Will Trump be re-elected?

[Wayward son]

The US and Russia are different. Russia does not have the tradition of Democracy that the US has, and nothing like the Constituion.

Every country has differences and similarities. You see the differences and say that can't happen here. I see the similarities and say it can. People said that Trump couldn't win here and touted what made America different from other countries as part of their reasons why he couldn't. They were wrong, repeatedly. It can happen here.

Sure the legal system might keep Trump in check, but people were saying the same thing in Germany, and indeed the German legal system caused all kinds of headaches and the Supreme Court's early verdicts infuriated the new regime so much that they found a way around it by setting up the "People's Court" operated outside of constitutional law and tried politically important cases.

And Putin might not be as invincible as you think.

In terms of within Russia, or outside Russia?

Within Russia he is invincible, and if you don't think so you should do some research as to what has actually gone on there. However, Putin's Russia should not have a fraction of the influence it currently has in the world. Part of that undeserved influence is due to foreign policy failures of Obama and EU leaders that have allowed Putin to step into the void. Part of that underserved influence is due to the brilliance of that regime in terms of stoking conspiracy theories and spreading lies among the populations of the US and EU countries that have undermined the legitimacy of institutions within those countries.

 

[dudalb]

I'll admit that's a big "if." The kinds of people who frequent a website like this are the kinds of people who get rounded up during a crackdown on "intellectuals."

Do you know how hard a roundup like that would be hard to pull off in the United States?
sorry, I just cannot write off the American People the way you can, probably because you like to feel superior to them.

 

[halleyscomet]

Do you know how hard a roundup like that would be hard to pull off in the United States?

Oh, I don't expect it to be a government run roundup. I suspect it will be more of a crowd-sourced kristallnacht situation, where "undesirables" meet messy ends and the authorities in many areas are disinclined to investigate.

I live in a very blue state, so it's unlikely I'll be caught up in any such events. It's the known "leftists" (by whatever definition that term has in two or three years) in very red states that need to worry about their personal safety.

sorry, I just cannot write off the American People the way you can, probably because you like to feel superior to them.

You are confusing fatalism with a sense of superiority. As the Holocaust in WWII showed us, complicity in horror does not require a person be evil, stupid, or morally degenerate. I'm not writing off the American people but applying historical precedent to current times. The political climate is shifting towards nationalism. Sadly, the xenophobia that typically comes with such a shift appears to be directed entirely at internal purification. There's no anti-interventionist attitude to go wth it. This will mean more foreign wars. These foreign wars will be used as an excuse, both implied and explicit, to NOT change regimes until the wars are over. This is part of what allowed George W. Bush to win a second term.

The big question will be how long it persists. Specifically, will the current climate begin to shift again when the cult of personality loses Trump, likely due to old age? I don't see him trusting anyone enough to groom them as a true successor, so any Trump replacement will have to be promoted by the movement and not by Trump. I think both Pence and Bannon are capable of securing successors. They can play a long game that lasts beyond their own careers. Bannon's influence over Trump is probably the movement's best bet at lasting past Trump's death. If Bannon succeeds Trump as the political leader of the cult of personality then I can see Trump's America persisting for a good many years. Pence would take a much more Christian Dominionist approach, which is less likely to have long-term stability than Bannon's more overtly political and pseudo-moral one.

 

[Wayward son]

I can only hope voters recognize the incompetence. I think many definitely will and many are currently which is reflected in his low approval rating.

How many Trump supporters here have recognized his incompetence yet?

As to low approval ratings, they didn't matter in the last election, and I have my doubts they will stay low enough to matter. First, people will get used to facts and truth being irrelevant and to always being lied to. Second, the media will change over the next couple years. Already the WSJ has replaced their opinion editor who was anti-Trump with one who is pro-Trump. Third, the approval rating of whoever is a legitimate challenger to Trump (or whoever is the next darling of the authoritarian right) will tank just as it did this election. Hillary Clinton consistently had decent net favourability ratings for decades. Her approval was generally in the 60s percent, sometimes falling into the 50s. There was no reason to imagine her favourability rating would fall into the 30s and net favorability rating would drop to -20 a year ago and not recover.

