History may yet intervene in the Rachel Bitecofer predictive model for the 2020 general election. Regardless, it might give one a sense of hope for 2020 because of its lead time and parsimony. One hopes that she gets more than a few calls from the DNC or various candidates’ staffs.
Worry about professor Bitecofer’s contingencies, because they are the ones with the highest continuing 2020 anxieties including dog-wagging, a Perot effect, “the economy, stupid”, and another 9/11.
This is a set of historical variables without even mentioning ideological/race/class/education divisions that trouble folks about “independent” voters.
There may be an historical “shock to the system”, intentional or otherwise, considering the “crash and riots” that Trump wanted in 2014, and also considering the combination of information bombs like Comey and HRC emails on media effects in 2016.
Looking ahead to the 2020 Electoral College map, my model delivers on two of the most critical elements of election forecasting: lead time and parsimony, that is, simplicity. It’s probably not lost on you, dear reader, that I am offering a forecast not for the presidential primary election, itself still in its infancy, but for the November 2020 general election that is some 16 months away. And I am offering a forecast free from all the trappings you are used to. There are no poll aggregators, no daily or weekly updates, no simple versus deluxe versions. Right now, there is not even a nominee! By and large, I don’t expect that the specific nominee the Democratic electorate chooses will matter all that much unless it ends up being a disruptor like Bernie Sanders.
Indeed, the only massive restructuring I might have to make to this forecast involves a significant upheaval like the entrance of a well-funded Independent candidate such as Howard Schultz into the general election, which our national survey in March shows would likely to pull 5 votes away from the Democrats’ nominee for each one vote it would pull away from Trump. Other potential significant disruptions might be a ground war with Iran, an economic recession, or a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11. Otherwise, the country’s hyperpartisan and polarized environment has largely set the conditions of the 2020 election in stone. As unpopular as Donald Trump is today, and no matter how badly he trails his potential Democratic rivals in head-to-head polls right now, on Election Day Donald Trump will earn the vote of somewhere around 90% of self-identified Republicans. And as 2018 demonstrated, Republicans will increase their turnout rate over 2016.
This, combined with a floor for Trump among Independents of around 38% (because of right-leaning Independents) and an infusion of cash that will dwarf his 2016 efforts, Trump has a floor that is at least theoretically competitive for reelection and will force Democrats to compete hard to win the presidency. The polarized era doesn’t produce Reagan Era Electoral College landslide maps.
cnu.edu/…
Barring a shock to the system, Democrats recapture the presidency. The leaking of the Trump campaign’s internal polling has somewhat softened the blow of this forecast, as that polling reaffirms what my model already knew: Trump’s 2016 path to the White House, which was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker, is probably not replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate. And that is really bad news for Donald Trump because the Blue Wall of the Midwest was then, and is now, the ONLY viable path for Trump to win the White House.
cnu.edu/...
The “probably not replicable” variable element is troubling if only because there are some other contingencies like Russian interference, vote suppression, and the above potential disasters. Individual-1 is not only an outlier, but an out-and-out liar, willing to sell the country out to a rogues gallery of interests. Agitated Democrats should have greater agita in 2020, it’s just that important.
Why wasn’t this given more airplay in 2016:
Merde
And Individual-1 tweets some idiotic photoshop of one of his hotels in Greenland because it will outrage his critics …. not.