Trump Likely to Win Re-Election, According to a Dem Strategist

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I agree the media sucked. I personally believed Hillary would barely win the deciding state of PA by less than 0.5%. I got Wisconsin and Michigan wrong (thought it'd be between 1-2%), but I never thought Hillary would win Florida / NC. The polls showed she was losing in those states, yet the media decided she had a lock on those states? The media was literally ignoring the polls in the last week that showed Trump ahead in Florida / NC and that Trump was barely behind in PA. The media was also dumb and ignored the huge undecided numbers.

Cable news networks have sucked for a while. IDK why people just realized this in 2016.

It was everybody, not just news networks. Look at posts in the 2016 election board pre-November 9th.

This is why the reaction has been so intense. People went from "The election can't be hacked. The election can't be rigged. This is a free and fair election. Donald, quit whining. It's not rigged, you're just losing!" to "OMG THE RUSSIANS AND COMEY AND SPAGHETTI-OS CAUSED US TO LOSE THIS WASNT FAIR WE NEED A RE-ELECTION OMG OMOG WE WERE HACKED EVEN THOUGH THE VOTING MACHINES DONT CONNECT TO INTERNET OMG RUSSIAS 100,444 ADS ON BOOKFACE HAD MORE OF AN EFFECT THAN CLINTONS $1.2 BILLION!!!!!"

This is what happened to the Republicans as well when they lost to Trump. They had to cope hard. The Republicans tried to rationalize it the same way - Trump was colluding with the Clintons; Trump just wants to promote a new TV show; Trump doesn't really want to win the Presidency; etc. etc.

It's like a victim of a crime - they cope. They rationalize it in their head. Both the GOP Establishment and Democratic parties were victims of Trump's absolute dominance so now they're coping.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

When Georgia actually elects a democrat statewide, then we can talk about it being possibly in play, until then its not.

Look at how close Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter were in 2014 (a terrible year for democrats overall). They both lost by less than 7%. Granted they were both pretty good candidates, but that's still a fairly small gap!

Now imagine what happens 6 years from then.

And let me inform you of the flaw in this logic -- Georgia elected a democratic governor for 130 years. 130 years between 1873-2003. However, republicans won Georgia on the presidential level quite a few times between this time period.

I know my state fairly well!

[Rjjr77]

There was a lot of evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton would beat her polling numbers too.

A lot of people had privately communicated to the media in some cases that they planned to vote for Clinton, but were afraid that if they let their family know, they would be targeted by domestic violence.

When you consider this, it changes from possible to obvious that Russian hackers must have tampered with the vote totals.

some weird anecdotal evidence makes it obvious that Russian hackers tampered with vote totals? thats asinine.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

It was everybody, not just news networks. Look at posts in the 2016 election board pre-November 9th.

This is why the reaction has been so intense. People went from "The election can't be hacked. The election can't be rigged. This is a free and fair election. Donald, quit whining. It's not rigged, you're just losing!" to "OMG THE RUSSIANS AND COMEY AND SPAGHETTI-OS CAUSED US TO LOSE THIS WASNT FAIR WE NEED A RE-ELECTION OMG OMOG WE WERE HACKED EVEN THOUGH THE VOTING MACHINES DONT CONNECT TO INTERNET OMG RUSSIAS 100,444 ADS ON BOOKFACE HAD MORE OF AN EFFECT THAN CLINTONS $1.2 BILLION!!!!!"

This is what happened to the Republicans as well when they lost to Trump. They had to cope hard. The Republicans tried to rationalize it the same way - Trump was colluding with the Clintons; Trump just wants to promote a new TV show; Trump doesn't really want to win the Presidency; etc. etc.

It's like a victim of a crime - they cope. They rationalize it in their head. Both the GOP Establishment and Democratic parties were victims of Trump's absolute dominance so now they're coping.

