Calling it Now - Trump wins Re-election

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump won due to ethics of Clinton. He is dragged by ethics this time. But, Mike Pence is a skilled as well, and he helps Trump. It's a 45% chance Trump is reelected.

[redjohn]

Not sure where that 45% chance is pulled from, but it's probably accurate enough. 2020, this far out, is obviously a tossup.

[catographer]

idk how much the "lackluster candidates" have to do with it. we're very early. if dems don't have someone exciting right now, are they doomed to lose? probably not. how excited were republicans about trump in june 2014 or bush in june 1998? too soon to tell.

[Bidenworth2020]

Millions of voters will flee the Democratic party and enter the GOP.

like who?

anyways, the voters I think you are referring are already trump voters, so that is a mute point. However, democrats WILL make gains with minorities, since they will overwhelmingly likely turn out in higher numbers. Also, Trump isnt even that popular among Trump democrats, and most will flip in 2020 back to dems.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Unlikely to happen. I think voters will be fed up by Trump in 2020 and vote him out unless the Democratic candidate is complete joke (however, it's unlikely there will be someone with the baggage of Hillary). For these reasons:

- Trump's 2016 path was already very narrow and he's not likely to pick up much support, but lose at least a bit due to demographic changes allone. The Democrats still hold an advantage in the electoral college. All they need to do is winning back the three Rust Belt States or one or two of them in addition to Florida (I think Puerto Rico immigration may have an impact here). I don't see Trump picking up any Hillary 2016 states either. Even if he wins, he wins by less than in 2016.

- While there may not be a recession, Trump's stupid trade war will cost jobs, especially in the regions he's popular (farmers for example).

- His approval is not very likely to move up (Obama was always more popular during his term).

- Let alone the countless scandals that are currently happening and the potential bombshells to come out.

- Democrats will be more excited and turn out more they did in 2016, when everyone assumed Trump can't win the election.

I'm also a little tired of the phrase "Democrats have nobody who excites and therefore a poised to lose". Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as well as Bernie to some degree came out of nowhere or were unknown nationally and did pretty well. So I'm not buying this stuff.

Of course, Trump can get reelected, but it's ridiculous to say Democrats are DOA. At the moment, Trump is far more likely to lose than to win.

Much of this was true in 2016 and Trump still won.  Because he's Donald Trump, i don't see him as this huge favorite for re-election, but I don't see him as a decided underdog either.

Obama was hyped nationally before he was even elected to the Senate.  Bill Clinton was proposed as a future Presidential candidate in his first term as Arkansas Governor; if he hadn't lost re-election in 1980 (he got his Governorship back in 1982) he well may have been Mondale's running mate in 1984, or the Democratic nominee in 1988.  

Jimmy Carter didn't exactly "come out of nowhere"; he was a guy who trashed McGovern up to his nomination, then asked Henry Jackson if he could help him convince McGovern to choose him as VP.  (That incident soured Carter's relationship with both Jackson AND McGovern, the latter referring to Carter as "the biggest pr**k in politics" and cast his 1976 vote for Gerald Ford.)  He was placed in nomination for VP and drew support.  More importantly, Carter offered the Democrats a candidate who was acceptable to both the North and the South in 1976, and that was hard to find.  Carter was the only Democrat that George Wallace would endorse for President, and, indeed, Carter's victory preceeded Wallace's mellowing and coming back to the national Democratic fold for a while.  (Wallace actually endorsed Mondale in 1984.)  And Carter was the only Democrat that would be FAVORED in the Southern states; no other Democrat could say that in 1976.  

The Democrats aren't at the point of electoral disadvantage that they were from 1968-1988, but they don't have a Carter than can be a favorite in a region they need to win back.  In the critical Midwest, the Democrats' base has been eroded by electoral losses, and key opportunities have been blown.  (Feingold and Kander were BIG losses.)  There is no Democrat I can see that will give the Democrats a significant boost in the South, and I don't see someone who'll turn the Mountain West around, either. Pennsylvania's another place where none of their declared candidates really helps them.  (Sherrod Brown could, but he's got to get re-elected first.)  

It's do-able.  But it won't be easy.

[krazen1211]

Millions of voters will flee the Democratic party and enter the GOP.

like who?

anyways, the voters I think you are referring are already trump voters, so that is a mute point. However, democrats WILL make gains with minorities, since they will overwhelmingly likely turn out in higher numbers. Also, Trump isnt even that popular among Trump democrats, and most will flip in 2020 back to dems.

Whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians. Just to name a few groups. Great Presidents like Nixon, Reagan, and  Trump get more voters the second time around.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump wil win NV and that's it, and the other blue states, he's not gonna win. Leaving Dems at 273 instead of 279

[Xing]

I mean, he might, but I think it's way too soon to predict that. Even if Democrats run on the same old strategy, if Trump is disliked enough, and empty suit with a (D) next to its name could beat him. I think that there are certainly more Democrats than just Sanders who could beat Trump. I think there are definitely Democrats like Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Jeff Merkeley, etc. who could win over some of his voters from 2016. A candidate like Cory Booker would more likely than not lose to Trump, but it's way too soon to be predicting anything about 2020 with confidence, except obvious things like Trump winning Wyoming or losing California.

I think Trump's re-election is about a 50/50 proposition right about now.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is campaigning in MN, he doesn't have faith in WI, of he's in MN

[junior chįmp]

Millions of voters will flee the Democratic party and enter the GOP.

like who?

anyways, the voters I think you are referring are already trump voters, so that is a mute point. However, democrats WILL make gains with minorities, since they will overwhelmingly likely turn out in higher numbers. Also, Trump isnt even that popular among Trump democrats, and most will flip in 2020 back to dems.

Whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians. Just to name a few groups. Great Presidents like Nixon, Reagan, and  Trump get more voters the second time around.

You sound more delusional than usual...you huffing keyboard air duster spray again?

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL, calling an election more than two years in advance, with the challenger even unknown yet, is kind of ridiculous. Just like saying a prez with approx. 40% approval can't be beaten. I'm not saying Drumpf is DOA, but it's an uphill battle since he's trailing in the polls so badly. And no, the final polls in 2016 were not so far off, they just underestimated him in WI, while PA and MI were within the margin of error. And NV was actually in the GOP column.

[twenty42]

Unlikely to happen. I think voters will be fed up by Trump in 2020 and vote him out unless the Democratic candidate is complete joke (however, it's unlikely there will be someone with the baggage of Hillary). For these reasons:

- Trump's 2016 path was already very narrow and he's not likely to pick up much support, but lose at least a bit due to demographic changes allone. The Democrats still hold an advantage in the electoral college. All they need to do is winning back the three Rust Belt States or one or two of them in addition to Florida (I think Puerto Rico immigration may have an impact here). I don't see Trump picking up any Hillary 2016 states either. Even if he wins, he wins by less than in 2016.

- While there may not be a recession, Trump's stupid trade war will cost jobs, especially in the regions he's popular (farmers for example).

- His approval is not very likely to move up (Obama was always more popular during his term).

- Let alone the countless scandals that are currently happening and the potential bombshells to come out.

- Democrats will be more excited and turn out more they did in 2016, when everyone assumed Trump can't win the election.

I'm also a little tired of the phrase "Democrats have nobody who excites and therefore a poised to lose". Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as well as Bernie to some degree came out of nowhere or were unknown nationally and did pretty well. So I'm not buying this stuff.

Of course, Trump can get reelected, but it's ridiculous to say Democrats are DOA. At the moment, Trump is far more likely to lose than to win.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls

This is just plain wrong. Obama’s approval numbers in the second half of 2010 were very similar to Trump’s right now.

[pbrower2a]

Millions of voters will flee the Democratic party and enter the GOP.

like who?

anyways, the voters I think you are referring are already trump voters, so that is a mute point. However, democrats WILL make gains with minorities, since they will overwhelmingly likely turn out in higher numbers. Also, Trump isnt even that popular among Trump democrats, and most will flip in 2020 back to dems.

Whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians. Just to name a few groups. Great Presidents like Nixon, Reagan, and  Trump get more voters the second time around.

Nixon had elements of greatness, but his abuse of power took him down. Reagan remains controversial, with people on the Left thinking him horrible and people on the Right loving him. Trump is horribly unsuited to the Presidency.

The best that Trump can do in a re-election bid is to barely win re-election as Dubya did in 2004, then against an inadequate opponent. That is a stretch.

