Moody's analytics predicts Trump will win in all three scenarios

[helpisontheway]

Apparently they base it on pocketbook, stock market and unemployment numbers. They claim they have only been wrong one time since the 1980’s. 🤬refuse to believe that asshole will be re-elected. 😡😡😡😡😡

[htuttle]

1. Have that compared that to other presidents that the public wanted to impeach at 52%?

I'm guessing not, since there haven't been any.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Trump is a black swan event. Previous patterns can't be used

to predict this election because he's not anything like any previous president.

[mopinko]

40. this

black swan is just what we are looking at.
all other things being equal, it's the economy, stupid.
but things are decidedly not equal on all sides here.

[pnwmom]

3. How can they make predictions of all those things a year ahead of the election? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. If the savagery among our primary candidates & far left tv pundits continues, I can see that.....

happening.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

78. Who's a far-left pundit in mainstream media?

Not being sarcastic, I can’t think of anyone. But I don’t watch much tv.

[a kennedy]

5. I swear to gawd I will not be responsible for my behavior if that orange

piece of shit gets in again.

[highplainsdem]

6. They also predicted Clinton would beat Trump.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-research-moody-s-idUSKBN12W56J

[helpisontheway]

12. Oh so that must be the one time that they were incorrect.nt

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Apparently. They predicted Clinton would win 270 electoral votes...

[Celerity]

35. In 2016 they predicted Clinton would win 332 EV's, Rump 206

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-research-moody-s-idUSKBN12W56J

snip

Clinton is forecast to pick up 332 Electoral College votes against 206 for Republican Donald Trump, Moody’s Analytics predicted on Tuesday in the final update of its model before Election Day on Nov. 8. That would match Obama’s margin of victory over Republican challenger Mitt Romney in 2012.

The Reuters-Ipsos States of the Nation project also predicts a Clinton win, with a 95 percent probability of her winning at least 278 electoral votes. A candidate needs to win at least 270 electoral votes to be elected president.

The Moody’s Analytics model is based on a combination of state-level economic conditions and political history, and has correctly called the outcome of each presidential election since Republican Ronald Reagan unseated Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980.

snip

[StevieM]

24. She was about to beat Trump--decisively--before Comey intervened at the last minute.

So you can't really count that one IMO.

As far as I am concerned, they got 2000 wrong. Gore defeated Bush.

[Cha]

26. That's good to ******* know.

Thank you, highplainsdem!

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Not worried. Moody's lied about the values of

corporations before the crash of 2008.

Why wouldn't they lie again?

[peggysue2]

8. I read this last night

Don't want to believe it but the very idea is still scary as hell.

That being said, this same argument was being made before the impeachment inquiry and Ukraine revelations. Not to mention the disaster in Syria. I've gotta believe that the 51-52% in favor of the investigation and removal counts for something.

I've gotta to believe that for my own sanity!

[Cha]

28. Also.. highplainsdem has a link upthread

that they predicted Hillary would win.. so there's that!

[dlk]

9. We can't underestimate the impact of voter suppression, foreign interference and cheating

Trump wasn't legitimately elected the last time and I predict there will be much more suppression, interference, and cheating in 2020.

[pnwest]

10. He wasn't elected the first time, he was installed.

[flamingdem]

18. +1

[Peacetrain]

11. Trumps destroys everything he gets within a few feet of..including Moodys..

[Claritie Pixie]

13. He wasn't elected in the first place. Moody's fair election premise renders their prediction invalid

[Drunken Irishman]

15. The only recent election they got wrong was 2016 - when they predicted Hillary would win 270 EV...

[DeminPennswoods]

36. Except for 2000, none of these presidential elections

have been particularly close ones. The winners were pretty easy to predict.

[Drunken Irishman]

37. I guess particularly close is subjective...

But since 2000, I'd say 2004, 2012 and 2016 were all very close and while there was a lean in those three races, the margins were so tight at the state level that it wasn't a foregone conclusion.

To me, though, not being particularly close is 2008. No other election since 2000 has been well decided before election day.

[SWBTATTReg]

16. Moody's is missing one critical point...w/ the economy being strong for so long, it's receded as ...

an important factor / consideration to use in elections...I've seen write ups stating this very thing, so the positive numbers (they claim they're positive, but a lot of dirty laundry is underneath the table, and lots of people aren't benefiting from the economic rebound). It's funny that they don't mention this...I've seen this written up several times (these strong factors being so long embedded into our economy have receded in importance).

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

20. Elections are not won by the right or left!

They are one by the Independents and the middle of the road Democrats and Republicans that end up deciding every major election.

At this point in time we are not exactly winning over the middle but really ramping up the base. We will have to see if this works for the general election.

[MFM008]

79. They are

when WE dont show up.

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

17. Live in Michigan and am union

Almost my entire family has a good union job and great health care. Half voted Trump last election and if all stays as it is now most of the rest will vote Trump as well this time.

Was raised in a union household and bread and butter table issues decide everything! Like is my job safe? Can I pay the bill's? Can I feed, cloth and care for my family? Can I put my kids through college? Can we take a nice family vacation? Is my 401k doing good?

These are the main issues talked about in union households and if the answer is yes it wins their vote. Trump is having the same effect Reagan did on my family and we all know how that turned out. He is also having the same effect on other union homes and Independents.

What my family is hearing from our candidates right now is horrifying them and they are running the other way like the devil himself is after them!

We have a serious problem in good middle to upper class union homes and with middle of the road Independents. They only candidate I see who can actually bridge this divide and the only candidate that my family and the the independents I know have mentioned very favorably will not get our nomination.

This is why I am still undecided because I am using my family, friends and coworkers as a gauge. Right now they are the canary in the coal mine to what is going on.

We really need to take head of many things and come to grips with many issues if we want to get Nero out of the White House, retain the house of Representatives and win the Senate.

Sorry if this upsets anyone but just giving an honest opinion to what I see is going on around me at this particular point in time. It could change or get worse, time will tell.

[qazplm135]

27. your tiny slice

is not statistically significant. Sorry but it isn't.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Can Trump win again? Sure. Presidents usually get re-elected.

Is it as simple as you make it, not in this case no.

Trump is a unique situation and the results will likely be unique as well.

[TrunKated]

29. doesn't Biden look more palatable....

To them, since he is centrist and pro-union?

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

43. Remember when Bill Clinton said

It is the economy stupid? They are doing better financially under Trump than they did under Obama. Unless the economy goes to hell they will not change horses mid stride.

They are also looking at what are candidates are saying and think the party has abandoned the middle class and are against them. When I say we have a lot of bridge's to mend I am not kidding!

[kcr]

33. Good union jobs and voting Republican, huh?

Well, see, you folks are a tiny minority and you're getting smaller. No, Dems don't have to move right for a minority voting against their own interests. No, far better to spend the effort on growing Unions, that way everyone benefits and no one has to swirl down the drain along with you.

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

39. Trump only won Michigan

By 10,000 votes last time, that was because of union members. He is stronger now with union voters than he was last time.

Look at Pennsylvania, he has huge support among steel workers right now. I will say it again. Elections are not won by extremes of right or left. They are won by the Independents and moderates in the middle of both parties.

[Thekaspervote]

69. Just asking, do you have anything to back up your claims that unions are all in for dotard?

[PatrickforO]

93. Sure he does. After all those layoffs due to the tariffs, they LOVE him up there.

I'm just not convinced at the validity of your statement. Plus, Trump won Michigan because of targeted social media psyops conducted by the Russian Federation. Trolls, my friend, are what won the election for Trump.

And, while he MIGHT have gotten some union votes based on paying lip service to 'fair trade, not free trade,' his actual performance in office has not earned those votes in a repeat sense.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Blistering Sun]

68. Correct. Democrats DO NOT have to move right to win.

What we need to do is embrace the strong liberal traditions of our party from FDR to JFK to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama.

A proud liberal tradition that's embraced by union workers.

That's a winning formula.

[The Mouth]

42. BINGO

"Was raised in a union household and bread and butter table issues decide everything! Like is my job safe? Can I pay the bill's? Can I feed, cloth and care for my family? Can I put my kids through college? Can we take a nice family vacation? Is my 401k doing good?

This matters orders of magnitude more than ANY scandal in Ukraine, intervention by Russia, data about climate change, kids in cages or any other issue.

My observations exactly, and while I understand and respect people for whom situations outside of our borders, what they perceive as creeping fascism within them, or scientific data regarding climate, if we are going to talk only about what motivates those who are already not committed to voting one party or another, it's the economy, first, last, and always.