But there is a new reality - and that new reality is that Putin/authoritarian machine will pump out lies and conspiracy theories so quickly and broadly that everyone falls for at least some of them. Everyone. People think that it was republican voters who fell for those lies and conspiracy theories, but they were far from the only ones. Of course, Stein and Sanders spread those lies and conspiracy theories, but also a large percentage of people who voted for Clinton, or who stayed home did as well. I constantly here from anti-Trump people that he will lose next time because the Democratic candidate that runs will be a decent candidate as compared to Clinton who was the worst candidate ever. She wasn't. Clinton was a damn good candidate, at minimum no worse than the Democratic candidates run over the last 25 years, but in all likelihood better than most. But the lies and conspiracy theories infiltrated that deep. Before the election, probably every Clinton voter I knew would start out by saying, "Clinton is a terrible candidate, who is corrupt etc, etc. But Trump is worse." But don't worry, I am sure next time they will not fall for Putin's propaganda.

 

[ddt]

I constantly here from anti-Trump people that he will lose next time because the Democratic candidate that runs will be a decent candidate as compared to Clinton who was the worst candidate ever. She wasn't. Clinton was a damn good candidate, at minimum no worse than the Democratic candidates run over the last 25 years, but in all likelihood better than most. But the lies and conspiracy theories infiltrated that deep. Before the election, probably every Clinton voter I knew would start out by saying, "Clinton is a terrible candidate, who is corrupt etc, etc. But Trump is worse." But don't worry, I am sure next time they will not fall for Putin's propaganda.

Hillary Clinton was "bad" in the sense that the Republicans had been conducting a continuous smear campaign against the Clintons at least from the time that Bill first ran for POTUS, magnifying every slight or perceived slight to the crime of the century. I don't think any other Democratic politician has comparable baggage; digging up dirt on another candidate would only begin the moment they announced their run.

 

[Wayward son]

Hillary Clinton was "bad" in the sense that the Republicans had been conducting a continuous smear campaign against the Clintons at least from the time that Bill first ran for POTUS, magnifying every slight or perceived slight to the crime of the century.

Yes, and it didn't dent her favourability rating because everyone knows that partisans are going to partisan. Despite the barrage for decades Gallop had her net favourability in the first half of 2015 as +23 - similar to her numbers going back several years - and going all the way back to when Bill first ran it had never been negative. Almost overnight it fell to -19. She was immune to the continuous Republican smear campaign, but not this - This was very different. Her favourability ratings dropped like a stone when Sanders and Stein picked up the Putin/authoritarian led lies and conspiracy theories about her and spread those into the democratic voting population. The exact same thing will happen to whoever the next Democratic party nominee is.

I don't think any other Democratic politician has comparable baggage; digging up dirt on another candidate would only begin the moment they announced their run.

They don't need a mountain. All they need is a molehill and the molehill can be 100% fake.

 

[Giz]

I'll admit that's a big "if." The kinds of people who frequent a website like this are the kinds of people who get rounded up during a crackdown on "intellectuals."

Yeah, you should probably stop posting here, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Spindrift]

Yeah, you should probably stop posting here, just to be on the safe side.

Nah. He's already on the list.

 

[Loss Leader]

He may have to run another primary campaign.

The difference in 2020 will be that he will have a record in government to defend, something that he could blissfully ignore in 2016. If he can't get things done, he'll have to campaign against his own Speaker (or House Minority Leader, with any luck).

So far, Trump's greatest accomplishment as President is getting world leaders to pick up the phone ... something that radio show hosts have done as a joke.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

I'm hoping to see him burn in hell ASAP, So, no, I do not expect it to be re-elected. Even it's most ardent **** licking ******* sucking voters surely cannot be stupid enough after (hopefully much less) 4 years of his stupidity, evil, maliciousness,etc./ad inf.........to still support him!!!!!

You should never underestimate the stupidity of Trumps voters.

 

[Peter i]

Critical media will be closed by presidential order, he will make sure that the environment ***** up, motivate the terrorists to new extremes (in coordination with the Russians, they already know each other well) and thus declare a state of emergency and suspend elections until "order has been sufficiently restored to allow the resumption of classic democracy".



He is following a path taken by so many other dictators, but at a highly accelerated pace.


..... even from a distance it is looking bloody scary!

 

[McHrozni]

He's not going to be impeached. By the time the mid-term elections come around, he'll have so much Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt in play the Democrats will probably lose seats, not gain them. Anyone hoping the GOP will impeach him is living in a fantasy land. They'll probably try to contain the damage he does to their brand but in the end, a powerful populist leader typically leads to more power for his party.

