Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Trebuchet]

Personally I can't wait for his first foreign policy move...

A cage match with Vladimir Putin.

I want to see them comparing manhoods.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

1.) Carrying a third term for either party is very rare. It's happened only twice since WWII. That's acting against her already

Sounds like gambler's fallacy to me. There have only been 18 (didn't count exactly) elections since WWII. Two three win streaks is hardly a low number for such a small number of elections.

 

[Trebuchet]

I can actually only think of one three-win streak offhand: Reagan, Reagan, BushI. Unless you're counting Truman in 1948, which was the tail end of a five-win streak. Can you enlighten me?

 

[Toke]

Christ, you can't have followed the news. If anything it would be a banya session where they both take turns with the branches.

Mental pictures!

I want to see them comparing manhoods.

Not likely, think of how agitates he gets when short fingers are mentioned.

 

[angrysoba]

Of course it matters. It makes people much more likely to vote against him.

As for the big states, he has no chance to win California, New York, or Illinois. He would win Texas for sure but so did McCain and Romney. Florida is less certain but he would probably be the underdog. And he would basically need it to win. While Hillary could lose it (and a couple of other swing states Obama won twice) and still win.

I would have thought similar things about George W Bush, particularly for his second term victory. In fact, he was apparently so unpopular that he couldn't walk into the White House and had to be hastily driven in by Secret Service amid many angry protesters. A friend of mine from New York (who was black, incidentally - do I win points?) said he remembered how everyone hated Giuliani when he was re-elected and everyone hated Bush when he was re-elected that a lot of the insistence that someone hates Donald Trump (or Drumpf!) is literally "virtue signaling". We shall see anyway.

 

[Tony Stark]

I would have thought similar things about George W Bush, particularly for his second term victory. In fact, he was apparently so unpopular that he couldn't walk into the White House and had to be hastily driven in by Secret Service amid many angry protesters. A friend of mine from New York (who was black, incidentally - do I win points?) said he remembered how everyone hated Giuliani when he was re-elected and everyone hated Bush when he was re-elected that a lot of the insistence that someone hates Donald Trump (or Drumpf!) is literally "virtue signaling". We shall see anyway.

Yeah, except for that Bush didn't have bad approval ratings in 2004. Yeah, a lot of people hated him but it wasn't the majority of the country. If he had approval ratings as terrible as Trump does, he would not have been reelected.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

 

[Garrison]

Yeah, except for that Bush didn't have bad approval ratings in 2004. Yeah, a lot of people hated him but it wasn't the majority of the country. If he had approval ratings as terrible as Trump does, he would not have been reelected.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

GW Bush had the advantage of incumbency and as you say he was not nearly as widely disliked in 2004 as some people imagine.

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, except for that Bush didn't have bad approval ratings in 2004. Yeah, a lot of people hated him but it wasn't the majority of the country. If he had approval ratings as terrible as Trump does, he would not have been reelected.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

I certainly hope you are right. I hope no complacency sets in because of what the polls say.

 

[Arg9]

The government isn't punishing anyone for having a dissenting opinion (nor is it likely to with the 1st Amendment and all).

It could. Our government is changing. Been changing anyway but now its not looking so good. And I think thats what is so wacky about these elections.

...Though if Trump had his way, people would be thrown in jail for protesting him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-demands-that-police-arrest-rally-protesters/

Yeah, I could see him doing that—which is why I don't trust him.

Frankly what it sounds like to me like you're saying that people like Trump should be able to say whatever disgusting crap they want without people calling them on. BS, bigots like Trump can say whatever they want. Just the same, people can call them bigots for saying it. That's what free speech actually is in this country.

No, not at all. Like earlier in this thread we agreed freedom of speech means freedom of others to openly disagree. All part of the process. Only point I was trying to make is that political correctness has gotten out of hand to where it makes Trump appealing probably more than we think.

