Trump Likely to Win Re-Election, According to a Dem Strategist

[Frodo]

For these following reasons:

1. It is unnecessary to win a majority of the popular vote, as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush demonstrated. 

2. The two major established political parties continue to bleed support, increasing the likelihood of a third party candidate winning a significant share of the vote in 2020, working to Trump's advantage as it splits the opposition. 

3. Trump has a better job approval rating than most polls suggest, especially among registered/likely voters (polls survey all eligible voters, and many may be reluctant to admit they support him), particularly in the key states he needs to win re-election in the Electoral College. 

4. His core group of supporters are with him to the bitter end, and with another less unequivocal group that still sticks with him out of a desire for change, which explains why he has largely bottomed out in polls with around 33 to 35% support. 

So his solution is that we as Democrats must quickly (as in avoid a long, drawn-out primary) unite behind a candidate who can appeal to voters in the upper Midwest, particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 

Thoughts?

[White Trash]

I think that last point is very true. However, knowing the Democratic Party, they will target affluent suburbs in Florida and Arizona again. And again, it won't work.

[The Other Castro]

1. Lazy, meaningless
2. Too speculative
3. Poll truthing? Seriously?
4. Irrelevant

Overall, it's a rambling hodgepodge of points that argues nothing.

[Mr. Smith]

Possible.

But then, GOP strategists were up-and-down terrified of Hillary at this point 4 years ago, and wisdom was that Colorado and Virginia would need to be flipped [the 2012 tipping point and the median respectively]...whoops.

I think that last point is very true. However, knowing the Democratic Party, they will target affluent suburbs in Florida and Arizona again. And again, it won't work.

The Midwest wasn't supposed to work for the GOP either. Then it did.

[Lachi]

Number 3 makes this laughable. Poll truthers deserve to be flogged.

[Harlow]

Third parties can bleed just as many voters from Trump as his Democratic opposition. I don't know why it's being assumed that the third party vote will hurt Dems in particular, especially this early on when we don't have the faintest idea who the possible third party candidates or independents will be.

[Shadows]

These idiots are the reason Dems continue to lose. They bleed money to clueless schmucks who try to predict elections more than 3 years away. How stupid can you be?

And saying Trump who has one of the worst approvals in history for this period will "Likely" win is the reasons these strategists should be unemployed. No1 argues that Dems need to target the Mid-west for winning the EC - That is not even debatable. Rest all is total BS !

[Xing]

Trump is likely to win if Democrats can't get their act together and run on a message that voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can buy into. Right now, they seem to want to double down on their 2016 strategy, which is not going to help.

If they run on identity politics and believe that Georgia is more winnable than Wisconsin, they're going to lose.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

These idiots are the reason Dems continue to lose. They bleed money to clueless schmucks who try to predict elections more than 3 years away. How stupid can you be?

And saying Trump who has one of the worst approvals in history for this period will "Likely" win is the reasons these strategists should be unemployed. No1 argues that Dems need to target the Mid-west for winning the EC - That is not even debatable. Rest all is total BS !

"Approval ratings" mean nothing.

Remember what everyone said about Trump in 2015 and 2016.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

2020 election definitely shouldn't be considered an autowin for dems. That said, Trump almost threw an automatic win vs a terrible candidate after 8 years of an only decent democrat president (he only got particularly popular after people saw Obama in comparison to Hillary and Trump). You have to be a special kind of incompetent to almost lose Hillary Clinton (the person who made the 2000 New York senate race somewhat competitive).

Also, the worst people floated around for 2020 candidate (Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris) are both still leagues better than Hillary Clinton. You have to really try to pick a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. And you also have to really try to run a worse campaign than Hillary.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Says the same people who thought Hillary would win in a landslide. Honestly I believe this is a ploy by the democrats to kick democrats into changing their ways.

[Rjjr77]

Possible.

But then, GOP strategists were up-and-down terrified of Hillary at this point 4 years ago, and wisdom was that Colorado and Virginia would need to be flipped [the 2012 tipping point and the median respectively]...whoops.

I think that last point is very true. However, knowing the Democratic Party, they will target affluent suburbs in Florida and Arizona again. And again, it won't work.

The Midwest wasn't supposed to work for the GOP either. Then it did.

I was a strategist 4 years ago, no one on the GOP side was scared of Hillary. Biden worried us much more

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

2020 election definitely shouldn't be considered an autowin for dems. That said, Trump almost threw an automatic win vs a terrible candidate after 8 years of an only decent democrat president (he only got particularly popular after people saw Obama in comparison to Hillary and Trump). You have to be a special kind of incompetent to almost lose Hillary Clinton (the person who made the 2000 New York senate race somewhat competitive).

Also, the worst people floated around for 2020 candidate (Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris) are both still leagues better than Hillary Clinton. You have to really try to pick a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton. And you also have to really try to run a worse campaign than Hillary.

Aside from Trump's blunders, the reason the race was so close was because Trump spent only pennies on the campaign. He won't have this problem in 2020. He spent less than $5 per vote in 2016, so all he has to do is double that and he's good to go.

But before the election, literally on the night of the election, Hillary had an impeccable campaign and her ground game would be the reason she wins. I love seeing revisionist history in action lol.

[BudgieForce]

I dont get point number 3. The 2016 national polls werent off by that much. Going by that, it should suggest his national approval ratings are fairly accurate.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Aside from Trump's blunders, the reason the race was so close was because Trump spent only pennies on the campaign. He won't have this problem in 2020. He spent less than $5 per vote in 2016, so all he has to do is double that and he's good to go.

