Here's How Donald Trump Will Win Reelection In 2020

Good Magazine ^ | May 19, 2017 | Musa al-Gharbi, Columbia University

[2ndDivisionVet]

Most Americans don’t like Donald Trump.

Trump will most likely be reelected in 2020.

How can both of these statements be true? Here’s how: Even when people are unhappy with a state of affairs, they are usually disinclined to change it. In my area of research, the cognitive and behavioral sciences, this is known as the “default effect.”

Software and entertainment companies exploit this tendency to empower programs to collect as much data as possible from consumers, or to keep us glued to our seats for “one more episode” of a streaming show. Overall, only 5 percent of users ever change these settings, despite widespread concerns about how companies might be using collected information or manipulating people’s choices.

The default effect also powerfully shapes U.S. politics.

Four more years

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms as president of the United States, serving from the Great Depression to World War II. To prevent future leaders from possibly holding and consolidating power indefinitely, the 22nd Amendment was passed, limiting subsequent officeholders to a maximum of two terms.

Eleven presidents have been elected since then.

Eight of these administrations won a renewed mandate: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Even the three single-term aberrations largely underscore the incumbency norm.

Had Ford won in 1976, it would have marked three consecutive terms for the GOP. If George H.W. Bush had won in 1992, it would have meant four consecutive Republican terms.

Since 1932, only once has a party held the White House for less than eight years: the administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter from 1976 to 1980.

Therefore, it’s a big deal that Trump is now the default in American politics. Simply by virtue of this, he is likely to be reelected.

Popularity is overrated

Trump won his first term, despite record low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. He will probably be able to repeat this feat, if necessary.

The president continues to enjoy staunch support from the voters who put him in the White House. He has raised millions of dollars in small donations for reelection, pulling in twice as much money as Barack Obama in his first 100 days. And he’s already putting that money to use running ads in key states that trumpet his achievements and criticize political rivals.

Although most don’t like or trust Trump, polls show he seems to be meeting or exceeding Americans’ expectations so far. In fact, an ABC News/ Washington Post survey suggests that if the election had been held again in late April, Trump would have not only won the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well—despite his declining approval rating.

To further underscore this point, consider congressional reelection patterns.

Since World War II, the incumbency rate has been about 80 percent for the House of Representatives and 73 percent for the Senate. Going into the 2016 election, Congress’ approval rating was at an abysmal 15 percent. Yet their incumbency rate was actually higher than usual: 97 percent in the House and 98 percent in the Senate.

As a function of the default effect, the particular seats which happen to be open this cycle, and Republican dominance of state governments—which has allowed them to draw key congressional districts in their favor—it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to gain even a simple majority in the Senate in 2018. The House? Even less likely.

Trump … or who?

Due to the default effect, what matters most is not how the public feels about the incumbent, but how they feel about the most likely alternative.

Carter didn’t just have low approval ratings, he also had to square off against Ronald Reagan. “The Gipper” was well-known, relatable and media-savvy. Although the Washington establishment largely wrote off his platform with derisive terms like “voodoo economics,” the American public found him to be a visionary and inspirational leader—awarding him two consecutive landslide victories.

Trump’s opposition is in much worse shape. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging voters for the better part of a decade. Democrats are viewed as being more “out of touch” with average Americans than Trump or the Republicans. Yet key players in the Democratic National Committee still resist making substantive changes to the party’s platform and strategy. Hence, it remains unclear how Democrats will broaden their coalition, or even prevent its continued erosion.

Trump is not likely to follow in Carter’s footsteps. Other modern precedents seem more plausible.

For instance, Truman had an approval rating of around 39 percent going into the 1948 election, yet managed to beat challenger Thomas Dewey by more than 2 million in the popular vote, and 114 in the Electoral College. Then candidate Trump held raucous rallies in key states and districts, growing ever larger as the race neared its end. However, the media disregarded these displays of support because his base was not well-captured in polls. As a result, his victory came as a total surprise to virtually everyone. Sound familiar?

One could also look to Trump’s harbinger, Richard Nixon. Throughout Nixon’s tenure as president, he was loathed by the media. Temperamentally, he was paranoid, narcissistic, and often petty. Nonetheless, Nixon was reelected in 1972 by one of the largest margins in U.S. history—winning the popular vote by more than 22 percentage points and the Electoral College by a spread of over 500.

Of course, Nixon ultimately resigned under threat of impeachment. But not before he radically reshaped the Supreme Court, pushing it dramatically rightward for more than a generation. Trump is already well on his way in this regard.

And like Nixon, Trump is unlikely to be impeached until his second term, if at all.

Impeachment would require a majority in the House. Removing Trump from office would require at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate as well.

Nixon faced impeachment because, even after his landslide reelection, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by a Republican-controlled House, but was acquitted in the Senate because the GOP controlled only 55 seats.

