What Atlas #Analysis will be rejected after the 2020 election?

[Pericles]

We now see that much Atlas #analysis of the 2016 election was wrong or is now seen to be wrong. I am sure that much of what we think about the 2020 election will be proven wrong? Which pieces of current conventional wisdom on this forum do you view as ridiculous and wrong? What do you think will be proven wrong after the 2020 election? Discuss!

[Hindsight was 2020]

That the dems will need to go all WWC the win 2020 an instead Booker,Cuomo, or Castro will be president seems like a likely scenario

[twenty42]

We now see that much Atlas #analysis of the 2016 election was wrong or is now seen to be wrong. I am sure that much of what we think about the 2020 election will be proven wrong? Which pieces of current conventional wisdom on this forum do you view as ridiculous and wrong? What do you think will be proven wrong after the 2020 election? Discuss!

There will be plenty of posters predicting a 1932/1980ish repudiation of Trump, who will then be promptly disappointed and disenchanted when both major party candidates receive at least 45% of the popular vote.

[Lief 🗽]

We now see that much Atlas #analysis of the 2016 election was wrong or is now seen to be wrong. I am sure that much of what we think about the 2020 election will be proven wrong? Which pieces of current conventional wisdom on this forum do you view as ridiculous and wrong? What do you think will be proven wrong after the 2020 election? Discuss!

There will be plenty of posters predicting a 1932/1980ish repudiation of Trump, who will then be promptly disappointed and disenchanted when both major party candidates receive at least 45% of the popular vote.

A 55-45 win would still be a 1980 scenario.

[Rjjr77]

We now see that much Atlas #analysis of the 2016 election was wrong or is now seen to be wrong. I am sure that much of what we think about the 2020 election will be proven wrong? Which pieces of current conventional wisdom on this forum do you view as ridiculous and wrong? What do you think will be proven wrong after the 2020 election? Discuss!

That Georgia is so close to flipping.

[The_Doctor]

Main conventional wisdom disproven: a Republican victory is impossible after 2016 or Trump being impeached. #2: A 1980 / 1932 realignment in 2020.

[Person Man]

I can guarantee you that it will be disproven that a party has or doesn't have enough votes to be elected.

[Crumpets]

- Booker is just a god-awful candidate.
- The 2020 map will just be the 2016 map with the swings from 2012 duplicated.
- The Democratic primary will be full of "outsider" candidates trying to replicate Trump.
- The Democrats will win if and only if they have a far-left person and an uber-moderate person on the ticket.

[krazen1211]

The people thinking that the Trumpgod is unpopular will be bigly mad.

[DPKdebator]

1. New Hampshire is a titanium D state that a Republican will never win.
2. Young people will vote even more Democratic.

[Xing]

1. The Midwest (especially a certain state) is only going to trend more Republican
2. 2020 will be the next 1980
3. 2020 will be the next 1972/1984
4. Texas and Rhode Island will be competitive
5. Trump can't possibly gain/lose any support

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That culturally conservative white working-class voters actually find meaning in arguments about "the millionaires and billionaires." Or, in other words, that populism-without-scapegoating-the-Other can actually resonate.

[pbrower2a]

We are likely to see 2016 as an anomaly as Americans reject demagogic populism of any kind. The politicians faring best will be those who have temperaments and agendas most similar to those of Barack Obama, who may simply have been a bit ahead of his time.

[Frodo]

Tentative, but still:

1. The Midwest is trending Republican, just as the South had done.

2. The white working class is becoming a pillar of the Republican Party -and not just in the South. 

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

^Neither of the above two predicted Trump would win. Just pointing that out.

[Pericles]

Demographics are destiny, the Midwest is maxed out for Republicans, PA is gone/fool's gold, polling is never wrong, high voter turnout always benefits Democrats, etc.

That sounds more like the #analysis that was rejected after 2016.

[Mr. Smith]

D Victory: NC can only get more GOP/Democrats are maxed out in the Triangle, Arizona and Georgia are fools gold, Texas was a fluke and shall go the way of California after '04. PA, MI, WI are gone.

