Thursday, August 22, 2019

So Trump's doomed in 2020 is he?

In the wake of various polling problems in recent decades, especially on big events like the 1992 British election, Brexit and the 2016 US election, you would think that people, especially pundits and the MSM, would lay off talking about them quite so much.

But polls are ideal to pivot off and talk about the issues you want to push, and they are done fairly frequently, especially in the USA, and even more so in the run up to a Presidential election.

So there was a lot of excitement recently about some poll - on Fox News of all places - showing Trump losing to the four leading Democrats in their Presidential nomination fight. Trump being who he is, has got stuck into Fox News as a result. His personality demands constant and unending love -polls, like crowds, are his main public source.

I take little notice of such polls of a President vs. several opponents or a "unnamed" opponent because I've seen this nonsense too often before, this far out from a Presidential election, to accept it. The polls only really start to count when it's head-to-head, and even then they can be deceiving, as Hillary found to her horror in 2016.

The NYT, which is worth reading only for an insight into what the Democrats are doing (although admittedly Talking Points Memo is always ahead of them), has tried warning the Party that all is not as it seems:
The share of Americans who say they have a favorable view of [Trump] has increased significantly since the 2016 election. 
And over the last few months, some of the highest-quality public opinion polls, though not all, showed the president’s job approval rating — a different measure from personal favorability — had inched up to essentially match the highest level of his term.
But even on that last point, they note this fact:
Over all, his personal favorability rating has increased by about 10 percentage points among registered voters since Election Day 2016, to 44 percent from 34 percent, according to Upshot estimates.
Remember that this has occurred during a three-year period when Trump has been under the most unrelenting and ferocious attack from the opposition party and MSM that I can recall of any candidate and President in my lifetime. And that's not even counting the Mueller investigation.

More such news, this time from Washington State of all places, and written by a reporter who makes it quite clear that he's completely opposed to Trump. He notes that in 2016, local billionaire developer, Martin Selig, received such massive blowback when word leaked out that he was supporting Trump, that he retreated from any affiliation and finally said he wouldn’t even vote for him. In keeping with this, in August of 2015 Trump had only six donations in the area - and two of them wanted their money back!
But that was then. This spring, Selig went all-in for Trump, maxing out to the president’s campaign with a donation of $5,600. 
What’s interesting isn’t so much that this one local rich guy decided to stop worrying and go full Trump. It’s that he’s hardly alone.
...
In Washington state, where his approval rating is 28 points underwater, Trump has still racked up far more donations, big and small, than any of the Democratic candidates — in fact more than the top six Democrats combined.
...
[Curently] Trump has the most ever recorded at this point in an election, by any candidate in either party, 21,657.
By contrast Bernie Sanders, who has long boasted about his millions of small donors, has 8,080 itemized donations in Washington. But it's more than the numbers:
So you can look through the list and see that just in Seattle, Trump has the support of a seamstress, an airline pilot, a crane operator, a teacher, a nurse, a city of Seattle firefighter, a UW professor, a longshoreman and about a thousand others. 
What’s more, these are “itemized donations” — meaning the donors were required to list their names, occupations and addresses, and risk the backlash Selig was so concerned about.
There are similar reports from California: Trump Has Raised More Money In California Than Most Democrat Candidates. And on the East Coast, while Trump voters are in the closet, for those backlash reasons, they're still going to vote for Trump:
A builder based in Westhampton worried that his customers would boycott his services if he reveals his support of the president. “People have really strong opinions here and if you go around wearing a MAGA hat, you really need to fear physical violence,” he said, adding the anti-Trump aggression comes mostly from summer residents.
Meh. He means Democrats visiting from New York, so violence is to be expected.
Trump won 51.5 percent of the vote among year-round residents of Suffolk County in the 2016 election, compared to 44.6 percent for Democrat Hillary Clinton. In 2008 and 2012, most of the county voted for Barack Obama.
A tale repeated across much of the country in 2016: I had no idea so many White Supremacists and bog-standard Racists had voted for Obama.

Now in all these places Trump is going to lose, and lose huge, but this sort of 'coming-out' is hugely powerful for a candidate, as Sanders well knows. And if this is what Trump supporters are doing in these Deep Blue places, what are they doing in those MidWest Light Blue/Purple states so essential to the victory of Trump and his eventual Democrat opponent?

Which brings us back to that NYT warning to Democrats, although you have to assume they're hyping this to keep the troops on their toes. Even so:
One common view of the 2020 election, for instance, takes 2016 as a starting point. It notes that Democrats fell just short of victory, and that therefore any number of changes — a better candidate, higher black turnout, and so on — would be enough to win the election in 2020. This way of thinking assumes that the president’s support would remain unchanged — that he could do little to match incremental increases in Democratic turnout or support, compared with 2016. 
But it is not 2016 anymore. Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do.
...
Over all, 28 percent of Republican-leaning voters with an unfavorable view of Mr. Trump in 2016 had a favorable view of him by 2018, according to data from the Voter Study Group
And that's the key. How many millions of GOP voters are there who reluctantly voted for him in 2016, but will crawl over broken glass to do so in 2020? How many millions of Republicans refused to vote for him at all in 2016 who now will? How many independents and former Obama voters will?

