If Donald Trump does good, could there be an absolute landslide in 2020?

[DPKdebator]

If Donald Trump does good, could there be an absolute landslide in 2020? In terms of this scenario, a landslide would define Trump getting more EVs than he did in the 2016 election if this first term is successful for him.

[The Arizonan]

The country is too polarized at this point for this to happen.

[KoiBean]

The country is too polarized at this point for this to happen.

Not only this, but Trump already got all the real tossups and then some in 2016. The closest things to "swing states" if he does well would be Nevada and Colorado. If Trump stays true to the promises of mass deportations and a "wall" of sorts along the border, Nevada and Colorado would probably stay leaning blue.

[Figueira]

Based on this definition, yes, but I wouldn't call that a "real landslide." I could easily see him winning Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Nevada in 2020 after a successful term, with Virginia and Colorado as outside possibilities.

I don't expect him to have a successful term though.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

If your definition of landslide is him getting more electoral votes than he did this year (306) then yes I could absolutely see that.

He doesn't even need to do "good" as long as he's an average even somewhat below average president and the democrats are still fractured in 2020 then I could realistically see him picking up Minnesota and possibly NH and Maine.

[Maxwell]

If he doesn't crater the economy he'll probably win re-election in a walk.

[justfollowingtheelections]

If Donald Trump does good, could there be an absolute landslide in 2020? In terms of this scenario, a landslide would define Trump getting more EVs than he did in the 2016 election if this first term is successful for him.

It depends on what you mean by good.  If he does all the crazy things he and his supporters want, I suspect he will be beaten easily.  The Democrats will definitely nominate someone better than Clinton, and will run a more focused campaign, knowing that winning the popular vote isn't enough.

If he governs like a reasonable human being (he won't, but lets assume that he does) his base will abandon him.  So again he loses.

So unless you were asking whether he would lose in a landslide, the answer is no.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

He won't win like Nixon or Reagan, but he might win like Eisenhower in the PV.

Folks would have to think that Trump was doing a good job as well as Trump actually doing a good job.

[Lief 🗽]

Superman does good. Trump (hypothetically) does well.

[Pericles]

Trump could easily do better than he did this year. He could also do much, much worse.

[Enduro]

Trump could easily do better than he did this year. He could also do much, much worse.

Pretty much, yeah.

[pbrower2a]

If he does well as President, or at least gets away with his agenda with more good than harm as recognized at the time, then of course he wins a landslide.

Now if the Milwaukee Brewers win 100 games, do they make the baseball playoffs? Of course. But that is asking a lot.

[BlueSwan]

Yes. He benefits from the most ridiculously low expectations that any world leader has ever had. Any time he does something that is not completely batsh*t crazy, everybody is fawning over him as if he is the second coming of christ. Also he benefits from nobody taking any of his campaign promises seriously and/or actually hoping that he will do any of it. This means that if for instance he abandons the wall, or abandons the muslim ban, or abandons the prosecution of Clinton, or abandons the teare-up of the Iran deal, or abandons withdrawing from the Paris treaty, or abandons ending free trade, or abandons any of his other moronic ideas, then people will be relieved, whereas most politicans would instead face stern criticism for misleading the public.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The people on this forum are morons who are wrong about everything. Since the majority here seem to think Trump is locked in for 2020, I think it's safe to assume he's going to lose.

[Shadows]

Yes. He benefits from the most ridiculously low expectations that any world leader has ever had. Any time he does something that is not completely batsh*t crazy, everybody is fawning over him as if he is the second coming of christ. Also he benefits from nobody taking any of his campaign promises seriously and/or actually hoping that he will do any of it. This means that if for instance he abandons the wall, or abandons the muslim ban, or abandons the prosecution of Clinton, or abandons the teare-up of the Iran deal, or abandons withdrawing from the Paris treaty, or abandons ending free trade, or abandons any of his other moronic ideas, then people will be relieved, whereas most politicans would instead face stern criticism for misleading the public.

The problem is deficit is very high & GOP has to cut some of it. At the very least they have to cut spending to balance for the massive tax cuts.

That means Social Security & Medicare are on the table - And those are huge talking points & popular election issues

You can also add jobs & employment - He can't do much with NAFTA & so on - Weak Labor force participation, Low Housing rate etc will all be there - Trump is not gonna change the economy giving billions of tax breaks & gutting welfare.

So a Democrat comes vs Trump in a weak economy, failing in his promise to bring great jobs & raise wages who gutted Social Security & Medicare to some extent. And you can add more young peopel (13-17) coming into the electorate.

