Current Events > Will the shitstorm if Trump loses 2020 be funnier than when he won in 2016?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think so
---

Not nearly as bad as the shitstorm if he wins again

I'm very conflicted because I desperately want him to lose, but seeing smug overconfidence slowly turn into meltdowns in 2016 was pretty funny. Young Turks was hilarious.

---

Nah, it'll just be levels of when Obama won which were bad but not how absolutely awful it got with Trump.

Then again, maybe it just wasn't that bad because social media wasn't as big back then *shrug*
---

AlecSkorpio posted...

Nah, it'll just be levels of when Obama won which were bad but not how absolutely awful it got with Trump.

Then again, maybe it just wasn't that bad because social media wasn't as big back then *shrug*

That's exactly it.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Not nearly as bad as the shitstorm if he wins again

I'm very conflicted because I desperately want him to lose, but seeing smug overconfidence slowly turn into meltdowns in 2016 was pretty funny. Young Turks was hilarious.

Idk, I feel like even a lot of people who want him to lose are still expecting him to win due to a combination of the last three presidents winning second terms and a general loss of faith in humanity
---

Trump's reaction alone would be priceless, and I'm sure he'd spend the rest of his life tweeting about how he got cheated and robbed. Too bad he's probably going to win.
---

It'd be nice to break the mold of having the same president for eight years, but if Trump wins then I'm also very fine with this as well.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Not nearly as bad as the shitstorm if he wins again

More than anything I think you'd be seeing intense sadness and numbness rather than people going 'how could the voters do this again'


---

CE told me that Trump supporters are all neo nazi, mass murderers so no, I would not think that the shit storm would "be funnier" if he lost.
---

DaveTheUseless posted...

More than anything I think you'd be seeing intense sadness and numbness rather than people going 'how could the voters do this again'

Honestly it would probably just bring up a much bigger question of whether or not the media narrative of the past half-decade has accurately reflected the actual American electorate. And if it hasn't, what is the media going to do about it?

Those were questions asked openly in 2016 shortly after the election. "How could we have gotten this so wrong?" And for the most part those questions really weren't answered - mostly buried under the pretence that 2016 was a glitch in the Matrix or something.


---

It'd be hilarious if his letter to the next president would just be something like "THIS IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER"
---

DarkRoast posted...

Honestly it would probably just bring up a much bigger question of whether or not the media narrative of the past half-decade has accurately reflected the actual American electorate. And if it hasn't, what is the media going to do about it?

Those were questions asked openly in 2016 shortly after the election. "How could we have gotten this so wrong?" And for the most part those questions really weren't answered - mostly buried under the pretence that 2016 was a glitch in the Matrix or something.

tbh I think Hilary wins if the FBI investigation doesn't happen, but it's impossible to prove one way or another.

(note: I didn't vote for either one. I wrote in the bald Mormon guy, because I couldn't tolerate any of the others.)

---

Well yeah, because it wouldn't be funny at all if he wins again
---

Probably not. A lot of Trump voters are quiet about it, but Trump haters want everyone to know how much they hate him.

AdamGaseFace posted...

Probably not. A lot of Trump voters are quiet about it, but Trump haters want everyone to know how much they hate him.

That'd be a variant of the "Shy Tory" effect I guess. The idea that the media narrative is so relentlessly negative that most of his supporters don't want anyone to know they support him.

But the Shy Tory effect is usually overstated.


---

AdamGaseFace posted...

Probably not. A lot of Trump voters are quiet about it, but Trump haters want everyone to know how much they hate him.

We're the silent majority.


---

AdamGaseFace posted...

Probably not. A lot of Trump voters are quiet about it, but Trump haters want everyone to know how much they hate him.

Hahaha, no.
---

I don't really buy the idea that Trump has a silent majority, though I do think his supporters are probably more likely to answer falsely on phone polls and interviews.
He may have a slightly higher support than his numbers imply, but nobody who has a 56% disapproval rating (and from polls that skew GOP, no less) is secretly doing well.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Not nearly as bad as the shitstorm if he wins again

I'm very conflicted because I desperately want him to lose, but seeing smug overconfidence slowly turn into meltdowns in 2016 was pretty funny. Young Turks was hilarious.

