Everybody is too risk-averse to write the "actually, Trump is terrible at politics" hot take but it will instantly be presumed to be *incredibly obvious* if polls are roughly correct on Nov. 3.
ツイートする
会話
返信先: さん
The media loves Trump. He makes them so much money. Why do you they are still push a horse race story when this race isn’t close at all.
7
7
77
I've often wondered what will happen to the media if he were to lose?
1
返信を表示
返信先: さん
It's almost as if *generic republican* would have won in 2016 anyway, but bigger!
1
1
3
Very true. It fit perfectly with the predictable oscillation from Democrat to Republican. The last time a Democrat was elected after another full term Democrat was 1856. And that was only after a single term. FDR's four terms an exception of course. The pendulum swings.
1
1
What Trump is good at is animating the Republican base which at this point is like KFC figuring out that yes a lot of Americans will eat bacon in between two pieces of fried chicken as buns.
2
4
41
返信を表示
返信先: さん
What risk? People write incredibly stupid, much less empirically supportable takes every day.
5
1
24
Everyone that got 2016 has been reamed incessantly and no one wants to deal with it if they're wrong again.
1
返信先: さん
The problems as always:
The cheating and the electoral college.
Trump is always closer than the numbers indicate.
5
1
37
I think in 2016 the secret Trump voter was a real thing but in 2020 I think it’s more likely the opposite. I think a number of people claiming to still support him are going to go in the voting booth and say fvck this shit and quietly vote Biden. But nothing surprises me anymore
1
2
返信を表示
返信先: さん
There are more and more articles/opinion pieces that say something to effect of “Trump is losing.”
No one wants to jinx it.
1
2
返信先: さん
It’s staring all of us in the face. It’s becoming clear with all that data that’s coming in that this president is on track to be defeated quite decisively in 29 days. Most people are done with him and are ready to close the books on this chapter in American history.
2
1
31
I hope that people don't think "the win is in the bag" and stay home because their vote isn't needed. Every vote is needed to guarantee that he will lose!
1
1
29
返信を表示
返信先: さん
The joker in the deck is how effective various voter-suppression strategies will prove to be.
1
1
7
That’s exactly my concern. Look at PA and GA
1
返信先: さん
I guess there are two things here:
1) Actually Trump won a historically amazing Presidential run in 2016.
2) We don't know the election yet although polls are strongly against him.
4
2
1
Josh Barro noted that Trump business did have a great ability to see a need and is a genius of marketing himself to be successful. (ie he invested in early 1980s New York Real Estate and became a business celebrity.) And he did run a different conservative campaign in 2016.
2
2
返信を表示
返信先: さん
Correct. He had a perfect storm 4 years ago. Had big luck like Comey letter, etc. Dems didn’t vote thinking he couldn’t win. Very unlikable candidate. Dems to WWC for granted.
1
1
57
Excellent analysis. Thank you for sharing this.
1
1
返信を表示
返信先: さん
2/3rds of the Republicans are gonna be like "Trump? Who" as well just like Labour MPs now say "Corbyn? Who?"
返信を表示
Love it!
1
返信先: さん
I've been saying it for ages:
引用ツイート
TrumpsTaxes
@TrumpsTaxes
·
The problem with this approach is that Trump's numerous quotes on the matter can easily be distilled into devastating 30 or 60 second ads.
Reminding all of us once again Trump:
A) Is horrible at politics
and
B) Doesn't 'get away' with anything. twitter.com/ddale8/status/…
1
2
11
引用ツイート
TrumpsTaxes
@TrumpsTaxes
·
返信先: @realDonaldTrumpさん
It's one thing to 'Ukraine' another country. But it's another thing to 'Ukraine' one of your own states like Michigan...and to alienate the voters of that state WHO YOU NEED in order to be re-elected.
Never underestimate how bad Trump is at politics, folks.
1
2
10
返信を表示
返信先: さん
返信先: さん
Hopefully, a resounding defeat for Trump will also have people see the 2016 election for what it was...a fluke of epic historical magnitude. He got lucky against a candidate with baggage.
9
1
21
I wouldn't say it was a fluke. If a good Monte Carlo simulation spits out an underdog winning 20% of the time, theoretically that means every one out of five elections would be an upset. In other words, it was bound to happen eventually - it just happened to be in 2016.
2