 

[Wayward son]

Trump is going to win. People have underestimated him at every step along the way, and they have been wrong every step along the way.

 

[Tony Stark]

Trump is going to win. People have underestimated him at every step along the way, and they have been wrong every step along the way.

People being wrong about him winning the nomination says absolutely nothing about his chances in the general election.

 

[Wayward son]

People being wrong about him winning the nomination says absolutely nothing about his chances in the general election.

It is not just a case about people being wrong about him winning the nomination. Experts have been wrong about the reaction of the general population to everything about his campaign.

Clinton and Sanders are going to continue to battle it out, severely weakening the eventual nominee. That nominee will be Clinton. Clinton who was already on left end of the Democratic party has been pushed further to the left in an attempt to placate people on the far left who will never vote for her anyways. That move to the left will damage her in the race this fall. Regardless, a good chunk of Sanders supporters are not going to vote for her. Some will vote for Trump, more will stay home. (If Sanders wins the nomination he will win one or two states).

Trump will move towards the center after him nomination. Republicans will rally behind him because they always do, and they will vote. The protesters disrupting Trump events now and in the future will push independents towards Trump. Donald Trump is the next President of the United States.

 

[Tony Stark]

It is not just a case about people being wrong about him winning the nomination. Experts have been wrong about the reaction of the general population to everything about his campaign.

Clinton and Sanders are going to continue to battle it out, severely weakening the eventual nominee. That nominee will be Clinton. Clinton who was already on left end of the Democratic party has been pushed further to the left in an attempt to placate people on the far left who will never vote for her anyways. That move to the left will damage her in the race this fall. Regardless, a good chunk of Sanders supporters are not going to vote for her. Some will vote for Trump, more will stay home. (If Sanders wins the nomination he will win one or two states).

Trump will move towards the center after him nomination. Republicans will rally behind him because they always do, and they will vote. The protesters disrupting Trump events now and in the future will push independents towards Trump. Donald Trump is the next President of the United States.

The reaction of the general population to his campaign is that the vast majority of the country doesn’t like him. More than any candidate ever.

 

[wasapi]

. . . Regardless, a good chunk of Sanders supporters are not going to vote for her. Some will vote for Trump, more will stay home. (If Sanders wins the nomination he will win one or two states).

Wait. You really believe that some supporters of Sanders will turn around and vote for Trump?

 

[Wayward son]

The reaction of the general population to his campaign is that the vast majority of the country doesn’t like him. More than any candidate ever.

My position is that Trump is going to win. His biggest advantage is that people have and continue to underestimate him. That you, for partisan reasons, will continue to underestimate him is no surprise to me, and not worth arguing over. We can return to this in November after the election when people like you are still wondering how this happened.

The head to head polls don't have Trump behind by much. But those polls are not worth much. By far the most important issue - 47% in this poll - for people when voting for President is the economy and it will continue to rise in prominence as the election comes nearer. In polls Trump completely runs away with that as the candidate who will do the best job in that department.

Responsible Democrats are waking up to reality:

But there’s another group of Democrats warning that Trump’s unconventional approach — and the success it’s brought him in the GOP primary — means the rules underlying past elections are out the window this time. They’re concerned that Democratic leaders and strategists may be misreading the currents propelling Trump’s rise, and they’re cautioning against the notion that a Trump nomination would pre-ordain the next Democrat in the White House.
“It’s very possible that he could win. Anything is possible in this race,” said Licy DoCanto, head of The DoCanto Group, a public policy consulting firm.

Trump, DoCanto noted, has already defied the countless predictions from both sides of the aisle that his campaign would fade into the night.

“That’s continuing to puzzle those who stare and history and say, ‘This can’t be possible,’ ” said DoCanto, who served as an aide to former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“Precedent has not been an accurate barometer of what’s possible. It would be a mistake to treat him, or the campaign, in the same way.”

 

[Wayward son]

Wait. You really believe that some supporters of Sanders will turn around and vote for Trump?

