Jump to content
270soft Forum

Getting ready for 5 more years of Trump


Anthony_270
 Share

Recommended Posts

We are now almost exactly 1 year from the 2020 election. Much can change, and much we don't know. There is currently an impeachment inquiry unfolding in the House. Hypothetical polls suggest a Democratic victory. The economy can always turn. And all sorts of events could potentially upend Trump's Presidency. Yet, if I were to guess based on today, it would be that Trump has a 75% chance of winning re-election. Therefore, I think it is prudent for anyone heavily invested in Presidential politics to prepare for either outcome.

What are points supporting a Trump win? At this point, there is no significant challenge to Trump in the Republican primaries - to the extent that key states have cancelled their primaries. This is related to very high GOP approval (somewhere around 90%). He has largely done what he said he would do (enacting policies that have led to high economic growth and record low unemployment, wall is going up, appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices, keeping out of foreign wars while simultaneously destroying ISIS). Trump and the RNC are hitting all-time fundraising records for this point in the election cycle. The Trump campaign has made what appears to be highly significant years-long investment to get multiple points of direct contact with persuadable voters in swing states. There are very large crowds at rallies (even though a year away from an election). There are also signs of an expanding electoral map (two recent massive rallies were held in New Mexico and Minnesota).

The next piece is weak opposition. Every candidate has obvious flaws. Warren is low-charisma and far to the left on key issues (her healthcare position is to the left in the Democratic party). Biden is too old and a gaffe machine, possibly showing signs of dementia. Sanders is uncharismatic, coming off as a cranky old man as of yet in the Democratic primaries. Buttigieg is too young and his only governing experience is as Mayor of a small city.

So could Trump win? I think a case could be made for it given what we know now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

We are now almost exactly 1 year from the 2020 election. Much can change, and much we don't know. There is currently an impeachment inquiry unfolding in the House. Hypothetical polls suggest a Democratic victory. The economy can always turn. And all sorts of events could potentially upend Trump's Presidency. Yet, if I were to guess based on today, it would be that Trump has a 75% chance of winning re-election. Therefore, I think it is prudent for anyone heavily invested in Presidential politics to prepare for either outcome.

What are points supporting a Trump win? At this point, there is no significant challenge to Trump in the Republican primaries - to the extent that key states have cancelled their primaries. This is related to very high GOP approval (somewhere around 90%). He has largely done what he said he would do (enacting policies that have led to high economic growth and record low unemployment, wall is going up, appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices, keeping out of foreign wars while simultaneously destroying ISIS). Trump and the RNC are hitting all-time fundraising records for this point in the election cycle. The Trump campaign has made what appears to be highly significant years-long investment to get multiple points of direct contact with persuadable voters in swing states. There are very large crowds at rallies (even though a year away from an election). There are also signs of an expanding electoral map (two recent massive rallies were held in New Mexico and Minnesota).

The next piece is weak opposition. Every candidate has obvious flaws. Warren is low-charisma and far to the left on key issues (her healthcare position is to the left in the Democratic party). Biden is too old and a gaffe machine, possibly showing signs of dementia. Sanders is uncharismatic, coming off as a cranky old man as of yet in the Democratic primaries. Buttigieg is too young and his only governing experience is as Mayor of a small city.

So could Trump win? I think a case could be made for it given what we know now.

 

 

I finally have time to respond to this, so I will. 

If I were to guess, I would have Trump's reelection chance at about 45%

Here is my rationale, responding to each paragraph:

