"Trump's Chances in 2020 Are Better Than You Think"

[Bodakane]

I was agreeing with you actually.

Then I misread, sorry.

[Skroe]

I just dont see it Skroe. GoP doesnt have the spine to enrage Trump's core supporters by going for impeachment.

You said McConnell is shrewd. I agree. There's 1 thing im sure hes aware of: without the votes of the Trumpkins, the GoP cant win a national election.

This is the hole the GoP has dug for itself.

You're making a key mistake: thinking McConnell is thinking about National Elections anymore. He isn't. None of his actions in the last year have been about that. They've all been centered on preserving his Senate Majority in anticipation of bad years in 2020 and 2022.

You're ascribing national thoughts to a guy whose priority is the State Level. McConnell got a big R.I.O. for aligning with Trump after 2016. 2018 was the "easy" map for McConnell. 2020 is hard and 2020 is harder still. If McConnell wants to not see the past two years - his life's work mind you - upended by a Democratic House + Senate + President by, let's say 2024, he'll be focused on defense, which means the Senate, and not the National level.

It's really easy to see McConnell throwing Trump out if you detach yourselves from this notion that winning the Presidency is the only thing everybody in DC cares about. Why do you think McConnell is court packing now? He knows the good times aren't lasting forever!

[Jeezy911]

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump has basically already won 2020? Do people think Cory Booker or K. Harris is going to beat him?

[Bodakane]

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump has basically already won 2020? Do people think Cory Booker or K. Harris is going to beat him?

Is "thought" the word you really want to use?

[BrerBear]

Trump only won by few thousand voted on the rust belt. Those were the moderates. Repubs don't have the numbers to win the POTUS if the Dems put up the right candidate that would appeal to the moderates. Even then, the moderates aren't going to vote for Trump again. the real fight is putting in a candidate that gets them to vote, period.

Trump has virtually no chance of being elected, unless the Dems run Hillary or Biden, etc.

All true.
Add to that the fact that Trump’s been a resoundingly unpopular President in spite of having the best economy in generations propping him up.
That’s beginning to crumble, too. Even more will abandon him as his “dealmaker!” mythology is stripped away by falling markets and the revelation of all his business scandals and failures from the coming investigations.

[Levelfive]

Trump only won by few thousand voted on the rust belt. Those were the moderates. Repubs don't have the numbers to win the POTUS if the Dems put up the right candidate that would appeal to the moderates. Even then, the moderates aren't going to vote for Trump again. the real fight is putting in a candidate that gets them to vote, period.

Trump has virtually no chance of being elected, unless the Dems run Hillary or Biden, etc.

Again, we're largely in agreement--this is what I said in my first post:

...I actually think Democrats did a great job in the midterms by focusing on policy--plus I'm not sure it's even possible to fight a demon mud pig, like some No-Face id of the electorate, with "narrative." We all know it will never matter what Trump does or says or what his supporters "find out" or that he countenances the murdering of reporters to protect his future business prospects or won't honor fallen soldiers if it means getting his hair wet or uses the justice department to punish his "enemies," etc., etc., etc.,--to them, Trump is all features, no bugs. So the task is the same as before--to get more than 60 million voters, in particular states, to the polls so we can start fighting where Republicans have been fighting for years: on a structural level. The record midterm turnout is a good sign.

[JohnBrown1917]

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump has basically already won 2020? Do people think Cory Booker or K. Harris is going to beat him?

No, but a proper soc dem who can get Obama's old voters will.

[BrerBear]

Also: Four years is just enough time for a little bit of demographic mojo. Another few percent of his old racist supporters exit the gene pool; another few percent of diverse youth replace them.

[Kujako]

Also: Four years is just enough time for a little bit of demographic mojo. Another few percent of his old racist supporters exit the gene pool; another few percent of diverse youth replace them.

Problem is, the racists have kids and the main reason to have them is to teach them to hate what you hate.

[Skroe]

Do you really believe they'll be able to convince Senate Republicans to impeach Donald Trump? Impeachment will pass the house, I'm sure, but it also needs to pass the Senate and Republicans are, among other things, obstinate fuckers.

I'll repeat what I said a week ago.

Nancy Pelosi will only bother to take up impeachment proceedings if the accusations in the Mueller report are so shocking and decisive, that they are impossible to ignore. If it's a wishy-washhy document, with some allusion to crimes, then she won't. If it is a strong document, then she will. And the grounds will be Obstruction of Justice, not Collusion. She will not engage in a 1998-style politically-driven impeachement. She'll only go forward if she thinks there is a real chance of achieving a conviction.


And she will only do that if there is a political accomodation in the Senate first. McConnell deciding Trump has outlived his usefulness and working out an agreement with Schumer to speed impeachement along.

This is why I believe that if Impeachement goes to a vote, the vote will be something like 87-13. It'll be all Democrats and a lot of Republicans, engaging in a vote that is the outcome of a Schumer-McConnell-Pelosi deal. Republicans who need it will have a saftey-in-number voting defense (with dozens of fellow Republicans). Republicans who must vote in defense of Trump, or won't go along with the deal, will be in that "13".

Basically, it comes down to the Mueller report. If it is a strong one, then Trump's finished and it comes down to the outlines of the deal between the House and Senate. If it is an indecisive one, and we're trying to count Republican votes to get to 67, there won't be impeachement. Pelosi won't bother.

Hopefully I'm getting my thought process on this across.

