A long-time friend and I have come up with a bet to test our views of the world. We both see Donald Trump self-destructing in some ways, mainly with tweets. But I see the Democrats self-destructing too, on the Kavanaugh nomination and on impeachment. It’s hard for me to think of a Democrat who has a chance at the 2020 Presidential nomination who at the same time won’t alienate the median voter. Plus, if the economy continues to grow, even with a growth rate of a little over 2%, Trump will have that going for him.
Here’s our bet:
If Donald Trump is re-elected president in 2020 for a second term, Tom Nagle will pay David $300.
Conditional upon Donald Trump not being removed from office (or resigning to avoid removal, or leaving due to death or illness) before the next presidential election in 2020, David will pay Tom $100 if Donald Trump fails to win a second term.
READER COMMENTS
John
Sep 11 2018 at 1:27am
If I’m reading right, markets are giving this event even odds. So this seems very unfair to Tom (and Tom is making a very poor choice).
Site I like to check: https://electionbettingodds.com/
Oscar Cunningham
Sep 11 2018 at 5:37am
Right. Based on those odds I calculate the value of this bet as $71.90. Perhaps David and Tom can’t legal access the betting market from their states? If so I’m happy to pay David $50 for his side of the bet.
Jonathan Goff
Sep 11 2018 at 2:54am
David,
As much as I can’t stand Trump, I think you’re more likely to win this one. Barring a major economic downturn, I think we’re going to be suffering through six more years of this mess. Being a pessimist when it comes to human nature and politics, my guess is he’ll manage to keep things looking good till after 2020, and then the next major downturn happens in his second term, and you see the government flip hard over to the Dems for a while (till they overreach, and the pendulum swings back).
~Jon
Matthias Goergens
Sep 11 2018 at 4:58am
If the market monetarists’ views keep gaining ground at the Fed, the next recession might take its own sweet time to arrive.
(Not saying that everything will look great on the supply side. But we saw how eg a collapse of the building industry looks like when nominal GDP stays on course: the wider economy barely notices.)
Alan Goldhammer
Sep 11 2018 at 8:40am
The outcome of the bet will largely depend on the what happens this November. If the Democrats take back the House (the Senate seems to be ‘almost’ safe for the Republicans), Trump will face oversight hearings that make the current lawsuits against him look like child’s play. His most intimate financial details will be open for investigation which I don’t think he will want but he will be powerless to prevent this from happening. The stock dealings of Wilbur Ross will be looked at as well and a number of other Cabinet officials may face uncomfortable days before House committees.
A far more interesting bet in light of this would be whether Trump and/or a number of Cabinet officials will resign rather than face the pent up wrath of House Dems.
It is way too early to predict who the Democrats will pick to run in 2020. A number of those who are posturing right now are unworthy (and I say this as a long time Dem). We very well may see a mainstream candidate such as Eric Garcetti, mayor of LA, or Amy Klobuchar, senator from MN (how I wish she was the nominee instead of queen to be Hilary last time) who are my two choices. The electoral map will be more complex in 2020 with many new young voters in swing states such as FL and NC; we’ll also see how close TX can be with the Senate race this fall between Cruz and O’Rourke. Republicans start off with an inherent disadvantage in the Electoral College and some of the big Eastern states will have the same number of EC votes because the census change won’t be in affect until 2022.
Trump tariffs may play out badly and the larger macroeconomic factors in Turkey, China and the EU might have an adverse impact on the global economy. Will there be a recession? Who knows but remember back to 2006 when everything appeared to be rosy? We live in interesting times.
Thomas Nagle
Sep 16 2018 at 4:40pm
“Republicans start off with an inherent disadvantage in the Electoral College”
Is this statement correct? I would have thought the opposite given that Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote by a couple percentage points. He carried a lot of states with below average population but disproportionate representation in congress (House plus Senate) and the electoral college.
Tom DeMeo
Sep 11 2018 at 10:24am
I think you are right about the failures of the Democratic party, and evaluation of current circumstances.
