President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and this is why...

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "No, Dump has told us several times he doesn't watch Fox News because he doesn't have cable."

Yes, it's true - I wrote that - I don't have cable! Thank you, YDB95 for reporting that fact without calling me a racist.

dan_c00000 writes: "Also, they very much watch Fox "News" because it's essentially the white supremacist clearing house."

Dan believes that it's racist for anybody NOT watch the same news networks that he watches.

icanhelp1 writes: "“White supremacist clearing house” Oh my God! you and LukLuk keep me in stitches reading your crap, makes my day. It’s like a running comedy soooooo funny. Keep up the good work you’re making people laugh."

I, too, always enjoy reading the silly crap that Dan regularly posts here! It's like being back in the third grade and witnessing the same crude name-calling insults that I remember from back then. I'm not entirely sure if Dan is serious or not, but reading his stuff is always good for a chuckle!

 

[blulilacgrl]

I saw a poll that showed Trump being beat in 2020 by several candidates. Did you happen to notice that one?

I'm surprised at that and honestly don't believe it. Firstly because polls have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. There can often be a very wide disconnect between what someone says to a poll vs. what they actually do in the voting booth. But secondly because the main thing I see is base support. Trump won last time with a Democrat base that was wildly and wholeheartedly behind their candidate. This upcoming election, I see a very tangled and fractured Democrat base going up against Trump who has not lost his supporters. The same people who voted for him last time, will vote for him again. On top of that there has been a splinter in the Dems that won't come back. Which I think might just be enough of a loss as to make a Democrat win unlikely.

 

[The_Trouvere]

The only way I can see Trump being reelected is to win the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote, like last time.

The only thing he has going for him is an economic expansion that began under Obama. If that goes, Trump has had it. He is ignorant and impulsive. He still has lots of time to mess up the economy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm surprised at that and honestly don't believe it. Firstly because polls have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. There can often be a very wide disconnect between what someone says to a poll vs. what they actually do in the voting booth. But secondly because the main thing I see is base support. Trump won last time with a Democrat base that was wildly and wholeheartedly behind their candidate. This upcoming election, I see a very tangled and fractured Democrat base going up against Trump who has not lost his supporters. The same people who voted for him last time, will vote for him again. On top of that there has been a splinter in the Dems that won't come back. Which I think might just be enough of a loss as to make a Democrat win unlikely.

In addition to this, Trump will gain support from Libertarians. In 2016, there were millions of voters who voted for this third party candidate, enough that, if combined with Trump's voters, it would have meant a plurality of the popular vote for The Donald. Of course, that would have given "Progressives" and Dems less to cry about.

This is not to say that Trump is beloved. I believe most people consider him to be a crude and vulgar oaf, but they don't care about that, and a majority will vote for him anyhow.

 

[blulilacgrl]

In addition to this, Trump will gain support from Libertarians. In 2016, there were millions of voters who voted for this third party candidate, enough that, if combined with Trump's voters, it would have meant a plurality of the popular vote for The Donald. Of course, that would have given "Progressives" and Dems less to cry about.

This is not to say that Trump is beloved. I believe most people consider him to be a crude and vulgar oaf, but they don't care about that, and a majority will vote for him anyhow.

A lot of the Libertarians did that in order to get the 5% of the vote necessary to allow a Libertarian candidate access to federal election funding. If Trump is a lock, I think they will probably do so again.

But your point is valid. Trump has gained supporters. Not a huge number but he has drawn enough to make the Democrats weaker than last election.

 

[YDB95]

Trump won last time with a Democrat base that was wildly and wholeheartedly behind their candidate.

Not true at all. Neither of the Clintons has ever been terribly popular among the progressives out there, mainly because they've stabbed us in the back on everything from gay rights to health care. The only thing rallying us all behind her was sheer terror of the only alternative. Next time around there will be even more of that, plus there will be zero complacency on our side of the aisle. The only thing Trump does have in his favour is the appearance of a strong economy, and that may be coming to an end shortly.

 

[magicalmoments]

The emergence of republican challengers is interesting.

What amazes me is the the leading proponents pushing for the primary challenge are, or were, dyed in the wool trump supporters. They were entirely supportive of his immigration policies, the wall, the rolling back of environmental regulations and treaties, his easy to win trade wars, they were so far up his arse that you could only see the soles of their shoes.

What is it they see now that they couldn't see then? Why has it taken so long for them to see what the world has been shaking its head at all this time?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not true at all. Neither of the Clintons has ever been terribly popular among the progressives out there, mainly because they've stabbed us in the back on everything from gay rights to health care. The only thing rallying us all behind her was sheer terror of the only alternative. Next time around there will be even more of that, plus there will be zero complacency on our side of the aisle. The only thing Trump does have in his favour is the appearance of a strong economy, and that may be coming to an end shortly.

