It's Really Hard to See How Trump Wins Re-Election

[RandySF]

Not a day goes by without someone asking me if I think Donald Trump will be re-elected. Here’s what I tell them.

With a news cycle that’s completely bonkers, it’s often hard to get perspective but remember these basic facts about Trump’s presidency:

He lost the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million votes and won his Electoral College victory by fewer than 80,000 votes across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — or just .06% of the 137 million votes cast.
His approval rate has never been above 50% and has hovered between 39% and 46%.
He trails Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris in nearly every general election polling match up.
He trails Biden, the current leader for the Democratic nomination, by double-digits.
To summarize: Most voters did not vote for him. Most voters do not like him. Most voters do not think he’s done a good job as president. Most voters prefer any of the top Democrats running to replace him.

It’s possible a strong economy may help Trump win over those who otherwise disapprove. But most economists predict the economy will get worse before it gets better.

It’s possible Democrats may nominate someone with unfavorable ratings similar to Hillary Clinton. But Trump unifies the opposition more than any president in recent memory.

Of course, something could always change before next November.

But is it likely?



https://politicalwire.com/2019/08/21/its-really-hard-to-see-how-trump-wins-re-election/

[NCLefty]

1. No, it's not. 92 million eligible voters didn't show up in 2016.

Take nothing for granted. Our feelings don't count. Neither do polls.

[exboyfil]

2. Predict It has Trump at 43%

Betting odds just over even money.

The Democratic candidate has to win all three (or some other states).

I personally think he is going to be reelected unless there is a recession.

[BeyondGeography]

3. President Dukakis will note his post-convention numbers were much higher than Biden's

[JI7]

5. dukakis was running against herbert Walker Bush

trump could only win through cheating

[BeyondGeography]

7. Polls, schmolls

Said Hillary Clinton.

[betsuni]

8. "'Polls, schmolls' said Hillary Clinton."

What is that supposed to mean?

[BeyondGeography]

10. ...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[betsuni]

13. Still don't get it.

[uponit7771]

43. Are those the pols with Russia's involvement or without? tia

[Polybius]

58. Those polls were actually 100% accurate

Her RCP average lead was 2.1%. She won the Popular Vote by 46.1% to 48.2%. That's exactly 2.1%.

[BeyondGeography]

59. That was just the last week of polling

We were all measuring the curtains for HRC based on polling throughout the campaign.

There was even plenty of reassuring data in the last week. Take Michigan, eg:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html

I refer you to the OP. Using polls this far out to predict next year is a mug’s game.

[Rhiannon12866]

20. I think it means that Hillary Clinton was clearly ahead in the polls so she was expected to win

And we all know that she did get the most votes.

[betsuni]

23. 3.2 points doesn't seem like a big difference to me.

Not with Russian interference, voter suppression, the Comey letter, Republican cheating, the way people polled after voting didn't match the actual voting since 2000.

I kept hearing about Democratic "complacency" in that election, but that was more about not believing so many Americans were so fucking stupid that they'd not vote, vote for a third party, or vote for Trump.

[Rhiannon12866]

26. I believe that three presidential candidates in my lifetime were cheated out of the presidency

Al Gore really won Florida (Katherine Harris), John Kerry won Ohio (Ken Blackwell) and Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes nationwide.

[uponit7771]

45. +1, Clinton only got 100k less votes than Obama 2012 ... she wasn't that far off so the over

... performance was 3rd party candidates in the Red Lead VSM states where she was 3% ahead

Yes, all 5 of those Red Lead VSM had this 3rd party over performance all in one year all against the democratic party candidate.

We're worse than 1933 German, at least Hitler took power there legally then started grabbing more authority in less than a year.

[betsuni]

49. THANK YOU.

[uponit7771]

33. ... and Russians!!! There fixed it for you

[dchill]

14. Which he will do. With the aid of Russia...

...and the very experienced Republican Party.

[JI7]

15. yes,that's why we just have to vote and make sure the process is as fair as possible

[dchill]

16. I know. But only fair is fair. Anything else is cheating.

And we Democrats have let them get away with it far too many times.

[uponit7771]

34. Voting doesn't fix registration shaving

[DFW]

4. What does winning have to do with it?

In three out of the last five presidential elections, the loser was inaugurated.

[JI7]

6. right, the bigger problem we have to deal with it's their cheating

and whether it will be enough to steal the election.

[DFW]

9. Systematic electoral manipulation brought us two rounds of Cheney and Trump

Anyone who thinks they won't try again, when they are already 3 for 5, is not playing with a full deck.

[uponit7771]

35. THIS !!!! We're not losing they are empirically cheating save one or two elections

[Grasswire2]

11. we cannot count on free, fair election to rid ourselves of him.

