Anyone else thinking 2020 will be similar to 1984?

[The_Doctor]

There's no 1984 in 2020, most likely, barring a huge external event. The incumbent party doesn't drastically outperform the election that made it an incumbent party in the first place. The last time was 1964, and that was because of the death of John Kennedy.

Remember, the only popular vote loser to go on to win re-election was George W. Bush and he won only 15 more electoral votes than his 2000 total.

I also don't think Trump's Presidency is repairable but we'll see. To me, the party making the Senate gains will win the White House in 2020. At this in point in time, it's the Democrats on track to regain PA, MI, WI, FL and take GA, and AZ most likely.

[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?

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.

Oh my, literal are we. I hearby stand corrected by the all powerful Kingpoleon. Are you also the god who defines it at 5 or 6 or is that someone else I should report to?

[twenty42]

So far there's nothing which would indicate he's on track for  a 320+ electoral victory.

Why does everybody forget history?

Where was the indication in July 2009 that Obama would win 332 EV's in 2012? Where was the indication in July 1993 that Clinton would win 379 EV's in 1996? Chances of reelection looked bleak for both of them after their first midterm elections. It was only in the latter halves of their first terms that they began to recover (the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing for Clinton and the 2011 capture of Bin Laden for Obama), and they both went on to win comfortable reelections. It's also worth noting that Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had approval ratings close to 70% in the summers of 1977 and 1989 respectively, and both went on to lose their bids for second terms decisively.

The first year of an administration does not foreshadow its chances of winning or losing the next election.

[pbrower2a]

With the composite data from Connecticut, I can finally say what I have assumed for a while:  the more that people get to know Donald Trump, the less they like him. The "59" in Connecticut, the "58" in New Jersey, and the "62" in New York suggest that where he is best known he is least liked. The "71" for Vermont  suggest that Donald Trump is the sort of person who goes on a "fall color" tour from New York and makes a loud, obnoxious fool of himself. Vermonters enjoy having out-of-state tourists stopping in their restaurants and stores  that might shutter without such trade -- but someone like Trump makes staff miserable.

I have suggested that to Californians, Trump  often suggests a landlord.

Were he at all effective as President, then he would have positive approvals in states that he barely lost (New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Nevada, and arguably Colorado and Virginia... but he is gaining nothing there.

The execrable ratings in Michigan and Pennsylvania suggest promises made and promises broken.

I'd guess that disapproval of President Trump is over 80% in the District of Columbia. Assuming that the Congressional districts of Maine and Nebraska go as their states go at-large,  I can count electoral votes by disapproval rating based either upon the Gallup composite or a poll from May or later...

Listing the electoral votes available at levels of disapproval for the President from the lowest levels to the highest

EVB  DSR CHG   EVA   states
  
000   36   11     011    ND WV WY
006   39   16     027    AL OK
022   41   03     030    MT
030   42   21     051    ID KS TN
051   43   23     075    KY LA NE SD
075   44   09     084    SC
084   46   16     100    MO MS
100   47   06     106    AR
106   48   32     138    AK  IN OH
138   50   37     175    GA NC UT
175   51   77     252    FL TX  WI
252   52   17     269    AZ IA
269   53   06     275    NV
275   55   08     283    ME RI
270   56   15     298    DE NM OR
295   57   31     329    CO MN VA
317   58   34     363    IL NJ
347   59   24     387    CO HI WA
383   60   04     391    NH
387   61   16     407    MI
403   62   49     456    NY PA
456   64   10     466    MD
466   66   11     477    MA
477   71   58     535    CA VT
535   80   03     538    DC

EVB -- electoral votes BEFORE winning the state(s)
DIS -- disapproval rating
CHG -- change in the number of electoral votes
EVA -- electoral votes AFTER winning states in this category
'80' is my guess for the District of Columbia.

