Poll of the Day > Who will win in 2020?

(+) Yeah! (+)

BlackScythe0 posted...

The idea that Trump could win in 2020 is laughable. It's questionable if he will even remain president for another year.

He had the benefit of the doubt in 2016, "He couldn't be that bad!"

In 2020 America will know he's even worse. The president of Nazis, the KKK and the "alt right" is a one term president.

Keep telling yourself that.
---

Other: Mitt(ens) Romney, obviously.
---

For everyone grilling me in this topic, are you all really going to sit here and tell me that it wasn't the consensus among "political experts" that Hillary was anything but a sure thing? She had shitloads of advantages over Trump. The female vote, Hispanic vote, black vote, anti-Trump votes(which far exceed anti-Hillary votes), people who wanted to be part of electing the first female president, decades of political experience, and the backing of almost every major media outlet, university and celebrities. Trump could barely get support from his own party at times.

I'm not arguing that she wasn't also a pretty shitty candidate, but comparatively speaking the Democrats have no one who carries the political clout that she did.
---

Rasmoh posted...

For everyone grilling me in this topic, are you all really going to sit here and tell me that it wasn't the consensus among "political experts" that Hillary was anything but a sure thing? She had s***loads of advantages over Trump. The female vote, Hispanic vote, black vote, anti-Trump votes(which far exceed anti-Hillary votes), people who wanted to be part of electing the first female president, decades of political experience, and the backing of almost every major media outlet, university and celebrities. Trump could barely get support from his own party at times.

I'm not arguing that she wasn't also a pretty s***ty candidate, but comparatively speaking the Democrats have no one who carries the political clout that she did.

You are correct, the consensus of the political experts was that Hillary was going to beat Trump.

That doesn't mean that she was the strongest weapon the DNC had. She was the weakest. But compared to Trump, she was overwhelmingly more qualified.

She would have been absolutely demolished if Kasich had the nomination, and no one would have been surprised.

I don't know a single liberal friend who was really excited for her at all, ever. They voted for her because they were liberal and Trump is completely unqualified, but I know that had they put her up against anyone else there would not have been any "well at least she won the popular vote".

shadestreet posted...

That doesn't mean that she was the strongest weapon the DNC had. She was the weakest.

Hardly. The Democrats had no one who could compare to her. Despite his internet popularity, Bernie was never an option and never had a chance, the majority of Democrats never would have voted for him. No one else was even a blip on the radar.

shadestreet posted...

She would have been absolutely demolished if Kasich had the nomination, and no one would have been surprised.

Extremely doubtful. Kasich was as boring a candidate as could be. He wouldn't have had anywhere near the success that Trump did when it came to bringing out disenfranchised voters. I actually think pretty much any Republican candidate would have lost to Hillary because of how shitty the Bush Presidency was and how easy it would be to draw parallels between that administration and any traditional Republican.
---

KANyE WEST
---

thecolorgreen posted...

KANyE WEST

This
---

@Rasmoh I think you missed this post, which speaks to the issue at hand:

@Zangulus posted...

I would ask @Rasmoh if he understood that Trump received less actual votes than both McCain and Romney while still winning because Hilary received over 8 million fewer votes than Obamas weaker win. Which was a handy win.

So of course. No other Democrats can win because Hilary did so f***ing well at the polls.

Holy s***.

You seem to be under the (incorrect) impression that Trump brought a bunch of disenfranchised voters out to vote for him, which gave him the victory.

In fact, as pointed out, he still received fewer total votes than the previous failed Republican nominees, however, due to the unpopularity of Hillary, even fewer people who typically vote decided to go to the polls.

You no doubt constantly heard the "lesser of two evils" in reference to either candidate? That is why the voter turnout was the lowest since 1996, and that year the turnout was so low because everyone already knew Bill Clinton was going to win. Why bother showing up the polls?

This was a contest between two very unpopular candidates. Any other republican candidate, including Kasich would have beaten Hillary easily. Any other Democratic candidate, including Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump easily.

Rasmoh posted...

I actually think pretty much any Republican candidate would have lost to Hillary because of how s***ty the Bush Presidency was and how easy it would be to draw parallels between that administration and any traditional Republican.

