What was more improbable

[OSR stands with Israel]

I say trump winning

[Phony Moderate]

Bush the Elder's ratings were firmly on a downward spiral; in November 1991 they were clearly in the 50s after having been as high as 89% in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War and even as late as September they were around 70%. By the beginning of 1992 they'd be down into the net negatives. It was perfectly plausible at that time that he'd lose re-election.

In July 2015, Trump was a joke candidate who had just insulted the war hero John McCain. The bets were not being placed on whether he could win the nomination but on when he'd drop out.

Therefore the latter.

[President Johnson]

Poppy Bush could have been reelected a year earlier.

[Breton Racer]

Bush he an 80 something approval rating, he would have gotten more the 60% of the vote.

[hopper]

Probably Trump winning the GOP Nomination in 2016.

[MIKESOWELL]

Trump winning the nomination, in my opinion.

[Arbitrage1980]

Since the modern primary system started in 1972, there have been 5 pretty big upsets.  In my opinion, ranking them from most shocking to least:

1. Trump 2016
2. Carter 1976
3. McGovern 1972
4. Dukakis 1988
5. Obama 2008

Trump's hijacking of the GOP will be studied for decades to come.  It's really mind blowing if you think about it.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Trump winning the nomination.

[Mr.Phips]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

[Arbitrage1980]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

True, but in late 1991, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would be re-elected easily. The democratic heavyweights (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Nunn, Gephardt, Jackson) chose to sit out for this reason.

[Mr.Phips]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

True, but in late 1991, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would be re-elected easily. The democratic heavyweights (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Nunn, Gephardt, Jackson) chose to sit out for this reason.

Up until the Dem convention in July 1992, it was thought that Bush still.had a decent chance of beating Clinton.  I believe Ed Rollins said that he and most of Bush's advisors knew as early as March 1992 that in a one on one race against Clinton, Bush would be a dead man against Clinton once he got his favorables up to a reasonable level.

[Arbitrage1980]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

True, but in late 1991, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would be re-elected easily. The democratic heavyweights (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Nunn, Gephardt, Jackson) chose to sit out for this reason.

Up until the Dem convention in July 1992, it was thought that Bush still.had a decent chance of beating Clinton.  I believe Ed Rollins said that he and most of Bush's advisors knew as early as March 1992 that in a one on one race against Clinton, Bush would be a dead man against Clinton once he got his favorables up to a reasonable level.

In June 1992 Clinton was trailing both Bush and Perot.  Clinton's pick of Gore as his running mate and the wildly successful DNC (Clinton got a 15 point boost, the largest in history) propelled him to first and he never gave up that lead.  Clinton struggled in the primaries due to Vietnam draft dodging and sex scandals and the public had a perception of him as a rich entitled playboy who went to elite schools.  The DNC talked about his humble roots, reintroducing him as the "Man from Hope." And Clinton's speech was a home run. Clinton in his prime was unbeatable.

The smart GOP strategists feared Clinton for a while. Lee Atwater, before his untimely death, predicted that Clinton would be Bush's most formidable opponent.

[Mr.Phips]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

True, but in late 1991, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would be re-elected easily. The democratic heavyweights (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Nunn, Gephardt, Jackson) chose to sit out for this reason.

Up until the Dem convention in July 1992, it was thought that Bush still.had a decent chance of beating Clinton.  I believe Ed Rollins said that he and most of Bush's advisors knew as early as March 1992 that in a one on one race against Clinton, Bush would be a dead man against Clinton once he got his favorables up to a reasonable level.

In June 1992 Clinton was trailing both Bush and Perot.  Clinton's pick of Gore as his running mate and the wildly successful DNC (Clinton got a 15 point boost, the largest in history) propelled him to first and he never gave up that lead.  Clinton struggled in the primaries due to Vietnam draft dodging and sex scandals and the public had a perception of him as a rich entitled playboy who went to elite schools.  The DNC talked about his humble roots, reintroducing him as the "Man from Hope." And Clinton's speech was a home run. Clinton in his prime was unbeatable.

The smart GOP strategists feared Clinton for a while. Lee Atwater, before his untimely death, predicted that Clinton would be Bush's most formidable opponent.

Perot being in the race was clearly helping Bush and hurting Clinton before the Dem convention.  In a two man race, Bush only led Clinton by a few points despite Clinton's very low favorables at the time.  Once Clinton improved his favorables, even most Republican officials knew the race would be pretty much over, which is why they hoped Perot would stay in the race the whole time and split the anti-incumbent/anti-Bush vote so that Bush could get re-elected with a plurality.

[Arbitrage1980]

Bush was showing signs of real vulnerability in November 1991.  Bush's AG and former governor  Richard Thornbegh had just lost the Senate race in PA in a huge upset and it was clear that the economy was not turning around as quickly as most had thought and expected.  However, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Bush until January 1992 when he started looking like the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.

True, but in late 1991, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would be re-elected easily. The democratic heavyweights (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Nunn, Gephardt, Jackson) chose to sit out for this reason.

Up until the Dem convention in July 1992, it was thought that Bush still.had a decent chance of beating Clinton.  I believe Ed Rollins said that he and most of Bush's advisors knew as early as March 1992 that in a one on one race against Clinton, Bush would be a dead man against Clinton once he got his favorables up to a reasonable level.

In June 1992 Clinton was trailing both Bush and Perot.  Clinton's pick of Gore as his running mate and the wildly successful DNC (Clinton got a 15 point boost, the largest in history) propelled him to first and he never gave up that lead.  Clinton struggled in the primaries due to Vietnam draft dodging and sex scandals and the public had a perception of him as a rich entitled playboy who went to elite schools.  The DNC talked about his humble roots, reintroducing him as the "Man from Hope." And Clinton's speech was a home run. Clinton in his prime was unbeatable.

The smart GOP strategists feared Clinton for a while. Lee Atwater, before his untimely death, predicted that Clinton would be Bush's most formidable opponent.

Perot being in the race was clearly helping Bush and hurting Clinton before the Dem convention.  In a two man race, Bush only led Clinton by a few points despite Clinton's very low favorables at the time.  Once Clinton improved his favorables, even most Republican officials knew the race would be pretty much over, which is why they hoped Perot would stay in the race the whole time and split the anti-incumbent/anti-Bush vote so that Bush could get re-elected with a plurality.

Clinton definitely would have won even if Perot had not run, but there were a handful of states that he probably would not have won without Perot: Georgia, New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado.

[ElectionsGuy]

I don't think anyone thought Trump would win in July 2015, EVERYBODY was convinced he was a phase. I wasn't alive in 1991 but I would imagine everybody could see a chance of an incumbent president losing a year out, even with a stellar approval rating at the time.

[Mr.Phips]

I don't think anyone thought Trump would win in July 2015, EVERYBODY was convinced he was a phase. I wasn't alive in 1991 but I would imagine everybody could see a chance of an incumbent president losing a year out, even with a stellar approval rating at the time.

Well as early as August 1991, there was talk of Democrats not even putting up a candidate against Bush in 1992.  Imagine that?