I've kept hearing about how the mysterious Amish vote would somehow save Trump in Pennsylvania in case things were to look awry, and this confirms my doubts about it. Most Amish people are apolitical and see voting for another politicians as serving another master. While it's true every vote matters, they would not be a potential deciding vote unless we ended with a 2000 situation where Pennsylvania is decided by hundreds of votes. But given how the Democrats plan to cheat like they never cheat before, they will steal that margin away and at best, we get a nasty weeks long court fight that severely damages the trust in our republic.
Given that they almost certainly won't vote more than several thousands, I'd say that's a generous increase I gave. It's not wise to place your cope on a group that are apolitical in the first place.
I give Baris as much credit as I do because in most swing states in 2016, he was within a 0.5 margin of being correct. That is incredible, especially in an era where polling is becoming less reliable than ever. What misses he has happen to be on both sides of the political spectrums and they are not as often as media and university pollsters who falsify results or deliberately oversample Democrats to push a Democratic candidate landslide narrative. That doesn't mean a point miss isn't impossible, but a trustworthy and transparent pollster is probably going to be close to the truth. Especially when voter fraud might actually take the potential tipping point state.
The thing about the suburban voters is that they are the largest population of voters. Trump can make double digit gains in Philadelphia's urban area but if the margin of suburban voters decline by 15 or more - the largest demographic of voters - then he loses the states. He cannot afford to have massive bleeding in the suburbs.
Also Florida has a much different demographic than the Rust Belt. I know that Barnes pointed out that the white working class votes similarity to the Rust Belt, and I buy that, but Florida has a much different demographic than the Rust Belt. Miami-Dade County is turning out massively for Trump because he is doing so well among the Hispanic - especially Cubans and Venezuelans. He can win Florida by 2% and still lose the election because of the white suburban or rural voters who buy into Biden's decency argument and the false assumption that once he gets election, the boat will stop rocking (the seasick effect Baris pointed out). While Trump otherwise did great at the last debate, he failed to address this niche audience that may approve of his job but just want the whole drama to end. It doesn't matter how much we convince ourselves Florida is a lock (which I do agree with you on) if Biden gets a straight flush through the competitive Rust Belt states (not Ohio and Iowa) and wins the election because of the seasick voters.
Though to be fair, I do think the Rust Belt aren't totally unified by how they vote but rather separate into two groups. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan vote in a group together while Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota vote together since the latter has the Norwegian voters while the former group are more attitudinal. It's possible that Trump can lose Pennsylvania and Michigan and still get re-elected by carrying Minnesota and Wisconsin (which will help deter faithless electorates from impacting the election), but the latter two states are hampered even worse by the issue of Biden's decency argument. We'll see how Wisconsin and Minnesota poll, but I would not be shocked to see Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota at Biden+1-3.
