Post-Election Results Analysis (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

The election data is always very interesting. Let's have a thread to discuss it so that it doesn't get washed away in the gameday thread.

We always suspected that a portion of the Trump vote in 2016 will leave him based on overall distaste with his conduct as president. There appears to be some evidence of that emerging . . . here's some from Wisconsin.

 

[porculator]

I don't completely agree with all that analysis, particularly the notion that 'Any incumbent would have struggled with a pandemic in an election year'; handled well, it's something that can boost an incumbent as they're seen to be capable of taking tough decisions and protecting the nation. See, for example, Jacinda Acern, going from 36.89% of the New Zealand vote in 2017 to a remarkable 50.01% of the vote in their October 2020 election.

I certainly agree that Trump struggled with it though, or as the article puts it, "he botched his job."

I think that the U.S. would have struggled greatly with Covid regardless of who was at the helm. We don't have the geographic benefit of New Zealand (no one does) or the compliant populace of the Asian countries that were successful. If there were a president Hillary, every federal measure to address the virus would have been met with a huge amount of resistance and non-compliance, like Michigan x50. We would have ended up with more restrictions AND an unacceptable death toll (granted it would have been less, but once you get to six figures it doesn't matter)

Ironically Trump was probably one of the only potential candidates that could have survived it. He just had to pretend to care a little bit, and couldn't be bothered.

Never forget that Bush got re-elected after the Iraq invasion yielded no WMDs, and Ray Nagin got re-elected after everything that went wrong during Katrina. We tend to give our elected officials a chance to clean up their own messes if it seems like their heart is in the right place.

 

[JRad]

Ironically Trump was probably one of the only potential candidates that could have survived it. He just had to pretend to care a little bit, and couldn't be bothered.

So true. The people who aren't bothering following any COVID guidelines are largely his base - all he had to do was say "yea, do this guys", and our response would have been infinitely better.

 

[donato]

All Trump had to do was wear a mask, pretend to be proactive about Covid and not be a complete jerk to a dying/dead John McCain and he would’ve won easily.

 

[RobF]

I think that the U.S. would have struggled greatly with Covid regardless of who was at the helm. We don't have the geographic benefit of New Zealand (no one does) or the compliant populace of the Asian countries that were successful. If there were a president Hillary, every federal measure to address the virus would have been met with a huge amount of resistance and non-compliance, like Michigan x50. We would have ended up with more restrictions AND an unacceptable death toll (granted it would have been less, but once you get to six figures it doesn't matter)

I said 'handled well' in terms of the incumbent, not 'handled successfully' in terms of the nation; there's an important distinction there I could probably have made clearer.

But as an aside (probably better suited to the coronavirus thread, but since we're here) the nations that were successful were so because they acted rapidly and decisively, with clear principles and excellent communication, and that's applicable anywhere. The notion that they were successful because of geography or 'compliant populace' doesn't hold up. Had New Zealand acted like the UK, for example, delaying action, dismissing the threat, and trying to keep Auckland's restaurants open and the tourism industry going instead of continuing to drive down levels of the virus in their community, they'd be struggling now like much of the rest of us and their death rate would have been right up there as well. Conversely, had the UK acted like New Zealand, it would have been transformative. Geography can help, especially when considering border control with respect to islands, but there's a wide variety of different geographies that have done well and badly. As for compliance, when we're talking about public health measures that require both widespread public and private take up to be truly successful, clear principles and excellent communication are the big factors there, not some broad notion of compliant people. No population can be compliant with mixed messaging, and unclear and inconsistent communication creates an environment of ignorance and confusion where irrational rebellion can easily take hold.

Ironically Trump was probably one of the only potential candidates that could have survived it. He just had to pretend to care a little bit, and couldn't be bothered.

Never forget that Bush got re-elected after the Iraq invasion yielded no WMDs, and Ray Nagin got re-elected after everything that went wrong during Katrina. We tend to give our elected officials a chance to clean up their own messes if it seems like their heart is in the right place.

I think there's a contradiction there. I agree with the latter point; that's why I'm saying any candidate can not only survive despite a crisis, but (as I'm trying to argue here), thrive because of a crisis in electoral terms, even if it's seen to be going badly, as long as they're seen to be handling it well; 'well' being a relative term often measured more in impression of effort and how well anyone could have been expected to do under the circumstances.

