Will Trump be a 1 term President?

[Maxwell]

his favorables and approvals were as bad or worse during the campaign, so yes, I not only believe Trump wins again in 2020, but he will win the popular vote this time.

(heres hoping im as spectacularly wrong about that as i was about Michigan in 2016)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

his favorables and approvals were as bad or worse during the campaign, so yes, I not only believe Trump wins again in 2020, but he will win the popular vote this time.

(heres hoping im as spectacularly wrong about that as i was about Michigan in 2016)

Incumbents have to run on a record, and usually don't face opponents as unpopular as Clinton.

[Maxwell]

his favorables and approvals were as bad or worse during the campaign, so yes, I not only believe Trump wins again in 2020, but he will win the popular vote this time.

(heres hoping im as spectacularly wrong about that as i was about Michigan in 2016)

Incumbents have to run on a record, and usually don't face opponents as unpopular as Clinton.

Incumbents don't have to run on a truthful record - you think he'll just be like "well, the last four years have been trash because i'm a trash president but vote for me again because MAGA"? Nah, he'll have the most embellished, fantastical negative campaign you've ever seen while also remarking about how much law and order theres been and how much theyve done and how quickly theyve done it.

And just like the last two opposition candidates (Kerry, Romney), Democrats are probably going to run someone who doesn't understand you have to actually run on something to get people to come out and vote.

[The Mikado]

Remember 2004, when Bush lost because everyone hated him and his foreign policy blunders? No way people would've re-elected an idiot like that.

Bush's lowest approval rating at any point in his first term was 46%.

46% is literally Trump's highest number ever on the Gallup tracking poll.

And, yet, Trump sits in the White House, while Hillary pounds salt.

Trump Denial continues.  I say this because folks just don't get it that Trump knows more about winning than anyone else.  He has more grit than any President I've seen in my lifetime, and he's not going to be run out of office.  He has the stones to tell his political enemies that if they're going to stick it to him, they're going to have to do it in full view of the voters.  He doesn't care about the ugliness of the victory; he cares about avoiding defeat, period.

Never underestimate Trump's power to get America to hate his opponent more than they hate him.

Thing is, Trump won by the skin of his teeth, which means he has zero margin of error for any decline of support. Obama won big in 2008 and was far more unpopular in 2012, and that meant he won his reelection by 4 rather than 7. Trump's starting at -2. He doesn't have anywhere down to go before he hits losing territory.

[Maxwell]

Its hard to get lower than when Trump managed to win anyways - the guy was basically caught telling people how he sexually assaults women and how often that occurs.

[American2020]

Here is a barrel full of icy water upon anyone who thinks that President Trump has a good chance or winning re-election:

Disapproval:

60% or higher  (deep red)
57% to 59%
55% to 56%
50% to 54%
46% to 49%
43% to 45%
42% or less


Ties are in white.

This is a map of disapproval ratings by state based on the latest poling data, which is either the composite data from June to August 2017 (average, I assume is Jul 15) or subsequent statewide polling. You can argue about any state, but you cannot argue that President Trump will have a very difficult time getting re-elected.


...It is difficult enough for an incumbent to get low approval ratings to get to the point at which one has a chance of winning. Incumbents seeking re-election typically campaign. Campaigning allows one to more easily eat into the potential vote of the 'undecided' than to cut into high disapproval numbers.

I remember that President Obama once faced a disapproval rating of 53% in Ohio in 2011, and that he eventually won the state. But this said, he didn't have lots of numbers that high or higher in states that he won in 2008. Maybe Indiana, but that was about it. But it is far more than one state.
 
Disapproval ratings are far stickier downward than approval ratings are sticky. At this point, President Trump must change the narrative of the low regard that he now has. Giving a few crumbs to Democrats will be too little, and too late -- and with those, Republicans will be disappointed.  Big achievements? What can really change?

The political culture of America must change in favor of the right-wing Trump agenda if he is to be re-elected.   

Agree.
Voters he's losing:
-Independants
-College-educated voters
-Latinos
-Some midwesteners
-Young republican voters
-Millennials
-women
-LGBT who voted for him in 2016

and others

[daveosupremo]

If so, it will be on his terms.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern. 

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

[Mr. Smith]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern.  

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

Or he could continue the entirety of Jimmy Carter as he has done magnificently well at, even at this point. Even down to getting his own Ted Kennedy.

