Nice, although I can’t go with him on the blustery tweets. Just the TV interview.
Everything listed here could help him retain his base but not many of these suggest where the new voters might be coming from. Although “suppressing turnout” addresses the situation in a way (if you can’t increase your votes, eliminate your opponent’s). “Third party” could be a factor, I suppose, but we have those all the time anyway. I can’t see a centrist of lefty Democrat running as an independent.
Will large numbers of those who voted for his opponents switch to him because of the economy? The economy was pretty good in 2016. Will Hilary and/or third party voters from '16 rally behind him because of war with Iran? We’ve had small wars going on for over a decade now, it would take a real ratings-buster win to get the country behind him now, imho.
I’m not ready to call it for the Dem candidate yet (for one, we don’t know who it will be), the guy has pulled a rabbit out of his ass once before and there’re tens of millions who are smitten with him, but for the life of me I don’t see where the new votes he needs are coming from.
Here comes help from the Supremes!
Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims
You may have read that one a bit too quickly. This is the ruling Republicans wanted, delivered by the 5-4 conservative majority. It’s bad.
I think you misread her post.
Where’s that sarcasm tag! Yeah, I meant the Supremes are coming to aid t—p’s re-election, and yes, that’s BAD.
There was an election just two and a half years ago that did not bear out the “silent Trump voters” hypothesis.
Assuming there isn’t a strong third party challenger, he probably needs at least 45% of the general vote to have a chance at a legitimate electoral college reelection. He can lose PA and MI as long as he keeps OH, WI, and FL, all of which are doable. If he loses any of these states by a few thousand votes, the GOP may try to challenge the results, but it wouldn’t make sense of the economy’s in shambles and Trump gets engaged in a disastrous war
Not sure WI is doable.
Silent Trump supporters, not silent Trump voters.
I do not think there is going to be enough people who voted for Trump in 2016 to switch/abstain to make any significance whatsoever unlike what the Obama-Trump switch did.
The way I see it is if you voted for him in 2016 despite him not having any experience, being completely unhinged and so much baggage coming out of his past, then you are going to vote for him again in 2020 because the economy hasn’t tanked and so far despite his best efforts the country has not entered a new war.
My worry is he will have gained in the independents, the voters who stayed at home in 2016, which can make a significant difference.
This is why he will get reelected.
It’s neither complicated or tricky. All he has to do is carry the same states he did in 2016.
Counting on newly eligible voters, in particular young people or felons whose voting rights have been restored, is counting chickens before they’ve hatched. Neither of those groups have a history of being reliable voters.
Until Democrats select a nominee and that nominee makes inroads in areas that went Obama in '08 and '12 but went DJT in '16, it is cocky and foolhardy to crow about the inevitable win for D’s in 2020. If the nominee doesn’t motivate those voters, the presidency of DJT will not end on 01/20/21
Carrying the same states requires him to find new voters even if zero percent of college age voters turn out, which seems a tad unlikely. His margins were narrow and many more of his voters than of Hillary’s have died, or will die over the next year.
This is anecdotal FWIW: I know of people (going off what I’m told by a friend of mine who also fits the description), generally of a Christian conservative orientation and suburb dwelling, who normally would vote Republican in a presidential race yet either voted third party or sat it out in 2016. These people seem primed to vote for Trump in 2020 as a few years ago they did not believe Trump was really a conservative*, so it must be irrelevant to them at this point whether he has any principles or not.
I’m going to need to see a couple of cites supporting this before I buy it. Particularly the parts I bolded in your quote.
I’ll just point out that we saw just yesterday, with the intra-party brawl in the House yesterday and with the debates last night, how numbers 4 and 5 could happen. It’s not just a hypothetical: polarization will make it increasingly difficult for Joe Biden, who has heretofore been viewed as the most able to bring a coalition in the general, to maintain a coalition if the party is perpetually outraged by migrant deaths and other matters of social justice.
Don’t get me wrong: it’s necessary to be outraged. We shouldn’t be indifferent to what’s going on. We should advocate legislative action and keep fighting the good fight with republicans. But as much as hardcore progressives like Mark Pocan don’t seem to acknowledge it, they need more than anger; they need a strategy. Trash talking your centrist colleagues isn’t a strategy. And that’s the real problem with what I’m seeing on twitter, what I’m saying among hard left Democrats in the House, and even with some of the posters here.
What would have the progressives proposed as an alternative to the legislation? Not passing a bill and watching people suffer just so they could fight for something that Mitch McConnell and Republicans themselves weren’t in any hurry to pass? The irony of that is that for people who are fighting for migrants, that would actually be using them as political footballs as a means of leveraging the debate, which is just plain sick. No, sign onto the damn bill that guarantees some funding and put the pressure back on to the Senate, and more importantly, put the pressure back onto Donald Trump who keeps threatening to veto it anyway. Even if Trump signs it without controversy, so what? They can still spotlight the plight of migrants and keep making the lack of humanity of the right wing an issue without self-destructing.
Vis-a-vis that and the “silent Trump supporters” comments.
Step 1, suppress public expression of certain viewpoints.
Step 2, run election.
Step 3, be confused more people hold those viewpoints than publicly visible.
What will it take for some people to understand forcing conformity is bad?, you entrench the original target group, make a portion of the bystanders reject you for your methods and those that support them will sooner or later rift and be at each other’s throats as a result of the purity testing environment they have created.
Many people would rather not bothered to speak out their support for Trump if there’s a good chance they’ll be screeched at, so they don’t and then they vote and half the population is left blindsided muttering “but but… the polls!”
This was reason #154 why echo chambers are bad.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, but I saw a couple interviews with Tulsi Gabbard and she seemed like a switched on, decent candidate; from some of the reactions I saw to the last debate, accusing her of working for Russia… crap like that is why I think Trump will not-lose again.
Indeed. The outrage and name calling in some of the later posts in this thread on trans rights is a perfect example of why ‘the left’ is likely to be left out. Again.
I don’t understand what he has done to win over those particular voters. If '16 stay at home voters showed any tendency in '18, it was to turn out for the Dems.
But new voters did come out in the most recent midterms. They are highly motivated to vote against Donald. From the US Census Bureau:
Trump won the over 65 vote by eight points in '16. About ten million of those voters are gone now, or roughly seven million voters. He’s lost maybe a half million more votes to Father Time than the Dems might.
Old liberals like me don’t understand much of this. For much of our political lives, we have been in the minority. It hasn’t stopped us from standing up for our principles and our candidates. It would be uncharitable of me to suggest that conservatives are uncomfortable speaking from a minority position but that appears to be the case on the surface.