  1. The economic growth is having no significant impact on his approval or favorability, except maybe on those that will already vote for him. He can't break the 41-43% approval. On top of this, election polls, including those conducted in battleground states, are suggesting Trump loses in the popular vote and in key battleground states more often than not. This is despite a strong economy and low unemployment. I believe that 90% of Republicans--those already supporting him--believe this is due to Trump. I think 90% of Democrats think Obama is the reason for this strong economy. I think that probably more independents than not think the economy is doing well in spite of Trump's trade policies and etc. That is to say, the policies of Obama have a overpowering lasting influence if this is the case, something strong enough to combat a trade war with China and etc. I'm not an economist, and economic history tends to show that these situations are often more complicated than they seem, often transcending multiple presidencies. There's even arguments that the president has very little control of the economy. 
  2. In regards to Trump's accomplishments, he touts accomplishments, but he's regularly getting blocked by courts and Congress, arguably making him the weakest president since Carter. At times, his own party gets in the way (McCain saving Obamacare). You state that the wall is getting built. But is it really? He also isn't getting Mexico to pay for it. Here's a fact checker article from the relatively centrist (used to be center-right) news source TheHill: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/06/more-than-two-years-later-trumps-wall-remains-unbuilt/ . This is from September, but it pretty much holds today. Many in both parties disagree with his Syrian policy. I do like that he avoids foreign wars, but despite having killed the leader of ISIS (they'll find another), he hasn't destroyed ISIS. It's a symbolic kill, just as Bin Laden's death was symbolic. The terror remains. Whenever ISIS is destroyed, analysts will debate whether the victory is shared between Trump and Obama, or if one had a more effective strategy over the other.  While Trump appeals to Conservatives with his Supreme Court picks, the majority disapprove of his picks: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/466728-majority-disapprove-of-trump-supreme-court-nominations-says-poll . Overall, I think he's going to be remembered more by what Congress and the Courts block and what the majority of American's disapprove of. The wall, which won't be much of a wall --- not the kind Trump was boasting about -- will likely not be finished if Trump is defeated. His legacy will be more about his behavior and rhetoric than any accomplishments. In regards to fundraising, I don't think this is especially special, considering Hillary Clinton greatly outfundraised Trump, and greatly outspent Trump. I think the amount of money matters little so long as you have a lot of it. In regards to expanding a map, Minnesota was already in the picture. There's no poll or anything to reflect that New Mexico is actually in the game.  About 50% of New Mexico (47%, I think actually) is Hispanic. The grand majority of these vote Democrat. If the hated Hillary Clinton can crush Trump by 8 pts in NM, I can't picture any Democrat doing worse in a Blue State. 
  3. Are the Democratic candidates flawed? Certainly and possibly for all the reasons you give. Yet, they're all significant improvements on Hillary Clinton. Warren is uncharismatic but she balances this out with an energetic optimism. Sanders is uncharismatic, but like how Trump is equally uncharismatic, he, like Trump, builds a cult following. This brings us back to Trump as a candidate that is flawed. He has flaws other than his lack of appeal by the majority of Americans. One could make more, arguably better arguments of his flaws than for the flaws of any of the major four Democrats. Any of these Democrats are a flight of steps higher than Clinton, but is Trump even a step up in the flaws department than he was in 2016? 

I'll now elaborate further. I think Trump has a few things going in his favor. 

  1. He has the power of incumbency, that has helped Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, although we've never had four two term presidents in a row. 
  2. He has successfully taken control of a major party and having support of a major party allows the possibility of victory. To add, he's more exciting for those that would likely vote Republican than either McCain or Romney, just as someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would be more exciting than someone like Hillary Clinton. I'd argue that neither Trump nor Sanders is as exciting as Obama in '08. 
  3. Trump has a killer instinct and will do WHATEVER it takes to win an election. This is his greatest strength as a candidate. 
  4. While I don't the economy is saving him or will save him, it will at least be a safety net to prevent a landslide defeat. As mentioned in the above, the economy is having no impact on voter support. 

Here are other things to consider.

