Assumptions that could be proven wrong in 2020

[NeederNodder]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

The Rust Belt will have gathered its wits.

[Mr. Smith]

Midwest will be the big area again, so pander to the WWCs!

Arizona and Florida could very well end up being the decision point instead.

Also, given how black turnout was, a bit more effort to increase it would make all the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina...that could be the ticket again too.

[Sirius_]

Joe Biden is too old to win.

He would probably win (so far) and it would be a race between two old guys (assuming Trump and Pence aren’t both removed), so age wouldn’t be an issue.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Tulsi Gabbard will never get the Democratic nomination. California will not vote for Sanders or Warren.

[Pyro]

Donald Trump will not have a serious primary challenge.
The Democrats have learned their lesson and will nominate a progressive.

[Mr. Morden]

The Democrats have learned their lesson and will nominate a progressive.

I tend to be pretty skeptical of any "the primary voters learned Lesson X" arguments.  I'm not sure they do learn.  The conventional wisdom, for example, says that the Dem. primary voters nominating Bill Clinton in 1992 showed that they learned that they needed to run a Southern moderate and not a Northern liberal in the mold of Mondale or Dukakis.  But I think that just happened because the primary calendar that year favored the South and Clinton was the only Southern candidate in a year when there was no Jesse Jackson running to split the Southern black vote.

So while I think there's a good chance that the 2020 Dem. primary will go with a more progressive candidate, like Warren, that would happen not because of the voters having learned anything, but because of how the votes are being split among multiple candidates.  If most of the 2016 Sanders voters are going for just one candidate, while the 2016 Clinton voters are split amongst 3 or 4 candidates, then the first candidate can grind out a plurality victory.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Democrats need to wrestle away WWC from Trump to take back the Electoral College. (They win in the Sun Belt and Michigan flips back because of black voters not WWC.)

[wxtransit]

1. Trump can't win re-election.
2. Trump can win re-election.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

-WWC voters are a loyal republican voter base that is destined to become a long term part of the GOP base.
-Suburbs and other wealthy regions will continue to trend Democrat until they become Likely D.
-Trump can avoid serious long term electoral damage from any scandal as voters will just look past his controversies.
-Democrats always underperform polling averages (this might be disproven tomorrow night)

[tosk]

Midwest will be the big area again, so pander to the WWCs!

Arizona and Florida could very well end up being the decision point instead.

Also, given how black turnout was, a bit more effort to increase it would make all the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina...that could be the ticket again too.

[Reaganfan]

- White voters will stick with Trump and Pence
- The economy will continue to boom, thus Trump's prospects
- Liberals will dominate the 2020 field and nominate someone who blows out voters in NY, CA, and the coasts but the map will be blood red for Trump across the rest of the country

[Matty]

Here's one:

The idea that having low approval ratings tends to result in losing a re-election,.

[Hindsight was 2020]

That dems need to pander to rural whites to win when slightly better black turnout due to Booker or Harris being VP and slightly better rural margins then Hil by just giving a little effort to have a presence swings the rust belt along with NC and Georgia

[bagelman]

The Democrats don't need white working class voters to win, they just need to win the sunbelt with a socially liberal economically conservative neoliberal stooge. After all, reforming our health care system and fighting income inequity won't end racism.

[Confused Democrat]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

I don't think the 2012 Republican autopsy was inaccurate. In fact, I think it was pretty dead on. They just got the timeline wrong. The Republican party is going to suffer pretty bad at the presidential level if it doesn't start moderating itself on certain issues.

The Democrats are eventually going to take Texas, Arizona, and Georgia; and if the Republican Party keeps heading in the direction its heading, I don't think they're going to prepared for the electoral slaughter house they'll be facing.

[Mr. Smith]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

I don't think the 2012 Republican autopsy was inaccurate. In fact, I think it was pretty dead on. They just got the timeline wrong. The Republican party is going to suffer pretty bad at the presidential level if it doesn't start moderating itself on certain issues.

