Poll: Just 36% of Americans indicate they would vote for Trump in 2020

Polls such as the one cited are worthless and completely irrelevant. The only polls that mean anything are ones that sample Repub voters in the areas that went for Trump. That will show if his support is weakening.

For example, look at the map from 2016. http://orig04.deviantart.net/7dda/f...ction_map__county__by_louisthefox-daoezzd.png

You will notice that not one county in Alaska or Oklahoma went blue. So if you want to know what the voters are really thinking you would poll the Repubs in those States, preferably in the larger population centers. That will indicate how the next election will go. You would also poll the Repubs in the other Red States in counties where the vote was close but where Trump won. If he's weak in those places then the Dem candidate (whoever it is) has a good shot at winning. If Trump's strong in those areas then he will win again.

 

Exactly. Polls this far out mean little to nothing. Even polls for next years midterms mean little outside of giving us an idea of what would happen if the election were today instead of 11 month hence. As for 2020, if Trump runs again, I doubt it. But if Trump runs again it will once more depend on whom opposes him.

When Trump won the nomination, then went into election day with only a 36% favorable vs. 60% unfavorable rating, one would think there was no way he could ever win. But whom was opposing him had to be taken into consideration. Trump lucked out in that opposing candidate was Hillary Clinton. Another candidate almost as disliked as Trump by America as a whole with a 38% favorable vs. 58% unfavorable. But the more important number was the 70% of independents who viewed Hillary negative to 62% who viewed Trump negatively. Trump ended up winning independents 46-42 over Clinton with 12% voting third party.

The question for 2020 is, will the Democrats nominate another Hillary Clinton? If they do, Trump's odd goes up to 50-50. If the Democrats nominate a decent candidate, that candidate will cake walk considering independents are now against Trump. That could change, after all 2020 is three years in the future.

Bottom line, candidates matter. Will the Democrats have learned that lesson for 2020? Time will tell.

 

Those numbers pretty much reflect the nationwide approval/disapproval of Trump. There is no surprise there as voting patterns generally reflect or run along the approval/disapproval or favorable/unfavorable lines. But with three years to go, there could be substantial changes.

Obama was at 67% approval in Jan 2009. He fell to 50% come Christmas of 2009. Then Obama fell to 43% in November of 2010, 2010 election known for the 63 seat loss in the House and 8 senators by the Democrats. But Obama rose back to 53% election day of 2012 and won re-election. Only to fall again to 40% in Nov of 2014 where the democrats lost the senate. Obama. Obama was at a 56% approval in Nov of 2016, but the being like by most of the electorate didn't get passed on to Clinton. She was at 38% favorable in Nov 2016. Big difference between the two. If Obama could have run for a third term, he would have won easily. Clinton lost.

Point being, these numbers change constantly and what looks good today may be the complete opposite tomorrow. Also and perhaps more importantly, candidates matter. If there is one thing the Democrats need to learn from 2016 and take into 2020 is the knowledge that candidates do matter. one can't just throw any candidate into the arena, they need one who isn't as disliked as the opposing candidate. Failure by the democrats to learn that lesson could mean another defeat.

 

Most candidates don't have decades of right wing smear against them. The next candidate automatically is advantaged. Russian hacking and bots also have been exposed with efforts to stop them being implemented

 

Apparently you haven't learned that lesson either. There was a warning shot fired at the democrats in February of 2016 when a poll showed that 56% of All Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone else other than Clinton. That should of been a wake up call. Although all Americans don't choose the two major parties nominees, the two major parties do. But all Americans vote in the general election. Their voice wasn't heard in February of 2016, but heard in November.

Still, Hillary could have and should have won if she didn't run such an inept campaign. Name me another Democratic candidate that would have let Trump out work and out campaign them between 1 Sep through 8 Nov last year like Hillary did? Trump made 116 campaign visits/stops during that time period to Hillary's 71 and some of those 71 were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. Trump never took a day off, Hillary several. Didn't Hillary know she would have to work to win the election? One has to wonder.

Strategy, Hillary wanted to win by more than Obama did. She wanted to run up the score and tried to add Georgia, Arizona and Utah to her column. Trump, he concentrated on the electoral college, just get 270. By Hillary utilizing assets, time, energy in those three states I mentioned, she forgot about her own backyard, the so called blue wall. Trump made five visits/stops in Wisconsin to Hillary's none. In Michigan it was six for Trump, one for Hillary. Pennsylvania was closer, 8-5 Trump. Even in electoral college rich Florida, Hillary let Trump out work and out campaign her there also. 13 for Trump, 8 for Clinton. Did she think she had those states locked up? Did she think just being next in line was enough?

I think way too much attention of the democrats and Clinton supporters is given to all this other stuff. Not to the candidate herself. Do you think Biden, O'Malley, Sanders, Webb or any other Democrat would have let Trump out work and out campaign them as much as Hillary did? I'll repeat myself, candidates matter.

 

Hillary was a sure winner. How’s her presidency doing, by the way?

 

Trump 'lasting' till 2020 is unlikely. but not impossible.

 

winning!

 

Trump winning 2016 election was not possible.

 

You've said that a number of times. Try catching up. Trump would not have won had it not been for a lot of help paid for with rubles.

 

Wrong. The polls did not say Hillary was a sure winner. They rightfully showed a close race

 

You don’t say? Did Putin really carried Trump over the finish line? Is Mueller hot on his trail, with explosive revelation any day now? ​

 

I don't know about 'any day now' but trump has wallowed in the sewers too long not to come out of this investigation clean.

 

Jeezez! That's a lot of Deplorables.

 

One term in office, one term in jail?

 

Well, it could be that Trump won the swing states because the Democratic voter base stayed home.

Democrats sat out the election because of what happened to Bernie Sanders. He was their hero. They sat home on election night to boycott Hillary and a corrupt Democrat system. And that was only then, when the full details of how Hillary had the DNC in her pocket had yet to come out.

I'm a Democrat but I'm glad Sanders didn't win. That socialist platform was NOT the direction I wanted to take the Democratic party. Oh thank goodness!

 

Every agency out there also predicted a Hilla win in the Electoral College.

 

Nationally The Drunken Kleptocrat garnered 99.9% of Obama's 2012 vote.

It's just that Trump pulled in 103.4% of the Romney vote and what polls predicted that?

 

You would think that the election would show you something about polls.

 

Blacks as well were NOT energized to vote for Hilla unlike Obama. And you also have the fact that she practically wrote off thew Rust Belt, all but giving those states to Trump.

For someone widely hailed as the best and the brightest by the DNC, she sure was a complete idiot walking the campaign trail - that is, when she was able to walk at all.

 

Trump left the best and brightest in the GOP far in the distance. What's the future of the GOP if professionals are beaten by a political amateur and groping professional.

 

It does not mean much about 2020, but it is significant for 2018.

 

It's not too good for either party, when you consider Hilla was also beaten by that same amateur.

In some ways, that's actually a good thing especially when you consider how moribund and corrupt either party is.

 

Neither party is as corrupt as Trump.