Is Trump's re-election inevitable?

[°Leprechaun]

I will say "yes" for now, but the race can still tighten. (like 2016 did)

[°Leprechaun]

Just like I thought: "overconfident" is still the best adjective to describe Atlas Democrats.

[°Leprechaun]

Him re-running in 2020 isn't inevitable let alone him winning

Maybe not, but I could refrase the question,
"Assuming he is the nominee, is Trump's re-election inevitable"
I think most people are going to assume in the affirmative to the former part of the question.

[°Leprechaun]

Just to be crystal clear it is 100% certain that I will not vote for him under any circumstance, regardless of what I think his chances might be in 2020. I know it may be too early to call him "inevitable", but let's not forget how many Clinton supporters here called her "inevitable" even after her humiliating loss of the NH primary.

[°Leprechaun]

Just like I thought: "overconfident" is still the best adjective to describe Atlas Democrats.

How is saying "Trump's re-election is not inevitable" being overconfident?

You do know what the definition of "inevitable" is right?

Yes, and I can use the word in a sentence, "Clinton's victory is inevitable" -- that's what many were saying on this site not long ago, and is the point that I am making, in an "ironic" way as MohamedChalid correctly inferred. (edit: and also to remind everyone not to make the same mistake in 2020)

[°Leprechaun]

As I've stated before, the polls were not actually "wrong":

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php

233-191-114 (Clinton ended up with 232 almost exactly as this aggregation of polls indicated she would) The tossups mostly went to Trump and WI was the only deviation.

[°Leprechaun]

If margin of error is added to undecideds the polls were fairly accurate as to the uncertainty of certain states.

[°Leprechaun]

You also have to realize that historically it is less than normal for an incumbant to be defeated.
I can't help wondering if Trump will be primaried, however.

Clinton "won" in 1992, but it was after twelve years of GOP control of the WH, not four.
Jimmy Carter lost, but Carter is a Democrat and Trump is not.
The only time the GOP has lost the WH after only four years is 1892.

Democrats should be careful to predict a win in 2020. Is overconfidence ever a good thing?

[°Leprechaun]

One way or the other, Donald Trump will be a disaster as a President.

At this point, (assuming that it is inevitable that neither recounts nor faithless electors overturn the election) we'll soon find out how big a disaster it will be, but he only has two years to screw up the country. If he manages to do that, perhaps the Democrats can win back both houses, and then the GOP can spin it so the Democrats get blamed for the train wreck. It is certainly difficult to know how much of a mess he will make in his four to eight years. Dubya was an absolute disaster, of course, and Republicans are still in denial. So, I am not too optimistic that Trump will help them to see the light as to how bad the GOP really is. 

How did Dubya get re-elected in 2004? Dubya already had gotten us on the path to destruction by starting the war in Iraq. Rather than nominating a strong candidate to oppose him , they somehow managed to nominate a candidate who voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war, which certainly isn't what was intended in the Constitution. As if that wasn't bad enough they also nominated another Senator who voted for the Iraq War as VP and then Obama who was supposed to be against the Iraq War chose a Senator who voted for it as his VP and finally we got Clinton who also voted for the War. When are Democrats going to get on the proverbial "peace train"?

[°Leprechaun]

NOW I'VE BEEN CRYING LATELY


thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss