undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSllX5y ago0 comments

> Who set a record for votes. He wasn't unpopular, he was the 2nd most popular candidate ever.

You have a point, but let me ask you: if a bag of rice had been the Republican Presidential incumbent in place of Donald J. Trump, do you think Biden would have received a record-setting number of votes?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me Trump's unpopularity was as much a factor in Biden winning as anything else that, and maybe that's because I live in a blue bubble, but even conservative outlets I followed were expecting the Republicans to be absolutely crushed this election and to go down in flames with the President, and they weren't. Not even close. Republicans didn't regain the House, but they saw net gains, and they retained a full 50% of the Senate. Harris's vote is only relevant if the Democrats can win in the Georgia runoff on January 6th, not just one, but both seats, otherwise she's just another President of the Senate without a vote. Considering that election is still an open question, it is a bit early to be calling Georgia a blue state. Elections are more than just the President after all, and Red and Blue States are only really Red and Blue after they've demonstrated a continuous unbroken Red or Blue streak for a few cycles.

So again, if the Republican Presidential incumbent was a bag of rice, would we have 1. seen record-breaking turnout in favor of both candidates and 2. a loss by the incumbent? I ask, and maybe this is just because I live in a blue bubble inside a blue bubble, because it seems to me much of the public turned out to register a vote of no confidence in the President more than they turned out to vote specifically for Biden. I wouldn't say most of Biden's votes were this, but enough to swing the election in a few key States? I think that's plausible.

0 comments

ntsplnkv25y ago

I think, by and large, you look at polls, and set your expectations. You say "I expected the republicans to be crushed, they weren't, so it must be true that the democrats didn't perform well." I think a lot of democrats did the same - but it wasn't truly realistic.

I'd say the republicans were beaten pretty badly. I think they are at their worst point in decades. They managed to get their largest turnout ever, and didn't even flip the house. States that were red for decades flipped blue. And if the two runoffs are losses, that is a devastating blow, losing all levels of the federal government. 50% is not 50% without the white house.

I don't think the memory of Trump will go away that quickly. This election mobilized a lot of young voters, and now that they've seen their vote got rid of him, they will be more motivated to vote again for more progressive agendas, or against more radical right wing ones.

I don't think the rural republicans (Which is really where trump got most of his boost, anyway), will come out the same for a Mitt Romney. They want the guy who isn't afraid to tell it "like it is", be anti-BLM, etc. That is a major rift in the republican party that will further impact who they put up as candidates - and more rejection from the suburbs and cities will come.

SllXOP5y ago

> I'd say the republicans were beaten pretty badly. I think they are at their worst point in decades.

Nah mate, I don't think so. 2008 was worse by far, I think you're reaching a little too hard for that one. If the Democrats had expanded their lead in the House, taken 60 Senate seats and expanded their hold on Governor's mansions, then this would be close to 2008, but even in that case Obama's margin of victory over McCain in both the Electoral College and the popular vote was a fair bit higher.

Yeah, the Republicans had their best turnout ever, but so did the Democrats! This was a record-turnout election all around. Turnout was so high that just a little less enthusiasm on one side or a little more animosity or apathy towards another side was enough to flip it around.

The only election in which the Republican Party was "destroyed" was the contest for the White House, and they saw some net losses in the Senate but not by anywhere close to the margin anyone thought. They actually gained in the House. 2008 this was not, not even close. Turnout was a lot higher, but the outcome is very different.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse