Polls sTrump will lose in 2020

MTAtech said:

It wasn't a landslide the first time. 45 lost the popular vote and got fewer electoral votes than Obama did both times. The margin was so narrow that 100,000 votes spread out over four states going the other way would have had Clinton win.

Click to expand...

I voted for Hillary.

But I am not amused by your referring to the President as "45." He is, by law, the President of the United States. Childish antics don't increase the chance of getting a Democratic house in the fall or beating Trump in 2020.

JBG said:

I voted for Hillary.

But I am not amused by your referring to the President as "45." He is, by law, the President of the United States. Childish antics don't increase the chance of getting a Democratic house in the fall or beating Trump in 2020.

Click to expand...

I find it nauseating to use the words "President" and "Trump" in the same sentence and I am not obligated to bestow upon him the honor of the title that he does not deserve, in my view.

MTAtech said:

I find it nauseating to use the words "President" and "Trump" in the same sentence and I am not obligated to bestow upon him the honor of the title that he does not deserve, in my view.

Click to expand...

I cannot countenance against people wishing a presidency to fail. Sorry.

JBG said:

I cannot countenance against people wishing a presidency to fail. Sorry.

Click to expand...

First, I can't help wondering if you felt the same way between 2009 and 2016.

Second, the difference is that you equate this president succeeding as success for the nation. I do not. I believe that if this president succeeds at his objectives, the nation is worse off. We have already witnessed the decimation of the State Department, with the driving out of experienced, seasoned diplomatic professionals and replacing them with nobody -- and slashing the budget by 30%. As General Mattis said, "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately."

The nation is better looking forward to the industries that will be prevalent in the future but instead of promoting solar and wind, like Obama did, this president is stuck in the early 20th century, with coal. There are five times as many workers in solar than coal and coal is not coming back -- especially in employment.

The great leader declared, “Trade wars are good, and easy to win,” neither of which is true. He tried to kill Obamacare, but to all appearances his main concern was tarnishing his predecessor’s legacy. He wanted a tax cut, but more to score a “win” than because he cared about what was in it.

What is already happening is that the tax-cut is resulting in massive deficits, that Paul Ryan is already using the revenue drop as an excuse to cut Social Security and Medicaid -- and eliminating the mandate in Obamacare and replacing it with Trumpcare, is that the Government will spend $33 billion more to cover 8.9 million fewer Americans, as premiums soar.

I could go one with the unprecedented level of self-dealing, profiteering and how his cabinet milks the government for perk far beyond anything is previous historical record -- but I won't. What I will conclude is Trump failing is a win for America.

shrubnose said:

That's what I read on Google-polls show that all Democratic canddates beat Trump.

If anyone has proof otherwise,let's see it please.

Click to expand...

There are numerous factors involved that would result in a Trump second term regardless of his approval rating, just as there are numerous factors that make a second Presidential election completely different from the first one.

MTAtech said:

First, I can't help wondering if you felt the same way between 2009 and 2016.

Click to expand...

I absolutely did not want a failure. In fact one of my big hopes was that he would use his bully pulpit to show minorities that they could succeed. That pregnancy, truancy, and crime were the enemy of success. He did some of that, not enough. And I do credit Obama with refining the use of drones to access areas that are inhospitable for military operations. On balance I don't like his record though.

MTAtech said:

Second, the difference is that you equate this president succeeding as success for the nation. I do not. I believe that if this president succeeds at his objectives, the nation is worse off. We have already witnessed the decimation of the State Department, with the driving out of experienced, seasoned diplomatic professionals and replacing them with nobody -- and slashing the budget by 30%. As General Mattis said, "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately."

Click to expand...

If the State Department stood up for its country he'd be right.

MTAtech said:

The nation is better looking forward to the industries that will be prevalent in the future but instead of promoting solar and wind, like Obama did, this president is stuck in the early 20th century, with coal. There are five times as many workers in solar than coal and coal is not coming back -- especially in employment.

Click to expand...

That's politically correct but we use more inputs to get solar and wind to work than we gain. It is not free and it has environmental consequences of its own.

It's too early to make predictions, however there are some differences between 2016 and 2020:

- In 2016, Democrats had Hillary Clinton as their candidate, a candidate Democrat voters rejected once in 2008, and who had historically low approval ratings only surpassed by her opponent Donald Trump. 2020 will hopefully be a different story.

- 2016 The Democrats were fighting history, meaning that the party who has the white house for 8 years usually loses the presidency as voters get tired of one political party being in charge, so they vote in the other party.

- Trump ran as the "anti establishment" candidate in an election that had a very anti establishment atmosphere. It's why he was able to easily defeat Jeb Bush in the GOP primaries, as Bush was clearly seen as the face of the GOP establishment. Clinton on the other hand, was the face of the Democrat establishment.

- Trump, who had ZERO experience in politics or government in any way shape or form, benefitted from this as he had no record to judge anything on. This gave him an advantage over other politicians who have been "in the game" for years. Trump was considered the "unknown", while Hillary was considered "more of the same". This benefitted Trump immensely. In 2020, IF (and that's a big IF) Trump is still president and chooses to run again, he would have 4 years under his belt, and the American people know what he's all about, and how he governs. There is no more "unknown" factor any more.

- Someone mentioned Obama. One key difference between Trump and Obama is Obama won his first election by a much larger margin than Trump, thus giving him "room" to spare in his re-election. It's why he was easily re-elected in 2012, DESPITE receiving 4 million less votes than he did in 2008, and winning two less states. Also, Obama's approval rating was higher than Trump's currently is. Trump has never been above 50% (yet), and no president in recent times won re-election with an approval rating below 50%. Could Trump break that trend? Sure, but history is going against him there.