Who is Harry Enton?
Apparently someone CNN thinks highly enough of to have him analyze the current state of President Trump’s re-election chances.
Too bad for CNN.
Here, minus an irrelevant first paragraph, is the beginning of Mr. Enton’s latest commentary – in rust, with my comments in blue:
Poll of the week: A Des Moines Register poll puts President Donald Trump’s approval rating in Iowa at 46%, while his disapproval rating in the same poll is at 50%.
That’s nice. But what of it? We are almost two years from the next presidential election.
This mirrors a year-long Gallup poll in Iowa which has Trump’s approval rating at 45% and his disapproval rating at 51%.
OK, we get it. In Iowa, Trump’s approval is in the mid 40’s. Your point?
There’s little doubt that Trump would lose if the 2020 election were held today and it was was a referendum on his job as president. His approval rating has been well below his disapproval rating throughout his presidency.
HUH???? Little doubt????? Congratulations on, analytically speaking, jumping off a cliff.
Tell us, Mr. Enton: who is Trump running against? What does the voting public think of his/her credentials? Positions on issues? Accomplishments or lack thereof? How does the voting public view this candidate compared to Trump?
The answer to those questions, in their order of appearance, is no one knows, no one knows, no one knows, no one knows, and no one knows.
But you’re making assessments on Trump’s re-election chances based on this? You must be amazing at roulette.
A basic fact for you, Mr. Enton: right now, the only “competition” Donald Trump has is not an actual Democrat candidate, it is the almost uniformly negative media coverage media give him – with CNN right up front in that regard.
And, since there is no candidate to run against, Trump and his people are producing no “here’s our answer” campaign, attacking that unknown candidate, while enumerating what it considers Trump’s accomplishments as President.
What possible meaning, therefore, does your “analysis” have?
And that, of course, is before we get to the fact that, if polling were accurate about Donald Trump in 2016, he would not have won the presidency. So we know that, the one time Trump ran, he over-performed relative to polling…which, apparently, doesn’t count in your world.
A far more interesting question is how high does his approval rating actually have to climb in order for him to have a better than minimal chance of winning in 2020.
Translation: you assess Donald Trump’s current chances of being re-elected as minimal or less.
Based on what? An Iowa poll taken almost two years before election day, with no idea of who he is running against? You’ve got to know better than this.
Polls like the ones from Iowa suggest that Trump may be able to win, even if his approval rating nationally is below his disapproval rating. That is, Trump may be able to do exactly what he did in 2016: win the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote.
Ahhh, here we go again. The “Trump lost the popular vote” line.
Allow me to remind you, Mr. Enton, that Donald Trump did not try to win the national popular vote, and – I assume – neither did Hillary Clinton (though, given the competency level of her 2016 campaign, I can’t say I’m 100% sure).
Since Trump’s people (correctly) assessed that he could not win either California or New York, it conceded both to Hillary Clinton; Trump barely campaigned in either state. That is why, nation-wide, Clinton got more votes than he did.
Illustratively, what if Trump decided it would be a great idea to go hot and heavy in those two states, and succeeded in halving her margins? Trump would have lost California and New York anyway – but Clinton’s popular vote “victory” would have been gone. Obviously, there was no reason to do that, so he didn’t bother.
See, until things change, you still win presidential elections by getting the most electoral votes. And, in case you forgot, Trump won the the electoral vote in a landslide.
I could go on, but I think you get the points…
…one of which is that this is not a very good analysis…
…and the other of which is that, despite not being a very good analysis, CNN is happy to feature it on the network’s website.
That should tell you something about CNN.