How Biden defied history at every turn to win

[OSR stands with Israel]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

I'd say Jimmy Carter's in 1976 was more pathetic given that was even more winnable than 2020.

Was 1976 really as winnable as it seemed

[dw93]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

I'd say Jimmy Carter's in 1976 was more pathetic given that was even more winnable than 2020.

Was 1976 really as winnable as it seemed

In a span of two years the GOP saw one President resign to avoid impeachment and removal from office, his unelected successor barely survive a strong primary challenge from a guy who was, at the time, pretty far out of the mainstream, and on top of that preside over what was at the time the worst recession since the great depression and the fall of Saigon, and do so in a less polarizing environment. The fact that Carter couldn't even reach 300 electoral votes and the fact that only Ohio and one of Mississippi or Wisconsin going the other way would've given Ford a 2nd term is pretty laughable given the overall environment.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

As previously stated what is there to overcome, Trump had Russia to retrieve the 30K emails, McConnells obstruction of Garland and and Gary Johnson to beat our celebrity candidate HRC.

HRC would have beaten the Rs in 2008.
It was only closer than expected due to fact the bump fr ACB nomination

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

He beat an incumbent with near even approval ratings. I can't say I agree with your assessment.

Ford had a higher approval rating.

[BudgieForce]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

He beat an incumbent with near even approval ratings. I can't say I agree with your assessment.

Ford had a higher approval rating.

The nation was significantly less polarized in 1976.

[emailking]

This is why history is not a great metric for predicting elections. Biden betting everything on South Carolina seemed risky, but it turned out to be smart.

We really just don't have a big enough sample size for some of the norms that have been accepted.

Like yeah it's a fact that no one had become the nominee without finishing 3rd or better in Iowa or New Hampshire, but the relevance is questionable.

I hope this leads to less importance being put on Iowa in New Hampshire. They may e good for bubbling some lesser known candidates to the surface, but nobody should be dismissed because they couldn't appeal to these small states.

[emailking]

The fact that Carter couldn't even reach 300 electoral votes and was a few thousand votes from losing the deciding state is pretty pathetic and laughable.

The deciding state was New York and he won it by over 200,000 votes.

Margin wise, the closest state he won was Ohio and he won it by over 10,000 votes.

[dw93]

The fact that Carter couldn't even reach 300 electoral votes and was a few thousand votes from losing the deciding state is pretty pathetic and laughable.

The deciding state was New York and he won it by over 200,000 votes.

Margin wise, the closest state he won was Ohio and he won it by over 10,000 votes.

I should've been clearer in my statement I meant closest state, and in this case it was Ohio plus one of Wisconsin or Mississippi going to Ford that would've tipped the election. Either way, Carter's general election performance that year was pretty laughable.

[Agafin]

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

That's what khuzifenq said. "45" = Trump.

He can't believe that voters trust Trump on the economy more than Biden. I can't either.

Oh yeah, sorry I misread.

[Pericles]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

He beat an incumbent with near even approval ratings. I can't say I agree with your assessment.

Ford had a higher approval rating.

Biden beat Trump by more than Carter beat Ford (in the PV).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Idk which was sadder- the fact that people thought the Iowa and NH primaries were good barometers of the Dem primary electorate, or that voters actually trusted 45 on the economy.

Trump's monetary policy was pretty spot on and on the fiscal side his tax cuts (as grossly unfair and mistargeted as they were) helped stimulate an economy that had been running under capacity for years. It might have even been rational for a single issue economy voter to support Trump considering that Congressional Republicans would be more likely to starve the economy of a Democratic president than vice-versa. This is where the average voter is smarter than partisans are.

[Kamala Was Right About Everything]

He didn't do jack: Clyburn and Obama had to hold his hand throughout the primary, then he had 24/7 favorable media coverage from the MSM, the COVID BS, shady election practices, hundreds of millions dollars in his warchest from elite donors, and constant misinformation against Trump like the fake military remarks and the Russia bounty story.

Even though he had everything in his favor he still barely "won"

I don't agree with you often but the Russian bounty was complete BS like most of the stuff the New York Times poops out these days.

[Kamala Was Right About Everything]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

I'd say Jimmy Carter's in 1976 was more pathetic given that was even more winnable than 2020.

Was 1976 really as winnable as it seemed

Ford was leading in some polls, it was certainly a harder campaign than the one "Mr. Electable" was gift wrapped in 2020 and still failed the Senate campaign downballot.

[MRS. MEE SUM CHU]

Idk which was sadder- the fact that people thought the Iowa and NH primaries were good barometers of the Dem primary electorate, or that voters actually trusted 45 on the economy.

Trump's monetary policy was pretty spot on and on the fiscal side his tax cuts (as grossly unfair and mistargeted as they were) helped stimulate an economy that had been running under capacity for years. It might have even been rational for a single issue economy voter to support Trump considering that Congressional Republicans would be more likely to starve the economy of a Democratic president than vice-versa. This is where the average voter is smarter than partisans are.

Thanks for the explanation, wish I could recommend this more than once. It helps me rationalize the Latino and Asian swings we saw in November.