You can't force people to answer surveys. Polling is going to be in a lot of trouble in the next few years.
That's more rich/poor than what you think it means. You can't buy a mango at WF for what it costs for a whole meal at CB.
It may actually be a lot more clean, assuming we don't go full fascism (and I really don't think that will be the case). People seem to have outed themselves quite a bit recently. Owning your controversial and/or racist views hasn't been this widespread in ages. Maybe this is part of making America Great Again. I dunno.
People are more than willing to out themselves on Facebook and other parts of the internet. Maybe someone may come up with a formula that makes internet polling more than just an exercise for pumping up your team (like sports polls).
Way-too-early 2020 Trump vs. Dem forecasting: http://www.270towin.com/maps/xVkDn I give Trump 231 lean/likely/safe EV and the Democrat 228 lean/likely/safe EV. 231 might seem high for Trump at first glance, but other than maybe AZ, NC, and NE-2 which he still won fairly comfortably by 3.9%, 3.6%, and 3.4% respectively, I have little reason to believe he will lose any of those 231. S0meday the Dems will win AZ in a Presidential election, but I doubt it'll happen by 2020. The 79 tossup EV come from FL, PA, WI, MI, and NH. The problem for Dems in the tossup states is that Trump had unbelievable success in turning out white exurb/rural voters in FL and PA, most of them likely motivated by cultural/Trumpism factors (I don't think they will abandon him). If Clinton had somehow matched Obama's outstanding performance in Philadelphia County, she still would have lost PA by ~30K votes. And Trump could gain more voters from suburban conservative areas of PA that he didn't get this time, areas that Toomey outperformed him in, if his administration takes the country in a more conventionally conservative direction the next four years (on top of the voters he gained through Trumpism). Same goes for conservative suburbs of WI (especially the Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington Counties around Milwaukee) that Ron Johnson greatly outperformed him in, as well as conservative Duval County in FL which Trump greatly underperformed Rubio in but won the state anyway. FL and PA might not be lean-Trump but they might not be true toss-ups either, perhaps between those two. It'll help Trump further that Jill Stein has now gained more ballot access than ever (45 states including all tossups), and McMullin may have been just a one-election fluke. And it goes without saying Trump has the incumbency advantage. If Trump simply holds his 231 initial EV and takes FL and any one of PA/WI/MI (or those three while dropping FL), that's the ballgame. Unless he does something utterly crazy to tank his re-election chances, which is certainly possible, I believe there is a real chance he will hold the office for 8 years.
How does the sheer economic collaps, several ongoing wars, roaming rightwing death squads, and a Chicago Fire treble affect the turnout in Michigan?
You'll like this: http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/15/13629814/trump-coalition-white-demographics-working-class In other words, Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign ... for 2020.
Some would argue similarly for the 2004 election, perhaps correctly so, but George W. Bush still got re-elected. I just think that Trump, though defeatable, is not an automatic loser in 2020. I could see him maintaining the same WWC levels and also gaining among suburban conservative voters in swing states that the likes of Johnson, Toomey, and Rubio ran circles around him in, especially if he runs a more conventionally conservative first term and if his first SCOTUS pick is conservative and there are more openings by 2020 (conservative voters are especially motivated by SCOTUS, but many were skeptical of Trump this time). Getting the Koch Bros and Club For Growth and other conservative organizations to actually support him this time wouldn't hurt either. I see room for growth for Trump in FL, PA, and WI in particular (and even in some states he won easily, such as OH and MO), and if he is able to win FL and one of the others, that's probably enough. I would not go so far to say Trump is the favorite, though; just don't think he's an underdog either.
I agree the the GOP cannot rely primarily on WWC (or white voters in general) if it wants to win in the long-term future. But I think for 2020, Trump has a lot to gain among traditionally conservative voters. In Wisconsin, for example, Trump significantly underperformed '16 Ron Johnson (and even '12 Mitt Romney) in traditionally conservative voters. In the conservative W-O-W counties surrounding Milwaukee alone, Johnson got 30K more votes than Trump despite being the down-ballot, less-recognizable candidate. In another traditionally GOP area, I believe around Green Bay, Johnson outpaced Trump by 43K votes, again despite being down-ballot. Trump partially made up for it by racking up WWC voters in the north and west parts of the state, but still fell short of Johnson. In the end, there was a missing GOP vote -- for Trump. That's how Ron Johnson beat Trump despite not getting the degree of WWC support Trump did. If Trump can maintain his WWC support (which, under the surface, I believe is due in large part to cultural factors and thus likely to stick with him) and make significant inroads with Romney/Walker/Johnson GOPers who clearly did not vote for him (likely due to being skeptical of whether he's a conservative, and he can change that with conservative SCOTUS picks and conservative policies), he'll be tough to take down in four years, as the ultimate white-voter candidate combining WWC and traditional GOP. Again, I definitely don't think Trumpism is good for Republican success long-term.