This is how the states 'fall' if I  use disapproval ratings for the President to predict which states switch from an unnamed opponent to Donald Trump. He must win states in which his disapproval rating is 43% just to avoid a loss like those of Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980. For him to lose that badly he would have to lose even more credibility.

The elder Bush got only 168 electoral votes in 1992. He wasn't a really-awful President; he just couldn't convince people that he had any idea of what to do in a second term. To avoid losing that badly, President Trump would have to win some states in which 50% of the people disapprove of his performance. In a close election, Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter with 30 electoral votes short of a win. He would need to win states in which his disapproval is now at 51%.

By winning every state in which his disapproval rating is 52% he would get a tie in the Electoral College. House delegations would then decide who wins unless the President can pick off the Second Congressional District of Maine.

To win roughly as Dubya did in 2004 (284 electoral votes) he would have to win states in which his disapproval rating is at 55%.

... To win re-election, President Trump must cut down the level of disapproval from the high fifties to the high forties, at the least. Being six months into the Presidency and having a disapproval level of 53% at the lowest in enough states to lose the election outright is better than being in the same position six months before the election, but that's like saying that being behind 10-0 in a baseball game after the second inning is better than being behind 14-4 going into the seventh inning. (For people who do not understand American baseball, a baseball fame is nine innings, and the average number of runs that a team scores is about 5).

If there is any possible analogy to 1980, it is that a Democrat will have the role of Ronald Reagan. It is far too early to suggest such a result, as it would require new failures of this President. Carter was at 65% approval nationwide approval at this time forty years ago, and much went wrong for him.  

I am in no position in which to predict what can and will go wrong for this President. But this said, most Americans who despise this President would be satisfied if he ends up losing as Ford did.

[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.

You have to remember that Hillary Clinton was the second most disliked candidate in modern American history and still won 2.8 million more votes than Trump (who was the most disliked). Trump also only won the Electoral College by 77,000 votes in 3 states and captured a meager 46% of the electorate. He's currently hovering around 39% approval in an economic recovery no less and couldn't get his first big legislative bill through.

So far there's nothing which would indicate he's on track for  a 320+ electoral victory.

I should clarify I don't think he can really get over 400 electoral votes - just if he was going to, how he could do it. California is the reason Bush got to 426 but California is impossible for Trump outside of the Democrat ticket dying or going to prison and even then it's not guaranteed.

She got a lot more votes due to third parties and Trumps crappy campaign. Not to mention she spent like three times what he did. She spent the most all time IIRC.

Without a significant third party presence in 2020 (third parties always collapse after the election where they had tons of votes), people forgetting about Access Hollywood, and Trump dominating, I see him winning at LEAST 326 electoral votes (306 of his + MN + NH + NV) and the popular vote, even by just 1%.

Remember though: how many times have the pundits been wrong about Trump? Are we really going to go through this "Trump has no chance" bullcrap again? It got tired at around the "Trump won't win a state primary or caucus" or "He'll never get 1,237 delegates" era. So please tell me this is not happening again!?!

Speaking of the GOP primaries, I remember the "Trump is doomed because he only got a meager 45% of the Republican votes in the primaries."

When are people going to understand You Can't Stump the Trump?

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Walter Mondale - Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders

Gary Hart - Kirsten Gillibrand or Cory Booker

Jesse Jackson - Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard

Good comparison, though I think we'll see a lot of candidates run, so the "3 top candidates" thing may not play out exactly.

[mgop]

i hope not, because if he win kinds of california and new york that would mean he changed and didn't kept most of his promises

[American2020]

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.

You have to remember that Hillary Clinton was the second most disliked candidate in modern American history and still won 2.8 million more votes than Trump (who was the most disliked). Trump also only won the Electoral College by 77,000 votes in 3 states and captured a meager 46% of the electorate. He's currently hovering around 39% approval in an economic recovery no less and couldn't get his first big legislative bill through.

