Why Trump will win in 2020 and it won't even be close

[Ex-CEO]

I don't agree with the assessment that the election won't be close, but think Trump's re-election prospects are looking better and better as time goes on. He must be laughing his fucking ass off at the clown parade on the other side of the aisle. Those people are going to consume themselves like scorpions in a jar by next spring. Dems might have a decent shot if they can find an articulate candidate who can roll out a coherent agenda saleable to America's working- and middle classes, but can you see such a person? (I can't, either!)

[MoExec]

To me there is no question that Trump will win a substantial number of the electoral votes, primarily because folks amazing capacity to vote against their own self-interest, the extent to which they are enamored by celebrity personalities (no matter how dim-witted the celebrity is), their amazing capacity for paranoia, and the divisions that talk radio has so successful entrenched in our society. As a result of all of this, folks readily accept and acknowledge their second class status by recognizing that health care is not something they are entitled to and Obama care should be repealed, and is instead only something that should be available for those affluent enough to pay for it or who can afford health insurance premiums for a quality health care plan. For example, all of my conservative friends have demonized Obama care while they have been covered by an employer provided group plan, which the employer has been required to maintain as a result of Obama care. These friends are unable to realize that one of the agendas for the repeal of Obama care is so that employer can start canceling group health plans at the rate and speed they were prior to the adoption of Obama care.
They forget about the fact that prior to the 1980s, a majority of retirees were on either an employer provided pension plan or a union pension plan prior to an organized effort to bust the unions. In the 1980s, the Republican party made a concerted effort to gut the protections of pension plans afforded by ERISA (some of those pesky government regulations). Immediately thereafter companies dumped pension plans resulting in one of the greatest transfers of wealth this country had ever seen (from working stiffs to upper management). Certainly made the stock market shoot up, but who benefitted from that?
And Americans, recognizing that they were not worthy of a level playing field in the economy, readily recognized that we live in a class society, have gone along with all of this, being more worried about whether an uneducated immigrant willing to pluck chickens is going to put them out of work rather than questioning the real reasons why our middle class has disappeared. So my undying faith in the gullibility of the American people, and their capacity to being "played", assures me that a con man and former TV actor will convince them that he has their interest at heart...

[lustylad]

Welcome to the forum!

I don't know what rock you climbed out from under, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by MoExec

...all of my conservative friends have demonized Obama care while they have been covered by an employer provided group plan, which the employer has been required to maintain as a result of Obama care. These friends are unable to realize that one of the agendas for the repeal of Obama care is so that employer can start canceling group health plans at the rate and speed they were prior to the adoption of Obama care.

Employers were not CANCELLING group health plans prior to odumbocare as much as they were SHIFTING THE COSTS of such plans onto their employees. For example, they would typically ask employees to pay 50% of each month's premium, instead of, say, 25% previously. Such burden-shifting was an understandable response to the way healthcare costs kept skyrocketing year after year after year, a trend that odumbocare did little to contain. In many ways, the ACA aggravated the problem - e.g. by mandating what such group plans had to cover.

Originally Posted by MoExec

...In the 1980s, the Republican party made a concerted effort to gut the protections of pension plans afforded by ERISA (some of those pesky government regulations). Immediately thereafter companies dumped pension plans resulting in one of the greatest transfers of wealth this country had ever seen (from working stiffs to upper management). Certainly made the stock market shoot up, but who benefitted from that?

Huh?? Republicans helped to pass ERISA in the first place back in 1974. It was approved with only 2 "no" votes in the House, passed unanimously in the Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President (Gerry Ford). Republicans did nothing to "gut its protections". In recent decades, many companies have replaced defined-benefit plans with defined-contribution plans for a variety of reasons that have NOTHING to do with politics. As for who benefits from a rising stock market, the answer is almost everyone with a 401(k), which is the most common type of defined-contribution plan offered.

And if you care to be honest about which political party is guilty of putting pensions at risk, perhaps you will take a look at how grossly underfunded the public pension plans in cities like Chicago and Detroit are. Then tell me which party has governed those cities and should be held responsible for the mess.

[MoExec]

Good point on the governmental funding of pensions by cities and counties...but I wonder how much of that was due to gutting tax revenues in recent years? So far as employers dropping health plans, I can only speak from personal experience. I can think of at least 5 clients who dumped their group health plans in the years 1999 through 2004, and they all had over 50 employees. So far as rising health care costs, I pretty sure the research shows that the rate of increase slowed after the adoption of Obamacare. Personally I have been on an individual plan (self-employed) ever since 1990. I noted my premiums did not go up as rapidly after Obamacare as they did prior to Obamacare. So far as rising healthcare costs, it seems to me that the main culprit on that is prescription drug costs, and under Bush initiated Medicare Part D, the prohibition on Medicare negotiating drug costs with big pharma like the VA can would seem to me to be part of the problem.
I agree Republicans back in the day initiated some really good things, such as ERISA under Ford and the EPA under Nixon, (back when I used to vote Republican), but that was back in the day before greed got so out of control under Reganomics, not to mention the state of things today.
My overall point is that the tribal nature of things today is so amazing that folks have an amazing capacity to believe anything and vote against their own interests, not knowing, realizing or appreciating the difference.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by MoExec

Good point on the governmental funding of pensions by cities and counties...but I wonder how much of that was due to gutting tax revenues in recent years? So far as employers dropping health plans, I can only speak from personal experience. I can think of at least 5 clients who dumped their group health plans in the years 1999 through 2004, and they all had over 50 employees. So far as rising health care costs, I pretty sure the research shows that the rate of increase slowed after the adoption of Obamacare. Personally I have been on an individual plan (self-employed) ever since 1990. I noted my premiums did not go up as rapidly after Obamacare as they did prior to Obamacare. So far as rising healthcare costs, it seems to me that the main culprit on that is prescription drug costs, and under Bush initiated Medicare Part D, the prohibition on Medicare negotiating drug costs with big pharma like the VA can would seem to me to be part of the problem.
I agree Republicans back in the day initiated some really good things, such as ERISA under Ford and the EPA under Nixon, (back when I used to vote Republican), but that was back in the day before greed got so out of control under Reganomics, not to mention the state of things today.
(My overall point is that the tribal nature of things today is so amazing that folks have an amazing capacity to believe anything and vote against their own interests, not knowing, realizing or appreciating the difference.)