Of course some will. Seriously, about 500 admitted publicly to the Guardian, so undoubtedly that is a very small percentage of the actual number. I don't find it surprising at all. Nor is it surprising in other places like in Canada where there is a percentage of people who switch between between the left-wing NDP and the right-wing Conservatives, but won't vote for the centrist Liberals.

some 500 of them said they were thinking the unthinkable: a Sanders-Trump switch.

They explained their unconventional position by expressing a variety of passionately held views on their shared commitment for protecting workers and against new wars, on their zeal for an alternative to the establishment, and on their desire to support anyone but Hillary Clinton.

 

[Tony Stark]

My position is that Trump is going to win. His biggest advantage is that people have and continue to underestimate him. That you, for partisan reasons, will continue to underestimate him is no surprise to me, and not worth arguing over. We can return to this in November after the election when people like you are still wondering how this happened.

The head to head polls don't have Trump behind by much. But those polls are not worth much. By far the most important issue - 47% in this poll - for people when voting for President is the economy and it will continue to rise in prominence as the election comes nearer. In polls Trump completely runs away with that as the candidate who will do the best job in that department.

Responsible Democrats are waking up to reality:

LOL. That same exact poll has Trump getting trounced 52-44 to Hillary. Though simply because it is what you want to believe you claim that doesn't matter while results within that poll that you think indicte what you want to believe do. Laughable.

BTW, Romney polled better than Obama on the economy in 2012. How did that election go again?

 

[Wayward son]

BTW, Romney polled better than Obama on the economy in 2012. How did that election go again?

Romney polled better then Obama on the economy at times. Obama polled better then Romney on the economy at times.

June 25, 2012 - Obama and Romney even on economy.

July 12, 2012 - Obama tops Romney by 6 points on economy.

September 15, 2013 Obama tops Romney on economy.

October 10, 2012 - public view of economy improving and by election day most voters felt the economy was improving, and most people (by a wide margin) still blamed Dubya and not Obama for the remaining economic weakness.

(Side note) October 2008 - Obama wins on economy. 14 point lead over McCain in that category.

But like I said, this is not worth arguing over, and i am not returning to this thread until November. Hopefully in the meantime Democrats will realize that maintaining the "Trump is not a threat" fantasy will work as well for them as it did for the Republicans and actually try to learn why people are moving towards him instead of just deciding those people are stupid. But, I highly doubt that, and that is why Trump will be the next President.

 

[Tony Stark]

Romney polled better then Obama on the economy at times. Obama polled better then Romney on the economy at times.

June 25, 2012 - Obama and Romney even on economy.

July 12, 2012 - Obama tops Romney by 6 points on economy.

September 15, 2013 Obama tops Romney on economy.

October 10, 2012 - public view of economy improving and by election day most voters felt the economy was improving, and most people (by a wide margin) still blamed Dubya and not Obama for the remaining economic weakness.

(Side note) October 2008 - Obama wins on economy. 14 point lead over McCain in that category.

I guess I remembered wrong.

The fact still remains that the same exact poll that has Trump with the plurality of people thinking he is best on the economy has him losing worse than McCain did in 2008. Either the poll matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ladewig]

How do those odds translate into percentages?

I am not sure.
I guess on a basic level those odds indicate that Hillary is six times as likely to win.

But . . . I take betting odds with a grain of salt: I think the betting odds were very high that Hillary would win the Michigan primary, but she didn't. What the odds actually reflect is simply conventional wisdom in the UK. And conventional wisdom is not a crystal ball, not by a long shot. Conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush would be the nominee, or maybe Scott Walker.

I will agree that betting odds set in a foreign country have limited value. I am not sure I would describe them as conventional wisdom. They are simply the combined opinions of people willing to wager money. And there is no reason to think that these folks represent the best and the brightest: more than one betting agency offered 500/1 odds on Schwarzenegger being elected president.