Prediction: Trump wins re-election in 2020

[Quartz]

@marshmallow

Trump had a dozen or more scandals that would’ve sunk any other campaign.

Trump takes after Alan Clark: when asked if he had any more skeletons in the closet, he replied, “Dear boy, I can hardly close the door.”

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@GIGObuster

As pointed before,I’m not impressed with Adams. And I was not correct about the final result of the election, but I did predict very early that the race was going to be a close one. With fears that Trump might have a chance.

In any case, by looking at who the friends of Trump were, then predicting how Trump was going to do if he became president was not too hard to guess. He, like Arpaio, can win reelections, but like him he is prone to have even Republicans grow tired of his costly crazy racist stunts.

Yet judging by the link you posted you ought to be impressed by Scott Adams.

*In other words, he’s concerned with complex models with a lot of variables. He says the models cannot correctly predict the future and how much the temperature will rise, even if the input measurements and basic CO2 science is correct…

…As climate scientist Tamsin Edwards notes, models are never perfect. **But if you pick the least wrong one, they are important tools that can’t be ignored. *
**

Adams had possibly the least wrong narrative on Trump’s victories this past election cycle. How can you explain *your *confidence in climate models(assuming you have confidence in them) but your lack of confidence in the political predictions of Scott Adams?

[tim314]

@Okrahoma

All the people making predictions - how accurate were your predictions in this election cycle? Why do you think that your predictive abilities have improved since?

Well, for one thing, I’ve gotten more pessimistic.

[BeepKillBeep]

I don’t think Trump will run in 2020. He will find some reason not to in order to save face. If you look at some of his latest tweets, it is quite clear that the opposition to him is reaching his ears and, more importantly, it is getting under his skin. Yes to some degree Trump revels in calling his opponents losers and haters but I’m not sure anybody has the emotional and mental energy needed to be under attack 24/7 and feel the need to respond to it. I think Trump has entered a whole new world for which he is emotionally unprepared.

If for some reason he does run, I think he stands at least a moderate chance of winning. I certainly wouldn’t bet against him. However to predict it at this point is nearly impossible. The two biggest factors are complete unknowns:

1 - What will be the state of the economy in 2020?
2 - Who is he running against?

But again, my prediction is that he will find a reason not to run. For example, that the disloyal GOP have treated him badly and so he doesn’t want to give them the White House again or something.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Adams had possibly the least wrong narrative on Trump’s victories this past election cycle. How can you explain *your *confidence in climate models(assuming you have confidence in them) but your lack of confidence in the political predictions of Scott Adams?

Adams predicted both outcomes at various times in the last month or two before the election. He would have declared victory either way, pointing to the multiple predictions he made in that direction.

[arfurvirus]

You only need to look at what he’ll have done in his first 100 days, heck first 10 days he did more than presidents in ten years. He’ll get things done. Thats what a CEO does, and America has needed one for a long time.
You speak of age, this is a guy who at 70 jet-setted the country giving 3 rallys a day in 2 different states for a year, forming a true grassroots base, despite the media. both partys and Billions stacked against him.

He’s standing in the swamp now, how far he can yank on that drain is to be seen. I and his supporters are patient, after all we’ve been waiting for decades. If he produces anything other than the status quo it’ll be a win, despite the squeels of the MSM and McCains and Brocks

Conservatism has been like a megaton rock that has been sitting in the same spot from day one, and the Left has moved so far left that the rock that has never moved is now considered far right extremism.

I am not so sure it is indoctrination that is the source of the problem with Left leaners and establishment republicans anymore, I think they evolved and are now are just breeding fantasy.

This revolution has been a long time coming. Trump is merely an indicator, a litmus strip if you will.

[iiandyiiii]

@arfurvirus

Conservatism has been like a megaton rock that has been sitting in the same spot from day one, and the Left has moved so far left that the rock that has never moved is now considered far right extremism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

[deep breath]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[kk_fusion]

@arfurvirus

Conservatism has been like a megaton rock that has been sitting in the same spot from day one, and the Left has moved so far left that the rock that has never moved is now considered far right extremism.

Conservatism is not about moving backwards, it’s about delaying change such that its contituents can adapt to new realities.

Blocking any progress forever and ever is, almost by definition, extreme conservatism, and rightly viewed as such by the American mainstream left, which is quite moderate by Western comparison.

[BobLibDem]

Take heart. Voter motivation drives results. In 2016, there were enough people that would have crawled over broken glass, hot coals, and barbed wire in the nude to vote for Charles Manson if it would have kept Hillary from winning. And, as we saw, we wound up with someone even worse. The massive demonstrations on Jan 21 show the depth of the contempt for this con artist in the White House. After 3+ years of actually doing things and taking positions on the record, the fever will only increase. 2020 is going to be a huge year for turnout, and with all of the 2014 wave Republican Senators up for re-election, it’s quite likely to be a Democratic sweep. Not only will Democrats clean up nationally, but many statehouses and governors are going to flip, and the districts drawn after the 2020 census will be far friendlier to Democrats.