But before the election, literally on the night of the election, Hillary had an impeccable campaign and her ground game would be the reason she wins. I love seeing revisionist history in action lol.

Hillary showed that the effect of money doesn't mean much in presidential races (it matters a ton in local and state races though). The reason why money doesn't matter as much in presidential races is because presidential races have massive media coverage, whereas in more local / state races the only coverage they usually get is campaign ads so whoever has more $$$ gets more exposure. Does this logic seem sound to you?

Also Trump will have more money this cycle, but the donors are really angry at the GOP for not getting anything done. This is supposed to be the easiest time for a new president, yet Donald Trump has accomplished basically nothing. I doubt Trump is going to have an easier time getting things done after midterms.

Also you have to admit that Hillary was a particularly dogpoop candidate -- the only time we heard from her was when she said "Trump is bad!" and about her emails. She never gave anybody a reason to vote for her besides "I'm not Trump". I legitimately struggled to find people who liked Hillary.

[TJ in Oregon]

Trump is likely to win if Democrats can't get their act together and run on a message that voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can buy into. Right now, they seem to want to double down on their 2016 strategy, which is not going to help.

If they run on identity politics and believe that Georgia is more winnable than Wisconsin, they're going to lose.

If things continue in their current direction, Georgia very well might be more winnable for the Democrats than Wisconsin in 2020.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Trump is likely to win if Democrats can't get their act together and run on a message that voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can buy into. Right now, they seem to want to double down on their 2016 strategy, which is not going to help.

If they run on identity politics and believe that Georgia is more winnable than Wisconsin, they're going to lose.

If things continue in their current direction, Georgia very well might be more winnable for the Democrats than Wisconsin in 2020.

Georgia will never be winnable for the Democrats for at least a few decades, unless Democrats pull off a nationwide landslide of at least the caliber of those where Eisenhower won.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Hillary showed that the effect of money doesn't mean much in presidential races

Except if you're Russian. Then $100,000 in Facebook ads is the most devastating campaign strategy ever lol.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Hillary showed that the effect of money doesn't mean much in presidential races

Except if you're Russian. Then $100,000 in Facebook ads is the most devastating campaign strategy ever lol.

You're totally right on that. Honestly I hate how democrats are blaming the russians. Russia did hurt Hillary a slight bit probably (how the hell do you even quantify this), but the ad attacks wouldn't have been effective if Hillary was someone people could actually trust.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Hillary showed that the effect of money doesn't mean much in presidential races

Except if you're Russian. Then $100,000 in Facebook ads is the most devastating campaign strategy ever lol.

You're totally right on that. Honestly I hate how democrats are blaming the russians. Russia did hurt Hillary a slight bit probably (how the hell do you even quantify this), but the ad attacks wouldn't have been effective if Hillary was someone people could actually trust.

But the Russians also hacked voting machines and gave Trump extra votes, and if those votes were not there, Clinton would have won.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

You're totally right on that. Honestly I hate how democrats are blaming the russians. Russia did hurt Hillary a slight bit probably (how the hell do you even quantify this), but the ad attacks wouldn't have been effective if Hillary was someone people could actually trust.

It's called Hysteria. Induced by losing what they deemed to be their rightful throne, and any reasoning behind their loss CANNOT be legal or logical as it was rightfully theirs. Therefore, it was clearly Russian interference.

However, isn't this "Clinton was one of the worst candidates/ran a terrible campaign" revisionist history? Literally on election night everyone was talking about how her campaign was impeccable, her ground game was better than Obama's, her data was the best in the history of Democracy, Trump only had a 2% chance to win, etc. etc.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

You're totally right on that. Honestly I hate how democrats are blaming the russians. Russia did hurt Hillary a slight bit probably (how the hell do you even quantify this), but the ad attacks wouldn't have been effective if Hillary was someone people could actually trust.

It's called Hysteria. Induced by losing what they deemed to be their rightful throne, and any reasoning behind their loss CANNOT be legal or logical as it was rightfully theirs. Therefore, it was clearly Russian interference.

However, isn't this "Clinton was one of the worst candidates/ran a terrible campaign" revisionist history? Literally on election night everyone was talking about how her campaign was impeccable, her ground game was better than Obama's, her data was the best in the history of Democracy, Trump only had a 2% chance to win, etc. etc.

I agree the media sucked. I personally believed Hillary would barely win the deciding state of PA by less than 0.5%. I got Wisconsin and Michigan wrong (thought it'd be between 1-2%), but I never thought Hillary would win Florida / NC. The polls showed she was losing in those states, yet the media decided she had a lock on those states? The media was literally ignoring the polls in the last week that showed Trump ahead in Florida / NC and that Trump was barely behind in PA. The media was also dumb and ignored the huge undecided numbers.

Cable news networks have sucked for a while. IDK why people just realized this in 2016.

[Rjjr77]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

When Georgia actually elects a democrat statewide, then we can talk about it being possibly in play, until then its not.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There was a lot of evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton would beat her polling numbers too.

A lot of people had privately communicated to the media in some cases that they planned to vote for Clinton, but were afraid that if they let their family know, they would be targeted by domestic violence.

When you consider this, it changes from possible to obvious that Russian hackers must have tampered with the vote totals.