Imagine a nightmare scenario:
The Democratic Presidential nominee wins California by an additional one million votes, and gains 800,000 votes in Texas, and wins extra popular votes elsewhere, winning the national popular vote by 6 million, but not gaining Texas in the Electoral College.
The Democratic Presidential nominee wins Michigan and Pennsylvania from Donald Trump, winning 36 electoral votes.
But Donald Trump has a chance to win New Mexico (5), Nevada (6) and New Hampshire (4) in the Electoral College. But let’s assume Trump does NOT win these states.
Donald Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida by small margins, winning 89 electoral votes.
Donald Trump wins the Electoral College 270-268!
So, in summary, the only change under this scenario is that Trump loses Michigan and Pennsylvania, but wins every other state he won in 2016, and he wins by the barest margin!
I’m in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, especially after I learned about its racial history.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016/12/30/abolish-the-electoral-college-rich-barlow
Rustbelt Democrat, the problem is that the Electoral College is in the Constitution, and an amendment to get rid of it requires a two thirds vote of each house of Congress, and ratification by 38 state legislatures, which will never occur.
The plan for an Interstate Compact Agreement, which I have written about before, to have state legislatures instruct electors to support the popular vote winner in their states, has made progress, but it could be challenged in the courts as denying the vote of the people in specific states.
David Wasserman has a piece at “NBC News,†from July 19, 2019, titled “How Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win in 2020â€: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-trump-could-lose-5-million-votes-still-win-2020-n1031601.
Wasserman writes, “The ultimate nightmare scenario for [2020] Democrats might look something like this: [Donald] Trump loses the popular vote by more than 5 million ballots [raw votes], and the Democratic nominee converts Michigan and Pennsylvania back to blue. But Trump wins re-election by two Electoral votes by barely hanging onto Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District—one of the whitest and least college-educated districts in the country.â€
In the United States presidential election of 2016, approximately 137 million votes were cast for U.S. president.
Hillary Clinton won a Democratic hold of the U.S. Popular Vote with a raw-vote margin of +2,868,518 votes and a percentage-points margin of +2.09.
Due to the fact that not every United States presidential election has the same number of votes—or millions of votes—cast for U.S. president, I prefer to focus most often on the percentage-points margins. This is especially the case with one comparable election cycle followed by the next. It is important to track shifts, from the prior cycle, because it helps to determine outcomes which deliver party switches.
Over the last three presidential cycles—2008, 2012, and 2016—there were 131 million, 128 million, and 137 million votes cast for U.S. president. If 2020 motivates more individual votes to vote for U.S. president, or part of it may be a rise in eligible voters, perhaps the estimate can be 140 million votes.
Losing the U.S. Popular Vote by –5 million votes, in 2020, with 140 million votes cast, will be losing by around –3.50 percentage points. In 2016, Trump finished with –2.09. So, this is suggesting a 2016-to-2020 Republican underperformance of around –1.50 as Trump still manages to win a second term.
Trump won four states, all in 2016 Republican pickups, by less than +1.50: Florida (+1.19), Wisconsin (+0.76), Pennsylvania (+0.72), and Michigan (+0.22). They were his 27th, 28th (and tipping point), 29th, 30th best-performed (from a carried 30) states. They combined for 75 electoral votes. Trump won originally with 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s original 232.
It is really difficult to imagine Trump losing by that much a raw-vote [margin], in the U.S. Popular Vote, and still prevail. (It was actually the level on which 2012 losing Mitt Romney performed. He lost by –4,984,100 raw votes and –3.86 percentage points.)
The scenario, suggested by Wasserman, is counting on a similar outcome in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2,868,518 and carried California by +4,269,978. Approximately 150 percent her national voting support came from California.
A winning Republican or Democrat, with the raw-vote margin from the top populous state normally aligned to his party (for the Republicans, it has been Texas; for the Democrats, it has been California), will not typically carry that state with 100 percent or above one’s raw-vote margin in the U.S. Popular Vote.
Carry with 50 percent of so one’s national support in that top populous state? Sure. This applied to 2004 re-elected Republican George W. Bush, with Texas, and 2012 re-elected Democrat Barack Obama, with California. Bush had about 55 percent his national support from Texas. Obama had about 60 percent his national support from California.
For percentage-points margins, and just how much more redder or bluer is a given state, California has usually performed about +15 points more Democratic than the nation. It can end up closer to +20. (It was about 18 points followed by nearly 20 points bluer than the nation for both of Obama’s elections.) 2016 Hillary Clinton won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.09 and carried California by +29.99. It was nearly +28 points more Democratic than the nation. Had Trump won the U.S. Popular Vote, he would have won with essentially Hillary’s margin. So, that means—looking at it that way—2016 California was +32 points more Democratic than the nation.