This is all possible, but far from certain. Given that three people close to him have now resigned in disgrace due to links with Russia he could well become a lame duck president by 2018 elections, and a major drag on the Republican party. They would impeach him if he seriously threatened their reelections.

Will Trump get a constitutional amendment passed to remove the POTUS term limit and allow himself to run for a third term?

Definitely not. A collection of any 13 states in the US have an effective veto on that.

California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Idaho and Minnesota currently have Democrat majorities in state Senates. That's 15 states, two more than is absolutely necessary to prevent such an amendment. Barring an unprecedented red wave in 2018, Trump will not be able to secure state support even if he did secure sufficient support in both houses of the Congress (which is impossible all by itself). The party with the president typically loses power in legislative, so the chances of that happening will most likely reduce from this point on.

Plus there is age catching up to him. POTUS is a stressful job, look at Obama in 2008 and Obama in 2016 to get the idea, but all presidents age significantly during their terms. Trump is 15 years older than Obama and 23 years older than Obama was when he became POTUS. Even if he somehow managed to secure the necessary support, his age would catch up with him by then. US is not Zimbabwe, leading it is stressful and can take years off a persons' life.

Will Bannon be able to continue dancing the line between white supremacist ideologies and "I can't be racist, I'm a Jew!" to avoid being targeted for assassination by the more overtly NAZI portions of the Alt-Right? While the Alt-Right turning aginst him and successfully assassinating him is unlikely, it's still close enough to the realm of possibility that Bannon would be a fool to not prepare for the contingency.

Alt-Right is too incompetent to assassinate a man protected by the SS.

McHrozni

 

[Civet]

Oh, I don't expect it to be a government run roundup. I suspect it will be more of a crowd-sourced kristallnacht situation, where "undesirables" meet messy ends and the authorities in many areas are disinclined to investigate.

I live in a very blue state, so it's unlikely I'll be caught up in any such events. It's the known "leftists" (by whatever definition that term has in two or three years) in very red states that need to worry about their personal safety.



You are confusing fatalism with a sense of superiority. As the Holocaust in WWII showed us, complicity in horror does not require a person be evil, stupid, or morally degenerate. I'm not writing off the American people but applying historical precedent to current times. The political climate is shifting towards nationalism. Sadly, the xenophobia that typically comes with such a shift appears to be directed entirely at internal purification. There's no anti-interventionist attitude to go wth it. This will mean more foreign wars. These foreign wars will be used as an excuse, both implied and explicit, to NOT change regimes until the wars are over. This is part of what allowed George W. Bush to win a second term.

The big question will be how long it persists. Specifically, will the current climate begin to shift again when the cult of personality loses Trump, likely due to old age? I don't see him trusting anyone enough to groom them as a true successor, so any Trump replacement will have to be promoted by the movement and not by Trump. I think both Pence and Bannon are capable of securing successors. They can play a long game that lasts beyond their own careers. Bannon's influence over Trump is probably the movement's best bet at lasting past Trump's death. If Bannon succeeds Trump as the political leader of the cult of personality then I can see Trump's America persisting for a good many years. Pence would take a much more Christian Dominionist approach, which is less likely to have long-term stability than Bannon's more overtly political and pseudo-moral one.

Man, you make me look optimistic about the future of American politics. As concerned as I am about Trump, I still think that he's reckless enough that there's a very real possibility that he'll generate just the right combination of scandals to lose enough strength to be vulnerable. I think the current Russia stuff with Flynn and company is an indication of that.
My greater long-term fear is a more capable and self-aware man taking a look at Trump's playbook and realizing that he can do it better.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe. It's hard to tell because the normal rules aren't working with Trump.

He's the Radio Shack of politics. Everything about why Radio Shack should go out of business any second now was just as true 5, 10, or 15 years ago so while it's easy to come up with any number of 100% perfectly valid reasons why Radio Shack should go out of business it's rather more difficult to come up with one as to why it should go out of business that accounts for why it hasn't already happened.

Same with Trump. Yeah we could sit here and spout of perfectly valid, logical reasons why Trump won't be re-elected. Problem is they can all be countered with "Then why did he get elected the first time?" If we're going to come up with a reason why Trump is going to politically fail at X point in the future it can't simply be a rehash of the already proven false arguments as to why he never should have politically succeeded in the first place.

