US 2020 Presidential Election prediction thread

[Sheilbh]

I don't know if this makes Cruz better or worse, but he didn't fall in line immediately.  Remember he famously refused to endorse Trump at the 2016 Convention.

Fair point, that's true. He admittedly did endorse him a couple of months later complete with the amazing, agonising photos of him phone-banking for Trump (after all, Trump loves nothing more than humiliating his past foes).

I just think we need to be careful about buying the way politicians see themselves or portray themselves, especially in the Republican Party - e.g. Paul Ryan, the wonkish, policy-focused problem solver. Because the remarkable thing is how meekly they have followed Trump despite that, which makes me think far more of them are fundamentally just party loyalists than they'd like us to think (or probably like to think of themselves when they bitch to each other or to journalists about how awful Trump is and how they miss the Senate of old that could work together). And that's exactly why I think the US is vulnerable to an effective Trumpist President.

Trump as President has revealed how weak and unprincipled the Republican Party is as a political class and also just how much power the executive has in the modern Presidency. We've been lucky that he actually doesn't know the limits or extent of his powers. But if you had someone competent and effective in office who shared a lot of Trump's vision, I think they could do a lot - as Putin and Erdogan did. I think there's a strong chance that the US's institutions might hold up better - as in Italy and Israel - but, as in those countries it's not clear how long they could hold out on their own. As I say those guys (with the exception of Salvini and maybe Modi) didn't come to power as nationalist, authoritarian strongmen, they became that through being effective in office and a corrupt political class that put up no real resistance to them.

[Barrister]

I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.

Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else.  The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary).  It's an almost impossible situation to be in.

[fromtia]

They support him because he has a unique policy agenda they like, and that more than overcomes the high barrier of entry his personality presents. Someone picking up his policy agenda without the other baggage may go far.

I think so. Charitably, a lot of people voted for Trump because they thought they might get immigration reform, a better deal for US workers and at least a cooling of the foreign wars without end. Those are all reasonable policy positions. Incredibly naive to expect a TV star with an adderall problem to be able to form an ideologically consistent government, so instead those voters got tax cuts for the wealthy - the essential GOP agenda, undisturbed by the outlier they had voted for to upend the applecart.

As for the Evangelicals - supreme court picks, sent by God etc, they must all be pretty happy.

Outside of that though I think people vote for Trump because of Republican/conservative contrarian nihilism. They love the cruel shit show. If you can deliver some part of that essential piece and keep the Evangelicals on board, you are off to the races.

[Valmy]

I guess. The GOP lost the popular vote in 2016, lost in 2018, and it is looking to have a tough 2020. I don't know if it is quite yhe unbeatable coalition you think it is.

Damn I thought I was gloomy and pessimistic.

[alfred russel]

I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.

Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else.  The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary).  It's an almost impossible situation to be in.

Lindsay Graham is a case in point. Strongly anti Trump at the start, and a previous major advocate of immigration reform (in recent days, his old "we aren't generating enough angry white guys" is being used against him--but that old version of Graham was saying that as part of an argument to be more inclusive).

He then saw the writing on the wall and sucked up to Trump like no one else.

Today? He may lose his Senate seat--he is neck and neck in reelection. He is well behind Trump in the state and his support among Republicans in the low 80s despite Trump's in the 90s. His early criticisms of Trump may be too much to overcome--voters remember.

Theoretically he could have stuck to his old philosophy of anti-Trumpism / big tent republicanism and won by winning over democrats despite republican support in the 60s or something, but that doesn't seem very likely.

He also could have taken the high road and given up on reelection, but regardless of whether politicians should do that, I think it is safe to say that most won't.

[crazy canuck]

I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.

Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else.  The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary).  It's an almost impossible situation to be in.

Impossible if the only purpose is to win.  Not so impossible if they have other priorities.

[Sheilbh]

I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.

Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else.  The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary).  It's an almost impossible situation to be in.

It's tought not to have more sympathy for them than me, but I take a similar view of the Labour MPs (and journalists for that matter) who had huge issues with Corbyn until he did well in 2017 at which point they became very quiet and very loyal.

And you're right, there are really good reasons to get behind Trump if you're a GOP politician. I just don't think you also get to have the reputation as being on some mission from God, or being independent minded or whatever if you make that choice.

And I don't know that it works politically. It feels like the people who got very close to Trump are at risk, as are the people who have opposed him occasionally. I think, I could be wrong, but I think there's a long-term move in US congressional and senate election that they are now basically being more along the lines of national swing rather than local incumbents being able to buck the trend. Again I wonder about the chicken and egg of that, but I think there are lots of politicians who have wildly overestimated how much they are loved in their local community for their distincitive independent stands and then lost elections

I suppose if you might lose the election on a national swing then there's no benefit in being a difficult member of the team, but the upside if you wing and you're a loyalist is probably a lot better.

[Barrister]

I have more sympathy for non-Trump GOP politicians than you.

Their problem was that Republican voters were far more loyal to Trump than to anyone else.  The moment you spoke against Trump you risked being primaried (and losing said primary).  It's an almost impossible situation to be in.

It's tought not to have more sympathy for them than me, but I take a similar view of the Labour MPs (and journalists for that matter) who had huge issues with Corbyn until he did well in 2017 at which point they became very quiet and very loyal.

And you're right, there are really good reasons to get behind Trump if you're a GOP politician. I just don't think you also get to have the reputation as being on some mission from God, or being independent minded or whatever if you make that choice.

And I don't know that it works politically. It feels like the people who got very close to Trump are at risk, as are the people who have opposed him occasionally. I think, I could be wrong, but I think there's a long-term move in US congressional and senate election that they are now basically being more along the lines of national swing rather than local incumbents being able to buck the trend. Again I wonder about the chicken and egg of that, but I think there are lots of politicians who have wildly overestimated how much they are loved in their local community for their distincitive independent stands and then lost elections

I suppose if you might lose the election on a national swing then there's no benefit in being a difficult member of the team, but the upside if you wing and you're a loyalist is probably a lot better.

I think the problem is that there is still an advantage to being an independent in the general election - but that's it's pure poison in a primary.

[mongers]

I'm going to call it as a narrow Trump win in the electoral college, but a win none the less, one that the Democrats won't be able to challenge.

How the GOP gets there, voter suppression, a far superior digital campaign and playing only to the negatives.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm going to call Mongers a Debbie Downer.

[FunkMonk]

We have one month to go and the first "debate" is done. Anyone care to update their prediction?

[crazy canuck]

We have one month to go and the first "debate" is done. Anyone care to update their prediction?

Need more data - like how much military hardware is being given to the Proud Boys so that they can effectively monitor polling stations.

[PDH]

I still stand firm on my prediction that Wyoming will be solidly behind Trump.

[Eddie Teach]

As Wyoming goes, so does Idaho.

[merithyn]

As Wyoming goes, so does Idaho.

And Montana.