Nate Silver: The 2018 Map Looked A Lot Like 2012 ... And That Got Me Thinking About 2020

[Quixote1818]

Renewed strength in the Upper Midwest would be great news for Democrats.
By Nate Silver

Filed under 2018 Election

With Democrats having won the House but not the Senate on Tuesday — and with President Trump still in the White House — we’re headed for two years of divided government. That doesn’t mean there won’t be news, like … oh, say, the president firing the attorney general the day after the election.

But it does mean that pretty much every political battle is going to be pitched with an eye toward 2020. And 2020 will be a unique year in that the House, Senate and presidency are all potentially in play.1 How the presidency goes is anybody’s guess. But Trump took advantage of the Electoral College last time around, winning the tipping-point state (Wisconsin) by about 1 percentage point even though he lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points. If Trump has the same edge in 2020, that could go a long way toward winning him a second term.

The thing is, though, that the Electoral College advantage is historically pretty ephemeral. Relatively subtle changes in political conditions can make the Electoral College go from helping you to hurting you. In 2008 and 2012, for example, the Electoral College worked toward Democrats’ benefit, as Barack Obama would likely have won it in the event of a popular vote tie.

So here’s some slightly scary news for Trump: The 2018 map looked more like 2012 than 2016, with Democrats performing quite well in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the three states that essentially won Trump the election two years ago.

As a “fun,” day-after-the-election experiment, I decided to add up the total popular vote for the U.S. House in each state, based on ABC News’s tally of votes as of Wednesday afternoon. This isn’t a perfect exercise, by any means. The vote is still being counted in many states; there are a few dozen congressional districts where one of the parties (usually Republicans) didn’t nominate a candidate. I did make one adjustment for a slightly different problem, which is that Florida doesn’t bother to count votes in uncontested races, something that cost Democrats in the neighborhood of 720,000 votes off their popular-vote tally in that state.2
With those caveats aside, here’s the map you come up with if you count up the popular vote. It ought to look familiar. In fact, it’s the same exact map by which Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, except with Ohio going to Republicans. It would have equated to 314 electoral votes for Democrats and 224 for the GOP.

?w=575

More: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2018-map-looked-a-lot-like-2012-and-that-got-me-thinking-about-2020/

[Garrett78]

1. What's scary is that we lose if you take away Florida, Iowa and just 10 more electoral votes.

We could lose Iowa, Florida and Wisconsin by just a handful of votes and Trump is re-elected. I hate the electoral college.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Maybe but fact Dems can still lose Ohio and Florida and win the White House is a huge advantage...

I'd still be the Democrats instead of the Republicans when it comes to electoral math. Republicans will still have no margin for error to win the White House in 2020. Democrats have two right off the bat.

[Garrett78]

5. Absolutely, but the fact remains Republicans have a shot precisely because of the electoral college.

Even with all their cheating, there's no way a Republican is going to win the popular vote in a national race.

[still_one]

4. but at the same time we have a very good chance take back the Senate. No one should assume

that trump will make it to 2020. The consequences of the Mueller report I think will present revelations that will have major consequences for the trump administration, and the republican party.

[Garrett78]

6. For sure. I'm certainly hoping Trump is forced to resign, as that will divide the GOP base.

[still_one]

7. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Cosmocat]

18. Hes going to be on the ballot in 2020

There is no scenario that he will can be removed, and there is no chance, none, he resigns.

[still_one]

20. You have read the Mueller report? You also do not believe he will be challenged within his own

party. There are at least two people who are making noise to challenge trump for the republican nomination.

No one can predict the future, including if his health will hold out. He doesn't look particularly healthy

[Cosmocat]

21. It isn't a "prediction"

The next time "his party" and that is what it is, stands up to him will be the first time.

Mueller could have video of Putin sexually dominating him on the American Flag and they will do what they ALWAYS DO - make themselves out to be victims and create some insane logic to make it about the evil liberal boogyman.

That is a simple fact.

He has historic high levels of support in his party. IF someone runs against him, he is going to win the nomination even easier than he did the last time.

He is NOT going to step down, people have been doing this nonsense from day one, Oh, gee he is going to quit. He literally does nothing but a dozen campaign stops a week. He is running for 2020 now, has been since the day he stepped into the white house.

