A Democratic Woman Candidate Will Beat Trump in 2020

[bluewater]

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by over three million votes and would be President right now except for blatant Russian interference in the election.

Yet this year we have been barraged with articles by pundits claiming a woman can't possibly win the 2020 Presidential race.

Well, the pundits are wrong. The results of HEAD-to-HEAD polling puts this ridiculous claim to rest.

Looking back over the last 4-5 weeks, we see Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris BOTH defeating Trump.

Tuesday, June 25 Emerson Poll :
Warren 53, Trump 47
Harris 52, Trump 48

Sunday, June 16 Fox News Poll :
Warren 43, Trump 41
Harris 42, Trump 41

Tuesday, June 11 Quinnipiac Poll :
Warren 49, Trump 42
Harris 49, Trump 41

Friday, May 24 Rassmusen Reports Poll:
Warren 46, Trump 44

Friday, May 17 Fox News Poll :
Warren 43, Trump 41
Harris 41, Trump 41

Tuesday, May 14 Emerson Poll :
Warren 52, Trump 49
Harris 51, Trump 49

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

[AlexSFCA]

1. total number of votes is irrelevant in electoral college.

It means precisely nothing.

[marylandblue]

9. It's the information we have right now, since there are few state polls.

But if Warren or Harris beat Trump nationally by 7 points as one poll shows, it would be very unlikely for him to get another narrow win in rust belt states. So it's not totally meaningless, it's just not level of detail we prefer. The picture will get filled in with more time.

[brooklynite]

27. In which case we shouldn't use it to determine who will win in 15 months

[marylandblue]

29. Well that's my opinion too, but people are using it that way anyway,

instead of just one data point on a long curve.

[thesquanderer]

37. State polls for crucial swing states...

Michigan (June): Biden and Sanders both lead Trump by 12. Buttigieg by 6, Warren by 4, Harris by 3.

Florida (June): Biden by 9, Sanders by 6, Warren by 4, Buttigieg by 1, Harris by 1.

Pennsylvania (May): Biden by 11, Sanders by 7, Warren by 3, Buttigieg by 1, Harris even.

Wisconsin (March): Biden by 8, Sanders and Warren by 4, Harris even (Buttigieg not polled)

These numbers are all before the debates. I suspect Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris will go up from those numbers since these polls also reflect weaker name recognition compared to the Biden and Sanders.

Poll references below.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/05/biden-sanders-democrats-lead-trump-michigan-poll/1330277001/

https://poll.qu.edu/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=2620

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/wisconsin-2020-bernie-sanders-leads-democratic-field-trump-competitive-in-general-election

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2629

[DownriverDem]

50. I disagree

We are talking about the Electoral College which is state by state. Americans have been slow to support women leaders. Many religious women don't believe that a woman should be president. I think having a progressive Dem woman as VP would be much better. It would show Americans that a woman can be in a national leadership position. She would be aligned to be president.

[AlexSFCA]

52. only 4 VPs were elected to be presidents

not great odds.

[highplainsdem]

2. Links, please, to articles by pundits saying a woman can't win? Not sure I've seen even

one.

I have seen some articles mentioning some voters are concerned, but I haven't even seen very many mentions of that.

I have seen supporters of female candidates trying to suggest that the main reason Biden is seen as most electable is because voters are worried a woman can't win.

Personally, I don't believe that's true, especially since HRC won the popular vote in 2016.

I think it's possible a woman candidate could beat Trump.

I also think it's more likely Biden can beat Trump, judging by all the polls so far. Even polls showing other candidatese including women beating Trump almost always have Biden winning by a wider margin (the only exception I can recall offhand was a poll showing Beto winning by a wider margin than Biden, and that was very much an outlier).

Anyway, I'd be very curious to see ANY of this "barrage" of articles claiming a woman can't win.

[bluewater]

8. "2020 Is Not The Year Where Democrats Can Run A Woman Or Black Guy, Has To Be White Guy"

Google is your friend:

Jason Johnson: 2020 Is Not The Year Where Democrats Can Run A Woman Or Black Guy, Has To Be White Guy

Jason Johnson, an African-American political contributor for MSNBC, said on a special Independence Day edition of Hardball that 2020 is the year Democrats "have to run a white guy."

"2020 is not the year where the Democrats can run a woman and win," Johnson said. "2020 is not the year where Democrats can run a black person and win. They're going to have to run a white guy and it's going to be a white guy."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1287&pid=189168

There's more tripe like this out there. Anyone can google for it.

[highplainsdem]

10. That's only ONE pundit, and he said that a year ago when he was actually saying Terry McAuliffe

should run.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/05/jason_johnson_2020_is_not_the_year_where_democrats_can_run_a_woman_or_black_guy_has_to_be_white_guy.html

I've been googling various keyword combinations, can't find one other pundit besides Jason Johnson, who isn't even that well known, who made such a claim.