Without massive Republican defections, Democrats will not be in a position to impeach Trump, let alone achieve the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to actually remove him from the Oval Office. The 2018 elections will not change this reality.

In other words, we can count on Trump surviving his first term—and likely winning a second.

Consider the example of George W. Bush, who, like Trump, assumed the presidency after losing the popular vote but taking the Electoral College. His tenure in office diverged wildly from his campaign commitments. He was prone to embarrassing gaffes. He was widely panned as ignorant and unqualified. Forced to rely heavily upon his ill-chosen advisors, he presided over some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent American history. Many of his actions in office were legally dubious as well. Yet he won reelection in 2004 by a healthy 3.5 million votes—in part because the Democrats nominated John Kerry to replace him.

Without question, Kerry was well-informed and highly qualified. He was not, however, particularly charismatic. His cautious, pragmatic approach to politics made him seem weak and indecisive compared to Bush. His long tenure in Washington exacerbated this problem, providing his opponents with plenty of “flip-flops” to highlight, suggesting he lacked firm convictions, resolve, or vision.

If Democrats think they will sweep the 2020 general election simply by nominating another “grown-up,” then they’re almost certainly going to have another losing ticket.

For Trump to be the next Jimmy Carter, it won’t be enough to count on his administration to fail. Democrats will also have to produce their own Ronald Reagan to depose him. So far, the prospects don’t look great.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Except that polling on Trump has been notoriously FAKE. I still believe that he has half the voters on his side.

[SmokingJoe]

Regan had approval ratings of 35% in 1983. In 1984 he won reelection in a landslide, taking 49 out of 50 states.

[Vendome]

So, he’s gonna win, you say?

Well, let’s do a little math to see how this plays out and I totally agree he will.

The left has totally overplayed their racist, mysoginy, homophobic meme and now are in an all out war to destroy history, culture and our future

They have literally Fk'd themselves in the South, of that there can be no doubt. It's freaking over for them.

Coal Country? Ditto

I'm sure Trump and the administration wasn't thinking things would be so bad that even "so called" republicans would lay down with dirty dogs and come up with fleas

Make America Great Again. A new direction for the rest of the century.

Deliver an even bigger majority in 2018 to set up redistricting in 2020.

Here are some real math numbers.

1st. 2018 is not going to end well for them. They have 25 seats up, with 11 vulnerable. Compare that to the Republicans who have only seats up with merely 2 vulnerable.

Let’s just say losing 30% cor the Dems would be a friggin disaster but, not as bad as 2020....more later.

I think Trump will relish that victory but, it only gets better on matters of substance from there.

2nd. SCOTUS...3 more turns at bat over the next 8 years.

3rd. Federal Judges. Over the next 7.5 years we will realign more than 1/2 or more than 700 Federal Judges and may even break up pesky courts like the 9th.

Hell, we could replace a few annoying judges in Hawaii.

4th. The Wall.

Whomp!

5th. Obamacare will be repealed. “OH NOES!”

6th. Lower Capital gains tax and offer enticing tax advantages to repatriate some of the $3 Trillion offshore and put that capital to work investing in factories and new business ideas. This will invigorate the economy.

Boom! Shams Laka...Boom! Oh, the economy this quarter is on track to out perform any year or quarter than the last guy could must.

In fact, this quarter will out perform Barack’s best quarter by nearly double at 3.7%! “Oooh RahhH!”

7th. 2020. Dems have 11 Senate seats up, compared to 22 for Republicans.

We probably have a net gain of 3 for the Senate.

All 435 seats in Congress are up but, if we can get the issues of healthcare coverage, The economy and the wall in progress as well at least SCOTUS we will probably have an increase in the house as well(I am still studying that battlefield and don’t have numbers yet)

So why all the fighting from the Dems and these charges which are no more than vapor?

Well, their product sucks. Its a stew of hate, Socialism/Marxist utopian ideals and more segregation of society by invented classes of aggrieved people.

But, the real kicker is this about Reapportionment. Can you say Entropy?

8. Yeah that’s right. With more wins under the belt of the Republicans we will have a larger swath of land to carve up because the census will take place, which the predicate for redistricting and guess who wins that fight no matter what?

Republicans and we get an increase in key states we will continue to win. Alabama, Georgia and Florida will gain 1 more representative in the house, who will likely be a Republican

However, Texas will gain 3 or 4 representatives locking up the south for Republicans over the next decade.

So, in 2020 we will gain further majorities in the house and senate, redistrict in our favor, we will be in the middle of an economy that out performs all other nations, 2 SCOTUS or more will be seated in our favor, 300-400 Federal judges are seated Obamacare/Check, Tax Policy/Check, The Wall/Check, Fair Trade/Check, ISIS Dead/Check, Russia petitions for statehood (jus kee dean), Trump Re-elected / Yuge Check.

