Trump and Hillary were both weak candidates

[uti2]

Wrong. Hillary would have beaten a traditional boring candidate like Jeb, and probably Kasich too, judging by how incompetent his primary campaign was.

In terms of spending per vote, Cruz and Kasich actually had pretty efficient campaigns. Jeb and Rubio had the worst returns on spending.

[uti2]

Has there even been an election where both major candidates were viewed so negatively? The closest I can think of is 1976 and 1988. I think in 1976 the candidates were viewed as lackluster, rather than evil, and the level of antipathy to Bush and Dukakis in 1988 was not nearly as intense as that toward Clinton and Trump.

I've got to imagine that a 37.5% mean favorability is by far the lowest on record. I'm going off Gallup numbers here, which are typically more generous to the candidates. I also found this quantification of intense dislike:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-image-ratings.aspx

The closest I can find is 1992, when the candidates had a mean approval of 47.7% (but I think Perot was the cause rather than the effect here).

The highest was 2008 when the mean was 59%, meaning at least 18% of the country had a favorable opinion of both candidates.

I'd still like to meet someone who likes both 2016 candidates.

Other years:

1992: 47.7

1996: 53.5

2000: 56.5

2004: 52.0

2008: 59.0

2012: 51.5

I searched and searched but could find nothing earlier. I imagine 1976 is before sophisticated polling on favorability was conducted.  I really want to find 1988 because I suspect that you're actually wrong – post-convention Gallup had Bush at 60% favorable. If anyone has access to Gallup Analytics, I'd ask them to look this information up.

Truman had a 38% approval rating in 1948:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=33

[uti2]

Has there even been an election where both major candidates were viewed so negatively? The closest I can think of is 1976 and 1988. I think in 1976 the candidates were viewed as lackluster, rather than evil, and the level of antipathy to Bush and Dukakis in 1988 was not nearly as intense as that toward Clinton and Trump.

I've got to imagine that a 37.5% mean favorability is by far the lowest on record. I'm going off Gallup numbers here, which are typically more generous to the candidates. I also found this quantification of intense dislike:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-image-ratings.aspx

The closest I can find is 1992, when the candidates had a mean approval of 47.7% (but I think Perot was the cause rather than the effect here).

The highest was 2008 when the mean was 59%, meaning at least 18% of the country had a favorable opinion of both candidates.

I'd still like to meet someone who likes both 2016 candidates.

Other years:

1992: 47.7

1996: 53.5

2000: 56.5

2004: 52.0

2008: 59.0

2012: 51.5

I searched and searched but could find nothing earlier. I imagine 1976 is before sophisticated polling on favorability was conducted.  I really want to find 1988 because I suspect that you're actually wrong – post-convention Gallup had Bush at 60% favorable. If anyone has access to Gallup Analytics, I'd ask them to look this information up.

Truman had a 38% approval rating in 1948:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=33

This is job approval, though, not favorability. I prefer favorability since it quantifies non-incumbents just as well as incumbents.

They tend to be correlated if you look at where Obama left off:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/202349/president-obama-leaves-white-house-favorable-rating.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

I don't think it's unfair to say that Truman likely had Hillary-level favorables.

[uti2]

Wrong. Hillary would have beaten a traditional boring candidate like Jeb, and probably Kasich too, judging by how incompetent his primary campaign was.

Nah, besides Jeb and Carson, I think any of the other Republican candidates would have defeated Hillary.  Just look at her unfavorable numbers from the end of the primary season onward.

That's what they said about 'polished and electable' Thomas Dewey vs. the 'unfavorable' Truman.

[uti2]

Wrong. Hillary would have beaten a traditional boring candidate like Jeb, and probably Kasich too, judging by how incompetent his primary campaign was.

Nah, besides Jeb and Carson, I think any of the other Republican candidates would have defeated Hillary.  Just look at her unfavorable numbers from the end of the primary season onward.

That's what they said about 'polished and electable' Thomas Dewey vs. the 'unfavorable' Truman.

But there is no evidence that HRC is anywhere near as formidable a campaigner as Truman.

Obviously Obama thought so, she beat Obama in the '08 primary popular vote.

[uti2]

Has there even been an election where both major candidates were viewed so negatively? The closest I can think of is 1976 and 1988. I think in 1976 the candidates were viewed as lackluster, rather than evil, and the level of antipathy to Bush and Dukakis in 1988 was not nearly as intense as that toward Clinton and Trump.

I've got to imagine that a 37.5% mean favorability is by far the lowest on record. I'm going off Gallup numbers here, which are typically more generous to the candidates. I also found this quantification of intense dislike:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-image-ratings.aspx

The closest I can find is 1992, when the candidates had a mean approval of 47.7% (but I think Perot was the cause rather than the effect here).

The highest was 2008 when the mean was 59%, meaning at least 18% of the country had a favorable opinion of both candidates.

I'd still like to meet someone who likes both 2016 candidates.

Other years:

1992: 47.7

1996: 53.5

2000: 56.5

2004: 52.0

2008: 59.0

2012: 51.5

I searched and searched but could find nothing earlier. I imagine 1976 is before sophisticated polling on favorability was conducted.  I really want to find 1988 because I suspect that you're actually wrong – post-convention Gallup had Bush at 60% favorable. If anyone has access to Gallup Analytics, I'd ask them to look this information up.

Truman had a 38% approval rating in 1948:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=33

This is job approval, though, not favorability. I prefer favorability since it quantifies non-incumbents just as well as incumbents.

They tend to be correlated if you look at where Obama left off:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/202349/president-obama-leaves-white-house-favorable-rating.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

I don't think it's unfair to say that Truman likely had Hillary-level favorables.

Not unfair at all, but my point isn't that they're not comparable. It's that no such analogue exists for Dewey, which we would need to analyze the election as a whole. Of course there are elections where one candidate is unpopular. Rare that both are, which is why 2016 stands out especially.

The closest parallels would be 1856/1912/1992, except in 2016's case, the third party candidate took the political apparatus of a major party.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/248616-poll-trump-third-party-run-would-hurt-jeb-bush

[uti2]

honestly trump’s was weak in a strong way...if that makes sense lulz

It does, and it's precisely why he's the only one that could beat Clinton.

Wrong. Hillary would have beaten a traditional boring candidate like Jeb, and probably Kasich too, judging by how incompetent his primary campaign was.

Nah, besides Jeb and Carson, I think any of the other Republican candidates would have defeated Hillary.  Just look at her unfavorable numbers from the end of the primary season onward.

That's what they said about 'polished and electable' Thomas Dewey vs. the 'unfavorable' Truman.

But there is no evidence that HRC is anywhere near as formidable a campaigner as Truman.

Obviously Obama thought so, she beat Obama in the '08 primary popular vote.

She still lost to a one term senator and a reality show star who had no previous political experience. Truman would have easily beat both of them

Both of whom were extremely telegenic (and webgenic ftm), which is, let's face it, a much greater factor than anything else at this point.

It was a lucky break that Trump faltered at the 2nd and 3rd debates.

And no, Truman would not have beaten them specifically because he was not telegenic and simply lucked out that Dewey didn't go all-in. Even LBJ (who chickened out of debating Goldwater) would've had a hard time [and given he couldn't keep up with Clean Gene McCarthy...].

Dewey was seen as pretty telegenic, but he was also seen as superficial. Curiously enough, his nickname was the 'The Little man' which was also used as an epithet against a certain candidate alleged to have similar qualities as Dewey in 2016.

[uti2]

In other news, water is wet.

I still find it hilarious that people like you and in your style like Joe Scarborough et. al. who were calling Trump a great candidate early on are now trying to delegitimize him after the fact.