Calling it Now - Trump wins Re-election

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Unless and big unless here, Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders might be the only person who can beat Donald Trump. But I don't know if he actually ends up running. He would be by far the oldest president ever.

Reason being as to why I think this is, Democrats have nobody exciting or new to run, just the same old ideas by the same politicians. Same thing happened with the Republicans in 2012, they didn't have anybody good to run. Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, same old crap. These millennials are getting older (Gen Z will start to vote in 2020) and the more time goes on the more Bernie-like the base of the party is going to become. Even Warren I don't think can beat Trump.

The economy will ultimately be the reason he gets re-elected. Despite all the negative media coverage of Tweets and stupid stuff he says on a weekly basis, there will be no economic reason the people who voted for him in 2016 will vote for a Democrat in 2020. And he may get some establishment Republican voters back. In addition, we're in an era where a 40%-ish approval rating is good enough if the alternative is worse. Politics is now a lesser of two evils game, Trump may have a below average approval and still win. Polling will be misleading once again and underestimate Trump, and people will have not learned their lesson from 2016. White working class voters will stand behind him once again, and he'll probably win the same states give or take one or two. The only thing that may hinder him in the electoral college is the increasing share of Latino vote that will make Arizona close and Florida even closer.

Dig this up two and a half years from now, and either laugh at me or applaud me, but I won't care either way, it's very unlikely I'll still remember this place by that time. I'm ultimately just posting this to have some courage in my gut, but I genuinely do predict this.

Literally no part of this is true. Bernie Sanders is one of the few Democrats Trump can beat.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Exemplary of a genre of political forecasting that's aged incredibly poorly. Treating trump as immume to all laws of politics and rather as an inevitable force of history.

[ElectionsGuy]

Exemplary of a genre of political forecasting that's aged incredibly poorly. Treating trump as immume to all laws of politics and rather as an inevitable force of history.

Congrats on finding this thread. I'm sure it was worth your time. As I said at the time, I genuinely don't care nor do I find it embarrassing or anything. I thought Trump would win at the time and I had reason to.

I'll say two things didn't age well in my post: One was the idea that the Democratic party was becoming more Bernie-like. While that it true among younger people, it's going the opposite way in terms of its new converts (college-educated whites aka the most privileged people in our society). The other is the increasing share of Latinos making states closer (Latinos nearly saved Trump, making Florida better for Trump and Arizona only got closer because of suburban whites). Both of those things were fundamentally wrong, and it was articulated sloppily, but the general idea behind the thread ended up being close to correct. In 2018, I saw Trump's approval rising and the Russiagate hysteria getting so out of control that I thought they didn't really have what it took to beat Trump at his core appeal, even though they went on to have a decent midterm cycle where they hammered healthcare.

Obviously, in 2018, I did not see a pandemic nor once in generational unrest in the streets leading up to one of the most important elections. Without those things happening, it's arguable that Trump would've won re-election, and maybe more easily than we think. Following the initial months of the pandemic up until the end of October, I predicted Biden winning over Trump, just more narrowly than others did. Only after I saw tightening polls and some of the same warning signs we saw in 2016 did I predict Trump squeaking out an electoral victory in late October. Instead, it was Biden who squeaked out the victory with <1% wins in three critical states. Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

[7,052,770]

Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

Unironically yes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Why would a pollster want Trump Reelected even Rs after Insurrectionists didn't want Trump

Hannity has signed affidavits that said Erie, PA was stolen, but they are fake

[Tartarus Sauce]

Instead, it was Biden who squeaked out the victory with <1% wins in three critical states. Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

You shouldn't be ashamed of yourself for getting a call wrong. You should instead be ashamed of yourself for the fact that your self-chosen role on this forum is to roast the polling industry and Atlas liberals for their miscalibrated psephology, but then get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine and get called out on an incorrect prediction.

[ElectionsGuy]

Instead, it was Biden who squeaked out the victory with <1% wins in three critical states. Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

You shouldn't be ashamed of yourself for getting a call wrong. You should instead be ashamed of yourself for the fact that your self-chosen role on this forum is to roast the polling industry and Atlas liberals for their miscalibrated psephology, but then get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine and get called out on an incorrect prediction.

I am a defensive person in general, but if you interpret me to be hyperdefensive when I point out how wrong I was in some aspects of the post, then it's not worth arguing over.  Especially considering in this post I was shotgunning an election two years away, I am more than willing to call out my own predictions that turned out to be false. I will and do have opinions about why certain things are wrong though, and defensively go after those who are launching smears and character attacks for thinking differently. I will not cave or apologize to that mob mentality, especially when there are many, many posters who are far more aggressive and militant in their approach than I am (they just happen to all be of a certain ideology). Also, my 'role' here isn't meant to be a role and isn't set in stone. If others would like to join me in calling out groupthink that would be welcome

[brucejoel99]

Instead, it was Biden who squeaked out the victory with <1% wins in three critical states. Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

You shouldn't be ashamed of yourself for getting a call wrong. You should instead be ashamed of yourself for the fact that your self-chosen role on this forum is to roast the polling industry and Atlas liberals for their miscalibrated psephology, but then get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine and get called out on an incorrect prediction.

