Is Trump's re-election inevitable?

[°Leprechaun]

I will say "yes" for now, but the race can still tighten. (like 2016 did)

[°Leprechaun]

Just like I thought: "overconfident" is still the best adjective to describe Atlas Democrats.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Him re-running in 2020 isn't inevitable let alone him winning

[°Leprechaun]

Him re-running in 2020 isn't inevitable let alone him winning

Maybe not, but I could refrase the question,
"Assuming he is the nominee, is Trump's re-election inevitable"
I think most people are going to assume in the affirmative to the former part of the question.

[°Leprechaun]

Just to be crystal clear it is 100% certain that I will not vote for him under any circumstance, regardless of what I think his chances might be in 2020. I know it may be too early to call him "inevitable", but let's not forget how many Clinton supporters here called her "inevitable" even after her humiliating loss of the NH primary.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL. Some sort of typical Atlas question

Nothing is inevitable, especially not from four years from now. Anything can happen. A major scandal or economic recession and the incumbent president (no matter of what party) gets thrown out of office very fast. Examples: After winning a landslide after two term of GOP presidents, everyone was sure that Herbert Hoover wins reelection handily. Until the depression came. In 1948, Truman was expected to lose big ever since two years before the election. Also, in late 1982, it looked like Reagan is in big trouble, but he went on to win in a landslide. Poppy Bush was also seen in a strong position by late 1991. This year, Hillary was also seen as inevitable. So, the question is pure speculation/not to answer.

[Confused Democrat]

Just like I thought: "overconfident" is still the best adjective to describe Atlas Democrats.

How is saying "Trump's re-election is not inevitable" being overconfident?

You do know what the definition of "inevitable" is right?

[°Leprechaun]

Just like I thought: "overconfident" is still the best adjective to describe Atlas Democrats.

How is saying "Trump's re-election is not inevitable" being overconfident?

You do know what the definition of "inevitable" is right?

Yes, and I can use the word in a sentence, "Clinton's victory is inevitable" -- that's what many were saying on this site not long ago, and is the point that I am making, in an "ironic" way as MohamedChalid correctly inferred. (edit: and also to remind everyone not to make the same mistake in 2020)

[Lumine]

Um, how exactly did the forum went from Trump being unelectable (and the equivalent of political nuclear waste) to being inevitable in 2020 and the Dems being doomed?

I get that it was a shock win and he cracked (barely) the firewall myth, but come on.

[Figueira]

Um, how exactly did the forum went from Trump being unelectable (and the equivalent of political nuclear waste) to being inevitable in 2020 and the Dems being doomed?

I get that it was a shock win and he cracked (barely) the firewall myth, but come on.

Why did anyone believe that myth in the first place?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Um, how exactly did the forum went from Trump being unelectable (and the equivalent of political nuclear waste) to being inevitable in 2020 and the Dems being doomed?

I get that it was a shock win and he cracked (barely) the firewall myth, but come on.

Why did anyone believe that myth in the first place?

Hubris.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Um, how exactly did the forum went from Trump being unelectable (and the equivalent of political nuclear waste) to being inevitable in 2020 and the Dems being doomed?

I get that it was a shock win and he cracked (barely) the firewall myth, but come on.

Why did anyone believe that myth in the first place?

Hubris.

There was certainly always (and still is) some truth to the BLUE FIREWALL thing, but Rs getting through was always a hypothetical possibility.

[°Leprechaun]

As I've stated before, the polls were not actually "wrong":

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php

233-191-114 (Clinton ended up with 232 almost exactly as this aggregation of polls indicated she would) The tossups mostly went to Trump and WI was the only deviation.

[°Leprechaun]

If margin of error is added to undecideds the polls were fairly accurate as to the uncertainty of certain states.

[°Leprechaun]

You also have to realize that historically it is less than normal for an incumbant to be defeated.
I can't help wondering if Trump will be primaried, however.

Clinton "won" in 1992, but it was after twelve years of GOP control of the WH, not four.
Jimmy Carter lost, but Carter is a Democrat and Trump is not.
The only time the GOP has lost the WH after only four years is 1892.

Democrats should be careful to predict a win in 2020. Is overconfidence ever a good thing?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Trump won Michigan by 0.2%, Wisconsin by 0.7%, and Pennsylvania by 0.8%
https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/804370841735725057

[pbrower2a]

If he wants to run again... and the election is rigged.

