Posted on 08/18/2017 1:11:48 AM PDT by 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.
PA, can’t eff over Cartwright instead of an R?
The drawing of the seats of course doesn’t effect the changes to the electoral college, Texas gaining is helpful on that front, how does that break down? Looks like close to a push.
He has already declared his candidacy, hence he has already WON!
If immigration is down 70% how many votes will the Dems lose.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/11/colorado-voters-unregister-donald-trump-integrity-commission/
If immigration is down 70% how many votes will the Dems lose.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/11/colorado-voters-unregister-donald-trump-integrity-commission/
First line:
“Most Americans don’t like Donald Trump.”
I stopped reading there.
This article starts with the lie “Most Americans don’t like Trump.” Blatant lie. Most Americans do like Trump and will vote for him again.
10...Consistent GDP over 3%...and JOBS growth.
Stopped reading after first sentence.
Musa al-Gharbi?
I refuse to accept opinions from anti-American foreigners who hate my people and seek to destroy my country.
This person is an enemy alien.
I like the cut of your jib!
2 words, FRiend: Tolerance Camp.
Not for you. For them, to turn them back into normal humans.
Trump will win re-election in no small part due to the Democrats lack of ideas and a credible candidate.
You have to either be in the south, or located within a Trump stronghold surrounded by friends to have any confidence of publicly expressing support for Trump, whether it's a rally or just a pollster asking you a question over the phone. However, the fact that the MSM is still using tired old tactics like polling and focus groups in this information war should be heartening.
To draw an analogy, it's like attempting to mount a horse mounted cavalry charge in WWI. Oh, wait, both sides did try this initially until the lessons of cannon and machine guns were driven home. Thereafter, troops where dispersed along lines, becoming of course, the trenches of the Western front.
Back to the present day, the 10s of millions of people on the 'net represent the dispersed troops. They are required - for only one day - to expose themselves to enemy 'fire' when they go to vote (if they don't use mail in ballots). Otherwise, they keep opinions to themselves and mark the day they can take effective action via the ballot box.
I believe that DNC management is well aware of this trend. After all, they aren't stupid. Their job is to try and win (cheat) elections; there is no other way to power. The MSM can parrot this bullshite all day long, but until the DNC begins to focus on crafting some kind of workable coalition that reaches beyond ID politics, they are going to be lost for a very long time.
Well, I guess we will have to continue our regiztration gains and win these seats anyway.
People rarely vote “for” a candidate in a presidential election. What they really do is vote “against” a candidate. The only time in my entire life I’ve voted “for” a candidate is 1980.
And you notice I didn’t include 1984...
It’s not that people liked Trump. I didn’t. It’s that they HATED Hillary.
The good news is that Trump has been my favorite president in my entire life (I’m 63).
DJ, your take on redistricting is way, way too pessimistic. Unless the GOP gets killed in state governor’s races next year, it will control redistricting in most of the states that you mentioned, and your claims of judicial interference are overblown. Case in point, NC, where even when a liberal judge forced the GOP legislature to redraw congressional districts (because they took race into consideration *exactly as the DOJ had mandated and Democrat redistricters had done in the prior two rounds of redistricting*), the GOP legislature redrew the maps and we still came away with the same 10-3 split as in the original map. (BTW, NC is one state that we don’t need to worry about whether the RAT steals the governorship once again in 2020, given that the state constitution does not grant the governor veto power over redistricting legislation.)
I’m not going to go into too much detail here, but I’ll mention a couple of states where you’re pessimism is unfounded. In OH (which will lose one seat), unless the 2018 and 2020 elections reveal that GOP gains in blue-collar NE OH were a total fluke, it will be relatively easy for GOP redistricters to eliminate Tim Ryan’s Mahoning/Warren-based CD. Moreover, If GOP blue-collar gains are real, it may not be necessary to have two RAT cities taking in Cleveland (a white one that stretches all the way to Toledo, and a black one that slinks down to take in black parts of Akron) and instead have one hyper-Democrat CD in Cleveland (still black-majority, so it won’t give us VRA problems), which would turn the already very Republican OH U.S. House delegation (12R, 4D) into a hyper-Republican 13R, 2D delegation, with the new GOP district being drawn in the Cleveland suburbs.
PA also will lose one seat, and if 2016 GOP gains in blue-collar areas were not a fluke (I’m not talking about Trump’s performance which I doubt can be replicated by House GOP candidates in PA; I’m using Toomey’s performance as a truer proxy of what we may expect from congressional candidates not just in blue-collar areas but in affluent areas, where Toomey’s drop from 2010 was not as great as Trump’s drop from Romney’s results), Cartwright’s Scranton/Wilkes-Barre/Easton CD (which stupidly includes all of conservative Schuylkill County; Republicans were afraid of Democrat Congressman Holden winning any district with his home county in it) can be eliminated quite easily. And there is no need to draw a single heavily black CD in Philly (which, in any even, may lead to the courts intervening under the new liberal theory that having too large of a black majority in a black-majority CD is unconstitutional, since the three heavily RAT seats in the Philly metro area merely can be expanded to take in RAT voters from marginal GOP CDs that surround them (think of heavily RAT areas in Lower Bucks, Montco and Delco currently in the 8th, 6th and 7th CDs).
MN will lose a seat, and if the GOP gets to control the process it would be easy to draw two heavily RAT CDs in the Twin Cities area (again, no need to get greedy and draw a CD that combines Minneapolis and St. Paul, since the close-in suburbs are so Democrat that one won’t be able to avoid drawing another RAT CD there anyhow) and end up with a 5R-2D House delegation (a huge improvement from the current 5D-3R delegation in which three RATs represent GOP-leaning or marginal CDs and two Republicans represent RAT-leaning or marginal CDs).
TX will gain 3 seats (it would be shocking if it were only 2, and 4 is unlikely), and Democrats will not control the process or be able to increase their net numbers. Given Trump’s underperformance in affluent areas, it may be wise to draw CDs that combine close-in suburbs with some more blue-collar exurban areas so that the GOP could win those seats comfortably under both 2012 and 2016 scenarios.
Assuming that the GOP does well in state legislative and gubernatorial elections, my prediction is that, nationally, the number of CDs that would have voted for both Romney and Trump in 2012 and 2016 will increase, not decrease. So you can walk off the ledge, DJ. : )
IN A LANDSLIDE!
2DV: If the November ‘39 Munich assassination attempt had been successful, I think your assessment would still be correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.