[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Tbf I'd have saved this until after any potential impeachment because if I was a betting man... well, I wouldn't necessarily bet on him dodging it, but I certainly wouldn't be putting any money on impeachment going ahead. Not in today's world.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My prediction for Trump is that he'll do a full 8 years and then find himself under the spotlight as soon as he's done. However he'll be 78 by then, and add on a couple of years of legal proceedings, chances are he'll be dead or senile and declared unfit for trial before anything even happens.

Originally Posted by Liam-

Yeah he’s definitely not getting impeached, there are way too many spineless Republicans to let it happen while they’ve still got the majority, they value their positions over their country unfortunately

Originally Posted by Niamh.

That's true tbf, honestly I reckon they could find a dead body buried under his patio and he'd probably still get away with it

Yeah, tbh I think the Dems know the only way there's a slither of a chance he won't serve his second term is impeachment, so they're using every opportunity they can.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Yeah, tbh I think the Dems know the only way there's a slither of a chance he won't serve his second term is impeachment, so they're using every opportunity they can.

Trump isn't winning the 2020 election if he's still in office, without some major shenanigans going on.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Trump isn't winning the 2020 election if he's still in office, without some major shenanigans going on.

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

There's a reason that only one president in the last 40 years hasn't had two full terms.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

Do you not believe Clinton-Skepticism? Of course this is only anecdotal but while I was in the states just before the election most Americans we spoke to about it said they were voting Trump because they disliked Hilary so much......of course they could have just been saying that because on some level they realise that voting Trump seems a bit ... hhhmmm not attractive? (I can't think of the word I'm searching for here) but you know, that they were slightly embarrassed at admitting that they just wanted to vote for him so need to give some sort of justification for it?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Do you not believe Clinton-Skepticism? Of course this is only anecdotal but while I was in the states just before the election most Americans we spoke to about it said they were voting Trump because they disliked Hilary so much......of course they could have just been saying that because on some level they realise that voting Trump seems a bit ... hhhmmm not attractive? (I can't think of the word I'm searching for here) but you know, that they were slightly embarrassed at admitting that they just wanted to vote for him so need to give some sort of justification for it?

I believe it existed, just like the "rebellion / lolz" Brexit votes, but not to a large enough extent that it was 100% pivotal. I also think that an absolute ****ing boatload of people who didn't vote at all in 2016 are probably some of the most vocal Trump supporters by now and will definitely vote in the next election, which will counteract most (if not more than) the "omg what happened" non-voters from the Democrat side.

The same goes for Brexit really. There's an idea that people who didn't bother and are now horrified would vote en masse and dramatically change the result - but I strongly suppect that there are plenty of crowing no-deal Brexiteers who didn't vote in the referendum the first time.

[edited to add] Also because of how the US electoral system works, it doesn't matter at all if Democrat supporters in states that already voted democrat - e.g. California and New York - come out in droves to vote. The democrat vote can literally double in those states and it doesn't make any difference... and those two states alone contain nearly 20% of the entire population of the US. Their FPTP system is even more broken than the UK's and that's saying something.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I believe it existed, just like the "rebellion / lolz" Brexit votes, but not to a large enough extent that it was 100% pivotal. I also think that an absolute ****ing boatload of people who didn't vote at all in 2016 are probably some of the most vocal Trump supporters by now and will definitely vote in the next election, which will counteract most (if not more than) the "omg what happened" non-voters from the Democrat side.

The same goes for Brexit really. There's an idea that people who didn't bother and are now horrified would vote en masse and dramatically change the result - but I strongly suppect that there are plenty of crowing no-deal Brexiteers who didn't vote in the referendum the first time.

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.

Candace Owens Blexit movement is growing.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I think Trump capped out his limit in 16. In order win by a few thousand votes he had the right mix of an excited base to vote for him, and a depressed democratic vote. There's just no evidence that his supporter base has grown, and evidence that points to the opposite happening.

Besides which, he's killing farming because of his trade war, more steel plants have closed in his 4 years, than in 8 years of Obama, and the same with coal, it won't affect his numbers that much, but it will be an issue that his dem opponents can absolutely hammer. He's getting a relatively free pass at the mo as the dems are focussed on each other, but as soon as that's decided, there will be constant attacks on his record - Mexico, healthcare, sucking up to dictators (Kim and I are in love), not believing his own intelligence over Putin etc.


I think he'll always have a rabid base, because of the kind of people he deliberately tries to appeal to, but the mid terms showed that people will flood out in elections to vote against him, and that's his major weakness, his ability to motivate the other side.