[Evan_Drake]

@Velocity

2. The Republicans have many more Senate seats to defend in 2020 than the Democrats, due to Republican gains from the 2014 midterms.

The enemy has fallen into our trap ! By losing as much as humanly possible, we strategically retreated to the very best place to launch our attack !

[Fiveyearlurker]

@arfurvirus

Conservatism has been like a megaton rock that has been sitting in the same spot from day one, and the Left has moved so far left that the rock that has never moved is now considered far right extremism.

Hillary Clinton is right in line with Democratic presidential candidates for the past 30 years. If anything she is slightly to the right on many issues.

Meanwhile, Republican presidents as recent as Bush senior would have absolutely no possibility of being conservative enough to win a primary today. And the idea that Reagan would be considered a viable candidate in this GOP is laughable.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tim314

I fully expect Trump to keep on doing horrible things for the next four years. But if none of those horrible things cause anyone who voted for him to change their mind, then he at least has an awfully good chance at being re-elected. What’s he going to do that will actually cost him any of the votes he won in 2016?

Some of the reasons people voted for Trump in the general election include (in no particular order):
[ol]
[li]He was the candidate most likely to put pro-life justices on the Supreme Court[/li][li]He was the candidate most likely to support the agenda of the Congressional Republicans[/li][li]He’s an immigration hard-liner[/li][li]He says things which are politically incorrect[/li][li]He pisses off the “coastal elites”[/li][li]He’s openly critical of Islam and Muslims.[/li][/ol]

Why not just say “because he is a Republican”

For the first two of those, sure, there are a lot of Republicans who’d be a better fit, but once Trump won the primary, that sort of voter coalesced around him as their best choice among those who still had a chance of winning. For them, he was electable and good enough. Those voters weren’t willing to risk electing a Democrat by challenging the Republican nominee; they certainly aren’t going to support a primary challenge now that he’s the sitting President.

As for the others, he’s doing exactly what won them over during the campaign. They aren’t going to turn around and say “Well, I was cool with him demonizing Muslims and threatening to discriminate against them, but now that he’s actually doing it, that’s a bridge too far.”

You might say: “What about the people who end up losing their health insurance if the Republicans gut Obamacare?” While I could see some people flipping from opposing Obamacare to supporting the reinstatement of an Obamacare-like plan once they realize they were benefitting from it, I find it hard to see someone switching from “I’m going to vote for the party that has made Obamacare-opposition their signature issue” to “I’m going to vote for whoever promises to bring back my Obamacare.” The people who were primarily driven by Obamacare opposition aren’t likely to switch their view on it. And the people who disliked Obamacare because they supported Republican politicians or listened to Republican media personalities for other reasons, and those Republicans said Obamacare was bad – those people will still have those other reasons to keep supporting the Republicans.

You might say: “What about the people who expected him to bring back manufacturing jobs?” (I presume he’ll mostly fail at that, since the jobs he claims were lost to Mexico and China have, in reality, mostly been replaced by automation.) “What about the people who expected him to ‘drain the swamp?’” I suspect those are really just the same folks who feel abandoned by the establishment, and like Trump because his rhetoric infuriates that same establishment. They never really had much hope the government would do anything for them; mostly, they were angry at their loss of economic opportunity and used their vote to express that anger. When Trump fails to create jobs for them, but keeps pissing off the folks they blame or resent, they’ll still see him as their guy (at least, more so than the Democratic candidate), and they’ll shrug and say “Well, he’s doing the best he can given all the red tape and corruption in Washington.”

Partisans and True Believers will vote for Trump no matter what but the swing voters will not be so forgiving. As long as we can avoid calcifying the swing voter’s support for Trump by demonizing them and calling them racists and stupid idiots, they might not be happy with Trump in 2020. Once again that assumes we haven’t turned them into partisan Trump supporters by calling them whiny racists and idiots.

The other way Trump loses, even if he keeps basically the same votes he had, is if Democrats turn out in greater numbers. But really, if all the abhorrent things he said during the campaign weren’t motivation enough, why will it be any different now that he’s actually doing them?

Democrats might not nominate someone like Hillary in 2020.

40%+ of voters didn’t vote. That number might change in 2020.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

You’re probably wrong. The only way Trump gets re-elected is if the economy improves dramatically.

[John_Mace]

There you go again… I know people like to propagate the meme that Reagan couldn’t get elected today, but that ignores the importance of personality over policy. Trumps resume was that of a moderate Democrat, but folks were drawn to his bravado and in your face outsider appeal. None of the other candidates had that kind of winning personality that Reagan had. And then there was HRC.

No, Reagan would do just fine.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@iiandyiiii

Adams predicted both outcomes at various times in the last month or two before the election. He would have declared victory either way, pointing to the multiple predictions he made in that direction.

