[dylan604]

Two party system. As many people didn't like Hillary, clearly there were a lot of people unhappy with Biden->Harris. When you don't like the current admin's direction and/or their party, there's only one other party to select. I think there were plenty of voters that truly did not believe this would be the result of that protest vote.

[mikkupikku]

Protest votes are probably overstated, I think most of it comes down to people staying home. Everybody in America already knows what side they're on, and they either vote for that side or not at all. Virtually all political messaging is either trying to moralize your side or demoralize the other, to manipulate the relative ratios of who stays home on election day.

[dylan604]

> I think most of it comes down to people staying home

Obama was able to get people motivated. Neither Biden nor Harris had anywhere near that motivating ability. I don't know that the Dems have anyone as motivating as Obama line up. The Dems seem to be hoping that enough people will be repulsed by the current admin to show up.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Obama was able to get people motivated. Neither Biden nor Harris had anywhere near that

How do you explain Biden getting so many more votes than Obama even while Trump improved with black and Hispanics over past Republican candidates?

[ceejayoz]

> How do you explain Biden getting so many more votes than Obama

US population in 2008: 304 million

US population in 2020: 332 million

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...

Barring enormous turnout differences, pretty much every US election gets more raw votes than the last.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Interesting theory, explain 2024 when the total went down.

Simple enough explanation… 2020 was a massive outlier.

If you forgotten, the topic is GP saying Biden didn’t motivate voters. Well, that does not seem correct.

[ceejayoz]

2024 was a massive outlier. First black woman ever, and the first time a candidate got swapped out mid-campaign. You can't extrapolate much from that one.

[Zak]

I think people were highly motivated in 2020 because of Trump, not Biden. The turnout would have been similar for any credible candidate running against Trump.

What's weird to me is that a lot of people lost that motivation over the next four years. If they found Trump scary in 2020, they should have found him scary in 2024.

[mikkupikku]

Newsom is an extremely strong candidate. Vance has several critical vulnerabilities that can demoralize right wing voters if the election is handled properly, and the Republicans really don't have anybody else. Rubio maybe, but Rubio won't be able to get ahead of Vance.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Newsom is an extremely strong candidate.

For what office? President? Do you live in California?

[dylan604]

Trump had more than several critical vulns as well which did not dissuade voters. The electorate isn't as predictable as many try to make it sound

[mikkupikku]

Trump was able to moralize his voters, despite his weaknesses, by using a kind of charisma that Vance utterly lacks.

[actionfromafar]

I think Vance isn't planning on using charisma, but violence.

[Zak]

Prior to 2020, I usually voted for third parties so I do understand that kind of thinking. The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office; it seemed early on like congress and institutional norms would restrain him. To swing the popular vote in the 2024 election, almost all of the third party votes would have needed to go to Harris, so I don't think that's sufficient to explain it.

By the end of his first term, the danger was hard to miss, and the attempt to remain in power after losing the election should have cemented it for everyone.

I was unhappy with Biden and Harris. I voted for them in 2020 and 2024 anyway because I understood the alternative.

[dpkirchner]

> The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office

I don't get it, was there anything surprising about him after his inauguration? He sure sounded dangerous on the campaign trail.

[Zak]

The norm in 2016 was that candidates didn't make a serious attempt to do the more outlandish things they talked about in their campaign. When they did, advisers would usually talk them into a saner version of it, or congress wouldn't allow it.

[dylan604]

Trump 45 had "adults in the room". Trump 47 has nothing but sycophants. The end of Trump 45 started eliminating the adults in the room, but there wasn't enough time left for him to do much drastic. Trump 45 felt like even Trump was shocked he won and there was no real game plan. The transition team was woefully unprepared. Trump 47 had 4 years of prepping with the aide of things like Project 2025. Trump 47 hit the ground running.

[dylan604]

> The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office;

I just do not understand this sentence at all. The writing was clearly on the wall. All of the Project 2025 conversations told us exactly what was going to happen. People claiming it was not obvious at best were not paying attention at all. For anyone paying attention, it was horrifying see the election results coming in.

[Zak]

Project 2025 did not exist in 2016. We are in agreement about 2024.