this wasn’t a normal election
Yeah ... I don't think you are understanding what I am typing.
BT (before Trump) analysts had a certain set of criteria which they used to make sense of what happened politically. Thus they could compare results and derive some reasonable explanations for those results.
How that would appear is there was a standard set of criteria {A, B, C, ..., Z} which when combined in certain well described rules would result in numbers or some other result. I'll use © to indicate some political operation to analyze. Thus BT we would have, regardless of who, what, or the time, A © B => Ra (Result a). Analysts could compare this result with others from other years to try and understand what happened. This is the standard garden variety scheme which everyone is using.
What I am saying is using the same set of criteria (it shouldn't change because times or people have changed) we may be getting different results. Thus BT analysts would ask the question what about A © G © S =>Rz. I am saying asking the same question AT, what about A © G © S =>Rx, thus one would not be able to compare results. The difference is the BT operator "©" has morphed AT into a different operator, "®". So despite the fact both returned numbers we can't make valid comparisons until we understand how © -> ®.
So when I typed 49% (AT) may be 80% (BT), it is because the operators have changed, and until the "new" operator is understood, all results are invalid. How I know there is a new operator should be obvious ... BT no one with the criminal record Trump has would have even been considered for any elected office, and look now .... he nominated sexual predators, TV personalities, as well as disqualifying sycophants, and no one says a word. We live in a different world AT, it requires a new lens to understand it.