That’s not quite enough to discredit Adams. Adams wavered only briefly after the grab em by the pussy comment came out. His default position though was to predict Trump as the winner of both the Primaries then the General. His predictive powers were far superior to most others. Adams also predicted a Trump landslide against Clinton. I’d say he was only a smidgen off on that too.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

That’s not quite enough to discredit Adams. Adams wavered only briefly after the grab em by the pussy comment came out. His default position though was to predict Trump as the winner of both the Primaries then the General. His predictive powers were far superior to most others. Adams also predicted a Trump landslide against Clinton. I’d say he was only a smidgen off on that too.

That’s a very generous reading. And the “smidgen” off a landslide is ridiculous – his electoral win was by a tiny margin in 3 states. It was a very, very close election, second only to 2000 (in the last few decades) in terms of how many actual voters (~70,000 or so) separated victory from defeat.

[GIGObuster]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

Yet judging by the link you posted you ought to be impressed by Scott Adams.

*In other words, he’s concerned with complex models with a lot of variables. He says the models cannot correctly predict the future and how much the temperature will rise, even if the input measurements and basic CO2 science is correct…

…As climate scientist Tamsin Edwards notes, models are never perfect. **But if you pick the least wrong one, they are important tools that can’t be ignored. *
**

Adams had possibly the least wrong narrative on Trump’s victories this past election cycle. How can you explain *your *confidence in climate models(assuming you have confidence in them) but your lack of confidence in the political predictions of Scott Adams?

:rolleyes:

If you had been aware of the reasons why models should be respected more because they are tested against other evidence you would not be so confident on your argument from ignorance here.

And really, Addams needs a lot more testing to even claim that he is the beesknees, even in political predictions.

Back in 2008:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/04/president-mccai.html

Here’s a little unscientific survey question of my own:

1. Do you personally know anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim?

2. Do you personally know anyone who suspects Obama might secretly hate America and is running for President to destroy it from within?

I know registered voters in both of those categories. That’s why your next president will be named McCain. That’s just a prediction, not a preference.

And then in 2012 he backed Romney. :smack:

So, after your effort here I’m even **less **impressed with Scott Adams. Because while I was aware of how wrong he was in 2012 I was not aware how wrong he was in 2008. And the reason why I was not aware of his 2008 prediction was simple, no one thought it was important to give much value to the political opinions of a salary man cartoonist that was not even a political one. And based on the sample observed, the attention the right has given to the likes of Adams is not justified even today. And iiandyiiii’s points are also valid.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@iiandyiiii

That’s a very generous reading. And the “smidgen” off a landslide is ridiculous – his electoral win was by a tiny margin in 3 states. It was a very, very close election, second only to 2000 (in the last few decades) in terms of how many actual voters (~70,000 or so) separated victory from defeat.

A landslide is in the eye of the beholder. It can be an EC landslide, or a popular vote landslide. I’d say Trump was about one Minnesota (or a second Clinton physical collapse/coughing fit) away from an Electoral College landslide. I fully admit Trump’s win was not a landslide, but it was oh so close to one.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

If you had been aware of the reasons why models should be respected more because they are tested against other evidence you would not be so confident on your argument from ignorance here.

And really, Addams needs a lot more testing to even claim that he is the beesknees, even in political predictions.

Back in 2008:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/04/president-mccai.html
And then in 2012 he backed Romney. :smack:

So, after your effort here I’m even **less **impressed with Scott Adams. Because while I was aware of how wrong he was in 2012 I was not aware how wrong he was in 2008. And the reason why I was not aware of his 2008 prediction was simple, no one thought it was important to give much value to the political opinions of a salary man cartoonist that was not even a political one. And based on the sample observed, the attention the right has given to the likes of Adams is not justified even today. And iiandyiiii’s points are also valid.

The President McCain prediction from Adams was from August 2008. I think the financial crash in October 2008 had a lot to do with Obama’s victory. Adams has excellent predictive powers, but he is not a financial wizard with an ability to foresee the worst financial crash since the 1920’s.

What does Adams’ backing of Romney in 2012 have to do with the predictive powers of Scott Adams? It only tells me Adams endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. You are over-reaching here.

[Okrahoma]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

That’s not quite enough to discredit Adams. Adams wavered only briefly after the grab em by the pussy comment came out.

As in - for two days only.

Can anyone show me another “pundit” that consistently, since Trump announced, predicted Trump victory (with the exception of those two days)?

[Okrahoma]

@iiandyiiii

That’s a very generous reading. And the “smidgen” off a landslide is ridiculous – his electoral win was by a tiny margin in 3 states. It was a very, very close election, second only to 2000 (in the last few decades) in terms of how many actual voters (~70,000 or so) separated victory from defeat.

You don’t measure the size of the victory from 50%. You measure it from the expectations. In those terms it was a landslide.