And the dems wander the wilderness for 10 years because they stand zero chance of doing anything significant after 2020.

You see, as of June 2017 the DNC is not only running an insane $3.5 million dollars in debt but, their fundraising is at the lowest in 14 years.

Who has momentum then and who is winning? Stupet fkrs...

And they have no candidate for 2020 as yet but, their current financial or intellectual leadership.

Oh, and that Trump meme “ He’s going to step down!” Uhmmm...Boo Chit.

You are intellectually Bankrupt as the demoncrats:

He’s already fund-raising for his 2020 PAC with $12,000,000 cash on hand.

That’s right. After disbursements he’s got $12 million Cash!. That’s debt free money. Oh, and the RNC is cash flow positive with $44,000,000 in the bank. I ask you, at this point, who is going to win?

Conclusion:

Democrats are so broke they can’t pay attention and have zero money to support any war but a Cheap azz Chinese knockoff of an intellect.

So, get use to Donald Trump being president for 8 years.

[Vendome]

Yeah but, it wasn’t 50 out of 50...erh...uhm out of 57...

[cba123]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Impeachment of Bill Clinton

The impeachment process of Bill Clinton was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

[Vision Thing]

A little intellectual honesty from some Columbia University schlub with a middle-eastern name? And he is equally belligerent against all the politicians he mentions in his article, not just against President Trump?

If Allan Bloom were still alive, he would be floored, because this university schmuck completely flies against one of Bloom’s contentions in The Closing of the American Mind: the university people want to be just like the people in politics and in business. Instead, this university guy hates everybody.

[pepsionice]

If approval ratings had existing 1863....Lincoln would have been to single digits. If you surveyed Adolph Hitler in 1938, he would have been at 98-percent approval. It’s worth saying that approval ratings really don’t amount to much.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Maybe he’s a Kurd. LOL

[2ndDivisionVet]

They say that if Adolph Hitler had died in 1938 he’d be considered one of the Top 5 Germans who ever lived.

[edie1960]

Bravo, Vendome!!!
Thanks for sharing such an awesome post.
Indeed, I’ve counted on President Trump being in the White House from the first time I boarded the Trump Train just after the first primary debate (his clash with Megan Kelly).

He definitely, absolutely, unequivocally is the leader we need at this perilous pivotal point in history to MAGA and to keep us safe!!!

[Boomer]

The leftist Kool-Aid drinkers are forgetting there’s poison in their drinks and asking for doubles.

The dem party appears to withering to my eye. I think it’s because it’s all about hate with no message of doing anything good for the people or country in general. The dems, under obama, lost a lot of the middle class working people simply for making ridiculous regulations which harmed businesses big and small. The over the top EPA was part of that problem. Obama single-handedly set race relations back decades. It figures the first sorta black President would be a race baiter and even had the head race baiter and tax cheat Sharpton visit the White House up to 200 times. And who isn’t sick of the entire LGBT nonsense? Sheesh! Enough already!

These things don’t happen in a vacuum. They were deliberate and purposeful and not in a good way.

Leftists hate America and want to change it into something completely different. The problem with that is those of us who love our country don’t want to see that happen which is why at some point a second civil war must happen and one ideology or the other must win. We simply can’t go on like this much longer wanting to kill each other. One side will have to give in to the other side at some point which can only be accomplished by open warfare.

Then the question becomes; will the other side stop and acquiesce. Let’s say the right wins, knowing what we know about the left, does anyone really think they would give up their quest to turn America into another France or whatever their perfect country looks like? I don’t. So what then; endless guerrilla warfare as they snipe at our heels forever more? Hard questions with no easy answers.

Can we continue to occupy the same space or will something drastic have to happen like North and South Ireland where the country literally divides by ideology? No leftists allowed in X states and no conservatives allowed in Y states?

I hope our leadership figures it out soon because it feels like we will need the answer to this sooner rather than later. Just sayin’...

[Fhios]

Some good points, some false points, fortunately most of the false points are obvious.

[Paladin2]

Single digit million$ shouldn’t be a problem for Rats. The Clintoonz could fix that tomorrow, along with any number of richer rat supporters.

[cgbg]

If the Republican Congress could pretend to be a Republican Congress now and then it would really help. :-(

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Republicans and we get an increase in key states we will continue to win. Alabama, Georgia and Florida will gain 1 more representative in the house, who will likely be a Republican

However, Texas will gain 3 or 4 representatives locking up the south for Republicans over the next decade."

Actually, Alabama is set to lose a seat, and since the only Dem seat is a Black VRA (Voting Rights Act) seat, the GOP will lose the seat. Georgia is not set to gain any seats in 2022. Florida may gain 2, however with the unconstitutional approval of "Fair Voting Districts" (Read: Draw More Dem Seats for the Dem Minority), I can almost guarantee the courts will force the legislature to hand them to the Democrats. The "Fair Vote" is already responsible for giving the Dems 4 seats they wouldn't and shouldn't have.

