What are the chances of Trump's political survival to 2020?

[_Kevin Graham]

I saw a lot of headlines on this, but I don't like it because it doesn't contextualize population growth.

I know, but it makes for a great sound byte and it really, really pisses of the Trumpanzees. It flies in the face of their delusion that they have most of America backing their agenda.

[_Dr Exiled]

I say the chances of his survival are pretty good based on what we know now. Even with the latest actions concerning Cohen, the Senate will not convict unless there is more to it. It looks like Cohen lied about a hotel project in Moscow. So, once he flips, he should be trustworthy? Is he a mole like Manafort supposedly was/is? Is there more to this Moscow thing than just that the project was still actively being discussed during the early part of the Trump administration? Was there some sort of quid pro quo going on with respect to the Hotel? Did Trump give to the Putin foundation in order to gain access to Moscow? I don't think merely trying to pursue a hotel project is enough. But there is always the magic of the unknown facts that might be laying behind Mueller's curtain, so stay tuned.

As a side note, Trump has always craved attention and seemingly is always in some sort of legal battle. He just might relish an impeachment proceeding where he can run on the "lying democrats" in 2020 and get his conspiracy loving army of Trumpanzees to follow him. Pursuing impeachment might backfire, especially if the Senate doesn't convict and the Dems put up Clinton again to run against him. She has huge negatives still and she isn't lovable Bill. Does she have any friends? She kind of reminds me of democratic version of Nixon. Anyway, I think Bill Clinton gained in popularity post impeachment as the population saw through the nonsense. The same might happen to Trump as he can keep pushing the witch hunt narrative that will prove true to enough once the Senate refuses to convict. I wonder if a strategy of putting Trump on ignore would work while the democrats pursued policies and laws the people want? Simply acknowledge that Trump is crazy when he tweets something nonsensical and then change the subject back to policy? Trump won the electoral college because he appealed to enough populism in the midwest and elsewhere to win those states. He ran against Nafta and claimed he would stop the wars, stuff the people want. People's wages have stagnated and healthcare and food costs continue to rise. I don't know how much longer the people will tolerate this Russia nonsense when real issues are being put to the side. The democrats won the midterms. Now do something other than trying to prove what the country already knows about Trump.

[_subgenius]

Geez, you guys have a less than admirable success rate when it comes to election predictions...

viewtopic.php?p=1141050#p1141050

...

viewtopic.php?p=1148159#p1148159

And this validates your predictions how?

[_EAllusion]

And this validates your predictions how?

Well, one, my predictions - parasitic upon actual political scientists and forecasters as they may be - were pretty good. They generally have been since I've been posting here. Again, that's because real forecasters are actually quite good at this. The only real exception is I thought Clinton was a lock - sans black swan event - a few weeks out of the 2016 election before a black swan event occurred. Two, your predictions are invariably just as rosy as what Republicans can hope for given conventional wisdom. Take conventional wisdom, shift it several notches towards Republicans, and that's what you'll be invariably saying. This has led to you generally suck at this, because polling doesn't have a general Democratic tilt.

And before you crow about 2016 as your triumphant broken watch moment, keep in mind that you were favorably linking predictions that Clinton was going to stage an alien invasion of earth in order avoid her devastating loss.

[_subgenius]

Dems could only #bluetrickle wins 24 months later. You guys are so distracted with the half-time show, cheerleaders, and witty commercials that you don't even watch the game.

subbie, the 2018 election was a major victory for Democrats who were in an uphill fight in the House but won multiple seats in tough races that normally would have gone to Republicans and mitigates against what in 2016 looked like an opportunity for Republicans to gain a super-majority in the Senate. Democrats picked up governor's seats and state legislatures as well. Details matter in understanding what happened. With a 40 seat pick-up in the House, the 2018 election was a legitimate blue wave in the House with demographic indicators that certainly have Republican strategists working hard on planning for 2020 that doesn't look good for them. I'm sure Fox isn't reporting it that way but failing to understand what happened shows you're media diet is all empty calories.

Nope it still was not a #bluewave, especially as was predicted...Dems lost seats in Senate and their gains in state legislative chambers were below the historical average.
And worse, these mid-terms elections are all but meaningless to the 2020 election....but ah, the irony of the white flight demographic in suburbia....

