Trump will not win the 2020 popular vote

[jimmy the one]

But of course he could still steal it by winning the electoral college farce again. Which if it were in effect as it was intended circa 1791 hillary clinton would be vice president to trump, as she received 2nd most electoral college votes.

Trump again would not win the popular vote in 2020, as he didn't in 2016. Below are current state approval numbers for trump as of november 2018. That is if he even runs, especially after Mr Mueller makes his reports come soon.

Note how much trump's approval differences have dropped since january 2017 inauguration, in all states - the first % number (ie -12% for AK alaska) which is comparing jan 2017 with nov 2018 (+24 diff 2017, +12 diff nov 2018, current diff = -12 which is how much approval difference has dropped in almost 2 years).
Some Battleground states have been highlighted below. Note that the 3 democrat states of wisconsin, pennsy, & michigan, an integral part of the democrat wall, have returned to the fold. Pennsy nov 2018 has 46 approval 51 disapproval; Wisconsin 43 appr 53 disappr; Michigan 43 appr 52 disappr. Nice.
I know it's only one poll and has not been corroborated (golden rule of poll credibility) that I've seen, and still two years to go where lots can change (but a sea change?) but it's still nice.

state .... january 2017 --- november 2018
...diff-appr-disappr-moe --- appr-disappr-moe
AK -12% 55% 31% 5% --- 53% 41% 5%
AL -8% 62% 26% 4% -- 62% 34% 1%
AR -16% 59% 29% 5%-- 55% 41% 2%
AZ -22% 55% 35% 3%-- 47% 49% 1%
CA -20% 42% 48% 2% -- 35% 61% 1%
CO -11% 45% 44% 4%-- 43% 53% 1%
CT -25% 47% 42% 4% --38% 58% 2%
DC -29% 30% 61% 4% --18% 78% 1%
DE -21% 49% 41% 4% -- 42% 55% 2%
FL -20% 56% 34% 3%-- 49% 47% 1%
GA -15% 53% 35% 3%-- 49% 46% 1%
HI -7% 38% 51% 5% --38% 58% 2%
IA -17% 49% 40% 4%-- 44% 52% 2%
ID -13% 59% 30% 3%-- 56% 40% 3%
IL -29% 49% 40% 3%-- 38% 58% 1%
IN -15% 55% 33% 3%-- 52% 45% 1%
KS -20% 56% 32% 3%-- 50% 46% 2%
KY -18% 61% 27% 3%-- 56% 40% 1%
LA -10% 59% 28% 3%-- 58% 37% 2%
MA -20% 43% 47% 3%-- 36% 60% 1%
MD -11% 38% 51% 4%-- 36% 60% 1%
ME -17% 48% 40% 5%-- 44% 53% 2%
MI -17% 48% 40% 3%-- 43% 52% 1%
MN -13% 46% 43% 3%-- 43% 53% 1%
MO -9% 53% 34% 3% --53% 43% 1%
MS -16% 61% 27% 4%-- 57% 39% 2%
MT -13% 56% 32% 3%-- 54% 43% 3%
NC -16% 53% 35% 3%-- 49% 47% 1%
ND -19% 56% 33% 3%-- 50% 46% 3%
NE -17% 56% 33% 5%-- 51% 45% 2%
NH -14% 45% 44% 4%-- 42% 55% 2%
NJ -15% 46% 44% 3%-- 42% 55% 2%
NM -33% 52% 35% 4%-- 40% 56% 3%
NV -15% 49% 39% 3%-- 45% 50% 2%
NY -30% 49% 41% 2%-- 37% 59% 1%
OH -14% 51% 37% 3%-- 48% 48% 1%
OK -17% 61% 27% 4%-- 56% 39% 2%
OR -22% 45% 43% 5%-- 38% 58% 1%
PA -15% 49% 39% 3%-- 46% 51% 1%
RI -12% 42% 46% 4%-- 40% 56% 2%
SC -13% 56% 31% 3%-- 54% 42% 1%
SD -4% 54% 33% 4%-- 57% 40% 2%
TN -9% 61% 28% 3%-- 60% 36% 1%
TX -13% 54% 34% 2%-- 51% 44% 1%
UT -23% 58% 31% 6%-- 50% 46% 3%
VA -12% 49% 41% 3%-- 46% 50% 1%
VT -23% 43% 45% 5%-- 36% 61% 2%
WA -23% 45% 44% 4%-- 37% 59% 1%
WI -16% 47% 41% 3%-- 43% 53% 2%
WV -7% 62% 25% 4%-- 63% 33% 3%
WY -4% 63% 23% 4%-- 66% 30% 3%
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

The data is at the bottom of the link, some kind of a yucky slide show premieres it.
Currently 25 states have a lower approval rating and a higher disapproval rating. A few are tied.
With this kind of drastic disapproval ratings & Mueller coming it's a good sign we won't see the second coming of the mentally depraved hypocrite currently occupying the white house.

