undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter2y ago0 comments

> Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?

No, I don’t think so. Trump was actually the weakest general election candidate of the major Republicans, what resulted in Trump winning was institutional power in the Democratic Party aligning betwern a candidate that was, equally clearly, the weakest general election candidate of the major Democratic contenders, and whose negatives were much firmer than Trump’s were as a relative political cipher.

Also, Democrats didn't get Trump nominated, a Republican nomination system designed to build sipport for the early leader by providing disproportional delegate majority’s to the magnitude of popular victory—a system designed to favor the pick of the institutional party and cut the knees of “insurgent” campaigns—did that, because the institutional powerbase couldn’t unite behind a candidate.

Were Trump to be nominated in 2024, he will face the same problem as in 2020—he won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.

0 comments

MrOwnPut2y ago

He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. He easily swept the primaries...

Then in the generals he went and flipped Pennsylvania and won more counties than any R since Reagan.

You can look at the turnout and total votes to see it blows away your "weak candidate" argument.

I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump.

Most of the time they get shoved in your face and there's no choice, but when there is a popular alternative, it's a clear choice.

dragonwriterOP2y ago

> He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's.

Yes, that was actually the problem for the establishment; establishment support was split between (early on, which is what matters most the way the system works by design); they didn't coalesce behind one candidate after Bush was largely written off for failing to connect with voters before the actual primaries began, establishment support was initially split between several candidates,

MrOwnPut2y ago

I don't agree, even when the large majority dropped out, all but one didn't have a double digit polling percentage.

In the end it was Ted Cruz with 22%, so you can assume most of the no-trumpers coalesced behind him (because he was one of the few non-dynasties).

Even that is miniscule. The 3rd R (when there were 3 remaining) had 6.5% at their peak...

Trump remained the clear majority, maintaining a 75% majority until the end.

1 more reply

Izkata2y ago

> I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump.

Exactly: For a time in that same election Bernie Sanders also managed to present himself like this. When he dropped out, a lot of people who were leaning towards Sanders flipped to Trump.

Obama had a similar message during his first presidential run, but pretty much ended up just being more of the same.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdragonwriter2y ago0 comments

> Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?

Were Trump to be nominated in 2024, he will face the same problem as in 2020—he won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.

0 comments

MrOwnPut2y ago

He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. He easily swept the primaries...

Then in the generals he went and flipped Pennsylvania and won more counties than any R since Reagan.

You can look at the turnout and total votes to see it blows away your "weak candidate" argument.

I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump.

Most of the time they get shoved in your face and there's no choice, but when there is a popular alternative, it's a clear choice.

dragonwriterOP2y ago

> He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's.

MrOwnPut2y ago

I don't agree, even when the large majority dropped out, all but one didn't have a double digit polling percentage.

In the end it was Ted Cruz with 22%, so you can assume most of the no-trumpers coalesced behind him (because he was one of the few non-dynasties).

Even that is miniscule. The 3rd R (when there were 3 remaining) had 6.5% at their peak...

Trump remained the clear majority, maintaining a 75% majority until the end.

1 more reply

Izkata2y ago

> I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump.

Exactly: For a time in that same election Bernie Sanders also managed to present himself like this. When he dropped out, a lot of people who were leaning towards Sanders flipped to Trump.

Obama had a similar message during his first presidential run, but pretty much ended up just being more of the same.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse