Christmas. They've been wrong throughout this process so far.
His net unfavourables are often trotted out. It's worth remembering that Hillary Clinton also has a net unfavourable too. I've got a hunch that this parameter is concealing an important dynamic though, and that concerns the depth of the unfavourability. John Kasich is the most favourable of the Republican candidates, but its a kind of 'nice', or tepid favourability he's generating. This sort of approval needn't translate into a vote. It's more symptomatic of "yeah, he's OK". As the campaigns intensify and traditonal partisan lines start to re-emerge (and they will given the divisive characters involved) being "OK" isn't the sort of depth that will swing a Democrat into voting Republican. This is where I think Trump stands a chance. It doesn't matter if he continues to alienate even further, 90% of the people who don't intend voting for him anyway (its the old Thatcher maths to some extent). You can afford to seriously **** them off with your messaging, but if its packaged in such a way that you pick up 3-4% of swing voters the chances are you're going very close. There will be Democrats attracted to Trumps simple messaging and scapegoating. In other words you'd rather have 5% of Democrats seriously considering voting for you, then 30% mildly thinking favourably of you.
The glaring gap that Trump needs to address though is the gender imbalance. In truth it's a section that can possibly be broken down into single and married women, as there's a substantial difference. It's always possible that with a messaged campaign he can reach married women through their husbands (married women aren't proving as difficult as young single women), but he's got a major fault line here which is much more terminal I think than the other gaps. Women historically vote Democrat, and are likely to do so again. Trump needs to find a way of getting his support to about 40% with them
I think Trump might have more scope with young people than is often imagined. Young people are the bedroock of Bernie Sanders support. They really don't embrace Hillary Clinton. Some of Trump's messaging isn't too far removed from Sanders. For instance there's the pull back from neo con international intervention (unless directly attacked or threatened). There the rich people should pay more tax (chimes with the anti Wall Street sentiment). There's the jobs/ protectionist agenda which is otherwise pushing young people into low skilled, and poorly paied employment. If he could meet them just half way with an education reform that reduced their burden he could start to make inroads here
So lets got to the Romney map, but before we do, it's worth remembering that Romney lost by just 3.9%. A 2% swing is enough to give Trump a plurality. The base isn't as low as people think. The thing about 2012 was that Romney lost in all the wrong places, and where he won, he won much bigger than he needed to. The result in the electoral college flattered Obama given how close it was. Just about the only swing state that didn't go the Presidents was North Carolina. Every other toss up state he won. Trump is going to have to massively improve his organisation and own strategic understanding of the battleground though to avoid making the same mistakes as Romney, but with a focused campaign in just six states, (many of which are manageable geographically) its possible
Which ever way you look at it, Trumps path to a win starts in Florida. Without the sunshine state he can't win (nor can any Republican). Obama (a popular incumbent) took it in 2012 against a Mormon and Massachusetts Governor by 0.88%. Trump has already defeated a sitting Senator, would have beaten a former state Governor, and has his own base in the state. It's one of the few states he does have a ground game in, and effectively works as a second home state for him given that he lives there and has invested money in Florida. The state isn't averse to a bit of dirty trickety either, and in Rick Scott he has a supportive Governor. I still think there might be a role for Rubio yet, and have noted the amount of dog whistling going on between the two. Rubio hasn't endorsed Cruz, and his most recent interview to the local Tampa newspaper seemed conciliatory. If Rubio campaigns for Trump in Florida, Hillary will have her work cut. Miami won't be enough.
