End of 2017: Is Trump favored to be re-elected?

[Mr. Smith]

No. Every time he puts out nasty tweets he drives the center of the electorate toward the Democrats.

It did not hurt in fly over country in 2016, becacause Hillary was such a horrid candidate in that area. Also very few people thought Trump would win.

This also assumes the Democrats do not renominate Hillary or go wacko left.  I am sorry and I am sure I will be called a bigot, but Picking a LGBT candidate is going wacko left.

Reagan was wacko right in 1980, we see how that turned out.

[TDAS04]

No, but he could still win.  No matter how much destruction Trump causes or how blatant it is that he committed treason, 2020 will not be 1964- or 1972-style landslide.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

At this point, he's screwed. Trump has an approval rating south of 40%, that would cause him to lose decisively to whoever the Democrat nominee is.

"At this point" being the key part here. We don't know what will happen between now and 2020.

This

Also, I just have to comment on that sig of yours. What exactly was your inspiration to start it, and since when did you start doing rotations on the pictures? The last one was certainly the most... well how to put it... adult like. XD

My inspiration was my love for big butts obviously. And I don't plan on rotating the second picture, I had to change the anime drawing because a mod informed me it was NSFW.

[Mr. Smith]

He's incumbent and his base hasn't wavered that much.

Even Carter was favored despite the crappy numbers most of the way to 1980.

2020 is his to lose in nearly the same sense, and I expect such a thing, but nonetheless he is favored and Democrats could still overreach after midterm success in the same way the GOP did with Romney or Dole.

[Arkansas Yankee]

No. Every time he puts out nasty tweets he drives the center of the electorate toward the Democrats.

It did not hurt in fly over country in 2016, becacause Hillary was such a horrid candidate in that area. Also very few people thought Trump would win.

This also assumes the Democrats do not renominate Hillary or go wacko left.  I am sorry and I am sure I will be called a bigot, but Picking a LGBT candidate is going wacko left.

This is absolutely a bigoted thing to say. There's nothing "wacko" about being gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. And if you think that nominating an LGBT dem is an unwise political move, say that, don't resort to petty and homophobic remarks like calling it "wacko left".

I did not saying being LBGT WAS WAKO LEFT.   I said nominating one at this time would be wacko as to the election and it would be pushed by the left.   Just like nominating a black man in 1948 would have been wacko as to the election. The nation was not ready for it.   Probabbly nominating a LBGT in the future who has established a statewide elective position would not be wacko.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No. Every time he puts out nasty tweets he drives the center of the electorate toward the Democrats.

It did not hurt in fly over country in 2016, becacause Hillary was such a horrid candidate in that area. Also very few people thought Trump would win.

This also assumes the Democrats do not renominate Hillary or go wacko left.  I am sorry and I am sure I will be called a bigot, but Picking a LGBT candidate is going wacko left.

This is absolutely a bigoted thing to say. There's nothing "wacko" about being gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. And if you think that nominating an LGBT dem is an unwise political move, say that, don't resort to petty and homophobic remarks like calling it "wacko left".

I did not saying being LBGT WAS WAKO LEFT.   I said nominating one at this time would be wacko as to the election and it would be pushed by the left.   Just like nominating a black man in 1948 would have been wacko as to the election. The nation was not ready for it.   Probabbly nominating a LBGT in the future who has established a statewide elective position would not be wacko.

He has a point here.

[Mr. Smith]

No. Every time he puts out nasty tweets he drives the center of the electorate toward the Democrats.

It did not hurt in fly over country in 2016, becacause Hillary was such a horrid candidate in that area. Also very few people thought Trump would win.

This also assumes the Democrats do not renominate Hillary or go wacko left.  I am sorry and I am sure I will be called a bigot, but Picking a LGBT candidate is going wacko left.

This is absolutely a bigoted thing to say. There's nothing "wacko" about being gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. And if you think that nominating an LGBT dem is an unwise political move, say that, don't resort to petty and homophobic remarks like calling it "wacko left".