  1. I'll reiterate that the polls somewhat regularly show Trump losing against even Warren and Sanders in states like TX, NC, AZ, FL, OH, and in the generally Blue States like WI, MI, and PA. This is unprecedented, especially when Trump supposedly has the support of 90% of his own party. You would never see Romney, McCain, Bush II, Cruz, or Rubio losing to Sanders or Warren in TX, NC, AZ, or OH, and probably not FL either. This suggests a potential problem. A Biden victory in these states seems within the realm of possibility. But for a poll to show Trump losing to a Socialist and a Progressive in relatively conservative states should be a huge warning sign. That said, I expect Trump to win all of these states vs. Sanders or Warren. Yet, it should also show that these states could shift, depending on events. I should also note that Biden often wins these beyond the margin of error. There might be polls in which Warren or Sanders do as well, but I think Trump's within the margin of error in all of those. 
  2. I'd keep a look on independent support. Trump is still doing well here: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464646-poll-trump-gains-among-independents-against-biden-warren . However, Warren still hasn't the name recognition of Trump, which may account for some of her lower number. Look for this to tighten, potentially, in the general election. 
  3. Morning Consults best analytical feature is the state by state approval poll. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/   While poor approval by state does not guarantee that the state will flip (especially if it is a historically red state), it might matter in a toss up state, a generally blue state (WI, MI, PA), and if the Dem nominee is significantly more favorable than Hillary Clinton---a virtual guarantee. Trump has negative 16 approval in NM (he can't expand his battleground here with that), negative 11 in WI, negative 10 in MI, negative 8 in PA, negative 5 in OH, negative 11 in MN. He also has negative 14 in IA, which was a state he had won handily. He's also barely negative in the following states he had won: FL, NC, MT, UT, AZ, NE. While not a guarantee of defeat, such a map is a warning sign and should pose some optimism for Democrats. It likely won't be Trump expanding a battleground, it will be Democrats with the luxury of expanding their battleground. Trump is set up to be on the defensive. 
  4. The top pollsters and analysts are certainly intelligent enough to learning from the lessons of the 2016 election, an election that defied the polls---although the victory was within the margin of error, so that Clinton's victory was not 100% assured, even by the polls--Trump just rolled the right number on the die. The Consensus map shows the following: https://www.270towin.com/  (drop down to 2020 Consensus). The tossups are AZ, FL, NC, PA, WI, and that district in NE. This reinforces the idea that Trump will likely be on the defensive, and it suggests that should Trump wins all of these, that he will have a lower EC count than in 2016. However, it can be argued that this Consensus map will ultimately prove as wrong as the 2016 consensus map: https://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/08/final-tally-of-electoral-map-forecasts_411.html#.XbiTk5pKhPY (but note how the map has changed)
  5. In regards to support for impeachment, most Americans opposed impeachment effort for the first year that such polls were conducted, often showing 55% opposed to impeachment. However, since the end of September (a month ago), support for impeachment has been higher than those opposed to it. This is problematic for Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo  By comparison, only 3 and 10 of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment just before the hearings, and it did not dent his support. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/    Thus, we haven't a model for Trump's impeachment, an unpopular president facing a majority of Americans wanting impeachment. Andrew Johnson is the analogy, but we don't have polls for that time.
  6. I should also state that for Nixon, it took about a year of investigations until popular opinion turned against him. Republican statesman didn't abandon him until the final moments. 
  7. Now on to Trump's popularity--or unpopularity. Today, he's averaging a 40.6% approval and a 54.1% disapproval. He has not even averaged 43% since March 2017! Maybe he can warm himself with the fact that he hasn't been in the 30%s since Feb 2019? Among likely or registered voters, Trump's support moves into 41%. This is worry for any incumbent, regardless of party. This should allow Democrats to be somewhat optimistic, and might even allow someone like Warren, who is not naturally charismatic, to be even more competitive than Hillary Clinton, who was less charismatic, much more hated, and won the popular vote. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
  8. How is Trump's unpopularity holding up historically? His support of 40% is actually kind of comparable to Obama's 43%. It's certainly better than Carter's 30%. Perhaps, Trump's supporters can feel less anxious about this because Bush I, Ford, and LBJ all had higher approval than Trump and failed to get reelected. This said, no one has had Trump's low approval rating or lower at this point and won. It's also crucially important--critical I say--to point out that Trump has never been close to 50% approval on average for his entire presidency! This has never happened in the history of polling. Obama was frequently under, but had moments of 53% support or higher, even going to 60%, and he left office at almost 58%. Bush II almost had 90% at 9/11, but had moments of going over 50%. In fact, every president has had brief moments of 60% support or higher! Ford, a one term president, is probably Trump's closest analogy. He did have 70% support upon taking office, but he teetered around Trump range for almost 95% of his presidency, and lost to Jimmy Carter. Trump hasn't dropped into the low 30s, but he has been in the 30s a few times. Can Trump ever get to 50% average? Can he ever get to 46% average? One can use these figures to write a bio on Trump called, "The Only President Never Loved"
  9. The largest question is this. Can Donald Trump replicate the same energetic voter turnout in the same states as he did in 2016 when he was a novelty? We don't know, especially since the novelty probably has worn out (Trump fatigue and regret-a-trumps). Can Democrats energize a greater turnout in key states than they did in 2016? Seems likely considering the candidate will be more favorable, likable than Trump. I'd argue Clinton was an energizing factor for Trump supporters. They hated her. Will they hate Warren or Biden as much? Will it be as energizing? Warren hasn't been around very long, while Clinton was a foe for decades. Trump likely will be an energizing factor for Dems, especially with a non-Hillary Clinton candidate. Trump was the leading cause for the Blue Wave of 2018. Can the American spirit of 2018 carry on in 2020? 
  10. I'll state again: Trump fatigue and regret-a-trumps. 

From nearly all evidence, Trump seems clearly on the defensive. The expanding battleground seems like it's more in Democrats favor. Trump has been unpopular for his entire presidency. He's more flawed than Democrats. He's been arguably very weak as president and not terribly successful compared to most modern president. He's going to face a much stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton no matter what. More people support his impeachment than not. He will be investigated for the rest of his presidency. Trump fatigue. Regret-a-trumps. The economy will not and is not saving him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vcczar

A lot there, and I certainly agree a case can be made that Trump's chances are < 50%, but I'll mention just 3 specific items.