I am not denying that Dems had a good night, but #bluewave is truly hyperbolic...
But yeah, if you want benchmark against historical averages then maybe you could argue that 40 seats versus 31 seats is a House-wave, but you could argue that it was not....and if you say a wave is more akin to a benchmark against the top 20% of historical averages....then a House-ripple.
But you still have a Democratic party that is adrift...with Pelosi being the standard bearer of "same old thang" in January you have no clear resolution between Clinton Era and Sanders era voters....distractions like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may seem significant but she is not because she came from a really safe blue dsitrict, ergo no leverage in the party (a.k.a. whip her in line).

[_EAllusion]

538's median prediction was Dem +39 in the House with 8.7% marginal advantage in votes. If current data holds up, it'll be Dem +40 with 8.7% marginal advantage in votes. That's so dead-on that it borders on magic. People end up taking for granted this level of forecasting accuracy and end up being like those who bitch that the weatherman is never right because that day when he said there was a 65% chance of rain, it didn't rain. Weather forecasting is insanely good.

[_Kevin Graham]

Nope it still was not a #bluewave, especially as was predicted...

If this were true you'd have already provided examples of failed predictions. But you just regurgitate the Sean Hannity line. You've never actually seen any predictions from the Left.

[_subgenius]

538's median prediction was Dem +39 in the House with 8.7% marginal advantage in votes. If current data holds up, it'll be Dem +40 with 8.7% marginal advantage in votes. That's so dead-on that it borders on magic. People end up taking for granted this level of forecasting accuracy and end up being like those who bitch that the weatherman is never right because that day when he said there was a 65% chance of rain, it didn't rain. Weather forecasting is insanely good.

you are posting a prediction that was on election day, which understandably is going to be more accurate than a prediction offered in June...just like the weatherman is "insanely good" when he sticks his head out the window and say "partly cloudy today".
Nevertheless, your own hack Nate Silver illustrates how non-wave this swing really was:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ast/house/

forecast average...actual average...you're correct "insanely good".

[_subgenius]

Nope it still was not a #bluewave, especially as was predicted...

If this were true you'd have already provided examples of failed predictions. But you just regurgitate the Sean Hannity line. You've never actually seen any predictions from the Left.

I like how dumb your posts are, they make me feel accomplished without much of my own effort.
If no one on the Left predicted a #bluewave then who could have done such a thing? was it a neo-nazi conspiracy? was it the new hobby of a notorious preparation school gang of rapers?...was it maybe....just maybe....THE RUSSIANS (via an unsuspecting Zuckerberg of course)

CNN's Van Jones: "This is heartbreaking, though. This is heartbreaking...it's not a blue wave."

"Bernie Sanders rejects 'blue wave' prediction, says midterms will be 'very, very close'"

"A trove of new polling shows the once-formidable lead Democrats had in the generic congressional ballot is nearly gone."

maybe you are thinking about 2010? which was more like a "wave", not a tsunami, but more like a wave - 63 seats in House and 6 in Senate...and so on, splash splash.

[_MeDotOrg]

Geez, you guys have a less than admirable success rate when it comes to election predictions, especially when you insist on using historical norms for circumstances that are currently non-existent......anyone care to review predictions from 2016? from 2018?

In 2016 , I got 4 states wrong: Wisconsin, MIchigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Obviously I didn't get the swing that was happening in the Rust Belt.

Just to be clear, I like doing these types of posts, because it is fun to look back and see how correct or wrong we were. I am not suggesting that my guess is necessarily better than the next guy. I just think it is interesting to lay down a marker and say what will happen from this point?

As far as 'historical norms for circumstances that are currently non-existent', I guess would like a little more clarification. There are similarities and differences between Nixon, Clinton and Trump. I would say that the biggest difference between Trump and Nixon is how much more politically divided the country is. If you watched the Nixon House impeachment hearings, there was contention between the two sides, but there was also a sense of trying to wrestle with a Constitutional question as Americans, and not Democrats or Republicans. What I remember about the vote was not any sort of grim jubilation, but a sense of a duty and an appreciation of the immensity of the task in front of them.

We are living in a time of far more political divide. The ways that people receive and digest information has changed. I think the standard of proof will be higher than it would have been for Nixon. And a lot of what ultimately happens will have to do with how the public reacts to indictments and findings that will be coming out in the next weeks and months. And how much will public outrage be mitigated by event fatigue? I think we have already seen public standards for Presidential behavior taking a sharp downhill turn in the last 2 years.

So yes, there are tons of variables, and we don't know how all of those things will fit together. I just think it's interesting to try and pierce the fog and try to imagine where we're going.