It could be you...

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I read the same article Barlycorn did. Politico is predicting a 2020 win for Trump. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt,ya know!

Great. Then I assume from now on, you and your pompom shaking t.rump cheerleaders will believe whatever you read in Politico.

Let’s just test that, Ellen.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Great. Then I assume from now on, you and your pompom shaking t.rump cheerleaders will believe whatever you read in Politico.

Let’s just test that, Ellen.

your assumptions are wrong.



MAGA Dance

[winn dixie]

You go Maga Gurl

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Trump, if he continues on his current course, can be beaten in 2020 ....

That sounds strangely familiar. Why is that?

Of course, the "qualifier" provides an out for accountability for a spurious prediction.

So essentially the "pronouncement" is meaningless.

Right now, and for months Democrats are and have been registering illegal aliens so they can be on the rolls for primaries and general elections coming in this year and next. The next move is to start "redistricting" and redefine the Electoral map to favor their candidate in 2020, since they don't have time to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the College. A coop to overthrow the administration and oust Trump and Pence has now been thwarted by their own stupidity and arrogance... of believing the Clintons could be elected to a 3rd term.

[Austin Ellen]

+1

Maga Girl Approved.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

your assumptions are wrong.



MAGA Dance

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Interesting. I don't know if Politico is right or left but Bill Scher of Politico believes Democrats will win the 2020 election by an electoral count of 296-242 based on the 2018 House voting.

politico swings left.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Actually, you need to qualify your definition of predictions. Most "pundits" were wrong in 2016 and many wrong in 2018 in at least regards to the to size of the mythical blue wave.

History was already on the side of the House being overtaken in the first mid-term of a sitting POTUS and historically some Senate seats should have been lost, not gained.

However, if you realistically analyzed the polling data in 2016 and 2018, it was largely very accurate, especially when including the margin of error. That pundits ran with that incorrectly, is their problem.

But back to the OP. Very few could stand up to the already guilty in the court of common opinion due to the fierce unjustified attacks that were made.

I would say the pundits were totally accurate in 2018 predictions. All but one had the Democrats winning the House and most gave them a solid chance of winning 35+ seats. Most had Republicans gaining in the Senate since 25 of the 33 seats up for re-election were held by Democrats, many in states that Trump won in 2016 (Montana, SD, WV, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, PA, Wisconsin). Whether or not the election was a "blue wave" depends on one's interpretation of a blue wave. Either way, when you add in the Democratic gain of 7 governorships and several state legislatures going from Republican control to Democratic control and others moving from solid red to purple, November 6th, 2018 was definitely a solid win for Democrats.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would say the pundits were totally accurate in 2018 predictions. All but one had the Democrats winning the House and most gave them a solid chance of winning 35+ seats. Most had Republicans gaining in the Senate since 25 of the 33 seats up for re-election were held by Democrats, many in states that Trump won in 2016 (Montana, SD, WV, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, PA, Wisconsin). Whether or not the election was a "blue wave" depends on one's interpretation of a blue wave. Either way, when you add in the Democratic gain of 7 governorships and several state legislatures going from Republican control to Democratic control and others moving from solid red to purple, November 6th, 2018 was definitely a solid win for Democrats.

I have to agree to a point that the pundits were a lot more gun shy with over the top projections in 2018 after their colossal failure in 2016. They did actually stick more to the polling data and not go too far in out of the world projections. Several races were I think more wishful thinking than actually data related. Texas, Georgia, and Florida come to mind.

And yes it was a solid(about average for a mid-term) Democrat win. Where the pundits got it wrong again about that was calling it some kind of mandate against Republicans. They took 1/6th of the Federal government in the election and lost additional influence in another 1/6th. The POTUS is still Republican and the courts are getting and will continue to be filled for 2 more years with Conservatives. Not taking the Senate was a longer term loss for Dems than anyone will give credit. The House remains transitional. The courts are generational.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I read the same article Barlycorn did. Politico is predicting a 2020 win for Trump. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt,ya know!

I posted a link to the Politico article in which Bill Scher of Politico has analysis predicting a Trump loss in 2020. I never said there was not another Politico article predicting a 2020 win for Trump.

I believe that this is the article to which you and Barleycorn are referring:

"President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

While Trump appears to be in a much stronger position than his approval rating and conventional Beltway wisdom might suggest, he also could wind up in trouble if the economy slows markedly between now and next fall, as many analysts predict it will."

