‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?’

Feb 2007
5,558
3,120
USA
#1
‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?’

Thomas L. Friedman

1 day ago

(Originally from The New York Times)

….

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.

That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

...


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news-trump/trumps-going-to-get-re-elected-isnt-he/ar-AAEriAO?li=BBoPU0R
If you ask me, I believe whomever is perceived to be the most moderate person will likely win the next presidential election.
 
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
#2
Why? Romney was very moderate back in 2012, yet he lost.

Anyways, based on your assertion & given that Trump's rather moderate compared to the current batch of Democratic Party candidates, it sounds like you're insinuating that Trump's likely to win the next presidential election. One exception I notice is Andrew Yang, if he can manage to make himself moderate enough; he's the only one I get the impression has some potential to take on Trump. I give Yang a generous 1 in 5 chance of beating Trump; the next best Democrat's probably around 1 in 20, maybe; those are just my tentative guesses.
 
Dec 2015
17,040
15,977
Arizona
#3
While I admit that Trump's 2016 win was a shock---all around the world--after analyzing the facts and stats post-election I'm still convinced it was a fluke--a perfect storm--and I don't think the American public will let it happen again. AND here's why:
1) Trump's numbers stink. Whether the RW wants to "own" it or not, Trump DID LOSE the popular vote. That means something and should not be disregarded. His poll numbers have been steady but low.
2) Americans have had plenty of time to observe Trump. They know the man for what he is now. There will be no more "let's see how he does"...."give him a chance".
3) States that supported Trump in 2016 turned purple in 2018. There are now more Democrats in office, including the governorships. Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and even Texas have turned Left.
4) Although the economy is doing well and Trump will get SOME credit for that, American's priorities have changed. They want things that Trump simply can't give them--higher wages, healthcare, immigration reform.
5) Trump will continue to screw up. If you think Trump's scandals are over, think again. The man can't seem to get through a single week without a hot mess. His insults will balloon. His tweets will rage on. His associations with wealthy vipers/predators will always surface and so will his party's.
6) Hillary's NOT RUNNING.
7) Trump's base (26%) cannot win this time.....IF we can get the youth, the minorities, Independents, and women of all colors to the polls.
 
Nov 2012
10,835
9,027
nirvana
#4
If you ask me, I believe whomever is perceived to be the most moderate person will likely win the next presidential election.

Interesting observation. If that’s true, then Trump won’t be re-elected. He’s a fire breathing racist asshole. Hardly a moderate.

Of course to anyone on the right, if you’re not a fire breathing racist, you are a radical leftist.

Which explains Joe Biden’s steady lead in the polls.
 
Apr 2013
38,082
26,090
La La Land North
#5
I keep hoping that the OP's sentiment about the most moderate winning is correct, I fear that won't happen. I am heartbroken seeing Dotard's poll numbers approval increase with his racist rants and the way too many Democratic contenders, none of them a wingnut that will grab attention like Dot.Con did at the RNC in 2016.

I am sadder that there are that many people in the US that not only tolerate but espouse his positions.
 
Feb 2007
5,558
3,120
USA
#6
Of course polls usually do and did vary, but Trump was seemingly perceived by the general public as a relatively moderate candidate during the last election. More moderate than Hillary Clinton. And more moderate than Romney when he ran and lost in 2012. And I personally believe when an incumbent president runs for reelection, their political record counts more regarding that potentially perceived moderate status than their campaign promises...which is why I believe Trump will likely be perceived as being less moderate in 2020 than he was perceived to be in 2016. And the term "moderate" here essentially means how popular to the general public their campaign promises are, or their actions are while they are president.

And there are studies which support the claim that perceived relative moderates tend to win elections more so than other candidates who are perceived to be relatively less moderate (read: more extreme, with less popular ideologies)...as highlighted in the following article.:

Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Donald Trump

He ran as a moderate — and it worked.

By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com

Jul 2, 2019, 9:00am EDT

...

Moderate candidates do better

The hoary old chestnut that moderate candidates do better at the polls than relatively extreme ones is well supported in the academic literature. In 2002, for example, Brandice Canes-Wrone, David Brady, and John Cogan found that the more an incumbent House member breaks with party leadership on roll call votes, the better he does on Election Day.

Andrew Hall in 2015 looked at very close congressional primaries and found that moderate candidates who narrowly win the nomination do better in the general election than extreme candidates who narrowly win the nomination. A follow-up paper he wrote with Daniel Thompson suggests this is because certain folk theories about base mobilization are mistaken, and extreme nominees “fire up” the other side’s base and increase opposition turnout.