[smirkymonkey]

1. K&R

It still just blows my mind how his approval rating can be so high in some states. What the hell is wrong with this country?

[akraven]

2. He didn't win the 2016 popular vote.

They paid off the Electoral College, which should be abolished.

[ADX]

6. I agree 1000%...

[retread]

11. "you would hear crickets here about abolishing the Electoral College. " No!! You wouldn't

even be able to hear yourself think over the screaming from the repugs. There would be a 24/7 pounding of the Electoral College from the MSM.

[VOX]

16. "Her popular vote margin over Trump all came from California"

This is a favorite chestnut over at Fox, Breitbart, etc.; Trump himself has used it, and it’s terribly dismissive of the State of California, as if it were a mere snap-on piece of the map, an accessory that can just be removed and thus some kind of “real picture” of America emerges with liberal California subtracted and out of the way.

While it’s technically mathematically correct in numbers only, when it’s used to prove some point, it’s grossly inconsiderate of the nearly 40 million Americans who live, work, pay (heavy) taxes and vote here.

One could just as easily pick any state or region, and add or subtract its votes to make some case for this-or-that trend, but somehow, it seems that California gets picked on first, primarily because it’s a powerhouse liberal state, and knocking it is a right-wing staple.

In case you haven’t guessed, I’m a native Californian, and my beef is the lack of representation for this state.

Take the six predominantly Republican States of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota and South Dakota. Six states, population about 4 million, 12 senators.
And California? Population 40 million, just two senators. 36 million more people, but no additional representation.

[Yavin4]

18. Hear! Hear! CA is one of the most important dynamic, states in the entire union.

More than a few states are nothing more than sparsely populated, giant ranches or farms, but they're considered "real America" because they listen to country music and have guns. Fuck that bullshit.

[Yavin4]

22. The slavery-era, Electoral College should be done away with

CA's results are important because that state reflects the true will of the totality of the American people.

[mr_lebowski]

26. IMHO, it's arbitrary to claim that the 2.8M 'all came from California' ...

The only way that could be logically claimed as 'factual' ... is if she lost the popular vote in every other state, which is clearly NOT the case.

California's population is equal to the combined population of numerous states that Trump won. So why can't we also just 'not count' the votes from Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska & Louisiana, for example? If we did THAT, I'm sure we'd discover she still won the popular vote by many millions WITHOUT California.

It's arbitrary to just subtract that one state where she totally kicked ass ... but NOT subtract a similarly populated group of states where Trump kicked ass, just to make the point that her popular vote victory came from that one state.

[mr_lebowski]

34. Yeah, actually, the fact that 'it's arbitrary' ... does mean ... 'it's wrong'.

If you are asserting 'the only reason she won the popular vote by 3M is because she won California by 3M votes' ... then you're wrong.

I'm not talking about ANY of the rest of what you're saying.

I'm just taking issue with that particular assertion.

That would only be true if she lost every other state, but the sheer volume of votes in CA was enough to give her the popular vote advantage. In lieu of that scenario (which is NOT the true scenario), every state in which she won the popular vote should properly be considered as 'part of her 3M vote advantage'.

[jimmy the one]

24. anti-trump libertarians & democrats got 51.5% of popular vote

vox: Her popular vote margin over Trump all came from California" ... One could just as easily pick any state or region, and add or subtract its votes to make some case for this-or-that trend,

Yes concur; same as accusing one particular senator or congressman for a certain unpopular bill for one side, since it was a one vote margin, as if the other congresspeople had nowt to do with the vote.

And as well, trump didnt just lose by 3 million votes, he lost by about 9.5 million votes, to predominantly four parties & 5 candidates: clinton, johnson-weld, mcmullin, stein. About 9.5 million outscores california by double.
Three of these 4 candidates might have formed a coalition AGAINST trump & most all of his controversial 2016 policies, but not one of the 4 would have formed a coalition WITH trump against any of the others. They were all essentially anti-trump, and far moreso re stein than against hillary clinton. (stein was anti-clinton - jill stein tweet, nov 2,2016: Just because I hold Clinton accountable doesn't mean I have "endorsed" Trump. They're both terrible candidates).