We have had three consecutive Presidents get re-elected, becoming two-term Presidents. Bill Clinton was not a great President, but he was a fine campaigner who held enough of his coalition together to win much the same in 1996 as in 1992. Dubya was an awful President, but he was able to win because the bad effects of his Presidency had yet to show up. The economic bubble of predatory lending to oversell housing would not begin to show signs of trouble until 2005 and would not implode until 2008. Obama lost vote share and electoral votes from 2008... but he had solved problems that Republicans had, and Republicans could turn to their own agendas without defeating him.  Obama lost the equivalent of 26 electoral votes from 2008 to 2012, and was close to losing another 29 (he was behind in polling in Florida until the last week of the campaign), but even had he lost Florida he would have still won re-election.

Obama typically had approval numbers in the high 40s, which were not enough for winning re-election without a spirited campaign. He ran a spirited campaign and won. But he won only one state in which his disapproval rating got above 50%... and that was Ohio (and the disapproval rate at one point in 2010 was 51%, his maximum there).

Without the horrid polling numbers I would be obliged to see Donald Trump at this stage as a likely two-term President. This said,  he may have the sexcapades of Clinton... but Clinton started out with 370 electoral votes and 43% of the popular vote in a three-way Presidential race and got close to 50% of the popular vote and 379 electoral votes in a following three-way Presidential race. Clinton was effective. He at least had budget surpluses.

By most objective accounts Dubya was a lousy President, but voters did not realize that until he was re-elected. Not until his second term did wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go really bad and get recognition as Presidential failures, not until 2005 did he bungle a response to Hurricane Katrina, and not until his last full term in office did the real-estate bubble do what speculative booms invariably do -- implode, destabilizing the economy.  But he scraped by with tepid approval ratings that had fallen greatly from 9/11... but not enough to make him a one-term President.

Conservatives need recognize that Barack Obama was a good President, someone who solved an economic mess that he had to solve largely as he did -- and that he allowed well-heeled elites to recover quickly enough that they had the funds for supporting right-wing politicians who now utterly dominate American political life. His approval ratings, even if tepid, were still higher than those of Trump at any stage in their terms so far.  Maybe he got re-elected on the dead body of Osama bin Laden, but that shows that he could work well with the military and intelligence services despite the Right trying to portray him as another George McGovern. Almost all accounts have Obama as a decent, humane, wise, and cautious leader who made few mistakes -- and no mistakes that he couldn't undo (the latter describes Ronald Reagan well). He had no scandals, so there wasn't much that Republicans could use against him in 2012.

Donald Trump started with little credibility as President and has yet to build it up. He disparages democratic leaders yet praises dictators and despots. Maybe with his style of leadership he better relates to dictators and despots.  Let's put it this way: I would rather have Angela Merkel as my chancellor than Donald Trump as my President. Merkel is a conservative, by the way. The deal with North Korea? I wonder how many fingers President Trump came back with after that deal, so to speak. His style of governing is to give one side everything that it wants and tell the Other Side to suck it up. That's not a good way to pick off support. 

Surely you have seen my approval maps. I have a ceiling of 100-DIS for President Trump faring in any state. Even if those who disapprove of him don't all vote for the Democratic nominee for President, they can decide to make a vote for some conservative alternative. Libertarian? Constitution? Reform? I already see conservatives breaking with this President on core principles that define those conservatives.

To be sure, 100-DIS is not as good as a two-way matchup for predicting an election. We just do not have any idea of who will be the Democratic nominee. That means that we cannot ask how some pol will fare against Trump as some potential nominee did against Obama. But I have canvassed for Democrats, and I recognize how difficult it is to change the minds of people who already disapprove of the President. I don't stay and argue or beg. I might try to convince someone undecided, which is possible by addressing personal concerns on issues.

The current Presidency reeks of corruption, cruelty, incompetence, and abuse of power. This is more like the second term of George W. Bush than his first term. His tariffs are at best a muddle, and muddled economics can easily lead to an economic meltdown. Sure, that has yet to happen, but consider that when the economy is sort-of-OK that the President has approval ratings in the high 30s and low 40s. If the economy tanks his approval ratings will be in the high 20s or low 30s. This President needs miracles to get re-elected.
 

       

[Kodak]

Things are as good as they're going to get for Trump. He hasn't faced a real economic crisis and he's actively trying to start one. A recession or inflationary spiral between 2018 and 2020 would probably be enough to kill his chances for reelection.

[pbrower2a]

I started a thread on the Lichtman test of the likelihood of the re-election of the President. It is not definitive at this point, but

1. the President can't have economic growth higher than that of the Obama administration (strong recovery from a nasty recession)
2. no Administration has ever been so plagued by scandal.