Maybe, especially if they hammer home that he's cosying up to communist states, but I still personally believe that general sociological tides play a far bigger role in voting outcomes than any up-to-the-minute specifics or electioneering.

I would also point out that Trump in the odds was 5/1 and Hillary 1/5, exactly mirroring Brexit's 5/1 and Remain's 1/5, and to toot my own trumpet, I considered both Brexit and Trump to be near-certainties. "The indications" look at what's going on, and what the polls say, and neither have much or anything at all to do with what your average voter will do when they plod into that voting booth. They vote with their gut, and with "what sounds about right" vagueries. Voter apathy in the heavily democrat states is out of the equation; Dems still took them so again, it doesn't matter if the Dem vote in NYC or Los Angeles literally doubles. It would greatly extend the popular vote lead of the Democrats but, in the US system, so what? The only states that matter are the swing states and I'm FAR from convinced that the revitalised Democrat vote will outweigh the emboldened vote of Wall-supporting illiterates who haven't voted for generations. Those people aren't being polled. They're not part of the debate. They'll still be part of the numbers in the final count and people forget that.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Clinton-skepticism played a large role in the 2016 election. Otherwise most likely scenario for 2020 is a very similar outcome. People don't change, at least not quickly, it's exactly the same reason that there's not much point running a 2nd Brexit referendum. It would still show a roughly 50/50 split, despite all we've seen in the last 3 years.

There's a reason that only one president in the last 40 years hasn't had two full terms.

It absolutely did play a role in the election. Especially the fact the Comey held a press conference to announce he was investigating her again, 9 days before the election. He's the most historically unpopular president in the modern age, and his victory in 16 came down to about 30-50k votes across 2 or 3 states. Take Michigan for example, he won by 16k votes, in a state where 18k people voted for Jill Stein because everyone assumed Hillary would win.

Mistakes like these won't happen again. Ironically, Trumps only path to victory imo, is if he runs against Biden, who he may be forced out of office having been fearful to go up against.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It absolutely did play a role in the election. Especially the fact the Comey held a press conference to announce he was investigating her again, 9 days before the election. He's the most historically unpopular president in the modern age, and his victory in 16 came down to about 30-50k votes across 2 or 3 states. Take Michigan for example, he won by 16k votes, in a state where 18k people voted for Jill Stein because everyone assumed Hillary would win.

Mistakes like these won't happen again. Ironically, Trumps only path to victory imo, is if he runs against Biden, who he may be forced out of office having been fearful to go up against.

Like I said in my reply to Niamh, I think there are other considerations that mean you can't make a direct comparison like that to 2016. A huge number of Trump's most vocal supporters are people who have never voted in their lives believing it "pointless, all politicians are the same anyway", who LOVE Trump's "unconventional" ranting and xenophobia, and will without a shadow of a doubt vote for him in the next election. They'll be first in line. Just like the UK's multitude of racists and xenophobes who didn't get out of bed to vote in Brexit 1 would be camping outside the voting centre if there was a Brexit 2.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Like I said in my reply to Niamh, I think there are other considerations that mean you can't make a direct comparison like that to 2016. A huge number of Trump's most vocal supporters are people who have never voted in their lives believing it "pointless, all politicians are the same anyway", who LOVE Trump's "unconventional" ranting and xenophobia, and will without a shadow of a doubt vote for him in the next election. They'll be first in line. Just like the UK's multitude of racists and xenophobes who didn't get out of bed to vote in Brexit 1 would be camping outside the voting centre if there was a Brexit 2.

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

There are more dems certainly but they're clustered on the coasts in large population areas where their vote is significantly diluted. I also think there's a good chance that there's still plenty of "invisible voters" for Trump to tap into next time around... those who were agreeing with him on their TV in 2016 but didn't truly believe that he could win enough to motivate them to the voting booth. Those people now know he can win, because he did win, and that might be enough to get them to pick up a pen. I guess we'll see what happens . You never know he might not even be in the running, unlikely as it is.

[bots]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I agree with you on that, there are absolutely other considerations. No election is ever completely simplistic, but I just disagree that he has even more people to tap into this time around, when all the evidence suggests the opposite. They were first in line last time around too, there are just more dems in the US, and they won't be arguing amongst themselves this time around.

That's before the stuff in my other posts come into play.

the GoP have been very busy altering the voting boundaries in their favour. If you take a look at the boundaries that will be in play at the next election, you will realise how ludicrous they are and how it could easily tilt a result in favour of Trump