Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2020 3:49:26 GMT
It’s a tough question to ask, given all that we’ve endured over the last four years, but what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 7, 2020 5:50:58 GMT
Yup. Clinton didn't lose by much and Biden has much better favorables and would've been coming hot off eight years of being Obama's VP.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Nov 7, 2020 7:29:55 GMT
Nah. Trump's win was secured pretty much no matter what, it wasn't just based on the circumstances of the opposition being Hillary Clinton. It was a once in a lifetime campaign, only rivalled by Obama's use of social media in 2008 and a backlash to the progressivism of the early 2010s. The Right grew exponentially under the quieter years of the Obama administration, while Europe was in the middle of the worst migrant crisis since WW2 and the rise of ISIS/the prevalent threat of Islamic terrorism had remerged as a big a deal as it had during the early years of the War On Terror and reenergised pubic paranoia - if there was *ever* a time for Trump's brand of populist, nationalist rhetoric, it was then. For a lot, it wasn't even voting on policy but meant as a deliberate shock to the system, so voting for the still sitting-VP is hard for me to imagine. The media also basically handed him the election with the amount of free coverage they gave him, whereas Biden would try and stay out of the limelight to avoid gaffes as he has in his 2020 campaign. A lot of these are the reasons people explained for his win time and time again, but it's true when applied here too.
2020 is the only election I can recall in which the vanilla, uncharismatic candidate won, which was obviously a reaction towards the incumbent. 2016 wouldn't have been that if Trump was up against Biden, in fact, I 'd argue he would have probably done worse than Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 7, 2020 9:21:52 GMT
I'm not sure but I lean "no"......... because 2016 was an election "change" - where the country was just tired of people named Bush or Clinton being regurgitated and it was appearing as if the US was electing de facto monarchies in that way. While Biden was a better candidate than Clinton .....he still fits that pattern. There is a great political analysis that we don't really have on here that goes deeper into American politics that says Obama caused Trump - a lot of people hated Obama in a way that goes far beyond racism too. The truth is without COVID........ Biden doesn't beat Trump, right? I mean is that going too far to say?
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 7, 2020 11:19:49 GMT
Yes because he isn't a Clinton, isn't a woman, is a super safe relatively conservative old white guy.
No because I do think Trump ran a strong campaign, because there was for sure plenty of resentment of 8 years of Obama, and (linked to that) because only once in the post-War era has a party won more than two successive terms.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Nov 7, 2020 14:13:35 GMT
Nah. Trump's win was secured pretty much no matter what, .
Considering Trump won most swing states by extremely narrow margins and lost the popular vote heavily, that's just non-sense (no campaign in which one part loses the popular vote but wins the election can be called inevitable).
Hillary could have won if she ran a better campaign rather than one that insisted she should be president because "it's her time", and with Biden having more going on for him- more charismatic, not being hated by Republicans for decades, not being a woman (which shouldn't be an issue, sadly, but it is), I think he would have won. I still don't get why he didn't run in 2016, though.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 7, 2020 14:31:14 GMT
Not a Clinton. He would have won.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Nov 7, 2020 14:51:07 GMT
I really don't know any more.
I always HAD thought that he would won. I'm still thinking that Clinton was probably the worst possible democratic candidate back then. This was a time, when for several reasons people - many of them uneducated ones - got heated up against what they call the "establishment" and Trump added fuel to this. And Clinton was a candiate, who encorporated this establishment like few else. This is a point that speaks against Biden as well though. But he is generally more liked than Clinton and there was and is still a bias in many men against a female president. I always thought that Biden would have done much better in the rust belt (something which to a degree is "proven" - not exactly obviously, because with Trump four years in office the base case for the election is much different - at the 2020 election).
This election made me overthink it a bit. After all his stupidities, immoral statements and actions, his lies and attacks on democracy I thought that Trump would at least lose part of his support. I was not fully sure, but pretty confident, he was lose the election, despite I thought it would still be close, because of this outdated electora system. And this way it looks to be now. What is irritating me though is that Trump actually gained votes when compared to 2016. That means many more people approved his behaviour and actions. So basically there's even more people, that are either stupid or immoral themselves or set in my eyes just the false priorities, when choosing whom to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 7, 2020 19:54:52 GMT
Nope. People who voted for Trump were not thinking clearly in 2016 so I think even if Biden was up to the challenge, he would have lost. Trump sold the right people a bag of goods in 2016 and that is all it took. Trump didn't just fall out of the sky, people knew what they were getting when they selected him. I still can't believe people looked at him, knew his history, and still doubled down on his crazy.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Nov 7, 2020 20:07:51 GMT
Nope. People who voted for Trump were not thinking clearly in 2016 so I think even if Biden was up to the challenge, he would have lost. The issue is not just necessarily turning Trump voters into Biden ones, but make more Democrats show up, or have some Republicans thought it wasn't worth the effort.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Nov 7, 2020 20:39:14 GMT
Nah. Trump's win was secured pretty much no matter what, .