1. Wall. This is an important question. Is the wall going up? It seems the answer is yes, and the situation has changed significantly from September. This page's https://www.trumpwall.construction/ spreadsheet - which has been updated recently - claims 140 miles have been built out of 290 miles. It breaks it down by detailed sectors, start dates, and anticipated completion dates.

2. Trump fatigue. It's important one doesn't convince oneself there's Trump fatigue from cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. It's not showing up in rally size or enthusiasm, it's not showing up in GOP approval ratings, and it's not showing up in Trump fundraising numbers. Are NeverTrumpers experiencing Trump fatigue? Yes. Are grass-roots? I don't see it, based on multiple lines of evidence.

3. State-based polling. If there's any lesson from 2016 the Dems ought to learn, I think it's to not be complacent about state-by-state polling. Even if accurate as a reflection of current voter intentions, we are 1 year out. These are not leading indicators but trailing indicators. So will they be the same in 1 year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2019 at 5:26 PM, admin_270 said:

We are now almost exactly 1 year from the 2020 election. Much can change, and much we don't know. There is currently an impeachment inquiry unfolding in the House. Hypothetical polls suggest a Democratic victory. The economy can always turn. And all sorts of events could potentially upend Trump's Presidency. Yet, if I were to guess based on today, it would be that Trump has a 75% chance of winning re-election. Therefore, I think it is prudent for anyone heavily invested in Presidential politics to prepare for either outcome.

What are points supporting a Trump win? At this point, there is no significant challenge to Trump in the Republican primaries - to the extent that key states have cancelled their primaries. This is related to very high GOP approval (somewhere around 90%). He has largely done what he said he would do (enacting policies that have led to high economic growth and record low unemployment, wall is going up, appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices, keeping out of foreign wars while simultaneously destroying ISIS). Trump and the RNC are hitting all-time fundraising records for this point in the election cycle. The Trump campaign has made what appears to be highly significant years-long investment to get multiple points of direct contact with persuadable voters in swing states. There are very large crowds at rallies (even though a year away from an election). There are also signs of an expanding electoral map (two recent massive rallies were held in New Mexico and Minnesota).

The next piece is weak opposition. Every candidate has obvious flaws. Warren is low-charisma and far to the left on key issues (her healthcare position is to the left in the Democratic party). Biden is too old and a gaffe machine, possibly showing signs of dementia. Sanders is uncharismatic, coming off as a cranky old man as of yet in the Democratic primaries. Buttigieg is too young and his only governing experience is as Mayor of a small city.

So could Trump win? I think a case could be made for it given what we know now.

 

 

Main help for Trump according to me are far left democrats.

A part could vote Donald Trump or abstain because they think that Trump "helps a revolution to happens".

I seriously laugh about their thinking, because the US are by far the most stable institutionnal non dictatorship regime since its creation.

Even the secession war did not disturb the electoral calendar and institutions' rules. Nor both world wars.

But these extreme left democrats, either they win and push independents in Trump's arms, either they loose, abstain and undirectly support Trump's victory.

As I already said, Biden is no right-wing democrat, Biden is a regular democrat of the center, but the party moved left so now he is Right-wing Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'd give Trump's re-election chances to being anywhere from 30% (Buttigieg) to 90% (Warren) entirely depending on who the nominee is

From whence do you derive these two percentages? I hope it's something more solid and with more backing than the typical and uneducated biases you've been showing for a while now.

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 10:26 AM, admin_270 said:

We are now almost exactly 1 year from the 2020 election. Much can change, and much we don't know. There is currently an impeachment inquiry unfolding in the House. Hypothetical polls suggest a Democratic victory. The economy can always turn. And all sorts of events could potentially upend Trump's Presidency. Yet, if I were to guess based on today, it would be that Trump has a 75% chance of winning re-election. Therefore, I think it is prudent for anyone heavily invested in Presidential politics to prepare for either outcome.

What are points supporting a Trump win? At this point, there is no significant challenge to Trump in the Republican primaries - to the extent that key states have cancelled their primaries. This is related to very high GOP approval (somewhere around 90%). He has largely done what he said he would do (enacting policies that have led to high economic growth and record low unemployment, wall is going up, appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices, keeping out of foreign wars while simultaneously destroying ISIS). Trump and the RNC are hitting all-time fundraising records for this point in the election cycle. The Trump campaign has made what appears to be highly significant years-long investment to get multiple points of direct contact with persuadable voters in swing states. There are very large crowds at rallies (even though a year away from an election). There are also signs of an expanding electoral map (two recent massive rallies were held in New Mexico and Minnesota).

