Neither. 2016 mirrors 1960 the most. An experienced candidate politically with wealth and celebrity type appeal.
Trump is no Jack Kennedy.
Sorry, but no, he's not. He's no Jack Kennedy, he's no Barack Obama, heck, he's not even as good a campaigner as Dubya. Sure, he's able to fire up a rally. But you cannot claim to be "one of the best campaigners in decades" while losing the PV by 2%. This election was decided because the last week's press cycle was anti-Hillary. If Access Hollywood had come in November 1st, he'd've gotten wiped out. And he's not a good debater, at that, Hillary beat him easily in the first, he may have eked it out in the second, and she beat him again in the third. He got through the primaries on a plurality of the vote. His performance wasn't based on him being the perfect candidate, but rather on Hillary being the wrong one.
You are way off base here. Yes Hillary was a bad candidate but she also had the Clinton name and still lost to Trump while having higher favorables. Trump would have beat Bernie as well. Bernie is too far left and would have gotten clobbered in suburban areas such as NoVa and Oakland County Michigan. I never said he was Jack Kennedy I said that his charisma and appeal is underrated. You don't beat 20 other Republicans being a lightweight candidate. He is a good debater. There is a lot of evidence toward this. Dubya had good political appeal as well but not as much as Trump has. He has 88 approval among Republicans. He has completely united the party in his favor in a way no Republican has done since Reagan. I agree there was a lot of anti-Hillary but I think it was a combo of anti-Hillary and Trump's message of change/standing up for America's values and interests. He did have a message that was effective and that is what the left is missing in their analysis of what happened in 2016. His change argument was in an odd way similar to what Obama ran on in 2008 with a populist tinge to it.
Poll
