Trump should have Reagan numbers based on economy, and yet. That makes this race closer than it would otherwise have a right to be.
I think it's hard as hell to get a read on it right now. I think the question of do you think your neighbor would vote for Trump would still give the best indication. I think so many are turned off by the personality of Trump, but like his policies.
My neighbors will all vote for Trump, and I'll eat my hat if any one can name one of his policies, that he dreamed up, pushed through Congress, and then signed as law.
That you equate "one" as "all" is interesting. I'm not speaking in hyperbole. I doubt they could name one piece of legislation.
i imagine they could tell you about the tax cuts. Outside of Obamacare and maybe the stimulus what would the average democrat know from the obama administration?
They don't strike me as even knowing about that, to be honest. I'm not saying it to slight their party, just them. They dumb. But I bet over wine, they'd all talk about "Trumps policies." It'd be the same if they were all Democrats. They'd talk about "Obama's policies" and then be able to name none.
Mason-Dixon usually skews to the right in their results, but Tennessee is about as red a state as you will find. So, those are probably accurate and we'll get zero visits from any candidate during the general election (for those silly advocates of the electoral college).
it is worth mentioning that some of the "neither or other" choosers in these polls either won't vote at all or end up picking one. so the separation may be off. Also Clinton lost when she was up 2.1%. For a Democrat to win, they probably need 3 to 6 % more of the popular vote.
Trump was at 60% against Clinton. These are skewed the wrong way. And that 60% was still with a 5-6% third party.
Only polls I will really follow with be Florida, NC, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia.
If Georgia is in doubt the election is long over, Texas even more so (I don't think either go Biden). And, if Biden wins all the Hillary states, which much of them are pretty stalwart Democratic states (Trump made a crazy successful run through nearly all the tossup states) except maybe New Hampshire and possibly Minnesota, then he only really needs Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Or, just Florida and Wisconsin. But, Florida would go blue after those other three, most likely, which would make Florida superfluous to Biden. I fashion myself a bit of a junkie on the electoral stuff and, as of right now, it looks fairly dire for Trump. Michigan looks to be well within Biden's camp and Pennsylvania is somewhat there, too. Wisconsin, as always, will be a gameday decision. But, Trump 100% has to have Florida, Ohio and most surely even smaller states like Iowa and Arizona. Those last two aren't necessarily important for the math, but, if he's losing those states, then it's a devastating indicator for Trump. I kept saying in 2016 the board is set up for a better chance of a Democrat winning as they have more electoral votes in their pocket and rely on fewer tossup states to win. Trump needs a similar run on those purple states in 2020, which is why I've also said he needed to bring more into his coalition than simply creating a stark divide between his supporters and opponents. The successful recent politicians in this age of division, Obama, Bush, Bubba Clinton, were able to do this. Despite this, we're still just in June. A lot can change and this wouldn't be the first election to massively swing in another direction from the summer months. 1980 definitely comes to mind. The difference here from then is most people have pretty much set opinions on who they will vote for. But, there can still be major economic news, major faux pas on the trail (Biden isn't exactly the most solid of candidates) and all kinds of shit which could occur. This is 2020, after all. So, I'm not much moved from my 50-50 thought on the election right now, maybe 55-45 for Biden. I can say I'm not looking forward to the campaign. It's going to be ugly and stupid.