The next piece is weak opposition. Every candidate has obvious flaws. Warren is low-charisma and far to the left on key issues (her healthcare position is to the left in the Democratic party). Biden is too old and a gaffe machine, possibly showing signs of dementia. Sanders is uncharismatic, coming off as a cranky old man as of yet in the Democratic primaries. Buttigieg is too young and his only governing experience is as Mayor of a small city.

So could Trump win? I think a case could be made for it given what we know now.

 

 

I'm still surprised that 90% of Republicans (at least according to some source @admin_270 declared from, but didn't name or cite) support Trump. The idea of so many members of a party dominated (at the very least in pretense and vociferous declaration) to several strong and firm ideological camps that Trump espouses and belongs to NONE of, and, in fact, shows no coherent ideology, platform, or beliefs, but flip-flops worse than Romney in 2012, and seems to put his own ego and self-promotion above even the nation and office he's sworn to serve, and that 90% of Republicans (apparently, by an uncited source) support him as what to pin the party's future on, and considering he won't be around forever, or even in office past 2024 at the latest (POSSIBLY 2028 if he's defeated in 2020 but pulls a Cleveland in 2024), this strikes me as partisan suicide in the long-term, like the Whigs thinking ambivalence to slavery was a winning formula in the late 1840's and the 1850's. Of course, long-term thinking seems actively discouraged and derided in socio-political circles nowadays, accept in the PRC, which is one of the reasons they're rising ascendant.

As for judge selection, judges chosen specifically for ideological point of view is one of the reasons I distrust the U.S. Supreme Court and many of it's rulings on general principal, and believe, though it may indeed be a practice going back to the early 1800's, the true purpose and true integrity of the Supreme Court was utterly lost in it's entirety when it's justices firmly became spoils and patronage. Now, it's just a disgusting partisan circus that does not - and cannot live up to it's true purpose. As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court, AS DESCIBED in the U.S. Constitution, is effectively empty benches, and has been inactive and made no erudite ruling of true justice or Constitutional insight since the "spoils and patronage bandits in justices'" were first seated in the early 1800's.

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

A lot there, and I certainly agree a case can be made that Trump's chances are < 50%, but I'll mention just 3 specific items.

1. Wall. This is an important question. Is the wall going up? It seems the answer is yes, and the situation has changed significantly from September. This page's https://www.trumpwall.construction/ spreadsheet - which has been updated recently - claims 140 miles have been built out of 290 miles. It breaks it down by detailed sectors, start dates, and anticipated completion dates.

2. Trump fatigue. It's important one doesn't convince oneself there's Trump fatigue from cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. It's not showing up in rally size or enthusiasm, it's not showing up in GOP approval ratings, and it's not showing up in Trump fundraising numbers. Are NeverTrumpers experiencing Trump fatigue? Yes. Are grass-roots? I don't see it, based on multiple lines of evidence.

3. State-based polling. If there's any lesson from 2016 the Dems ought to learn, I think it's to not be complacent about state-by-state polling. Even if accurate as a reflection of current voter intentions, we are 1 year out. These are not leading indicators but trailing indicators. So will they be the same in 1 year?

Why does he (and others) harp on this stupid wall? What is it expected to accomplish? Are people, including the current U.S. President, that blind to logistics? According, Trump must be if he actually thought once that barring everyone travelling from 13 specific countries was actually going to stop all "terrorists" from entering the country. Besides, what about the terrorist group centred in Langley, Virginia? Maybe, like Qin Shi Huangdi's wall, Trump's will, after failing miserably at it's stated goal become a tourist attraction, instead. And I don't think the Mexicans are going to pay for. And, after asking them (and really asking them - just spending their money without consulting them) to pay for so much corporate welfare, illegal wars, war crimes, propping of horrid tyrants and bloody-handed militias abroad, as well as their own terrorist groups (like the aforementioned one centred at Langley), the latter and it's affiliates who actually spend some of that taxpayers' money to do programs that violate the actual rights of American citizens, the U.S. taxpayers should not be made to for this VANITY - and yes, that's all it is, is a vanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

A lot there, and I certainly agree a case can be made that Trump's chances are < 50%, but I'll mention just 3 specific items.

1. Wall. This is an important question. Is the wall going up? It seems the answer is yes, and the situation has changed significantly from September. This page's https://www.trumpwall.construction/ spreadsheet - which has been updated recently - claims 140 miles have been built out of 290 miles. It breaks it down by detailed sectors, start dates, and anticipated completion dates.

2. Trump fatigue. It's important one doesn't convince oneself there's Trump fatigue from cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. It's not showing up in rally size or enthusiasm, it's not showing up in GOP approval ratings, and it's not showing up in Trump fundraising numbers. Are NeverTrumpers experiencing Trump fatigue? Yes. Are grass-roots? I don't see it, based on multiple lines of evidence.