The problem is that circumstances are likely to change dramatically. There is one set of factors related to politics: whether the GOP holds the House of Representatives. That matters quite a bit, and the likely result is Democrats taking control, along with the powers that provides.
The other set of factors is baked in but hidden at the moment. What has Trump really done? That is most likely going to decide your bet, and that doesn’t depend on political calculations much at all. Your bet is only valid if he isn’t removed, which would have to mean that there will be enough political wiggle room for Republican senators to side with Trump. You only win if the results of the Mueller investigation are inconclusive enough for him to win.
No matter how this plays out, the first half of Trump’s term has been gut wrenching but politically inconclusive. The second half will require some resolutions. Its hard to see what will happen on the other side of that, but we should expect things will go badly no matter what.
Clarke McGuire
Sep 11 2018 at 6:36pm
It is disappointing that the character of a person is not taken into account when evaluating the options for election. I am staunchly free market with a tinge of libertarian. However, would I take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump – yes, simply on the basis of character. Would I take George Bush over Bill Clinton – yes, on the basis of character. It is easier to have disagreements and argue with people of good character – even if I disagree with their policy proposals – than to put up with a Donald Trump. I understand that there is strong evidence that the roll-backs of the regulatory environment are resulting in a great economy and likely will continue to have a positive effect. But…at what price of the dignity to our social fabric.
Richard
Sep 12 2018 at 12:45pm
I don’t remember where I saw this, but somebody did an analysis and by just projecting the demographics of Wisconsin and Michigan, and assuming every demographic voted the same way, Trump would lose both states in 2020. Plus Hillary Clinton was a hugely unpopular figure, Dems may well be pragmatic, or they may alienate the average voter and make up for it with their base. Trump’s approval rating is a better indicator than economic numbers, as the latter is often thought to be a driver of the former.
Basically, I think Trump is more likely than not to lose, although one cannot be too confident in either direction.
Mark Brady
Sep 12 2018 at 5:38pm
“It’s hard for me to think of a Democrat who has a chance at the 2020 Presidential nomination who at the same time won’t alienate the median voter.” What does it mean to be the median voter in a presidential election? What is the horizontal axis measuring? And even if we could agree on answers to those two questions, a presidential election is an indirect election. Each voter chooses a slate of electors in the electoral college, and each slate of electors vote for the presidential candidate to whom they are pledged. For most states, this election is conducted on a “winner-takes-all” basis. Hence cases like the 2000 and 2016 election when the person elected president received fewer popular votes than the unsuccessful candidate. (That is, unless a particular elector breaks ranks and votes for a candidate to whom they are not pledged, as happened in 1972 when Roger MacBride voted for John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.)
Tom Nagle
Sep 16 2018 at 5:07pm
I realize that many of you out there make all choices to maximize your wealth and so think I should have made a bet with those offering better odds than I got from David. However, my bet with David was intended to express my confidence (hope?) that the voting population of this country is made up of people who are better than one would think given whom they elected president. Donald Trump wrote a book, The Art of The Deal, in which he himself describes how he repeatedly conned people out of their money. They lost in one deal after another while he set them up to win regardless of the performance of the investment. In the 2016 election, he used the same tactics to con people out of their votes. But are they going to believe his false claims again?
You can con some of the people all of the time, but I do not believe Trump will be able to con as many next time around after they have been burned (as, for example, soy bean farmers and manufacturers whose products involve steel and aluminum have been). There are also a lot of Hispanics who are social conservatives and thus voted Republican in 2016 but are unlikely to do so this time. More that 50,000 new voters have arrived in my home state of Florida where they can vote for President, having come from Puerto Rico where they could not.
Lastly, many Democratic leaning voters who had supported Obama could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary in 2016. She and her husband had already proven themselves to be ethically challenged on a level comparable to Donald. With moderates abandoning the Republican party, the Democrats will likely nominate a more moderate and credible candidate next time around.
Jeremy N
Oct 2 2018 at 4:45pm
You should name a bet referee. I think there are numerous other ways things can shake out. What if Trump decides not to run again? Is that akin to resigning? What if he loses Republican nomination?
Comments are closed.