However, you have to take into account the caveats offered in the article.

"Trump has already upended many of the rules of presidential politics. His party suffered a drubbing in last year’s midterm elections despite the strong economy, and the yawning gap between how voters view the president and the nation’s economic standing is growing even larger: Presidents typically just aren’t this unpopular when the economic engine is humming along.

Moreover, even how Americans view the state of the country has become divorced from the economy. In the latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, only 36 percent of voters said the U.S. was headed in the right direction, compared with nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, who said it was off on the wrong track."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-economy-election-1230495

The U.S. economy was doing very well on November 6, 2018 and Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.67 million votes, the largest total victory in a mid-term House election since 1974, which was just post-Watergate. Every single Trump supporter on this forum who made a prediction on the 2018 mid-term elections predicted Republicans would hold the House, with some predicting a gain in House seats. All based on the economy doing so well. Just saying that positive economic results on election day 2020 might not be as important as some are believing they will be.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I have to agree to a point that the pundits were a lot more gun shy with over the top projections in 2018 after their colossal failure in 2016. They did actually stick more to the polling data and not go too far in out of the world projections. Several races were I think more wishful thinking than actually data related. Texas, Georgia, and Florida come to mind.

And yes it was a solid(about average for a mid-term) Democrat win. Where the pundits got it wrong again about that was calling it some kind of mandate against Republicans. They took 1/6th of the Federal government in the election and lost additional influence in another 1/6th. The POTUS is still Republican and the courts are getting and will continue to be filled for 2 more years with Conservatives. Not taking the Senate was a longer term loss for Dems than anyone will give credit. The House remains transitional. The courts are generational.

Most definitely Republicans controlling the Senate is important regarding SCOTUS nominations. Well said.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I personally would like to see Democrats back off on the investigations. Trump, if he continues on his current course, can be beaten in 2020 and I believe most voters view these investigations as unneeded and unwarranted.

Again you say Trump can be beaten in 2020, but by whom...is there a mysterious liberal savior we haven't heard about??
All the candidates are seeing who can go as far radical left as possible and that won't win the white house...real true conservatism wins every time.
President Reagan historic 1984 landslide...NUFF SAID!!

Most all the libs on the board have gone apoplectic and completely unhinged because the the absolute wasted investigation on the collusion with Russia that never happend...you might try to explain this to them as unneeded and unwanted...GOOD LUCK!!
P.S. All the left wing rages don't seem to hold your views.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That sounds strangely familiar. Why is that?

Of course, the "qualifier" provides an out for accountability for a spurious prediction.

So essentially the "pronouncement" is meaningless.

Right now, and for months Democrats are and have been registering illegal aliens so they can be on the rolls for primaries and general elections coming in this year and next. The next move is to start "redistricting" and redefine the Electoral map to favor their candidate in 2020, since they don't have time to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the College. A coop to overthrow the administration and oust Trump and Pence has now been thwarted by their own stupidity and arrogance... of believing the Clintons could be elected to a 3rd term.

The Pennsylvania state supreme court forced a redistricting of the 18 congressional districts. Democrats picked up 4 House seats in 2018. The NC congressional districts will probably be redrawn due to alleged gerrymandering by Republicans. If redrawn, Democrats are predicted to pick up additional House seats.

Unlike you who stood on the sidelines and did not make a prediction for the 2018 midterms, I will make a prediction for the 2020 election when election day is closer. Hard to be wrong when you sit out the game. I was wrong in 2016. I was the best on this forum in 2018.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

politico swings left.

Two cited Politico articles, one favoring Trump and one not favoring Trump.

Here is an independent rating of Politico where it is rated "Least Biased".

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He has proven to be utterly unskilled labor running the country.

You are correct about Obummer.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The Pennsylvania state supreme court forced a redistricting of the 18 congressional districts. Democrats picked up 4 House seats in 2018. The NC congressional districts will probably be redrawn due to alleged gerrymandering by Republicans. If redrawn, Democrats are predicted to pick up additional House seats.

Unlike you who stood on the sidelines and did not make a prediction for the 2018 midterms, I will make a prediction for the 2020 election when election day is closer. Hard to be wrong when you sit out the game. I was wrong in 2016. I was the best on this forum in 2018.

You were the best at predicting off election year results in 2018...what about 2014 or 2012...do tell please...I already posted links on those elections...which you conveniently didn't comment on.
These off year election are VERY hard to predict...give me a fucking break!!