I don't think this mattered at all. Enough time had passed since GWB, and many (if not all) Republicans had already distanced themselves from his policies. Yeah, GWB hurt McCain (but more so it was Palin that cost him that election), but by 2016 his legacy wasn't going to impact the turnout.

The liberal media feared Kasich quite a bit (and many of the other contenders) as they had legitimate chances to defeat Hillary. That is why they spent so much time giving Trump free coverage, to undermine them, as they assumed the American people would, at the end of the day, not vote for someone so clearly unqualified for the presidency. They miscalculated.

shadestreet posted...

Rasmoh posted...

I actually think pretty much any Republican candidate would have lost to Hillary because of how s***ty the Bush Presidency was and how easy it would be to draw parallels between that administration and any traditional Republican.

I don't think this mattered at all. Enough time had passed since GWB, and many (if not all) Republicans had already distanced themselves from his policies. Yeah, GWB hurt McCain (but more so it was Palin that cost him that election), but by 2016 his legacy wasn't going to impact the turnout.

The liberal media feared Kasich quite a bit (and many of the other contenders) as they had legitimate chances to defeat Hillary. That is why they spent so much time giving Trump free coverage, to undermine them, as they assumed the American people would, at the end of the day, not vote for someone so clearly unqualified for the presidency. They miscalculated.

yeah also look at how far back there has seemed to be a back and forth. whether they served only one term or two terms after any particular president gets out of office the opposite party seems to win the presidency after.
---

shadestreet posted...

You seem to be under the (incorrect) impression that Trump brought a bunch of disenfranchised voters out to vote for him, which gave him the victory.

That's patently untrue though. The deciding factor in Trump's victory were states that Republicans haven't won in over 20 years. Any other Republican would almost assuredly have done nothing to separate themselves from the Republicans who lost these states for the past 20 years. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that Trump didn't bring out a lot of people who typically wouldn't vote Republican or vote at all?

In fact, as pointed out, he still received fewer total votes than the previous failed Republican nominees,

And? His lack of appeal to traditional Republicans was overshadowed by his appeal to people feeling fed up with our political system. Do you genuinely believe a traditional Republic would have swayed Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? It's far more likely that a traditional Republican would lose those states, but gain more votes from already red states.

You no doubt constantly heard the "lesser of two evils" in reference to either candidate?

Yes, but that factor affected Trump much more than Hillary. Almost the entire media was pushing the angle that Hillary was the lesser of two evils, whereas anti-Trump sentiment was so widespread that it was essentially a global phenomenon.

Any other republican candidate, including Kasich would have beaten Hillary easily. Any other Democratic candidate, including Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump easily.

You are literally the exact opposite of correct in this notion. The idea that Bernie had a chance against any actual Republican is laughable. And not a single Republican candidate would have been able to rally support capable of overcoming Hillary.

I don't think this mattered at all. Enough time had passed since GWB, and many (if not all) Republicans had already distanced themselves from his policies.

You're severely understating the social impact of Bushes' presidency. Republicans were already a laughingstock near the end of that presidency. Combine that with the relative success the Obama administration had in comparison to the Bush administration, which proved itself laughably inept. Traditional Republicans had no chance, especially in a society that is increasingly rapidly flushing tradition down the toilet.

shadestreet posted...

They miscalculated.

Only in the sense that they didn't realize that Trump's message appealed to a sentiment lying very deep in the hearts of many communities around the country as a backlash to the downfalls of many leftists policy extremes.
---

You are... completely mistaken

I know that is a cop out reply, but I'll expand more tomorrow if you're interested in learning why I believe you are incorrect.

darkknight109 posted...

Trump won because of <100,000 votes spread across three states. It didn't get much press in the aftermath, but this was probably the closest presidential election in living memory (perhaps ever) other than Bush/Gore in 2000. He has almost no room for error and has done nothing to expand his popularity since being in office. His poll numbers, which were never all that good, have dropped by ~10 percentage points since being elected.

Clearly there was room for error, because FIVE of the states were close. Otherwise polling heavily favored Hillary, so putting your faith in it again might not bear fruit.
---

shadestreet posted...

1) She was never popular to begin with. I believe it is accepted she was one of the least popular candidates to get the nomination in modern history. (possibly Mondale? But that was an incumbent content). I can't think of a single liberal friend who was enthusiastic for HRC. On the other hand, a small number of my conservative friends were guzzling the Trump Kool Aid and couldn't get enough (and to this point, I believe, all of them are still on board).

