Election gawd Alan Lichtman: Trump will win re-election unless Dems move to impeach

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

if they run Sanders or Warren dems wouldn't even have to worry about impeaching that tub of shyt

 

[wtfyomom]

this isnt really him predicting the outcome of the election per se. he has no clue whether impeaching will end up winning or losing trump the election in 2020. we dont know who his opponent is. i say

 

[wtfyomom]

To be fair, predicting Gore as the winner is correct. he won like 17 recounts, won every one except the bullshyt first one they did. and thats just facts. no need to even hedge with this tie shyt, nah he won

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

The potus has done nothing so far but undo everything obeezy did . Dude has literally just created issues , gutted workers rights & rolled back every safety regulation

And you like that? What? I read that with blue font

 

[acri1]

Trump could get impeached and still win re-election. He's not like any other President who would have perished in scandal. He survives everything and he has a strangehold over the Republican Party.

This. I'm not too optimistic about the Dems' chances in 2020 regardless of impeachment to be honest.

I've realized over the last few years that among white voters there's a sizable contingent of "secret" Trump supporters that will say they don't like Trump in polls but will still vote for him.

 

[Starman]

actually, it's oochie mic....

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

But it's enough to show that he isn't some deep savant on this shyt. He said himself in 2016 that Trump was too unusual a candidate to predict and flip-flopped out there, then in 2017 he's publishing his own pro-impeachment book, and now in 2019 we're supposed to believe that he knows EXACTLY what will happen in November 2020? I don't think he's even predicted the races 18 months out before, his criteria are much closer to the election than that.

He may not be an infallible savant, but his perspective has some credibility. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say he flip-flopped. I saw him saying Trump was going to win based on his model and sticking with it while people were laughing at him during that election cycle.

That alone warrants hearing what he has to say, as all the “experts” thought it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton was gonna win.

He called Bush over Dukakis was Bush was still 17 points down. And he called Obama getting re-elected in 2010 (he said it didn’t matter who the Repub was, Obama met the re-election threshold). He says he makes his prediction once he can draw a discernable conclusion to the 13 keys of his model, and that could be a couple of years out or not until September, like 2016.

 

[88m3]

He may not be an infallible savant, but his perspective has some credibility. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say he flip-flopped. I saw him saying Trump was going to win based on his model and sticking with it while people were laughing at him during that election cycle.

That alone warrants hearing what he has to say, as all the “experts” thought it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton was gonna win.

I mean if you consider the 2016 election to still be legitimate I guess Trump "won".

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He may not be an infallible savant, but his perspective has some credibility. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say he flip-flopped. I saw him saying Trump was going to win based on his model and sticking with it while people were laughing at him during that election cycle.

He was mad hedging, and he admitted that his model would shift to a Clinton win once Gary Johnson's poll numbers dropped below 5%:

"Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it."

"I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way."

"Qualification number one: It takes six keys to count the party in power out, and they have exactly six keys. And one key could still flip, as I recognized last time — the third party key, that requires Gary Johnson to get at least five percent of the popular vote. He could slip below that, which would shift the prediction."

"As people realize the choice is not Gary Johnson, the only choice is between Trump and Clinton, those Gary Johnson supporters may move away from Johnson and toward Clinton, particularly those millennials."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-down-on-a-trump-win/?utm_term=.c92bdd8dd9cd


So one of his "keys" for Clinton losing was the assumption that Gary Johnson was going to get 6-7% of the vote. That ended up being way off. Once Gary Johnson slipped below 5% (he ended up with just 3% in the end), then his model would have predicted a narrow Clinton victory.

 

[Strapped]

Yang seems like the smartest guy running

 

[ExodusNirvana]

obstruction.

Breh don't indulge that nincompoop

 

[FAH1223]

Trump has the advantage as the incumbent, a media totally obsessed with him, and headline macroeconomic numbers in now our 11th year of an expansion.

Election models are saying turnout could be 67% next year. That isn’t good news for Trump if you’re getting more black and brown people voting esp in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yang seems like the smartest guy running

if you didn't graduate college, sure.