CNBC: 3 big warning signs for Trump's re-election bid

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/these-are-the-three-biggest-warning-signs-for-trumps-reelection-bid.html

A good article making the argument that although Clinton and Obama overcame rough midterms to win re-election, Trump is unlikely to do so.  Summary of the three reasons:

1. The Republican gains in 1994 and 2010 were trailing indicators of a realignment that had already occurred at the Presidential level, but the Democratic suburban breakthrough in 2018 looks like a leading indicator.

2. Trump's unpopularity is very inelastic.  Both Clinton and Obama overcame temporary dips in their approval, but Trump is unlikely to do so.

3. The economy is currently slowing, while in the other two cases it was strengthening.

[Saint Milei]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

Sweatin' like a dog.

[Matty]

On the economy part, something to keep in mind

If the growth rate of the economy is slowing, but job openings, unemployment, and wage growth remain fairly healthy, that would likely overshadow the decline in the rate of economic growth.

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

Also, the public policy democrats put forward in the primary will matter. Warren’s fracking ban would be unpopular.

[GeorgiaModerate]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

Where did either the article or I call American voters stupid?

Where did either the article or I claim Trump will lose?  The article points out differences between Trump's situation and those of Obama and Clinton that suggest Trump is less likely to be re-elected.  It makes well reasoned points that do show some warning signs for Trump.

I suggest that you enroll in a reading comprehension course before continuing to post.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

On the economy part, something to keep in mind

If the growth rate of the economy is slowing, but job openings, unemployment, and wage growth remain fairly healthy, that would likely overshadow the decline in the rate of economic growth.

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

Also, the public policy democrats put forward in the primary will matter. Warren’s fracking ban would be unpopular.

If people are doing well enough economically, other issues tend to take precedence. We saw that in 2018. Incompetence and unneccessary divisiveness led to voters giving Democrats the House

[Mr. Smith]

On the economy part, something to keep in mind

If the growth rate of the economy is slowing, but job openings, unemployment, and wage growth remain fairly healthy, that would likely overshadow the decline in the rate of economic growth.

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

Also, the public policy democrats put forward in the primary will matter. Warren’s fracking ban would be unpopular.

If people are doing well enough economically, other issues tend to take precedence. We saw that in 2018. Incompetence and unneccessary divisiveness led to voters giving Democrats the House

In a sense, this was evident in 2016 too.

[Middle-aged Europe]

>calls american voters stupid

You call American voters STUPID? Shame on you, shame on you!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Fair points, but it's still early.

[Pericles]

I agree with this. I'll add that 2018 was unusually high turnout for a midterm-the highest turnout since 1914. 2018 had 50.3% turnout compared to 55.7% in 2016. This makes it more indicative of the next presidential election than most midterms imo, and makes it harder for Trump to recover from it than Obama and Clinton (who nonetheless did more to try and appeal to voters they lost in the midterms than Trump is doing). Trump has been consistently unpopular both as a presidential candidate and a President, the only time he had a net positive approval rating was in his first week or two as President. A very important factor in 2016 was that both Trump and Hillary Clinton were unusually unpopular (so don't expect the 2020 Democratic nominee to be as unpopular as Hillary Clinton), and the decisive voters were those who disliked both candidates-Trump cannot count on those voters again in 2020. It is possible he changes people's minds about him by the 2020 election and/or Democrats blow it again, but he is seriously vulnerable.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

No they don't. The vast majority of people vote based on their identities and backfill their opinions of the economy in a way that minimizes cognitive dissonance. Standard metrics of "state of the economy" and job approval metrics stopped being correlated with each other ten years ago.

[Progressive Pessimist]

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

No they don't. The vast majority of people vote based on their identities and backfill their opinions of the economy in a way that minimizes cognitive dissonance. Standard metrics of "state of the economy" and job approval metrics stopped being correlated with each other ten years ago.

I mostly agree, though I do think once less ideological or partisan voters feel tangibly negatively affected by the economy, they take it out on the incumbent President and his party.

[Hermit For Peace]

Good to read that there are more and more warning signs for Trump's re-election.

Here's another one. Sorry I don't have the link, but a poll was taken a couple months ago which said that 62% of females are not likely to vote for Trump in 2020. That was females of all ages. And a high percentage of the 62% said they would not vote for Trump.

So how many female voters are there? And how much more time does Trump have to alienate them? And also to alienate everyone else in the country except this elusive base of his. How big can that base really be?

Here's an insider tip: People don't necessarily understand the depth of how Trump is offending the female of the species every day, day and night. We are pissed and getting more so every day. My prediction is that female voters will vote Trump out in a landslide. That's a big warning sign for Trump.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump isnt reelection, as a result, the wall he proposes mainly affects red state America. The states that matter; MI, PA and WI dont need a wall.

[junior chįmp]

On the economy part, something to keep in mind

If the growth rate of the economy is slowing, but job openings, unemployment, and wage growth remain fairly healthy, that would likely overshadow the decline in the rate of economic growth.

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

Also, the public policy democrats put forward in the primary will matter. Warren’s fracking ban would be unpopular.

Theres not mich of a correlation between unemployment rate and election outcomes

[Kingpoleon]

>calls american voters stupid

You call American voters STUPID? Shame on you, shame on you!

