I do believe that Trump will have a much higher chance of winning than most people say he does, but it is far from a certainty. Like if I had to pick, I would say he is more likely to win than not, but that is still not a sure thing
Many of us underestimate the possibility of demonic miracles. As in other democracies, the moneyed elites as devoid of empathy as they are flush in cash will support a fascist who will destroy democracy on behalf of ultra-cheap labor, monopolized markets, tax cuts, privatization on the cheap, elimination of anti-capitalist dissent, and wars for profits even if the person who serves as the vehicle for such is pure sleaze. By pure sleaze, you know what I mean.
An attempt to use historical patterns to predict the future depends upon which interpretation one finds most relevant. The last three Presidents got re-elected much the way in which they won Five states flipped between 1992 and 1996 (practically a wash), three between 2000 and 2004 (likewise), and two in 2008 and 2012 (which made no real difference). In 24 years we have known nothing else. For many, 24 years is a seeming eternity. But 27 years ago a President who seemed to have solved lots of problems lost a re-election bid because he could convince people that he had any idea of what to do next.
OK... twelve years of two Presidents offering the same economic philosophy is enough to not make people want four more years unless there is some compelling reason. But we are asking about Donald Trump after four years of a radical rejection of his predecessor whom he thinks a monstrosity. Four years of a President who thinks he has much yet to achieve is usually grounds for re-election. Usually, that is.
I'm going to dismiss astrological charts, which football team wins the Super Bowl and which team wins the World Series, which nominee has more kings as ancestors, or which nominee is taller. I have seen all of those proffered in selecting the winner. The Lichtman test? People who see the same events interpret its criteria differently, as I have found.
Donald Trump defies any effort to establish an analogue. His personality stands out or sticks out as Obama sticks out by appearance in contrast to other Presidents. If Obama could be elected President and could be re-elected, then is such so for anyone? No.
We must ignore our personal observations that we think him wonderful or horrible.
Ordinarily the economy demonstrates who will win... but Trump is doing far worse than Obama in polling. One can overstate or understate the relevance of polling -- but what other quantitative assessment of the President's performance do we have?
We have few analogues for the Presidency; the Presidency was very different even ninety years ago from what it is today. We have far more records involving Governors and Senators, especially in recent times. Senators and State governors get almost as much attention as the President in states with elections for the Governorship and the Senate. Besides, most nominees for President are current or former Senators or Governors, so such is relevant to the Presidency. Some measure of approval, whether approval itself or the residue after disapproval (for the latter, 100-DIS) is a good proxy for early support a year before the election.
I consider disapproval even more important than approval. Disapproval establishes who will not vote for one. A spirited and competent campaign might sway undecided voters to the advantage of the incumbent, but not those who disapprove of him. I see no reason to see disapproval as anything other than giving up on the pol.
On one side, Governors and Senators typically gain 6-7% from support at the start of campaign season to their shares of a binary vote. Governing and legislating are far more complicated than is making promises to get certain results. If one does not get one's promises achieved, then one can campaign again to much the same electorate and usually win. On the other hand one can do things that offend public sensibilities or one can face a changing political culture and lose -- or one offends rich-and-powerful people and gets a barrage of hostile advertising against one. Thus someone like Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal darling, ran afoul of people who believe that government rightly serves wealth at the expense of all else -- including anyone who lacks it. On the other hand, one can badly (like Governor Tom Corbett, R-PA) mishandle a scandal involving a small group of people and lose badly after having horrid polls throughout the campaign season. Go figure. It was a sex scandal, but Governor Corbett did not molest children or college athletes.
If one starts with approval around 44%, one usually wins the state. Below that level of early support the average incumbent Governor or Senator gains about 6.5% from governing or legislating to pitching oneself for re-election. This is the 'average' campaign against the 'average' challenger. Note well that appointed incumbents do far worse than those already elected to the office... but appointed pols never showed that they could win in the first place. OK, Senators Scott (R-SC) and Smith (D-MN) have proved themselves.
OK, so what about breaking scandals? The media know, and they stay clear of giving such pols as have them about to break much favorable coverage. Journalists do not want to find themselves connected to such a loser, and approval numbers for such pols as get exposed are usually depressed even before the scandal breaks.
Although approval numbers for Obama and Trump are fairly close a year before the election, disapproval numbers are rally bad for Trump. I can try to establish explanations for Trump having such horrid levels of disapproval. Chaos? Corruption? Poor communication? None of those bode well for the President. I cannot see him undoing those. Trump has some assets: the people who believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as that suffering turns, indulges, or enforces a profit. We still live in a plutocratic culture.
