I think that Nosborne is placing too much emphasis on the idea of a "base", without enough consideration of why those "bases" do or don't exist. But we've been over that. I agree though that Trump has an advantage in terms of the Electoral College for entirely different reasons. Look at DC. I'd expect Biden to get maybe 80+% of the vote there given the large black population and the countless government apparatchiks. But all that he needs to win is 50% plus one vote. So some 30+ percent of the DC Biden vote will essentially be wasted votes. One of the problems that the Democrats face is that their vote is concentrated disproportionately in large urban states like New York State and California. Biden is likely to run up well in excess of 50% + 1 in those states. Wasted Democratic votes. Meanwhile the Republicans are likely to be winning more states by smaller margins in more of the country. We saw it in 2016, when Trump won 30 of the 50 states. I suspect that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate, based on the argument just given. (Smaller margins of victory in more states.) But the House is going to be tougher, since more House seats are the products of very peculiar small hyper-urban districts like the one in the Bronx and Queens that coughed up the hairball called AOC. The kind of places that produce people like Maxine Waters or Congresswoman-for-life Nancy Pelosi. Some of those districts regularly vote near 100% Democrat. The more competitive elections are the Primaries, not the General whose result is already known before the voting even happens. And when a machine controls the party apparatus, as it does in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco, we get Congresspeople-for-life. But too much vote-wasting like that and the Democrats' House hopes will start to suffer nationally. In order to be most competitive nationally, a party needs to have smaller margins of victory in more places.