So far there's nothing which would indicate he's on track for  a 320+ electoral victory.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

You have to remember that Hillary Clinton was the second most disliked candidate in modern American history and still won 2.8 million more votes than Trump (who was the most disliked). Trump also only won the Electoral College by 77,000 votes in 3 states and captured a meager 46% of the electorate. He's currently hovering around 39% approval in an economic recovery no less and couldn't get his first big legislative bill through.

So far there's nothing which would indicate he's on track for  a 320+ electoral victory.

Specially not in states like CT, CO, VA, or RI for sure. We're far from having that conversation, further so than when he was first elected.

[RFKFan68]

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.

You have to remember that Hillary Clinton was the second most disliked candidate in modern American history and still won 2.8 million more votes than Trump (who was the most disliked). Trump also only won the Electoral College by 77,000 votes in 3 states and captured a meager 46% of the electorate. He's currently hovering around 39% approval in an economic recovery no less and couldn't get his first big legislative bill through.

So far there's nothing which would indicate he's on track for  a 320+ electoral victory.

I should clarify I don't think he can really get over 400 electoral votes - just if he was going to, how he could do it. California is the reason Bush got to 426 but California is impossible for Trump outside of the Democrat ticket dying or going to prison and even then it's not guaranteed.

She got a lot more votes due to third parties and Trumps crappy campaign. Not to mention she spent like three times what he did. She spent the most all time IIRC.

Without a significant third party presence in 2020 (third parties always collapse after the election where they had tons of votes), people forgetting about Access Hollywood, and Trump dominating, I see him winning at LEAST 326 electoral votes (306 of his + MN + NH + NV) and the popular vote, even by just 1%.

Remember though: how many times have the pundits been wrong about Trump? Are we really going to go through this "Trump has no chance" bullcrap again? It got tired at around the "Trump won't win a state primary or caucus" or "He'll never get 1,237 delegates" era. So please tell me this is not happening again!?!

Speaking of the GOP primaries, I remember the "Trump is doomed because he only got a meager 45% of the Republican votes in the primaries."

When are people going to understand You Can't Stump the Trump?

He barely won the first time. Period. He got lucky--- he is not unstoppable. He is terrible at governing and nothing he has promised to do he has done except for the fluff things he can do like pulling out of Paris Accord and banning trans people from the military. He BARELY beat Hillary in MI, WI, and PA and that was with her being a terrible campaigner and highly disliked. Please tell me how Trump improves on these margins running against a better Democrat in 2020 with his approval stuck in the high 30's?

[Horsemask]

The country is too polarized for there to be another 1984 or 1980, so no.

This

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

He barely won the first time. Period. He got lucky--- he is not unstoppable. He is terrible at governing and nothing he has promised to do he has done except for the fluff things he can do like pulling out of Paris Accord and banning trans people from the military. He BARELY beat Hillary in MI, WI, and PA and that was with her being a terrible campaigner and highly disliked. Please tell me how Trump improves on these margins running against a better Democrat in 2020 with his approval stuck in the high 30's?

I love how Hillary became a "terrible campaigner" after she lost. She spent a ton of time in Pennsylvania (held the convention there!) and Florida as well but she lost both. No one mentions that.

Guess in 2020 (possibly 2018 too?) I am going to have to tally all the dumb crap anti-Trump people say that will get proven totally wrong. This happened a lot in 2016, they were so adamant that they were right and I was stupid if you didn't believe them like:

- Trump won't announce his candidacy
- Trump will not file his FEC papers
- Trump won't make it to a GOP debate
- Trump is surely done after McCain comments/Kelly comments/Muslim ban
- Trump won't make it to Iowa
- Trump won't won a state primary or caucus
- Trump cannot get 1,237 delegates/there will be a contested convention
- The RNC won't give Trump the nomination
- Trump is colluding with Hillary Clinton (funny how everyone that loses to Trump accuses him of colluding with someone else right?)
- Trump won't debate Hillary
- Trump is surely done after Kahn comments/Judge comments
- Trump will drop out after the Access Hollywood tape leak (one of the reasons he didn't win a few states and popular vote)
- WTF is Drumpf doing in Wisconsin and Michigan?
- Trump has NO path to 270 electoral votes
- Trump has only a 1% chance to win
- The Wisconsin recount will surely end Drumpf's campaign (he ended up INCREASING his margin lmao!)
- The Electoral College will vote in the Queen (she ended up getting MORE faithless electors lmao!)

etc. etc.

