How did Trump come so close to winning in 2020 given the macro circumstances?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

If you look at the circumstances - deadly pandemic + an economy worse than 2008 + riots under his watch, you would've expected Trump to lose by way more. His performance should've been much closer to Bush Sr. or Carter. The 413-125 predictions seemed way more in line with the fundamentals than the actual results.

Was Biden really that weak of a challenger?

[TML]

-Biden was an establishment candidate who didn't excite the Democratic base, just like Hillary was. His main selling point was that he was not Trump, just like Hillary.
-Democrats drastically reduced in-person campaigning as a result of the pandemic, while Republicans largely maintained their usual levels of in-person campaigning (indeed, exit polls showed that Trump won voters who decided their vote in October or later).

[Fancyarcher]

Polarization, and the electoral college favoring Republicans. Any candidate would have done nearly exactly the same thing, barring maybe some last minute accusation.

This isn't 1988, or 1996 anymore. Even Obama's victory in 2008 seems impossible.

[Sir Mohamed]

-Biden was an establishment candidate who didn't excite the Democratic base, just like Hillary was. His main selling point was that he was not Trump, just like Hillary.
-Democrats drastically reduced in-person campaigning as a result of the pandemic, while Republicans largely maintained their usual levels of in-person campaigning (indeed, exit polls showed that Trump won voters who decided their vote in October or later).

Yup. You could also argue that Trump wasn't really blamed for the economy as it was a result of a worldwide pandemic. Sure, he handled the health crisis extremely poorly, but the economy would have tanked under any administration. That was also the case in other countries with competent leaders.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Thank you, riverwalk3, for an interesting question.

I wonder if a good part of it isn't incumbency combined with low-partisanship voters who have pretty minimalist voting criteria.

Such a voter's decision would be based on something like:

"Has the incumbent done anything that obviously personally harms me or runs counter to my personal politics?" Perhaps that voter has strong feelings about foreign wars or big new taxes. Maybe massive policy changes flip their vote, but nothing less. (I.e. "Lets get rid of national forests and parks!" would alienate them, but they just don't know or care about drilling permits and renewable subsidies.)

Trump would have won that voter in 2020, and Biden would win them in 2024.

[Pres Mike]

1. Intense polorazation not seen since 1860. Trump had 45% of the vote, nothing was going to change that

2. Trump wasn't blame for the economic recession. The unemplyment checks and PPP loans kept Americans afloat

3. Americans don't care about each other. 100k dead or million dead, that didn't change any votes. If you cared, you probably won't going to vote for Trump anyway.

Considering Trump led polls in 2019, one could argue Democrats won the election because of COVID

[dw93]

I think the riots and a lack of response to them from Democratic Mayors and Governors as well as Defund the Police hurt the Democrats too, and I think it does explain the few instances of Biden winning certain counties for President while the GOP won downticket.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's always very difficult to beat an incumbent, especially in this era of extreme polarization and somebody who is essentially a cult leader like Trump.

BTW, it's laughable to say that Biden failed to energize Democrats when he got 16 million more votes than Clinton. The only ones who didn't vote for him are grifters like Nina Turner and Lee Carter or Putin mouthpieces like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald.

[Minnesota Mike]

Incumbency matters. Tough to lose as an incumbent.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Because Dems keep underestimating the guy. After he won in 2016 they should have learned not to treat the election like a done deal. They did a better job in 2020, but Biden still overestimated his lead and as a result Trump almost won again. The craziest part is they still underestimate Donald J. Trump after 2016 and 2020!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Because Dems keep underestimating the guy. After he won in 2016 they should have learned not to treat the election like a done deal. They did a better job in 2020, but Biden still overestimated his lead and as a result Trump almost won again. The craziest part is they still underestimate Donald J. Trump after 2016 and 2020!

Total BS. Show me an example where the Biden campaign or Democrats treated the election as done deal.

[CumbrianLefty]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.  This was, by far, the highest quarter-over-quarter growth our nation has experienced since at least WWII.

[Mr. Smith]

It was his to lose, which he did. Just like Hillary '16. Same reasons.

Meanwhile Biden was more like Trump than Trump...albeit the happy, positive version, because Democrats tend to prefer that kind of vibe.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't*.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

* To be pedantic, the 2020 stock market did tank in March, but had completely recovered by the end of the year.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

If this is right, then I notice I'm confused (and you should be, too).  Because the Fed also cut rates to zero during the 2008 crisis, *and* did QE, and it *still* didn't save the stock market quickly.  Why not?

