4 ms·

> 95% is “Obama vs a dog” That's what it was, don't forget how impossible it seemed at the time, it was a giant upset and shock. > You think if Hillary went u

> 95% is “Obama vs a dog” That's what it was, don't forget how impossible it seemed at the time, it was a giant upset and shock. > You think if Hillary went up against Trump, America would choose her 19 times out of 20? If you are using "Hillary" and "Trump" figuratively about future elections with similarly matched candidates, then yes, see above.

tomp 6y ago
> That's what it was, don't forget how impossible it seemed at the time, it was a giant upset and shock. Only in your filter bubble.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  Nope. Even Trump himself did not expect to win. That's part of why he was utterly unprepared for a transition, as it has been widely documented.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Being extremely charitable in my definitions, Trump seems to heavily apply just in time decision making to nearly all aspects of his life. I wouldn't take his not being prepared as evidence of anything.
ghaff 6y ago
It was an upset/shock. It also wasn't inconceivable or "In an unbelievable upset, the Libertarian Party has won."
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
You're forgetting how bad Hillary was as a candidate. I'm not saying she ran a bad campaign (though she did). I'm talking about her "negatives". Decades of scandals. (Yeah, Trump had them too, but at a minimum it meant that Hillary couldn't use Trump's scandals against him. Also, Hillary's scandals got a lot more national coverage when they happened than Trump's did.) Benghazi. The email server (and with it, the impression that she thought that rules were for other people). The impression that she thought that she was owed the presidency, rather than having to earn it. The way the DNC chose her over Sanders, overruling the will of many of the primary voters. And on and on. It wasn't obvious at the time, because much of the press was pro-Hillary. But she was a terrible candidate. I think if the Democrats had run anyone else, they probably would have won against Trump.
- VLM 6y ago
  Is anything different this time around other than the usual incumbent advantages?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I'm not sure. Are you saying that Trump is a horrible candidate? Or that Biden is? (Or that both are?) Biden isn't disliked as much as Hillary was. In that sense, he's a better candidate. (Trump is disliked as much as Hillary was, and then some. Perhaps that was your point.) But Biden doesn't generate any enthusiasm, except that he's "not Trump". (In fairness, some of the support for Trump was that he wasn't Hillary.)
  - smt88 6y ago
    Yes. 1. Trump is no longer an unknown. 2. Biden is far more popular than Clinton was at her peak. 3. Biden is male (which is sadly very relevant in US elections). 4. We are no longer in the biggest economic expansion in US history. We may be in a historic recession. 5. There is a pandemic that has killed 60x the number of Americans that died on 9/11, and it is no under control in the US at all. 6. Kamala Harris is not like Tim Kaine. 7. Lots of anti-Trump voters are afraid to be complacent this time. 8. Suburban women, true independent voters (those who dislike both candidates), and older Americans are either breaking for Biden or have substantially switched to Democratic support after going for Trump in 2016. A better question would be: is anything the same this time around?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      2. I'm not sure that's true. I would say, though, that Biden is far less unpopular than Clinton was. 4. But the biggest (longest, anyway) economic expansion was largely under Obama. That wasn't a reason to vote for Trump in 2016. The rest of your list I agree with, with the possible exception of 8. I'm not sure that we can tell. I think the climate is so polarized, and the Democrats have the microphone to such a degree, that people who support Trump aren't willing to say in public that they do so. But you could in fact be right. We'll see.

tomp 6y ago

> That's what it was, don't forget how impossible it seemed at the time, it was a giant upset and shock. Only in your filter bubble.

enraged_camel 6y ago
Nope. Even Trump himself did not expect to win. That's part of why he was utterly unprepared for a transition, as it has been widely documented.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Being extremely charitable in my definitions, Trump seems to heavily apply just in time decision making to nearly all aspects of his life. I wouldn't take his not being prepared as evidence of anything.

ghaff 6y ago

It was an upset/shock. It also wasn't inconceivable or "In an unbelievable upset, the Libertarian Party has won."

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

You're forgetting how bad Hillary was as a candidate. I'm not saying she ran a bad campaign (though she did). I'm talking about her "negatives". Decades of scandals. (Yeah, Trump had them too, but at a minimum it meant that Hillary couldn't use Trump's scandals against him. Also, Hillary's scandals got a lot more national coverage when they happened than Trump's did.) Benghazi. The email server (and with it, the impression that she thought that rules were for other people). The impression that she thought that she was owed the presidency, rather than having to earn it. The way the DNC chose her over Sanders, overruling the will of many of the primary voters. And on and on. It wasn't obvious at the time, because much of the press was pro-Hillary. But she was a terrible candidate. I think if the Democrats had run anyone else, they probably would have won against Trump.

VLM 6y ago
Is anything different this time around other than the usual incumbent advantages?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I'm not sure. Are you saying that Trump is a horrible candidate? Or that Biden is? (Or that both are?) Biden isn't disliked as much as Hillary was. In that sense, he's a better candidate. (Trump is disliked as much as Hillary was, and then some. Perhaps that was your point.) But Biden doesn't generate any enthusiasm, except that he's "not Trump". (In fairness, some of the support for Trump was that he wasn't Hillary.)
- smt88 6y ago
  Yes. 1. Trump is no longer an unknown. 2. Biden is far more popular than Clinton was at her peak. 3. Biden is male (which is sadly very relevant in US elections). 4. We are no longer in the biggest economic expansion in US history. We may be in a historic recession. 5. There is a pandemic that has killed 60x the number of Americans that died on 9/11, and it is no under control in the US at all. 6. Kamala Harris is not like Tim Kaine. 7. Lots of anti-Trump voters are afraid to be complacent this time. 8. Suburban women, true independent voters (those who dislike both candidates), and older Americans are either breaking for Biden or have substantially switched to Democratic support after going for Trump in 2016. A better question would be: is anything the same this time around?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    2. I'm not sure that's true. I would say, though, that Biden is far less unpopular than Clinton was. 4. But the biggest (longest, anyway) economic expansion was largely under Obama. That wasn't a reason to vote for Trump in 2016. The rest of your list I agree with, with the possible exception of 8. I'm not sure that we can tell. I think the climate is so polarized, and the Democrats have the microphone to such a degree, that people who support Trump aren't willing to say in public that they do so. But you could in fact be right. We'll see.