Are we really doing this again in 2020? Over and over these people were so confident on things they just WANTED to believe.

Prepare for 8 years of Trump!

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I don't know who this "ahugecat" is but I would point out that past is not prologue. The Presidential election of 2020 will hinge on how well Trump does between now and 2020.

Sure, he won and the MAGA people have been hanging onto the election for dear life because since he won, he's demonstrated the Carter parallel very well: good at election (1, that's singular), but pretty bad so far at governing.

Your answer to RFK is to look at the past, not tell us how the White House gets to a winning hand in 2020. "Oh, he won in 2016, therefore he will win in 2020 because he upset everyone" is the core of your argument. 

I've heard it all about Trump.

I thought you'd at least give him more credit instead of comparing him to Carter.

I compared it to the election because I've been supporting Trump since day 1 and I have heard it all about him. At this point if this were 2000 you'd be telling me to invest my entire retirement in Enron. I mean not only was everyone wrong about Trump, but hilariously wrong.

Then again, Trump thrives as the underdog. He thrives when people tell him he has a 1% chance to win the nomination or 1% chance to win the election. If we go through this in 2020 I am going to be slightly annoyed but I'll find it amusing.

I don't think 2020 will be 1984 (demographics make that impossible especially for Trump), but I think he can get a 2004-style Bush popular vote win and around 350 electoral votes.

[dw93]

I don't know who this "ahugecat" is but I would point out that past is not prologue. The Presidential election of 2020 will hinge on how well Trump does between now and 2020.

Sure, he won and the MAGA people have been hanging onto the election for dear life because since he won, he's demonstrated the Carter parallel very well: good at election (1, that's singular), but pretty bad so far at governing.

Your answer to RFK is to look at the past, not tell us how the White House gets to a winning hand in 2020. "Oh, he won in 2016, therefore he will win in 2020 because he upset everyone" is the core of your argument. 

I've heard it all about Trump.

I thought you'd at least give him more credit instead of comparing him to Carter.

I compared it to the election because I've been supporting Trump since day 1 and I have heard it all about him. At this point if this were 2000 you'd be telling me to invest my entire retirement in Enron. I mean not only was everyone wrong about Trump, but hilariously wrong.

Then again, Trump thrives as the underdog. He thrives when people tell him he has a 1% chance to win the nomination or 1% chance to win the election. If we go through this in 2020 I am going to be slightly annoyed but I'll find it amusing.

I don't think 2020 will be 1984 (demographics make that impossible especially for Trump), but I think he can get a 2004-style Bush popular vote win and around 350 electoral votes.

Bush himself couldn't win 350 electoral votes (he won 286), and he was a stronger candidate overall than Trump was/is, what makes you think he can get 350? Granted, I think Trump winning in 2020 is possible (the Democrats can easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again like they did in 2016 and arguably 2000), but it certainly isn't inevitable either, and if current trends continue, a loss will be more likely than not. If Trump is re elected, it's more likely that he is re elected in the same way that Obama was in 2012, where he does worse the second time, than he did the first time.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Bush himself couldn't win 350 electoral votes (he won 286), and he was a stronger candidate overall than Trump was/is, what makes you think he can get 350? Granted, I think Trump winning in 2020 is possible (the Democrats can easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again like they did in 2016 and arguably 2000), but it certainly isn't inevitable either, and if current trends continue, a loss will be more likely than not. If Trump is re elected, it's more likely that he is re elected in the same way that Obama was in 2012, where he does worse the second time, than he did the first time.

