I don't like Ezra Klein much but he did bring up a good point in regards to 2016...

[Drunken Irishman]

The general consensus about the 2016 election was overall dissatisfaction with the country as a whole - you know, economic anxiety and all that. But he pointed out that there is an argument to be made that the fact the economy was improving, and the election wasn't dominated by crisis, played directly into Trump's hands.

So, I thought about it - and damn if he didn't have a point.

The overall lack of crisis in 2016, an election dominated by either war or economic upheaval or rioting, actually helped Trump in 2016.

I mean, it kind of does sound absurd on its face. Why would the country turn away from the party in power whose president, at the time, had a strong approval rating and overall satisfaction with the economy and the country was higher than it had been eight years prior?

Well ... do you all remember the 2000 election?

It wasn't that dissimilar.

I think Ezra's point was that it was easier to justify supporting Trump, or voting third party, in those conditions because the country was in an all right state. We know it was in an all right state because the President generally received high marks.

Obama's approval on election day in 2016 was at 53%. That was actually higher than in 2012 when he won reelection. The general mood the country was that things were going in the right direction - so why move away from that?

Well, for one, Hillary was not Obama. Just as Gore was not Clinton. But more importantly, the overall stability allowed for someone like Trump to gain traction because these elections can make it easier for the electorate to want to try something entirely new.

Now let's go back to 2008.

2008 was a crisis election. The country was still fighting two wars and the economy was collapsing.

On paper, Obama, as a much less experienced senator, would seem to be the more risky candidate than McCain.

But in practice? McCain was doing okay until he went and picked Palin as his VP - even then, he was doing enough to survive, and make the election competitive, until his erratic behavior started overshadowing the race. You know, his comments about the fundamentals of the economy being strong - or the fact he suspended his campaign abruptly during the crisis and struggled showing any type of leadership at the most important moment in the election.

McCain lost, in part because his party was at historic levels of bad, but he also lost because his erratic behavior, plus his woefully inept running-mate, scared Americans. They started thinking, "what if McCain drops dead of a heart attack and leaves her in charge..." and that panic boosted Obama's campaign. Obama-Biden looked calm - they looked like leaders to the freakshow that was coming out of the McCain campaign in October of 2008.

Which is funny because, again, McCain should have been the stable hand because he was the most experienced.

It turned out to be Obama, however.

But that type of landscape didn't exist in 2016. So, the news wasn't dominated by economic news. Trump's manic episodes weren't contrasted with a country in crisis, which would have certainly inflated those episodes. Instead, the campaign was largely personal. It was about hating one more than the other.

It also allowed for these Never Trumpers, and even some Bernie supporters, to feel some comfortability in voting third party. Something that isn't that dissimilar to 2000 and the Nader voters.

Had those votes gone to Clinton, she wins - and probably wins by a margin similar to Obama in 2012.

But they didn't.

NOW the backdrop is a country in crisis. Now Americans are seeing the erratic behaviors of a president and how that is contrasting with a nation plunged in chaos.

Trump is absolutely not stepping up to the plate when it comes to leadership. He is failing in this regard. And it's showing.

In that context, it isn't THAT big of a surprise that Trump won in 2016 and is now struggling in 2020. It's also why, despite Trump siding with the police and law and order, a typically strong defense to have when the nation is struggling through social unrest, he's not gaining any traction in the polls for it. I know I questioned a few weeks ago if Trump would actually benefit from the chaos in the streets but now it's clear he isn't. These moments are not only an extension of his lack of leadership, I think Americans feel his rhetoric and manic action is only fueling the issue and it's why Biden, despite being more aligned with the protesters, is actually leading in the polls - because they see Biden as that calm hand stepping up and leading.

Very similar to Obama in 2008.

And that doesn't even get into the COVID response, which has been so horrifically bad that it again contrasts awfully with his leadership style and incompetence.

2020, unlike 2016, is actually an issues campaign. Trump is trying to change that, of course, but it's a campaign about leadership and guiding the country through some very dark days. Just as 2008 was.

In those elections, it seems Americans are less likely to take a risk. Ironically, the sitting president is actually the riskier option here.

[mucifer]

1. yes people can actually compare trump and Joe because Joe was VP

[dawg day]

2. We should remember that most voters voted against Trump-

But I think you're right. The third-party voters thought there wasn't much danger in voting third party. (Should have learned from the Nader voters in 2000....)

Then that strange percentage of people who voted for Trump- like he said, they thought, "What do we have to lose?"
After all, whether they could admit it or not, life was pretty good for most of us, comparatively. They thought they could afford to gamble, to "what the fck" it. Entertainment!

Well, they got a lot of that. Entertainment. Drama. Blood and guts.

[Beartracks]

4. Right: "It's in the bag, so Hilary doesn't need my vote."

That worked out well.

