Bill Maher on Donald Trump's chances for 2020

[Technocracy Timmy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvZTK6H8ZuE

[Coraxion]

Yawn.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Yes, I think he has more than a 50% of winning. If it's a close election, how can the Dems win WI, MI, and PA???

[RFKFan68]

Yawn.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Although it's a little early to be making predictions, either way.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Yes, I think he has more than a 50% of winning. If it's a close election, how can the Dems win WI, MI, and PA???

Clinton lost Wisconsin, but Trump didn't actually gain any more votes than Romney.

She also lost Michigan only by 10,000 votes for the same reason she lost Wisconsin - low Dem turnout.

Pennsylvania will be a battle though. The new Ohio.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Yes, I think he has more than a 50% of winning. If it's a close election, how can the Dems win WI, MI, and PA???

Clinton lost Wisconsin, but Trump didn't actually gain any more votes than Romney.

She also lost Michigan only by 10,000 votes for the same reason she lost Wisconsin - low Dem turnout.

Pennsylvania will be a battle though. The new Ohio.

I think Michigan is the most likely to swing back, followed by Wisconsin. PA could be a tossup.
If there were a true "firewall". Hillary States plus those three, the Democrats could win in 2020, 2024, and 2028. By 2032 maybe not, unless other states swing back.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Yes, I think he has more than a 50% of winning. If it's a close election, how can the Dems win WI, MI, and PA???

Clinton lost Wisconsin, but Trump didn't actually gain any more votes than Romney.

She also lost Michigan only by 10,000 votes for the same reason she lost Wisconsin - low Dem turnout.

Pennsylvania will be a battle though. The new Ohio.

Trump likely left some Romney voters on the table in Wisconsin and Michigan though. The swings from Obama to Trump were concentrated largely in the Midwest and that demographic (Obama-Trump voters) numbered somewhere between 6.7-9.2 million voters.

[McGovernForPrez]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Also, remember. Clinton assumed she would win WI and MI and pretty much ignored those states.
PA was different; I saw a lot of TV ads here. With all the money spent here she still lost.
PA could be the tipping point, but again it's too early to predict anything, it's all speculation right now.

I just keep thinking how 2020 might be another 2004.

[cvparty]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

muh history

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Pennsylvania is the equivalent of 2008 Virginia. It's undergoing a true realignment. West PA was a Dem stronghold (hell it voted for Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan) and now its a GOP stronghold. It went blue from 1976 to 2004, then light red in 2008, and dark red in 2016.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Yawn.

Time for a nap?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Trump likely left some Romney voters on the table in Wisconsin and Michigan though. The swings from Obama to Trump were concentrated largely in the Midwest and that demographic (Obama-Trump voters) numbered somewhere between 6.7-9.2 million voters.

This is actually the reason I think Trump will win 2020 and win the popular vote (for right now - don't quote me in 3.5 years plz! lol).

Trump did very poorly in Milwaukee and Minneapolis and Denver and Philadelphia and NOVA suburbs etc. etc. If he picks up even what 75% of what Romney got he's good to go. Third parties are always weaker the 2nd election after a third party breakout.

Democrats are also gunning for the Romney vote.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Yes, I think he has more than a 50% of winning. If it's a close election, how can the Dems win WI, MI, and PA???

Clinton lost Wisconsin, but Trump didn't actually gain any more votes than Romney.

She also lost Michigan only by 10,000 votes for the same reason she lost Wisconsin - low Dem turnout.

Pennsylvania will be a battle though. The new Ohio.

I think Michigan is the most likely to swing back, followed by Wisconsin. PA could be a tossup.
If there were a true "firewall". Hillary States plus those three, the Democrats could win in 2020, 2024, and 2028. By 2032 maybe not, unless other states swing back.

I can see PA being the new Ohio - they battle it out for the small margins, and the 20 electoral votes are too rich.

Michigan could be like NC and swing back immediately as well.

But the GOP has to start making inroads in other states as well, because demographics in Arizona, Texas, etc. etc. are going to be bad for the GOP by the 2030s.

[cvparty]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

it's a fallacy to reach your conclusion based on clinging to trivial historical facts. 'in 1892 the republicans lost after just one term, ergo a loss in 2020 means the election has to be another 1892', no things are completely different 225 years later and it doesn't matter who wins in 2020, the election will be completely different from 1892. historical streaks are broken all the time, also donald is FAR from typical.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

it's a fallacy to reach your conclusion based on clinging to trivial historical facts. 'in 1892 the republicans lost after just one term, ergo a loss in 2020 means the election has to be another 1892', no things are completely different 225 years later and it doesn't matter who wins in 2020, the election will be completely different from 1892. historical streaks are broken all the time, also donald is FAR from typical.

