This is wrong. Donald Trump was acting exactly the way he is now in 2016, the only thing he talked about the last few months of the campaign was how it was rigged against him. Until the Comey letter came out and completely revitalized him.
Hey, um, scroll up, guys, because we’ve talked about this 20 times before in this thread. Maybe more.
I would say that, in 2016, Trump was not a disheveled man drained of life force.
Sure, that was almost 10 years ago. I am talking about his defeatist attitude though.
I understand the data point, but Trump reflexively claims rigging any time there is the mere chance that he can lose. He was saying that about the Republican primary in 2016 too.
Sure, afterwards if he loses. He was acting as if he had already lost in the months leading up to the election though.
You may be right. I’d have to go back and review a bunch of stuff he said, watch video clips, and reform my opinion.
I guess one key question is, concretely speaking, was he running a better campaign at this point in 2016 with a better ground game, etc.? I mean, he’s definitely running a terrible one now in every dimension.
Also, forget about 2016, we already had people being overly optimistic in this cycle. I remember people rubbing their hands at the thought of Biden wiping the floor with Trump in the first debate only a couple of months ago. That didn’t age so well.
You may recall that as the time for the debate drew closer, Trump himself was setting expectations that Biden would do well. Those of us expecting Biden to dominate in the debate were expecting the Biden we remembered, not the one in precipitous decline. The incorrect expectation wasn’t a case of bad judgment, but of bad information.
I think that’s a totally different kind of thing, however. That wasn’t macro optimism coming from looking at all the data points and (as you think) incorrectly assessing the totality. Rather, it was an incorrect understanding of Biden’s condition, arising IMO from actual misinformation and misdirection from the Biden administration (generally pretending he was doing better than he was and hiding his condition by doing no press conferences at all), his strong performance at the SOTU, and most likely a large measure of delusion on Biden’s part (you don’t challenge someone to a debate like that if you are going to put in a performance like that).
I have to admit I was wrong on how well Biden was doing. I lacked any kind of special perception or insight into his condition. At the same time, I think most people on our side were fooled. And I do mean fooled. By Biden himself.
You put it more succinctly than I did. Yes.
And isn’t possible that we have bad information now, that we are overlooking signs of difficulties ahead because we want a certain outcome?
Could be. There could be a scandal or something that comes out. One of Trump’s advantages is that pretty much all of his bad shit is already baked into his numbers. (What isn’t baked in, IMO, is physical and mental weakness, which can actually hurt him with his base, since they are purchasing his strongman image, although they will be reluctant to perceive it. This can hurt him with independents as well.)
Other than that, I think the polls are the polls, the fundraising results are the fundraising results.
The thing about what we don’t know is that we don’t know them. There could be any number of events between now and the election that could change the course of history.
In general I think that the less control one has over an outcome, the more cautious one should be in one’s optimism and the data support cautious optimism for Harris, at best.
This has been dealt with way back in the thread. When did you get here?
I love the optimism scientists here! Your optimism meters are perfectly calibrated, and I guess you have AI calculating the precise odds of victory so that you can critique everyone’s level of optimism, well, optimally. Not to be sarcastic, but c’mon!
“At best”–so the data might not even support cautious optimism? Lol.
Here’s the thing. Again, scroll way up for where it was dealt with before, but while I recognize pessimism as a rational, risk-averse strategy–you don’t look stupid no matter what happens–it’s not a more intellectually rigorous or “correct” strategy or position. It just isn’t. But if it makes you personally more able to handle the vagaries of the Trump Era, I can respect that.
Moderating:
These statements are close to personal attacks. Dial it back. You don’t need to ridicule others for their opinions.
Of course. My bad on this one.
While that is a tautological statement, it’s also a wise one, and a good reason for anyone to temper their expectations, whether they are a pessimist or an optimist.
2016 was fundamentally different than 2024.
Hillary Clinton was supported by millions of people, but she wasn’t particularly liked by a whole swath of those voters. Among the entire population, she was weighed down by years and years of negative stories that gave her an aura of scandal and corruption.
Trump, meanwhile, was the new and shiny object. The news was eager to cover him because he brought energy and attention to the campaign. Trump was also inspiring otherwise disinterested Americans (who probably wouldn’t have voted for another candidate) to show up to rallies, talk to their friends, and vote.
The script has now flipped.
Trump was an edgy candidate in 2016, but now a large swath of his base - even if they’ll reflexively vote for him - aren’t enthusiastic about him. And amongst the general population, he now has years and years of press (helpfully backed by facts) that has imbued him with a reputation as a crook.
Harris, meanwhile, is the new option. She, this time, is the one who is getting people jazzed up, enticing volunteers who might otherwise not be engaged, and has the media reporting on the energy of her and her followers.
If you look at enthusiasm as a good proxy for a voting outcome, then you’ll notice that it clearly favors Harris now, the same way it favored Clinton in ‘92, Obama in ‘08, and Trump in ‘16.
Well said!