thread 1 of 14
Trump can win Wisconsin, but I believe his path is uphill. This is not based on polls, but rather on turnout. It’s not enough to simply get people who voted for him in ’16 to do so again. This thread will examine that path.
Trump can win Wisconsin, but I believe his path is uphill. This is not based on polls, but rather on turnout. It’s not enough to simply get people who voted for him in ’16 to do so again. This thread will examine that path.
2 of 14
Let’s start with review of what happened in ’16. The “Trump effect” was big increase in rural areas and big drop in suburban areas. Here is an example:
Let’s start with review of what happened in ’16. The “Trump effect” was big increase in rural areas and big drop in suburban areas. Here is an example:
3 of 14
In 2016 Trump received roughly the same number of votes as Romney in 2012. Hillary, on the other hand, received 239,000 fewer votes than Obama. Overall turnout was down 92,000.
In 2016 Trump received roughly the same number of votes as Romney in 2012. Hillary, on the other hand, received 239,000 fewer votes than Obama. Overall turnout was down 92,000.
4 of 14
Much of the “Hillary drop off” are Obama voters who couldn’t vote for either in ’16. Hillary is gone, but Trump is still here. This suggests that, if they return, they are easier for Biden to get. This is the basis for why I say WI is “uphill” for the President.
Much of the “Hillary drop off” are Obama voters who couldn’t vote for either in ’16. Hillary is gone, but Trump is still here. This suggests that, if they return, they are easier for Biden to get. This is the basis for why I say WI is “uphill” for the President.
5 of 14
If turnout returns to 2012 levels (which intensity on both sides suggests it will), Trump will need to garner at least 110,000 more voters in 2020 than in ’16. That equals 8% more than the 1.4 million he got in ’16.
If turnout returns to 2012 levels (which intensity on both sides suggests it will), Trump will need to garner at least 110,000 more voters in 2020 than in ’16. That equals 8% more than the 1.4 million he got in ’16.
6 of 14
Can he do that? Yes. Will it be easy? No.
Rural areas can keep Trump where he was in ’16, but bulk of new votes will have to come from suburbia/cities.
Not all areas can produce an extra 8% for Trump, so other areas will have to produce more than an increase of 8%.
Can he do that? Yes. Will it be easy? No.
Rural areas can keep Trump where he was in ’16, but bulk of new votes will have to come from suburbia/cities.
Not all areas can produce an extra 8% for Trump, so other areas will have to produce more than an increase of 8%.
7 of 14
Trump is close to “maxing out” in rural areas – an extra 8% is hard to come by (think “blood out of turnip”).
But suburbia saw a large presidential “undervote” in 2016 – many voters voted for Republican Ron Johnson for US senate but didn’t vote for anyone for president.
Trump is close to “maxing out” in rural areas – an extra 8% is hard to come by (think “blood out of turnip”).
But suburbia saw a large presidential “undervote” in 2016 – many voters voted for Republican Ron Johnson for US senate but didn’t vote for anyone for president.
8 of 14
Rural max out – Let’s us my hometown of Minocqua as an example. 8% more for Trump means he needs 154 additional votes. But if Minocqua returns to 2012 voting level there will only be 124 additional voters. And many of these would be Obama 2012 voters.
Rural max out – Let’s us my hometown of Minocqua as an example. 8% more for Trump means he needs 154 additional votes. But if Minocqua returns to 2012 voting level there will only be 124 additional voters. And many of these would be Obama 2012 voters.
9 of 14
There were also 141 voters in Minocqua who voted 3rd party. If ½ of those continue to vote 3rd party, that leaves 70 people you can combine with the 124 new voters for a pool of 194 people from which Trump needs 154 (or 80%) of them. That’s a tall order.
There were also 141 voters in Minocqua who voted 3rd party. If ½ of those continue to vote 3rd party, that leaves 70 people you can combine with the 124 new voters for a pool of 194 people from which Trump needs 154 (or 80%) of them. That’s a tall order.
10 of 14
It’s much easier for Trump to find 8% new voters in suburbs/ cities because Trump is far from maxed out there. We’ll use Elm Grove as example. Trump received 2,285 voters there, but at the same time Ron Johnson received 2,840 votes. That’s 555 (24%) more than Trump.
It’s much easier for Trump to find 8% new voters in suburbs/ cities because Trump is far from maxed out there. We’ll use Elm Grove as example. Trump received 2,285 voters there, but at the same time Ron Johnson received 2,840 votes. That’s 555 (24%) more than Trump.
11 of 14
Non-Trump Johnson voters are more than 8% of Trump’s total (by comparison, Trump and Johnson received about the same number of votes in Minocqua). An extra 8% in Elm Grove for Trump would equal 183 voters. The pool of non-Trump Johnson voters plus new voters is 726.
Non-Trump Johnson voters are more than 8% of Trump’s total (by comparison, Trump and Johnson received about the same number of votes in Minocqua). An extra 8% in Elm Grove for Trump would equal 183 voters. The pool of non-Trump Johnson voters plus new voters is 726.
12 of 14
In crucial Waukesha Cty. Trump received 142kvotes. To gain 8% he would need 154k. Meanwhile, Ron Johnson got 161k – 13% more than Trump. Note that most of these non-Trump Johnson voters didn’t vote for Hillary or 3rd party – they simply left president ballot blank.
In crucial Waukesha Cty. Trump received 142kvotes. To gain 8% he would need 154k. Meanwhile, Ron Johnson got 161k – 13% more than Trump. Note that most of these non-Trump Johnson voters didn’t vote for Hillary or 3rd party – they simply left president ballot blank.
13 of 14
This huge undervote for president is the key for Trump. The total Trump undervote in the Milwaukee area was 53,000 votes – almost ½ of the additional 110,000 votes Trump needs. They are Republican leaning voters who didn’t vote for Trump.
This huge undervote for president is the key for Trump. The total Trump undervote in the Milwaukee area was 53,000 votes – almost ½ of the additional 110,000 votes Trump needs. They are Republican leaning voters who didn’t vote for Trump.
14 of 14
If he were to get them (big if), then he only would need a 4% increase in votes in the remainder of the state which is doable. Going back to the Minocqua example, now he would only need 77 additional votes there.
If he were to get them (big if), then he only would need a 4% increase in votes in the remainder of the state which is doable. Going back to the Minocqua example, now he would only need 77 additional votes there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