I did not saying being LBGT WAS WAKO LEFT.   I said nominating one at this time would be wacko as to the election and it would be pushed by the left.   Just like nominating a black man in 1948 would have been wacko as to the election. The nation was not ready for it.   Probabbly nominating a LBGT in the future who has established a statewide elective position would not be wacko.

By that logic:

I repeat Divorced Ronnie was wacko-right

And Papal JFK was wacko-left

[King Lear]

He's incumbent and his base hasn't wavered that much.

Even Carter was favored despite the crappy numbers most of the way to 1980.

2020 is his to lose in nearly the same sense, and I expect such a thing, but nonetheless he is favored and Democrats could still overreach after midterm success in the same way the GOP did with Romney or Dole.

At least you admit the simple historical fact that all incumbents are favored for reelection no matter how bad they are, and in the case of Donald Trump, he’s probably more favored then most because of the massive polarization in modern American politics (90% of his voters would never leave him even if the economy crashed and World War 3 broke out), the fact most Democrats are concentrated in a small number of heavily populated, Safe Democratic States, like California, New York, and Illinois, while Republicans are spread everywhere else in smaller numbers thus dulluting the accuracy of national approval rating polling and making it easy for him to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, and lastly the fact the Economy is booming and the Dow Jones could be at 40,000 by 2020 will encourage his base of Old, Wealthy, White people to turnout in droves for him (most of these people wold have doubled their 401ks) while the Democratic base of Young, Poor, Nonwhite people will stay home because most of them will still be poor even with a good economy (especially with Republicans gutting the safety net).

[CookieDamage]

No. Every time he puts out nasty tweets he drives the center of the electorate toward the Democrats.

It did not hurt in fly over country in 2016, becacause Hillary was such a horrid candidate in that area. Also very few people thought Trump would win.

This also assumes the Democrats do not renominate Hillary or go wacko left.  I am sorry and I am sure I will be called a bigot, but Picking a LGBT candidate is going wacko left.

This is absolutely a bigoted thing to say. There's nothing "wacko" about being gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. And if you think that nominating an LGBT dem is an unwise political move, say that, don't resort to petty and homophobic remarks like calling it "wacko left".

This and your Kamala picture shows how blind you are to middle american ideals.

Excuse you?

[Burke Bro]

I don't know. Trump is extremely unpredictable. There's so much that could happen between now and November 3, 2020. Heck, he might not even be president by then.

[Former Kentuckian]

I say no, but I also didn't think he'd win in 2016. We live in a Hell Dimension apparently, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up despite how terrible of a president he's been and how low his favorables are.

[Mr. Smith]

He's incumbent and his base hasn't wavered that much.

Even Carter was favored despite the crappy numbers most of the way to 1980.

2020 is his to lose in nearly the same sense, and I expect such a thing, but nonetheless he is favored and Democrats could still overreach after midterm success in the same way the GOP did with Romney or Dole.

At least you admit the simple historical fact that all incumbents are favored for reelection no matter how bad they are, and in the case of Donald Trump, he’s probably more favored then most because of the massive polarization in modern American politics (90% of his voters would never leave him even if the economy crashed and World War 3 broke out), the fact most Democrats are concentrated in a small number of heavily populated, Safe Democratic States, like California, New York, and Illinois, while Republicans are spread everywhere else in smaller numbers thus dulluting the accuracy of national approval rating polling and making it easy for him to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, and lastly the fact the Economy is booming and the Dow Jones could be at 40,000 by 2020 will encourage his base of Old, Wealthy, White people to turnout in droves for him (most of these people wold have doubled their 401ks) while the Democratic base of Young, Poor, Nonwhite people will stay home because most of them will still be poor even with a good economy (especially with Republicans gutting the safety net).

Similar logic could've been applied to 1992 back in '89, and that was before Bush Sr did that Desert Storm thing and got sky-high approvals...then the economy started to tank.

LBJ was quite favored, then the 'Nam looked endless and McCarthy happened and once he dropped out and tagged Humphrey in, Nixon might as well have been the incumbent..