Oh and one more thing, unlike a bill that becomes law, under the Constitution, McConnell has no choice but to schedule an Impeachement trial if the House passes the Articles. It's not like a bill that Mcconnell can simply refuse to take up. This is Pelosi's leverage. If Donald Trump is accused by Mueller of such wrong doing as to be unacceptable for him to continue on as President, she can threaten to hold this vote, and that will force McConnell to come to a deal.

I believe the Mueller evidence as we know it is damning enough. It is likely far worse. And that is why I believe Trump is screwed. But I'll say it again: people trying to count Republican Senate votes to get to 67 are thinking about this way, way, way wrong.

[BrerBear]

Problem is, the racists have kids and the main reason to have them is to teach them to hate what you hate.

True at the micro level, but more kids grow up reflecting the broad culture than slavishly following parents at the macro.

[mvaliz]

Not at all, if you've been watching the trend lines. The walls are closing in.

And furthermore I'm serious. There is legitimately an article that "Trump is on course for re-election" every week in the Hill, Politico, Vox, Slate, Red State or something.

Totally agree with this... it's right up there with the bi-monthly "Hillary considering running for president again in 2020!" clickbait "news" articles. >_<

They're doing that because they know an article that "shocks" you or plays to your fears will get the clicks. And, couple that with the ever-increasing awareness of my fellow Americans not paying attention to Politics and/or having the memories of Goldfish... >_<

[Blur4stuff]

Trump would have had a chance in 2020 if he had been a good president. However, not only has he fucked up in all the ways you could imagine, but he invented several new ways of fucking up.

[mvaliz]

I believe the Mueller evidence as we know it is damning enough. It is likely far worse. And that is why I believe Trump is screwed. But I'll say it again: people trying to count Republican Senate votes to get to 67 are thinking about this way, way, way wrong.

I also don't believe we're going to see any more action from Mueller until January when the House flip officially takes effect. This is why I'm eyeing all these "Mueller is about to announce something big!" articles as of recent with a grain of salt as there's no point ATM to fire off a gun early while he still has a month+ of GOP Deplorable shieldwall to resist against.

[Gaidax]

Pretty sure he will be re-elected.

[mvaliz]

True at the micro level, but more kids grow up reflecting the broad culture than slavishly following parents at the macro.

...in the urban areas, sure.

Rural? not so much...

I myself had a racist father growing up. Being in the suburbs gave me access to more cultures and more what the world has than Rural folk who live in very pocket isolated community bubbles, thus I thankfully didn't turn out like him on the racism front. Thankfully he's recognized his racism as bad and has been trying to change that as of late. I give him some leeway due to his upbringing... and because in every other aspect of life he's the best, most giving father I could've ever asked for! ^_^

My Fukwit Dumbass Sibling however? Nope, he moved out to rural Arizona in his 20s and is now a fully-fledged racist and I also highly suspect a Neo-Nazi. >_<

[Eveningforest]

True at the micro level, but more kids grow up reflecting the broad culture than slavishly following parents at the macro.

And we have yet to convince these kids to vote. I hate sounding so old all the time because I'm actually not, but Trump would never be an issue if college age kids took an interest in their future and showed up at a voting booth. There is so much apathy on the side of the young, that we decided it's safer to wait for the boomers to die out. This oversimplification based purely on the assumption that the old are inconvenient that need to be discarded while the 'enlightened' young (who have mostly been doing nothing) will lead us to safety, has always irked me a bit.

And let's not forget how much of this disgusting alt right movement is coming from the young right now. These proud boys can put your old racist uncle at the Thanksgiving table to shame.

[kaelleria]

I counter with this-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/10/polit...ity/index.html

and this

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...k-in-politics/

and this

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-isnt-enough/

TLDR - find a democratic candidate that isn't as hated as Hillary was and Democrats should walk away with 2020.

[Levelfive]

And we have yet to convince these kids to vote. I hate sounding so old all the time because I'm actually not, but Trump would never be an issue if college age kids took an interest in their future and showed up at a voting booth. There is so much apathy on the side of the young, that we decided it's safer to wait for the boomers to die out. This oversimplification based purely on the assumption that the old are inconvenient that need to be discarded while the 'enlightened' young (who have mostly been doing nothing) will lead us to safety, has always irked me a bit.

And let's not forget how much of this disgusting alt right movement is coming from the young right now. These proud boys can put your old racist uncle at the Thanksgiving table to shame.

On the upside:

"Voter turnout among 18 to 29-year-olds in the 2018 midterm elections was 31 percent, according to a preliminary estimate by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.

That’s the highest youth turnout my colleagues and I have observed since we started collecting data in 1994. It’s also a major increase from turnout in the 2014 midterms, which was 21 percent.

Young people showed decisive support for liberal candidates and ideas. About 67 percent of young people supported Democratic House candidates, compared to just 32 percent for Republican candidates. This 35-point gap is even larger than their preference toward Democrats in 2008, when President Barack Obama was first elected."

https://www.sciencecodex.com/real-20...-people-623701

[Xeones]

His chance isn't zero, but as someone who lost the popular vote so significantly it won't actually take much to beat him. There is a slim possibility he will face a primary challenge, someone sitting presidents basically never have to fear.

If Hillary tries to run again we're fucked. She got pretty soundly rejected, she should have won if not for all the protest votes and people just not willing to show up and vote for her.

And we need to make sure people don't run a campaign like hers again. Her primary campaign was "vote for me if you vote for the other guy you're sexist" and then a general campaign like she was owed votes. I didn't feel like she was going out there actually tried to "EARN" votes. She was going out there getting paid millions for wallstreet speeches and making last minute shifts to the left to try getting back liberal voters.

If democrats go back to blue union states that Trump flipped by talking economics they cared about we're going to beat him.