Trump has a very big...err Trump Card to play right now. Everyone who says he won't be re-elected is going to be one of the same people who oh so very certain he would never get the nomination, and were then oh so certain he would never win.

 

[trustbutverify]

Every country has differences and similarities. You see the differences and say that can't happen here. I see the similarities and say it can. People said that Trump couldn't win here and touted what made America different from other countries as part of their reasons why he couldn't. They were wrong, repeatedly. It can happen here.

Sure the legal system might keep Trump in check, but people were saying the same thing in Germany, and indeed the German legal system caused all kinds of headaches and the Supreme Court's early verdicts infuriated the new regime so much that they found a way around it by setting up the "People's Court" operated outside of constitutional law and tried politically important cases.



In terms of within Russia, or outside Russia?

Within Russia he is invincible, and if you don't think so you should do some research as to what has actually gone on there. However, Putin's Russia should not have a fraction of the influence it currently has in the world. Part of that undeserved influence is due to foreign policy failures of Obama and EU leaders that have allowed Putin to step into the void. Part of that underserved influence is due to the brilliance of that regime in terms of stoking conspiracy theories and spreading lies among the populations of the US and EU countries that have undermined the legitimacy of institutions within those countries.

Yes and yes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

One of the big problems for him getting re-elected is that much of his vote came from people that are tried of the Establishment. On trying to get Re-elected he will be the Establishment, and so he is going to have to convince those supporters that they need to go from being anti-establishment to pro-establishment. That could be a huge ask. It's easier to be a populist and rail against the machine when you aren't the head of that machine.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One of the big problems for him getting re-elected is that much of his vote came from people that are tried of the Establishment. On trying to get Re-elected he will be the Establishment, and so he is going to have to convince those supporters that they need to go from being anti-establishment to pro-establishment. That could be a huge ask. It's easier to be a populist and rail against the machine when you aren't the head of that machine.

As long as his Alt-right pals keep the "Deep State" narrative alive, he will always look like the underdog fighting the establishment for his followers.

 

[halleyscomet]

One of the big problems for him getting re-elected is that much of his vote came from people that are tried of the Establishment. On trying to get Re-elected he will be the Establishment, and so he is going to have to convince those supporters that they need to go from being anti-establishment to pro-establishment. That could be a huge ask. It's easier to be a populist and rail against the machine when you aren't the head of that machine.

It all comes down to the perception of his progress on his campaign promises. He doesn't need to build the wall or even start construction, just create the illusion of progress.

He doesn't need to actually deport 11 million people, just have an ongoing, merciless crackdown in progress, or at least the illusion of one.

He doesn't need to actually bring back coal and steel jobs, just have a list of regulations he's rolled back to claim he's given the private sector the power to bring them back. If he can shift responsibility for the loss of those jobs then he can keep the support of the rust belt.

It's all about managing image, and if Trump can manage that image successfully then he'll win a second term. Creating the illusion of winning even when he's losing is one of Trump's definitive and undeniable expert-level skills.

 

[Firestone]

It all comes down to the perception of his progress on his campaign promises. He doesn't need to build the wall or even start construction, just create the illusion of progress.

He doesn't need to actually deport 11 million people, just have an ongoing, merciless crackdown in progress, or at least the illusion of one.

He doesn't need to actually bring back coal and steel jobs, just have a list of regulations he's rolled back to claim he's given the private sector the power to bring them back. If he can shift responsibility for the loss of those jobs then he can keep the support of the rust belt.

It's all about managing image, and if Trump can manage that image successfully then he'll win a second term. Creating the illusion of winning even when he's losing is one of Trump's definitive and undeniable expert-level skills.

On the other hand, Trump ran in last year's election without any political baggage. Yet he only won by the slimmest of margins in the three crucial states.
In 2020 he will by definition have political baggage: that will cost him some votes. Unless he changes his ways (the famously elusive "pivot"), it is hard to see where he could expand his base to compensate inevitable losses.

We'll see in 4 (long) years.

 

[eeyore1954]

Well, we are less than a month into Donald Trump's presidency and so far he has a record low approval rating and has created so much controversy. Things don't look too good for him now.

Where was there will never be another election choice?