So yeah, I'm still counting on Trump to fall despite the favorabilities, and also, not too much more from those "clusters" would've flipped the Rust Belt or NC.

I mean, he was pretty much the favorite once he took The South and Rubio got forced out. His only hiccups were in August with that gold-star family and Access Hollywood, and after Ohio and Iowa flipped in the polls around 9/11, it should've been exceedingly obvious he'd win.

...He proceeded to lose the popular vote by 3 million despite all that momentum, and 200,000 votes different would've canceled out that 70,000 everyone talks about (which itself could've gone differently quite easily).  Even Ron Johnson got the numbers.  Actually, most everyone except for The Tumor in Pennsylvania got a majority of the vote.

[UncleSam]

Of course Trump is favored he is an incumbent president with no clear challenger (as of now) who can unite his opposition and an approval rating pretty much on par with Obama's among likely voters, aka the only approval rating that matters for the purposes of re-election.

He is not a strong favorite and I could imagine a range of Democrats beating him by margins ranging from very narrow to near-blowout. I also think it is unlikely he will win any states he lost in 2016 outside of New Hampshire or Minnesota, but I think he is a clear favorite in all the states he won as of now.

Yes I'm aware this will trigger people. But no, Trump winning Michigan by 10,000 votes is not evidence he will lose there in 2020 lol. It's evidence the state (and the region as a whole) is trending right, and I've no reason to think that trend won't continue.

IMO 2020 will be the last time Arizona and Georgia go R due simply to their respective leans. Meanwhile, the Rust Belt has already gotten there. I honestly think Trump could lose by 3% and win the electoral college come 2020. And I doubt there will be a Dem capable of getting the 49 or 50% of the vote necessary to beat Trump in that scenario.

Keep in mind, however, that in 2005 no one foresaw the popularity Obama would have three years later. In 2013 no one foresaw Bernie winning anything at all. Campaigns and people are difficult to predict, and it is very possible a Democrat will rise up and stand above the rest and unify the party. I just don't see it as of now with the existing candidates.

Also remember that no one knew Trump was even running at this point last cycle. I wouldn't count out the possibility of a wildcard winning the primary on the Dem side in 2020 either.

If the election were held tomorrow, however, Dems are deluding themselves if they think anyone other than Obama or Biden or maybe Sanders would beat Trump. And Trump would probably be favored against the latter two. When pushed to who they would vote for versus how much they like Trump, a whole lot of Republicans who hate Trump just won't vote for a Dem for president.

Trump is more well liked now than he was the night he get elected. He won 48% in Wisconsin with an approval rating of 36%. Do not delude yourselves into underestimating Trump again based on popularity polls or political beauty contests. Only a coordinated national movement on the level of Hillary's combined with a strong and powerful message will defeat Trump.

The above is only valid if Trump is not found to have committed any crimes re. Russian collusion, of course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's in a much stronger position than he looks like. The Democrats so relentlessly hammering him and catastrophizing everything he does means that if things don't actually turn out all that bad (if the economy stays strong and no wars break out), they'll look rather silly.

I agree with this analysis.  I think that "The Resistance" concept is way over the top and will become tiresome over time.  If the country starts going to Hell in a handbasket, there will be independent voters who will blame the Democrats' shrill opposition and vote for Trump. 

I also believe that Trump understands politics as few do.  And he's been proven right in his political instincts every time folks say he's stupid, off his rocker, going to blow it, etc.  Trump's not as stupid as Democrats think he is, ahd they'll pay for that miscalculation if they don't adjust their game plan.

[King Lear]

Yes I'm aware this will trigger people. But no, Trump winning Michigan by 10,000 votes is not evidence he will lose there in 2020 lol. It's evidence the state (and the region as a whole) is trending right, and I've no reason to think that trend won't continue.

IMO 2020 will be the last time Arizona and Georgia go R due simply to their respective leans. Meanwhile, the Rust Belt has already gotten there. I honestly think Trump could lose by 3% and win the electoral college come 2020. And I doubt there will be a Dem capable of getting the 49 or 50% of the vote necessary to beat Trump in that scenario. 