Mueller, Wray, Coates, Comey and others have stated UNDER OATH that Russians are meddling as we sit here.

That, plus the fact that Trump is laying ground for a botched election that would require SCOTUS to step in.....

Gotta stop him now.

Can't wait.

[uponit7771]

36. +1,

[RockRaven]

12. At the same time, 17 million names have been purged off of voter rolls -- by Repukes --

so you know the people being purged are from majority-Democratic-voting demographics.

Add in social media misinformation from foreign and domestic sources -- gleefully enabled by the likes of Facebook and Twitter because why? Because it boosts their bottom line and fuck the consequences.

Add in cognitive dissonance of the sort that allows farmers and truckers -- who are getting absolutely fucked over by Trump's trade war -- to be the biggest Trump supporting professions (along with surgeons in the top 3 Trump-loving professions. Narcissistic wankers).

Add in the fact that NO MATTER HOW PSYCHOTIC he behaves on camera or on Twitter, 35-40% of voters have consistently said that THEY WILL VOTE FOR HIM, full stop.

Add in well-established American jingoism and corporate media's obsession with war-leadup and war-coverage, and Trump has an obvious avenue to pursue virtually certain patriotic-guilt-tripping AT A TIME OF HIS CHOOSING (i.e. as much before the election as his aides judge to be most effective).


Is it likely that he will be re-elected? No. But it is TERRIFYINGLY possible. The fact that it is even an uncertainty is a damning indictment of Americans.

[Joe941]

17. No he wont win a fair election.

But 1. Will it be fair? and 2. Will the us still exist come election day?

[NanceGreggs]

18. The only thing that's going to change ...

... between now and next November is that it's going to get worse - much worse - for the GOP.

Their "pResident" is becoming more unhinged with every passing day, and they're already having trouble trying to explain his behaviour in any way that makes sense.

If they're having trouble now - they must be dreading what's inevitably coming down the pike.

[PandoraAwakened]

19. I don't think they're dreading it so much as

holding their breath until such time as the Russians &/or Saudis save their sorry asses yet again with another round of rigging.

[NanceGreggs]

28. All the Russian assistance in the world ...

... can't re-elect a "pResident" who demonstrates his madness - and that is just what he's doing right now.

[Norbert]

21. The monster has never behaved like other presidents

-Normally presidents upon reelection, no matter if they are right or left, tend somewhat to the center. tRump has never done this.

-Presidents at least put on the appearance of inclusion and trying to unite the country. He has never even tried.

-Other presidents had, at least, the good sense to stay mum on disappointing news and try to do fence-mending. Not tRump. He bashes relentlessly. Examples; polling, members of Fox News, Gold Star parents, Jewish American voters, CNN Puerto Rico...

-Other presidents felt the need to expand their base. Not tRump. He holds rallies ad nauseum as an affirmation of his relatively small base, not the least bit interested in broadening his base.

-Other presidents at least courted transparency. This pResident does everything possible to keep his 'secrets' from being made public.

- Unlike any president who tries to be presidential and somewhat diplomatic. the monster has been a disaster with every try.

With all of this and more there should be no way he could ever hope to be reelected. I believe he won't. I believe presidency via reality TV is wearing very thin with the majority of Americans. On a level playing field he has no chance of winning. With an organized and energized opposition he stands little chance of winning. The only question is will the Russian meddling be enough to turn the tide and if so can they minimize suspician of the meddling.

[raccoon]

41. Great post. Nt

[Thekaspervote]

22. Thx for posting...I for one will take your positive post and run with it.

[betsuni]

24. "It's possible Democrats may nominate someone with unfavorable ratings similar to Hillary Clinton."

She had favorability rating in the 60s that only started to fall after the propaganda tsunami hit. That reporter should know. It will happen to anyone who's the nominee.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Given that, think we should have rallied around

her as our nominee again.
No one more qualified and no one more vilified unfairly. To win more votes and to have to silently watch MF45 must take the patience of a saint.

[Cicada]

25. TV ad: free healthcare for all unauthorized immigrants?

Combine that with opposition to any arrest of anyone crossing the border.


It is easy to see how Trump wins.

[tman]

27. I agree.

It's not a matter of Trump winning. It's a matter of Democrats finding a way to lose.

It's a 50/50 race.

[Cicada]

29. Predictit is smarter than I am, They have it about even odds

[lindysalsagal]

30. Biden is bullet proof. Period. That's why he'll win. They can't

Hillary him. The gop needed decades to ruin HRC. They just don't have that kind of time, and Biden kept it clean. They can't bs on him. Only the dems can ruin Biden, with bickering.

