Anyone else thinking 2020 will be similar to 1984?

[Higgins]

I see the Democratic Party being in a similar position as it was in the mid 1980s - lost, no true clear direction, perceived as weak, "limp-dick" with a bunch of 2nd to 3rd tier potential candidates. Trump is no Reagan, but at the same time, he has the incumbent advantage, the cult, etc. While I'm not suggesting 1984 would be a landslide, I'm suggesting that 1984 will mark the height of the Democrats' second wilderness period as 1984 did.

[swf541]

I see it closer to 1980

[Proud Family Values]

This clown is not Ronald Reagan and the country is way too polarized for a landslide either way.

[Strudelcutie4427]

This clown is not Ronald Reagan and the country is way too polarized for a landslide either way.

Kinda agree there, even though a 3% shift in the PV for Trump would add Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), Maine (2), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and Nevada (6) which would result in a 351-187. The only other target could be New Mexico, so there is no way for a 400 EV landslide

[McGovernForPrez]

Democrats weren't in the wilderness in 1984. They held a vast majority in the house. They were also still dominant at a local level, holding 35 out of 50 Governor's mansions.

[Bidenworth2020]

lmfao hell frickin no

[RFKFan68]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

[Liberalrocks]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

[Bidenworth2020]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

[CivicParticipant]

No but a modern day landslide means 330 electoral votes or more. I can see Trump getting max 351 EVs in 2020.

The best he can do is add:

Minnesota (10 EVs)
Maine (3 EVs)
Virginia (13 EVs)
New Hampshire (4 EVs)
Colorado (9 EVs)
Nevada (6 EVs)

306 + 45 = 351 EVs

The next states in line would be CT, NJ, and DE which are unlikely to flip.

[Coraxion]

I see it closer to 1980

[SWE]

You mean the book? At this rate, yeah, probably.

[Kingpoleon]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

1. Neither did Hillary Clinton.
2. Ohio and Iowa weren't battlegrounds?

[Beet]

Reagan won over half the vote, and nearly 500 electoral votes, plus he was popular in 1981. Trump's innate strength is not as broad.

[Liberalrocks]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

1. Neither did Hillary Clinton.
2. Ohio and Iowa weren't battlegrounds?

1.) Well clearly she isn't president. 2.) 2 out of what 10?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why are you morons so obsessed with finding parallels and 'cycles' (2016 is like 1980 so 2020 must be zzzzzz...). Every election is unique. Time is not cyclical.

[Kingpoleon]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

1. Neither did Hillary Clinton.
2. Ohio and Iowa weren't battlegrounds?

1.) Well clearly she isn't president. 2.) 2 out of what 10?

You said he didn't get 50% in any battleground state. That wasn't true. Furthermore, there are more like five or six battleground states than ten.

[Higgins]

Democrats weren't in the wilderness in 1984. They held a vast majority in the house. They were also still dominant at a local level, holding 35 out of 50 Governor's mansions.

What I am saying is that this period for me is comparable for the 1980s in terms of Democratic misfortunes. Yes,you'd actually have to go back a hundred years to see the Dems in a similar position, but the 80s are a better frame of reference having been in living memory. And I see a lot of similarities. Yes they had the House and local poltics, but overall, they were limp - same as now. The Establishment clung on to limpy Leftism that no one at the time wanted, and it saw the party not recapturing the White House for another 8 years. That same sort of shiftless, directionless limpness is the way I see the Democratic Party now. While their numbers are much more decimated, I see their inner organization similar to the way it was in 1984. In 1984, there was a perception of the Dems as being for drugs, gays, hippies, and blacks. That they'd sold out the WWC. I can see paralells with the Dems now being tarred as the SJW party which has sold out the WWC. Trump's base is the same collection of Southern bigots +Blue Dog Dems/"Reagan Democrats" plus right leaning independents that Reagan and Nixon had.

[Sir Mohamed]

No. Trump is no Reagan. Keep also in mind that in that polarized environment there is not much to climb for Trump. Even if he gets reelected, he will probably never have a significant higher approval than 50-52% during an eight year presidency.