Although Bush only got 286 electoral votes he was very close in Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

One of the reasons Bush improved was due to lack of third party in 2004. In 2000 third parties (mostly Nader) got around 4% of the vote. In 2016, third parties got around 6%. Trump will get most of Johnson's voters and McMullin's voters and get well above 320+ electoral votes. Possibly up to 350 (Virginia, Maine at large, and Colorado may be too tough).

Trump can't really risk doing what Obama did. The thing is in 2008 Obama won by such huge margins (7% of the popular vote + 365 electoral votes) all he'd have to do in 2012 was play defense. Trump has to play offense and increase his margins - which he will.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

You just basically restated yourself. "Oh, he won in 2016, therefore he will win in 2020 because he upset everyone" is the core of your argument," I said and you just did it again. It essentially operates on 2016 eternally recurring.

No, my argument is that you've been wrong about Trump every step of the way. Why should I believe you now? Every argument you're using now I heard all throughout the 2016 election. You'd think you'd learn the lesson by now - You Can't Stump the Trump.

Would you believe someone that was wrong about something 30 times in a row? As I said, you're trying to tell me to invest my retirement in Enron - "No, this time it's the real deal, I promise!"

To say he would win 350 electoral votes is also kind of stupid. For instance, winning presidents in their first terms only pick up states they were relatively close in. That would probably give him 328 at maximum (NH, ME, MN, NV). He lost by bigger than 5% everywhere else in every other Clinton state. Of the two party vote, Presidents rarely improve it. So Trump would be basically stuck at 51% and 328 - and this would be your best case scenario.

That's my prediction for 2016 - 50.8% of the popular vote and 326 electoral votes. However, 350 is a possibility because of his dominance.

History tells us that Trump would be limited to something like 51% at best and 328. As of right now, he's not on track for that.

You tell me not to look at the past but then immediately bring up history? ESPECIALLY when referring to Trump when he has proven conventional wisdom wrong and wrong again?

You remind me of this political science professor I read about last year. He wouldn't allow his students to wear caps in his class because politicians should NEVER wear caps. Then of course Trump came and he wore caps at his rallies quite a bit. The professor then stated that almost concept he teaches about now he starts with "Except for Trump......"

As I said, Trump has proven "experts" wrong and wrong again. Why is this time any different?

You bring up approval ratings - here is Lawrence O'Donnell showing that 60% of Republicans would never vote for Trump and thus he will not win the nomination or even enter the race: https://youtu.be/v4zwsvMJ5uQ?t=4m20s

[maga2020]

Trump will do better in 2020, will win the popular vote and even more EVs because it's way easier for the Romney-Clinton voters to go back to him now that he is the winner and the one setting their agenda (which is the GOP's agenda) than it is for Obama-Trump voters to go back to the democrats, because these voters chose Trump's agenda and have irreconcilible differences between them and what the democrats propose, they want to cut immigration to the tens of thousands because they don't want a horde of third world foreigners who don't share the values that built America stealing their jobs.

With the Johnson and McMullin vote, Trump wins every state he lost by a smaller margin than Virginia.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Trump will do better in 2020, will win the popular vote and even more EVs because it's way easier for the Romney-Clinton voters to go back to him now that he is the winner and the one setting their agenda (which is the GOP's agenda) than it is for Obama-Trump voters to go back to the democrats, because these voters chose Trump's agenda and have irreconcilible differences between them and what the democrats propose, they want to cut immigration to the tens of thousands because they don't want a horde of third world foreigners who don't share the values that built America stealing their jobs.

With the Johnson and McMullin vote, Trump wins every state he lost by a smaller margin than Virginia.

He may even win Virginia - I am paying close attention to the gubernatorial race. Kaine may have helped Clinton a bit in Virginia + Trump leaving the state around August (only returned I believe in November) + the Access Hollywood tape/sexual accuser attacks.

