Trump and Hillary were both weak candidates

[Da2017]

Both were unpopular. Their campaign,s were not good. Trump,s was better. Any other Democrat would of crushed him. Any other Repubican would of won bigger against Clinton. You have to try hard to lose to either one of them. Should not been a close election.

[Mr. Smith]

 Both were weak. But that is a consequence of both sides out for blood to destroy the opposition. "Better campaigners" on paper than what we got would've been destroyed.

[7,052,770]

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

[bagelman]

Both were unpopular. Their campaign,s were not good. Trump,s was better. Any other Democrat would of crushed him. Any other Repubican would of won bigger against Clinton. You have to try hard to lose to either one of them. Should not been a close election.

Aside from some hysterical hacks, this view is pretty much accepted. Hillary Clinton is still a divisive figure even a year into the Trump presidency.

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

She would've beaten Jeb because he was uniquely bad as a candidate (and as a person) - the most obvious stooge to run for President in memory. But if Kasich had been the nominee:

Wrong. Hillary would have beaten a more ideological candidate like Cruz, and probably Trump too, judging by how insane his primary campaign was. 

[SingingAnalyst]

True. A jaw-dropping 29% (per CNN) thought neither candidate was honest or trustworthy. Only 2% thought both were. The breakdowns on other factors (personally approve, has the right temperament, is qualified) were similarly bleak.

That most of these "I hate you both" voters picked Trump is something that I'm sure will be discussed at length, and already has. (What's weird, though, is that of the few "I like you both" voters, most picked Trump, too!)

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.

[Senator Incitatus]

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

Beginning in 1992, voters were asked (I think by CNN) their feelings about a (fill in the blank with a candidate) Presidency: excited, optimistic, concerned, or scared. In 1992, only 42% were "excited" or "optimistic" at the thought of Bill Clinton becoming President, while 54% were "concerned" or "scared". This was probably the lowest such rating for any election winner until....

(for example, in 2000, Gore's excited-optimistic-concerned-scared breakdown was 17-31-29-21, while Bush's was 21-29-21-26)

....In 2016, the breakdown for each major candidate was as follows:

Clinton: 17-27-23-29
Trump: 13-27-20-36

That's right. For both major candidates, a plurality said they were "scared". This has to be a first (and hopefully a "last").

I, too, would like to see 1988 data. I know voter turnout in 1988 (and 1996) was historically low.

[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

[Senator Incitatus]

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.

[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.

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

I agree, it is very fair. The 1948 election, however, had the 4th lowest voter turnout of any election since 1924 (only 1988, 1996, and 2000 were lower). I can't think of an election in which greater numbers of people made a choice between two people they dislike or even hate, than in 2016.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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.

[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.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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.

[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.

[cvparty]

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

[Senator Incitatus]

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.

[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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[Mr. Smith]

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...].

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

Truman won because he challenged the GOP Congress to enact the Dewey Platform by the time of the election.  He promised not to obstruct and agreed to sign it into law if they did so.  This was a major point of his acceptance speech.

Truman recognized that the Dewey Republicans that nominated him and wrote the platform, were significantly more liberal than the conservative Republicans that, even then, were dominant in the GOP Congressional caucuses.  THOSE Republicans were stuck with Dewey, and endorsed him, but they did not support the rather liberal, "New Deal Lite" platform of Dewey, and none of it was enacted.  This was the basis of the "Do Nothing Congress" that Truman railed against; they couldn't even enact their party's platform when the President opted to not interfere.

Dewey may well have been a good President, but he was a prosecutor that was never seen as personable, and his moustache was off-putting in an era where men didn't let facial hair grow, and moustaches reminded folks of Hitler and Stalin.  Truman exploited this on the stump as well. 

[twenty42]

I wouldn’t call Trump a weak candidate. His campaign was based on energy and turnout, and he campaigned for every vote in the primaries and in the GE. Pundits were calling him stupid for making so many visits to WI and MI, but his incessant bulldogging in those states was enough to flip them and get him over 270. He also had the intuition to tap into a soft spot in our American culture, and he managed to drive out votes that eluded McCain and Romney. Whether you agree with his politics or not, you can’t deny this.

Hillary, on the other hand, was an extremely weak candidate.

[here2view]

This is a great hot take, I've never heard this before. /s