And as you say, it's frequently a really low bar that just requires the appearance of caring and trying.

All Trump had to do was wear a mask, pretend to be proactive about Covid and not be a complete jerk to a dying/dead John McCain and he would’ve won easily.

That's basically it.

 

[J-DONK]

I'm on the side of I don't know if the numbers change dramatically no matter who is at helm. My reasoning?

Europe.

Everyone likes to dunk on America, but per capita some European countries have been the leaders, and consistently in the top 10 when you break it down per capita.

I'll add, I do think there would have been less deaths with a different president. I'm not convinced it's that many though. The chances basic safety protocols are politized no matter the president is extremely high.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't completely agree with all that analysis, particularly the notion that 'Any incumbent would have struggled with a pandemic in an election year'; handled well, it's something that can boost an incumbent as they're seen to be capable of taking tough decisions and protecting the nation. See, for example, Jacinda Acern, going from 36.89% of the New Zealand vote in 2017 to a remarkable 50.01% of the vote in their October 2020 election.

I certainly agree that Trump struggled with it though, or as the article puts it, "he botched his job."


This ties in with the question in the other thread of why the Republican party does not appear to be inclined to change despite losing.

Because while they lost this time, they could easily have won. It wasn't the existential 'you can never win again if you continue like this' defeat necessary to cause real reflection, it was a 'our guy messed it up this time, we'll get them next time' defeat.

Everything that kept them in the competition despite Trump screwing up left, right, and center, is still there. The electoral college, the vicious circle of a polarised nation and a too dominant partisan media, and a lack of consequences culture that promotes excuses and ignorance over accountability and truth. They're not changing until that does.

While I agree with you that historically, challenges that call for leadership can generally favor a talented leader who steps up and appears to lead, even if mistakes are made, I do think there is some merit to the idea that the pandemic was going to likely be negative for any American leader. While Acern's leadership has been impressive, I don't think the challenges for New Zealand - an island nation with a structure that is favorable to the kinds of social mitigation measures needed to stem a pandemic - are all that comparable to the US.

To be sure, Trump totally botched it. It played into his own worst instincts, and, I think it hurt him that his base was predisposed to disbelieve the science and react negatively to centralized mitigation. I suppose we could imagine alternate realities where Trump embraced an early mask mandate and enabled the public health experts rather than discrediting them and celebrating quack medicine. But Trump could never have done it any differently - he was already in a war on science and professionals even before coronavirus.

At some point it gets circular and all comes back to Trump's fundamental flaws as a leader and as a human being.

 

[Saintman2884]

All Trump had to do was wear a mask, pretend to be proactive about Covid and not be a complete jerk to a dying/dead John McCain and he would’ve won easily.

As a malignant narcissist who lacks any sense or semblance of empathy, or sympathy for anyone but himself, and likely his family, those are character/personality traits Trump's incapable of showing or even understanding the meaning of.

 

[Saintman2884]

While I agree with you that historically, challenges that call for leadership can generally favor a talented leader who steps up and appears to lead, even if mistakes are made, I do think there is some merit to the idea that the pandemic was going to likely be negative for any American leader. While Acern's leadership has been impressive, I don't think the challenges for New Zealand - an island nation with a structure that is favorable to the kinds of social mitigation measures needed to stem a pandemic - are all that comparable to the US.

To be sure, Trump totally botched it. It played into his own worst instincts, and, I think it hurt him that his base was predisposed to disbelieve the science and react negatively to centralized mitigation. I suppose we could imagine alternate realities where Trump embraced an early mask mandate and enabled the public health experts rather than discrediting them and celebrating quack medicine. But Trump could never have done it any differently - he was already in a war on science and professionals even before coronavirus.

At some point it gets circular and all comes back to Trump's fundamental flaws as a leader and as a human being.

Let me ask you this audacious but MAYBE plausible scenario and for God's sake, please don't crucify me and label me as a Trump marker, but do you think its possible that if Covid-19 worldwide pandemic had occurred maybe 1-2 years before March 2020, Trump's reactions and responses to setting up a more nationwide, federally mandated coordinated response and perhaps allowed CDC scientists, virulogists, epidemiologists to do their jobs and maybe perhaps stayed a bit more out of the way.

