Trump Will Probably Lose 2020

[_EAllusion]

I remember four years ago I was adamant that this country would never elect another Bush. Jeb was the front runner at the time and everyone gave me a hard time for insisting he wouldn't even win the primary, much less the Presidency.

The lesson here?

It is dumb to even pretend to know what the actual odds are this far out. The odds makers 12 months from now will have a completely different set of numbers and a different order.

My gut tells me Trump can't win for the same reasons Jeb couldn't. The country is fed up.

If you were to look at the Democratic field and say none of them can win the primary, then after the election was held you could claim to be right 24 times and only have to acknowledge being wrong once. The field is divided in such a way that no one is more likely than not to win, but someone is going to win.

[_subgenius]

Why Democrats lose in 2020:
1. The economy.
2. Petty hair-fire fatigue.
3. Patriotism.
4. Not just 1 McGovern, but currently 24.

[_honorentheos]

Why Democrats lose in 2020:
1. The economy.
2. Petty hair-fire fatigue.
3. Patriotism.
4. Not just 1 McGovern, but currently 24.

1 is certainly a factor that could go either way. Forecasts say we have another year. The feel in the air is that is optimistic. The comparisons I've seen are to the market conditions before the 1987 market crash. If the economy remains hot enough to make it to November 2020 without a retraction, it will certainly help Trump. If it doesn't, Trump is toast.

2 is actually deserving more consideration than many here may give it. It doesn't take one stepping too much to the side of the crowd engaging in political discussions online to start hearing people being fed up with what is seen as partisan bickering. The Democrats would do well to take Harris' statement regarding people wanting more than a food fight from the first debate more seriously. That includes Sen. Harris.

3 is an example of 2 but from the right.

4, I smiled at that one. But Democrats should think about that rather than get complacent. Nixon won a second term.

[_EAllusion]

A modern presidential incumbent has never lost without there being an economic recession close to the election or an unpopular war close to the election. If Trump loses without one of those conditions being met, he'll be a major historical aberration. This makes all the analysis, both stupid and highminded, that will follow a Trump victory trying to pin his victory on general agreement with Trumpism seem naïve to misleading. If Trump wins, the good news is that it's not because Americans collectively are fascists now. The bad news is that anyone can win the Presidency if the conditions are right. Hence Trump. American democracy is not invulnerable to voting itself into authoritarian collapse like people, some people anyway, used to be so confident of.

But the economy is good right now and Trump's numbers continue to be poor, if not devastating. That's what suggests he can lose. According to historical trends he should be popular right now and he's not.

[_Kevin Graham]

Trump Election Advisers Panic After Realizing His Base Is Too Small

It will not surprise you to learn that President Trump just gave a speech that was full of distortions, this time about his record on the environment and climate change.

But it might surprise you to learn why Trump gave this speech: in part because his advisers are trying to mitigate the damage he’s sustained among millennial and suburban female voters.

This would seem to undercut Trump’s public bravado about his reelection chances. Trump recently mused in an interview that his base is “phenomenal,” and, when asked whether he needed to expand his appeal beyond it, said: “I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that.”

Apparently Trump’s own advisers disagree. And the remedies they’re seeking for the problem they’ve identified tell us something interesting about the reelection challenges Trump faces.

The New York Times reports that internal polling for Trump’s campaign revealed that his environmental record is a key obstacle to winning millennials and suburban women. Those demographics, of course, helped drive the Democratic takeover of the House in 2018 amid a sizable national popular vote win.

According to a senior administration official who reviewed the polling, Trump might not win voters who feel strongly about climate change, but it showed that a certain type of moderate who likes the economy might feel okay about Trump if she is persuaded he’s being “responsible” on environmental issues.

Hence Trump’s latest speech, in which he claimed that he has made it a “top priority” to preserve “the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet.” Trump actually mouthed the words that we have a “profound obligation to protect America’s extraordinary blessings for the next generation and many generations, frankly, to come.”

But as New York Times fact checker Linda Qiu documents, the speech was full of distortions. Trump absurdly took credit for environmental improvements secured under his predecessors. He also misleadingly claimed the United States is leading other countries in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, when in fact our reduction as a percentage of overall emissions — a much more meaningful metric — trails many others.

In reality, Trump has sought to dismantle multiple efforts to combat global warming. His Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a new rule to replace former president Barack Obama’s effort to curb emissions from coal plants, which will undermine progress, as well as another one rolling back tailpipe emissions standards. Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate deal.

Trump is doing all this, even though a comprehensive assessment by over a dozen federal agencies — within his own administration — concluded that global warming poses a dire future threat to U.S. interests. Trump dismissed this finding by saying: “I don’t believe it.”

What’s interesting here is the apparent need to obscure all of this, and to reposition Trump (try not to burst out laughing here) as mindful of the obligation to preserve our natural inheritance for future generations.

Trump’s reelection challenges

The brute demographic facts of the matter are as follows. Trump won in 2016 despite losing the national popular vote by nearly 3 million, by scraping out the barest of wins in industrial Midwestern states with disproportionately large populations of blue-collar white voters. Trump’s victory also relied on a falloff in turnout among younger and non-white voters, relative to 2012, and a somewhat larger margin among college-educated whites than expected.

