How did Trump come so close to winning in 2020 given the macro circumstances?

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.  This was, by far, the highest quarter-over-quarter growth our nation has experienced since at least WWII.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't*.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

* To be pedantic, the 2020 stock market did tank in March, but had completely recovered by the end of the year.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

If this is right, then I notice I'm confused (and you should be, too).  Because the Fed also cut rates to zero during the 2008 crisis, *and* did QE, and it *still* didn't save the stock market quickly.  Why not?

This observation is easy to explain from my viewpoint: There was considerable confidence in our economic future in 2020 and there wasn't much confidence in 2008.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

If this is right, then I notice I'm confused (and you should be, too).  Because the Fed also cut rates to zero during the 2008 crisis, *and* did QE, and it *still* didn't save the stock market quickly.  Why not?

This observation is easy to explain from my viewpoint: There was considerable confidence in our economic future in 2020 and there wasn't much confidence in 2008.

2008 was the first time quantitative easing was done. People still didn't know how the stock market would react - some people actually feared that all the money printing would cause hyperinflation. There were also 2 additional rounds of quantitative easing after that.

In 2020, there was already previous experience with quantitative easing, so stock market investors immediately priced it in.

I think you just gave me back my premise.  Because it really seems like you're saying that in 2020 people had confidence, and in 2008 they didn't.

[Inverted Things]

This is really testimony the Electoral College needs to go. It's always being said Trump "came close to winning the 2020 election" despite the fact he was clobbered by seven million votes. It wasn't close in the actual sense, just the Electoral College. He could indeed have "won" despite losing by 6.9 million if you switch a few votes in the right place.

It's dishonest to put "won" in scare quotes here.  Winning the EC is winning, period.

Let's imagine I'm playing chess, and my opponent is materially up on me by a rook and a bishop.  I manage to checkmate my opponent's king anyway.  Who won?  I did.  My opponent might try to claim some sort of moral victory because they were ahead in material, but I don't care about that.  Because I won.  The game is played to checkmate, and the game is not played to material.  If the game were played to material, I would rethink my strategies and beat my opponent anyway.

Trump won in 2016, and it was close.  If the standard for winning had been the popular vote, Trump and Clinton would have shot for that, and Trump would have won closely anyway.

Trump lost in 2020, and it was close.  If the standard had been the popular vote, both sides would have tried for that, and Trump would have still lost closely.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the national popular vote tells you less than you think it does, because neither side in a presidential contest is making it their #1 priority to maximize their national popular vote.

[Inverted Things]

This is really testimony the Electoral College needs to go. It's always being said Trump "came close to winning the 2020 election" despite the fact he was clobbered by seven million votes. It wasn't close in the actual sense, just the Electoral College. He could indeed have "won" despite losing by 6.9 million if you switch a few votes in the right place.

Trump won in 2016, and it was close.  If the standard for winning had been the popular vote, Trump and Clinton would have shot for that, and Trump would have won closely anyway.

Trump lost in 2020, and it was close.  If the standard had been the popular vote, both sides would have tried for that, and Trump would have still lost closely.

Both of these claims are completely unproven speculation, not fact.  The 2020 election was NOT close in the national popular vote, at least not by U.S. presidential election standards.  If you say that Trump would have still only narrowly lost it if it was determined by popular vote, you're arguing that Trump would have been considerably more successful in maximizing his popular vote than Biden.  I see no evidence this would have been the case.

But you also see no evidence that it wouldn't have been the case.  If you had such evidence you would have brought it up in order to properly refute me :-) .

[Inverted Things]

The initial burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not on those skeptical of the claim. 

You bear the burden of proof for this claim; I am skeptical of it.

[Inverted Things]

The initial burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not on those skeptical of the claim.  

You bear the burden of proof for this claim; I am skeptical of it.

This is not a claim--it's the rules of evidence as practiced both formally (in the case of the law, for example, with the initial burden being on the prosecution) and more informally (in the case of debates in science, history, and other rational disciplines).  You stated that Trump would have narrowly lost to Biden if the election had been decided by popular vote.  You provided no evidence for this claim, yet you stated it as though it were a fact.  It is quite reasonable for me (or others) to ask you to provide evidence for this assertion.  

Look, this is an internet forum.  It's not debate class.  It's not an academic journal.  It's not a courtroom.

Something about my viewpoint really rubbed you the wrong way, and that's fine.  That happens.  I'm pretty sure of my viewpoint that if Trump and Biden had both really tried for the popular vote, it would have been a narrow Biden win.

(You want evidence?  Fine:  How about the recent poll that showed Trump with a big lead among unlikely voters?  If both sides really try to juice the popular vote, some of those unlikely voters end up actually becoming voters.)

(More evidence?  How about the fact that the tipping point swung about 1.3% from 2016 -> 2020, while the national popular vote swung 2.4%?  The places where both sides were really trying to win were "stickier" in their vote -- harder to persuade for Biden)

(More evidence?  Most of the high-turnout states were blue in 2020; most of the low-turnout states were pretty red -- looks like under a PV system, there'd be a lot more new votes from red states.  Possible they'd be blue votes, of course, but I'm more inclined to believe it'd favor the Republicans on balance)

Anyway I'm here, in part, because there are a lot of folks here with well-considered viewpoints (both that I agree with and that I disagree with).  Exposure to those viewpoints helps me to refine my own.  I want evidence that will challenge my viewpoint.  That's why I tried to goad you into giving me some.  My challenge still stands.