Will Trump be a 1 term President?

[pbrower2a]

Here is a barrel full of icy water upon anyone who thinks that President Trump has a good chance or winning re-election:

Disapproval:

60% or higher  (deep red)
57% to 59%
55% to 56%
50% to 54%
46% to 49%
43% to 45%
42% or less


Ties are in white.

This is a map of disapproval ratings by state based on the latest poling data, which is either the composite data from June to August 2017 (average, I assume is Jul 15) or subsequent statewide polling. You can argue about any state, but you cannot argue that President Trump will have a very difficult time getting re-elected.


...It is difficult enough for an incumbent to get low approval ratings to get to the point at which one has a chance of winning. Incumbents seeking re-election typically campaign. Campaigning allows one to more easily eat into the potential vote of the 'undecided' than to cut into high disapproval numbers.

I remember that President Obama once faced a disapproval rating of 53% in Ohio in 2011, and that he eventually won the state. But this said, he didn't have lots of numbers that high or higher in states that he won in 2008. Maybe Indiana, but that was about it. But it is far more than one state.
 
Disapproval ratings are far stickier downward than approval ratings are sticky. At this point, President Trump must change the narrative of the low regard that he now has. Giving a few crumbs to Democrats will be too little, and too late -- and with those, Republicans will be disappointed.  Big achievements? What can really change?

The political culture of America must change in favor of the right-wing Trump agenda if he is to be re-elected.   

[pbrower2a]

I expect the Republicans to use their power in the federal government to play dirty in efforts to disqualify as many 'unreliable' voters as possible.

[pbrower2a]

Almost entirely depends on who the Dems nominate.

If it's any of the current front runners (Warren, Booker, Gillebrand, Klobuchar, or even Biden) I think they lose.

If Sanders is healthy and can run he would be a slight favorite.

I think Dems' best chance is to try to find another Obama though (I don't mean literally with the name btw). They need someone with base appeal and appeal to some strong contingent of swing voters either in the south or in the rust belt. Sherrod Brown could maybe fit this bill but it's hard to say, Dem bunch in the South is just so bad and the 2018 electees (assuming Dems make gains somewhere) will be too new to run.

Maybe John Bel Edwards if he can excite the base (probably can't though)? Or Roy Cooper?

Idk if Kamala Harris were a slightly better speaker I'd say she is the one to watch (and I said after Trumps' election she was the one to watch) but what I've seen of her this far does not remind me at all of Obama's charisma or charm.

The bid for a second term has typically been a referendum on the success of the incumbent. Barring some events that just do not normally happen in American history I must expect much the same to happen in 2016 as in 2012, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980...

Most of us already have our assessments of how President Trump has done. Some people expected the worst and found such confirmed. Some people think him the best thing to have ever happened to American politics.

Here is a fairly reliable predictor, the Lichtman test,  of who wins a Presidential election:

13 keys to the White House

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://marylandreporter.com/2012/11/08/presidential-champion-lichtmans-13-keys-are-still-the-winning-election-formula/

(1) This rarely works for any incumbent, and we will not know for thirteen months whether this is true or false for Trump. The President's Party usually loses seats in a midterm. I expect this to work no better for Trump than for Obama.

(2) Only rarely does someone offer a meaningful challenge for the re-nomination in his own Party. Even one of the biggest failures to get re-elected (Herbert Hoover in 1932) faced no primary challenge. Carter and Ford  both did, and they lost the subsequent election.

(3) If the nominee is Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or Paul Ryan (in the event that something goes wrong with this President) in 2020, then this will be incredibly easy to answer. The incumbent President usually sets the agenda and partially shapes the political culture of the time.

(4) A big one. It was not enough to derail Harry Truman in 1948, but such independent and third-party nominees as George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992 may have been the difference between the incumbent's Party winning or losing, or even having a chance. Strong third-party challenges often indicate failure of the incumbent to convince voters. Ask again in 2020, especially if Donald Trump or Mike Pence gets a challenge from a conservative third-party challenger.

(5) To be determined.

(6) It is unlikely that the Obama bull market will be matched. I expect this to be false.

(7) So far this President has been spectacularly ineffective. He is far from effective in changing the political culture (at this, he is no Ronald Reagan). Even if the change is highly controversial, people still like winners and get frustrated with failure.

( Early unrest indicates the possibility of a big problem. Protests against the President on policies of medical payments, the environment, and police brutality might have to continue or intensify, or new unrest (like mass strikes) would have to intensify for this to work against the President. How long must the unrest be 'sustained'? Mass protests and strikes or outright riots indicate the failure of the President to convince people of his efficacy or benign intent.

(9) What does 'major' mean? I already see plenty of indiscretions by Cabinet members and staff. So far this is the most corrupt Administration since at least Harding. I expect this to be false.

(10) I hate to say this, but hundreds of thousands of South Korean or Japanese lives are on the line... let alone American troops in the Far East. South Korea could go from looking like a European country  to looking like Iraq or Afghanistan in a very short time because the President taunts an erratic leader. 

Truth be told, Kim Jong-Un feared Barack Obama as he does not fear Donald Trump. Barack Obama would have delivered North Korea to China just to guarantee peace.

(11) Donald Trump could gamble on a War for Profits (like getting control of Venezuelan oil on behalf of American fossil-fuel companies) and get away with it for a while -- much as Dubya did. But that is a severe gambling. Timing could be everything. But note already that America could have anti-war protests like those of the 1960s. But few people outside the USA want Trump to succeed, let alone are willing to put their countries' resources at the disposal of this Preswident in a risky adventure. 

So far I see the President much less effective than Barack Obama in co-operating with the military and the intelligence agencies to get desirable results. I see no diplomatic acumen. This could go very bad very fast for the President. This is a President more likely to create another Osama bin Laden than to destroy one.

(12) Will Trump have the charisma in 2020 that he had in 2016? I may see him as an idol with clay feet now, but I saw him as such in 2016. If 55% of Americans see him in 2020 as I did in 2016, then he could be a political wreck. If something happens to President Trump -- then the word charisma does not apply to either Mike Pence or Paul Ryan.   

(13) The Democrats have yet to have any clear front-runner. I don't see Democrats coming to any consensus of any kind before 2020. 

...All of these keys are relevant, and none of these involve polling. (Of course, polling would reflect these keys too, as reflections of effectiveness and probity of a Presidency).

One can ordinarily expect (1) to work against any President's Party.  (6) will almost certainly work against Trump because the Obama bull market is unlikely to continue unbroken while Trump is President. We already have (key #9) many scandals involving the Cabinet, Presidential staff, and even the President's family. 

Much of the rest is shaky. (7) and ( already look troublesome, but (7) can work for him even if the original result is controversial (see Reagan), and ( could subside. But let the President seem like a sure loser in 2020 and there could well be a challenge inside his party (2) or from a conservative alternative operating outside the GOP (3 -- someone who wants America to be a Christian version of Iran? Someone who wants to clean out the cronyism and corruption but establish a purer plutocracy?) Even if the President gets some success in imposing a tax system more sympathetic to the Master Classes or eviscerating labor unions (7), consequences could be a very nasty recession (5).

The biggest question is whether we will have a free and fair election in 2020. This President already shows dictatorial tendencies that no prior President has shown. He has fanatical supporters willing to use force against dissidents.  His Party has people who would be delighted to outlaw the other Party through some legal chicanery. We could also have a military coup by 2020.