Was Trump's 2016 win a fluke?

[Sir Mohamed]

Inspired by the same question about the 2020 election. Was Trump's election in 2016 a fluke?

Tbh, I'm no longer saying so. I thought so between January 2017 and November 2020, but seeing how 2020 unfolded despite his presidency a complete disaster I don't think it was fluke. Biden's election wasn't fluke either, imho.

[Sir Mohamed]

Somehow I still feel that way, although 2020 indeed is a strong counter argument. Trump ran against an equally unpopular candidate and barely managed to win the Rust Belt trio in a perfect storm of the Comey letter and with help from third party candidates. If the election was held just a week earlier or later, there could have been a different outcome.

2016 was clearly the year of the outsider(s) and given that something like a 2/3 majority in polls wanted a prez who can "bring change to DC", Mr. Trump may have underperformed. A more disciplined candidate could have crushed HRC; or Jeb in a reverse scenario.

The Midwest was for sure not a fluke and already close in 2000 and 2004, especially WI. Obama was just an extraordinary candidate and people in 2016 overlooked these factors and just assumed said states were locked down for Dems (which is why HRC didn't invest enough to keep them).

Also needs to be said that other than the Midwest, Trump managed to win all Romney states and FL. So 2016 was not a fluke imho.

[Sir Mohamed]

2016 was a realignment, not a fluke. 

Mr. Trump may have underperformed. A more disciplined candidate could have crushed HRC; or Jeb in a reverse scenario.

See, I don't buy this.  How is a candidate like Cruz or Kasich supposed to replicate Trump's improvement with WWC voters in Michigan or Wisconsin?  A more traditionally conservative candidate would have allowed Clinton to just "Obama 2012" the thing, which was the initial operating assumption of every prognosticator of what the 2016 election would be.  You can argue *maybe* a Jeb! type does better in the suburbs than Trump, but is that enough to flip states like VA or CO that were assumed to be critical components of the GOP's path to 270 at the time?

Kasich did excellent with WWC voters in 2014 and his moderate postions on healthcare could help .

Yeah, I think Kasich would have won as well. But I guess Mohamed has a point here, say if Trump abstained from the most divisive rhetoric and just focussed on ending illegal immigration, new trade deals, "endless wars", political corruption and been moderate on healthcare just like Kasich, while having no personal baggage/scandals, Trump could have won the popular vote and all remaining states Hillary won by less than five points.

Yah I don’t even think Mohammed is saying there that Cruz would have won cause his views are indeed to extreme to win an election outside truly horrendous fundamentals for the Dems . His personality is extremely unlikable too so he can’t even make up his extreme policy views with that either .

Cruz most likely would have lost, yup.

What I meant is that Trump or another charismatic candidate running on his platform with little changes would have won the NPV and carried MN, NH, NV and perhaps VA on top. Remember Trump once showed some discipline in the final days of the campaign, which - combined with the fallout from the Comey letter - liftet him over the top with narrow margins in the Rust Belt trio.

[Sir Mohamed]

2016 was a realignment, not a fluke. 

Mr. Trump may have underperformed. A more disciplined candidate could have crushed HRC; or Jeb in a reverse scenario.

See, I don't buy this.  How is a candidate like Cruz or Kasich supposed to replicate Trump's improvement with WWC voters in Michigan or Wisconsin?  A more traditionally conservative candidate would have allowed Clinton to just "Obama 2012" the thing, which was the initial operating assumption of every prognosticator of what the 2016 election would be.  You can argue *maybe* a Jeb! type does better in the suburbs than Trump, but is that enough to flip states like VA or CO that were assumed to be critical components of the GOP's path to 270 at the time?

Kasich did excellent with WWC voters in 2014 and his moderate postions on healthcare could help .

Yeah, I think Kasich would have won as well. But I guess Mohamed has a point here, say if Trump abstained from the most divisive rhetoric and just focussed on ending illegal immigration, new trade deals, "endless wars", political corruption and been moderate on healthcare just like Kasich, while having no personal baggage/scandals, Trump could have won the popular vote and all remaining states Hillary won by less than five points.

Yah I don’t even think Mohammed is saying there that Cruz would have won cause his views are indeed to extreme to win an election outside truly horrendous fundamentals for the Dems . His personality is extremely unlikable too so he can’t even make up his extreme policy views with that either .

Cruz most likely would have lost, yup.

What I meant is that Trump or another charismatic candidate running on his platform with little changes would have won the NPV and carried MN, NH, NV and perhaps VA on top. Remember Trump once showed some discipline in the final days of the campaign, which - combined with the fallout from the Comey letter - liftet him over the top with narrow margins in the Rust Belt trio.

I think Trump underperformed in the PV vs. what Generic R would have done (chiefly because of no massive 3rd party voting in California and less narrowing in Texas), but he greatly overperformed in the EC.  The 3rd party vote really hurt R's in the PV in 2016.  Almost all of the indie candidates were some flavor of right-leaning.  As an example:



Generic Republican 290 EV 49.4%
Hillary Clinton 248 EV 48.8%

Tbh, I'd also flip NH here.