I see more comparisons to 1980 rather than 1984: After a two-term presidency, an outsider for the other party wins the White House but is considered a failure as president (though Trump and Carter are not comparable as characters) and gets wiped out by charismatic challenger that nobody seriously expected to end up as president (maybe Kamala Harris?). Trump's weakness and the division of the Republican Party lead to a realignment, similar to the Dems in 1980: President Harris wins reelection by large margin (maybe 380 EVs), and in 2028, her uncharismatic vice president wins the election, in part of because the president is still popular and the other party nominates a weak candidate. Four years later, he loses reelection to a more moderate opposition. However, the other party controls at least one congressional chamber during most of these twelve years.

The other option is that 2020 is a redux of 2004. Terrible GOP president elected with a PV deficit narrowly wins a second term.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

No, mainly due to demographics. Whites in 1984 made up about 85% of the electorate, in 2020 it'll be 68 or 69%. Reagan won about 66% of the white vote in 1984 and that got him to 59% of the popular vote (did poorly with minorities). If Trump got 66% of the white vote in 2020 but does better with minority voters he'd get around 53-54% of the popular vote. But that's not likely, he'll likely try to go for 61-62% of the white vote.

This affects the electoral college as well. The reason Bush in 1988 was able to bag such a huge landslide was because he was able to win California and Illinois. Something (virtually) impossible for Trump to do in 2020.

What I think it will be though is a 2004 Bush-popular vote win, but closer to a 2008 Obama-Electoral college win.

50.2-51% of the popular vote, 350 electoral votes (all the states he won + Maine statewide but NOT the other CD, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado). One of my crazy predictions: his margin will improve in every state. All he has to do is get back 75% of the Romney voters, a few more % of the Hispanic vote, double digit black vote, and a bit more of the rural white vote.

[RFKFan68]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

1. Neither did Hillary Clinton.
2. Ohio and Iowa weren't battlegrounds?

What does Hillary's performance have to do with Trump in 2020? Clearly she did as bad or worse because she lost the election. Trump did not cross 50 in WI, PA, or MI, which his only legitimate path to re-election. Barring a colossal failure on the Democrats part, the 2020 nominee will not have the scandals and high unfavoravles of HRC. How strong is Trump's coalition when it was cobbled together by many who did not like him in the first place and helped by third party voters who couldn't stomach Hillary but may embrace the 2020 Dem?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

1. Neither did Hillary Clinton.
2. Ohio and Iowa weren't battlegrounds?

What does Hillary's performance have to do with Trump in 2020? Clearly she did as bad or worse because she lost the election. Trump did not cross 50 in WI, PA, or MI, which his only legitimate path to re-election. Barring a colossal failure on the Democrats part, the 2020 nominee will not have the scandals and high unfavoravles of HRC. How strong is Trump's coalition when it was cobbled together by many who did not like him in the first place and helped by third party voters who couldn't stomach Hillary but may embrace the 2020 Dem?

You have to remember Trump ran an absolutely bare bones campaign - and it was a terrible campaign as well.

Hillary spent something like $1.2 billion!

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

So I am trying to get Trump to 400+ electoral votes:

- His 2016 states (305 EVs)
- Maine all, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire (46 EVs)
- Connecticut (7 EVs), New Jersey (14 EVs), New Mexico (5 EVs), Oregon (7 EVs), and Delaware (3 EVs)

This gets him to 387 electoral votes. Without Illinois I can't get him to 400 electoral votes. He'd have to get Rhode Island + Washington or Maryland which would be just as difficult as Illinois.

[maga2020]

Trump will win all his 2016 states plus ME-at large, MN, NH, NV, CO, CT (Malloy) and RI.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Trump will win all his 2016 states plus ME-at large, MN, NH, NV, CO, CT (Malloy) and RI.

Does he really have a chance in Connecticut and Rhode Island?

I also feel if he wins CT and RI, NV and CO he'll win Virginia as well. This Virginia gubernatorial race will be a nice preview of 2020 Virginia.

I think Delaware and Oregon are semi-possible as well (if CT and RI are).