Yes, German voters are so much smarter.

[pbrower2a]

>calls american voters stupid

Wrong. He calls those who reject Trump... smart.  It is still commonplace among liberals to consider Trump voters 'stupid'.
 

>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

CNBC is a mirror-image of MSNBC in political orientation. It has a 'business' clientele unlike that of MSNBC.

You missed the point on the difference between the big House losses of Bill Clinton (1994) and Barack Obama (2010) with the situation with Trump: the 1994 Republican gain was largely among white Southerners as the Democratic Party started to disintegrate among white Southerners, and the 2010 Republican gain in the House was in rural districts that had gone for Obama in 2008 as the result of the financial meltdown.  Clinton and Obama could both still win decisively in 1996 and 2012  because they kept the regional support upon which they depended.  Besides, both Clinton and Obama had more leeway for such losses.

With Trump the losses are in what used to be safe districts for Republicans, which indicates that voters were out to send a message that Trump has yet to get. They happen when the economy is chugging along, so unless the economy stays in a full boom he stands to be trounced.

Even worse, Trump has never had approval in the 50's -- and his disapproval has become about as high as approval might have been for... Eisenhower in the 1950's.   

[pbrower2a]

On the economy part, something to keep in mind

If the growth rate of the economy is slowing, but job openings, unemployment, and wage growth remain fairly healthy, that would likely overshadow the decline in the rate of economic growth.

People vote based on how they feel about the economy and Their own situation. If unemployment stays below 4%, it will be tough to move public opinion

Also, the public policy democrats put forward in the primary will matter. Warren’s fracking ban would be unpopular.

I would not count on the economy. Americans despise corruption and vote it out even in supposedly-safe districts. Trump's erratic foreign policy does him little good.

[SN2903]

As long as the economy is relatively strong the democrats will have a really hard time convincing the majority of voters that a far left movement will be the right thing to do for the country

[Saint Milei]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

Where did either the article or I call American voters stupid?

Where did either the article or I claim Trump will lose?  The article points out differences between Trump's situation and those of Obama and Clinton that suggest Trump is less likely to be re-elected.  It makes well reasoned points that do show some warning signs for Trump.

I suggest that you enroll in a reading comprehension course before continuing to post.

you called american voters stupid in another thread

[Saint Milei]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

Sweatin' like a dog.

I didn't vote for him sis

[GeorgiaModerate]

>calls american voters stupid
>uses cnbc to claim trump will lose

Where did either the article or I call American voters stupid?

Where did either the article or I claim Trump will lose?  The article points out differences between Trump's situation and those of Obama and Clinton that suggest Trump is less likely to be re-elected.  It makes well reasoned points that do show some warning signs for Trump.

I suggest that you enroll in a reading comprehension course before continuing to post.

you called american voters stupid in another thread

Where?

[Orser67]

2. Trump's unpopularity is very inelastic.

To me, this is his biggest problem. I think that the good economy is already "baked into" his approval ratings and is unlikely to save him even if we don't fall into a recession. There's a strong (but far from inevitable) chance that in fifteen months many on this board will be saying that Trump's defeat was always inevitable due to his consistently low approval ratings.

The idea that 2018 was a leading indicator and thus is more predictive of the next presidential election is an interesting thought, but there's also a strong chance that either the realignment won't turn out like we expect (in terms of the composition of the new Democratic coalition) or that the realignment won't happen as fast we expect. Though Pericles does make a good point about how the high turnout in 2018 could mean that it's more reflective of the 2020 election.

[SN2903]

2. Trump's unpopularity is very inelastic.

To me, this is his biggest problem. I think that the good economy is already "baked into" his approval ratings and is unlikely to save him even if we don't fall into a recession. There's a strong (but far from inevitable) chance that in fifteen months many on this board will be saying that Trump's defeat was always inevitable due to his consistently low approval ratings.

The idea that 2018 was a leading indicator and thus is more predictive of the next presidential election is an interesting thought, but there's also a strong chance that either the realignment won't turn out like we expect (in terms of the composition of the new Democratic coalition) or that the realignment won't happen as fast we expect. Though Pericles does make a good point about how the high turnout in 2018 could mean that it's more reflective of the 2020 election.

In 2018, the turnout was unusually high for a midterm (51%) and the electorate was pretty democratic. That won't happen in 2020. The electorate is going to be more Republican than it was in 2018. Turnout will be very high like 2016, but if Trump can just get a decent amount of voters in 2018 who flipped back to dems he wins reelection.  The house is def in play if the democrats nominate Warren or Sanders. If they nominate Biden while I think Trump still gets reelected I don't think the house would be in play. Most of the candidates nominated in 2018 were moderate democrats and thus many districts that barely went for Trump in 2016 had many voters that were comfortable with a moderate democrat as a check on Trump. Voting for President is much different than voting for Congress though as we saw in 2012. The democrats positions are too far on the extreme to appeal to most voters in the middle.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden isnt the savior of the Democratic party, Warren with a good running mate can be competetive against Trump.

The only way Trump gets reelected if Tulsi Gabbard gets on all 50 states and run 3rd party. Then, Trump beats Warren or Biden