2000 or 1988

[The Vorlon]

closer to 2000 than 1988, but neither is a great match.

1948 is an approximate parallel. - The US economy was coming off a sugar high of spending post WWII in 1948, today we are digesting the post 2009 Stimulus hangover. - In both years the economies were in transition from an unprecedented government distortion to the economy.

In addition, the US economy was in transition from one major era to another - In 1948 from a wartime economy to a cold war economy - In 2016 from a super power to a non superpower state....

[The Vorlon]

1988 is what I voted.

Trump is Bush and Clinton is Dukakis.

Alternatively, I actually think a good parallel for this election is 2008. Followed by 8 years of an unpopular President (Bush 43/Obama), a dynamic candidate (Obama/Trump) defeats a weak and uninspiring candidate of the incumbent party (McCain/Clinton) - who ran with an awful running mate (Palin/Kaine) - in a huge landslide. Trump's margin of victory over Clinton probably will be similar to Obama 2008, (53-47).

Obama - and you guys have to realize this - is the new Dubya.

Doesn't quite work - Reagan was a very successful president which is very much at odds with the 2016 dynamic.

[The Vorlon]

1960 - Clinton is Nixon and Trump is JFK.

Many people refused to vote for JFK - not because he was an egotistical, bigoted buffoon, but because he was a Roman Catholic.  JFK was charismatic, while Nixon was the robotic voice of the establishment.  Dirty tricks were employed to decide a key state (EDIT: Hasn't happened yet, but it wouldn't surprise me).

The popular vote margin was 0.17%, which makes Gore's PV margin over Bush look like a landslide.

You have a point about 1960..

So is 1960 or 1948 closer?