And how many of all those are due to the insanity of the Democrat Party and its MSM minions in the last three years? A question the NYT naturally does not ask.

Come on Lefties: "Racist" is so 70's and "White Supremacist" just doesn't flow off the tongue as well as being a sign of hysterical fear. But I'm sure you'll find a really abusive term to call potential Trump voters in 2020, isolate them socially and scare them off voting for him.

I mean "Deplorables" worked so well in 2016.

20 comments:

Wayne Mapp said...

I can't see that Trump has increased his support one jot. The midterms seem to show that.

In short, how will Trump keep the 3 key midwestern states in 2020? Will he get more votes in those states? Will he mobilise those who didn't vote in 2016. Or is it more likely that the Dems will do so?

Basically the odds are stacked against Trump. He can't afford to lose votes. But it is highly unlikely that the Dems will do so. Although I do think Trump would beat Sanders. However Sanders is not going to be the nominee. It is most probably Biden, Warren or Harris.

Tom Hunter said...

Midterms are a different thing, as the GOP learned in 2012 when they lost to Obama after a smashing victory over the Democrats in the 2010 midterms.

I agree that the odds are stacked against Trump - but that was true in 2016 as well. The argument seems to be that the Democrats will not select a nominee as useless and horrible as Hillary, and they won't neglect those three key MidWestern states as the Clinton campaign did.

The former must await the outcome of the Democrat nomination process but with Harris and Sanders sinking in the polls it looks like Warren and Biden are the main contenders, and I wouldn't bet a nickel on either once the Trump/GOP attack machine is done with them. Biden might actually just destroy himself, although I don't expect him to win the nomination.

That leaves the question of whether any aspect of the Democrat machine - the normal Party machinery and that of the presidential candidate - can lift the Democrat vote in those states, and I'd certainly expect them too from Hillary's low levels,

But the thrust of my article - and the NYT's fears it would seem, joined now by The Atlantic - is that Trump's vote is a moving target itself. A lot of the Right voted for him reluctantly, together with former Obama voters, including Democrats and Independents.

They obviously took his grotesque personal traits into account, and those have not changed.

What has changed is the perception of how he would govern with actual policy and to be blunt, in terms of policy, he has not governed that differently than a "normal" GOP President would have. Hell, I know a few GOP voters who were worried that his former Democrat history would come to the fore in various areas, and that has not happened. They'll actually feel less concerned about voting for him in 2020 than they were in 2016.

Regarding the popularity/unpopularity aspect? Well I think I'll either update this piece with an interesting graph or just add it as a seperate article.

Tom Hunter said...

Rossco - that was not me who deleted your comment.

RosscoWlg said...

Ok thanks Tom... I guess my theory was not thought valid in high places. :)

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Nor me!!! And I'm supposed to be the Great Deleter.

Rossco I didn't see your comment, so what did you say?

RosscoWlg said...

In short..... my theory said Trump will be President in 2010 with 97% certainty because it is almost certain anything Eggie says the opposite happens!

Then I listed all of Eggies wrong assertions.

Oh well one small arrow in the heart of free speech... to close to the bone for Eggie I suspect..... I thought he had fought in Nam and hard a hide made from long dead Irishmen....must have that wrong too :)

Tom Hunter said...

@Adolf
He taunted Eggburt over past comments.

I suggest that commentators have to judge not just the "abuse" they indulge in but the author it is directed at. I have "Roj Blake" and "Judge Holden" regularly comparing me to members of The Daily Stormer, together with how I'm a piece of dogshit who would not be pissed on were I on fire, etc, etc, etc.

These are powerfully hurty words, but they have not been deleted by me or others since my tolerance for such comments is well-known on this blog. And they usually do mix that with some "analysis", intellectually crippled as it is.

But other authors have different standards.

I did delete one the other day off one of my articles since it was just flat-out abuse of Adolf with not a skerrick of an attempt to address the article or even any comments by others.

Perhaps Rosscowig would like to try again.

Tom Hunter said...

I should note that so far the only really sensible comment about the article comes from Wayne Mapp, which is to be expected from a former MP.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

"Remember that this has occurred during a three-year period when Trump has been under the most unrelenting and ferocious attack from the opposition party and MSM that I can recall of any candidate and President in my lifetime. And that's not even counting the Mueller investigation."

NO...remember if he kept his mouth shut, did not lie continually and behaved in a presidential manner he would not have been attacked at all. In fact he may have even been a role model that kids could aspire to.