You also conveniently forgot about Reagan's challenge to Ford in '76. True that much vitriol is unlikely, but the point still stands.

[Panhandle Progressive]

He probably won't even serve a full term

3 terms is more likely than that happening

Bob Mueller and his MASSIVE investigation disagrees.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I'm growing more and more certain that he will be a one term president. Despite his bump in approval ratings, the Russia investigation will only get worse for him and the economy is bound to give out within the next three years.

[twenty42]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern. 

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...the GOP establishment believed their brand would hold up better in an HRC administration than it would in a DJT administration, and they were absolutely right. An HRC administration would have given the GOP a built-in scapegoat in an unpopular Democratic president, and a primrose path to victory in 2018. They could keep presenting Obamacare repeal bills which would automatically be vetoed, resulting in no harm, no foul. They could keep making promises, but blame the Democrat in the White House for their failures.

But push came to shove when DJT got elected, and the crap hit the fan. The GOP establishment can't repeal Obamacare, even though they spent six years promising to do so. They pined for a Republican presidential candidate who could surpass 270, and now that they finally did, they won't work with him.

Did Republicans in Congress want Hillary to win in their hearts of hearts? I can't answer that for certain. Would it have made their jobs easier and more secure? Definitely.

[HisGrace]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern. 

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

So you mean it will spawn a far more formidable third party candidate in the general election who'll win close to 20% of the vote?

[dw93]

I think Trump could see a Primary challenger on the level of Ted Kennedy in 1980. However, the Country is too polarized to see a third party candidate that wins Perot '92/'96, Wallace '68, or even Anderson in '80 levels of support.

[Mr. Morden]

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

I think much of this is wrong, but perhaps not in the way you would expect me to say that it's wrong.

I agree with the last part of what you said, which is that it's unlikely that a primary challenger is going to do much better than Buchanan did in 1992 (though I could see Trump losing the primary in perhaps one state or territory, such as Utah, DC, or Puerto Rico).  But that has little to do with "the establishment".  That's just because whoever is the sitting president of the United States automatically becomes the avatar of that political party in the eyes of much of the electorate, so no matter who it is, it's hella hard to convince enough voters of that party to dump that person in a presidential primary.  That said, a challenger who manages to do about as well as Buchanan '92 (getting more than 20% nationwide and more than a third of the vote in at least a few states) would in itself be treated as a big deal in the media, since we haven't seen anything like that since '92.

Next, I disagree with the idea that a primary challenger would necessarily even damage Trump or the GOP.  I just don't think it works like that anymore.  Trump is supposedly the "anti-politician", so having a primary challenge from, say, John Kasich, might even *help* him in that it allows him to claim that "The Swamp" is still out to get him, and gives him a convenient foil to beat up on, and show that he's still anti-establishment himself, etc., etc.  I mean, ~20% of Congressional Republicans refused to endorse Trump in the general election last year, yet he won anyway.  So I don't think divisions within the party at the elite level are necessarily so damaging in the way that they might have been decades ago.

Plus, for many Republicans who want to remain in the party, yet keep Trump at arm's length, the existence of a primary challenger could give them plausible deniability on Trump.  They could continue to claim that Trump doesn't necessarily represent all Republicans in every way, which is a harder case to make if absolutely no one is willing to challenge him for the nomination.

Finally, when you talk about "the establishment" wanting Trump to win....I'd say that there is no "the establishment" in any coherent sense.  Are Jeb Bush or John Kasich part of "the establishment"?  Because I seriously doubt they're going to endorse Trump next time either.  Or do you just mean big money donors?  Because as we've seen in recent campaign cycles, you can run presidential campaigns on a relative shoestring, even if you've just got one big sugardaddy Super PAC donor.  Trump would presumably have the support of most big GOP donors, but would all of them back him?  Probably not.  If, say, Justin Amash were to run against Trump, I don't actually think he'd be starved for cash.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern. 

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

So you mean it will spawn a far more formidable third party candidate in the general election who'll win close to 20% of the vote?

One thing Paul Ryan did last year was say, over and over, that the election was a "binary choice"; Trump or Hillary.  Nothing else was a viable choice.  Folks got that message; that Johnson-Weld didn't get 5% off the vote is evidence to me that third parties will never score double digits again in my lifetime.