There have been some polls indicating that even with the vast majority of voters willing to vote for a woman themselvess, some of them worry some of their neighbors wouldn't.

But those aren't pundits.

[bluewater]

22. Google is your friend.

Famous saying:

When you are in a hole, it's a good idea to stop digging

Unless you've been living in an underground bunker Kimmy Schmidt-style, you’ve no doubt read the mountain of supposed “evidence” that a female candidate can’t win the presidency in 2020. Nowadays, it seems like we see this debate on a daily and even hourly basis.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/06/235361/can-woman-beat-trump-2020-kamala-harris-elizabeth-warren

It’s a Question No One Says They Want to Ask. But the Women Running for President Keep Hearing It.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/us/politics/women-presidential-candidates-2020.html

Female candidates 2020 and the false narrative of electability
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/450948-female-candidates-2020-and-the-false-narrative-of-electability

Honestly, there are a lot more articles like this out there. Pardon me, but I think I have proven my point and that I can stop googling articles now.

Thanks for the discussion.

[highplainsdem]

35. Those aren't articles by pundits. And again, they're talking about arguments that aren't being

made that often.

If there was the "barrage" of articles by pundits you claim there is, there'd be one op-ed after another by top columnists, strategists, and other experts about that.

And those simply haven't been out there.

I don't think I've seen a single well-known pundit argue that a woman can't beat Trump.

What I'm seeing instead is a lot of complaints by supporters of female candidates that they're at a disadvantage because people are saying they can't win.

I'm just not seeing evidence that people ARE saying that.

I have seen suggestions that Biden's considered as electable as he is only because he's a white male, and I don't think there's any real evidence of that, either.

Biden's experience, popularity, and non-extreme positions are what make him most electable.

If he were as far to the left as Sanders is, he'd be doing much worse in the polls.

[Eric J in MN]

36. None of those three articles are by writers

...who are saying a woman can’t win.

[cwydro]

44. Fucking Avenatti said that too.

All the more reason to know it’s bullshit.

[bluewater]

47. +1

[RHMerriman]

3. Unfortunately, unless Warren or Harris can win states in the Great Lakes and East Coast that

Unfortunately, unless Warren or Harris can win states in the Great Lakes and East Coast that Clinton lost to Trump in 2016, it doesn't matter.

We need candidates - president and vice president - who hold on to all of Clinton's state-level wins in 2016 and add Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and make a fight of it in Florida and Texas, and win both the popular vote and Electoral College by such strong margins that Trump knows he's done.

Having someone on the ticket that brings years if not decades of relationships in the defense, intelligence, and federal law enforcement communities, to help prevent any "extraordinary" measures by Trump, is necessary as well.

There are a number of strong Democrats who can do that, but I doubt very much Senators Harris and Warren are among them.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. I think Warren could do well in those states.

She’s kind of an economic populist which would play well in the rust belt plus she tends to win people over to her side when they give her a listen. She very persuasively explains her plans.

That being said, I think Biden has the best chance to trounce Trump by the largest margin.

[RHMerriman]

7. Possibly ... but as sharp as Warren is, and as much as I respect her

Possibly ... but as sharp as Warren is, and as much as I respect her, at heart, she's a Massachusetts law professor...

Don't know if that is going to be what it takes in the Great Lakes state, Pennsylvania, and points south and west.

And I have to say, calling some of the most populous states in the country, that even today remain the heart of our manufacturing industry and American organized labor, the term "Rust Belt" is not good framing for Democrats.

Biden-McRaven 2020.

[marylandblue]

15. At heart, she's an Oklahoma girl who made good,

not all that different from Biden, who sells himself as a blue collar kid from Scranton, even though he spent 36 years in the Senate.

[RHMerriman]

16. True, but I think Biden sells it better...

True, but I think Biden sells it better...

He's a professional pol, with all that means.

She's not.

[marylandblue]

18. Who sells it better is hard to say right now. That's what campaigns are for.

But "professional politician" is a rather loaded term in the age of authenticity and after Trump sold himself as not being a politician. It may have been the only time Trump told the truth.

[RHMerriman]

20. I have no problem with professional politicians who are honest about it.

I have no problem with professional politicians who are honest about it.

Politics is an art, and those who can deliver in that arena are very skilled, and frankly, pretty rare. I think it works for Biden, actually.

[marylandblue]

24. You might have no problem with it, but Washington insiders have lost most of the time

in the last 40 years.