He is very flawed man being propped up by dangerous sycophants like Bolton who just wants to bomb everybody. Trumpos canning of the Iran agreement has put the world in a dangerous place and his foray into Korean politics achieved nothing but photos and "nice letters"....now he has pissed of the Scandinavians. Insult one country and you insult all.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

No again Wiggo/Chunter...I deleted because you lied about me and my about my previous posts.....but then again you are Trumpo man.

Tom Hunter said...

I think the point here is that we want debate rather the stupid flame wars. Now I thought Rossco's comments were merely taunting, but Egbut says they are lies about him and as a blog author his opinion is the one that counts.

As I said: the intention is to debate the opinions expressed in the article.

Tom Hunter said...

remember if he kept his mouth shut, did not lie continually and behaved in a presidential manner he would not have been attacked at all.

What rubbish: such attacks are standard for every GOP politician who shows signs of nation-wide success or popularity and I've seen every GOP President/candidate from Reagan to Bush to McCain to Romney attacked viciously with exactly the same crap.

The key difference is that they did not fight back in the way and to the degree that Trump does. Unlike 99% of RIght-wing politicians he does not cringe and grovel before charges of being racist/xenophobic/sexist and all the rest. He's taken to heart Obama's advice to Left activists to punch back twice as hard.

I think it's the failure of these age-old Left tactics to stop him to date that is the real source of their incoherent rage.

RosscoWlg said...

Taunting maybe a bit harsh, certainly trying to take the piss in a light hearted and humours manner, yes probably guilty of that.

But I have never resorted to ugly words and the abuse dished out by a lot of commentators to myself and the likes of Tom and others by our erstwhile colleagues.

And Eggie I don't know about lies, they were my opinions based on the facts as I knew them. Perhaps you may have been better placed indicating where you disagreed with me. I would be happy to apologise where I am wrong with my facts.

However there is no such thing as "political Science", its an oxymoron.

My opinion, which I stand behind is equally valid as Wayne's, Taking the opposite of what Eggie says has as much chance of being right as Waynes.

If I have hurt you Eggie, I apologise....as my friends say one of my endearing qualities is I always take things too far.

But on the other hand perhaps being an "expert" on everything from knitting needles to Trump carries its own dangers.

But I agree with Tom, there is a vast class in America with their mouths shut just waiting to express their views through the ballot based on my empirical evidence of conversations with Americans

Cheers

Wiggo

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Quite wrong..every previous president with the possible exception of "W" behaved with dignity befitting the office of POTUS..... this man is out of control and anyone who considers this normal behaviour for world leader is also of their trolley...... sorry did I say world leader...got that wrong.

The Veteran said...

I think it is a tad too early in the electoral cycle to be making predictions but, for what it is worth, Trump has been presiding over a (relatively) booming economy which looks to have peaked. Should it turn negative then the Clinton adage of 'it's the economy stupid' comes very much into play (as it might do here) in which case it will be all uphill for Trump.

RosscoWlg said...

And from the Carpe Diem web site

According to the data, 1) the US unemployment rate is low and stable at a 50-year low of 3.6-3.7%,
2) annual inflation is low and stable for both the CPI (1.7%) and PCE (1.35%) and 3) the 10-year Treasury rate is below 2.5%. The stagflation measure of the unemployment rate + the CPI inflation rate at 5.5% in July is lower than almost any time in the last 60 years.

So yes the economy is in great shape and could easily change but where is the other sides leader with any credibility, let alone economic credibility to do better than this?

Tom Hunter said...

every previous president with the possible exception of "W" behaved with dignity befitting the office of POTUS

I think "W" did as well - and he got treated like a Pinata and sucked it up.

And my point was also about the GOP candidates for President and my main point (you always miss these) is that their dignified behaviour made no difference to the Left in the USA: they were attacked in all the same ways that Trump is, just at lower volumes.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

It's called politics but politics without hate, racism or religious bigotry ....but never mind I'm sure there are fine people on both sides.

Tom Hunter said...

but politics without...

... hate
Civil rights icon John Lewis compared Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to George Wallace in a posting to Politico's forum "The Arena," accusing McCain of fostering “an atmosphere of hate” and “hostility” like the one that led to white supremacists’ 1963 bombing of a church in Birmingham, Ala.

Sounds awfully familiar! But hey, Obama, Biden, Pelosi said so many wonderful things about McCain that he surely could not have been the subject of hateful attacks.

But that was when he was safely dead.

- racism
You mean like Obama's "typical white person or his wingman AG Holder talking about "my people" in defence of the New Black Panthers?

- or religious bigotry
I can see it now: "Democrats for Evangelical Christians". Coming to a SuperPac near you.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

What's a Super pac...is that like a Pac 'n' Save?...I had no idea that Sth Island innovations had got to the Waikato.