So all things considered......did Trump actually do *gulp* well?

[The Free North]

He managed to keep an approval rating in the 40s despite significant domestic unrest, a pandemic, historic unemployment, an impeachment, rumors of corruption, etc. It looks like Rs will hold the senate and they gained in the house despite massive voter turnout in part geared against the President.

Bush got buried in 2008 for similar things with an approval rating in the 20s. Biden will get 300+ EVs but on the back of tiny margins in GA/AZ/PA/WI and Trump only lost the PV by 3%.

I don't support the man, but after stepping back and considering the circumstances, he has done historically well for a president in his circumstances? Or is the country so polarized now, that there will always be a 42-43% floor for the incumbent regardless of how bad things get? Are the days of the 84' or 64' gone?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No, of course not.  A president who did even a mediocre job “in his circumstances” would have a 65% approval rating right now.  Look how the approvals of every world leader in Europe rose during the pandemic, despite them being arguably in even worse shape than we are.

[GeneralMacArthur]

He did well politically, by building a cult of personality and inculcating his cult not to believe scientists, experts, the media, their own friends and family, other politicians in his own party, or anyone except for him.  And then lied to them non-stop, utterly absurd lies that left them completely detached from any semblance of reality.

He was able to get away with this because he was assisted by a completely irresponsible, self-interested Republican Party and Fox News, who saw that if they helped him maintain his cult and kept him in power, they could use him to get some judges and tax cuts.

His presidency was a complete and utter disaster, and he personally was an abysmal leader and a malignant cancer on our democracy, reputation, and character.  Not to mention, he is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible person.  History will remember him as the worst president this country has ever had.  In 50 years the only people to disagree with that consensus will be contrarians who try to make the case that Buchanan was worse because his actions had worse consequences.

Would you say that Jim Jones did well?  Would you say that Kim Il-Sung did well?  Would you say that Pol Pot did well?  All these cult leaders remained very popular with their followers despite being terrible men who made their lives absolute hell.

[DrScholl]

Biden didn't really win because Trump didn't lose *that bad*. I was wondering when that take would be posted.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, he did better than I thought he would, and he seems to have done better than most others thought he would, too.  So, yes?  When you consider that Democratic turnout seemed to be sky high, I do think Trump did a somewhat remarkable job at retaining high margins among rural voters and minimizing the bleeding with suburban voters enough to keep a ton of states close.

I don't think he ran a great campaign or anything, however.  I think this more speaks to Republican voters' "commitment" to conservatism, whether or not you view that as admirable or completely abhorrent, haha.

[Blair]

My biggest worry was that the RNC & republicans generally tend to punch above their weight when they're doing badly compared to the Democrats.

[Sbane]

No, of course not.  A president who did even a mediocre job “in his circumstances” would have a 65% approval rating right now.  Look how the approvals of every world leader in Europe rose during the pandemic, despite them being arguably in even worse shape than we are.

When the pandemic first hit I thought he was going to re-elected quite easily, while before that I thought the chances were 50-50. Look at the approval ratings of the governors as well. Trump did get a rally around the flag bump in his approvals in March but he screwed it up after that.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I don't think he ran a great campaign or anything, however.  I think this more speaks to Republican voters' "commitment" to conservatism, whether or not you view that as admirable or completely abhorrent, haha.

They weren't committed to previous conservatives. This is Trump's success and if it is to be the Republicans' in the long term, they will probably have to follow in his footsteps.

[Tender Branson]

Yes.

If Trump got 0.4% more in 4 states and Biden 0.4% less, we'd have seen a Trump re-election party yesterday.

289-249 Trump.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What GeneralMacArthur said. He held up shockingly well politically throughout his term, but he was not a successful President in any of the ways we normally assess presidential success, and history will look very unfavorably on him (unless the next Republican President is Cotton or some such police-state ghoul and Trump gets Dubya-style rehabilitated-by-comparison).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

He did well politically, by building a cult of personality and inculcating his cult not to believe scientists, experts, the media, their own friends and family, other politicians in his own party, or anyone except for him.  And then lied to them non-stop, utterly absurd lies that left them completely detached from any semblance of reality.

He was able to get away with this because he was assisted by a completely irresponsible, self-interested Republican Party and Fox News, who saw that if they helped him maintain his cult and kept him in power, they could use him to get some judges and tax cuts.

His presidency was a complete and utter disaster, and he personally was an abysmal leader and a malignant cancer on our democracy, reputation, and character.  Not to mention, he is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible person.  History will remember him as the worst president this country has ever had.  In 50 years the only people to disagree with that consensus will be contrarians who try to make the case that Buchanan was worse because his actions had worse consequences.

Would you say that Jim Jones did well?  Would you say that Kim Il-Sung did well?  Would you say that Pol Pot did well?  All these cult leaders remained very popular with their followers despite being terrible men who made their lives absolute hell.