Dude we aren't in disagreement here. News (and people in general) are so reactionary. Remember when Bill O Reily said the republican party had no leaders and was dying in 2009? Republicans had absolutely NOTHING in 2009 - democratic dominance everywhere (many thought Sarah Palin would be the new leader of the repub party, lol)! And then 2010 happened.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Dude we aren't in disagreement here. News is so reactionary. Remember when Bill O Reily said the republican party had no leaders and was dying in 2009? Republicans had absolutely NOTHING in 2009 - democratic dominance everywhere (many thought Sarah Palin would be the new leader of the repub party, lol)! And then 2010 happened.

Yeah but hindsight is 20/20. Before the election, virtually no one (even Trump supporters) really thought he could win. Now after the election all I have heard was "I knew Trump would win" or "I knew Clinton would lose/was a bad candidate."

How could 99% of people know that Trump was going to win PA, WI, and MI by less than 1 point? Makes no sense.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah but hindsight is 20/20. Before the election, virtually no one (even Trump supporters) really thought he could win. Now after the election all I have heard was "I knew Trump would win" or "I knew Clinton would lose/was a bad candidate."

How could 99% of people know that Trump was going to win PA, WI, and MI by less than 1 point? Makes no sense.

Hey I didn't say Trump was gonna win MI and WI! I thought he was going to lose those because of the polls there. Trump legitimately destroyed the polls in these two states.

But the polls in NC PA and FL showed a Trump win or a very close Hillary win! The media, Hillary supporters, and even Trump supporters got it into their head that somehow Hillary would overperform the polls! (Probably because Nevada showed a Trump win but then Hillary won it by a fair bit). People were literally ignoring the data lmao.

[Rjjr77]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

When Georgia actually elects a democrat statewide, then we can talk about it being possibly in play, until then its not.

Look at how close Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter were in 2014 (a terrible year for democrats overall). They both lost by less than 7%. Granted they were both pretty good candidates, but that's still a fairly small gap!

Now imagine what happens 6 years from then.

And let me inform you of the flaw in this logic -- Georgia elected a democratic governor for 130 years. 130 years between 1873-2003. However, republicans won Georgia quite a few times between this time period.

I know my state fairly well!

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

This dude acts like the only states that matter are in the Upper Midwest. While those should be the priority, it'd be foolish to disregard Georgia (Senate race), Arizona (possible Senate race), and North Carolina (Senate/gubernatorial race). And obviously Florida.

Fortunately we have gubernatorial and Senate races in all those Upper Midwest states next year to give us a read on their Trumpiness. Frankly, I don't see why in the world Trumpists would be as passionate about 2020 as they were in 2016. It's not like Trump and the GOP have done anything significant. And pardoning people like Arpaio and screaming about black NFL players isn't gonna make any swing voters that went for him last time think "I'm gonna vote for him even harder!!!"

Trump got 99% of NFL players to stand up for the anthem and the NBA has stated it will force players to stand up for the anthem.

It's a winning battle.

Oh, and let's not forget that he got 48% in Florida, 47% in Wisconsin, 47% in Michigan, 48% in Pennsylvania, 48% in Arizona, just shy of 50% in North Carolina, and 50% in Georgia. Even if you assume he holds all his 2016 voters, his path to reelection through those states would require him getting some new voters. It's hard to see people voting third party in droves again against a more liked Democrat.

There was a ton of third party vote.

Clinton only got 50.1% in Oregon for example.

Plus your arguments make no sense. Yeah, Trump got 49% of the vote in Florida - Clinton only got 48%. Why does that logic not apply to the Democrats in Florida?

Trump left a lot of GOP votes on the table. Romney won Arizona with 53% of the vote in 2012, but McCain got 54% of the vote in 2016. So Trump could easily get 51%+ of the vote in Arizona in 2020 (and will - my prediction is he wins 52.5-46).

[Rjjr77]

Dude we aren't in disagreement here. News is so reactionary. Remember when Bill O Reily said the republican party had no leaders and was dying in 2009? Republicans had absolutely NOTHING in 2009 - democratic dominance everywhere (many thought Sarah Palin would be the new leader of the repub party, lol)! And then 2010 happened.