Well, of course you're right, but as you know, your link was meant to be humorous, so I responded in kind. We really don't know anything for certain. I said a while back, sometime after Trump was elected, that his re-election was "inevitable", mainly because of all the people proclaiming that he had a zero (or close to zero) chance of being elected in the first place. Such predictions were not prudent, the polls in the final days showed that the race was tightening and yet still many Clinton supporters couldn't see what was coming. So, for me, the bottom line is.. Don't be surprised if Trump wins. As I said, it's too early to call right now.

[cvparty]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

it's a fallacy to reach your conclusion based on clinging to trivial historical facts. 'in 1892 the republicans lost after just one term, ergo a loss in 2020 means the election has to be another 1892', no things are completely different 225 years later and it doesn't matter who wins in 2020, the election will be completely different from 1892. historical streaks are broken all the time, also donald is FAR from typical.

Well, of course you're right, but as you know, your link was meant to be humorous, so I responded in kind. We really don't know anything for certain. I said a while back, sometime after Trump was elected, that his re-election was "inevitable", mainly because of all the people proclaiming that he had a zero (or close to zero) chance of being elected in the first place. Such predictions were not prudent, the polls in the final days showed that the race was tightening and yet still many Clinton supporters couldn't see what was coming. So, for me, the bottom line is.. Don't be surprised if Trump wins. As I said, it's too early to call right now.

wrong Massachusetts 🌚

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

Massachusetts? huh?

[hueylong]

Trump likely left some Romney voters on the table in Wisconsin and Michigan though. The swings from Obama to Trump were concentrated largely in the Midwest and that demographic (Obama-Trump voters) numbered somewhere between 6.7-9.2 million voters.

This is actually the reason I think Trump will win 2020 and win the popular vote (for right now - don't quote me in 3.5 years plz! lol).

Trump did very poorly in Milwaukee and Minneapolis and Denver and Philadelphia and NOVA suburbs etc. etc. If he picks up even what 75% of what Romney got he's good to go. Third parties are always weaker the 2nd election after a third party breakout.

Democrats are also gunning for the Romney vote.

Trump may very well win reelection, but I don't think there's a scenario where he wins the popular vote. He bled hundreds of thousands of voters in states like Texas and Arizona where he under-performed Romney. Mind explaining your reasoning a little more?

[McGovernForPrez]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

it's a fallacy to reach your conclusion based on clinging to trivial historical facts. 'in 1892 the republicans lost after just one term, ergo a loss in 2020 means the election has to be another 1892', no things are completely different 225 years later and it doesn't matter who wins in 2020, the election will be completely different from 1892. historical streaks are broken all the time, also donald is FAR from typical.

Well, of course you're right, but as you know, your link was meant to be humorous, so I responded in kind. We really don't know anything for certain. I said a while back, sometime after Trump was elected, that his re-election was "inevitable", mainly because of all the people proclaiming that he had a zero (or close to zero) chance of being elected in the first place. Such predictions were not prudent, the polls in the final days showed that the race was tightening and yet still many Clinton supporters couldn't see what was coming. So, for me, the bottom line is.. Don't be surprised if Trump wins. As I said, it's too early to call right now.

wrong Massachusetts 🌚

We're all filthy commies to some of the country anyway.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

2020=1892

By that I mean that it is would be a rare result historically, I wasn't arguing that the two elections would be similar. Usually Presidents are re-elected for a second term, that doesn't prove anything, but it might cast doubts on anyone who is expecting that Trump is going to lose for certain.
Some people don't even expect him to be the GOP candidate in 2020.

Who knows for certain? Take the lottery for example, when someone wins millions, that person has the last laugh if anyone thinks s/he is foolish for playing the lottery.
I've seen people say, "I don't need to vote, nobody has ever won an election by one vote, so therefore I don't need to vote." Yes, it's unlikely that the POTUS would be elected by one vote, but is that a logical reason for not voting? It's never happened before in history, but that doesn't mean it won't.
You could play the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and, guess what, they have the same chances of winning as any other combination.

[°Leprechaun:'s Rainbow]

1889-1893 was the only time in US History that the GOP held the White House for only 4 years.
Republicans get re-elected. For Trump to lose, 2020 would be another 1892.
History is against the Democrats. I don't see a "savior" on the horizon, and I doubt I will.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Cute. There has never been a tie before either. A third party hasn't won since 1860. Get ready for President Johnson or President Stein or maybe President Bradford Lyttle (issuing in a new world order of peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone).

it's a fallacy to reach your conclusion based on clinging to trivial historical facts. 'in 1892 the republicans lost after just one term, ergo a loss in 2020 means the election has to be another 1892', no things are completely different 225 years later and it doesn't matter who wins in 2020, the election will be completely different from 1892. historical streaks are broken all the time, also donald is FAR from typical.

George W. was far from typical, as well.