303 Dem v 235 Rep
After Florida the consensus seems to be that the path leads through the rust belt. I'm not totally convinced its as fertile territory as the demographics and socio economic trends suggest it should be, but I do believe there are some possibilities, but laid off by a few others where his prospects might not be as good as people suggest
One of the more interesting ones is Iowa, given that its a blue state trending red (not many of them). Hillary Clinton's never really been particularly popular there either. I'm not sure that Trump is a natural fit for them, but in amongst his eleventh hour (and somewhat controversial defeat to Cruz in the caucus) it's perhaps easy to overlook that he recorded the second highest vote in their history having made a complete mess of his ground game (again)
297 Dem v 241 Rep
Not for the first time Ohio becomes crucial and a lot will depend on how John Kasich behaves. I suspect that with Trump needing a swing of just 1.5% to take the state, Kasich can deliver it for him if he's a VP or agrees to take a high profile position in the administration. I think Trump has to try and make this deal with Kasich (more so than with Rubio in Florida which he'd stand a good chance of taking without Lil Marco). Trump keeps telling everyone he's the arch deal maker. Well if he can nail this one (and he's spared Kasich the abuse he's showered on others) then things start to close up
Dem 279 v Rep 259
Now I'll turn to some of the states I don't think he'll get. Virginia the more I explore the more I think Hillary defends it, quite probably with an increase on Obama's margin (and she possibly has Tim Kaine to seal it for her yet). I don't believe he'll get any traction in the western targets of New Mexico, Colorado, or Nevada (not even sure he'll waste his jet fuel trying!). These will go deeper blue, but they're potentially part of the strategy. You can afford to lose them heavily if your rhetoric works in the upper mid west. In other words, **** off the Mexicans in these states and lose them by 10% more than you otherwise would in order to gain 5% white males in the east
So Trump needs to find new territory. Flipping Pennsylvania would actually give him the White House (its become this close now with FL, OH and IA). I think it's still trending Democrat, but Hillary with her energy policies (anti coal), and advocacy of free trade (steel) needn't be the best fit for the state. In truth I think there's enough evidence from the primaries to suggest Hillary hangs on. Bernie Sanders was on a free trade agenda and won Michigan with it against expectation. When they replayed the fixture in Pennsylvania Hillary not only won, but she took places like Pittsburgh, and Allentown (Philadelphia was always safe) so perhaps the sentiment isn't running through PA to same extent. Maybe 20 years the steel/ save our heavy industry vote might have had something running for it, but the impact of globalisation has to some extent been and gone. Today Pittsburg probably moves more to the tune of Tech then it does blast furnaces.
The impact on Michigan however is more contemporary and its this which might bring it into play. Trump might get a small bounce through Ben Carson in Michigan (far from convinced myself, but it could be worth a percentage point). Certainly the motor trade has suffered (perhaps where steel was when Bush won Pennsylvania) but there's also been a degree of white flight out of Michigan, which won't help Trump
Trump has made some outrageous, bordering on deluded statements about states he thinks he can take. I don't think he stands a chance in New York, New Jersey or Massacheusetts, I would give him a chance in Michigan though, albeit he's going to be on the edge of the 5% swing he might be able to generate in a state that is particularly receptive to his messaging. I'd be a little bit more persuaded had Trump stormed the state though. He won it true, but he didn't hit the high 40's he'd be needing. OK Rubio was still in the field back then, but I still think Trump would need to be 45%+. Michigan I'll put it on a 'possible' list though, as winning it in conjunction with the three states already mentioned, would give him the Presidency
Another state that falls into this category might be Wisconsin (strictly speaking it becomes a 269 each draw - which I think the Republican speaker then settles with a casting vote?). Wisconsin is a strange one. If you look at Nate Silver's model based on ethnicity and qualifications, Wisconsin is one of the easiest blue states to turn red. Yet Trump lost the primary there to Cruz. It could be that the 538 model is badly flawed. It might be that gender becomes the more decisive parameter, but Wisconsin does contain a lot of active white male voters without college educations, (Trump's stock voter). He faces opposition from a mobilised #never campaign, as well as a bevvy of aggresive right wing talk radio hosts. Contrast this to Indiana's shock jocks who are either softly supportive or at worst neutral. The impact that local, vocal opposition has had could be significant for two states that aren't massively dissimilar at prima facie. In Wisconsin he hit mid 30's (admittedly a position that deteriorated with a 2 week run of bad news stories). In Indiana he's polling mid 40's.
What about red states turning blue? Well there's evidence that Arizona, and Utah might be vulnerable, and it's long been held that Georgia could wobble as the first of the southern firewall to break. I would want to see more evidence from Arizona first other than a few protest polls. Utah he needs to worry about. Mormons think Trump is the anti christ, but he can probably survive a no show. The danger comes from them voting for Hillary. Will they? probably not by November. Only 250,000 Utah people (whatever their collective noun is) voted for Obama. Repeating his own caucus vote of just 14% puts him just over 100,000 on a big Republican base. If we say that the Kasich support joins him, he's already within 20,000.
Georgia might start going Democrat in the future, but its probably not ready yet. I'd expect him to face his biggest hurdle in North Carolina which Hillary might be looking to flip and this should prove his toughest 'hold'
New Hampshire is a state that Trump might harbour legitimate claims for. Pat Buchannan polled well there, and Trump stormed the primary. There's clearly a little of a latent issue working there which we might normally associate with the Dixiecrats. With just 4 college votes though it won't make any difference, though could help buffer somewhere like Utah a bit
So basically its this I reckon
hold the Romney map, then
win - Florida, Ohio and Iowa
then win one from - Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. I don't see him getting Virginia or Minnesota, but either of them with the three above would be enough too if he holds the Romney map
