Larry Sabato: It's easy to see how Trump can win reelection

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

President Trump thrives on chaos, much of it his own creation. But it would be a mistake to assume that the reelection campaign of this most untraditional president will mirror the tumult of his 2016 effort. It’s too early to handicap 2020, but Trump may try to capitalize on some of the same factors that helped three modern Republican presidents, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, win reelection.

The reelections of all three men were not always certain. Around this time in the 1972 election cycle, Nixon held only a modest lead over the early Democratic front-runner, Edmund Muskie, who in 1968 had been the vice-presidential running mate of Hubert Humphrey. In late January 1983, pollster Lou Harris found former vice president Walter Mondale leading Reagan 53 percent to 44 percent. John Kerry’s challenge to Bush was nip-and-tuck throughout 2004. Fast-forward to 2019, and Trump often trails some Democrats in presidential trial heats, but with his large, solid base and a continuing good economy, it isn’t hard to see how Trump could win again.

...snip...

Trump is in the process of jumping one major hurdle: He lacks a major primary challenger. (Bill Weld, the 2016 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate who recently declared a GOP primary challenge, does not count as “major.”) With approval ratings among Republicans usually exceeding 80 percent, and with his allies firmly in control of the party apparatus almost everywhere, Trump has thus far boxed out major intraparty opposition. The last three reelected GOP presidents all waltzed to renomination.

Trump is also going to be in a much better financial position than he was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton vastly outspent him. Trump already has $40 million in the bank for his reelection bid, and he should be able to raise hundreds of millions more now that his party is more completely behind him than in 2016. Money is not everything, as Trump himself showed in 2016, but any campaign would prefer having more, not less.

[ScratchCat]

1. Again with this

Not one person who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 is going to go vote for him in 2020(deaths/new voters offset).

Contrast that with the fact that millions who voted for him in 2016 likely wont vote at all in 2020.

Further, at least some "Obama voters" who didn't vote for Hillary realize their mistake and WILL vote against Trump in 2020 if he is the candidate.

Making the Senate Republicans justify not removing him from office puts their control of the Senate at risk in 2020 too.

Impeach the mofo now. There is no winning strategy for the GOP on this because they are already looking at fewer votes than in 2016.

He's been implicated in a felony; he's obstructed justice at every turn; he has put America's security at risk by handing out clearances to family members over the objections of the entire intelligence community. Make the GOP defend that. They can't.

[honest.abe]

3. Sabato is a smart guy and straight shooter.

I would take his opinions and advice seriously.

[Butterflylady]

4. I don't

Read the article and basically said it's all about the economy. I believe he's totally wrong. Just basing it upon the economy at this point when there's more then a year till 2020 is ridiculous. We all know how that can change especially with the crazy tariffs in place and what with the price of gas climbing, layoffs taking place, people having to payout tax money instead of getting refunds, no that is not a smart statement. Even McConnell is hedging his bets by saying if the orange a**hole doesn't win , he'll be the grim reeper by stopping all legislation that they try to pass. With his numbers going down, I don't think he'll have it as easy as think he will.

[brooklynite]

10. Fair enough, but one of you runs a political research team at the University of Virginia...

...and the other provides a personal opinion.

[helpisontheway]

5. Pretty sure he as one of the ones saying there was no way Trump would not win in 2016. Nt

[honest.abe]

6. As most experts and most people thought.

We didn't figure in Russian interference.

[OnDoutside]

13. +1 So would I.

[RandySF]

2. I've been saying all along

Trump has a slight upper hand.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. The advantages of incumbency are enormous

I agree Trump has a slight upper hand. He is a 60/40 betting underdog right now but I believe the reality is closer to 60/40 favoritism.

If the economy stays where it is, people who never dreamed they would be voting for Trump will end up voting for him. That's the way incumbency works, especially among Hispanics who have a long history of loyalty to the incumbent no matter what the related issues look like.

We need Trump's approval rating to remain in the low 40s and we need to nominate someone who can withstand the GOP attack machine and emerge with a positive net favorable rating. That is a difficult parlay.

[DeminPennswoods]

8. Opinions of Trump are baked in at this point

nt

[Yavin4]

9. Trump has never been above 50% in any polls including the election

His only path to winning is to pull down his opponent to his level--the ole "there's no difference" nonsense, and divide the opposition. A divided democratic party after the outcome of the primaries or a 3rd party challenger.

The public's opinion about him is fixed. He has his base and no one else.

[former9thward]

12. He doesn't need 50%, only states that give him 270 electoral votes.

As he proved last time.

[Captain Stern]

11. Trump will be easy to beat in 2020.

The same way he was easy to beat in 2016.

This election is going to be a tough fight, and it's going to be close, regardless of who wins.

This election isn't ours to lose, it's his. He's the incumbent, and he's going to have a huge war chest (none of which he is going to have to spend in a primary)

We're going to have to be almost perfect to beat him. A good step on that path would be for our many candidates not to tear each other down during the primary. Another good step would be for each of them to gracefully exit as soon as it's apparent that they won't get the nomination. (If the republicans had done that in 2016, I don't think trump would have been their nominee).