I am a defensive person in general, but if you interpret me to be hyperdefensive when I point out how wrong I was in some aspects of the post, then it's not worth arguing over.  Especially considering in this post I was shotgunning an election two years away, I am more than willing to call out my own predictions that turned out to be false. I will and do have opinions about why certain things are wrong though, and defensively go after those who are launching smears and character attacks for thinking differently. I will not cave or apologize to that mob mentality, especially when there are many, many posters who are far more aggressive and militant in their approach than I am (they just happen to all be of a certain ideology). Also, my 'role' here isn't meant to be a role and isn't set in stone. If others would like to join me in calling out groupthink that would be welcome

Except neither of those are at all what IBNU/Liberal Hack was doing with their initial reply, so by the logic of your own standard which you just set out here, your "defensively go[ing] after" their reply wasn't necessary, yet you chose to do so anyway & in an evidently "hyperdefensive" manner. So, y'know, maybe forgive us for thinking that you were quick to "get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine" when that's seemingly exactly what you did here in this thread.

[ElectionsGuy]

Instead, it was Biden who squeaked out the victory with <1% wins in three critical states. Oops, totally wrong and should be ashamed of myself.

You shouldn't be ashamed of yourself for getting a call wrong. You should instead be ashamed of yourself for the fact that your self-chosen role on this forum is to roast the polling industry and Atlas liberals for their miscalibrated psephology, but then get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine and get called out on an incorrect prediction.

I am a defensive person in general, but if you interpret me to be hyperdefensive when I point out how wrong I was in some aspects of the post, then it's not worth arguing over.  Especially considering in this post I was shotgunning an election two years away, I am more than willing to call out my own predictions that turned out to be false. I will and do have opinions about why certain things are wrong though, and defensively go after those who are launching smears and character attacks for thinking differently. I will not cave or apologize to that mob mentality, especially when there are many, many posters who are far more aggressive and militant in their approach than I am (they just happen to all be of a certain ideology). Also, my 'role' here isn't meant to be a role and isn't set in stone. If others would like to join me in calling out groupthink that would be welcome

Except neither of those are at all what IBNU/Liberal Hack was doing with their initial reply, so by the logic of your own standard which you just set out here, your "defensively go[ing] after" their reply wasn't necessary, yet you chose to do so anyway & in an evidently "hyperdefensive" manner. So, y'know, maybe forgive us for thinking that you were quick to "get hyperdefensive when given a taste of your own medicine" when that's seemingly exactly what you did here in this thread.

Of course. I never said that all of my replies were going to be like that, but some of them will. So... your point here is moot.

[KaiserDave]

lol

[WD]

lol

[Mr. Smith]

Exemplary of a genre of political forecasting that's aged incredibly poorly. Treating trump as immume to all laws of politics and rather as an inevitable force of history.

Given that it was by 43,000...even with a pandemic [which was obviously not foreseen],  given what happened downballot [except for the Senate...and even then...], and given the actions of the current out-party....I wouldn't dismiss this part out of hand so quickly.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

When does Rs realized since the Great Recession outside of the Hillary loss Females have flipped D, they voted R during Reagan and Bush eras due to fact income inequality was small, now the income divide is great

[LBJer]

Maybe, but I doubt he'll win the popular vote (not that that's what matters).

I find it a little disingenuous to say the popular vote doesn't matter.  Of course it doesn't matter in terms of winning the election, and that's obviously by far the most important thing.  But I think the popular vote undeniably has a certain symbolic value, such that winning it isn't meaningless.  Donald Trump obviously thought so (boy, it's really horrific to think that I agree with that man on anything!).  Otherwise he wouldn't have falsely claimed to have won it in 2016 if millions of votes he (falsely) said were illegal were discounted. 

[Motorcity]

Maybe, but I doubt he'll win the popular vote (not that that's what matters).

I find it a little disingenuous to say the popular vote doesn't matter.  Of course it doesn't matter in terms of winning the election, and that's obviously by far the most important thing.  But I think the popular vote undeniably has a certain symbolic value, such that winning it isn't meaningless.  Donald Trump obviously thought so (boy, it's really horrific to think that I agree with that man on anything!).  Otherwise he wouldn't have falsely claimed to have won it in 2016 if millions of votes he (falsely) said were illegal were discounted. 

I live in Tennesse. Someone asked me why I bothered to vote for Biden knowing Trump will win my state

There was a very important reason. I wanted to add my vote to the national popular vote total.

Biden won by 7 million votes. On paper, that doesn't mean anything. But I truly think that had Biden won by 2-3 million votes like Hillary, the GOP would be far more willing to help Trump steal the election. 2-3 million can come from California alone and can be brushed off by the GOP. Maybe I am paranoid but I agree the popular vote margin is symbolic. Especially with Biden winning a outright majority. The GOP can't claim that third party votes cost them victory

[Person Man]

Maybe, but I doubt he'll win the popular vote (not that that's what matters).