There will be no viable third-party bid in 2020. 

[HisGrace]

One of the fictions of the 2016 campaign was the belief that the GOP Establishment somehow wished for Hillary Clinton to win, somehow, as long as they could (A) not be blamed for her victory and (B) separate the Presidential campaign from the downballot races.  This just wasn't the case.  There were more renegade GOP elected officials refusing to endorse the national ticket in 2016 than those who bailed on Goldwater in 1964.  More Republican elected officials conspicuously bailed on Trump than Democratic elected officials on McGovern. 

The GOP Establishment wanted Trump to win, if only because they viewed him as a Signer-in-Chief who'd sign their bills, and that hasn't changed.  They have come to accept that 2/3 of a Republican is better than no Republican at all.  They are also aware of the fate of political parties that challenge their incumbent Presidents; iit's a no-win situation.  One has to go back to 1856, when James Buchanan challenged Franklin Pierce did a party maintain the White House after their President was significantly challenged for renomination.  They're not going to let this happen; any challenge to Trump's renomination will go no further than Pat Buchanan's challenge to Bush 41.

So you mean it will spawn a far more formidable third party candidate in the general election who'll win close to 20% of the vote?

One thing Paul Ryan did last year was say, over and over, that the election was a "binary choice"; Trump or Hillary.  Nothing else was a viable choice.  Folks got that message; that Johnson-Weld didn't get 5% off the vote is evidence to me that third parties will never score double digits again in my lifetime.

There will be no viable third-party bid in 2020. 

Just pointing out that Buchanan's campaign did quite a bit of damage to Bush's campaign and revealed his weaknesses. All the incumbent presidents who've received primary challenges from non Lyndon LaRouche types have ended up losing (76, 80, 92). Plus Johnson in 68 who dropped out. If Trump gets a challenger with decent name ID it isn't indicative of good things to come for him in the general even if he wins all 50 states in the primary.

[Mr. Morden]

Just pointing out that Buchanan's campaign did quite a bit of damage to Bush's campaign and revealed his weaknesses. All the incumbent presidents who've received primary challenges from non Lyndon LaRouche types have ended up losing (76, 80, 92). Plus Johnson in 68 who dropped out. If Trump gets a challenger with decent name ID it isn't indicative of good things to come for him in the general even if he wins all 50 states in the primary.

Correlation is not causation.  It's true that recent incumbent presidents who've had major primary challengers ended up losing the GE, but that's because those presidents were already unpopular.  Their unpopularity led to them having significant primary challengers, and it led to them losing reelection, but that doesn't mean the primary challenger led to them losing the GE.

And even if it was once the case that primary challengers weakened incumbent presidents, like I said in my post above, I don't think that applies to Trump, since he's "anti-establishment", and doesn't really rely on the party elite being united behind him.  He managed to win last year, despite having an unprecedentedly large contingent of the party elite refusing to endorse him.  A primary challenge might even help him by giving him an "establishment enemy".  Though it really depends on who the challenger is.

[pbrower2a]

I expect the Republicans to use their power in the federal government to play dirty in efforts to disqualify as many 'unreliable' voters as possible.

[JonHawk]

It depends on who the Democratic nominee is. They will need someone who can match Trump strong personality and how they adapt to it.

[UncleSam]

Almost entirely depends on who the Dems nominate.

If it's any of the current front runners (Warren, Booker, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, or even Biden) I think they lose.

If Sanders is healthy and can run he would be a slight favorite.

I think Dems' best chance is to try to find another Obama though (I don't mean literally with the name btw). They need someone with base appeal and appeal to some strong contingent of swing voters either in the south or in the rust belt. Sherrod Brown could maybe fit this bill but it's hard to say, Dem bunch in the South is just so bad and the 2018 electees (assuming Dems make gains somewhere) will be too new to run.

Maybe John Bel Edwards if he can excite the base (probably can't though)? Or Roy Cooper?

Idk if Kamala Harris were a slightly better speaker I'd say she is the one to watch (and I said after Trumps' election she was the one to watch) but what I've seen of her this far does not remind me at all of Obama's charisma or charm.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Yes because he will lose to Kamala Harris in 2020.

[BaldEagle1991]

Almost entirely depends on who the Dems nominate.

