Why Trump Will Win in 2020

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,257
11,778
Earth
Old saying... governments (meaning the parties/individual politicians in charge) are like underwear, they get stained with shit and need to be changed often

I also hope that new office holders will be more interested in governing sensibly than in revenge but unfortunately it's the spirit of the times. This is one reason why I disagree strongly with talk of putting Trump in jail etc etc

- DSK
I do not think that good governance and prosecuting violations of the law are mutually exclusive. If and when there is a change at the top of our DOJ, I expect the department to get very busy, irrespective of the party affiliation of the people under investigation. 

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
I am just as surprised now that there is a growing belief that Trump will win in 2020 as when there was a belief he could not win in 2016. From what I am seeing, Trump has not added supporters. If he wins, it will again be by a slim EC victory attributed to 4 key states that he wins by a small margin, just as in 2016. That is less likely to happen today than in 2016. For that to happen again, the Dems will again have to completely misread the signs and ignore the rust belt, and I just don't see that happening. Of the dem contenders, the only one I think could have a problem beating Trump is Warren. Biden, Sanders, and Pete all have a better than fair shot at defeating Trump. They just need to pay the least bit of attention to the rust belt and they can win it all. 
Lets not forget the fact election hacking and the complete refusal by the Republicans in Congress to do anything about it.  And then there's voter suppression, like "Oh, gee, your signature doesn't exactly match."  Or, "We've closed these polling places and you'll have to drive tens of miles to find the nearest one and wait in really long lines to vote."

It's no longer votes that decide who gets elected.  Republicans have gone far beyond gerrymandering to win elections and there's nothing to show that won't escalate.

 

hrothgar

Super Anarchist
4,277
154
Ada, MI
I am just as surprised now that there is a growing belief that Trump will win in 2020 as when there was a belief he could not win in 2016. From what I am seeing, Trump has not added supporters. If he wins, it will again be by a slim EC victory attributed to 4 key states that he wins by a small margin, just as in 2016. That is less likely to happen today than in 2016. For that to happen again, the Dems will again have to completely misread the signs and ignore the rust belt, and I just don't see that happening. Of the dem contenders, the only one I think could have a problem beating Trump is Warren. Biden, Sanders, and Pete all have a better than fair shot at defeating Trump. They just need to pay the least bit of attention to the rust belt and they can win it all. 
I think you need to check your facts.  Trump won by a virtual electoral landslide in 2016:  306-232

Just saying...

Hroth

 

hrothgar

Super Anarchist
4,277
154
Ada, MI
Lets not forget the fact election hacking and the complete refusal by the Republicans in Congress to do anything about it.  And then there's voter suppression, like "Oh, gee, your signature doesn't exactly match."  Or, "We've closed these polling places and you'll have to drive tens of miles to find the nearest one and wait in really long lines to vote."

It's no longer votes that decide who gets elected.  Republicans have gone far beyond gerrymandering to win elections and there's nothing to show that won't escalate.
Evidence please for election hacking and voter suppression.

And when you talk about gerrymandering remember that it cuts both ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_7th_congressional_district

Hroth

 
G

Guest

Guest
Except they're museum pieces not on the 'collector' market, nor ever likely to be, so the comment WRT collector value (or lack of same) is utterly irrelevant.

FKT
So, there's no problem defacing or changing the Mona Lisa or a Picasso in the MMOA because its not on the collector's market nor ever likely to be, right?

 
Last edited:
G

Guest

Guest
For that to happen again, the Dems will again have to completely misread the signs and ignore the rust belt, and I just don't see that happening.
I don't see the rust belt getting behind Bernie's brand of socialism.  If Bernie is the nom, TOSS wins.

 

Ishmael

52,432
12,248
Fuctifino
I don't see the rust belt getting behind Bernie's brand of socialism.  If Bernie is the nom, TOSS wins.
I don't see you, or any others on the right-of-center express, ever thinking a "socialist" like Bernie could win. Strangely enough, he has a lot of support from the left-of-center. He's never going to change your mind, but there are lots of people who like what he's saying.

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
I don't see you, or any others on the right-of-center express, ever thinking a "socialist" like Bernie could win. Strangely enough, he has a lot of support from the left-of-center. He's never going to change your mind, but there are lots of people who like what he's saying.
Yeah, the idea voting for someone who wants to help the masses rather than the 1% is preposterous.  Welfare for the corporations!  Fuck the people!