The Democrats are eventually going to take Texas, Arizona, and Georgia; and if the Republican Party keeps heading in the direction its heading, I don't think they're going to prepared for the electoral slaughter house they'll be facing.

To some extent Trump did do this though,it's no accident that he did better than Romney on the black vote and held out on Latinos.

[Crumpets]

Tulsi Gabbard will never get the Democratic nomination. California will not vote for Sanders or Warren.

Piggybacking off of this post, I would put "Tulsi Gabbard will position herself as a leftist/Bernie-style candidate if she runs." In 2013, nobody would have thought candidates like Rand Paul would be roughly in the middle of the pack when it came to policy, and would actively denounce the right wing of the party. I can see something similar happening in 2020 where the left wing of 2016 gets outflanked by some newcomers, and you have a situation where Gabbard is at a primary debate and says something like "While I believe our party should have taken a different path, no one can deny the many Democratic women, and especially women of color, who were inspired by Hillary Clinton and we will not succeed in 2020 if we try to shun them from our movement," to massive boos from the audience and chants of "Lock her up!"

[Confused Democrat]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

I don't think the 2012 Republican autopsy was inaccurate. In fact, I think it was pretty dead on. They just got the timeline wrong. The Republican party is going to suffer pretty bad at the presidential level if it doesn't start moderating itself on certain issues.

The Democrats are eventually going to take Texas, Arizona, and Georgia; and if the Republican Party keeps heading in the direction its heading, I don't think they're going to prepared for the electoral slaughter house they'll be facing.

To some extent Trump did do this though,it's no accident that he did better than Romney on the black vote and held out on Latinos.

That's not really anything for Republicans to brag about. Trump did the worst with minorities running against a white Democrat since Goldwater.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

That Kamala Harris is a bad candidate. Likelihood that will be proven wrong? 99% chance.

[Rookie Yinzer]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

I don't think the 2012 Republican autopsy was inaccurate. In fact, I think it was pretty dead on. They just got the timeline wrong. The Republican party is going to suffer pretty bad at the presidential level if it doesn't start moderating itself on certain issues.

The Democrats are eventually going to take Texas, Arizona, and Georgia; and if the Republican Party keeps heading in the direction its heading, I don't think they're going to prepared for the electoral slaughter house they'll be facing.

To some extent Trump did do this though,it's no accident that he did better than Romney on the black vote and held out on Latinos.

Trump wasn’t running against a black candidate. At some point running up the angry white male vote won’t be enough to slip in through the Electoral College.

[pbrower2a]

-WWC voters are a loyal republican voter base that is destined to become a long term part of the GOP base.
-Suburbs and other wealthy regions will continue to trend Democrat until they become Likely D.
-Trump can avoid serious long term electoral damage from any scandal as voters will just look past his controversies.
-Democrats always underperform polling averages (this might be disproven tomorrow night)

A President who makes promises and then breaks them loses the constituency that he won  over.

[Orser67]

That the Democrats don't have any good young candidates and need to turn to septuagenarians.

[RaphaelDLG]

After 2012, many analysts believed that the Republicans needed to be more inclusive as a party to take back the white house. Clearly that was wrong. What assumptions similar to this could be proven wrong in 2020?

I don't think the 2012 Republican autopsy was inaccurate. In fact, I think it was pretty dead on. They just got the timeline wrong. The Republican party is going to suffer pretty bad at the presidential level if it doesn't start moderating itself on certain issues.

The Democrats are eventually going to take Texas, Arizona, and Georgia; and if the Republican Party keeps heading in the direction its heading, I don't think they're going to prepared for the electoral slaughter house they'll be facing.

To some extent Trump did do this though,it's no accident that he did better than Romney on the black vote and held out on Latinos.

How much of this was due to blacks just not turning out as highly and the ones who are most likely to turn out being the black republicans

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That Americans are a fundamentally decent people.