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

45. Our party is loosing the middle of the road voters

Without them we will have ...problems!

[The Mouth]

47. More of America is in 'the middle'

Than the people who are True Believers in either left or right ideologies want to believe.

And many of the issues of grave importance to both left and right either aren't important *or* don't track with a nice cohesive platform or ideology.

I know that there are folks for whom any ONE particular issue is vastly more important than all others, but I am pretty damned sure that except for people directly impacted by such how the stock market looks, how IRAs are doing, and what the employment rate are matter more than DACA, LGBTQ, Guns (pro or con), abortion, climate change or anything going down in Syria (or Iraq, Afghanistan, etc ad infiniteum).

It's the economy, IMHO.

[PatrickforO]

94. Last time we ran a middle of the road candidate, we lost the electoral college.

Of course, that was partly due to Russian hacking, but I'm questioning the need for these 'middle of the road' working class people. Because most of the working class now is female and minority. The old so-called Reagan Democrats - i.e. white union workers who didn't like the culture wars and so became Republican - are gone. There is no need for the Democrats to court them because they aren't going to vote blue anyway.

Let's have a bold, progressive vision and pound on it - really give Americans a choice.

[Blistering Sun]

44. Spot on!

I wish everyone could see the wisdom of your words.

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

46. Thanks!

I hope our party does take this fact into account, time will tell.

[Blistering Sun]

48. My sense is that the tide is turning.

Last night was a awake up call in my estimation. The liberal wing of the party is staged for a come back based on the advantages of the Public Option approach. Klobachar, Buttigieg, and Biden made sense last night. Sanders, at least, was forthright.

How does one explain to a union member who has great employer provided healthcare now--won as a result of union struggles and concessions in other areas, including wages--that they will see total "reduced costs" when their "free" insurance goes away and they inevitably pay much higher taxes for plans that may not be a good as what they have now?

If we love the union vote in the industrial states we have no path in the electoral college.

Losing to Trump can't be an option. We need to be strategic.

[Tennessee Tuxedo]

50. My wife has cancer

She has Lynch disease! Very deadly, was given 2 months to live! My private healthcare is a Cadillac plan, paid for everything! Very little out of pocket expense. She is still alive 6 years later!

The love of my life is alive because of my healthcare plan being so encompassing. Keep M4A and a public option the hell away from me!

None of us will vote for any candidate that will fuck with our healthcare! Come up with a plan that takes care of those in need and doesn't screw or tax the shit out of us to pay for it. Healthcare is mine and many union workers Red Line, don't go down that path!

[Blistering Sun]

53. What a blessing to still have your wife with you!

And believe me--I appreciate that there are people with no insurance--who can tell very different stories.

I doubt there is a Democrat amongst us that wants to see people dying for lack of health care.

The issue is how we make progressive changes. We are like minded in seeing that running on the MFA and outlawing private insurance is a sure-fire way to lose the union vote in the industrial states and across America.

I started reading your response thinking I was about to be offering condolences. I'm so glad that's not the case. Wonderful!

Let's work to get as many as possible the same advantages. Smartly and strategically.

[Blue_true]

88. Polls of your state residents shows Trump losing Michigan big to any top Dem.

Manufacturing has not grown under Trump, in fact it is contracting.

If Michiganders, Union and otherwise are so happy with Trump policies, why did democrats clean up in the election of 2018? If seem that if your thesis was valid, an opposite result should have taken place.

[empedocles]

19. For better or worse, Dems are a factor

[Gothmog]

21. Warning to Democrats: Economy points to a Trump win

The Democrats cannot risk nominating a weak or far left candidate. trump will beat a weak or far left nominee.

Link to tweet

But according to a historically accurate model maintained by research firm Moody’s Analytics, he remains a strong favorite to win a second term based on economic trends in key swing states. As Democrats gather on stage in Ohio on Tuesday night for their fourth debate, the Moody’s model suggests they’ll need to take aim at Trump’s record on the economy to overcome his advantage.

The Moody’s model — which was perfect from 1980 until narrowly missing the 2016 outcome — finds that Trump would win fairly solidly based on three different sets of state-level economic and political data. One that focuses on pocketbook issues such as gas prices, home prices and personal income finds that, as of now, Trump would romp to a second term with 351 electoral votes.