Sanders for one has already started hammering Trump on his promise to raise wages, bring jobs, protect Social Security & Medicare. If there is a smart strong progressive like Sanders, they would play those videos incessant & attack Trump for failing in his promises.

Trump's turnout among his base will fall when he can't ban muslims, build the ball & make mexico pay & so on - Already people like Ann Coulter are calling him out as a betrayer.

There is no logical reason for a strong progressive to lose. An establishment shill like Booker or Gillibrand will find it difficult to wrest the rust belt. You need someone with a movement, an activist background, with a lot of charisma & a fiery demeanor.

[Beet]

In my book, there are two possible ways to get to a landslide.

1. A 10% margin over your closest opponent AND at least 50% of the vote.

2. At least 400 EVs AND at least 50% of the vote.

Thus, 1988 is a landslide, but 1916 is not.

[Famous Mortimer]

It looks like he's going to govern like a generic Republican so the question is moot.

[The Mikado]

In my book, there are two possible ways to get to a landslide.

1. A 10% margin over your closest opponent AND at least 50% of the vote.

2. At least 400 EVs AND at least 50% of the vote.

Thus, 1988 is a landslide, but 1916 is not.

1916? Not only was it not a landslide, if under two thousand Californians had changed their minds, Hughes would've won (as the biggest PV loser to win office).

1916 is an election I want to talk about more, but no one seems interested.

[Beet]

In my book, there are two possible ways to get to a landslide.

1. A 10% margin over your closest opponent AND at least 50% of the vote.

2. At least 400 EVs AND at least 50% of the vote.

Thus, 1988 is a landslide, but 1916 is not.

1916? Not only was it not a landslide, if under two thousand Californians had changed their minds, Hughes would've won (as the biggest PV loser to win office).

1916 is an election I want to talk about more, but no one seems interested.

Oops, I mean to say 1912. The most interesting thing about 1916 is why Ohio went for Wilson.

[Vosem]

*well

This is America. Speak English, please.

[Mike67]

I think President Donald Trump will win a Second Term in a tough Election in 2020 over Bernie Sanders.

[Xing]

If Hillary Clinton's popularity rating is above 70% in 2020, will she defeat Trump in a rematch?

That's about as likely as Trump doing "good."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lets say Trump has a 50%-55% approval rating, or close to 50%, the economic is still doing well and a Progressive becomes the nominee. As the incumbent who has not blown up the world, Trump know would be able to own the fitness question and there would be tremendous swing back to the Republicans in those suburban areas where he cratered. This flips MN, ME and NH and possibly also VA, CO, and NV, assuming he can also show enough results to hold the working class whites.

Considering his margins in DE and CT, they might be unusually close in that scenario and you could see Trump around 45%-46% in ILL and 42% in NY.

[pbrower2a]

Lets say Trump has a 50%-55% approval rating, or close to 50%, the economic is still doing well and a Progressive becomes the nominee. As the incumbent who has not blown up the world, Trump know would be able to own the fitness question and there would be tremendous swing back to the Republicans in those suburban areas where he cratered. This flips MN, ME and NH and possibly also VA, CO, and NV, assuming he can also show enough results to hold the working class whites.

Considering his margins in DE and CT, they might be unusually close in that scenario and you could see Trump around 45%-46% in ILL and 42% in NY.

Carter didn't blow up the world, and he still lost. Big.

Donald Trump has already shown a willingness to offend sensibilities of a vast majority of the public. Having done so he will need miracles to avoid being defeated. His Democratic opponent will still have a floor of 48%, which might allow Trump to win if everything goes right. People have memories, and they don't forgive callow insults.

Donald Trump will do nothing for the worker except cut his wages, shift taxes onto him, allow management get away with more brutal techniques, degrade the environment, and debase education.

I do not see how he can win re-election if he tries to push his whole anti-human agenda. Unhappy people do not vote for incumbents, and if you think that that was bad for Barack Obama, wait till you see what that does to Donald Trump and his Congressional allies.  people are not going to forgive his insults from the 2016 campaign.

Of course it is possible to win in landslides despite mass suffering. Think of North Korea today, Iraq under Satan Hussein, and Romania under Ceausescu. Of course those systems had rigged elections. Should Donald Trump win a landslide, then maybe the words "Land of the Free" are no longer applicable here.

Let's put it this way -- Donald Trump is more likely to be overthrown in a military coup than win a free and fair election by a landslide margin.

[Downnice]

If he does well, I can safely say Minnesota and New Hampshire will flip in 2020 and maybe Nevada


However unless the Democratic Party completely loses their sh**t and/or Trump is Ronald Reagan Colorado and Virginia are going to remain Blue