Texas could gain 1-3 seats (not 4), but again, as with FL, Federal Judges will hang over the legislature the Sword of Democrats(sic) forcing them to hand most, if not all of those seats to Hispanic Democrats and trying to force down the current number of GOP seats (they're trying to do so even now).

Other potential changes: Arizona: +1 (to 10) - they have an "Independent Commission" which manages to help Democrats win a majority of seats despite only having a minority of the vote (they gave the Dems a 5-4 majority from 2013, with the GOP only narrowly capturing that 5th seat in 2014. If the legislature drew the seats, it would be a 7R-2D breakdown. I guarantee that "Independent" board will try to make it a 6D or 7D to 4 or 3R breakdown for 2023.

Colorado: +1 (to 8) - With a Dem Governor and half or whole Dem legislature, they will try to kick out the GOP majority and try to get the GOP down to 2 or 3 seats, probably with the help of a federal judge.

Illinois: -1 (to 17) - Certain to be taken out of the remaining GOP seats in an already badly gerrymandered Democrat plan, thanks to a heavy (and also badly gerrymandered Dem legislature). Even if Rauner wins reelection, he will be of no help to the GOP.

Michigan: -1 (to 13) - Again, likely to force 2 Republicans together. Just-Us will never allow 2 Black Detroit Dems into one seat despite being down to around only a half-million Blacks in the city.

Minnesota: -1 (to 7) - Could go either way, it would be tempting to put St. Paul and Minneapolis, both Commie Red political hellholes into one seat, but that's only if the GOP wins the Guv and legislature. As it is, the GOP should have a 6-2 majority instead of just 3 seats.

New York: -1 (to 26) - Which reflexively screws the GOP at every census now. They're already badly underrepresented at the Congressional level. The Dems will take it out of an upstate GOP seat or perhaps merge 2 Long Island districts.

North Carolina: +1 (to 14) - Dem Judges may force the GOP legislature to draw more Dem leaning seats. In this case, with an 9-4 GOP majority at present, they might be better off giving the Dems a seat in order to keep their seats safe.

Ohio: -1 (to 15) - GOP legislature will likely have to combine 2 Republicans simply because the Dems don't have but a few seats, designed to corral them into a few areas. It would be nice if we could take it out of Democrat Tim Ryan's district, which was swinging towards Trump as a White working class area.

Oregon: +1 (to 6) - Which has kept the GOP at 1 seat for years despite their deserving 2-3 of the seats. The Dems will probably try to create another Dem seat fanning out from Portlandia. They could empty a huge number of moonbats and still keep 2 or 3 seats safe just there alone.

Pennsylvania: -1 (to 17) - As with Ohio, the GOP legislature will likely have to put 2 Republicans together simply because there are too few Dem seats left, unless they can find a way to merge Philly's 1st and 2nd into one, though both are Black VRA districts, despite the fact that one has never elected a Black member (the Bob Brady seat).

Rhode Island: -1 (to 1) - The good news is that being reduced to a single at-large seat, the Dem majorities there can't gerrymander the seats, as if it would matter. The GOP might be competitive at some point in the future. They haven't won a House seat here since 1992.

West Virginia: -1 (to 2) - Unfortunately, here, too, just as the GOP finally regained a majority, WV's ultra-stagnant growth under the Democrats for decades is costing the GOP and this will eliminate a GOP seat.

[ImNotLying]

AMEN and Halle-freaking-lujah. MAGA

[Impy]

Reapportionment of course won’t come into play until the 2022 midterms, will be the same map in ‘20 as ‘16.

It is VERY good that we have a GOP President overseeing the 2020 census.

[Impy]

In IL, if Rauner wins AND we can maintain over 40% in either leg chamber then there is a chance at compromise or the drawing the name out of a stovepipe hat or crystal bowl tiebreaker which we won in 1991 but lost in 1981 and 2001. If I had been Sec of State Jim Edgar in 1981 and drew a rat name I’d have overturned the hat and let the rats sue over it. Only thing keeping the GOP from full control of ‘82 redistricting was a 1 seat rat majority in the State Senate.

Even under the current map, rats should not have so many state leg seats, ugh. They gained way too many in 2006/08 and have managed to keep them. Only won the State House majority once in 5 tries under the 90’s GOP map. This state is so lame.

No way to stick Kildee and Levin in the same seat in MI? I thought we discussed this.

We need to win the GD MN Governorship next year and control it in that state, (which Trump should win in 2020) with all the liberal twin city burbs (Paulsen’s seat went for Shill) I’d go on the safe side and draw a 5-2 GOP. Winning sec of state and ag wouldn’t hurt either.

[Impy]

Ping to 19