“Democrats need to be on high alert. If history is any guide and we get typical turnout, they are going to lose,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and lead architect of the model. “They need to be at DEFCON 1 or it’s likely Trump will be reelected.”

[Turin_C3PO]

22. He can't win if his approval rating

stays at 40-42%. Well he could, but it would take massive suppression and Russian interference. I’m happy with the top two candidates, Biden and Warren, because I’m confident they’ll trounce his orange ass. Of course, the key is for Democrats to show up in record numbers.

[Gothmog]

25. Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020.

[qazplm135]

30. lol a blowout?

You really believe that?

It's one thing to believe he might win, it's quite another to believe it will be a "blowout."

Which Clinton states are going to vote for him this time around to make it a "blowout?"

[Blistering Sun]

49. The Trumpists are aiming at winning Minnesota, for one.

They have a ground game in place. Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado are not guaranteed wins.

And let's not forget that we lost the electoral college vote in 2016. By a blow out--or not--a Trump win would be a catastrophe.

[qazplm135]

51. So let's go in order

Minn doesn't have that many EC so if he wins it, it's not turning it into a blowout.

Yes, two of the other three are guaranteed wins.

VA is turning bluer by the second...so is Colorado.

Nevada should remain a battleground, but again, the numbers there aren't such to make it a blowout.

Now, let's talk about PA, IA, MI, WI, NC, FL. Those are all states Trump won that he could EASILY lose with only tiny changes.

So we can play this game both ways can we not?

Folks need to take off their shitting pants and put on their adult pants and stop being so frightened of Trump like he's anything other than an idiot who fluked his way to the WH.

[Blistering Sun]

55. Trump would be no less the president in 2020 if he wins by only one electoral vote.

That prospect makes my blood run cold. You?

We can't play this both ways. If we can't win in PA, MI, and WI our prospects are grim.

We need a candidate who will beat him. And we have one who is tailor-made for the job in my estimation.

Bill

[qazplm135]

56. yes yes

the only Joe can win BS again.

I heard it the first 1000 times.

It's no more convincing now than then.

[Blistering Sun]

57. Look at the map.

I think Biden is the far best positioned Democrat to win.

I think he's not only win WI, MI, and PA, but also pick up Arizona.

And threaten in Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.

Most Americans are ready to ditch Donald J Trump. All we need is to offer them a candidate with Joe Biden's appeal.

[qazplm135]

62. if one more Biden fan

tells me to "look at the map" as if they are revealing some truth...

just admit that you are a moderate dem who wants a moderate dem.

[Blistering Sun]

63. Nah. I'm a liberal Democrat who strongly supports the liberal tradition of our party.

[Blistering Sun]

83. Funny that you think you can tell me who I am.

You are dead wrong and insultingly so.

What gives. When I joined it said this was a friendly place for Democrats. Not seeing that, so much.

[Thekaspervote]

72. The farther left voters like to think they are the ones that came up with new liberal ideas

Democrats have been touting public health insurance, civil rights bills, climate control, voting rights bills, Medicare for decades!!

[Blistering Sun]

82. Every advance we've made towards becoming a more just society is due to the efforts of...

liberal Democrats. From FDR to today.

We have a proud tradition that should make the support of union workers for our party a cinch.

GM workers won't forget that the Obama/Biden administration saved the auto industry and their jobs.

Scaring off the votes of union workers would be an insane path forward for a liberal party.

[emmaverybo]

89. I have to correct you. They think they are the ones who have ideas, period. Only their candidates

have policies. The rest just support the status quo because if a policy does not demand trillions of dollars in investment and untold political capital plus a substantial tax raise, it does not represent
change worth mentioning.

I am amazed that many of those self-identifying as progressives, while identifying every one else as centrist, moderate, right leaning, are not actually familiar with liberal candidates’ policies.

In fact, I have encountered the notion that Biden, for example, has no policies at all. As to Pete,
I see no discussion of his Frederick Douglas plan, pro or con, the only AA-centered plan any candidate has offered, and one certainly committed to transformative economic change.

As your post reminds us, liberals were on the forefront of every idea that is before us now—the difference is in how to achieve progress, not in the goals themselves. There is not a candidate running who does not offer plans to improve education, healthcare, our justice system, equal
opportunity, the economy, and who has not worked out substantial ideas to address climate change.

All our candidates will fight for a better America. None will be able to create change in a vacuum, by waving their all-powerful charisma. Some understand this better than others.