There may be a ceiling in California. Under normally aligned voting pattern, a Democrat having carried California by +30—or let’s send that number further north to, say, +33 or +35—would usually be the result of that Democratic nominee or incumbent winning the presidency, yes, but also the U.S. Popular Vote with a margin between +10 and +15.
I look at 2016 California as I do 1988 Iowa: That midwest state was a Democratic pickup for Michael Dukakis by +10.21. He lost in the U.S. Popular Vote by –7.73. This means 1988 Iowa was nearly +18 points more Democratic than the nation. In 1984, Iowa—despite it having carried for re-electing Ronald Reagan—was 10 points bluer than the nation. From 1992 to 2012, Iowa was routinely no greater than 3 points in margin spread from the U.S. Popular Vote. (Circumstances in 1988 Iowa made it unique in its way as did 2016 California in its way.) So, 2016 California severely overperformed for Hillary Clinton and severely underperformed for Donald Trump. (Perhaps this was due to very personal voting results—an embracing of Hillary with a simultaneous rejecting of Trump.)
We will have to see how this plays in 2020 California. Meaning, will it end up, again, +28 or +32 points more Democratic than the nation? Or, like 1988-to-1992 Iowa, will it deliver a Republican shift to stabilize to a more normal level for the Democrats? (If I made my living in Democratic politics, without a +10-point victory in the U.S. Popular Vote, that is what I would prefer. I would rather have the raw-vote margins spread to other states.)
If Donald Trump wins re-election, in 2020, I think he would end up with increased support. Not lose by –2.8 million in the U.S. Popular Vote. Not lose by an even worse –5 million raw votes. There would be a 2016-to-2020 shift in his direction. But, if I turn out to be wrong, and the premise of what was mentioned by Wasserman materializes, Trump going from –2.09 to, say, –3.59 can be enough to surrender Pennsylvania and Michigan but keep Wisconsin to enable Trump to win a second term with 270 electoral votes.
I will add: In their history, every two-term presidential winner (this does not count four-term winner Franklin Roosevelt) who carried Pennsylvania and Michigan in their first-term election carried them both with re-election. (The two states have voted differently only five times since the latter’s first vote in 1836—in 1848, 1856, 1932, 1940, and 1976.) And I am thinking the two, along with Wisconsin (which I sense may again end up the tipping point state of Election 2020), will vote the same—along with Florida—and vote with the winner.
I wrote about some of these estimates, in my comment, in Ronald’s previous blog topic, “16 Months to Election: 15 States in Contention in Electoral College†(July 20, 2019 @ https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=37159).
“A 2020 Donald Trump can lose the U.S. Popular Vote by –3, down from his –2.09 from 2016, and surrender Michigan and Pennsylvania but hold Wisconsin and end up with exactly 270 electoral votes. This is feasible. It will depend on how this Rust Belt trio is playing out during 2020. So, this why I think the 2020 Democratic challenger, if succeeding in unseating Trump, would win the U.S. Popular Vote with a margin no less than +4.â€
This means, to be able to get by, Trump has to avoid not losing the U.S. Popular Vote by –4 percentage points.
Thanks again, D, for your excellent commentary, food for thought!
His first term has been a nightmare already!
Another nightmare scenario. Trump loses the election and doesn’t want to leave.
I’m also afraid of what he’ll do if he loses.
I don’t think I can take another 4 years of the orange buffoon.
If our family had enough money, we’d move, as we are ashamed of our country. The orange buffoon and his supporters have put our country into the gutter.
And we’re getting rather irked at Nancy Pelosi’s hesitation to impeach the orange buffoon. There have been so many things he’s done that qualify him for impeachment.
Former Republican, I totally agree that there are plenty of grounds for impeaching Trump, even if he will not be removed, but for the record of history!
If Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson could be impeached and yet not removed for far less, then Trump NEEDS to be impeached.
I have stated this in recent months on here, and will do so again soon!
I understand how you feel, Former Republican.
As for Pelosi, maybe she’s waiting for Mueller’s testimony tomorrow.
Earlier today the fool was tweeting about nuking Afghanistan.
Congress passed the 9/11 compensation funding that has been championed by Jon Stewart.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/23/politics/senate-vote-9-11-victim-compensation-fund-for-decades/index.html
About time the Senate finally did something useful.
Mitch McConnell blocking legislation is another thing that irks me. The House is passing things such as raising the minimum wage, anti-corruption legislation, etc., yet he is keeping things like that from coming to the Senate floor.