Indeed, Clinton & Democrats had a tacit 11th hour voter swap detentè with Libertarians (& other groups), so as to swap votes where clinton was certainly going to lose (dem to lib), to states where it was close (lib to dem). These two parties libertarian & democrat together had approx 51.5% of the popular vote, which is a majority in itself, and the two parties obviously & blatantly opposed trump, who had 46.0%, making it a 5.5 point spread, a minor mandate against trump just from those two parties alone. Probably toss in steins & mcmullins and its nearly a 7 pt spread.
So trump stooges should disabuse themselves that they had some *will of the people* behind them. They did not, the will was against trump & most all he stood for on campaign issues.

Weld urges support for Clinton if votes aren't with Libertarians ... Asked if he would tell a voter split between the two major party nominees to choose Clinton, Weld said, "Absolutely. I've sort of said that from Day One, I think. ... Hillary Clinton is former Gov. Bill Weld's second choice in the presidential election after his own -libertarian- ticket,.. I hope Gary Johnson and Bill Weld win the presidential election, but if we don't I hope Hillary Clinton does," Weld told reporters - I think Mr. Trump is massively unfit to be president just on grounds of stability and temperament, and Mrs. Clinton is perfectly fit. https://www.telegram.com/news/20161108/weld-urges-support-for-clinton-if-votes-arent-with-libertarians

Presidential ticket Party Ballot access Votes Percentage
States Electors % of voters
Trump / Pence Republican 50 + DC 538 100% 62,984,828 46.09%
Clinton / Kaine Democratic 50 + DC 538 100% 65,853,514 48.18%
Johnson / Weld Libertarian 50 + DC 538 100% 4,489,341 3.28%
Stein / Baraka Green 44 + DC 480 89% 1,457,218 1.07%
McMullin / Finn Independent 11 84 15% 731,991 0.54%
Castle / Bradley Constitution 24 207 39% 203,090 0.15%

CNN: .. had the Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests -- Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) -- Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency.
Johnson said he hoped his candidacy would wipe out the two-party system and, in a recent MSNBC appearance, literally held his nose shut at the mention of Clinton and Trump. Stein said she would not "sleep well" in the event of a Clinton or Trump presidency and suggested Clinton would be more likely to start a nuclear war than the current president-elect.
However, Johnson's running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, took a different tack. He defended Clinton regularly and argued Trump was a unique threat to the United States. https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/index.html

The Libertarians Reluctantly Voting For Hillary Clinton Because #NeverTrump Fear of a Trump presidency has put a number of libertarian-ish thinkers "with her." .. for a significant number of politicos, intellectuals, writers, artists, and other notables in the libertarian-ish sphere of thought, it's a day few expected: the day they vote for Hillary Clinton .. They are all generally united by a profound revulsion at the prospect of Donald Trump occupying the White House for the next four years. https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/08/libertarians-voting-clinton-nevertrump

also consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_pairing_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

[Jspur]

39. I have a comeback for the California excuse

line right wingers use when it comes to Clinton winning the Popular Vote. Here is what I tell these conservative nutcases which is that according to statistics you have to take out statistical outliers. IF your going to take out California then you have to also take out Texas since it's the largest republican state in the US and the second biggest state overall in the country. When you take out Texas and California then Hillary still wins the Popular Vote by around 300,000 votes. I have done the math before when crunching the numbers. This always shuts up the right wingers.

[sarisataka]

4. They paid off the Electoral College

Do you have a link to any evidence to support that statement or is it just hyperbole?
I believe there were very few surprises in the Electoral vote.

[helpisontheway]

5. Electoral college is what matters..nt

[katmondoo]

7. He won't be on the GOP ticket in 2020

[malaise]

8. Ditto

Hopefully he's in prison by then

[Cousin Dupree]

9. Because he will not be running after having been removed from office in 2019

[Cousin Dupree]

17. Call it what you want. This is my opinion and I'm stickin to it

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Electoral College math is all that matters and, sadly, Trump is still in an okay place...

Not a great place, but not an awful place, either, according to these polls.

The first thing we have to realize is that approval doesn't equal a share of the overall vote. Not this far out, anyway. At this point in Obama's presidency, he held actually worse overall popularity numbers in some key swing states than Trump currently:

Pennsylvania: 50.5 disapproval to 42.6 approval (https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/pennsylvania-obama-job-approval)
Ohio: 51.5 disapproval to 42.9 approval.
Wisconsin: 48.9 disapproval to 45.8 approval.