[betsuni]

90. "I am amazed that many of those self-identifying as progressives ... are not actually familiar

with liberal candidates' policies." This is true.

[ChubbyStar]

60. Thank you

Some people are really pushing that meme. Baffling, no?

[Blistering Sun]

64. The "meme" that we need to win the electoral college" to win the election.

How baffling to recognize the reality of our electoral process.

[ChubbyStar]

66. Gee how sweet

Here, hold my beer.

[Blistering Sun]

67. Hold your own damn beer.

[Thekaspervote]

73. It's a mystery.. one they don't like to talk about!

[ChubbyStar]

75. Wanna talk about it?

Really I am open, are you?

[Thekaspervote]

80. After your replies above, no

[ChubbyStar]

81. Of course

[Thekaspervote]

84. "Gee how sweet. Hold my beer." Catchy line for a bar. Not exactly someone I would want to have a

Serious political discussion with

[ChubbyStar]

87. I don't know I don't go to bars

Have fun!

[emmaverybo]

91. LOL. Just a meme, a mindless bit of folk wisdom, this stupid notion that we need to win in

electoral college votes to win the presidency!

[Thekaspervote]

71. You are right!! Regardless of the naysayers

no one wins a dem presidency without the AA voter

Sanders and Warrens poll numbers are abysmal.

Links if anyone wants!

[Turin_C3PO]

31. I get that

but we’ve never had a madman like this in office. Do you really think he could win if in Nov. 2020 his approval rating is in the high 30s, low 40s? I don’t see how it would be possible.

[emmaverybo]

92. The scary thing is the cheating and probably much improved cyber attack from Russians than

before. We have seen how addressing election fraud after the election works with Gore and I believe with Kerry—and of course Clinton.

So we need a landslide.

I don’t think that is an impossible feat.

[kcr]

34. The same model that predicted Hillary would win?

Sorry. This scare tactic won't work.

[Thekaspervote]

70. This!!

[Turin_C3PO]

23. I disagree.

Trump is not like other Presidents so prediction models don’t really apply to him. The only way he wins is if Dems don’t show up at the polls or if, somehow, his approval rating goes over 45-46%.

[TrunKated]

32. is the economy really dpomg well..

Most people I know are hurting even if they have a job.

[get the red out]

54. Good point!

A lot of people are losing access to healthcare as the Rs keep gunning for what's left of Obamacare. A person can have a job, but not much else.

[Gothmog]

38. The Finance 202: Economists project Trump will win easily in 2020 -- and by a bigger margin

If we nominate a weak or far left candidate, trump can win

Link to tweet

The finding jibes with those of other forecasting models that rely on measures of the economy’s strength to predict which major party’s candidate will win the White House next. Oxford Economics sees Trump winning 55 percent of the popular vote next year barring a “significant downturn” in the economy.

“While a wide range of issues have influenced presidential elections over the last few decades, from health care and foreign policy, to taxation and government spending, one factor has been constant: It’s the economy, stupid,” Greg Daco and James Watson, two senior economists with the firm, wrote last week.

And by the reckoning of the firm’s model, three key economic indicators — unemployment, inflation and real disposable income growth — all favor Trump’s reelection. They outweigh a “negative exhaustion factor” with Trump that dents his support in the projection. ,,,,

Another model, assembled by Trend Macrolytics, accurately predicts every presidential victor back to 1952 by focusing on the effects of the economy and incumbency on the electoral college, according to Donald Luskin, the firm’s chief investment officer. It projects Trump will win reelection next year with 354 electoral votes — a margin that seems staggering on its face. “To get something that high, you have to go back to Ronald Reagan, and that may not be possible in the red-blue world we live in now,” Luskin tells me.
The model stakes first-term incumbents with a heavy advantage. (That edge curdles into a disadvantage for candidates running to extend their party’s hold on the White House into a third or fourth term. See: George H.W. Bush in 1

992 or Al Gore in 2000.) And then it factors in six economic indicators, including oil prices, personal income, inflation and tax burdens.

[Thekaspervote]

74. As usual the voice of sanity!! Thx Gothmog

[The Mouth]

41. Those aren't everything

After all, the 'Bill Clinton Economy" should have given Gore a massive halo..

But they are important.