The Access Hollywood tape and sexual assault accusations really damaged him, but by 2020 that will all blow over (though I wonder if they will try that again?).

[cvparty]

I really don't see this happening but idk y'all dream on

[RFKFan68]

He barely won the first time. Period. He got lucky--- he is not unstoppable. He is terrible at governing and nothing he has promised to do he has done except for the fluff things he can do like pulling out of Paris Accord and banning trans people from the military. He BARELY beat Hillary in MI, WI, and PA and that was with her being a terrible campaigner and highly disliked. Please tell me how Trump improves on these margins running against a better Democrat in 2020 with his approval stuck in the high 30's?

I love how Hillary became a "terrible campaigner" after she lost. She spent a ton of time in Pennsylvania (held the convention there!) and Florida as well but she lost both. No one mentions that.

People were definitely saying that when she went missing in late August/early September but ok.

I can't wait to see the most disliked candidate in history somehow improve his weak margins in states he could not cross 50 percent when he is not running against the person with the second highest unfavorables after him.

[uti2]

I see 3 possibilities for 2020 (in no particular order):


1. 1980-style Democratic Party progressive realignment.

2. 1912 Democratic minority coalition victory (Kasich as a 3rd Party candidate splits the GOP vote with Trump or Pence)

3. 2004 reelection (but Trump or Pence lose the PV)

Kasich running as a third party would be tantamount to John Anderson's campaign. There has never been a successful spoiler candidate originating from the moderate wing.

Historically, third-party spoilers for the Whigs/GOP have exclusively originated from the populist wing of the party: Fillmore, TR, Perot, etc. The time for that type of split was 2016, i.e. in the event that Trump had lost the nomination, a third party run by him would fit into that parallel.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Once again: you're treating 2016 as the sum total of all the relevant information. It essentially boils down to "2016: the Experts were wrong" and refusing to incorporate data from 2017. Ironically, the anti-Trumpers have been largely on target about Trump's actual performance in office (or at least, I've been).

Experts weren't just simply "wrong" though.

They were laughably wrong. They were wrong every step of the way. I have never seen a group of people so wrong. See the list I made earlier. They weren't wrong on 1 or 2 things, but on EVERYTHING.

Once again, why should I take anti-Trumpers seriously when they were so wrong on everything? If a person got Fs on 40 straight math tests, would you trust him to tutor you on math? That's essentially what you're asking me to do.

And even in 2017 you guys are wrong. "Ossoff has a 70% chance to win election" for example. https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/875112655836643328?lang=en

How can you not be embarrassed? It's like whatever anti-Trumpers say, the opposite happens.

The way I see 2016, the experts ignored the fundamentals of the election and focused on Trump, the candidate. I believe Sabato’s outfit pointed out the election was a R-leaning election, following two terms of an incumbent Democratic President.

If anything they focused on the fundementals too much.

Why is Trump campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin? Why isn't Trump spending more on TV ads? Why does Trump have no ground game? Where is Trump's Get out the Vote effort?

And once again, Trump proved everyone wrong. Sabato was hilariously wrong as well, but a lot of people felt Hillary was inevitable. I love how everyone now all of a sudden "knew" Trump was going to win or that "the election was an R-leaning election" when they gave Trump a 1% chance to win the election.

I've read many left leaning forums on election night and before it was clear Trump stood a chance, virtually no one thought Trump was going to win.

The map was there, the electorate was there, and clearly, if we had looked past that, fundamentals mattered more than polling.

There were many signs Trump would win, but the "experts" either ignored them or excuse them. For example, The New York Times literally said Ohio was no longer a bellwether because Trump led in the polls. Another example is how Pennsylvania was experiencing record GOP registrations and no one in the mainstream media reported on that.

he underperformed 2016

Uh what? He greatly overperformed.

How did we go from Trump only has a 1% chance to win to him underperforming?