I can vouch for the lack of enthusiasm -- since I certainly didn't see much pro-Hillary stuff despite living in a heavily liberal state -- but supposedly she was polling pretty well before the election.

As for conservative friends and relatives, the more conservative they were, the more she was the devil. The Ted Cruz fan -- I say fan because I've only ever known one person irl to like him -- thought she was the literal anti-Christ but, given that he said the same about Obama, I wasn't about to take him at his word; after all, there can't be *two* anti-Christs... or can there?
---

Rasmoh posted...

I actually think pretty much any Republican candidate would have lost to Hillary because of how shitty the Bush Presidency was and how easy it would be to draw parallels between that administration and any traditional Republican.

Tell that to all the Democrats who are publicly kissing Bush's ass now.
---

Zeus posted...

shadestreet posted...

1) She was never popular to begin with. I believe it is accepted she was one of the least popular candidates to get the nomination in modern history. (possibly Mondale? But that was an incumbent content). I can't think of a single liberal friend who was enthusiastic for HRC. On the other hand, a small number of my conservative friends were guzzling the Trump Kool Aid and couldn't get enough (and to this point, I believe, all of them are still on board).

I can vouch for the lack of enthusiasm -- since I certainly didn't see much pro-Hillary stuff despite living in a heavily liberal state -- but supposedly she was polling pretty well before the election.

As for conservative friends and relatives, the more conservative they were, the more she was the devil. The Ted Cruz fan -- I say fan because I've only ever known one person irl to like him -- thought she was the literal anti-Christ but, given that he said the same about Obama, I wasn't about to take him at his word; after all, there can't be *two* anti-Christs... or can there?

I never liked polls. never seen them really done in heavily rural areas, only cities, and cities tend to lean more liberal than rural areas on average. so it kind of makes polls hard to trust imo.

also I live in a super rural area and didn't really see anyone aside from a very small handful of people show support for either side. on the internet though it was a different story. I feel like a lot of trump supporters in person anyways hid the fact they supported him because they knew it would just result in them being called racist and a bunch of other things. (hell I saw video footage of a guy get yanked out of his car at a stoplight beat up and his car stolen just because he had a trump bumper sticker)
---

@Rasmoh

To be clear, we are talking about the hypothetical - "how would Trump have fared against another Democrat / How would Hilary have fared against any other Republican". I thought that was clear, but based on your responses you don't seem to be on the same discussion point.

Rasmoh posted...

That's patently untrue though. The deciding factor in Trump's victory were states that Republicans haven't won in over 20 years. Any other Republican would almost assuredly have done nothing to separate themselves from the Republicans who lost these states for the past 20 years. Are you really going to sit here and pretend that Trump didn't bring out a lot of people who typically wouldn't vote Republican or vote at all?

I'm... not clear what part you think was "patently untrue". Are you rejecting the fact that fewer people came out to vote on both sides of the aisle this election?

This wasn't an election about winning. It was about who lost worse. In this case, Hillary turned off more democrats than Trump turned off Republicans. Fewer republicans bothered to vote, but far fewer Democrats bothered to vote. There was no "mass injection" of voters clamoring for Trump that rushed to the polls. He got fewer people to bother showing up than McCain or Romney.

But Hillary lost worse than even Trump, far more democrats than republicans didn't even bother to vote.

Rasmoh posted...

And? His lack of appeal to traditional Republicans was overshadowed by his appeal to people feeling fed up with our political system. Do you genuinely believe a traditional Republic would have swayed Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? It's far more likely that a traditional Republican would lose those states, but gain more votes from already red states.

If up against Hillary? Absolutely. Kasich, Rubio, fuck, even Cruz would have trounced Hillary.

I don't think you get it. The American people did not like Hillary. No one wanted her to be president.

Rasmoh posted...

Yes, but that factor affected Trump much more than Hillary. Almost the entire media was pushing the angle that Hillary was the lesser of two evils, whereas anti-Trump sentiment was so widespread that it was essentially a global phenomenon

This is what I am saying. You don't seem to get that any other Republican would have beaten Hillary and vice-a-versa. If it was Kasich, et al, there would not have been any "lesser of two evils" talk. It would have been all that Hillary is evil. The media wanted Trump on the ticket because they knew he was the ONLY possible candidate she had a shot at beating, and even that turned out to be incorrect.

shadestreet posted...