Yeah but hindsight is 20/20. Before the election, virtually no one (even Trump supporters) really thought he could win. Now after the election all I have heard was "I knew Trump would win" or "I knew Clinton would lose/was a bad candidate."

How could 99% of people know that Trump was going to win PA, WI, and MI by less than 1 point? Makes no sense.

Sadly I wasnt a member here, but I am on record at an event during the RNC convention pointing out that I thought Trump would win Pennsylvania and Michigan and win the election in a close one (I also at that same event said no republican will win Wisconsin in a presidential for the next 20 years, so theres that)

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

100% this.

Usually when a state shifts, there are signs. Por ejemplo, in Wisconsin there was Scott Walker. In Michigan, there's Rick Snyder. In Pennsylvania, there was Pat Toomey.

You can see it happen in real time. In Georgia there's nothing. Yeah, Trump only won it by like 5 - but so did McCain, and Romney went and won it by 8 points with ease in 2012.

I do think Georgia will eventually make the transition, but not until late next decade.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Sadly I wasnt a member here, but I am on record at an event during the RNC convention pointing out that I thought Trump would win Pennsylvania and Michigan and win the election in a close one (I also at that same event said no republican will win Wisconsin in a presidential for the next 20 years, so theres that)

I'm a hardcore Trump guy and I had him at 347 electoral votes in December 2015. All the Romney states + Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

I based it off 2 things:

1. George W. Bush's 2004 performance (won NV/VA/CO, and was super close in WI/PA/MN/NH)
2. The polls at the time showing Trump leading in Minnesota and Michigan

On election week I predicted 290 electoral votes - Romney states + Florida, Ohio, Iowa, ME 2CD, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

I actually thought Virginia would go blue before Wisconsin because of how badly Trump got trounced in Wisconsin and the polls. Wisconsin was shocking to me because there were really no indications he would win it. In Pennsylvania and Michigan, Trump dominated the primaries and in Michigan the GOP primary got more votes than Dem. In PA, the GOP primary was close to the Dem primary. So I always thought Michigan could go Trump but didn't expect it to.

[Rjjr77]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

Georgia Elected Republicans state wide in 1994

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Alright well let me put it in terms you might be able to understand

1. Clinton isn't President. If she was I'd do the same thing and point to her getting 48 in Maine, 46 in NH, 47 in MN and 48 in NV. It indicates she is not popular in those states, and against a more liked Republican opponent than Trump they'd be at heavy risk of voting R in 2020, particularly if her approval rating had dropped by about 10 points from her vote total (as Trump's did). There's not many examples at all of executives outperforming their approval rating by much, if any.

2. Your argument about "votes on the table" makes no sense then too if I point out that Hillary left a lot of votes on the table too by that logic in places like the Upper Midwest, NC, and FL.

3. If you're stupid enough to vote for Trump based on a silly NFL Twitter clash, you were going to vote for him anyway. In the real world, people care about more substantive things.

For some reason though, I suspect I'm wasting my time. If you think people are gonna be in a mood to reelect someone with sub-40% approval ratings, be my guest. I can't think of a single instance where that's happened in recent memory.

1. It's hard to say because of the huge amount of third party votes. It'd be like saying Bill Clinton's max was 43%. No, when Perot's vote count got sliced in half Clinton had no problem increasing his vote totals. Third parties never have the same vote percentage 4 years after an election with significant third party vote (1980 third parties - 8% of vote, 1984 - 1%; 1992 - 20% of vote, 1996 - 9%; 2000 - 4%, 2004 - 1%).

It's asinine to say Trump's ceiling is only 49% in Florida or North Carolina or Arizona. By the way, how many times have we heard about Trump's ceiling? Lol. Are we gonna go through that story again in 2020?

But it doesn't indicate popularity at all. Just indicates a huge third party vote. Do you think Bill Clinton's ceiling in California was 46% (his 1992 perentage)?

