You're the one talking about how "elections are won." Surely you need to win more than one state to do that?
The conversation was about swing states, you chimed in about WI specifically.
It's not a leap of logic to conclude we were talking about WI.
What's funny, though, is that it's boiled down to about 5 states to win nationally. Hence the swing state conversation.
But America is more polarized now than it was in the days when elections were won in the middle. Republicans took advantage of that, nominated an alt-right rapist, and activated fringe voters.
I need more than an N of 1 to discount the middle and try to pander to people who've never gotten off their ass to participate up until now.
I also need a link supporting your assertion that "fringe" voters were responsible for Trump's election as opposed to a combination of the middle swinging his way and people staying home who would have voted for a Dem other than Hillary.
Stop pretending personal conduct matters.
I'm not. You're actually highlighting perfectly the issue: Trump's public record was non-existent. Hillary's was miles long. That's what killed her. Trump had at least similar name recognition but not the negative connotation because he was known as a reality TV "star" and "celebrity".
He polls at or near where he polled when he won in 2016. So if you weight the polls accordingly he has a good chance of winning again.
Right now he's higher than normal at about 41% (without Rasmussen). That's 5% less than when he started and 5% or so above his lowest rating.
His disapproval is 10% higher than when he started.
As I said, the only chances he has of winning are
A) People stay home
B) People vote 3rd party in protest
I don't see him garnering much support from people who disapprove as the Dems would have to nominate somebody who's so God awful people would rather four more years of Trump than risk the Dem winning.
Anything less than that nightmare scenario results in A and B leading to the Dem's pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.