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

[Pericles]

Georgia and Arizona are rapidly trending D and Trump's approvals are terrible there. In 2020 a lot of people here may end up looking very foolish-though this is Atlas so most people are foolish.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Best case scenario for Rethuglicans in 2018 Senate is 59-41 (losing nothing, and gaining ND, IN, WV, OH, MT, FL, and MO)

Only 7 Democrat seats have a non-0 chance of flipping, and Rethuglicans need to pick up 8 to be filibuster proof.

[cvparty]

not the most convincing case, also stop arguing with ahugecat people it’s pointless!

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

not the most convincing case, also stop arguing with ahugecat people it’s pointless!

Click here

[PragmaticPopulist]

My takes:

While there are legitimate points made, such as that Trump's core base is likely to stay because they're much more interested in the show than what he gets done, I think the strategist is overestimating the influence that base has on the overall election. Democratic turnout was down in just the right places to sway the election, and I doubt third party candidates will have as good a performance as in 2016.

Of course, this strategist could just be writing this to hype up Democrats early. After all, that's what a strategist does. Either way, it is 3 years out.

[Shadows]

Georgia & Arizona may end up being swing states in 2024, but not 2020. And even if it does, I can see Dems winning 1 Senate seat there each. It is not like it will be likely D all the time.

On the other hand Dems have 2 Senate Seats in Minnesota, 2 in Michigan, 1 each on Ohio, PA, MO, IN. That is 8 seats. Plus NH & 1 seat in Iowa & NC is also winnable. There's like 10-12 seats atleast which can swing red if the Dems lose their working class base.

They will never be winning the Senate. The EC will also be very hard to win without Minnesota & NH. They will have to win almost every random swing state. There is no path to a Dem victory untill Texas opens up.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

not the most convincing case, also stop arguing with ahugecat people it’s pointless!

It's pointless because I win easily with relative ease as I am always right.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Best case scenario for Rethuglicans in 2018 Senate is 59-41 (losing nothing, and gaining ND, IN, WV, OH, MT, FL, and MO)

Only 7 Democrat seats have a non-0 chance of flipping, and Rethuglicans need to pick up 8 to be filibuster proof.

"Trump has only 1% chance to win the nomination" "Trump wont make it to Iowa" "Trump won get 1,237 delegates" "Trump wont get 270 electoral votes" etc. etc. you get the point.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Best case scenario for Rethuglicans in 2018 Senate is 59-41 (losing nothing, and gaining ND, IN, WV, OH, MT, FL, and MO)

Only 7 Democrat seats have a non-0 chance of flipping, and Rethuglicans need to pick up 8 to be filibuster proof.

"Trump has only 1% chance to win the nomination" "Trump wont make it to Iowa" "Trump wont get 1,237 delegates" "Trump wont get 270 electoral votes" etc. etc. you get the point.

I remember thinking that Trump was going to win the nomination (and lose the general) basically as early as October 2015.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Best case scenario for Rethuglicans in 2018 Senate is 59-41 (losing nothing, and gaining ND, IN, WV, OH, MT, FL, and MO)

Only 7 Democrat seats have a non-0 chance of flipping, and Rethuglicans need to pick up 8 to be filibuster proof.

"Trump has only 1% chance to win the nomination" "Trump wont make it to Iowa" "Trump wont get 1,237 delegates" "Trump wont get 270 electoral votes" etc. etc. you get the point.

I remember thinking that Trump was going to win the nomination (and lose the general) basically as early as October 2015.

As I said, I've heard it all.

The only thing is that when Trump is underestimated he does his best. So tbh I'd love for everyone to keep underestimating and saying he has no chance at doing something, so then he easily does it and people ask "How did we get it wrong again?"

My new favorite American pastime is watching Democrats concede.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Georgia and Arizona are rapidly trending D and Trump's approvals are terrible there. In 2020 a lot of people here may end up looking very foolish-though this is Atlas so most people are foolish.

You had Clinton beating Trump 340-198.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

pointing out times when other posters were wrong in the past is a terrible argument tactic, FYI

[Pericles]

Georgia and Arizona are rapidly trending D and Trump's approvals are terrible there. In 2020 a lot of people here may end up looking very foolish-though this is Atlas so most people are foolish.

You had Clinton beating Trump 340-198.

You Trump supporters are the arrogant ones now. The pendulum will swing back and hit you hard.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

pointing out times when other posters were wrong in the past is a terrible argument tactic, FYI

It's not that they were wrong, it's that they were wrong nearly the whole way through.

Out of the 40 things relating to Trump, they' were wrong all 40 times. That does deserve to be pointed out especially considering the crap Trump supporters had to deal with.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

This article was a sly way to scare progressives into supporting a more establishment style candidate, and not back a third party alternative. That seems pretty obvious to me.

[Don Vito Corleone]

These idiots are the reason Dems continue to lose. They bleed money to clueless schmucks who try to predict elections more than 3 years away. How stupid can you be?