And approval ratings for Trump don't mean anything.

2. Clinton didn't leave that many votes on the table. Not compared to Trump.

As I said, John McCain won Arizona with 54% of the Arizona vote, which is about what Romney won by so there are still plenty of Arizona Republican votes to get. Same in North Carolina and even Florida. Rubio won with 52% of the vote and got 4.8 million votes.

3. Trump is pointing out anti-Trump people are anti-American. Good plan IMO.

For some reason though, I suspect I'm wasting my time. If you think people are gonna be in a mood to reelect someone with sub-40% approval ratings, be my guest. I can't think of a single instance where that's happened in recent memory.

Drumpf is OVER, finished. Why can't you people see that if we nominate the orange faced racist it's just going to guarantee a Hillary win?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Trump will win Georgia 53.5%-45.5% in 2020. Give or take half a percentage point.

Then again according to you Trump has no path to 1,237 delegates and there's gonna be a contested convention lolololololol.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Trump will win Georgia 53.5%-45.5% in 2020. Give or take half a percentage point.

Then again according to you Trump has no path to 1,237 delegates and there's gonna be a contested convention lolololololol.

Are you retarded

No. I've been right about Trump this entire time.

Trump will easily win Georgia in 2020.

[Rjjr77]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

Georgia Elected Republicans state wide in 1994

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Neither Id say is likely to happen, but Democrats winning anything statewide in 2018 would show that 2020 scenario could actually happen.

There appears to be a built in floor for republicans in Georgia, and it is higher than democrats in georgias proven ceiling. Hillary Clinton had the most votes for a democrat in the history of Georgia and didnt come close, and trumps totals are in spitting distance of what Romney, McCain and Bush all put up. Hillary put up what Obama put up in 2008, and Democrats increased their share of the vote from 2012 by 0.41 thats not a trend

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

1. Learn to read. I never said that was his ceiling. But it's hard to get past what he got in 2016 when his approval ratings across the board are about 10 points lower. Bill Clinton was polling much higher than Trump is, and has consistently been throughout similar points in their presidencies. BUT MUH TRUMP STATES

2. By that logic, Hillary should've gotten 62% of the vote in Staten Island, 70%+ in Hawaii, easily won Pueblo County, and held up in western Wisconsin. Who woulda thunk that Senate races with incumbents are not going to be perfectly correlated with how a Presidential candidate should perform? BUT MUH TRUMP TRAIN IM CREAMIN MY JEANS CUZ WE'RE GONNA WIN SO HARD AGAIN CUZ MUH FAKE NEWS

3. Well Kaepernick was ant-Hillary and thinks that Democrats are racist too, but go ahead and run on that!

Oh no, approval ratings are clearly Trump's weakness!

You got him there man!

I heard this crap in 2016. This is deja vu. How wrong were you in 2016?

Also, I didn't bring up just Senate races but also Romney's performances in the states.

Trump won the kneeling debate. Just wish it wouldve happened next season so it could affect the 2018 midterms. Oh well.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The whole kneeling thing is a slight win for Trump. Protest movements are never popular at first (remember love it or leave it in Vietnam? Remember how people hated MLK until he was assassinated? remember how people hated the Tea Party demonstrations and then they won big in 2010?) Republicans can mask their very unpopular policies with random social wedges.

If you are a Trump supporter, you should be very concerned about Trump's accomplishments 9 months (I guess there's Goursich and a hurricane bill?) in. Look at how productive Obama's first congress was compared to Trump's.

And this is supposed to be the easiest part of a president's term. Bill Clinton may have been able to recover, but that was because he moved to the right and started compromising. Will Donald Trump be able to move to the left and start compromising?

Granted a Trump strike in North Korea would probably raise his approval rating by at least 7%, so if he's successful in North Korea he could do well.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

First point is false. Deal's margin was 2% lower than 2010. He beat Barnes 53-43 and Carter 53-45.

Second point 2002 black voter registration was EXTREMELY low compared to today. There were far more rural whites voting Democratic in North and South Georgia compared to now. Black voter turnout and Dem leaning Asians and Hispanics are slowly catching up to counteract the exodus of white people from the Georgia Democrat Party. The demographics of 2002 are not comparable to today.

I do agree that Georgia needs a statewide win to give legitimacy to its battleground status. Fingers crossed for Evans for Governor and Barrow for SoS.

ETA: I would also concur that Dems have made inroads in counties like Henry, Rockdale, Newton, Douglas which used to be Safe R and now are Safe D in the cases of Rockdale and Douglas, and Likely D in the case of Newton and Henry. They need to flip Cobb and Gwinnett permanently, reduce margins in Cherokee and Forsyth. And find a way not to get blown out in the rural parts. It is a tough task but the Atlanta metro is moving strongly towards the Democrat Party.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

The whole kneeling thing is a slight win for Trump. Protest movements are never popular at first (remember love it or leave it in Vietnam? Remember how people hated MLK until he was assassinated? remember how people hated the Tea Party demonstrations and then they won big in 2010?) Republicans can mask their very unpopular policies with random social wedges.

If you are a Trump supporter, you should be very concerned about Trump's accomplishments 9 months (I guess there's Goursich and a hurricane bill?) in. Look at how productive Obama's first congress was compared to Trump's.

And this is supposed to be the easiest part of a president's term. Bill Clinton may have been able to recover, but that was because he moved to the right and started compromising. Will Donald Trump be able to move to the left and start compromising?

Granted a Trump strike in North Korea would probably raise his approval rating by at least 7%, so if he's successful in North Korea he could do well.

The difference between Vietnam and MLK protests is those people were protesting real injustices. The Tea Party also protested real things, while the "Resistance" protested nothing of substance. If they would have waited for the travel ban (just 1 week) they would have made more sense.

Obama also had a supermajority in Congress + the backing of the Establishment.

The GOP never had any intention of ever repealing Obamacare (McCain/Collins/Murkowski took the fall for it).

The real test is if the GOP gets a supermajority in 2018 (a possibility), then what happens?

My biggest issue with Trump is that he doesn't seem to fight and really wants the Establishment to like him. Him supporting Strange over Moore for example was unacceptable. If Trump does not MAGA then he will face the same fate as Strange in 2020.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

TBF to GA statewide wins, I'd imagine John Barrow is probably gonna win in 2018. Not sure about the governor race -- Abrams seems like a likely loss, while it's probably a tossup for Evans.

Also the people that tend to turnout in midterms are the people most against the party in power.

Also lol the GOP is not getting a super majority in 2018. It would have gotten one if Hillary was in the white house though.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The difference between Vietnam and MLK protests is those people were protesting real injustices. The Tea Party also protested real things, while the "Resistance" protested nothing of substance. If they would have waited for the travel ban (just 1 week) they would have made more sense.

you do realize people hated the mlk protests too right lol? many people thought that mlk was being too radical and needed to find a more peaceful way of protesting. you really think people liked that people were marching down streets and blocking people from going to work? idk what is up w/ this revisionist history where the civil rights protest was all goody two shoes.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Also lol the GOP is not getting a super majority in 2018. It would have gotten one if Hillary was in the white house though.

I am mad at Ayotte and Heck for their stupidity in 2016, but it's still within reach:

Manchin switches to Independent or parties outright - or loses to a Republican, then there's Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And possibly Florida.

If Ayotte and Heck didn't go full stupid then it'd be much easier. But oh well can't cry over spilled milk.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah, this thread is quickly turning into a ridiculous MAGA circle-jerk so I'm just gonna spend my Saturday elsewhere.

I understand that you're passionate but I think ahugecat has been pretty reasonable for most of this thread. Most of his points are good (except for the GOP supermajority which is just ignoring the basic facts of midterms), but he just misses a crucial part of the puzzle. This forum should be a little more reasonable to ahugecat.