Plus, even if he did underperform, there are 3 main reasons for this: 1. He didn't spend much money 2. The Access Hollywood tape 3. Third party voters. These will not be an issue in 2020.

And, we should pause to remember that he lost the popular vote to a widely disliked candidate by 2.8 million votes

He lost the popular vote because he focused real hard on winning the election (Clinton focused on running up the score) and didn't spend much money. And also once again the Access Hollywood tape and third party voters. For example, Trump got only 45% of the vote in Utah due to McMullin (who will not be on the ballot in 2020). So in 2020 he'll get around 60%+ of the vote in Utah.

And we should also remember a fundamental law of re-elections: they are about how well the incumbent does in the White House, the economy, and a quotidian set of other variables. Right now, he’s got a booming economy but sits underwater at 38-55%. We should rightly question if he’ll win re-election with the data at this time.

Trump defies conventional wisdom.

Remember the video I showed you? 60% of Republicans would never vote for Trump so he shouldn't run.

Aside from Trump’s poor governing record, there is the fact that there has been no recession since 2009. We’re in one of the longest economic expansions in history and that’s going to end sometime in Trump’s first term. The timing of that would very well affect the re-election (if not the midterms).

This is a legitimate concern, which is why I hope Trump doesn't appoint a globalist to the chairman of the Fed.

Instead, you want us to simply believe Trump will win re-election no matter what because he won in a shock upset. (Side bar: American presidential election history doesn’t usually reward shock victories with further victories. Take a look throughout history).

Americans have also never elected a person without military or government experience to the Presidency.

Once again, you keep bringing up the past as evidence Trump can't win, but I keep pointing out Trump DEFIES that.

As I said, I have supported Trump since day 1 and I heard it all. This is nothing more than deja vu to me. I remember people calling me stupid for suggesting Trump will make it to September.... 2015. I had people who were VERY adamantly telling me Trump will not be the nominee. They were so sure of it. They KNEW Trump would never win the nomination. I remember all the talk about a "contested convention" and that Trump will not reach 1,237 delegates. For months and months Trump was going to lose big league and his supporters are going to get owned. Reddit even had a subreddit to mock his supporters after he lost (r/The_Meltdown).

You keep applying political science concepts to someone they don't apply to.

I don’t know how you got 326 but this is probably his high water mark. If we’re talking about GOP highwater mark, I would agree. I’m not sure at this juncture that I agree Trump would reach this mark.

Trump's 306 votes + Minnesota + Nevada + New Hampshire. Trump's max is about 387, but will likely end up from 326-350.

Approval ratings matter in the context that now he’s the President [...]  the less likely he wins re-election as more people maintain their disapproval.

According to anti-Trumpers he's not even supposed to be President.

But yeah, now I am going to believe you guys.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

He barely won the first time. Period. He got lucky--- he is not unstoppable. He is terrible at governing and nothing he has promised to do he has done except for the fluff things he can do like pulling out of Paris Accord and banning trans people from the military. He BARELY beat Hillary in MI, WI, and PA and that was with her being a terrible campaigner and highly disliked. Please tell me how Trump improves on these margins running against a better Democrat in 2020 with his approval stuck in the high 30's?

I love how Hillary became a "terrible campaigner" after she lost. She spent a ton of time in Pennsylvania (held the convention there!) and Florida as well but she lost both. No one mentions that.

People were definitely saying that when she went missing in late August/early September but ok.

I can't wait to see the most disliked candidate in history somehow improve his weak margins in states he could not cross 50 percent when he is not running against the person with the second highest unfavorables after him.

According to 538, Clinton reached her peak "percentage to win" in August at about 90%. She dipped in September for a bit due to her health issues (fainting and being thrown into a van like a side of beef; her coughing spasms; etc. etc.).

But the fact she didn't visit Wisconsin once during the entire campaign was never brought up til 11PM on election night.