[Bonx]

57. I agree. Biden is a 100% lock to win against Trump.

[Recursion]

31. No it's not, not remotely. We didn't airlift 80,000 Democrats into PA or OH

He can win 2020 exactly the same way he won 2016, which is to say "ugly" and "based on illegal voter suppression".

[uponit7771]

37. ... and Russia helping him right?

[Recursion]

38. That's a given, but it won't look like last time

I don't know what form it will take, but they don't do the same attack twice.

Same reason I thought all the airport security after 9/11 was a stupid idea: they aren't going to try the same attack again; they're going to look for something else.

[uponit7771]

39. ..👍🏼

[Cosmocat]

40. We cant know until we get our nominee

And the Republicans conservative propaganda and mainstream media have an opportunity to Slender the f*** out of him or her like they do any other Democratic nominee. Trump was in pretty bad shape same stage last go-round, but one because so much of the country fell into the bulshit Narrative that the decent, confident, public servant was the Antichrist. He won more because people Jen themselves up to not vote for someone who was a million times better than he was. Can't rule that out happening again. Nothing about him now wasn't clear before, people may want to believe that, but he's exactly what he was before he won office. Stupid in this country is thick.

[underpants]

42. W

We basically live in a two term POTUS era. W won re-election despite clearly lying in into a war and horribly mismanaging it.

[customerserviceguy]

55. That's true

Only a couple of times (Carter, Bush Sr.) in the last 86 years has an incumbent president on the ballot been defeated by the opposition party.

But, both Carter and Bush Sr. had higher approval numbers at some point in their terms that the Dotard has ever had.

[raccoon]

44. I sincerely hope that he doesn't, but 2016 has taught me

I sincerely hope that he doesn’t, but 2016 has taught me to never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

[philf99]

46. When Democrats vote Democrats win

Just make sure you and your Democratic friend vote

[malaise]

47. It's going to be a blow out

if he lasts that long

[VOX]

48. Assuming there's a free & fair 2020 election, it'll be decided (again) in the perennial swing states

The usual lineup: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Most other states lean heavily one way or another, and are more-or-less fixed in position.

Note that 45 is performing at rallies in these very (same) swing states.

[solara]

50. Oh, gee, I dunno maybe the electoral college will have something to say about that

from Kilgore

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

But once the electors are chosen and report in December to cast their votes as members of the Electoral College, they are fulfilling a federal function, and a state's authority has ended. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the court said.


the tyrant trump owns the SCOTUS, he owns the DOJ what makes anyone believe he won't buy the few electors he will need to win?

[Coventina]

51. There was no way Trump was going to be the nominee. Then, there was no way he could win.

Russian cheating, aided and abetted by the GOP.

[Firestorm49]

52. I've heard this before, and look at how it ended.

[IdealsAndReal42]

53. Agreed, but don't take anything for granted. In 2004, it was hard to imagine a Bush re-election

with all the lies he did to Americans, firsthand the Iraq invasion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. It doesn't seem very likely IMHO

but we have been burned too many times over the years to leave anything to chance. I think that unity and turnout will be keys to victory in 2020. If we all agree to immediately unite around whoever wins the primary no matter who and push back on obvious propaganda against them and work hard for him/her, as well as Democrats in downballot races, I think that we'll be fine. Trump is only getting worse, not better, and there doesn't seem to be anything that he can do between now and next November that could possibly make the case that he deserves a second term- even if the economy doesn't tank or fall into a recession on his watch. The only things that I can see that would potentially sink us is if are disunited and disorganized like in 2016, which, hopefully, we've moved beyond. There will be no Hillary Clinton on the ballot (who, unfortunately, so many people seem to hate.....for reasons), the DNC appears to be stable, Assange is in no position to help hack and disrupt things for the GOP/Russians, Manafort and Stone are currently out of commission, Bannon and Trump are estranged, we are all (hopefully) a bit wiser as to Russian cyberops than we were in 2016, and there are no major 3rd or 4th party candidates whom might potentially split the vote, at least none that I'm aware of yet. The odds seem better for us in general.

[honest.abe]

56. I go back and forth on this topic.

What you say is compelling and makes sense. But you could also argue that Trump 2020 is not Trump 2016. He has done and said some crazy things but the economy has not collapsed, we are not in any new wars, the government is still functioning. Most of the things we were afraid of happening with Trump as President have not happened.. at least not yet. Also, the MSM has generally given him a pass on the crazy stuff and for the most part have legitimized and normalized him. I think there are many voters who were afraid of him in 2016 may now be less afraid.

However having said all that, I still think you are more correct. Yes we can and will beat Trump but we need to make sure we have the very best candidate especially for the battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Nevada.