This observation is easy to explain from my viewpoint: There was considerable confidence in our economic future in 2020 and there wasn't much confidence in 2008.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

If this is right, then I notice I'm confused (and you should be, too).  Because the Fed also cut rates to zero during the 2008 crisis, *and* did QE, and it *still* didn't save the stock market quickly.  Why not?

This observation is easy to explain from my viewpoint: There was considerable confidence in our economic future in 2020 and there wasn't much confidence in 2008.

2008 was the first time quantitative easing was done. People still didn't know how the stock market would react - some people actually feared that all the money printing would cause hyperinflation. There were also 2 additional rounds of quantitative easing after that.

In 2020, there was already previous experience with quantitative easing, so stock market investors immediately priced it in.

[Inverted Things]

And indeed, how somebody who allowed a Democratic trifecta is "underrated" electorally.

The opposite is true, most Trumpoids wildly OVERRATE him due to 2016.

An election that HRC lost, rather than he won.

The Democrats got a bare minimum trifecta when economic growth was worse than 2008.

Please provide the numbers you've used to reach this conclusion.

Because it looks to me like the 2020 election took place amidst astounding economic growth -- the Q3 2020 GDP measurement (the last GDP measurement released before the 2020 election) demonstrated growth at a 30+% annualized rate over the Q2 2020 measurement.

GDP growth in 2008 was barely positive, and in 2009 was -2.60%. GDP growth in 2020 was -2.77%.

There are two reasons why that didn't much matter for the 2020 election:

First, as I said already when I pointed at the Q3 2020 numbers, we were already well and clearly into recovery.

Second, people were confident that economic issues would be transient.  And there's a measurement that supports this.  The stock market measures how much folks want to own company stocks.  And they'll want to own more stocks when the expected future payout (i.e. dividends) is greater.  A rising stock market therefore indicates confidence in future GDP (at least when interest rates are steady).

The 2008 stock market tanked.  The 2020 stock market didn't.  In 2020, people remained quite confident about the future economy.

The stock market rose because the Fed cut interest rates to 0 creating more cheap money for the big financial institutions, not because of Main Street economic fundamentals.

If this is right, then I notice I'm confused (and you should be, too).  Because the Fed also cut rates to zero during the 2008 crisis, *and* did QE, and it *still* didn't save the stock market quickly.  Why not?

This observation is easy to explain from my viewpoint: There was considerable confidence in our economic future in 2020 and there wasn't much confidence in 2008.

2008 was the first time quantitative easing was done. People still didn't know how the stock market would react - some people actually feared that all the money printing would cause hyperinflation. There were also 2 additional rounds of quantitative easing after that.

In 2020, there was already previous experience with quantitative easing, so stock market investors immediately priced it in.

I think you just gave me back my premise.  Because it really seems like you're saying that in 2020 people had confidence, and in 2008 they didn't.

[WalterWhite]

It's always very difficult to beat an incumbent, especially in this era of extreme polarization and somebody who is essentially a cult leader like Trump.

BTW, it's laughable to say that Biden failed to energize Democrats when he got 16 million more votes than Clinton. The only ones who didn't vote for him are grifters like Nina Turner and Lee Carter or Putin mouthpieces like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald.

Biden got 16 million more votes than Clinton mostly because of population growth...

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's always very difficult to beat an incumbent, especially in this era of extreme polarization and somebody who is essentially a cult leader like Trump.

BTW, it's laughable to say that Biden failed to energize Democrats when he got 16 million more votes than Clinton. The only ones who didn't vote for him are grifters like Nina Turner and Lee Carter or Putin mouthpieces like Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald.

Biden got 16 million more votes than Clinton mostly because of population growth...

That's nonsense. The US didn't grow 25% in four years.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Because Dems keep underestimating the guy. After he won in 2016 they should have learned not to treat the election like a done deal. They did a better job in 2020, but Biden still overestimated his lead and as a result Trump almost won again. The craziest part is they still underestimate Donald J. Trump after 2016 and 2020!

Total BS. Show me an example where the Biden campaign or Democrats treated the election as done deal.

The Biden campaign didn’t but we did lol

[DrScholl]

If anything Republicans underestimated Biden by measuring votes by the size of rallies. They made fun of him as being in the basement, but come Election Day he proved them all wrong.