A new paper by Devin Caughey and Christopher Warshaw extends this literature by looking at races for state legislature and governor as well as Congress and finds, again, that ideology matters. Quantitatively measuring ideology is, of course, complicated. Consequently, Caughey and Warshaw look at a number of popular methodologies and find that you get the same result no matter which one you use.

They also find that the extent to which moderation helps varies according to which office you’re talking about. It’s only very slightly helpful in state legislative elections, perhaps because normal people don’t pay any attention to state legislative elections (as David Schleicher has argued, this is a significant problem for federalism) and have no idea what’s really going on in them. But it’s very helpful in gubernatorial elections, which helps explain why there are popular Republicans running Vermont and Massachusetts while Democratic governors hold down the fort in Louisiana and Montana.

Congress is somewhere in between.

Presidential elections are too infrequent to study in a statistically rigorous way. But it would be very strange for issue positioning to matter a lot in gubernatorial races and a modest amount in congressional races but then not at all in presidential politics. And while it’s true that Trump won the election, it’s also true that he won as a moderate.

...

Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Donald Trump
So Democrats, it seems that if you want your candidate to likely win the next presidential election, you have to promote a candidate for the general election who has promises that appeal to the masses more so than his or her opponent's actual presidential record and, quite possibly to a lesser extent, his upcoming campaign promises.

Otherwise, you might likely have Trump as your president for four more years.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
4,225
2,214
Inner Space
#7
Trump has tapped the cult of personality and fame that is the Achilles Heel of American politics. That phenomenon produced the election of Schwarzenegger (IN CALIFORNIA!), Jesse Ventura (IN MINNESOTA!) and Ronald Reagan (California and nationally). There is a quirky pathway in American politics that allows the untested, wacko, and inexperienced to become viable candidates for high office, bypassing the usual process of vetting and grooming that a parliamentary system would demand. In our "democracy" there is the illusion that "anyone" could grow up and become president--- implying that there is no fundamental level of competence needed.

This plays to those who gleefully like to disparage government, who stopped reading any book after they got their GED, and who think that patriotism is defined by supporting any act of American imperialism while the "guv-mint" exists just to pay welfare mothers to produce armed gangs and drug users. These white nationalists, who are despised by the wealthy, are never the less encouraged in their misconceptions about social policy, their xenophobia, and their support for anti-socialism capitalism (trickle down economics) because the wealth class needs that popular support to maintain power.
 
Feb 2019
1,176
490
nunya
#8
Why? Romney was very moderate back in 2012, yet he lost.

Anyways, based on your assertion & given that Trump's rather moderate compared to the current batch of Democratic Party candidates, it sounds like you're insinuating that Trump's likely to win the next presidential election. One exception I notice is Andrew Yang, if he can manage to make himself moderate enough; he's the only one I get the impression has some potential to take on Trump. I give Yang a generous 1 in 5 chance of beating Trump; the next best Democrat's probably around 1 in 20, maybe; those are just my tentative guesses.
Andrew Yang has only 5% of the support of the Democratic Party. The big 4 (Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris) take up well over 50% of the support in the Democratic Party yet you think that a tech executive no one has ever heard of is going to have a chance of beating Trump?
 
Dec 2015
17,040
15,977
Arizona
#9
Trump has tapped the cult of personality and fame that is the Achilles Heel of American politics. That phenomenon produced the election of Schwarzenegger (IN CALIFORNIA!), Jesse Ventura (IN MINNESOTA!) and Ronald Reagan (California and nationally). There is a quirky pathway in American politics that allows the untested, wacko, and inexperienced to become viable candidates for high office, bypassing the usual process of vetting and grooming that a parliamentary system would demand. In our "democracy" there is the illusion that "anyone" could grow up and become president--- implying that there is no fundamental level of competence needed.

This plays to those who gleefully like to disparage government, who stopped reading any book after they got their GED, and who think that patriotism is defined by supporting any act of American imperialism while the "guv-mint" exists just to pay welfare mothers to produce armed gangs and drug users. These white nationalists, who are despised by the wealthy, are never the less encouraged in their misconceptions about social policy, their xenophobia, and their support for anti-socialism capitalism (trickle down economics) because the wealth class needs that popular support to maintain power.
AND POWER is money.
Great post, Biff!