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

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

2020 election definitely shouldn't be considered an autowin for dems. That said, Trump almost threw an automatic win vs a terrible candidate after 8 years of an only decent democrat president (he only got particularly popular after people saw Obama in comparison to Hillary and Trump). You have to be a special kind of incompetent to almost lose Hillary Clinton (the person who made the 2000 New York senate race somewhat competitive).

Also, the worst people floated around for 2020 candidate (Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris) are both still leagues better than Hillary Clinton. You have to really try to pick a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. And you also have to really try to run a worse campaign than Hillary.

Aside from Trump's blunders, the reason the race was so close was because Trump spent only pennies on the campaign. He won't have this problem in 2020. He spent less than $5 per vote in 2016, so all he has to do is double that and he's good to go.

But before the election, literally on the night of the election, Hillary had an impeccable campaign and her ground game would be the reason she wins. I love seeing revisionist history in action lol.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Hillary showed that the effect of money doesn't mean much in presidential races

Except if you're Russian. Then $100,000 in Facebook ads is the most devastating campaign strategy ever lol.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

You're totally right on that. Honestly I hate how democrats are blaming the russians. Russia did hurt Hillary a slight bit probably (how the hell do you even quantify this), but the ad attacks wouldn't have been effective if Hillary was someone people could actually trust.

It's called Hysteria. Induced by losing what they deemed to be their rightful throne, and any reasoning behind their loss CANNOT be legal or logical as it was rightfully theirs. Therefore, it was clearly Russian interference.

However, isn't this "Clinton was one of the worst candidates/ran a terrible campaign" revisionist history? Literally on election night everyone was talking about how her campaign was impeccable, her ground game was better than Obama's, her data was the best in the history of Democracy, Trump only had a 2% chance to win, etc. etc.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

Yeah they hated those protests because of Jim Crow believers. MLK was protesting for rights guaranteed to them via the Constitution. The NFL kneelers are protesting the right for cops to defend themselves.

Vietnam protesters were protesting an extremely stupid and failed war that had a draft. With Iraq, at least we had an all volunteer military.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Casey, and Bill Nelson are not losing.

Stabenow will lose if Kid Rock runs. If he doesn't, it's harder but possible.

Nelson is tough for sure.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are well within play. Ohio especially. Casey will be tough but with Toomey and Trump winning it's on the list.

From easiest to win to toughest tiers:

- Montana/North Dakota/Missouri
- Indiana/Ohio/Wisconsin/West Virginia (if Manchin doesn't switch parties/go indy)
- New York (just kidding lol) Pennsylvania/Michigan
- Florida/Minnesota/Maine
- Rest are safe Democrat

It's one of the reasons I am so mad about Ayotte and Heck losing. With them winning then we could afford to lose PA or MI, but now they're crucial.

ETA: I forgot about Virginia. I won't comment on this one until I see this year's gubernatorial race.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

97% of people from the party opposing the presidential party in the senate win reelection. 97%.

I don't see any way GOP wins PA, Wisconsin, or Ohio. PA and Wisconsin are purple states, whereas Ohio is a rematch of a failed candidate from 2012. 2018 will be a more favorable environment for dems than 2012.

Michigan is a purple state but I won't rule it out because of the Kid Rock factor. I doubt he wins but I'm not going to rule it out. Florida is also somewhat unlikely because it's a purple state but Rick Scott is a strong competitor so I won't rule it out.

MO, IN, ND, WV, MT are all arguably tossups / only tilt D, but even if republicans win all of these, they'd still be 3 seats short. This is also ignoring NV / AZ.

My personal guess is dems lose Missouri and one of IN / ND / MT, and republicans hold both NV / AZ.

Trump doesn't follow typical political science rules. We should know that by now.

Everytime he has been underestimated he rises up and wins anyway.

Wisconsin I think is one of the easier wins because of the GOP infrastructure in WI and Baldwin if I remember correctly not being too popular among liberals. She's pretty vulnerable, I was hoping Walker would run for the seat.

Yeah, with Michigan it depends who wins. If it's a boring generic Republican Stabenow wins. If it's like Kid Rock then it's much easier. I really hope Kid Rock runs. Even if he loses it's worth trying.

And yes, Dems are definitely losing Missouri. Should've lost in 2012 but Claire was given the gift from the gods that year lol.

I see Republicans winning 58 seats minimum, HOWEVER, that is not enough. So I say they should go for the nuclear option if that happens.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

Trump's were far worse though.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR A DEMOCRAT IN GEORGIA TO WIN IN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR THAN A MIDTERM YEAR, AND THEY DON'T NEED TO CROSS 50% TO WIN

Yeah because they've won Georgia in the past 6 elections. Just kidding lol.

Obama maxed out the black vote and didn't get within 5 points of McCain. Romney won it by 8. Clinton won Gwinnet and Cobb counties and lost around the same percentage points Obama lost.

Georgia is not becoming a swing state til 2028 and a Dem. won't win it til the 30s at the earliest.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

Trump's were far worse though.

Trump won the voters who hated both him and Clinton.

Clinton had depressed turnout in Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin. Black turnout in Milwaukee went from 75% in 2012 to 49% in 2016.

High third party support.

Her LOSS is not THAT shocking after looking at the election day data. There was just intense hubris from the Clinton camp because Trump did things that Presidential candidates just DON'T do.  

Trump also got low GOP turnout in Milwaukee suburbs and Milwaukee itself. Trump did terrible in many suburbs that Romney did well in.

As I said, Trump had far worse approval ratings than Clinton.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

"MUH Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA cuz they've gone D for six cycles!"

have u not paid attention to this thread with wht Rjj77 and i have been saying?

Republicans won Obama-era statewide races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Scott Walker (and Ron Johnson), Pat Toomey (and the governor in 2010 I forget his name), and Rick Snyder.

pay attention plz. school is in session

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I don't know why Democrats need to win Georgia in unfavorable conditions in midterms when it'd be a lot easier to do it in a Presidential year. Stop being stoopid and acknowledge this plz

What indications do you get that Georgia will be easy in a Presidential year in 2020/2024?

I can see Georgia being a true swing state by 2028, with a Dem winning it by 2032, but by 2024? Nah.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980
-a ton more I'm probably missing

Again for like the millionth time: I'm not saying a D win in GA is even likely in 2020. Just that it's more likely than a 2018 win.

Oh and I forgot to mention, Bush was less than 0.5 points from winning Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004, about 3 points from winning Pennsylvania, and 4 points from winning Michigan.

Democrats got unreal Democrat turnout in 2008 and 2016 in Georgia and didn't even get within 5.

Trump winning Georgia with 52%+ of the vote is 100% guaranteed.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980
-a ton more I'm probably missing

Again for like the millionth time: I'm not saying a D win in GA is even likely in 2020. Just that it's more likely than a 2018 win.

Oh and I forgot to mention, Bush was less than 0.5 points from winning Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004, about 3 points from winning Pennsylvania, and 4 points from winning Michigan.

Democrats got unreal Democrat turnout in 2008 and 2016 in Georgia and didn't even get within 5.

Trump winning Georgia with 52%+ of the vote is 100% guaranteed.

k

Well everything anti-Trumpers say the opposite happens. I on the other hand have been right about Trump the entire time.