R Victory: UT will trend even more D or not rebound because Trump isn't popular, MI, PA, and WI were flukes, MN is still fools gold, NH is TITANIUM D G&*!MMIT EVEN WITH LESS THAN 1% IT STILL D BECAUSE ANGREE WYMYN! ME is fools gold.


That should cover lots of bases for now.

[Xing]

PA is gone/fool's gold

Are you saying that the #analysis will be that it's gone for Democrats in 2020? Because the idea that Republicans can't win PA is definitely dead by now.

[Figueira]

Hopefully, that Trump is teflon and can never lose.

[Mr. Smith]

Main conventional wisdom disproven: a Republican victory is impossible after 2016 or Trump being impeached. #2: A 1980 / 1932 realignment in 2020.

And if you're wrong about #2 either way: POLARIZATION IS LIFE! RED/BLUE IS LIFE! NO ONE WILL REACH ACROSS AND SWEEP BIGLY NOPE NOPE NOPE. 1980/1964 ARE THINGS OF THE PAST!

[Figueira]

PA is gone/fool's gold

Are you saying that the #analysis will be that it's gone for Democrats in 2020? Because the idea that Republicans can't win PA is definitely dead by now.

No, for Republicans. I've already seen like two people here (most notably pbrower2a) saying that 2016 was a fluke and that the state will go back to being "likely D" in 2020 or whatever based on that one poll that showed him with poor approval ratings in the state. PA might vote Democratic (and I agree that it's the most or second-most likely state to flip to the Ds), but I definitely think it is winnable for Republicans (the same way FL was winnable for Obama in 2008, if you want).

But generally the "fools gold" analysis isn't very useful in most cases. Many states are always fool's gold until they aren't. Democrats could win AZ, just like Republicans could win MN.

Edit: Another thing that could be rejected is the idea that <candidate X is too liberal to be elected nationwide!!>.

I agree. The term "fools' gold" should be retired from political discussion (sure, there are enough solid Democrats in Colorado at this point to make the state vote consistently Democratic, but they still could decide not to show up), as should the idea that voters run all the candidates through Political Matrix and decide based on that who they're allowed to consider.

[Ronnie]

Demographics are destiny, the Midwest is maxed out for Republicans, PA is gone/fool's gold, polling is never wrong, high voter turnout always benefits Democrats, etc.

The idea that demographics are destiny is obviously ridiculous, but I think it's hard to deny that things get harder for Republicans every passing cycle.  Unless they improve their numbers with whites, they will eventually have to win over a substantial chunk of the minority vote.  The population is also trending less religious. 12% of voters didn't belong to a religious category in 2012; that percentage increased to 15% in 2016.

[Skill and Chance]

>10 point wins are impossible anymore.

[Sumner 1868]

You can fail almost everywhere by eking out a few SunBelt states.

[Xing]

PA is gone/fool's gold

Are you saying that the #analysis will be that it's gone for Democrats in 2020? Because the idea that Republicans can't win PA is definitely dead by now.

No, for Republicans. I've already seen like two people here (most notably pbrower2a) saying that 2016 was a fluke and that the state will go back to being "likely D" in 2020 or whatever based on that one poll that showed him with poor approval ratings in the state. PA might vote Democratic (and I agree that it's the most or second-most likely state to flip to the Ds), but I definitely think it is winnable for Republicans (the same way FL was winnable for Obama in 2008, if you want).

But generally the "fools gold" analysis isn't very useful in most cases. Many states are always fool's gold until they aren't. Democrats could win AZ, just like Republicans could win MN.

Edit: Another thing that could be rejected is the idea that <candidate X is too liberal to be elected nationwide!!>.

It's obviously ridiculous to say that PA is certain to flip, but if it's only two people claiming that, I don't think it can really be called the prevailing analysis here. I'd sooner say that MI is going to be very hard for Trump to hold on to, though it's obviously not Safe D or "fool's gold."