 
G

Guest

Guest
I don't see you, or any others on the right-of-center express, ever thinking a "socialist" like Bernie could win. Strangely enough, he has a lot of support from the left-of-center. He's never going to change your mind, but there are lots of people who like what he's saying.
I don't doubt it and this is not about what I feel.  I'm saying that the rust belt is not a hotbed of liberal socialism. 

Just saying

 
G

Guest

Guest
Yeah, the idea voting for someone who wants to help the masses rather than the 1% is preposterous.  Welfare for the corporations!  Fuck the people!
You must be imaging I said that or confusing me with someone else.  At no point did I criticize Bernie's sincerity for wanting to make changes.  I'm just pointing out the fact that I believe he is unelectable because he is calling for a revolution and massive changes that will never happen in several lifetimes.  Like it or not, the country is not in the mood for a revolution like his.... yet.  The stuff he proposes just won't go anywhere when the economy is ticking along like it is.  As I said earlier - if we were in the throes of a Great Depression and we needed a massive change overnight, then maybe.  But his ideas, while not bad on paper, are just not doable in the current political reality.  I like Bernie, I like some of his ideas or at least sentiment - even if I disagree with the details or viability.  

Please don't be one of those asshats that abound here who conflate that pointing out observations and facts as either support or disagreement with someone or something.  I can be "for" something or "against" something while still pointing out or observing that the opposite arguments have some validity.  

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
I think you need to check your facts.  Trump won by a virtual electoral landslide in 2016:  306-232

Just saying...

Hroth
Meh, my syntax may have been ambiguous but I think the point was clear. In those states which delivered Trump's "electoral landslide", his majorities were very slim. That is why he lost the popular vote, and won the EC. It is a very easy landslide to reverse. 

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Meh, my syntax may have been ambiguous but I think the point was clear. In those states which delivered Trump's "electoral landslide", his majorities were very slim. That is why he lost the popular vote, and won the EC. It is a very easy landslide to reverse. 
Winner take all delegates baby! 

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
I don't see the rust belt getting behind Bernie's brand of socialism.  If Bernie is the nom, TOSS wins.
I can't speak to the whole rust belt, but I can tell you in PA, anyone who voted for Obama does not care about Bernie's brand of socialism. It won't matter here, and I am betting it would not matter in other rust belt states as well. The rust belt dems that flipped for Trump are all old union guys who had been called socialists and commies by the mines and factories they worked for, they really don't care. They do really care about trade deals they perceive as unfair or shipping jobs overseas. Hillary lost on being too far to the right on trade, not too far left on anything. 

 

SloopJonB

Super Anarchist
68,717
12,366
Great Wet North
I think you need to check your facts.  Trump won by a virtual electoral landslide in 2016:  306-232
You need to study up on what a political landslide actually is.

In '72 Nixon won 520 to 17,  49 States to 1 (+DC) and 61% to 38% of the vote.

That is a landslide.

Losing the popular vote by millions but winning the EC does not constitute a landslide.

You would have completely missed the irony of a "landslide" situation here years ago.

Al Passarell won an election by one vote - his own vote literally got him elected.

He was ever after know as "Landslide" Al.

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
I can't speak to the whole rust belt, but I can tell you in PA, anyone who voted for Obama does not care about Bernie's brand of socialism. It won't matter here, and I am betting it would not matter in other rust belt states as well. The rust belt dems that flipped for Trump are all old union guys who had been called socialists and commies by the mines and factories they worked for, they really don't care. They do really care about trade deals they perceive as unfair or shipping jobs overseas. Hillary lost on being too far to the right on trade, not too far left on anything. 
As a retired union electrician, I can confidently say you are correct. 

I remember back when Clinton signed NAFTA.  The rank and file were furious.  And I believe that was the straw that broke the camel's back - the decades old mantra to support the Democrats. 

But when Reagan was in office and our local had 120-140% employment, a lot of members voted for Reagan in his 2nd term.  Jobs are huge, as long as they pay a living wage.

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
46,277
4,425
Not here
Well this scary:

“The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment. And it is just not true.”

However later in the article it is made clear that the available data is vague enough that nobody knows if the informed swing voters matter more or less than the changes in turnout.
if 90% of the population voted, swing votes would matter.  

 




Top