You socialist need to grow a skin of some sort....when moderate democrats are Nazis and traditional US political values terrify you? You're life is too cushy.

 

[Dumpington]

blulilacgrl writes: "There can often be a very wide disconnect between what someone says to a poll vs. what they actually do in the voting booth."

That is all VERY TRUE - anybody who still believes in presidential polling after what happened in 2016 isn't taking reality very seriously!

The Trouvere writes: "The only way I can see Trump being re-elected is to win the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote, like last time."

George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore, but won the presidency by winning the Electoral College. In NO WAYS was John Kerry a worse candidate for the Democrats than was Al Gore, but in 2004 Bush added a whopping 11,577,160 to his popular-vote total from four years earlier to defeat Kerry all across the board! I don't see how the Democrats can possibly come up with a stronger candidate in 2020 than they had with Mrs. Clinton in '16! Trump will soundly defeat whomever wins the Democrat presidential nomination next year (spoiler alert: it'll be Joe Biden!)

Boxlicker101 writes: "This is not to say that Trump is beloved. I believe most people consider him to be a crude and vulgar oaf, but they don't care about that, and a majority will vote for him anyhow."

Blulilacgrl writes: "Trump has gained supporters. Not a huge number but he has drawn enough to make the Democrats weaker than last election."

I can't disagree with ANY of that.

YDB95 writes: " The only thing rallying us all behind her was sheer terror of the only alternative."

Most Americans today are NOT living in "sheer terror" - that's a uniquely Democratic Party infliction, based entirely on Trump Derangement Syndrome.

magicalmoments writes: "The emergence of republican challengers is interesting."

That's a Democrat Party "pipe-dream" - I can't see any Republican challengers to President Trump in 2020 winning so much as a SINGLE primary!

 

[dan_c00000]

I got owned so hard for being a racist I'm spouting double negatives!

Probably a trick you learned watching Fox "News".

By the way racist didn't you say you were going to post your pay check from the Klan?

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "Probably a trick you learned watching Fox "News"."

I don't have cable, Dan - so I don't watch FOX or Fake News CNN - nor do I get my news from any sources controlled by the Democratic Party (including Planned Parenthood), as you so obviously do. The abortion-providers currently play the tune that every Democrat must dance to.

"By the way racist didn't you say you were going to post your pay check from the Klan?"

YOU are the expert here on this forum when it comes to the Ku Kux Klan, Dan - it's almost as if if you work for them, or something along those lines! I mean, you always seem to know what they're up to, and what they're currently talking about. Heck, you even told us all about their getting new carpet in their officies last month!

You are a joy to have around here on this forum, my friend! Nobody here can match your absurd posts!

 

[cuck72]

I'll just say I REALLY HOPE! God will help us if President Trump doesn't win in 2020.

 

[blulilacgrl]

Not true at all. Neither of the Clintons has ever been terribly popular among the progressives out there, mainly because they've stabbed us in the back on everything from gay rights to health care. The only thing rallying us all behind her was sheer terror of the only alternative. Next time around there will be even more of that, plus there will be zero complacency on our side of the aisle. The only thing Trump does have in his favour is the appearance of a strong economy, and that may be coming to an end shortly.

I didn't say Dems agreed with her in theory. However any fundamental disagreement on policy (as you just stated) was set aside in favor of voting against Trump. And still they were not able to pull it off. In the years since his election, the "sheer terror" has not abated by those vehemently opposed to him. However they have lost small portions of their base. So simply repeating an already failed attempt is not going to be enough to beat him. The Dems needed to pull some of his support in key states whole simultaneously holding their own. They have failed to do this. So I predict they will lose again.

 

[magicalmoments]

I'll just say I REALLY HOPE! God will help us if President Trump doesn't win in 2020.

Looks like your prayers have been answered. Trump has already reached a covenant with God and revealed himself as the chosen one, whatever happens, from this point on, has to be accepted as gods work.
Who'd have thought that involved sending the country to hell in a hand basket.

 

[cuck72]

Looks like your prayers have been answered. Trump has already reached a covenant with God and revealed himself as the chosen one, whatever happens, from this point on, has to be accepted as gods work.
Who'd have thought that involved sending the country to hell in a hand basket.

Yeah I guess he is the chosen one, nobody ever thought he'd beat Hillary, and he did. AND! he's the only President to go after China on the stupid pathetic trade policies we've had. And the chosen one, first President ever to meet with the NK leader. WOW! I can go on, and on. He's great isn't he? I can't believe the stupid shit the Democrats are talking about, WOW! what a bunch of NUT JOBS!

 

[icanhelp1]

Looks like your prayers have been answered. Trump has already reached a covenant with God and revealed himself as the chosen one, whatever happens, from this point on, has to be accepted as gods work.
Who'd have thought that involved sending the country to hell in a hand basket.