[Pericles]

Trump is not inevitable to win and he's not inevitable to lose.

[pbrower2a]

You also have to realize that historically it is less than normal for an incumbant to be defeated.
I can't help wondering if Trump will be primaried, however.

Clinton "won" in 1992, but it was after twelve years of GOP control of the WH, not four.
Jimmy Carter lost, but Carter is a Democrat and Trump is not.
The only time the GOP has lost the WH after only four years is 1892.

Democrats should be careful to predict a win in 2020. Is overconfidence ever a good thing?

The partisan label means far less than does the quality of performance. If Donald Trump performs badly as President (and Presidents now have responsibility for economic results, too), then he too can go down.

There is no obvious precedent for Donald Trump.  He ran an iconoclastic campaign in which he promised to 'stick it' to millions of Americans, and I expect him to keep that promise and create a large number of resolute opponents by 2020.  Will that come with improving lives for most Americans? I doubt it.

If a one-term President, then the analogies are weak for the elder Bush (incumbency fatigue will not have set in) and stronger for Hoover (got caught with a financial panic) and Carter (economic malaise. hostages in Iran). Anyone who wants to believe that the Obama recovery will continue on its own with a President who will gut the policies behind it needs far more imagination than I can supply.

I expect him to be a disaster in foreign policy because he knows nothing and will listen only to yes-men. Domestic policy? All for the Few. He wants the same sort of real-estate boom that Dubya had. Americans knows how well that worked the last time and will be chary about it. I have yet to figure, unless it is for the super-rich, for whom he will "Make America Great Again", a vapid and meaningless slogan (because of its vagueness)  that can be turned on its head with Presidential incompetence.

Deporting all the illegal aliens will require a huge build-up in detention facilities... and internal passports for all Americans. There will be family break-ups because the 9-year-old is an illegal alien and the 6-year-old is a US citizen by birth. And what will be the use of those detention facilities after the 'illegal aliens' are deported? Political prisoners?  No thanks!

Even more disturbing would be that America will be less attractive for people to immigrate to. Donald Trump has suggested an Education Secretary hostile to high-quality public education. Think about it. If you are an Indian with a tech degree and you have the choice between taking a job in the USA or in Great Britain and the educational system in America is gutted, then where would you go? Also consider this: some illegal aliens own businesses. 

As America becomes a less-attractive place to live, expect real estate values to plummet. So you can be an engineer and your kids can be fast-food workers or retail sales clerks... maybe you might want to take your engineering degree elsewhere. There will be lots of houses with sellers but no buyers. But that means that people will be unable to use their housing equity as an ATM for the Good Life.

Pay will rise? Not if the Corporate Right gets its way and gets to end collective bargaining. Tax cuts will be strictly for the Master Class.  Elite spending does not  drive the economy.

One way or the other, Donald Trump will be a disaster as a President.

[°Leprechaun]

One way or the other, Donald Trump will be a disaster as a President.

At this point, (assuming that it is inevitable that neither recounts nor faithless electors overturn the election) we'll soon find out how big a disaster it will be, but he only has two years to screw up the country. If he manages to do that, perhaps the Democrats can win back both houses, and then the GOP can spin it so the Democrats get blamed for the train wreck. It is certainly difficult to know how much of a mess he will make in his four to eight years. Dubya was an absolute disaster, of course, and Republicans are still in denial. So, I am not too optimistic that Trump will help them to see the light as to how bad the GOP really is. 

How did Dubya get re-elected in 2004? Dubya already had gotten us on the path to destruction by starting the war in Iraq. Rather than nominating a strong candidate to oppose him , they somehow managed to nominate a candidate who voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war, which certainly isn't what was intended in the Constitution. As if that wasn't bad enough they also nominated another Senator who voted for the Iraq War as VP and then Obama who was supposed to be against the Iraq War chose a Senator who voted for it as his VP and finally we got Clinton who also voted for the War. When are Democrats going to get on the proverbial "peace train"?

[pikachu]

the answer is the same as 'is hillary inevitable in 2016?'

[°Leprechaun]

NOW I'VE BEEN CRYING LATELY


thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss

[BaldEagle1991]

Well that depends on how he does. Right now he does have a huge disadvantage in being very unpopular coming into office.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

We really need to stop using the i-word for anything less certain than WPK OVER 90.

[krazen1211]

Yes, especially if his opponent is the Goofy Loon elizabeth warren.