=======

[la-trucker]

10. I think some third party voters voted with malice

and some with aforethought. The former because they thought their messiah was screwed and the latter wanted to give the messiah another shot at the presidency in 2020 by defeating Hillary Clinton.

[Sherman A1]

3. Interesting analysis

Not sure that I agree with it, but I don't really disagree.

[still_one]

5. 2016 was an issues campaign. Certain self-identified progressive pushed the lie that the SC didn't

matter, and that there was no difference between republicans and Democrats

[brush]

6. Come on, folks. That ignores the elephant that was in the voting booth...

in 2016. Race. Many whites, yielding to their inner tribalism, wanted a white man back in the WH. And there was also the elephant's wife in the booth too. Misogyny. Too many of those whites weren't going to vote for a woman either. And a majority of white women didn't even vote for Hillary.

It's not that complicated.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. That is oversimplified.

Trump didn't do much better overall than Romney - both in the national popular vote and in swing states like PA, MI and WI.

It wasn't that Trump fueled an insurgency of new voters who didn't vote in 2012 or 2008 - or voters who did vote, but went for Obama. Sure, some of that was at play but it wasn't extensive. In PA, Mi and WI, Trump only did 2-3 points better than Romney.

That alone should not have cost her those states.

So, what did?

The fact the third party candidates did way better in 2016 than they did in 2012.

As for your last point, a majority of white women didn't vote for Obama, either, in 2012.

Romney won white women with 56% of the vote in 2012.
Trump won white women with 52% of the vote in 2016.

Hillary actually did better, in terms of margins (lost it by nine) than Obama did four years prior (lost it by 14).

[brush]

8. You actually believe race and misogyny had noting to do with it?

What do you think Comey's letter was all about? I don't believe for a second that nobody in the whole FBI didn't know those files on that laptop weren't duplicates they'd already reviewed. Not for a second.

As for the race issue. Come on, this is the United States.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. I never said that.

But that alone isn't what won Trump the election.

[rickyhall]

9. If it weren't for Republican cheating, neither W nor Trump would have won.

In fact, Nixon bought off North Vietnam & Reagan bought off Iran. I'll venture to say that Republican Dirty Tricks won all these Crooks the White House, even Bush I.

[kurtcagle]

12. Two different governing styles

I've thought about this issue a great deal.

Democrats in general tend to favor an introverted leadership style (which doesn't necessarily mean introvert leaders - I"ll get to that in a bit). What we want from a candidate is competence, calm in the face of crisis, an ability to plan ahead and divert most of those crises away before they reach that stage, compassion, and a sense of humor. When they succeed, things run smoothly. We generally want holistic leaders, able administrators, and actualized people.

Republicans in general tend to favor an extroverted leadership style. They want someone to lead us into battle, to wrestle crises to the ground, someone who projects confidence and strength, and someone who is like how they imagine they are (or want to be). There's a great deal of projection that goes on with Republican voters - they want to see the way that they view the world in their leaders, and typically this means that many tend to be on the extroverted side of sociopathy. Put another way, Republicans want to see their leaders smiting their enemies. They want superheroes.

In psychological development, most people go through a superhero phase, typically between the age of 8 and 16 years of age ... in other words, as they go through puberty. This is perfectly healthy and is largely a reaction to both the physiological changes and the mental rewiring. During this time, though, magical thinking is prevalent. If that person follows through, exposing themselves to different beliefs, different viewpoints, after a while, they mature to a point where they start thinking about the relationship that they have with the world, about responsibility, and about agency. They tend to gain a holistic view or reality.

I've noticed that this latter phase doesn't happen to the same extent in people with closed mindsets, which is typically the case with conservatives. They may go to college, but in general their interactions are primarily with their peers, and they have less likelihood of interacting with people who have different experiences than their own. Those who stay in rural settings (or otherwise never really move beyond their own surroundings) often don't develop that much at all, they don't challenge their beliefs, and as a consequence, they never really move beyond the superhero phase. They also usually don't learn how to deal with adversity. They fail to develop a holistic sense of the world.

Trump never did. I think this is one of the reasons that he speaks so well to the magical thinking crowd - it's how he views the world. He cocoons himself, keeping out any real interaction with the outside world. He deals only through intermediaries. He never really learned how to analyze, save from the perspective of becoming a crime boss, and he never really had any true responsibility or situation where someone didn't bail him out. It's even how he chooses his advisors - he wants people who will be there to bail him out when he gets in hot water, not people who are competent, and people who also will step back into the shadows because he wants to be seen as the superhero, not them.

Trump behaves like a king. This is what his followers want because that's what they expect in a president. It's wish-fulfillment and reality TV, and for all of his many, many faults, Trump knows how to play to an audience.

[JI7]

13. Economic Anxiety was so much bs and just an excuse for white bigots

and the media sure played it up. treating white racists as victims.