He needs POTUS to protect him and his family via the power of the pardon, he needs POTUS to become a dictator who can have Jim Acosta jailed and killed, he needs to be dictator to have Jr. take over when he is done.

There is literally nothing that can get him out out of office between now and 2020, even if the house were to vote for articles of impeachment, zero, none, nada, chance you will get 15+ republican senators to impeach him.

Honestly, its a toss up he won't flat in reelection, and a good chance even if he loses, he will need to be forcibly removed from the white house.

[Bettie]

23. So far no one, literally NO ONE in his party

has stood against him. They make a few weak grunts about "tradition" or whatever and then they silently do as they are told.

Not one of those toadies will run against him.

[radius777]

9. Dems have to do better in FL,

both with resolving voter suppression issues as well as with turning out our voters.

A highly diverse state like FL w/large metro areas should be light blue by now.

We need to focus more on properly turning out votes from metro (cities and near suburbs) areas, our true base.

OH/IA are gone imo, too old/white and nationalism has taken hold in that region.

[Garrett78]

10. Yeah, Florida is diverse enough that we can't give up on it. And it has nearly 30 electoral votes.

Historically, Florida is red in midterms and purple in presidential elections. We did better than normal on Tuesday night. There's hope for Florida...at least until it's literally under water.

Outside of New England, it's pretty tough for us to win in those states where white folks make up 80+ percent of the population. We may eventually in a saner world get Ohio and Iowa back, but for now, our focus has to be elsewhere.

[BluegrassDem]

13. I also think Ohio and Iowa are not worth it....better to concentrate on AZ

Hillary came close to winning AZ and GA without even putting much money there. FL is tough, but we have to try to win it again. But Ohio and Iowa are too old and white. Ohio is going the way of Missouri. Time to put our energies in Arizona and maybe Georgia.

[LisaL]

16. Yes, OH seems to be getting redder. We lost every statewide race there except for Senate.

[radius777]

31. Agree. AZ, GA, NC, TX

are all red states that seem to be trending like CO, NV, and VA.

There are growing cities/metros there- young people, diversity, college educated, NY/CA transplants, etc - demographics that are more culturally liberal and internationalist.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin did not trend away

There was no ideological shift at all in those states. I emphasized that in the front page journal were were allowed to write after election 2016 when the site was down for weeks.

First thing I always look at is the liberal/conservative split in the exit poll. It was an amazingly favorable drop to 9% gap nationally -- 36% conservatives and 27% liberals. That was the first dip below 10% I've ever seen.

And those 3 states were all 9% or lower. That means they are still loyal Democratic states that were taken for granted or didn't like the nominee, or some combination.

[Quixote1818]

8. Agree, every Dem politician running for President needs to focus on all of those states

like they are pure gold! They are fundamentally with us but cannot be taken for granted. That actually goes for ANY blue swing state. And it would not hurt to at least drop into solid blue and red states to help out local candidates.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Those states are not blue enough to be taken for granted

I have no idea how 4-6 point poll leads can be taken for granted. It's not like those states have more liberals than conservatives, like New Jersey.

In fairness we didn't take Pennsylvania for granted, unlike Michigan and Wisconsin. Hillary campaigned in Pennsylvania but she seemed to think it was almost certain, and instead wasted time in states like North Carolina and Ohio.

I don't have much confidence in North Carolina, given the 40+% of conservatives even in a presidential year. No margin for error. That state will flip our way as a bonus, not as vital.

Ohio looks very bad, at least in the short term. I have somewhat more hope in Iowa.

Florida is still a better opportunity than North Carolina or Ohio or Iowa but we've got to make it an immediate priority at every level, from registering voters to contacting existing voters. I like the idea I read somewhere about handwritten letters more effective than flyers.

No kidding. I look at the flyers for 3 seconds then toss them in the recycle bin. A political hand letter I think I would mention to others and keep forever.

[dsc]

17. writing off NC is foolish

We went four for four on Tuesday in state wide races (3 appellate judges and 1 supreme court but all partisan identified). We got more of the two party vote in the 12 contested US Rep races (thanks to gerrymandering we lost them 9 to 3) and only lost the over all vote 50.3 to 49.7 when you include the races we didn't contest. We also defeated 2 of the 3 most partisan amendments (only voter ID won). NC is a truly purple state and has 15 EV. In 2024 it will have 16.