You make a very accurate point about Michigan in that the long term problem for Democrats is that Rust Belt states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Iowa are trending away from them at an extremely rapid rate and if you don't believe me, let this sink in for a minute, in 2012 all those states I listed voted more Democratic then the nation by anywhere from 1-5 points with the exception of Ohio, while in 2016 every state I listed voted more Republican then the nation by anywhere from 1-11 points. Meanwhile the Sun belt is not trending towards the Democrats anywhere near as fast as the Rust Belt is trending Republican, for example Florida voted 3 points more Republican then the nation in 2012 (Obama won the state by 1 point), and in 2016 it still voted 3 points more Republican then the nation (Trump won the state by 1 point), North Carolina voted 6 points more Republican then the nation in 2012 (Romney won the state by 2 points), and in 2016 it still voted 6 points more Republican then the nation (Trump won the state by 4 points), meanwhile Arizona, Georgia, and Texas voted 6, 7, and 11 points more Republican then the nation in 2016 which is less Republican-leaning then they were in 2012 but still nowhere near being truly competitive. Finally, what all this means is that Democrats could find themselves in a situation where they can't win the Rust Belt because it's trended to far away from them, while at the same time they can’t win the Sun Belt because it's not trending towards them fast enough.

[Grassroots]

He's in a much stronger position than he looks like. The Democrats so relentlessly hammering him and catastrophizing everything he does means that if things don't actually turn out all that bad (if the economy stays strong and no wars break out), they'll look rather silly.

I agree with this analysis.  I think that "The Resistance" concept is way over the top and will become tiresome over time.  If the country starts going to Hell in a handbasket, there will be independent voters who will blame the Democrats' shrill opposition and vote for Trump. 

I also believe that Trump understands politics as few do.  And he's been proven right in his political instincts every time folks say he's stupid, off his rocker, going to blow it, etc.  Trump's not as stupid as Democrats think he is, ahd they'll pay for that miscalculation if they don't adjust their game plan.

This. Big guy, small shadow.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

He's in a much stronger position than he looks like. The Democrats so relentlessly hammering him and catastrophizing everything he does means that if things don't actually turn out all that bad (if the economy stays strong and no wars break out), they'll look rather silly.

I actually agree with you, if he stops the nasty tweets.  If he keeps them up he will lose as I said unless the Democrats nominate Hillary or go wacko left.   The nasty tweets even get on my nerves.  You can say the same things without being nasty.

Agreed. His personality is his biggest weakness - he can't help himself, and 90% of his wounds are self-inflicted.

[foxh8er]

1 year ago I would have said the exact opposite, and strongly so - and while he does have time for course-correction and for people to give him credit for the state of the economy he's surprisingly bad at it.

I expected him to spend the year doing Carrier deals and getting infrastructure passed, not have his cronies get bodied by Mueller.

[MarkD]

Yeah, a President with approval ratings this poor has never won re-election, period. let alone in a near-landslide.

At this point, he’s screwed. Trump has an approval rating south of 40%, that would cause him to lose decisively to whoever the Democrat nominee is.

Cmon, your delusional to think that he is favored. He can still certainly lose, but its the Democrats’ race to blow.

Nobody with a 32% approval rating gets re-elected. If that were the case Jimmy Carter would have won by a landslide in 1980.

He’s absolutely not the favorite. He could win, but it’s stupid at this point to think he is likely to win.

[TDAS04]

Trump is politically astute, there’s no question about it.  He still managed to win the presidential election in 2016 even after all that nasty stuff.  The man clearly has skill, and it’s terrifying.

It doesn’t matter if Trump is stupid.  He knows how to mesmerize his followers and keep them as sheep, and assuming Trump is the nominee, he’s pretty much guaranteed well above 40% of the PV.