I say that because if this Covid crisis occurs in January-February 2019, Trump is not up for reelection for another 2 years, he and other Republican Senate/House allies have some time to develop a coherent, more workable strategy where their constantly looking at their poll numbers as they try to limit the millions of Americans affected and thousands dying and find workable, long-lasting Covid-19 vaccines. Does this sort of scenario possibly work out where a man with no prior political or legislative experience who's POTUS maybe doesn't panic or lose control and essentially give up to even trying to deal with and handle this type of worldwide pandemic?

 

[MT15]

If Trump were just a normally flawed arrogant human being, you might be right. But Trump isn’t that, he cannot “listen to the experts” because he cannot acknowledge that anyone knows more than he does. He wasn’t able to stay away from the briefings as it was and he controlled what the scientists said.

I also just cannot see him actively trying to do a good job. He just doesn’t care enough about anyone but himself. If it would cut into his executive time, he just wouldn’t do it.

 

[RobF]

While I agree with you that historically, challenges that call for leadership can generally favor a talented leader who steps up and appears to lead, even if mistakes are made, I do think there is some merit to the idea that the pandemic was going to likely be negative for any American leader. While Acern's leadership has been impressive, I don't think the challenges for New Zealand - an island nation with a structure that is favorable to the kinds of social mitigation measures needed to stem a pandemic - are all that comparable to the US.

Going to reply to this broader point (and @J-DONK's above) in the Coronavirus thread.

To be sure, Trump totally botched it. It played into his own worst instincts, and, I think it hurt him that his base was predisposed to disbelieve the science and react negatively to centralized mitigation. I suppose we could imagine alternate realities where Trump embraced an early mask mandate and enabled the public health experts rather than discrediting them and celebrating quack medicine. But Trump could never have done it any differently - he was already in a war on science and professionals even before coronavirus.

At some point it gets circular and all comes back to Trump's fundamental flaws as a leader and as a human being.

I don't disagree with any of that, but those particular points would seem to be in support of how a pandemic was likely to be negative in electoral terms for Trump uniquely, rather than any American leader, since I don't think those instincts are inherent to or typical of American leaders. I mean, I can just about see some of the other 2016 Republican runners going against public health experts to some degree, for example, but not to the extent that Trump did.

And while, in a particularly polarised political environment a pandemic is always going to be used against an incumbent, how effective that will be is always going to be significantly impacted by how well the incumbent handled the crisis, with being seen to handle it well providing a potential boost rather than becoming a negative.

The article you linked to cited, in particular, the fact that a majority of voters in battleground states prioritised stopping the spread of the virus over re-opening the economy, that they favoured mask mandates, and that they approved of Fauci's performance. So if we think about American leaders in general, the last one I don't think would be a problem for pretty much any other typical American leader, who I'd suggest would have been unlikely to pick a fight with Fauci. I do think a tendency for leaders to over-prioritise the economy over weighting towards health would have been an issue, as it was in a lot of nations, but not to the same extent as with Trump, and mask mandates could have been a potential issue as well particularly, IMO, for the typical late 20th/early 21st century Republican leader, but even having said that, there are Republican governors who have enacted mask mandates so I don't think it's a stretch to suggest many American leaders including Republican ones could have done so.

So overall, I still think it's Trump's unique qualities that led to the pandemic being a negative for him electorally rather than it being something likely to be negative in electoral terms for American leaders in general, with the issues likely to be contentious for most leaders (economy over health, mask mandates) being more than negated by the tendency for people to rally around leaders who can not only act like they're in control of the situation but also have the minimum degree of competency necessary for that to be widely believable.

 

[porculator]

I think there's a contradiction there. I agree with the latter point; that's why I'm saying any candidate can not only survive despite a crisis, but (as I'm trying to argue here), thrive because of a crisis in electoral terms, even if it's seen to be going badly, as long as they're seen to be handling it well; 'well' being a relative term often measured more in impression of effort and how well anyone could have been expected to do under the circumstances.

And as you say, it's frequently a really low bar that just requires the appearance of caring and trying.

But the bar is different depending on the candidate. Had Trump taken Covid seriously, he would have had more universal support than, say, Hillary, even if they had taken the exact same measures.
The issue is that a proper Covid response would entail massive federal spending, and forced infringements on individual liberties and businesses. If a democrat were to call for that, its just more of that tyranny Fox warned us about, but if a Republican does it, well shirt, this must be the real deal.

Its just the nature of politics. People pay more attention to the messenger than the message.