Before the election, she was the most qualified candidate ever and running a well oiled machine. Trump was a bigoted buffoon who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag.

It's amazing how after the election everyone "knew" Trump was going to win and that Hillary was a terrible candidate. Trump couldn't win because he had no ground game or get out the vote program!

After being wrong so many times about Trump why should I believe you now? As I said, I've heard it all about how he had no chance to win in 2016. And anti-Trumpers were VERY adamant about it. Suggesting Trump could win made you beyond stupid. I have kept a tally of all the things anti-Trumpers were saying about Trump throughout the election and they were so adamant they were right and you were stupid if you didn't believe them.

[RFKFan68]

He barely won the first time. Period. He got lucky--- he is not unstoppable. He is terrible at governing and nothing he has promised to do he has done except for the fluff things he can do like pulling out of Paris Accord and banning trans people from the military. He BARELY beat Hillary in MI, WI, and PA and that was with her being a terrible campaigner and highly disliked. Please tell me how Trump improves on these margins running against a better Democrat in 2020 with his approval stuck in the high 30's?

I love how Hillary became a "terrible campaigner" after she lost. She spent a ton of time in Pennsylvania (held the convention there!) and Florida as well but she lost both. No one mentions that.

People were definitely saying that when she went missing in late August/early September but ok.

I can't wait to see the most disliked candidate in history somehow improve his weak margins in states he could not cross 50 percent when he is not running against the person with the second highest unfavorables after him.

According to 538, Clinton reached her peak "percentage to win" in August at about 90%. She dipped in September for a bit due to her health issues (fainting and being thrown into a van like a side of beef; her coughing spasms; etc. etc.).

But the fact she didn't visit Wisconsin once during the entire campaign was never brought up til 11PM on election night.

Before the election, she was the most qualified candidate ever and running a well oiled machine. Trump was a bigoted buffoon who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag.

It's amazing how after the election everyone "knew" Trump was going to win and that Hillary was a terrible candidate. Trump couldn't win because he had no ground game or get out the vote program!

After being wrong so many times about Trump why should I believe you now? As I said, I've heard it all about how he had no chance to win in 2016. And anti-Trumpers were VERY adamant about it. Suggesting Trump could win made you beyond stupid. I have kept a tally of all the things anti-Trumpers were saying about Trump throughout the election and they were so adamant they were right and you were stupid if you didn't believe them.

I didn't "know" Trump was going to win. I did wake up on November 8 with the thought that Hillary was going to win but only because I did not expect such a collapse of Dem support in places like Western PA and low black turnout in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Trump did not do anything amazing. He was just able to run up the margins in rural areas while Hillary faltered in the urban centers she was counting on to save her. You can keep running with the notion that Trump can't be beat. This argument is futile, you are a stan and cannot engage in rational discourse. 

[Higgins]

In the sense that he'll more likely than not win reelection just as Reagan did in 1984, sure, I guess. Still a pointless comparison, though.

Related: Why are Democrats convinced that the party won't make the exact same mistakes as last time? Let's not forget that we're talking about a party that simultaneously a. believes that Clinton only lost due to racism & sexism & b. has already coalesced around Kamala Harris, whose only notable feature is that she is a black, female politician, as the party's best hope to defeat Trump next time around. They haven't learned a thing.

Walter Mondale - Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders

Gary Hart - Kirsten Gillibrand or Cory Booker

Jesse Jackson - Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard

Good comparison, though I think we'll see a lot of candidates run, so the "3 top candidates" thing may not play out exactly.

This makes absolutely no sense. What do Kamala Harris & Tulsi Gabbard have to do with each other, and, more importantly, what makes either of them the modern day analogue to Jesse Jackson?

Harris is a modern day analogue in that most of her appeal stems from her race rather than anything of substance; Jackson was a rather novelty candidate in 1984 in that he was the first Black American to really have a shot at winning a major party's nomination. I can't say it applies to Gabbard though, I think she is a legitimate rising star.