And saying Trump who has one of the worst approvals in history for this period will "Likely" win is the reasons these strategists should be unemployed. No1 argues that Dems need to target the Mid-west for winning the EC - That is not even debatable. Rest all is total BS !

"Approval ratings" mean nothing.

Remember what everyone said about Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Imagine unironically believing this.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Speaking of 2018, a new Florida poll came out showing Rick Scott slightly ahead of Bill Nelson: http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/rick-scott-edges-bill-nelson-new-2018-poll

Up by only 2 with a TON of undecideds, but it's not 100% that Nelson will keep his seat. If Scott runs, he could win.

We need 8 Senators to hit 60, but preferably 63+ to avoid the GOP Establishment trying to screw things up.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Best case scenario for Rethuglicans in 2018 Senate is 59-41 (losing nothing, and gaining ND, IN, WV, OH, MT, FL, and MO)

Only 7 Democrat seats have a non-0 chance of flipping, and Rethuglicans need to pick up 8 to be filibuster proof.

"Trump has only 1% chance to win the nomination" "Trump wont make it to Iowa" "Trump won get 1,237 delegates" "Trump wont get 270 electoral votes" etc. etc. you get the point.

"Trump will win Minnesota and New Hampshire." (Or does it not count when it's you?)

[pbrower2a]

For these following reasons:

1. It is unnecessary to win a majority of the popular vote, as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush demonstrated. 

But one need be reasonably close. Trump won because even if Hillary Clinton won the plurality of votes she loaded up in states in which she didn't need to get as many as she needed -- as in California and New York. Our Electoral College makes it necessary to win states, and not votes.

This is not a democracy. Getting the right votes matters more than getting the plurality in this system.

It is surprising that Donald Trump got a smaller share of the popular vote than did such electoral losers as Romney in 2012 and Kerry in 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

But the next time the third parties could effectively bleed more support from Donald Trump.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone who wants to deny the polling results is welcome to do so. But so far, President Trump has approval numbers far below what he needs at the start of a campaign season from which to recover.

Approval

Trump ahead      Trump behind

55% or higher    45% to 49%
50% to 54%       40% to 44%  
45% to 49%       under 40%

Ties are in white.



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 the latest credible polling data. I pay much attention to "disapproval" because as in other things, bad early opinions are hard to undo. Yes, a seven-year-old child who plays an agonizing performance on his violin might end up a virtuoso... but we have a seventy-year-old President here. That screeching performance seems unlikely to get better. I expect Donald Trump to get wrong notes and play out of tune.

Of course it is a long time until the first primaries and caucuses of 2020, and all sorts of things can happen. To change the horrid approval-disapproval numbers of him he will need to change the political culture. Possible, but highly unlikely.  Ronald Reagan could do that enough to transfore 51% of the vote for him to 57% of the vote for him in 1984.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's going to take much more than support in the 30s

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those states look lost to him at this stage.

It is possible to win with an early approval rating of 26% approval and 45% disapproval. So long as one keeps the disapproval rating from going appreciably above 50%  one can win because one can turn undecided voters into acquiescing voters.

...I'm not saying that President Trump can't win. If I had money to invest I would not be investing in entities whose success depends upon a second term of Donald Trump.

Can he win? Sure. A 2-14 NFL team can go 11-5 the next year, get through the playoffs, and win the Super Bowl because the previous season means nothing in the next year. But everything must go right for President Trump. Basically, either the accusations of misconduct of himself and his associates in the 2016 election must turn into 'egg in the face', or people must come to accept that such is fine; the political climate must change so that people come to accept that rapacious plutocrats best know what is good for the rest of Humanity better than Humanity itself knows; or that electoral tampering (including intimidation or vote-rigging) works.    

[Pericles]

This argument is not correct. I'll address it point by point.
1. Trump's base is not enough to win re-election. Sure there are many diehard Trump supporters but they are a minority of the nation as a whole. What 2018 and 2020 will come down to are the reluctant Trump voters and Obama-Trump voters (who aren't always the same people). Furthermore, Trump's base is depressed and unenthusiastic while the Democratic base is energised. Trump's base, contrary to popular belief, is shrinking,  and his support since coming into office has been on a clear downward trend. Furthermore those that strongly support him are shrinking too. Trump's floor is not solid but rather plumbing new depths. As he continues to break his promises in office and disappoint his supporters, his base will grow weaker. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/amp/
2. Yes, Trump doesn't need to win a majority of the popular vote. But it's very difficult to win on 40% of the vote especially if nearly 50% of the population strongly disapprove. Incumbents who win are generally at least midly popular. Those that aren't, like Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush, aren't re-elected.
3. A strong third-party performance isn't a guarantee in 2020. While disapproval of both parties has risen, so has negative partisanship, and voters won't want to do anything that could let the hated opposition win. After 2016 it's possible that left-leaning voters weighing up a protest vote will not be so eager to do so, as last time it helped Trump win. And if there is a third party surge, it might hurt Trump more than the Democrats. The Republican Party is just as vulnerable, if not more so, to a split than the Democrats.
4. Polls of likely voters do benefit Trump somewhat but even with them he is only at 40% (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/). This could matter in a close race, though the shape of the electorate could easily change by 2020. However there is no evidence of a shy-Trump effect, and national polls were off by only 1% in 2016. In battleground states he is stronger but still he is unpopular, and previously solid GOP strongholds like Arizona could be lost. Trump would likely lose on his current support, though he could repeat 2016 if it picks up.

