[Opinion] Why Trump is Going To Win Re-Election in 2020 - Tim Pool - Polidicks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jA7x8w34M0&t=0s

Starting with two outright lies. I'll spare myself from the rest of the video and I'll keep my counterargument against the first twelve seconds of claims; this does not extend into the rest of the video, apologies. I should respect you and watch it, but I merely wanted to address the bold claims immediately shown that require a posts' worth of evidence to disprove anyways. First of all, Donald Trumps approval rating is NOT better then when he was elected. How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight 41% disapproval, now 53%. Completely false likely based in a cherry-picked outlier. Second of all, the claim that the 'U.S economy is growing at 4%' is also a complete statistical outlier only applicable to this quarter, cherry picked for an argument and not consistent with the rest of the data. https://apnews.com/72859d00212d40ac9a6ce9129502119e : “The second quarter was a strong quarter, but it was juiced up by the tax cuts and higher government spending,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist Moody’s Analytics. Zandi forecast that growth for 2018 will reach 3 percent, which would be the best rate since before the Great Recession. In 2019, he expects solid 2.6 percent growth. But in 2020 — a presidential election year — Zandi is forecasting growth of just 0.9 percent, a pace so slow it will raise the threat of a recession. “We will come pretty close to stalling out in 2020 because the growth we are seeing now is not sustainable,” Zandi said. By all expert opinions, this growth is not expected to continue, and in fact is likely to rebound with lower growth later, since it is essentially just a stimulus.

Tim Pool is a hack but he is right about Democrat infighting hurting potentially costing them the presidential race. Neither the moderate wing nor the progressive wing are willing to give each other anything more than open contempt and I have difficulty imagining a candidate that could rally them together other than maybe Bernie.

The 538 aggregate you listed doesn't list the elected approval rating tho? I think you are using his first day in office approval rating for the 41% The economy stuff I can sort of see, but figured I would point out that I don't see the November 8th 2016 date on what you linked.

If Bernie isn't the nominee, then it's all over. Everyone else in the running is a centrist, pro-corporate hack. I'd probably give Biden an edge over Trump, but even he's an open question with the way he puts his foot in his mouth. He could very easily drop the ball if he keeps saying dumb shit like "millennials don't have it hard." Don't underestimate the chances Trump gets reelected, as sad and buffoonish as he is. The Democrats are so bad they might lose to this guy again.

I would bet $1000 Trump will win again. I don’t think the democrats have got their shit together at all. Doubling down on their “But We’re Not Trump” Campaign. I’m not even looking at approval ratings or polls because clearly that didn’t mean shit during the last election.

The polls were actually fairly accurate during the election. Hillary led by something like 3% on average, which is what she won the popular vote by. The problem was the media totally ignored them and called Clinton a shoe-in.

Well the bigger problem was she campaigned and lost in the wrong states.

I would also point out all the trumpkissers in the news today saying this growth is tots sustainable, including Trump himself specifically saying its sustainable

Also a majority percent is not the same as 100 percent. Nate Silver layed out how Trump could win before it happened.

Hinging the country's political future on an old man is not a good idea. There needs to be fresh progressive blood, which we're already starting to see.

Unfortunately, the presidency isn't something fresh blood is likely fit to handle. The old man is probably your wisest bet in that department.

Yea, he's really the only experienced progressive right now that can run. The newer ones have to wait since there's a legal age required to be a president.

Which to me is a load of shit, especially since in the coming years, more than half the population will be in liberal cities and will have their voice drowned out by a bunch of states that have no people to accurately represent their cut.

Well that is largely the point of existence of the EC when the founders debated how to prevent a few locations overwhelmingly determining the election.

If you want to secure the country's political future, then you need to elect the guy who has the right vision to lead the way. In the 2020 race that's going to be only one guy.

The bigger problem is that she was a terrible candidate that most dems didnt want, and the only thing she had to offer was "I have a vagina, therefore I am more qualified". She also completely denigrated her opponents constituents and completely ignored the rust belt unionest dem voters like every democrat before her. She also had the email scandal on top of her, and whichever side you think is right, it still greatly harmed her. Bengazi didnt help either. Clinton was a perfect storm of bad candidate qualities, and the DNC still shoe horned her in.

But how can you call a nation a democracy when the many are ignored for the few. The EC is outdated and useless at representing the actual vote.

Warren? She is OG and a damn hero to progressives.

Because the America has always been Republic? If you read the Founders or the Federalist Papers it is quite clear the founders weren't for straight democracy as they feared mob rule.

Ideally he'll be too busy in court and won't have the money for a campaign after his brand became so worthless that the banks sold it off to Obama Real Estate.🌈

Apportionment should mean that the EC and House are biased to high population urban states, while the Senate is totally dominated by rural ones.

Do you have a source for this? I've been through the Federalist papers many times since the 2016 election proved how broken our system was and can't find a single citation where Hamilton or Madison talk about geographical areas becoming too densely populated and being granted an undue amount of legislative power. The real reason seems to be an effort to stymie political factions from coming into power and oppressing everyone else. Also, the other option at the time, direct democracy, was seen as impractical given the large slave populations in the south.

So basically what you're arguing is, under representation is okay as long as its my representation. States are being fucked by republicans with gerrymandering out the ass, they have lost the popular vote by a total landslide, but they keep power? Do you not see how fucked that is for any republic/democracy. I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if a democrat won the EC but lost more than 3% of the popular vote.

Why do you think Republican's benefit from the EC a lot more than Democrats? Are you okay with votes in one state counting for less than votes in another? You are closer on the mob rule thing, quoting Hamilton As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Clearly this isn't how the EC works anymore, with electors in most states being bound to whatever their state votes for. If you are going to make the argument that the EC is okay because the founders did it you should understand that their idea of the EC is nothing at all like what it is now, much like most of the country.

I guess he's likely to win in the sense that presidents who campaign for a second term usually win it but Trump is also anything but a usual president.

If you are going to have a system where someone can have 3 million votes more than the next person but lose because the other person had 80,000 more votes in Special Voting Jurisdictions then you might as well get rid of popular voting altogether.

I feel like there's a aptitude bar where if you stay above it you'll get a second term no matter what but if you go below the bar there is no chance of a second term.

tyranny of the majority is the biggest fallacy i've ever heard it literally just means democracy

Unclejimmema significantly overestimated how much rationality, self awareness, and shame Daft Tudd has.