One thing even *I* am getting turned off by is the apparent DESIRE for the economy to tank by some folks who would consider that a worthwhile trade -off if it hurt cheeto Benito.

[badseedboy]

52. Factor in Pelosi, Schiff, and the 52% arising. N/T

[FM123]

58. Nice try! That old math didn't work in the last election - Hillary didn't win.

Try some new math Moody - throw in some Pelosi points and we'll see who wins 2020.

[regnaD kciN]

59. The notion of an "easy win"...

...doesn’t seem to square with trailing virtually every major Democratic rival in polls as late as just about a year before the election – a result that has held true for pretty much the entire time such polls have been taken. This contrasts with virtually every such election since, yes, 1980 (2016 and possibly 1988 being the exceptions), where it was pretty clear by this time which party was the favorite to win.

Can Trump get re-elected? It’s certainly possible. And I’ll go further and say that, if a generic standard Republican – say, someone like Jeb! – was in the Oval Office, he’d be a strong favorite to win based on the economic results. But the fact that Trump has an underwater approval rating and is trailing his major rivals in the polls despite the economic news should point to one thing: Trump is a one-off in the political world. You often hear the phrase “this is not normal,” and I think that is the overriding factor here. The main factor in 2020 seems, so far, to be the sense that Trump is an aberration. Whether a majority of voters decides he’s an aberration in a positive (“He tells it like it is!”) or negative (“He’s a cancer that needs to be cut out of the body politic.”) sense is what will drive next November’s results. So, while it would be foolish of us to assume a Democratic victory at this point, I don’t think anyone should assume that the old rules in electoral prognostication apply this time, either. Because Trump is a politician who prides himself on “breaking the mold”…and, for better or for worse, broken molds don’t folllow the rules.

[MFM008]

61. They were wrong in 2016

And their model is based on AVERAGE TURNOUT.
if there is a huge surge then they say everything is up in the air.

[tblue37]

76. If he is on the ticket. nt

[blm]

77. When polled more people credit Obama's turnaround of the economy

And see it as a continuation.

Moody’s doesn’t factor that in.

[Downtown Hound]

85. You can discount it based on this one quote:

"One seemingly important measure the model doesn’t include: The president’s approval rating. Luskin says it actually doesn’t carry much predictive power."

Um, bullshit. Not just bullshit, but massive, MEGA BULLSHIT. Incumbent presidents tend to get in votes almost exactly what their approval rating is.

Bill Clinton was polling in the low to mid 50's in 1996. He won re-election with 49.25 of the vote, but that was in a 3-way race with Ross Perot, which probably siphoned some Clinton votes.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election

Dubya was polling about 50% in November of 2004. He won with 50.7% of the vote.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_bush_job_approval-904.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election

Obama was polling at about 50% to 51% in November of 2012. He won with 50.1% of the vote.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election


These economists are using a very narrow model that not only doesn't take into account job approval ratings, but also assumes average Democratic turnout. One thing I can guarantee you is that Democratic turnout in 2020 will be anything but average. 2018 already proved that, and it will be even higher next year because presidential elections always are.

At most, Trump will be able to get around 45% of the popular vote in 2020, and that's a high end estimate that's giving him the benefit of the doubt. More likely he will end up with 42% to 44% (where his averages have been throughout most of his presidency). A lot less people are going to vote third party this time around, so that means the Dem will get the overwhelming majority of that remaining 55% to 58%.

What all this means is that, Trump is fucked. For real.

[Joe941]

86. Some are predicting the economy and stock market will crash before the election.

[Gothmog]

95. The Democratic Party need to nominate an electable candidate

Link to tweet

[Act_of_Reparation]

96. There couldn't be a more John Madden-esque observation.

If you want to win an election, you have to nominate an electable candidate. Yeah, no kidding.

The problem is we don't really know what is or is not electable these days. People certainly seem to think they know. But they don't.

[Gothmog]

97. There are many who take the position that we need to nominate a very far left candidate

I disagree with the concept that trump is weak and that the Democratic Party can nominate anyone and win in 2020. That is not how the real world works. If the Democratic Party nominates a candidate who is too far left, then trump will win. trump will have over $1 billion to use to smear the Democratic candidate and will have the help of Russia, Saudi Arabia and others. The party cannot nominate a weak candidate and expect to beat trump

[Act_of_Reparation]

98. Yeah, I have subjective opinions, too.