If it's any of the current front runners (Warren, Booker, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, or even Biden) I think they lose.

If Sanders is healthy and can run he would be a slight favorite.

I think Dems' best chance is to try to find another Obama though (I don't mean literally with the name btw). They need someone with base appeal and appeal to some strong contingent of swing voters either in the south or in the rust belt. Sherrod Brown could maybe fit this bill but it's hard to say, Dem bunch in the South is just so bad and the 2018 electees (assuming Dems make gains somewhere) will be too new to run.

Maybe John Bel Edwards if he can excite the base (probably can't though)? Or Roy Cooper?

Idk if Kamala Harris were a slightly better speaker I'd say she is the one to watch (and I said after Trumps' election she was the one to watch) but what I've seen of her this far does not remind me at all of Obama's charisma or charm.

I think Trump has done so much damage now that even those guys can pull it off. So those current front runners of the Dems will likely be our 46th President.

[pbrower2a]

Almost entirely depends on who the Dems nominate.

If it's any of the current front runners (Warren, Booker, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, or even Biden) I think they lose.

If Sanders is healthy and can run he would be a slight favorite.

I think Dems' best chance is to try to find another Obama though (I don't mean literally with the name btw). They need someone with base appeal and appeal to some strong contingent of swing voters either in the south or in the rust belt. Sherrod Brown could maybe fit this bill but it's hard to say, Dem bunch in the South is just so bad and the 2018 electees (assuming Dems make gains somewhere) will be too new to run.

Maybe John Bel Edwards if he can excite the base (probably can't though)? Or Roy Cooper?

Idk if Kamala Harris were a slightly better speaker I'd say she is the one to watch (and I said after Trumps' election she was the one to watch) but what I've seen of her this far does not remind me at all of Obama's charisma or charm.

The bid for a second term has typically been a referendum on the success of the incumbent. Barring some events that just do not normally happen in American history I must expect much the same to happen in 2016 as in 2012, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980...

Most of us already have our assessments of how President Trump has done. Some people expected the worst and found such confirmed. Some people think him the best thing to have ever happened to American politics.

Here is a fairly reliable predictor, the Lichtman test,  of who wins a Presidential election:

13 keys to the White House

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://marylandreporter.com/2012/11/08/presidential-champion-lichtmans-13-keys-are-still-the-winning-election-formula/

(1) This rarely works for any incumbent, and we will not know for thirteen months whether this is true or false for Trump. The President's Party usually loses seats in a midterm. I expect this to work no better for Trump than for Obama.

(2) Only rarely does someone offer a meaningful challenge for the re-nomination in his own Party. Even one of the biggest failures to get re-elected (Herbert Hoover in 1932) faced no primary challenge. Carter and Ford  both did, and they lost the subsequent election.

(3) If the nominee is Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or Paul Ryan (in the event that something goes wrong with this President) in 2020, then this will be incredibly easy to answer. The incumbent President usually sets the agenda and partially shapes the political culture of the time.

(4) A big one. It was not enough to derail Harry Truman in 1948, but such independent and third-party nominees as George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992 may have been the difference between the incumbent's Party winning or losing, or even having a chance. Strong third-party challenges often indicate failure of the incumbent to convince voters. Ask again in 2020, especially if Donald Trump or Mike Pence gets a challenge from a conservative third-party challenger.

(5) To be determined.

(6) It is unlikely that the Obama bull market will be matched. I expect this to be false.

(7) So far this President has been spectacularly ineffective. He is far from effective in changing the political culture (at this, he is no Ronald Reagan). Even if the change is highly controversial, people still like winners and get frustrated with failure.

( Early unrest indicates the possibility of a big problem. Protests against the President on policies of medical payments, the environment, and police brutality might have to continue or intensify, or new unrest (like mass strikes) would have to intensify for this to work against the President. How long must the unrest be 'sustained'? Mass protests and strikes or outright riots indicate the failure of the President to convince people of his efficacy or benign intent.

(9) What does 'major' mean? I already see plenty of indiscretions by Cabinet members and staff. So far this is the most corrupt Administration since at least Harding. I expect this to be false.

(10) I hate to say this, but hundreds of thousands of South Korean or Japanese lives are on the line... let alone American troops in the Far East. South Korea could go from looking like a European country  to looking like Iraq or Afghanistan in a very short time because the President taunts an erratic leader. 

