4 ms·

Clinton won the popular vote. I mean short of winning, what else qualifies? I don't subscribe to the idea that the party in an election who received over half t

Clinton won the popular vote. I mean short of winning, what else qualifies? I don't subscribe to the idea that the party in an election who received over half the vote is somehow falling apart at the seams. Pundits do this every time there is an election but in reality it's the swing of the pendulum. The parties and peoples feelings towards them evolve over time and power changes hands between the two parties. Does that mean you need to go cry in a corner and question your reality each time your party loses an election? No it does not.

mikeash 10y ago
Winning the popular vote by a small margin, against the worst candidate anyone alive has ever seen, and not by enough to actually secure victory, is not "doing well" in my estimation. If you want to see what "doing well" would look like, see the results of the 2008 or 2012 elections. And what do you mean "over half the vote"? The current number according to Google has 48% going to Clinton. She got more than Trump, yes, but less than half. If getting 60 million votes qualifies as "doing well," then how do you describe getting nearly 70 million votes in 2008? Is losing almost 10 million votes in 8 years, while the electorate has grown substantially and demographics have shifted considerably in your favor, a sign that everything is fine?
- ryanackley 10y ago
  The "worst candidate evah!" is obviously subjective because there are many many people who are very passionate about Trump. Because I see them on my Facebook feed and I saw them leading up to election day waving signs at major intersections. Again, the idea that people unenthusiastically moped down to the polls to cast their vote for a candidate they didn't want just doesn't line up with the facts.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Of course it's subjective. If you want an objective measure, how about saying: a candidate who was worse than Romney and McCain, based on the absolute number of voters and the percentage of eligible voters that he ended up winning. I don't see how a lack of enthusiasm conflicts with the facts. Voter turnout was way down. Democrats won way fewer votes than the last two times around, to the point that they lost the election even though their opponent also did worse than before.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Having the most bankruptcies and lawsuits is a quantitative measure of being the worst candidate ever.

mikeash 10y ago

Winning the popular vote by a small margin, against the worst candidate anyone alive has ever seen, and not by enough to actually secure victory, is not "doing well" in my estimation. If you want to see what "doing well" would look like, see the results of the 2008 or 2012 elections. And what do you mean "over half the vote"? The current number according to Google has 48% going to Clinton. She got more than Trump, yes, but less than half. If getting 60 million votes qualifies as "doing well," then how do you describe getting nearly 70 million votes in 2008? Is losing almost 10 million votes in 8 years, while the electorate has grown substantially and demographics have shifted considerably in your favor, a sign that everything is fine?

ryanackley 10y ago
The "worst candidate evah!" is obviously subjective because there are many many people who are very passionate about Trump. Because I see them on my Facebook feed and I saw them leading up to election day waving signs at major intersections. Again, the idea that people unenthusiastically moped down to the polls to cast their vote for a candidate they didn't want just doesn't line up with the facts.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Of course it's subjective. If you want an objective measure, how about saying: a candidate who was worse than Romney and McCain, based on the absolute number of voters and the percentage of eligible voters that he ended up winning. I don't see how a lack of enthusiasm conflicts with the facts. Voter turnout was way down. Democrats won way fewer votes than the last two times around, to the point that they lost the election even though their opponent also did worse than before.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Having the most bankruptcies and lawsuits is a quantitative measure of being the worst candidate ever.