I could not find Michigan or Minnesota. However, in PA and Ohio, two states he won, he actually held worse approval/disapproval ratings in early 2011 than Trump does right now.

Obama was also at his most unpopular around this point and started his rebound in 2011. I am skeptical Trump will do anything remotely similar, but a lot is going to depend on how devastating the Mueller report is.

Overall, though, where Democrats should be concerned is the fact Trump's overall disapproval isn't massive in any of these states Democrats need to win in order to regain the White House. Ohio and Florida are still at least leaning Republican in 2020, which accounts for 47 electoral votes they won in 2012 and the other states are still pretty close - or way too close for comfort.

Wisconsin and Michigan seem to be the two furthest out of reach and two states I believe that will flip back to the Democrats in 2020. However, even then, that's not enough for the Democrats to win the White House. Not without either Ohio or Florida.

Iowa is also close to the tipping point of going back to the Democrats, as Trump really is struggling there after easily winning the state in 2016 (struggling there more than he is in other states he won by a narrower margin). Iowa could swing back to the Democrats. But again, it's not enough EV to win 'em the election without, say, Pennsylvania.

Trump only has a deficit of five-points in Pennsylvania. That means this state is still a toss-up. But it's one the democrats HAVE to win if they want to regain the White House. No questions.

Even if you give the Democrats New Hampshire, which Clinton won in 2016, and all those states I mentioned above, they're still short of the EC by 5 or 6 votes (depending on whether the Democrat wins all of Maine's EV). Then it comes down to PA.

BUT WAIT

Trump actually has a better approval rating in Virginia than he does in Pennsylvania. Virginia was a state that Hillary won in 2016 but Trump only has a deficit of four-points here. Take Virginia out and now the Democrats are 19 EV away from winning. The good news is that winning Pennsylvania would be enough if they held onto NH, even with one EV going to Trump from Maine. BUT that also means they gotta win both Colorado and Nevada and hope to stay blue in Iowa. In Nevada, Trump is underwater by the total he is in PA (5). Colorado is a bit more out of reach.

Basically, 2020, IF these numbers hold (they likely won't), will come down to these states:

Iowa
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Nevada
Ohio

Trump isn't being blown out of the water in approval/disapproval in any of 'em, so, that's good news for him.

He isn't, however, above water in any of these states, even Ohio, where he's tied, and that's good news for the Democrats.

But without Ohio and Florida, which Obama won twice, the margins become increasingly narrow and that's a fear. It'd be nice if the Democrats could have at least one of those states since Trump winning the WH is almost impossible without BOTH Florida and Ohio. But I am not sure they will. The fact Trump is still, at worst, 50/50 in Ohio tells me he's got a good shot of winning there - and he's above water in Florida.

One thing is certain: Dems need Pennsylvania.

[Polybius]

23. Very well said

We should never expect a cakewalk. I remember all of those horrible "Thank you for your concern" posts whenever we expressed worry in 2016.

[jimmy the one]

25. could sherrod brown swing ohio

Irishman: Electoral College math is all that matters and, sadly, Trump is still in an okay place..

That seems the only way republicans can win a presidential election these days, barring another 9-11 style attack which bonded gwbush support against john kerry, albeit just barely as he was riding on fumes. In the past 7 presidential elections the popular vote has been won by democrat candidates 6 of the 7, yet dems only got elected 4 of them.

irishman: without Ohio and Florida, which Obama won twice, the margins become increasingly narrow and that's a fear. It'd be nice if the Democrats could have at least one of those states

I wanted sen sherrod brown of ohio to run instead of hillary, after 2% biden dropped out. I think Sherrod or John Kerry again (always liked him) this time; brown could swing ohio, uh, maybe.....

irish: Trump actually has a better approval rating in Virginia than he does in Pennsylvania.

If you are referencing the morning consult poll I read it as both at 46% (unless tenths), with Va a 4pt spread vs pennys 5 pt. Which is alarming to me as I am in southern virginia. The poll has arizona at 47% approval to 49% disapproval, nice so far, maybe with the new dem senator campaigning theres a shot at it.