3. State-based polling. If there's any lesson from 2016 the Dems ought to learn, I think it's to not be complacent about state-by-state polling. Even if accurate as a reflection of current voter intentions, we are 1 year out. These are not leading indicators but trailing indicators. So will they be the same in 1 year?

1. I haven't seen this website before. Are you sure it isn't just propaganda? The other thing I'm noticing is that Trump's wall seems like it's only being built where a wall already existed. In that case, he's just improving what already is. You can google image of maps of the border wall situation for 2016, 2017, etc. The other thing I'm noticing is that these walls aren't often the kinds of walls he was advertising. If anything, it's like he's quickly trying to give the surface appearance of building a wall as quickly as possible so as to use it as a campaign tool for reelection. I'd image if Obama was building the wall conservatives would be complaining that he's half-assing the structure and not really building a wall, but only improving it. The huge gap in Texas, for instance, which has been there, still remains. This is is arguably the most important part to close up if one is a border wall proponent. It might be the major area where drugs like heroin come in. After perusing this sight, I'm now arguing that Trump is only mending a wall and not building anything. There's also a lot of videos of people showing how easy it is to get through Trump's improved walls. However, this could just be cherry-picked videos and maybe some exist showing proof of impregnability. 

2. This is probably your strongest point of all three of these points. I can't argue against the rally sizes. They appear large, but I don't know the actual figures and how they compare to past crowd sizes. We obviously can't trust Trump to be reliable in determining his own crowd size number. My best argument against this is probably that Trump's decrease in support in the suburbs, his loss of support (state approval) in key battleground states, and the fact that GOP primary polls often had Trump at 90%+ but now have him at 86-88% vs. the GOP challengers that have been shut out of primary states (of these, they're so evenly split that no one gets over 5%). With this evidence, my best assumption is that Trump support has not waned among his base and is probably emboldened by attempts to thwart and remove Trump. It is also likely that he won over some Republicans that see AOC, Sanders, Warren, and possibly even Biden, as a greater threat than Trump, even though they might prefer someone like Ted Cruz as president. I think the NeverTrumps are just more NeverTrump than ever. I do think the number of Regret-a-Trump's are increasing. There's a few in my neighborhood that I've talk to. They liked him more than Clinton, but will never vote for him again. I think the blue wave of 2018 shows that the regret-a-Trumps are likely a sizable number. That said, this doesn't mean Democrats will get them, they'll have to earn him as Trump will have to earn them back. But they are available. I'd like to see figures other than fundraising that would show that Trump's support is greater in October 2019 than it was in October 2017. Likewise, it would be important to see if Democrat support has grown, remained, or waned since the Blue Wave midterms. 

3. I understand the concept of trailing indicators, but much of the figures I presented in my long post previous to this post have been consistent. They'll move but by how much? Do you expect Trump to get up to 45% national approval in the average polls within a year? He hasn't even had 44% since day 49 of his presidency. Do you think Trump will have have a net positive favorability in WI, MI, PA again in MorningConsult's state-by-state approval graph which is updated monthly? WI and PA were last approving of Trump April 2017 and MI in Mar 2017. While trailing indicators, they've been consistent indicators, which gives some credibility to the argument that Trump is in real trouble and the Democrats have a huge opportunity. 

If this were 2012, and all the indicators I've presented about Trump were also true of Obama, I would have said Democrats were doomed in 2012. I think Trump is in a much more difficult situation than Bush II was heading into 2004 and Obama was in heading into 2012. The Bush reelection was won by one state (OH). Obama was threatened by Romney in real life, and while he Obama won fairly comfortably, he failed to perform as well as he did in 2008 (Jackson is the only other president to get few PV% in a reelection win). He's probably the first incumbent since Carter to go into an election as the underdog. I see it now, but I expect others to start saying the same thing once we get further along in the primaries. 

I think the biggest argument against Democrat complacency is that the Blue Wave of 2018 showed Democrats are aware of the dangers of complacency. They were shocked awake in 2016. That was a major upset--Dewey Defeats Truman level. It could happen again. They know that. I doubt they'll let that happen again. They'll at least campaign in Wisconsin at the very least. 

I'm aware I may be coming off as too certain in my opinion that Trump is an incumbent underdog, but if you check older posts you'll find that there was a stretch of time when I felt Democrats only had a chance if the economy started to tank. So I'd say I'm not fixed in my assumption, but only that I need evidence to sway me toward a direction that sees Trump more likely to win than not. I think the best evidence I have for Trump in regards to 2020 is that he managed to win as a profound underdog in 2016 against an candidate for a part lead by a popular outgoing president. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm still surprised that 90% of Republicans (at least according to some source @admin_270 declared from, but didn't name or cite) support Trump.