Truth be told, Kim Jong-Un feared Barack Obama as he does not fear Donald Trump. Barack Obama would have delivered North Korea to China just to guarantee peace.

(11) Donald Trump could gamble on a War for Profits (like getting control of Venezuelan oil on behalf of American fossil-fuel companies) and get away with it for a while -- much as Dubya did. But that is a severe gambling. Timing could be everything. But note already that America could have anti-war protests like those of the 1960s. But few people outside the USA want Trump to succeed, let alone are willing to put their countries' resources at the disposal of this Preswident in a risky adventure. 

So far I see the President much less effective than Barack Obama in co-operating with the military and the intelligence agencies to get desirable results. I see no diplomatic acumen. This could go very bad very fast for the President. This is a President more likely to create another Osama bin Laden than to destroy one.

(12) Will Trump have the charisma in 2020 that he had in 2016? I may see him as an idol with clay feet now, but I saw him as such in 2016. If 55% of Americans see him in 2020 as I did in 2016, then he could be a political wreck. If something happens to President Trump -- then the word charisma does not apply to either Mike Pence or Paul Ryan.   

(13) The Democrats have yet to have any clear front-runner. I don't see Democrats coming to any consensus of any kind before 2020. 

...All of these keys are relevant, and none of these involve polling. (Of course, polling would reflect these keys too, as reflections of effectiveness and probity of a Presidency).

One can ordinarily expect (1) to work against any President's Party.  (6) will almost certainly work against Trump because the Obama bull market is unlikely to continue unbroken while Trump is President. We already have (key #9) many scandals involving the Cabinet, Presidential staff, and even the President's family. 

Much of the rest is shaky. (7) and ( already look troublesome, but (7) can work for him even if the original result is controversial (see Reagan), and ( could subside. But let the President seem like a sure loser in 2020 and there could well be a challenge inside his party (2) or from a conservative alternative operating outside the GOP (3 -- someone who wants America to be a Christian version of Iran? Someone who wants to clean out the cronyism and corruption but establish a purer plutocracy?) Even if the President gets some success in imposing a tax system more sympathetic to the Master Classes or eviscerating labor unions (7), consequences could be a very nasty recession (5).

The biggest question is whether we will have a free and fair election in 2020. This President already shows dictatorial tendencies that no prior President has shown. He has fanatical supporters willing to use force against dissidents.  His Party has people who would be delighted to outlaw the other Party through some legal chicanery. We could also have a military coup by 2020.

     

[Person Man]

Almost entirely depends on who the Dems nominate.

If it's any of the current front runners (Warren, Booker, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, or even Biden) I think they lose.

If Sanders is healthy and can run he would be a slight favorite.

I think Dems' best chance is to try to find another Obama though (I don't mean literally with the name btw). They need someone with base appeal and appeal to some strong contingent of swing voters either in the south or in the rust belt. Sherrod Brown could maybe fit this bill but it's hard to say, Dem bunch in the South is just so bad and the 2018 electees (assuming Dems make gains somewhere) will be too new to run.

Maybe John Bel Edwards if he can excite the base (probably can't though)? Or Roy Cooper?

Idk if Kamala Harris were a slightly better speaker I'd say she is the one to watch (and I said after Trumps' election she was the one to watch) but what I've seen of her this far does not remind me at all of Obama's charisma or charm.

The bid for a second term has typically been a referendum on the success of the incumbent. Barring some events that just do not normally happen in American history I must expect much the same to happen in 2016 as in 2012, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980...

Most of us already have our assessments of how President Trump has done. Some people expected the worst and found such confirmed. Some people think him the best thing to have ever happened to American politics.

Here is a fairly reliable predictor, the Lichtman test,  of who wins a Presidential election:

13 keys to the White House

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://marylandreporter.com/2012/11/08/presidential-champion-lichtmans-13-keys-are-still-the-winning-election-formula/

(1) This rarely works for any incumbent, and we will not know for thirteen months whether this is true or false for Trump. The President's Party usually loses seats in a midterm. I expect this to work no better for Trump than for Obama.

(2) Only rarely does someone offer a meaningful challenge for the re-nomination in his own Party. Even one of the biggest failures to get re-elected (Herbert Hoover in 1932) faced no primary challenge. Carter and Ford  both did, and they lost the subsequent election.