[Awsi Dooger]

30. North Carolina is considerably more difficult on federal level

Like 2016 when we took the governorship despite losing Hillary and the very tight senate race.

I always look at the conservative/liberal split, which does not budge in North Carolina, unlike Virginia and Florida and Colorado and Arizona. North Carolina in 2016 reported 43% conservatives to only 22% liberals. Sorry, but that is a waste of time. You are not going to get a Democrat across the line in a balanced election nationally, in a state with 43% conservatives.

The media does a monumentally incompetent job in failing to specify the ideology by state. That category dictates outcomes, far beyond polling and far beyond the relationship between Democrats and Republicans.

I guess I shouldn't mind because using that category allows me to win almost every wager I make cycle after cycle, but it is baffling. It would be like NFL pundits ignoring the quarterback.

North Carolina is a bonus state. We cannot win North Carolina unless our nominee wins nationally by let's say 4+ points in the popular vote. Otherwise it is not going to happen, not until that 43% shows signs of weakness and decline. It needs to be below 40% in a presidential year and preferably 38% or lower.

[Cosmocat]

24. Hillary paid plenty of attention to PA

it just was decades of hate framing her that did her in, not just in Pa. but across the country.

Driving around PA, you could see dozens of homes with absurd displays with some straw man of her in cage sitting on a toilet, things like that.

She campaigned in PA plenty, had Biden working his home state, other surrogats.

Her being here and campaigning more would not changed the outcome, the country just if that fucking stupid.

[phleshdef]

11. Ohio and Florida can flip on a dime, we just need the right candidate.

Think about Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, Obama/McCain, Obama/Romney, Clinton/Dipshit... we can turn this thing around, we just need someone who can do what Obama did.

[BluegrassDem]

14. Dems need to wake up...Ohio is the next Missouri

Each year it's getting more and more red. Even Obama barely won the state in 2012. Hillary got killed in Ohio and Iowa. And we didn't do that good there in 2018, even in a wave year. We can't keep pouring money in there at the expense of states trending in our favor, like Arizona. Now if Sherrod Brown were the nominee, that would be different.

[LisaL]

15. Maybe he should be the nominee.

He obviously has cross-over appeal.

[still_one]

22. I believe the Democrats are well aware of our vulnerablility in Ohio. DeWine wisely played both

sides of the coin with both trump and Kasich, and put most of his emphasis on his public service in Ohio

Using what happened in 2016 I don't think is a good comparison. 2016 was completely distorted because of what Comey did, and other factors. I do agree with your basic assessment that Ohio is getting more red, and that is demonstrated by this midterm election.

I would hope that Sherrod Brown would NOT run for President in 2020. We need him in the Senate, and we have a real chance to recapture the Senate in 2020. It would not be good having to defend Brown's seat if he wanted to run for President I don't believe

[radius777]

32. Agree, we'd never get Brown's seat back. /nt

[NewJeffCT]

26. Texas was almost as close as Ohio

Georgia and Arizona were closer than Ohio and Iowa.

Texas was an 8.99% victory for Trump. Ohio was +8.13% for Trump.

In 2012, Romney won Texas by almost double that amount (15+%), while Obama won a close race in Ohio.

Perhaps Democrats should look at Texas and Arizona and work on registering and increasing Latino turnout?

[Cosmocat]

25. Agree that Ohio is lost

Florida is worth battling for, but not getting the governors office is a B I G blow.

You can't get a straight election down there to begin with, having R control ...

Ohio just is an odd mix of northern religious fundamentalism, standard ruralish conservative pride and being a meth fantasy land. They manage to get R leadership in the state that offers just enough of an appearance of being "reasonable" to normalize conservative fuckwittery.

[Buckeyeblue]

19. This analysis makes sense

And I think as many of the comments suggest it will depend a lot on the candidate. Also, will the never-trump crowd mount a more viable third party candidate?

I like the idea of a non-dc based candidate who has ties to the west (any state west of the Missouri river).

[bearsfootball516]

27. Notice that if we just win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, that put us over 270

Don't need Iowa, Florida or Ohio.

[tman]

28. We are underdogs in Ohio & Florida

Make no mistake....but we still have a great shot at winning the White House if WI, PA and MI come back into the fold.

This election was a very good sign.

[onetexan]

29. NV, CO & NM are deep BLUE!!!!

and Texas & AZ pink? That is great progress!!!