But in 2018, these things reversed. Turnout among minorities, young voters and college-educated whites expanded by greater percentages, relative to the previous midterm elections, than it did among non-college-educated whites, and they broke toward Democrats. In 2020, those trends are expected to continue.

This does not necessarily solve the problem for Democrats. Supercharged turnout among blue-collar whites could help deliver Trump a second term, thanks to his advantage in the electoral college, which rests on the fact that the Midwestern “blue wall” states Trump cracked are not diversifying as quickly. This has led Democrats to strategize over how to win back those non-college-educated white voters, as they should.

But as Ron Brownstein has reported, Democrats can also win back those states in part by driving up turnout and vote share among the young, non-white and suburban, socially liberal whites, particularly women, who are now badly alienated by Trump. (Yes, those voters do exist in those states.) And Trump’s own advisers plainly worry about this.

Trumpism is driving people away

Trump’s climate and environmental agenda showcases some of Trumpism’s worst qualities: the anti-regulatory, science-denying GOP orthodoxy; the lies about bringing coal roaring back; the “America First” disdain for international engagement to solve global problems. Indeed, as Jedediah Purdy has noted, it also denotes an amoral “politics of grabbing what you can,” a central tenet of Trumpism.

Republicans sometimes say Trump might turn things around among college-educated and suburban whites by toning down the craziness and racism, so they vote for him based on the economy. But it’s evident that the policy side of Trumpism, not merely his personal qualities, are also alienating them.

Indeed, it’s no accident that Trump has been falsely claiming that migrant detention was worse under Obama and that Obama was responsible for starting family separations. Large majorities now favor allowing Central American refugees to apply for asylum and legalizing undocumented immigrants. Trump’s cruelties are driving majorities toward a more pro-immigrant position — and away from Trumpist nationalism — and the percentages of young voters, women and college-educated whites who hold those positions are overwhelming.

Trump certainly could win reelection. He retains the advantages of incumbency and a good economy. But Trump’s base alone is not enough to do so, and his own advisers know it.

From FiveThirtyEight: Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough

[_DoubtingThomas]

From FiveThirtyEight: Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough

The Democrats will be in trouble if the California senator or the gay governor win the nomination. According to the polls

General Election: Trump vs. Harris
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/7 - 7/9 800 RV 3.5 45 44 Harris +1
Emerson 7/6 - 7/8 1100 RV 2.9 49 51 Trump +2
ABC News/Wash Post 6/28 - 7/1 875 RV 4.0 48 46 Harris +2
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6252.html

General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg

Emerson 7/6 - 7/8 1100 RV 2.9 49 51 Trump +2
ABC News/Wash Post 6/28 - 7/1 875 RV 4.0 47 47 Tie
FOX News 6/9 - 6/12 1001 RV 3.0 41 40 Buttigieg +1
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6872.html


RCP Average 11/1 - 11/7 -- -- 46.8 43.6 Clinton +3.2

[_subgenius]

From FiveThirtyEight: Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough

No worries, as "the squad" and their extreme positions take over more and more of the Democratic brand identity the voters in 2020 will be more than enough.

[_canpakes]

From FiveThirtyEight: Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough

No worries, as "the squad" and their extreme positions take over more and more of the Democratic brand identity the voters in 2020 will be more than enough.

The extreme positions that don’t actually exist but are given in badly photoshopped ‘quotes’ made up by snowflake conservatives, and posted here by certain disingenuous folks as yourself, of course.

I love how the current Trump Base is so willing to expose their moral rot these days. : )

[_Analytics]

Here is a back of the envelope analysis on the demographic struggles Trump is facing.

Every day in America, about 7,500 people die. These people are generally older and whiter. If we assume that 60% of them are Republican, every day 4,500 Republican voters die, but only 3,000 democrat voters die. That means every day, the net democrat vote count goes up by 1,500 based on deaths.

Similarly, every day in America, about 11,000 citizens turn 18. If we assume that 60% of these new voters are Democrat, then every day there are 6,600 new democrats, but only 4,400 new Republicans. Thus every day, the net democrat vote count goes up by 2,200 based on new voters.

Putting those two trends together, every day the Democrat base grows by 3,700 voters.

3,700 voters * 365 days in a year * 4 years is 5.4 million voters.

Last time, Trump won despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. If everything remains the same except for this demographic churn in voters, he will lose the popular vote by 8.4 million.

[_EAllusion]

Here is a back of the envelope analysis on the demographic struggles Trump is facing.

Every day in America, about 7,500 people die. These people are generally older and whiter. If we assume that 60% of them are Republican, every day 4,500 Republican voters die, but only 3,000 democrat voters die. That means every day, the net democrat vote count goes up by 1,500 based on deaths.

Similarly, every day in America, about 11,000 citizens turn 18. If we assume that 60% of these new voters are Democrat, then every day there are 6,600 new democrats, but only 4,400 new Republicans. Thus every day, the net democrat vote count goes up by 2,200 based on new voters.

Putting those two trends together, every day the Democrat base grows by 3,700 voters.

3,700 voters * 365 days in a year * 4 years is 5.4 million voters.

Last time, Trump won despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. If everything remains the same except for this demographic churn in voters, he will lose the popular vote by 8.4 million.

Poorly educated whites are continuing to flock to the Republican Party and are offsetting age-related demographic trends for now.