We go to hell in a hand basket if the authoritarian socialist Warren wins the election. It’s hard to compete with a policy of free everything. Maybe it becomes a matter for divine intervention. It’s nice to know we have an ace in the hole, someone connected with the Almighty.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We go to hell in a hand basket if the authoritarian socialist Warren wins the election. It’s hard to compete with a policy of free everything. Maybe it becomes a matter for divine intervention. It’s nice to know we have an ace in the hole, someone connected with the Almighty.

The last I heard, Fauxcahontas, The Bern and Biden were virtually tied for first place. Of course, it is very early still. I don't believe I would vote for any of them. Or for most of the other Dem. candidates either.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A lot of the Libertarians did that in order to get the 5% of the vote necessary to allow a Libertarian candidate access to federal election funding. If Trump is a lock, I think they will probably do so again.

But your point is valid. Trump has gained supporters. Not a huge number but he has drawn enough to make the Democrats weaker than last election.

I voted for Johnson in 2016 because thought of hm as being the best candidate. Of course, that's not saying much when you consider what disasters the major parties were trying to foist on us.

 

[blulilacgrl]

I voted for Johnson in 2016 because thought of hm as being the best candidate. Of course, that's not saying much when you consider what disasters the major parties were trying to foist on us.

I never thought Johnson was a viable candidate to win the election. I did, however, hope that he was enough to secure 5% of the popular vote. He came close at 4.2% . That would have been enough for me. I want these elections to shift from 2 parties who only seek to divide us to an election where a 3rd party can provide a middle ground and some common sense.

 

[YDB95]

I didn't say Dems agreed with her in theory. However any fundamental disagreement on policy (as you just stated) was set aside in favor of voting against Trump. And still they were not able to pull it off. In the years since his election, the "sheer terror" has not abated by those vehemently opposed to him. However they have lost small portions of their base. So simply repeating an already failed attempt is not going to be enough to beat him. The Dems needed to pull some of his support in key states whole simultaneously holding their own. They have failed to do this. So I predict they will lose again.

What part of "The Dems gained 40 seats in the House" makes it look to you like they haven't pulled in support? Besides, the real issue in 2016 was sluggish Democratic turnout, partially due to the Russians and partially because of complacency, neither of which can happen again in 2020.

The last I heard, Fauxcahontas, The Bern and Biden were virtually tied for first place. Of course, it is very early still. I don't believe I would vote for any of them. Or for most of the other Dem. candidates either.

This might surprise you, but the Dems aren't exactly gunning for people who use racial slurs to describe their (or any) candidates. Of course they're not going to get YOUR vote, Box, and they don't need it!

The Trouvere writes: "The only way I can see Trump being re-elected is to win the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote, like last time."

George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore, but won the presidency by winning the Electoral College. In NO WAYS was John Kerry a worse candidate for the Democrats than was Al Gore, but in 2004 Bush added a whopping 11,577,160 to his popular-vote total from four years earlier to defeat Kerry all across the board! I don't see how the Democrats can possibly come up with a stronger candidate in 2020 than they had with Mrs. Clinton in '16! Trump will soundly defeat whomever wins the Democrat presidential nomination next year (spoiler alert: it'll be Joe Biden!)

Different election, different candidates, VERY different circumstances. And we all know you would never see ANY Democratic candidate as a strong one.

Blulilacgrl writes: "Trump has gained supporters. Not a huge number but he has drawn enough to make the Democrats weaker than last election."

I can't disagree with ANY of that.

I can. The polls have consistently shown his approval rating underwater by a substantial margin. (Yeah, I know, the polls were wrong in 2016. There's a reason why there's only one incidence of that for you to point to.)

Most Americans today are NOT living in "sheer terror" - that's a uniquely Democratic Party infliction, based entirely on Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I'm sure that's true among your friends, Dump.

 

[blulilacgrl]

What part of "The Dems gained 40 seats in the House" makes it look to you like they haven't pulled in support? Besides, the real issue in 2016 was sluggish Democratic turnout, partially due to the Russians and partially because of complacency, neither of which can happen again in 2020.
.

I think the assumption you make is wrong. It is actually quite common to see the House demographics change after an election that results in a new party taking power of the presidency. Midterm elections usually see the president's party lose seats. That doesn't mean people have suddenly disagreed with him. I put it down to the way Americans tend to think which is that having one party as President and the other party in charge of the House and Senate speaks to our wanting checks and balances. Having opposing parties ensues that neither party is given carte blanche.

 

[YDB95]

I think the assumption you make is wrong. It is actually quite common to see the House demographics change after an election that results in a new party taking power of the presidency. Midterm elections usually see the president's party lose seats. That doesn't mean people have suddenly disagreed with him.