Gallup.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Last approval for mid-October for Republicans at 87%. Almost exactly the same as at the beginning of his Presidency at 89%. It's been in the upper-80s, lower-90s range for about a year and a half now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, admin_270 said:

Gallup.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Last approval for mid-October for Republicans at 87%. Almost exactly the same as at the beginning of his Presidency at 89%. It's been in the upper-80s, lower-90s range for about a year and a half now.

Presidential approval ratings do NOT translate directly to electoral support. You should know this very well...

Also, what about the other points I made. Except for a brief question to @ThePotatoWalrus, all the rest of my previous was addressed at you at responding to two previous posts you had made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

these walls aren't often the kinds of walls he was advertising

Trump has been pretty clear this kind of wall is what BP wants, and therefore what will be built. The high steel slat fencing ('wall') is replacing various kinds of structures, one of which is fencing designed to thwart vehicles but isn't effective at slowing down foot traffic. If people were expecting a massive Chinese wall running the span of the U.S.-Mexico border, then right, that's not being built. But Trump has repeatedly said this wouldn't be the case. He has also repeatedly said a wall wouldn't run the length of the border, because of natural features. He has also repeatedly said the wall would be only one part of improved border integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

what about the other points I made. Except for a brief question to @ThePotatoWalrus, all the rest of my previous was addressed at you at responding to two previous posts you had made.

You're welcome to make your points. If I feel there's something in particular I want to respond to or clarify, I typically do.

But why does Trump harp on the wall? Because it is a powerful symbol of restored border integrity to his supporters who are P.O.ed at what's happening to the U.S. because of decades of rampant illegal immigration (and it elicits such a strong response from his critics because they see it as a symbol of xenophobia).

It is very easy to convey the idea of a 'big, beautiful wall'. It's a powerful, visual idea, and Trump is expert at creating and using these sorts of ideas. Talking about e-Verify, drones, hiring more border patrol agents, cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants, and so on - these are all important, but they don't have the power and simplicity in conveying Trump's stance on illegal immigration as the wall does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You're welcome to make your points. If I feel there's something in particular I want to respond to or clarify, I typically do.

But why does Trump harp on the wall? Because it is a powerful symbol of restored border integrity to his supporters who are P.O.ed at what's happening to the U.S. because of decades of rampant illegal immigration (and it elicits such a strong response from his critics because they see it as a symbol of xenophobia).

It is very easy to convey the idea of a 'big, beautiful wall'. It's a powerful, visual idea, and Trump is expert at creating and using these sorts of ideas. Talking about e-Verify, drones, hiring more border patrol agents, cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants, and so on - these are all important, but they don't have the power and simplicity in conveying Trump's stance on illegal immigration as the wall does.

But it's all just a flashy symbol. To go along with the rest of the hollow, vapid, empty, vitriolic, rambling shell and void that is the ideology of the Trump Administration. And, if so many Americans are allowing themselves HOODWINKED (yes, you read the word I used correctly) by a snake-oil salesman and con-artist who offers NOTIHNG productive, but dresses it up with his showmanship, then the tenor of American political, and American society and culture have a reached ROCK BOTTOM. Contrary to the B.S. proclamation by @ThePotatoWalrus a few weeks ago, when he proclaimed "American culture has never been stronger." And this rock bottom cultural and political tenor, along with certain other glaring feature - ones which Americans "patriots" and "nationalists" deliberately blind themselves and are in staunch denial of - are clear signs from history of a great civilization in deep decline. Trump is hurting and wounding his nation in the long-term, and doing nothing good. At this point, resigning from office humbly, endorsing no one, and never taking parts in politics again is the ONLY act Trump could do that was the sign of patriotic leader serving his nation - and even then, he's done a lot of irrepairable damage already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm glad you think so. Let's hope other do as well. 

It was so bad that I deleted my Facebook account for more than a month.

I just couldn't TAKE it anymore.

I didn't want to talk about it, I didn't want to hear about it, I needed to pretend that it had never happened for my brain to continue to function.

For more than a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

But it's all just a flashy symbol. To go along with the rest of the hollow, vapid, empty, vitriolic, rambling shell and void that is the ideology of the Trump Administration. And, if so many Americans are allowing themselves HOODWINKED (yes, you read the word I used correctly) by a snake-oil salesman and con-artist who offers NOTIHNG productive, but dresses it up with his showmanship, then the tenor of American political, and American society and culture have a reached ROCK BOTTOM. Contrary to the B.S. proclamation by @ThePotatoWalrus a few weeks ago, when he proclaimed "American culture has never been stronger." And this rock bottom cultural and political tenor, along with certain other glaring feature - ones which Americans "patriots" and "nationalists" deliberately blind themselves and are in staunch denial of - are clear signs from history of a great civilization in deep decline. Trump is hurting and wounding his nation in the long-term, and doing nothing good. At this point, resigning from office humbly, endorsing no one, and never taking parts in politics again is the ONLY act Trump could do that was the sign of patriotic leader serving his nation - and even then, he's done a lot of irrepairable damage already.

