Here's a good point.

Donald Trump's reasonable argument* for how he'll win in November centers on white, blue-collar voters -- the sort of voters he thinks can propel him to victories in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. (Sometimes, Wisconsin gets looped into that list, but that looks unlikely at the moment.)

Winning white, blue-collar voters doesn't necessitate that those voters like him, of course, but it would help. And while that group (loosely defined as whites without a college degree) likes Trump better than anyone race/education split, more than half still view him unfavorably.

(To the second point in that tweet, here is how unpopular everyone since 1984 has been.)

In fact, there's only one group for which a majority views Trump favorably: White men without college degrees. Every other racial/gender/education split views him negatively.

It gets worse. In every group besides whites without a college degree, more than half of respondents view Trump strongly unfavorably -- and have for most of the year.

The good news for Trump is that whites without a college degree like Hillary Clinton even less.

A majority of non-white voters view her favorably, and she's viewed more positively by whites with a college degree than those who don't have one.

Which adds another layer to Trump's victory plan: He not only needs blue-collar whites to come out and support him in the Rust Belt, he needs them to do so simply because they dislike him slightly less than they dislike Hillary Clinton.

Not the sort of argument that inspirational campaigns are made of.

* His non-reasonable argument includes a plan to win in California or New York, which will never happen, and if he does, Dana Milbank will eat this column.