Democrats need to get their act together and work very effectively to win what will very likely be a close race.  For one thing, I hope Democrats don’t let any bitter primary feelings get in the way of standing firm and united behind their nominee, whether it’s Bernie or Kamala.  Even when Republicans didn’t seem united behind Trump last time, apparently they were united enough for Trump to win.  Democrats should take note.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The guy at a 39.5% approval rating among likely/registered voters is not favored to win re-election, morons. Yes, incumbents usually win. On the other hand, the lowest approval rating for any president at this point was 49%. Trump is by far the least popular president in modern history, as he has been since he was inagurated. Democratic candidates, meanwhile, routinely poll at double digit leads over him. King Lear's "Titanium R Rust Belt" fantasies aside, it is virtually impossible for a presidential candidate to have a more than 3 point PV-EV discrepancy. It is quite possible that the popular vote is more favorable to him than the electoral college (as it was for R's in '04, '08 and '12).
Second, there's pretty much no realistic way for him to improve his chances. He is under the looming specter of an investigation in which he has accidentally admitted to a felony, and which threatens to remove him from office. He refuses to change his behavior. His mental faculties are visibily degrading. And he is setting records for disapproval ratings at the same time as the economy is booming. Irrational Exuberance style fantasies aside, the DOW will not hit 40,000 by 2020. I would be surprised if it hit 30,000. Stock markets do not routinely make 16% gains year on year for a decade plus. From past historical evidence, the Dow on election day 2020 will likely be in the neighborhood of 23,000, and on election day 2018 it will be hovering around 21,000. If he is this unpopular when he is presiding over an excellent economy and has not been convicted yet, imagine how unpopular he will be when those turn against them, as they almost certainly will.

I would guess that there is a 70% chance that Trump is named of something damning in the Mueller investigation, from that an 70% chance he is removed or resigns. If he does not, I would guess about 10% of the time he dies. If he manages to make it to re-election and has been named an unindicted co-conspirator, I would guess there is a 5% chance he wins re-election, and if he has not, a 25% chance. Therefore, I'm saying there is a 7.8% chance he wins re-election, and if he manages to stand it would rise to 17%.

[Mail-order President]

Honestly it's too early to tell, but I'd say it's 50/50.

[hunter gatherer]

I voted yes should Donald trump lose re election in 2020 yes absolutely, will he lose re election I don't know that he will, if the democrats double down on identity politics and nominate someone who is "wacko left" because they're trying to make a statement then they will lose and they will deserve to lose. if they get back to they're working class roots and they stop ignoring rural America, they find someone who can appeal particularly to working class men in those rust belt states then I think they have a good shot at winning back the presidency. right now I think the former is more likely then the latter. who knows maybe liberals will come to there senses 3 years is a long time.

[Mr. Smith]

He's in a much stronger position than he looks like. The Democrats so relentlessly hammering him and catastrophizing everything he does means that if things don't actually turn out all that bad (if the economy stays strong and no wars break out), they'll look rather silly.

I agree with this analysis.  I think that "The Resistance" concept is way over the top and will become tiresome over time.  If the country starts going to Hell in a handbasket, there will be independent voters who will blame the Democrats' shrill opposition and vote for Trump. 

I also believe that Trump understands politics as few do.  And he's been proven right in his political instincts every time folks say he's stupid, off his rocker, going to blow it, etc.  Trump's not as stupid as Democrats think he is, ahd they'll pay for that miscalculation if they don't adjust their game plan.

Like when he went all in for Roy Moore at the end?  Or when he though Ed Gillespie lost by not being more like him in a state that he lost by 5?

Also, indie voters didn't back Obama in 2012 even though people got tired of shrill Tea Party hackery in 2012, no, the direction went to Romney...but it wasn't enough because it was slight move and Obama had room to cut....Trump doesn't have that room to lose. 2 points lost and he loses the 200,000 that gave him Arizona + Florida as well as The Rust Belt.

[TML]

I think that Trump is currently not favored to win re-election. However, I also think that he could win if he starts to consistently pursue policies which are favored by progressives (which I'm not betting on to happen at this time).