He has room for only three things going wrong for him, beyond which he loses. Many of those are yet to happen or are indeterminate so far.   

[Progressive Pessimist]

Things are as good as they're going to get for Trump. He hasn't faced a real economic crisis and he's actively trying to start one. A recession or inflationary spiral between 2018 and 2020 would probably be enough to kill his chances for reelection.

I would have agreed with you unequivocally if it wasn't for the recent child migrant issue. This seems to finally be opening peoples' eyes somewhat. Let's just hope it lasts. Trump's peak was probably April-early June of this year. And even then, that's only when you judge his administration on the curve that it often finds itself on.

[Grassroots]

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.

Trump's not winning reelection, he would have to duplicate his numbers in WI, PA, and MI

"At least one of you is going to look pretty stupid [two] years from now".

[Suburban Republican]

Unless Trump gets impeached and/or resigns or there’s an economic disaster, I think Trump has a fair chance of being re-elected. After all, the past 3 presidents have served 2 consecutive terms.

[pbrower2a]

Bill Clinton was not a great President, but he did what he promised.

George W. Bush was a lousy President, but things did not go really bad until after he was re-elected.

Barack Obama was as effective as he could be even after the opposition Party established gridlock, but he was able to get a few things done, especially whacking Osama bin Laden.

Donald Trump has staffed his Administration with cronies and fanatics. He has one scandal after another -- multiple "Teapot Dome" scenarios which suggest either incompetence or corruption. His tariffs are an economic muddle, and they will hurt American exports, including agriculture. Sure, farmers and ranchers are usually complacently Republican in their voting, but give them pain in their pocketbooks and they will do as they did in 1932 -- turning sharply against the GOP.

No, I am not arguing that the fourth time is a charm for a challenger or anything that stupid. Heck, back in 1992 I thought that the elder Bush would win re-election until he lost. (But I lived in Texas most of the year, and I knew that Bill Clinton was not going to win Texas, and after all, no Democrat could win the Presidency without Texas!

That Donald Trump is a disappointment to me after I voted against him  thinking that he was the worst thing to happen in American politics in a century... well, that could just be me. Maybe I just don't trust a slogan like "Make America Great Again"  or don't want to go back to the 1920s. If I were younger I would emigrate from this snake-pit of a political system.

American voters have consistently shown disdain for corruption, including using public office for personal gain or covering up child-abuse. Donald Trump shows contempt for anyone who endures some hardship and complains about it.  He is a horrible person, and more of us recognize that.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With a nominee like Merkley or Sanders, it will be tougher to win Va again, the Dems need to nominate a centrist nominee. They can afford to lose only NV. CO, WI and OH or Va are tipping points

[Inmate Trump]

He won’t win Michigan again.

Also, PA and WI are seeming less likely as well due to the local economies there tanking.

He’s got to hold them as well as his other states. I just don’t know if he can do it. Then again, I doubted his chances last time too. Plus, Russia will be meddling again...probably with Trump’s help again which will be directly from DC...there is certainly a chance he’ll win re-election.

Even if he loses, can any of you truly imagine him stepping aside willingly in the face of defeat?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who's the real Democratic "frontrunner"?  I know it's early, but running for President is a 3 year deal now.

[President Johnson]

Who's the real Democratic "frontrunner"?  I know it's early, but running for President is a 3 year deal now.

Kamala Harris, without a doubt.

[Mr. Smith]

Who's the real Democratic "frontrunner"?  I know it's early, but running for President is a 3 year deal now.

Trump wasn't the front-runner by a longshot in 2013.

Obama wasn't the front-runner in 2005.

[Calthrina950]

I mean, he might, but I think it's way too soon to predict that. Even if Democrats run on the same old strategy, if Trump is disliked enough, and empty suit with a (D) next to its name could beat him. I think that there are certainly more Democrats than just Sanders who could beat Trump. I think there are definitely Democrats like Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Jeff Merkeley, etc. who could win over some of his voters from 2016. A candidate like Cory Booker would more likely than not lose to Trump, but it's way too soon to be predicting anything about 2020 with confidence, except obvious things like Trump winning Wyoming or losing California.

I think Trump's re-election is about a 50/50 proposition right about now.

This is more or less my view of the situation. The 2020 election is a pure tossup at this point. Unless if the economy really goes bad, some other policy disaster occurs, or the Democrats nominate an exceptionally strong candidate, then Trump has a good chance of winning reelection.