With regards to the betting markets valuation of Trump only finishing his term at 60%, eh...it's a four year bet. I'm not gonna make that unless the spread is great. 60% is wildly undervalued, I think. I'm also confident I can pull >10% returns a year betting(which is true to date) on other stuff. Given the magic of compounding interest, I'd have to be an idiot to buy into that market. There are some inherent issues with directly translating price to percent odds for long term bets.
LaserGuy wrote:It's also important to realize that a decent proportion of Trump voters are essentially single-issue voters. He's made big promises to evangelicals, the NRA, trade skeptics, etc. who are more-or-less committed to him doing whatever he wants so long as he hits the top item on their agenda. How far they're prepared to stretch this bargain remains to be seen, but I don't think you're going to see, say, evangelicals deserting him en masse as long as a couple of pro-life Supreme Court Justices are on the table.
There's always a limit, I think. Almost nobody is *entirely* single issue, whatever they might say. But yeah, they're usually heavily influenced by a couple of things. And there's some overlap, here. I mean, pretty much none of these subgroups are at odds with each other.
I don't think the pro-life group, for instance, really expects much progress. They've kept slogging at the same pointless fight for forever, talking about repealing Roe v Wade, often in races that realistically have zero influence on any such decision. It's as much an ideological war as anything. They don't want to win, they want to fight. As long as the right fighting words are said, I don't think Trump has to actually accomplish anything significant for them. Unless he overtly works against them, he just has to bluster a lot, and he's fine. Trump has this in the bag. Democrats cannot seriously appeal to this demographic, I think.
NRA. NRA can and does endorse Democrats instead of Republicans, where the appropriate stance is taken.* Now, this isn't common, and obviously, Clinton couldn't hope for the NRA's endorsement here. There's literally no way the NRA could have done that without a grassroots rebellion. The Clinton name is basically synonymous with gun control. So...literally nowhere to go but up, from the democrat perspective. At worst, they can run someone who simply doesn't bring up the issue. At best, they could try co-opting some of this group, particularly if Trump doesn't actually do much. The gun lobby has long, long memories, and routinely brings up old examples of people who work against them literally decades later. They're organized, and they never forget. So, if Trump screws up at all here, it actually matters. Even small errors can matter.
Trade Skeptics. I'm gonna say that very few of these people hate trade specifically. They're more people who are worried about the economy, particularly their local one, and for whom trade is a convenient thing to blame. Or illegal immigrants. Or government regulation. Pick the blame, whatever, but end of the day, it's an economic concern. If Trump actually ends up broadly helping small town economics, well...I'll be impressed and a bit surprised, but it seems like a genuine accomplishment, if it works out. If he's doing good things for the economy, that probably bodes well for him in 2020. 's an old fundamentals thing, really, not just something particular to this niche. End of the day, everyone needs money. This is one that could influence the race a lot, but it's not something Democrats have much control over. They're pretty much reduced to hoping that Trump screws up bad. In practice, the President has rather less control over the economy than often imagined, so this one seems to have a heavy dose of luck. If the economy does great, and small towns share in some of that, Trump takes credit, regardless of it's actually the result of anything he did, and probably wins in 2020.
The Affordable Care Act. I just added this in here, because Republicans have been talking about it for forever. He really doesn't have to do much. Kill the mandate. That's it. It doesn't have to WORK without the mandate. It's an Obama program. His name's attached to it, as will any failures thereof. This one's faceroll-level easy to pull off.
*This is not common, mind you. Republicans usually do support guns, Democrats, not so much. But they go by a letter grade system, mostly, based on voting records and stuff, so it's hypothetically possible that the next Democratic candidate could be at least decently regarded by the NRA. Kasich in 2010 makes a good example. The NRA supported his opposition due to a 16 yr old beef.