If up against Hillary? Absolutely. Kasich, Rubio, fuck, even Cruz would have trounced Hillary.

I think it would be close no matter who ran. No one on the republican side really got people out to vote. Trump didn't just win the primaries, he carried by a wide margin. Partly due to Clinton's Pied Piper strategy, but he also energized his base, while the other republicans just kind of showed up.
---

shadestreet posted...

To be clear, we are talking about the hypothetical - "how would Trump have fared against another Democrat / How would Hilary have fared against any other Republican". I thought that was clear, but based on your responses you don't seem to be on the same discussion point.

I'm not sure why you think I haven't addressed that point. The fact remains though that Trump would have beat Bernie or any other Democrat, while Hillary would have crushed any Republican.

Are you rejecting the fact that fewer people came out to vote on both sides of the aisle this election?

No, but I am telling you that Trump's win came largely due to energizing a base that typically would not go out and vote for a Republican, if they would even vote at all. Are you going to sit here and try to push the idea that Kasich, Cruz or Rubio would have been able to swing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? They literally haven't been won by a Republican in my lifetime and more of the same Republican rhetoric would have done nothing to these states that decided the election.

There was no "mass injection" of voters clamoring for Trump that rushed to the polls.

Your wording is poor. It's not a mass injection of voters clamoring for Trump, it's that people who typically wouldn't vote Republican or vote at all voted for him that swung the election. Standard voter enthusiasm was extremely low, but enthusiasm among fringe voters was very high.

But Hillary lost worse than even Trump

This is true. Ironically, her handling of Bernie is likely what cost her the election. It alienated a shitload of young voters who would have likely voted for her if she handled that situation better or even made him her VP.

I don't think you get it. The American people did not like Hillary. No one wanted her to be president.

It's apparent that you are the one who "doesn't get it". The American people didn't like Hillary, sure, but they would hate a run-of-the-mill Republican, which is what Cruz/Kasich/Rubio were. Trump was essentially a lightning bolt to a dormant demographic that a traditional Republican would never have awoken.

If it was Kasich, et al, there would not have been any "lesser of two evils" talk. It would have been all that Hillary is evil.

And this is where you really miss the mark. You are genuinely delusional if you believe the media wouldn't have painted any Republican to be the bad guy compared to her. Mainstream media has been portraying Republicans as either bumbling dipshits, racist biblethumpers, or megalomaniacal warmongers(or a combination of the three) for over a decade now. They certainly wouldn't change their tune when the Democrat candidate is someone as widely known as Hillary who had the added bonus of being the first female president, especially considering any of the other Republican candidates did literally nothing to separate themselves from the pack. That's why there were like 12 Republican candidates to start with and that's why each and every one fell before Trump.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Are you going to sit here and try to push the idea that Kasich, Cruz or Rubio would have been able to swing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? They literally haven't been won by a Republican in my lifetime and more of the same Republican rhetoric would have done nothing to these states that decided the election.

Wisconsin has been pretty red lately, we elected Scott Walker 3 times. There was even a lawsuit about the voting districts being too heavily republican favoured.

Rasmoh posted...

Your wording is poor. It's not a mass injection of voters clamoring for Trump, it's that people who typically wouldn't vote Republican or vote at all voted for him that swung the election.

You are half right. People who voted for Obama twice voted for trump, but it's more because they just hated Hillary that much.
---

Rasmoh posted...

No, but I am telling you that Trump's win came largely due to energizing a base that typically would not go out and vote for a Republican, if they would even vote at all. Are you going to sit here and try to push the idea that Kasich, Cruz or Rubio would have been able to swing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? They literally haven't been won by a Republican in my lifetime and more of the same Republican rhetoric would have done nothing to these states that decided the election

1988 isn't that long ago. That isn't that impressive. Shouldn't even count 1992 and 1996 elections, everyone voted for Bill Clinton. Trump didn't turn any democrats into republicans. I don't know where you get this notion that he got all of these people to convert to Republicans.

Rasmoh posted...

It's apparent that you are the one who "doesn't get it". The American people didn't like Hillary, sure, but they would hate a run-of-the-mill Republican, which is what Cruz/Kasich/Rubio were. Trump was essentially a lightning bolt to a dormant demographic that a traditional Republican would never have awoken.

