r/tuesday Conservative Nov 15 '24

Kamala Harris Was a Replacement-Level Candidate

https://www.natesilver.net/p/kamala-harris-was-a-replacement-level
31 Upvotes

View all comments

-8

u/bearcatjoe Right Visitor Nov 16 '24 edited Nov 16 '24

Among the worst major party candidates in my lifetime. I think Hillary or Dukakis are a distant #2 & #3?

2

u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative Nov 16 '24

I think Hillary or Dukakis are a distant #2 & #3?

This is Gore erasure. Clinton handed him a blueprint to win and he couldn't even win his own state.

3

u/psunavy03 Conservative Nov 16 '24

Gore still came with in a gnat's ass of the White House. We're also so numbed to scandals post-Trump that it's hard for some people to remember what a Big Fucking Deal it was to a lot of folks that Bill got caught cheating on Hillary by getting blowjobs from an intern and then perjuring himself over it.

2

u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative Nov 16 '24

Big Fucking Deal it was to a lot of folks that Bill got caught cheating on Hillary by getting blowjobs from an intern and then perjuring himself over it.

I fully understand that.

It's no excuse to lose your own state, which you already won as a Senator previously. Clinton, Dukakis and Harris all managed to win their home states, at least .

4

u/WeaknessOne9646 Right Visitor Nov 16 '24

Holding the WH for 12 years is not easy for any party regardless of candidate

1

u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative Nov 16 '24

Possibly (though not historically true), but that's a silly measuring stick considering that would also give Hillary Clinton an out as well.

3

u/WeaknessOne9646 Right Visitor Nov 16 '24

Yes which is why I cut Hillary some slack. Though 2016 Trump was a weaker candidate than 2000 Bush. Also unlike this year the 2016 race was considerably more of a stroke of luck for Trump. Play that night over 10 times and I think Trump only wins maybe 4/10.

Just because Clinton gave Gore a blueprint to win doesn't mean it should be discounted that his discretions also hurt him (as a country we were more sensitive to that stuff then)

3

u/Burrito_Fucker15 Right Visitor Nov 16 '24

To be fair to Gore, he did overcome far more of a polling deficit than either Clinton or Dukakis had to.

In April 2000, Gore was down 6 points. In June, he was down by around 12 in certain polls. He turned that into one of the closest elections since the Gilded Age.

Clinton, meanwhile, held an advantage, and for a lot of the time, a huge advantage, in polling over Trump for the entire campaign. Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in July. Dukakis continued leading him easily into August. And he lost in the largest landslide of the past 36 years.

I do agree that Gore fumbled the campaign and could’ve won, but I think Clinton and Dukakis fumbled it more than he did.

1

u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative Nov 17 '24

Clinton, meanwhile, held an advantage, and for a lot of the time, a huge advantage, in polling over Trump for the entire campaign

See, this is just revisionist history and talk from the Trump crowd that Clinton and Biden were a lock for a landslide election according to the polls.

In fact, if we're using the same trend that we're using for 1988, Clinton spent most of her time around 40%. It's just Trump spent most of polling at 35%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections

I also don't know how much we can trust 1988 polling considering it was so long ago.