(3) If the nominee is Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or Paul Ryan (in the event that something goes wrong with this President) in 2020, then this will be incredibly easy to answer. The incumbent President usually sets the agenda and partially shapes the political culture of the time.

(4) A big one. It was not enough to derail Harry Truman in 1948, but such independent and third-party nominees as George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992 may have been the difference between the incumbent's Party winning or losing, or even having a chance. Strong third-party challenges often indicate failure of the incumbent to convince voters. Ask again in 2020, especially if Donald Trump or Mike Pence gets a challenge from a conservative third-party challenger.

(5) To be determined.

(6) It is unlikely that the Obama bull market will be matched. I expect this to be false.

(7) So far this President has been spectacularly ineffective. He is far from effective in changing the political culture (at this, he is no Ronald Reagan). Even if the change is highly controversial, people still like winners and get frustrated with failure.

( Early unrest indicates the possibility of a big problem. Protests against the President on policies of medical payments, the environment, and police brutality might have to continue or intensify, or new unrest (like mass strikes) would have to intensify for this to work against the President. How long must the unrest be 'sustained'? Mass protests and strikes or outright riots indicate the failure of the President to convince people of his efficacy or benign intent.

(9) What does 'major' mean? I already see plenty of indiscretions by Cabinet members and staff. So far this is the most corrupt Administration since at least Harding. I expect this to be false.

(10) I hate to say this, but hundreds of thousands of South Korean or Japanese lives are on the line... let alone American troops in the Far East. South Korea could go from looking like a European country  to looking like Iraq or Afghanistan in a very short time because the President taunts an erratic leader. 

Truth be told, Kim Jong-Un feared Barack Obama as he does not fear Donald Trump. Barack Obama would have delivered North Korea to China just to guarantee peace.

(11) Donald Trump could gamble on a War for Profits (like getting control of Venezuelan oil on behalf of American fossil-fuel companies) and get away with it for a while -- much as Dubya did. But that is a severe gambling. Timing could be everything. But note already that America could have anti-war protests like those of the 1960s. But few people outside the USA want Trump to succeed, let alone are willing to put their countries' resources at the disposal of this Preswident in a risky adventure. 

So far I see the President much less effective than Barack Obama in co-operating with the military and the intelligence agencies to get desirable results. I see no diplomatic acumen. This could go very bad very fast for the President. This is a President more likely to create another Osama bin Laden than to destroy one.

(12) Will Trump have the charisma in 2020 that he had in 2016? I may see him as an idol with clay feet now, but I saw him as such in 2016. If 55% of Americans see him in 2020 as I did in 2016, then he could be a political wreck. If something happens to President Trump -- then the word charisma does not apply to either Mike Pence or Paul Ryan.   

(13) The Democrats have yet to have any clear front-runner. I don't see Democrats coming to any consensus of any kind before 2020. 

...All of these keys are relevant, and none of these involve polling. (Of course, polling would reflect these keys too, as reflections of effectiveness and probity of a Presidency).

One can ordinarily expect (1) to work against any President's Party.  (6) will almost certainly work against Trump because the Obama bull market is unlikely to continue unbroken while Trump is President. We already have (key #9) many scandals involving the Cabinet, Presidential staff, and even the President's family. 

Much of the rest is shaky. (7) and ( already look troublesome, but (7) can work for him even if the original result is controversial (see Reagan), and ( could subside. But let the President seem like a sure loser in 2020 and there could well be a challenge inside his party (2) or from a conservative alternative operating outside the GOP (3 -- someone who wants America to be a Christian version of Iran? Someone who wants to clean out the cronyism and corruption but establish a purer plutocracy?) Even if the President gets some success in imposing a tax system more sympathetic to the Master Classes or eviscerating labor unions (7), consequences could be a very nasty recession (5).

The biggest question is whether we will have a free and fair election in 2020. This President already shows dictatorial tendencies that no prior President has shown. He has fanatical supporters willing to use force against dissidents.  His Party has people who would be delighted to outlaw the other Party through some legal chicanery. We could also have a military coup by 2020.

     

Basically Trump will win if either, at this rate, we are still in a bubble for the next two years straight or the Democrats run a very poor campaign. Probably the latter.

My guess is that NH,MI,AR, and MN switch and he improves but either doesn't win the PV or doesn't get a majority.