I find it a little disingenuous to say the popular vote doesn't matter.  Of course it doesn't matter in terms of winning the election, and that's obviously by far the most important thing.  But I think the popular vote undeniably has a certain symbolic value, such that winning it isn't meaningless.  Donald Trump obviously thought so (boy, it's really horrific to think that I agree with that man on anything!).  Otherwise he wouldn't have falsely claimed to have won it in 2016 if millions of votes he (falsely) said were illegal were discounted. 

I live in Tennesse. Someone asked me why I bothered to vote for Biden knowing Trump will win my state

There was a very important reason. I wanted to add my vote to the national popular vote total.

Biden won by 7 million votes. On paper, that doesn't mean anything. But I truly think that had Biden won by 2-3 million votes like Hillary, the GOP would be far more willing to help Trump steal the election. 2-3 million can come from California alone and can be brushed off by the GOP. Maybe I am paranoid but I agree the popular vote margin is symbolic. Especially with Biden winning a outright majority. The GOP can't claim that third party votes cost them victory

Would there be a difference if Biden won by half the national popular margin, but the same map?

[Motorcity]

Maybe, but I doubt he'll win the popular vote (not that that's what matters).

I find it a little disingenuous to say the popular vote doesn't matter.  Of course it doesn't matter in terms of winning the election, and that's obviously by far the most important thing.  But I think the popular vote undeniably has a certain symbolic value, such that winning it isn't meaningless.  Donald Trump obviously thought so (boy, it's really horrific to think that I agree with that man on anything!).  Otherwise he wouldn't have falsely claimed to have won it in 2016 if millions of votes he (falsely) said were illegal were discounted. 

I live in Tennesse. Someone asked me why I bothered to vote for Biden knowing Trump will win my state

There was a very important reason. I wanted to add my vote to the national popular vote total.

Biden won by 7 million votes. On paper, that doesn't mean anything. But I truly think that had Biden won by 2-3 million votes like Hillary, the GOP would be far more willing to help Trump steal the election. 2-3 million can come from California alone and can be brushed off by the GOP. Maybe I am paranoid but I agree the popular vote margin is symbolic. Especially with Biden winning a outright majority. The GOP can't claim that third party votes cost them victory

Would there be a difference if Biden won by half the national popular margin, but the same map?

Probably not

Suppose Biden won by 3 million but loses GA and AZ. I'd expect the GOP to FAR more willing to steal WI but less willing if Biden won by 7 million

[CookieDamage]

Exemplary of a genre of political forecasting that's aged incredibly poorly. Treating trump as immume to all laws of politics and rather as an inevitable force of history.

Congrats on finding this thread. I'm sure it was worth your time. As I said at the time, I genuinely don't care nor do I find it embarrassing or anything. I thought Trump would win at the time and I had reason to.

But you do care... You're writing like three paragraph responses to every bit of critique.

[Alcibiades]

I’m not a fan of bumping threads to shame people for their predictions, but that is exactly what ElectionsGuy did after the election to several threads which overestimated Biden, so...

[brucejoel99]

Exemplary of a genre of political forecasting that's aged incredibly poorly. Treating trump as immume to all laws of politics and rather as an inevitable force of history.

Congrats on finding this thread. I'm sure it was worth your time. As I said at the time, I genuinely don't care nor do I find it embarrassing or anything. I thought Trump would win at the time and I had reason to.

But you do care... You're writing like three paragraph responses to every bit of critique.

Don't point out the inconsistencies, just focus on the entertainment value thereof instead.

[Adam Griffin]

I live in Tennesse. Someone asked me why I bothered to vote for Biden knowing Trump will win my state

There was a very important reason. I wanted to add my vote to the national popular vote total.

Biden won by 7 million votes. On paper, that doesn't mean anything. But I truly think that had Biden won by 2-3 million votes like Hillary, the GOP would be far more willing to help Trump steal the election. 2-3 million can come from California alone and can be brushed off by the GOP. Maybe I am paranoid but I agree the popular vote margin is symbolic. Especially with Biden winning a outright majority. The GOP can't claim that third party votes cost them victory

I think if they had been so inclined, it would have been very easy to make the argument regardless:

[The Mikado]

I live in Tennesse. Someone asked me why I bothered to vote for Biden knowing Trump will win my state

There was a very important reason. I wanted to add my vote to the national popular vote total.

Biden won by 7 million votes. On paper, that doesn't mean anything. But I truly think that had Biden won by 2-3 million votes like Hillary, the GOP would be far more willing to help Trump steal the election. 2-3 million can come from California alone and can be brushed off by the GOP. Maybe I am paranoid but I agree the popular vote margin is symbolic. Especially with Biden winning a outright majority. The GOP can't claim that third party votes cost them victory

I think if they had been so inclined, it would have been very easy to make the argument regardless:

Says a lot that you can abolish CA and NY and Trump still only barely wins through his tiny win in NC.