Bold of you to assume that the United States of America will not see any President worse than Donald Trump in the next 50 years.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

In the last four Presidential elections, they're consistently received 46-47% of the vote. We just live in hyper-polarized and extremely partisan times.

I would say Republicans, including Trump, have done exceptionally well for a party that has presided over some pretty major disasters, yes, but I don't know if I would say Trump himself has done exceptionally well.

[bandg]

In the sense that he lost the election, obviously he failed.

On the other hand, if the polls had been right and he lost by 10 points, the GOP lost the Senate, and lost more seats in the House, Trumpism would have been dead and buried.

Now, with such a close race and success downballot, Trumpism has been entrenched within the GOP for the foreseeable future. Trump remains by far the dominant figure in the party, and his influence will continue to be far-reaching. He will easily win the nomination in 2024 if he decides to run and if his health allows.

[Alben Barkley]

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1325154562995613697?s=21

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1325154562995613697?s=21

Humans never react to facts; they react to how facts relate to their expectations.

Needless to say that Clinton underperformed expectations and Trump overperformed them.

[Hammy]

His approvals were not the result of any accomplishments, but a symptom of the highly polarized nature of the country. Just about any R would've had similar approval ratings

[Sbane]

In the sense that he lost the election, obviously he failed.

On the other hand, if the polls had been right and he lost by 10 points, the GOP lost the Senate, and lost more seats in the House, Trumpism would have been dead and buried.

Now, with such a close race and success downballot, Trumpism has been entrenched within the GOP for the foreseeable future. Trump remains by far the dominant figure in the party, and his influence will continue to be far-reaching. He will easily win the nomination in 2024 if he decides to run and if his health allows.

It would be dangerous for the GOP to assume people were voting for Trumpism when they got more votes downballot. These people were voting against far left Democrats and Trump.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In the sense that he lost the election, obviously he failed.

On the other hand, if the polls had been right and he lost by 10 points, the GOP lost the Senate, and lost more seats in the House, Trumpism would have been dead and buried.

Now, with such a close race and success downballot, Trumpism has been entrenched within the GOP for the foreseeable future. Trump remains by far the dominant figure in the party, and his influence will continue to be far-reaching. He will easily win the nomination in 2024 if he decides to run and if his health allows.

It would be dangerous for the GOP to assume people were voting for Trumpism when they got more votes downballot. These people were voting against far left Democrats and Trump.

They never turned out for previous GOP candidates and they didn’t turn out in 2018 either, despite the Democrats arguably running with a more progressive aesthetic than 2020’s (no Biden as the nominee, among other things). They might vote for other Republicans in the future, but I’d strongly wager that Trump drove their turnout this time and will need to be emulated in some way if Republicans hope to repeat his successes.

[Buzz]

He did better than I expected in the Midwest, but then managed to lose Georgia.  I'll call it a wash as far as the election.  I think he set a path that can help the GOP in the EC for the foreseeable future.

[Orser67]

I am a little surprised that Trump did as well as he did, and I do think that he deserves some credit (from the perspective of evaluating his strength as a political candidate) for being good at turning out his base. However, I also think he benefited a lot from perceptions of a strong economy (which, regardless of your opinions of his policies, no president can ever fully control), a Democratic Party that has moved left pretty fast in the last few years, and the simple fact that Republican voters are more efficiently allocated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden would have obviously lost had Trump had a competent response to coronavirus.

[7,052,770]

Biden would have obviously lost had Trump had a competent response to coronavirus.

Perhaps, but if Trump were the type of person who would have a competent response to the coronavirus, he wouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

[bagelman]

Not as President. Yes as candidate and party leader.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Obviously. Him fostering his bully pulpit, his cult of personality, and the polarization of the country were definitely unseen advantages to him even in spite of the absolutely abhorrent state of the country under his watch. It neutralized much of it and kept this election as a 2016-esque tossup that was never properly reflected in the polling. It should have been the blowout that it looked like it was going to be but Trump being the enigma he is threw everything conventional piece of wisdom out the window. Really the polling industry once again failing so miserably is probably the biggest problem with how we looked at this election in such a distorted fashion from what it ended up being. Thankfully Democrats learned from 2016 and compensated for that anyway to finally deliver some accountability to a man who rarely faces the consequences he deserves.

[PSOL]

Would you say that Jim Jones did well?  Would you say that Kim Il-Sung did well?  Would you say that Pol Pot did well?  All these cult leaders remained very popular with their followers despite being terrible men who made their lives absolute hell.

Jim Jones and Pol Pot threw their movement, and people under said movements control, into committed suicide. Although there was no conservation of power or grand finale for the failure that was the idealist agrarians (Kampuchea)

Jong-IL managed to survive power and be relevant before the collapse of the Soviet Union, where the cult of personality got extreme and the economy seriously faltered with losing the Soviet Union and Communist China. So he’s a so-so case.

Trump is much more of a joke compared to these people tbh from a propaganda standpoint.