Usually what it means is that the president's detractors are more energised than hir supporters. But I don't see any evidence that Trump's opponents "have lost small portions of their base", as you said. Quite the contrary, if anything: there are people who didn't vote for Clinton because they thought she had it in the bag and didn't need their votes, and no one will be that complacent next time. Meanwhile, Trump has made a complete ass of himself almost every day for two and a half years, and he can't afford to alienate anyone who wasn't already with him.

 

[cuck72]

Usually what it means is that the president's detractors are more energised than hir supporters. But I don't see any evidence that Trump's opponents "have lost small portions of their base", as you said. Quite the contrary, if anything: there are people who didn't vote for Clinton because they thought she had it in the bag and didn't need their votes, and no one will be that complacent next time. Meanwhile, Trump has made a complete ass of himself almost every day for two and a half years, and he can't afford to alienate anyone who wasn't already with him.

Sad but true, I hate some of the stupid shit he says about people. But "I" understand his anger after all the people that been Bullying him since day one. These people are a sick joke. BUT! we should be thanking all those crooked politicians, OR! give President Trump credit for bring out how pathetic, and corrupt our Government really is. I do like what he has done, and what he wants to get done. Stuff no other President had guts to fight for. OH! and Hillary did have a lot more votes then Trump, I don't think it was a case of people not voting because they thought she would win easily. Just not the votes in the right places. I just can't see any of those Democrats being as tough as Trump in fighting to fix the pathetic real mess we have in Washington, and around the world. President Trump has talked for years about the mess in Washington, so he's known for years about this crap.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "What part of "The Dems gained 40 seats in the House" makes it look to you like they haven't pulled in support?"

Yes, the Democratic Party won the House in 2018 - but they simultaneously LOST two-seats in the U.S. Senate during those same mid-terms! Of course, those Senate losses consisted of FOUR incumbent Dems who had voted against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to our U.S. Supreme Court (as opposed to only ONE incumbent G.O.P. senator who supported Kavanaugh losing his seat!) President Trump will now have a much EASIER time getting his next high-court justice confirmed!

"And we all know you would never see ANY Democratic candidate as a strong one."

Be serious, YDB95 - WHAT current Democratic Party presidential candidate (out of the twenty-two still running) would you say is as strong as was Hillary Clinton? Even President Obama said that there had never been a presidential candidate (including himself) better prepared for the White House! Who does that party have running now who is stronger than Mrs. Clinton? Let's be honest here - there ISN'T anybody!

"The polls have consistently shown his approval rating underwater by a substantial margin."

And ALL of the polls throughout 2016 consistently showed Donald Trump's approval ratings underwater by substantial margins. What of it?

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "What part of "The Dems gained 40 seats in the House" makes it look to you like they haven't pulled in support?"

Yes, the Democratic Party won the House in 2018 - but they simultaneously LOST two-seats in the U.S. Senate during those same mid-terms! Of course, those Senate losses consisted of FOUR incumbent Dems who had voted against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to our U.S. Supreme Court (as opposed to only ONE incumbent G.O.P. senator who supported Kavanaugh losing his seat!) President Trump will now have a much EASIER time getting his next high-court justice confirmed!

You forgot the part where the Dems had almost three times as many Senate seats to defend as the GOP did, and they still won 58% of the popular vote and 67% of the seats that were up. But I'm sure that was an honest oversight on your part, since you're all about the numbers, Dump.

"And we all know you would never see ANY Democratic candidate as a strong one."

Be serious, YDB95 - WHAT current Democratic Party presidential candidate (out of the twenty-two still running) would you say is as strong as was Hillary Clinton?

Most of them, frankly, because they don't have 25 years of baggage from a cottage industry dedicated to destroying them. They also don't have the sense of complacency that Dems had in 2016.

Even President Obama said that there had never been a presidential candidate (including himself) better prepared for the White House!

Better prepared for the job, not for running for it. A subtle difference, but a VERY important one. Bottom line, she didn't run a very good campaign.

Who does that party have running now who is stronger than Mrs. Clinton? Let's be honest here - there ISN'T anybody!

Even if I agreed with you, your track record proves you would say that no matter who was running. Heck, if the Dems could somehow reanimate Ronald Reagan, convince him to run as a Democrat and repeal the 22nd Amendment so he'd be eligible, you'd still be bleating about how no one could defeat your beloved Saint Donny.

"The polls have consistently shown his approval rating underwater by a substantial margin."

And ALL of the polls throughout 2016 consistently showed Donald Trump's approval ratings underwater by substantial margins. What of it?

The final polls showed Trump gaining and with a chance of winning, and again, you're ignoring how tiny the margin was. Besides, as I always say, there's a reason why you only have that one example in all of modern polling history to point to.