Like past fork threats and FUD, it's impossible to tell what will happen. It does seem that the November fork is more of a threat to BTC than the BCH fork. But Core's firm stance against Segwit2x, and some backtracking from Bitfury and Bitgo have me wondering if maybe the hard fork will be delayed, if not entirely abandoned.
That's what I am actually hoping for, but we simply can't discard the fact that the major share of the hash power is coming from malicious miners that aren't thinking about how they can prevent Bitcoin from suffering any sort of damage, but just want to see themselves move forward, financially speaking. Segwit itself makes their 2MB hard fork obsolete since the transaction size in general will shrink significantly, and thus allow more transactions to be processed, and that without actually needing to go beyond current 1MB cap.
Then again, if the Bitcoin Cash drama taught us anything, it's that forkers would be wise to launch their fork and attempt to succeed on the open market, rather than trying to win an all-or-nothing battle of public opinion before the fact (like XT or BU). If you have significant money to initially prop up the markets and market the coin, it has a much better chance of succeeding than bitching on social media for two years with some miner signalling.
That's my thought too. Miners should just fork off, and shape that fork into what they think their version of Bitcoin should look like - this market offers basically any entity the freedom to do so. That being said, I am quite sure that they very well understand that whatever fork they come up with, it won't be a viable long term plan. Even if we look into the altcoin part of the market, split coins have never really done well. It's just a short term money tree for those behind these forks, and from there they will just try to initiate another fork if they think it's beneficial in financial terms. In that regard, I wouldn't be surprised to see another fork take place ultimately.
