You’re really not prepared to take part in a discussion like this. You’re bringing Pop Warner skills to an NFL game. You don’t understand how an argument proceeds, even at the basic level of how assertions connect to evidence in the world. The point is not to say the words that make you believe you’re smarter. The point is to make a claim that can be either verified or disproved by facts, and then try to support it. You have no evidence whatsoever that Bloomberg will run as a 3rd party candidate. You have enormous amounts of evidence to suggest that he won’t. You can’t just laugh off that contradictory evidence and call that a win.
The fact that a conclusion like “Trump will lose in 2020” is phrased in stark language doesn’t mean I’m claiming it as an absolute certainty. Who would say that? You’d have to be a damn fool to think there’s no chance of anything else happening, eight months out from the election. Of course you have to phrase an argument in those terms for the sake of logical rigidity, but the argument is still just a support for a position. There are other supports for that same position, and there are supports for the opposing position too. You have to weigh them all if you’re trying to decide what’s most likely to happen.
I actually have weighed virtually all of the available evidence, and I think this particular argument is the strongest support for the position that Trump is on pace to lose in 2020. He still could win; I don’t have to walk back anything in my original article to acknowledge that. But I’m putting forth a single argument for people to weigh as part of the evidence that helps us make predictions about the 2020 election. As such, it’s a fairly uncommon argument that I haven’t seen elsewhere in the media lately, and I think the reader response from both sides reflects that.