Trump: He Could Easily Be Reelected

#1

Vol0725

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,209
Likes
3,726
#1
Don'''t Doubt Donald Trump. He Could Get Reelected in 2020 | Time

Meanwhile, most of those who chose him see President Trump doing his best to keep his promises with precious little help from the professional political class. His actions may be worthy or wicked, and might lead to triumph or disaster, but anyone who thinks he doesn't know what he's doing is 180 degrees wrong.


image
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#3
#3
That would be hilarious.


However I am on the fence about another 4 years of watching Libtards try and out libtard themselves. While initially its funny, in a juvenile sort of way, it eventually becomes repetitive, and sad.





















Just kidding it never gets old! MAGA 2020! hahahaha
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#5
#5
Unless the Democrats or a third party can trot out someone good, I may just vote for Trump this next go around, as much as it pains me to say it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7
#7
Unless the Democrats or a third party can trot out someone good, I may just vote for Trump this next go around, as much as it pains me to say it.

The democrats would have to trot out a solid center of the aisle type person...but that isn't how they are going. More extreme is their plan..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
If he doesn’t start a war and the Dems trot out Elizabeth Warren or Kristen Gillibrand he’ll probably win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
It depends on three things:

The economy

Who the Dems put up

Outcome of Mueller investigation.
 
#12
#12
A silly article in the sense that the general election is still 29 months away. So much can change that it's just not worth speculating. In March of 1991, just after the end of the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush's approval rating was over 65%. He only received 39% of the popular vote in his 1992 reelection bid just 20 months later... and he lost the electoral college by 202 electoral college votes ( which was 370-168 in Clinton's favor).

There are many variables here with Mueller's findings being among them. Also, what percentage of Americans outside of Illinois had even heard of Barack Obama on May 25, 2006? I follow politics pretty closely and I know that I hadn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
A silly article in the sense that the general election is still 29 months away. So much can change that it's just not worth speculating. In March of 1991, just after the end of the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush's approval rating was over 65%. He only received 39% of the popular vote in his 1992 reelection bid just 20 months later... and he lost the electoral college by 202 electoral college votes ( which was 370-168 in Clinton's favor).

There are many variables here with Mueller's findings being among them. Also, what percentage of Americans outside of Illinois had even heard of Barack Obama on May 25, 2006? I follow politics pretty closely and I know that I hadn't.

Only reason on Bush is Perot splitting the vote.

Every incumbent since Carter has won second term unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
A silly article in the sense that the general election is still 29 months away. So much can change that it's just not worth speculating. In March of 1991, just after the end of the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush's approval rating was over 65%. He only received 39% of the popular vote in his 1992 reelection bid just 20 months later... and he lost the electoral college by 202 electoral college votes ( which was 370-168 in Clinton's favor).

There are many variables here with Mueller's findings being among them. Also, what percentage of Americans outside of Illinois had even heard of Barack Obama on May 25, 2006? I follow politics pretty closely and I know that I hadn't.
Two reasons I didn't vote for Bush the second time: 1. Taxes; 2. NWO.

I watched BHO give the keynote at the DNC in 94(?). I told the wife then he'd be a future president and maybe a good one if his party didn't rule him.

I was 1 for 2.
 
#16
#16
Only reason on Bush is Perot splitting the vote.

Every incumbent since Carter has won second term unfortunately.

That has always been the Republican spin to avoid giving Bill Clinton any credit for winning the election but one simple fact shows that it isn't true:

Bill Clinton's lead in the polls over Bush remained between 3-5 percentage points from June until November of 1992 whether Ross Perot was in the race or not. You have to remember that Perot dropped out of the race in July but then returned in October. Although the overall numbers changed (from Clinton having a lead of 52-47% to 43-38% over Bush) the 3-5 point margin remained the same which clearly shows that Perot was taking votes away from Clinton and Bush evenly. It is also worth noting that Perot's best showing was in his home state of Texas which Bush won anyway. There is no evidence that Perot's presence in the campaign cost Bush any states at all in the 1992 election. The numbers clearly show this in spite of what Republicans want to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
That has always been the Republican spin to avoid giving Bill Clinton any credit for winning the election but one simple fact shows that it isn't true:

Bill Clinton's lead in the polls over Bush remained between 3-5 percentage points from June until November of 1992 whether Ross Perot was in the race or not. You have to remember that Perot dropped out of the race in July but then returned in October. Although the overall numbers changed (from Clinton having a lead of 52-47% to 43-38% over Bush) the 3-5 point margin remained the same which clearly shows that Perot was taking votes away from Clinton and Bush evenly. It is also worth noting that Perot's best showing was in his home state of Texas which Bush won anyway. There is no evidence that Perot's presence in the campaign cost Bush any states at all in the 1992 election. The numbers clearly show this in spite of what Republicans want to believe.

Bro, how many times must polls be proven wrong before we stop referring to them as evidence?

I was there. It was my first cast ballot. It was Perot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#19
#19
Bro, how many times must polls be proven wrong before we stop referring to them as evidence?

I was there. It was my first cast ballot. It was Perot.

The polls were consistent throughout the campaign so it makes no sense to argue that they were ever wrong! Clinton maintained a 3-5 point lead over Bush from June of 1992 until November of 1992. When Perot dropped out in July it was Clinton 52% and Bush 47%, when Perot returned to the race in October of 1992 it was Clinton 43% and Bush 38% and Perot 19% - which was exactly what happened on election night... so that clearly shows that Perot's 19% was distributed evenly between Clinton and Bush. Perot took 9.5% points from both of them... and once again, his best showing was Texas - a state that Bush won anyway.


I was there too. My first Presidential vote was cast in 1992 for Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
That has always been the Republican spin to avoid giving Bill Clinton any credit for winning the election but one simple fact shows that it isn't true:

Bill Clinton's lead in the polls over Bush remained between 3-5 percentage points from June until November of 1992 whether Ross Perot was in the race or not. You have to remember that Perot dropped out of the race in July but then returned in October. Although the overall numbers changed (from Clinton having a lead of 52-47% to 43-38% over Bush) the 3-5 point margin remained the same which clearly shows that Perot was taking votes away from Clinton and Bush evenly. It is also worth noting that Perot's best showing was in his home state of Texas which Bush won anyway. There is no evidence that Perot's presence in the campaign cost Bush any states at all in the 1992 election. The numbers clearly show this in spite of what Republicans want to believe.

Thanks Nancy.......
 
#22
#22
Polls =/= evidence.

Who is president today? Case closed.

If you want to argue that the polls were wrong in 2016 that is fine but they weren't wrong in 1992 and they clearly show that Perot drew evenly between Clinton and Bush in the 1992 election. The belief that all of Perot's 19% came from Bush is a false narrative that Republicans have always used to make themselves feel better about losing to a hippy draft dodger like Bill Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#24
#24
If you want to argue that the polls were wrong in 2016 that is fine but they weren't wrong in 1992 and they clearly show that Perot drew evenly between Clinton and Bush in the 1992 election. The belief that all of Perot's 19% came from Bush is a false narrative that Republicans have always used to make themselves feel better about losing to a hippy draft dodger like Bill Clinton.

Were polls wrong in 16?
 

VN Store



Back
Top