Then third party candidates (be damned), generally hurt dems mostly, which I posted an hour before this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211604789#post24

(I posted) And as well, trump didnt just lose by 3 million votes, he lost by about 9.5 million votes, to predominantly four parties & 5 candidates: clinton, johnson-weld, mcmullin, stein. About 9.5 million outscores california by double.
Three of these 4 candidates might have formed a coalition AGAINST trump & most all of his controversial 2016 policies, but not one of the 4 would have formed a coalition WITH trump against any of the others. They were all essentially anti-trump, and far moreso re stein than against hillary clinton. (stein was anti-clinton - jill stein tweet, nov 2,2016: Just because I hold Clinton accountable doesn't mean I have "endorsed" Trump. They're both terrible candidates).

Indeed, Clinton & Democrats had a tacit 11th hour voter swap detentè with Libertarians (& other groups), so as to swap votes where clinton was certainly going to lose (dem to lib), to states where it was close (lib to dem). These two parties libertarian & democrat together had approx 51.5% of the popular vote, which is a majority in itself, and the two parties obviously & blatantly opposed trump, who had 46.0%, making it a 5.5 point spread, a minor mandate against trump just from those two parties alone. Probably toss in steins & mcmullins and its nearly a 7 pt spread.
So trump stooges should disabuse themselves that they had some *will of the people* behind them. They did not, the will was against trump & most all he stood for on campaign issues.

Weld urges support for Clinton if votes aren't with Libertarians ... Asked if he would tell a voter split between the two major party nominees to choose Clinton, Weld said, "Absolutely. I've sort of said that from Day One, I think. ... Hillary Clinton is former Gov. Bill Weld's second choice in the presidential election after his own -libertarian- ticket,.. I hope Gary Johnson and Bill Weld win the presidential election, but if we don't I hope Hillary Clinton does," Weld told reporters - I think Mr. Trump is massively unfit to be president just on grounds of stability and temperament, and Mrs. Clinton is perfectly fit. https://www.telegram.com/news/20161108/weld-urges-support-for-clinton-if-votes-arent-with-libertarians

Presidential ticket Party Ballot access Votes Percentage
States Electors % of voters
Trump / Pence Republican 50 + DC 538 100% 62,984,828 46.09%
Clinton / Kaine Democratic 50 + DC 538 100% 65,853,514 48.18%
Johnson / Weld Libertarian 50 + DC 538 100% 4,489,341 3.28%
Stein / Baraka Green 44 + DC 480 89% 1,457,218 1.07%
McMullin / Finn Independent 11 84 15% 731,991 0.54%
Castle / Bradley Constitution 24 207 39% 203,090 0.15%

CNN: .. had the Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests -- Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) -- Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. See Post 29

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11610834

Can Trump win? Of course. Is he more likely than not to win I would strongly argue no.

His victory in 016 was the equivalent of pulling an inside straight in poker. If long tail events happened with frequency they wouldn't be long tail events.

You have to trust the process.

[jcgoldie]

30. Based on the midterm results

Trump will have a very hard time getting WI, MI, or PA... with that combination FL & OH don't matter.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. Agreed. It's an uphill battle for sure...

But it's not the slam dunk I want it to be. :/

[sarcasmo]

12. Trump will not be on the 2020 GOP ticket.

[Yavin4]

19. None of these polls matter because we don't know who Trump's opponent will be. n/t

[Polybius]

20. 66% of WY approves of Trump?

WTF?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Due to subtle population shifts

Due to subtle population shifts among the various groups if our candidate does as well as Hillary he or she wins the popular vote by 3,000,000 and the Electoral College 279-259:

• 2016 baseline: Democrats would win the popular vote by 3 points, and they would take
back Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to carry the Electoral College 279-259.

https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/States-of-Change-2018-Americas-Electoral-Future.pdf

[oberliner]

31. What about Electoral?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. If you took every state where Trump is upside down he would lose the Electoral College.

Of course it's not that simple.

[oberliner]

35. We need to be strong in a few key states

If we can get PA back along with MI and WI then we should be in good shape.

Hopefully we will nominate a candidate who can do well in those places.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. States we have a real shot of flipping -in order

MI
PA
WI
FL
IA
NC
GA
AZ
TX

[oberliner]

37. All we need really is those first three and we win

As long as we hold all the states HRC carried.

[jimmy the one]

40. electoral college can lead to unwarranted super power

oberliner: All we need really is those first three and we win .. As long as we hold all the states HRC carried.

Were some candidate in a second or third world country to win a presidential election when losing the popular vote to someone receiving 3 million more votes, the election would probably be deemed by the US govt as a fraudulent or rigged election.
But in america, through some kind of bizarre rule & reasoning from 230 years ago when politics was far different than it is today, the electoral college has become some kind of macabre method of aberrantly achieving unwarranted super powers.