What are you talking about? Fewer people voted for Trump that previous 'Run of the Mill' Republicans. How are you not getting that? How to you see that data, and say to yourself "huh, a run of the mill republican would have done even worse against Hillary? That makes absolutely no sense.

Rasmoh posted...

You are genuinely delusional if you believe the media wouldn't have painted any Republican to be the bad guy compared to her.

Obviously the clearly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would have played the narrative of Kasich being the worse choice.

But for fucks sake the Wall Street Journal had to endorse Hillary, and you can be sure, that would never have happened.

shadestreet posted...

1988 isn't that long ago. That isn't that impressive. Shouldn't even count 1992 and 1996 elections, everyone voted for Bill Clinton. Trump didn't turn any democrats into republicans. I don't know where you get this notion that he got all of these people to convert to Republicans.

How is it not impressive? How in denial are you? If 28 years of regular Republican sentiment couldn't flip those states, why would anything change with Republican candidates who looked like an even more washed-out shade of outdated and boring? Do you genuinely believe that Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz would have gotten asses out of seats? There's a reason every one of these fuckwits lost to a real estate salesman with zero political experience. I'm not saying he converted people, I'm saying he energized people who wouldn't normally vote for a Republican candidate.

How to you see that data, and say to yourself "huh, a run of the mill republican would have done even worse against Hillary?

Because each and every run-of-the-mill Republican that ran against Trump couldn't even sniff his jock in this election. His biggest competition ended up being Ted Cruz, who literally no one had a shred of enthusiasm about. Honestly, why would you think more of the same old Republican shtick that has failed for past 6 elections somehow suddenly flip these states?

Obviously the clearly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would have played the narrative of Kasich being the worse choice.

Most media outlets are liberal. No Republican candidate could ever have hoped to have the media and cultural backing that Hillary did. Maybe one or two sources wouldn't have been so anti-Republican, but most of them would have pushed the same tired message that the Republican candidate was boring and stagnant while Hillary was exciting and progressive.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Maybe one or two sources wouldn't have been so anti-Republican, but most of them would have pushed the same tired message that the Republican candidate was boring and stagnant

And also literally Hitler.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

The idea that Trump could win in 2020 is laughable.

What everybody said about him winning the GOP nomination and his first presidency... Never say never. I think if he avoids an impeachment / doesnt resign, and the economy is looking okay, hed win again if he ran in 2020. A lot depends on who the DNC rigs as their person next time too.
---

If Elizabeth Warren runs in 2020 she has a good chance. Otherwise, it depends on how Trump does the remainder of his presidency and who his challenger is.
---

Kodos
---

TheCyborgNinja wrote:

A lot depends on who the DNC rigs as their person next time too.

I agree ^.^
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

The idea that Trump could win in 2020 is laughable.

What everybody said about him winning the GOP nomination and his first presidency... Never say never. I think if he avoids an impeachment / doesnt resign, and the economy is looking okay, hed win again if he ran in 2020. A lot depends on who the DNC rigs as their person next time too.

Don't compare me with idiots.

I always knew he had a chance, enough people were buying his bull shit while ignoring the stupidity. Thinking "It couldn't be that bad".

There is no second benefit of the doubt. People know exactly how bad he is now. He still has his roughly 1/3 of the nation, but I refuse to accept an open Nazi sympathizer can win the election a second time.

BlackScythe0 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

The idea that Trump could win in 2020 is laughable.

What everybody said about him winning the GOP nomination and his first presidency... Never say never. I think if he avoids an impeachment / doesnt resign, and the economy is looking okay, hed win again if he ran in 2020. A lot depends on who the DNC rigs as their person next time too.

Don't compare me with idiots.

I always knew he had a chance, enough people were buying his bull shit while ignoring the stupidity. Thinking "It couldn't be that bad".

There is no second benefit of the doubt. People know exactly how bad he is now. He still has his roughly 1/3 of the nation, but I refuse to accept an open Nazi sympathizer can win the election a second time.

Lol people like you are why he won last time. Calling the opposition nazis and idiots makes YOU look like the asshole. If leftists keep up their condescending rhetoric, they're doomed for a repeat disappointment in 2020. Communication with the opposition is better than shutting them out and insulting.