How often do you question your priorities, Doctor
---

Why would he not be reelected? America loves his rhetoric that enables violence and his stupid behavior toward other world leaders.

coinstarcad posted...

Why would he not be reelected? America loves his rhetoric that enables violence and his stupid behavior toward other world leaders.

His approval ratings suggest otherwise

---

In honesty if the Democrats offer someone the American public can get behind at all, I think Trump could lose by nearly 100 electorals. That's a really big if though, because I have such low faith in them doing the sensible thing. Watching one of the recent Dem debates showed me just how out of touch with the will of the people that the movers and shakers in that party are. It's really messed up tbqh

---

DaveTheUseless posted...

In honesty if the Democrats offer someone the American public can get behind at all, I think Trump could lose by nearly 100 electorals. That's a really big if though, because I have such low faith in them doing the sensible thing. Watching one of the recent Dem debates showed me just how out of touch with the will of the people that the movers and shakers in that party are. It's really messed up tbqh

You'd think the DNC establishment would have learned some lessons from the past decade.

The non-establishment candidate (Obama) did great, while the establishment candidate (Clinton) fell apart at the seams twice

---

DarkRoast posted...

Those were questions asked openly in 2016 shortly after the election. "How could we have gotten this so wrong?" And for the most part those questions really weren't answered - mostly buried under the pretence that 2016 was a glitch in the Matrix or something.

They absolutely were answered, people just didn't like the answer or consider it legitimate. Hillary being extremely unpopular and not turning out Democrats at the rates that Obama did, a massive increase in voters who went 3rd party or write in votes in the closest states, and people not understanding polling results to pundits extrapolating and mixing up state polls with the national poll(the whole "99 out of 100" bullshit from Huff Post which wasn't even a poll).

The best case scenario for the Democrats in 2016 was ALWAYS going to be a 307-231 electoral victory, and even that was highly unlikely as it required Florida staying blue which was a long shot looking at actual trends there and polling pre-election, which saw high end polling firms having Trump with a slight lead. Which means that the EC results would have been 278-260, making it an incredibly close election regardless. Every fucking polling firm worth a damn said as much before the election, people just got caught up in the narrative and seeing what they wanted to see.

Not to mention the Republican and Trump narrative of "BIGGEST UPSET EVER, THE DEMS GOT DESTROYED!!!!" bullshit narrative they tried to push ignoring the actual fucking results in the swing states being incredibly close.
---

Every fucking polling firm worth a damn said as much before the election, people just got caught up in the narrative and seeing what they wanted to see.

I do remember Huffington Post and Verge slamming Nate Silver for suggesting Trump had a 35% chance of winning, and in both cases their counter was, quite literally, "everyone knows he can't win."

That was their supposed rebuttal to hard statistical analysis.

---

DaveTheUseless posted...

In honesty if the Democrats offer someone the American public can get behind at all, I think Trump could lose by nearly 100 electorals. That's a really big if though, because I have such low faith in them doing the sensible thing. Watching one of the recent Dem debates showed me just how out of touch with the will of the people that the movers and shakers in that party are. It's really messed up tbqh

It'd be incredibly shocking to see anyone lose by 100 electoral votes in the 2020 election. That'd require not only the 3 midwestern states to swing back to the Dems but also Arizona and Florida, and I just can't see a situation where Florida becomes anymore blue when you track it's trends over the last decade or so.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

It'd be incredibly shocking to see anyone lose by 100 electoral votes in the 2020 election. That'd require not only the 3 midwestern states to swing back to the Dems but also Arizona and Florida, and I just can't see a situation where Florida becomes anymore blue when you track it's trends over the last decade or so.

I have a map open right now that has AZ and FL red and gives the Democrat 323 EVs to 'the Republican's' 214.

---

I really don't see Trump carrying the rust belt this time around. That said, there are a couple candidates that rust belt voters probably wouldn't like on the Democrat side.

---

DaveTheUseless posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

It'd be incredibly shocking to see anyone lose by 100 electoral votes in the 2020 election. That'd require not only the 3 midwestern states to swing back to the Dems but also Arizona and Florida, and I just can't see a situation where Florida becomes anymore blue when you track it's trends over the last decade or so.

