Not an entirely fair comparison. In 2016, the Democratic National Convention was held during the last week of July, so Clinton may have still been riding a bit of a bump in popularity in mid-August.
I hope you’re correct and Harris’s poll numbers improve tremendously. But, reading the responses here, would would think Clinton got crushed (she won the popular vote by several million) and Harris is running away with it.
These facts are good to know…but obviously, the difference in emotions is about exceeding recent expectations vs. simply meeting them.
We were measured (though confident), because of course Clinton (or anyone, or a ham sandwich) would poll much better than an obvious idiot fuckstick like Trump, and then beat him soundly in November.
We are giddy (but cautious) at Harris’s polling now (though it’s lower than Hillary’s eight years ago), because now we have a pretty good chance at beating Trump, while five weeks ago that was looking unlikely, and we were in despair.
But surely you know all this. 
Yes, definitely. I think Clinton was a better candidate than most people are describing her in this thread and her election was torpedoed by Comey at the last second, or she would have won. I find her quite likable. It’s obvious that decades of demonization by Republicans worked, though, even on a lefty board like this one.
I also like Harris and wanted her last time – when she speaks, she has this intelligent spark in her eyes. I hope she wins by so much that all the Republican shenanigans are ineffective.
Electoral College 2016 Excluding States Where the Candidates are Statistically Tied
Electoral College 2024 Excluding States Where the Candidates are Statistically Tied
Harris is not doing better than Clinton, in terms of building a likely win of the electoral college.
Quite correct.
By one model (538’s), Trump had about a 22% chance of winning on the eve of the 2016 election. Of course, he threaded that needle. It happens sometimes (by definition).
I’m guessing the same model, if current polling continues unchanged until November (which it won’t, of course), would give Trump a somewhat higher chance this time (see my recent posts in the “How Can Donald Win? thread, for details). Ima gonna go with 31%.
So, if he does win and I’m right about his chances, again — not a shock (statistically speaking). Only slightly less surprising than what happened in 2016.
Humans (mostly) are really bad at understanding this.
Math is easy.
What remains hardest to accept is how the EC comprehensively frustrates the will of the Nation as it elevates a few mostly rural counties to the dictators of who gets to be President.
So true!
Not by those graphs. But it feels like it, and not just because of the momentum Harris has. Back in ‘16 the “shy Trump” voter was a real phenomenon, and likely made it look like Clinton was doing better than she was. I think the number of shy Trump voters is a lot lower this time around.
Totally true.
I think that this is a key point but not because it made Clinton slack off, I think the place where it really came into play was on the protest vote side. Sinceif you weren’t particularly happy with Clinton you could safely stay home or vote Green or write in Bernie to show your dissatisfaction because there is no way that Trump could possibly win. Until enough people did that and so he did.
Or even earlier, Bill Clinton saying they were a team; that as I recall was what originally set the Right off. Women are “supposed” to be quiet, stay in the background and not act like they are intelligent enough to do anything but follow orders of their husband/master. They aren’t supposed to be equals, or proactive, or anything other than domestic servants, walking wombs and living sex toys. Bill talking about Hillary as an actually useful partner made her anathema and demonically evil.
In the 90s I was quite conservative and listened to a lot of talk radio (particularly Limbaugh); note that I was a teenager back then. Anyway, one thing I recall being a reason to object to Hillary’s greater role is that nobody voted for her. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were on the ticket, Hillary wasn’t, so her getting to have any kind of role outside the traditional First Lady stuff was unfair.
That logic, of course, ignores all of the staff members, cabinet members, agency appointees, so on and so forth that the POTUS and their administration will put into place without the public’s vote. It’s absolutely absurd. But it’s one of the things that was being used as a justification for what were in reality just the objections of a woman “not knowing her place”.
To elaborate a bit further, my recollection is that it went even deeper. Al Gore wanted to head up health care reform. Bill wanted Hillary to do it because it was her pet issue. That became a friction point between Bill and Al. The Right immediately picked up on it and flogged it for all it was worth.
I’m a big Al Gore fan, but he’s dropped the ball a few times. This was one of them. He didn’t help her any.
This was clear back in the mid-90s. Hillary fought ugly headwinds ever after.
Because that was the only way the smaller states would agree to the Constitution. Back then states were more independent, and the President less powerful. It was a fair and reasonable compromise. Sadly there is no way to change it.
It screwed over most of the population in perpetuity, so I’d hardly call it “fair”. In fact it made fairness impossible.
I guess it’s different where I am, even when turn out is optional (local and student politics). It’s a given that women will prefer a female candidate, just because she’s a woman, and if men have a preference, it’s not enough to make up for the female vote.
Still a lot more men trying out, the pool of male candidates is much deeper. Women are more likely to get pre-selection in marginal seats, and in the senate, where the gender bias is more likely to have an effect, and less likely to get preselection for safe seats, where gender won’t have an effect on outcome.
It’s probably changed under the circumstances, but I recall years ago polls showed that opposition to a female President was actually higher among women than men. Gender loyalty isn’t really a thing; if it was then more women would have supported Hillary against a proud “pussy grabber” like Trump.
A gender bias driven by hate or fear however definitely is a thing; in this case the hate of the Trump voters both in 2016 and now, and the (justified) fears of their opponents.
I don’t think I would describe the gender bias in Aus as “Gender Loyalty”: nobody is going to get a vote out of loyalty. Rather, a substantial number of women in Aus think, all else being equal, that a woman is always a better choice. And that’s still “all else being equal”: it’s part of a voting decision.
But regarding Clinton, remember that she did in fact get the female vote by a large margin.
54 percent of women voters voted for Clinton according to Pew Research; that’s not all that large. Especially with an absurdly awful opponent like Trump.