Trump could win. Many things could change in 3 years(though that may be bad for  him-the  strong economy he inherited could suffer a downturn) and it's foolish to treat the outcome as certain either way. But he's not on track to win re-election and if the election were now he'd lose. He has very few legislative accomplishments and is unlikely to get more soon, he has not overcome his unpopularity but become more unpopular, he hasn't delivered on the promises he made and could be the target, rather than the beneficiary, of the populist mood come 2020, and also the Democrats likely will nominate a more popular candidate than Hillary Clinton. He can win, but he's not the favorite. He is the kind of incumbent President that loses re-election(a Republican Jimmy Carter with Nixon mixed in). And that's if he makes it to 2020.

[Deblano]

Georgia and Arizona are rapidly trending D and Trump's approvals are terrible there. In 2020 a lot of people here may end up looking very foolish-though this is Atlas so most people are foolish.

You had Clinton beating Trump 340-198.

You Trump supporters are the arrogant ones now. The pendulum will swing back and hit you hard.

It's sadly normal for them to think like this.

Jade's Law: "The party in power is smug and arrogant, and the party out of power is insane. "

In all seriousness, I'm not certain that Michigan and Pennsylvania are doomed to be GOP forever. Those states voted Republican in 2016 IMO because Hillary was that weak/unpopular as a candidate and Trump's populist rhetoric gave a lot of people in that region hope that he could be a unique Republican that would "bring jobs back" and end "bad trade deals". However, a lot of that optimism from the reluctant Trump voters in the Rust Belt seems to be evaporating now that his touted deal-making skills have fallen flat on their face, and the only way that those states could vote GOP in 2020 is if the Democratic nominee is REALLY bad.

[Person Man]

Georgia and Arizona are rapidly trending D and Trump's approvals are terrible there. In 2020 a lot of people here may end up looking very foolish-though this is Atlas so most people are foolish.

You had Clinton beating Trump 340-198.

You Trump supporters are the arrogant ones now. The pendulum will swing back and hit you hard.

It's sadly normal for them to think like this.

Jade's Law: "The party in power is smug and arrogant, and the party out of power is insane. "

In all seriousness, I'm not certain that Michigan and Pennsylvania are doomed to be GOP forever. Those states voted Republican in 2016 IMO because Hillary was that weak/unpopular as a candidate and Trump's populist rhetoric gave a lot of people in that region hope that he could be a unique Republican that would "bring jobs back" and end "bad trade deals". However, a lot of that optimism from the reluctant Trump voters in the Rust Belt seems to be evaporating now that his touted deal-making skills have fallen flat on their face, and the only way that those states could vote GOP in 2020 is if the Democratic nominee is REALLY bad.

Something like this. I could see Trump being given a shot to win based on Democrats doing well in 2018 ala 94-96.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I feel like this is a kick in the ass for Democrats because I don't know how a man with a 35% approval rating wins reelection.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

And that's if he makes it to 2020.

Why should I take you seriously when you said he wouldn't even have had the opportunity to make it to 2020? According to you, he was supposed to lose 340-198.

You're telling me to believe what you say on something you said would never happen.

You're asking me to trust Bernie Madoff after you invested your entire retirement in Enron.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

It's sadly normal for them to think like this.

Jade's Law: "The party in power is smug and arrogant, and the party out of power is insane. "

In all seriousness, I'm not certain that Michigan and Pennsylvania are doomed to be GOP forever. Those states voted Republican in 2016 IMO because Hillary was that weak/unpopular as a candidate and Trump's populist rhetoric gave a lot of people in that region hope that he could be a unique Republican that would "bring jobs back" and end "bad trade deals". However, a lot of that optimism from the reluctant Trump voters in the Rust Belt seems to be evaporating now that his touted deal-making skills have fallen flat on their face, and the only way that those states could vote GOP in 2020 is if the Democratic nominee is REALLY bad.

We've earned our arrogance, if anything, what I am typing is far less arrogant anyway.

Anti-Trumpers are now saying quadrupling down on the "he has no chance" crap even after what we went through in 2016. It's arrogance to be absolutely wrong on EVERYTHING and then double down on it.

"Trump will not enter the race"
"Trump will not file his FEC papers"
"Trump won't do well in the polls"
"Trump's McCain comments will surely doom him"
"Trump's ceiling is 25%"
"Trump won't make it a GOP debate"
"Trump is done after the debate"
"Trump's ceiling is 30%"
"Trump has a 1% chance to win the nomination"
"Trump's Megyn Kelly comment will surely ruin him"
"Trump is clearly colluding with the Clintons to help Hillary win"
"Carly Fiorina's surge will surely test Trump to his limits"

This is just the first 3 months and barely scratches the surface.