I’ll also tag @admin_270   I don’t think the immigration crisis really exists. As the only one of the three of us that lives in the US, and one that has lived in Texas most of his life, including during the 2016 election, there has not been visual evidence of a crises. Sure, there’s a lot of Mexicans in Texas, but these first generation immigrants take the jobs that US citizens aren’t really applying to. They actually fit a need. Their children and grandchildren becomes Americanized and often have little connection to their parents or grandparents’s culture. On top of this, Texas, even southern Texas, hasn’t that high of a crime rate. I remember a poll a year ago showing border states seemed to have a lower approval of Trump’s wall than states that rarely see a Mexican. 

The immigration issues in Europe seem much larger than the US imaginary immigration crisis. The US situations just seems like good ol’ fashion white populist xenophobia which reasserts itself regularly in US history and always looks poorly upon the xenophobes in hindsight. First it was the Germans, then the French, then the Italians, then the Chinese, then the Slavs, and not Arabs and Latinos. The sad part is that many current xenophobes are the descendants of some of these people. 

Historical note: my gr-gr grandfather, a law abidIng, soon to be gainfully employed Czech, arrived in 1907. He was denied citizenship until 1932. His wife, my gr gr grandmother, wasn’t naturalized until 1960. That was because of a quota system. Thank God we haven’t that anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’ll also tag @admin_270   I don’t think the immigration crisis really exists. As the only one of the three of us that lives in the US, and one that has lived in Texas most of his life, including during the 2016 election, there has not been visual evidence of a crises. Sure, there’s a lot of Mexicans in Texas, but these first generation immigrants take the jobs that US citizens aren’t really applying to. They actually fit a need. Their children and grandchildren becomes Americanized and often have little connection to their parents or grandparents’s culture. On top of this, Texas, even southern Texas, hasn’t that high of a crime rate. I remember a poll a year ago showing border states seemed to have a lower approval of Trump’s wall than states that rarely see a Mexican. 

The immigration issues in Europe seem much larger than the US imaginary immigration crisis. The US situations just seems like good ol’ fashion white populist xenophobia which reasserts itself regularly in US history and always looks poorly upon the xenophobes in hindsight. First it was the Germans, then the French, then the Italians, then the Chinese, then the Slavs, and not Arabs and Latinos. The sad part is that many current xenophobes are the descendants of some of these people. 

Historical note: my gr-gr grandfather, a law abidIng, soon to be gainfully employed Czech, arrived in 1907. He was denied citizenship until 1932. His wife, my gr gr grandmother, wasn’t naturalized until 1960. That was because of a quota system. Thank God we haven’t that anymore. 

I lived in California for several years.  Only jobs I saw Mexicans "stealing" was that of car-washing robots.  Back where I came from on the east coast, car washing is all automatized.  On the west coast, it was done by hand -- a lot of Mexican hands.

I preferred the west coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I lived in California for several years.  Only jobs I saw Mexicans "stealing" was that of car-washing robots.  Back where I came from on the east coast, car washing is all automatized.  On the west coast, it was done by hand -- a lot of Mexican hands.

I preferred the west coast.

But dey terk er jerbs!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don’t think the immigration crisis really exists.

That might be so, but you're not exactly a Trump supporter. The point I'm making isn't that there is or isn't a crisis, it's that the wall is a potent symbol to many of Trump's supporters in addressing their concerns. They usually don't understand the complexities of the issue (neither do we), but they do understand that Trump is serious about decreasing illegal immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

That might be so, but you're not exactly a Trump supporter. The point I'm making isn't that there is or isn't a crisis, it's that the wall is a potent symbol to many of Trump's supporters in addressing their concerns. They usually don't understand the complexities of the issue (neither do we), but they do understand that Trump is serious about decreasing illegal immigration.

That's true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I preferred the west coast.

Why not get rid of all automation then? Why stop at car washing? Instead of backhoes, let's use shovels. Instead of tractors, oxen. On and on.

Illegal immigrants tend to take less desirable jobs. So instead of wages being forced up and working conditions improved to expand the labour supply in a given industry, or greater investments in automation or worker productivity, businesses love to import cheap, pliable labour. Is this really good for society overall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...