|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 17, 2018 7:48:23 GMT
On Monday, on one of the TV news programmes (I can't remember which) someone said that there was a 33% chance that Trump would be removed by impeachment, 33% that he would be removed by the 25th amendment (or resignation under threat thereof), and 33% chance that he would stumble on to finish his 4-year term... but 0% chance that he would be re-elected for a 2nd term. Later on the same day, Panorama revealed that Trump still has the overwhelming support of his voters,and that they overwhelmingly think he is doing a good job in the economy and foreign affairs. Thus illustrates the gulf between the two parties, and the wildly different perspectives of what they think is likely to happen. The reality is that Trump will only be impeached (regardless of what crimes he may actually have committed) if he loses a large amount of support in Congress on his own side. Being a rubbish President, or corrupt, or offensive, or racist, or booliakterous, is not enough. On balance, I still think that he will probably be re-elected in 2020. The biggest factor to ensure it happening may well be still the attitude of the Democratic Party - even the thought of selecting someone like Oprah Winfrey or Mark Zuckerberg would be as catastrophic as selecting Hillary Clinton was, and would show that they just haven't learnt to break out from their élite coastal bubble. The three options are from Steve Bannon, quoted (I think) in "Fire and Fury". So the "coastal liberal elites" may be seizing on it, but the idea comes from right inside the White House. The claim that Trump still has the support of his base is disputed by Noise of the Crowd whose analysis of the polling is that his support is slipping - its certainly the case that he has historically low approval figures and the trend is down. As usual we have to remember that overturning a deficit in the polls isn't just about winning over voters from the other side, it is much easier to (a) mobilise potential supporters who did not bother to vote for you last time and (b) discredit the other side hard so that their own voters stay at home. Trump is surely doing (a) for the Dems (and Hillary made sure the target group is pretty big) and the prime target for (b) will be moderate traditional Republicans - going into the rust belt and finding that people still support Trump is a bit like going to Liverpool in 1983 or Woking in 1997 and concluding that nothing much had changed since the previous election. (We also have to remember the structural weakness of the Republicans who have not won the popular vote in four of the last 5 Presidential elections). |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 17, 2018 11:23:31 GMT
Actually, they've only done it once (in 2004) since 1988. That's one out of 7.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056 
|
Post by jamie on Jan 17, 2018 11:50:38 GMT
Trump's support among the base is still strong. However, polling shows that the more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats are deserting him. For him to hold on in 2020 he needs to hold onto all his support, or win over some people who voted Hillary/they stay home. His numbers currently don't seem to suggest either of these are likely, but he's got 3 more years so who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 17, 2018 17:40:34 GMT
Actually, they've only done it once (in 2004) since 1988. That's one out of 7. Of course, stupid of me, I counted back to Dubya and didn't think to include Clinton. Anyway, it seems to me a structural problem for Republicans that playing the electoral college can't disguise forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 18, 2018 8:23:42 GMT
And Hillary had a particular ability to alienate. Americans like a certain folksy warmth. Her husband had it in spades. Even Dubya had some elements of it. Or charisma which Obama had. Hillary didn't. I said right from the start that she was the wrong candidate and so it proved as she just couldn't shift enough voters where it mattered
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 4, 2018 13:32:00 GMT
Right now, you can get 12/5 on Trump winning in 2020, although if anyone lumps on that it'll collapse to the generally available 2/1 (9/4 in places). Good price if you want to skim a bit by laying on Betfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Nov 13, 2018 21:43:09 GMT
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,800
|
Post by john07 on Nov 16, 2018 1:20:32 GMT
He featured a lot in the new Michael Moore film: Fahrenheit 11/9. He came across as someone who might go down well for the Democrats with white working class voters in the Rust Belt. He is pro-coal and pro-gun. He claims to have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Nov 16, 2018 1:25:04 GMT