I have a map open right now that has AZ and FL red and gives the Democrat 323 EVs to 'the Republican's' 214.

How exactly though? Because I can't see a scenario where Florida and Arizona stay red while some combo of Georgia, NC, Iowa, or Ohio flip to blue. That's just highly improbable
---

The sad part is no matter who wins, some racist shit is going down. His supporters shoehorn it into whatever
---

AdamGaseFace posted...

A lot of Trump voters are quiet about it

wat

Any even slightly political post on social media is flooded with redhats replying with how great Trump is
---

DarkRoast posted...

Every fucking polling firm worth a damn said as much before the election, people just got caught up in the narrative and seeing what they wanted to see.

I do remember Huffington Post and Verge slamming Nate Silver for suggesting Trump had a 35% chance of winning, and in both cases their counter was, quite literally, "everyone knows he can't win."

That was their supposed rebuttal to hard statistical analysis.

People gave Silver shit afterwards on both ends saying "LOL YOU ONLY SAID 35%!" pretending that something happening a 3rd of the time is some kind of shock or something. He deserves to be bitter and lash out
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

How exactly though? Because I can't see a scenario where Florida and Arizona stay red while some combo of Georgia, NC, Iowa, or Ohio flip to blue. That's just highly improbable

It's really not hard to get there if you play around with 270towin. I didn't give GA or NC to the Dem (the polls in NC sure look good for the candidate that I have in mind, though).

I have absolutely no problem giving Iowa or Ohio to the particular candidate I have in mind. I think they would do quite well in the Midwest.

---

DaveTheUseless posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

How exactly though? Because I can't see a scenario where Florida and Arizona stay red while some combo of Georgia, NC, Iowa, or Ohio flip to blue. That's just highly improbable

It's really not hard to get there if you play around with 270towin. I didn't give GA or NC to the Dem (the polls in NC sure look good for the candidate that I have in mind, though).

I have absolutely no problem giving Iowa or Ohio to the particular candidate I have in mind. I think they would do quite well in the Midwest.

What did you have flip? Or just share a link to the map and which candidate you're referring to, because their likelihood of winning the nomination also matters
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

People gave Silver shit afterwards on both ends saying "LOL YOU ONLY SAID 35%!" pretending that something happening a 3rd of the time is some kind of shock or something. He deserves to be bitter and lash out

Nate Silver was basically the most accurate of anyone

---

Also I just went back in and gave Trump Ohio and Iowa (as well as another state I had given to the Dem) for the sake of the hypothetical. Dem would still get 289. Just gave Indiana to Trump too--Dem gets 278. Even a less than perfect performance in the Midwest can get the Democrat a win if they pluck one of the non-Midwestern purple states.

In honesty it really wouldn't take much for the Democrat to get the electorals necessary. It goes back to the aforementioned point: their biggest hurdle is not picking someone that alienates people, because otherwise it looks good for them. Keep in mind that they had to select someone historically disliked who was up to her neck in scandal (right or wrong) to lose in 2016.

---

He not gonna win. Biden will.
---

Conflict posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Not nearly as bad as the shitstorm if he wins again

I'm very conflicted because I desperately want him to lose, but seeing smug overconfidence slowly turn into meltdowns in 2016 was pretty funny. Young Turks was hilarious.

This is absolutely not something you should be conflicted about. Wanting someone you don't like to win just b/c "lol meltdowns" is pretty immature

it's like his very presence just brings out the worst in people.I've never seen such a massive amount of petty, spiteful individuals.

I REALLY want an English term for Schneidenfreude.
---

DarkRoast posted...

coinstarcad posted...

Why would he not be reelected? America loves his rhetoric that enables violence and his stupid behavior toward other world leaders.

His approval ratings suggest otherwise

Okay but 2016 was won by electoral vote, not popular vote. Let the house proceed impeachment so it adds a scandal to entangle his run for next term. It still stands that America voted a fat internet troll to be president and republicans will prove loyal because turning back now would be too humbling an admission of misjudgment.

Trump can't win if he only carries red states.

If he loses the Rust Belt states he won last time, and honestly I can't see how he could keep them, he'll lose bigtime.


---