Considering Trump won most swing states by extremely narrow margins and lost the popular vote heavily, that's just non-sense (no campaign in which one part loses the popular vote but wins the election can be called inevitable).
Hillary could have won if she ran a better campaign rather than one that insisted she should be president because "it's her time", and with Biden having more going on for him- more charismatic, not being hated by Republicans for decades, not being a woman (which shouldn't be an issue, sadly, but it is), I think he would have won. I still don't get why he didn't run in 2016, though.
Yeah I think it would have been very close as it was in 2016 and this year, and it’s tempting to go with Trump considering that many people just wanted something different than the same politicians every year running, but I don’t think Biden would have made the same mistakes that Clinton did (wouldn’t have ignored the three key midwest states, wouldn’t have been associated with Bill and all the baggage with the emails and Benghazi, probably wouldn’t have called the other side deplorables, etc.) and that would have been enough for a win. Plus as you mentioned sadly the biggest thing that would have won it for Biden was that he was a man.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 7, 2020 20:40:09 GMT
The Comey letter swung a most of the independents still on the fence over to Trump in the 11th hour. Clinton was a terrible candidate and the fact that she lost even to Trump is evidence of that, but It. Was. Damn. Close.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 11, 2020 16:30:13 GMT
I guess with MArco Rubio, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson, instead of Trump the Republican would won too, maybe also with the popular vote.- I think Clinton/Sanders supporters should destroyed Biden chances.- Still I'm unsure.-
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 11, 2020 16:45:25 GMT
i don't understand the people putting sentiments of "trump won because of the resentment of obama" and "biden would win because he wasn't resented" in the same post as if biden wasn't vp during obama's presidency. anyways i think trump would win vs any talking head in 2016
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 11, 2020 16:48:04 GMT
Nah. Trump's win was secured pretty much no matter what, .
(no campaign in which one part loses the popular vote but wins the election can be called inevitable). this is kind of not true when you consider american demographics. i saw data that if biden won the popular vote by like one or two points he was still massively disfavored to win the overall election, and he would have to win by like 6 for the odds to be flipped.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Nov 11, 2020 17:12:46 GMT
(no campaign in which one part loses the popular vote but wins the election can be called inevitable). this is kind of not true when you consider american demographics. i saw data that if biden won the popular vote by like one or two points he was still massively disfavored to win the overall election, and he would have to win by like 6 for the odds to be flipped. Still, that is by no means inevitable. Hillary lost states she barely campaigned in, like Wisconsin and Michigan, by a ridiculously low margin.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 11, 2020 17:25:18 GMT
this is kind of not true when you consider american demographics. i saw data that if biden won the popular vote by like one or two points he was still massively disfavored to win the overall election, and he would have to win by like 6 for the odds to be flipped. Still, that is by no means inevitable. Hillary lost states she barely campaigned in, like Wisconsin and Michigan, by a ridiculously low margin. i don't think anything in politics is inevitable but i think if biden only won the popular vote by 2 percent he most likely would have lost the election, as (i believe) hillary did.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Nov 11, 2020 17:40:53 GMT
Still, that is by no means inevitable. Hillary lost states she barely campaigned in, like Wisconsin and Michigan, by a ridiculously low margin. i don't think anything in politics is inevitable but i think if biden only won the popular vote by 2 percent he most likely would have lost the election, as (i believe) hillary did. Maybe, but Hillary could both have won by a larger margin if she ran a better campaign, or won states that she lost by a very small margin.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 12, 2020 2:39:34 GMT
i don't think anything in politics is inevitable but i think if biden only won the popular vote by 2 percent he most likely would have lost the election, as (i believe) hillary did. Maybe, but Hillary could both have won by a larger margin if she ran a better campaign, or won states that she lost by a very small margin. was that a result of the 3rd party candidate?
|
|