He featured a lot in the new Michael Moore film: Fahrenheit 11/9. He came across as someone who might go down well for the Democrats with white working class voters in the Rust Belt. He is pro-coal and pro-gun. He claims to have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. And dodges the abortion question... So a complete no-hoper given the Democratic selectorate outside of WV, but still an interesting guy who I have respect for. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,800
|
Post by john07 on Nov 16, 2018 1:40:40 GMT
He featured a lot in the new Michael Moore film: Fahrenheit 11/9. He came across as someone who might go down well for the Democrats with white working class voters in the Rust Belt. He is pro-coal and pro-gun. He claims to have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. And dodges the abortion question... He hardly dodges the question. He claims to be pro-life by choice but would support a pro-choice agenda because of the impact on the poor of blocking access to abortion. He supported Bernie in the Democratic Primary. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Nov 16, 2018 1:51:36 GMT
And dodges the abortion question... He hardly dodges the question. He claims to be pro-life by choice but would support a pro-choice agenda because of the impact on the poor of blocking access to abortion. He supported Bernie in the Democratic Primary. I know. He's a progressive economically but not in other areas. |
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Nov 16, 2018 11:55:12 GMT
The democrats have a good chance of winning Arizona next time. One that Trump really needs to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 16:07:56 GMT
The democrats have a good chance of winning Arizona next time. One that Trump really needs to watch. Expect a closer race in Texas too. Looking at the House results in Minnesota I think Trump has a chance there. |
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Nov 16, 2018 16:14:38 GMT
The democrats have a good chance of winning Arizona next time. One that Trump really needs to watch. Expect a closer race in Texas too. Texas and Georgia will both take a bit longer. I would only expect a small change next time for these two. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by jamie on Nov 16, 2018 16:49:30 GMT
The Democrats won the House vote in Minnesota by double digits. The Minneapolis suburbs in particular were surprisingly shambolic for Republicans. Texas could theoretically be winnable for Democrats if they held onto all the gains this year, but it won't be anywhere near a tipping point state. Georgia looks out of reach, the Republican floor is just too high so Republicans won this year despite high black turnout and very poor numbers in Greater Atlanta.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 16, 2018 17:04:27 GMT
The democrats have a good chance of winning Arizona next time. One that Trump really needs to watch. Expect a closer race in Texas too. Looking at the House results in Minnesota I think Trump has a chance there. Minnesota depends on who the Democrats pick, it will only be a more feasible (but not easy) pickup if a more liberal candidate is chosen. If it is someone more moderate (perhaps like the state's Senior Senator) then it's off the map. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 22:27:52 GMT
The Democrats won the House vote in Minnesota by double digits. The Minneapolis suburbs in particular were surprisingly shambolic for Republicans. Texas could theoretically be winnable for Democrats if they held onto all the gains this year, but it won't be anywhere near a tipping point state. Georgia looks out of reach, the Republican floor is just too high so Republicans won this year despite high black turnout and very poor numbers in Greater Atlanta. Sure but the fact they made no net losses there was surprising. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Nov 16, 2018 22:50:46 GMT
Minnesota has swingy potential, but it normally has such a high turnout it's hard to see Trump winning it in 2020. Where are those extra votes going to come from? - unless the Dems nominate another divisive figure again.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by jamie on Nov 17, 2018 1:13:03 GMT
Sure but the fact they made no net losses there was surprising. Assuming your talking about Minnesota, not really. Democrats were defending 2 Trump +15 seats they barely won in 2016 and this time without incumbents, while they were targeting a seat Trump narrowly won and a seat which comfortably voted for the Republican incumbent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 3:53:07 GMT
Sure but the fact they made no net losses there was surprising. Assuming your talking about Minnesota, not really. Democrats were defending 2 Trump +15 seats they barely won in 2016 and this time without incumbents, while they were targeting a seat Trump narrowly won and a seat which comfortably voted for the Republican incumbent. Fair point. |
|