You talking about yourself right ?

[MoExec]

Oh not necessarily, I have voted both tickets and probably would have voted for John Kasich from Ohio had he gotten the nomination, but I did have to go for Hillary instead of a con man...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MoExec

Good point on the governmental funding of pensions by cities and counties...but I wonder how much of that was due to gutting tax revenues in recent years?

None. Democrat-controlled cities, counties and states have raised local and state taxes faster and higher than anywhere on the planet. Dim-retards knowingly over-promise benefits to public unions in return for political contributions and votes. Classic definition of corruption. And of course, the actual bill for overly generous pension benefits doesn't come due until the politicians are out of office. Classic example of kicking the can down the road.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by MoExec

Oh not necessarily, I have voted both tickets and probably would have voted for John Kasich from Ohio had he gotten the nomination, but I did have to go for Hillary instead of a con man...

Well I guess you will have to live the fact that your choice in candidate's lost! get over it

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

Oh, but you were quick to label Hewitt as a right wing whack job without knowing anything about him. What a hypocrite.

Excuse me. I called Hewitt a "very right wing Conservative". Not even close to "a right wing whack job". In retrospect, I should not have included the word "very".

I disagree with Hewitt. It will be a very close election in 2020, closer than in 2016 in my opinion because the Democratic candidate will probably win Michigan (90% probability) and Pennsylvania (70% probability) and Trump will not win any equivalent electoral vote states that he lost in 2016.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Excuse me. I called Hewitt a "very right wing Conservative". Not even close to "a right wing whack job". In retrospect, I should not have included the word "very".

I disagree with Hewitt. It will be a very close election in 2020, closer than in 2016 in my opinion because the Democratic candidate will probably win Michigan (90% probability) and Pennsylvania (70% probability) and Trump will not win any equivalent electoral vote states that he lost in 2016.

While I agree at this point, its probabaly going to be close, it's also way too early to prognosticate or throw out any viable projections on it. The Dem candidate in my opinion will make or break their chances. Any indication of a Dem candidate with a 90% probability in Michigan when that candidate has not even been selected yet, is nothing but opinion or misleading data. Just like Hewitt's "liberal" use of data and forecast of a big win.

Way too early.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Excuse me. I called Hewitt a "very right wing Conservative". Not even close to "a right wing whack job". In retrospect, I should not have included the word "very".

I disagree with Hewitt. It will be a very close election in 2020, closer than in 2016 in my opinion because the Democratic candidate will probably win Michigan (90% probability) and Pennsylvania (70% probability) and Trump will not win any equivalent electoral vote states that he lost in 2016.

In retrospect, you are a hypocrite. You dismissed Hewitt while telling us not to dismiss your source, CNN which is the champion of fake news and a certified hate Trump organization.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

While I agree at this point, its probabaly going to be close, it's also way too early to prognosticate or throw out any viable projections on it. The Dem candidate in my opinion will make or break their chances. Any indication of a Dem candidate with a 90% probability in Michigan when that candidate has not even been selected yet, is nothing but opinion or misleading data. Just like Hewitt's "liberal" use of data and forecast of a big win.

Way too early.

Yes, certainly my 90% estimate of the Democratic candidate winning Michigan in 2020 is personal opinion, but based on facts.
Trump won Michigan in 2016 by .3%. Michigan went strong Democratic in 2018 midterms. Trump approval rating in Michigan has dropped about 20 points since he took office.

Of all the states Trump won in 2016, I think, at this point in time, he will have the toughest time holding onto Michigan. Certainly not cast in stone. As you say, way too early.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

In retrospect, you are a hypocrite. You dismissed Hewitt while telling us not to dismiss your source, CNN which is the champion of fake news and a certified hate Trump organization.

I distinctly said in my post that the source was CNN and my intent was to say, yes, they lean left in most of their articles, so consider the source. I didn't tell anyone to believe or disbelieve either article. Read both articles and come to your conclusions. Both articles make sound arguments and neither distorted the facts. Both were opinions.

[oeb11]

Opinions on all sides - and I agree with SR - Way to early.

DPST's do not even have a nominated candidate from all the fuzzy-brained liberals running.

watch and wait for a DPST nominee - then the fun begins.

Until then - the MSM is filling the airwaves with anti-Trump blather and propaganda.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Opinions on all sides - and I agree with SR - Way to early.

DPST's do not even have a nominated candidate from all the fuzzy-brained liberals running.

watch and wait for a DPST nominee - then the fun begins.

Until then - the MSM is filling the airwaves with anti-Trump blather and propaganda.

That won't be until next July 13-16. We'll miss out on all the fun between now and then bashing or promoting all the candidates.

There have already been several people on this forum predicting the 2020 victor without know who the Democratic candidate will be or having any idea what will happen in the next 18 months to impact the election. That's what makes it so much fun.