Trump '19 v. Dubya '03: who is/was in better shape for re-election?

[Hammy]

Lol at the people who said Trump

Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.

Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

[Hammy]

Lol at the people who said Trump

Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.

Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

That's not really the question, though.  The question was:  who was in a better position to win a year from the election?  

In November 2003, George W. Bush had a 54% approval rating and still had a lot of political goodwill after 9/11.

In November 2019, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating and was in the midst of an impeachment scandal.


It's not even a comparison. Dubya was in a MUCH better position and that ended up coming to fruition in 2004 with his re-election. Trump lost.

I'm not arguing with the person I quoted's conclusion...just their really stupid reasoning to get to that conclusion.

It's no worse than citing how much the winning candidate won by as evidence the person that lost was in a better position because he lost by less--which was literally the point I was replying to.