Posted on 02/20/2020 7:23:45 AM PST by Kaslin
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, political spectators have been wondering how it happened. She was supposed to win by a landslide.
Now Democrats are debating which of their candidates is most "electable." They're afraid to nominate another Hillary Clinton. But no one can agree on why she lost. Was it because of globalization, sexism, populism, or Russian interference?
Eighty-four years of electoral history show that Trump's victory was not at all surprising. In fact, it was entirely predictable.
In our forthcoming book, Personality Wins: Who Will Take the White House and How We Know, we show that personality has determined the winner of the last twenty-two U.S. presidential elections, and it will decide who wins in 2020.
Policy, platform, and ideology just don't seem to matter. Ever since the rise of radio, followed by TV and social media, undecided voters have been drawn to the bigger personality.
There are many systems for categorizing personalities. Most involve a smorgasbord of letters that no one can remember. Let's use a system that is easy to apply to presidential politics. All you need to remember is four birds: Eagle, Parrot, Dove, and Owl. In brief:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Can Any Democrat Beat Trump?”
His animal metaphor fails to answer his question, since he casts most of the Democrat candidates as at least part “eagle”. In a contest between two eagles, an eagle wins. Not very informative.
In any case, all the Democrat polls show that each and every one of them would easily beat Trump. Why are they at all worried?
Obama, for example, is equal parts Eagle and Dove.
HAve both authors of this article, Merrick Rosenberg and Richard Ellis , ever attended a Trump rally?
I would say they have NOT.
They are bloviating as if its politics as usual and have not really gone through a necessary paradigm shift. The history they speak of does NOT apply here. Its all new territory.
Democrats generally pull off the shuck-and-jive successfully when they have an accomplished thespian at the top of the ticket. A con man of the highest order.
Bill Clinton and Hussein Obama come to mind.
Nobody like that on their horizon at the moment.
See my posts elsewhere on this. There is no historical precedent for a sitting elected president to lose their bid for re-election, in a strong economy... period.
There have been 4 presidents in the last 120 years who were elected, ran for re-election and failed to be re elected. 3 lost for to economics and the 4th was scandal plagued.
The historical odds of any democrat winning in 2020 are about as good as a snowballs in hell.
Short of a complete economic collapse before the fall or another black swan event of that magnitude.
The only person who can beat Trump otherwise is the same person who could beat him in 16. Trump himself. As long as he is perceived as putting America First hes got it locked. If however he were to do something to make his base feel otherwise that would cost him re election.
There was an idea that the taller candidate always wins. I vaguely thought I read an article about that. Does anyone remember it?
The Dems have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven Presidential elections. They have the numbers fueled by mass immigration and changing demographics. The 2020 race will be close no matter who is the Dem nominee.
Sure - in 2024
BONUS = About damned TIME!!!
Personality may be part of it, just like money, platform, etc. But like money, it matters only when there is a substantial difference in the two sides.
This is stupid slop and it took two of them to write it, like the Asspress.
I usually vote against a candidate rather than for one. The only time in my life I’ve ever voted “for” a president is Reagan in 1980. (and not 1984)
2020 will mark the second time.
I was temp banned here during the primary and again during the general in 2016 because of what I was saying about trump. He’s made me a believer.
There have been 4 presidents in the last 120 years who were elected, ran for re-election and failed to be re elected. 3 lost for to economics and the 4th was scandal plagued.
___________________________________________
Nope. This statement DOES NOT APPLY to Bush I.
Sorry but that argument shows a complete lack of understanding of how presidents are elected. Getting 80% of the vote in California May racknup your national vote total but does not win you the White House.
Dems are looking at a best case scenario not 10 states plus dc this fall regardless of who they nominate.
And there are millions more like you.. who didnt vote in 16 or bought into the fear Hillary was selling and voted against Trump. Those folks will be voting for him this fall. It is not going o be close
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.