And Warren seems very skilled at the art. She will, at a future debate, take Biden head on regarding the bankruptcy law and perhaps his comments to rich people at fundraisers. It will be interesting to see how he responds.

[RHMerriman]

26. Biden is running as the anti-trump, however...

2016 was a year for insurgents, in both parties.

We see how that worked out.

Something to be said for competency and stability.

[marylandblue]

31. Insurgency worked very well in 2016 in the rust belt.

And since they unexpectedly voted against competency and stability in 2016, who's to say they won't do the same again now?

[mopinko]

33. yup. she has plenty of okey in her.

the other okies who are scattered around are gonna recognize that story about where she got those cheekbones, too. pretty sure they think she has enough dna to show that the story had a kernel of truth, which is good for a family legend. dna has ruined many a good family tale.

i think she will have a strong appeal to the scots-irish hill folk out there. (who was that senator that wrote a book about that? cant remember his name. wrote some other books.)
folks in kentucky who had the best obamacare roll out in the country only to have the thugs try to take it away from them are not gonna be blind at this point, i dont think. and attack their black lung benefits just as it rears it's ugly head again.

if she can show them a big picture of how caring for our human capital is the highest purpose of our govt, and that it has a downstream cascade of good, from good healthcare jobs to treatments for addiction and occupational illnesses to attacking infant mortality, she can win.

the blue wave was really a pink wave, a rainbow wave, and i think her focus on moms and babies is gonna sell w the people who knock on doors.
and that is how you win.

[stonecutter357]

4. It's not will ,It's can .....

[LibFarmer]

32. It's actually "may be" nt

[Midwestocrat]

5. Just like in 2016?

The popular vote doesn't matter...

[ehrnst]

57. What is your alternative scenario for winning, if "the popular vote doesn't matter?"(nt)

[SouthernProgressive]

11. Clinton won by a larger margin than some of those polls. NT

[highplainsdem]

42. Yes. Clinton was a very strong candidate with an amazing resume.

[UniteFightBack]

12. Promise? nt

[highplainsdem]

13. Btw, re those polls you cite -- as I recall, those findings that women can beat Trump by a narrow

margin were all within the polls' margins of error.

I think Biden's the only Democratic candidate whose margin of victory against Trump tends to fall outside the margin of error.

Again, I'm not saying a woman can't win.

We know HRC won the popular vote.

But the polling so far indicates Biden is our strongest candidate against Trump.

[Turin_C3PO]

14. Bernie Sanders actually does good in polls against Trump also.

Hard to believe but true.

But, yes, Biden is the one who most decisively kicks Trump’s ass.

[marylandblue]

17. So if the polling on that changed, you would change your preference?

[highplainsdem]

25. Not necessarily. I believe Biden is not only the most electable, but that he'd be the best

president and best leader of any of our candidates, and best able to undo the damage Trump has caused here and abroad, starting Day One.

I will of course vote for whoever's nominated by our party. But we have some candidates I believe have very little chance of winning, and some I think have serious flaws or problems in their background that mean I would not be eager to vote for them. I've been particularly disillusioned by one candidate.

I'll vote for them anyway, if they're the nominee.

But my preference is Biden, and so far I haven't seen any reason to change that preference.

[bluewater]

38. I respect your opinion of Joe Biden

He's a good man and has been a mainstay of the Democratic party for decades.

In the quick back and forth discussing politics here on DU, it's hard to convey tone, unlike when having a personal conversation face to face.

Thanks for the discussion.

[bluewater]

19. Your recollection is mistaken

The results of the most recent National General Election head-to-head polls show Warren and Harris with statistically indistinguishable results compared to Biden's:

June 25, Emerson Poll :

Biden 55, Trump 45
Sanders 55, Trump 45
Warren 53, Trump 47
Harris 52, Trump 48
Buttigieg 52, Trump 48

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

So, no, Biden's margin of victory against trump is not statistically different compared to Warren and Harris, but it is also not different than Sanders and Buttigieg.

[highplainsdem]

21. Emerson's been an outlier for months now. Bernie supporters love Emerson because it's often

tbe best poll for Bernie.

This latest poll, which shows Bernie doing as well against Trump as Biden would, is another example.

And note that even there Biden does 4 points better than Warren and 6 points better than Harris.

With the GE often decided by a few percentage points or less, it would be most practical to go with the candidate who seems likely to win by the widest margin.

[bluewater]

23. unskewing the polls?

Not a good look.

[highplainsdem]

28. Emerson had Sanders at 27%, only 7 points below Biden, last month. If you believe that isn't an

outlier...

[marylandblue]

40. Read Nate Silver on outliers. They aren't necessarily wrong and they are a sign of honest polling.

If there aren't any outliers, then pollsters are hiding their outlying results to avoid looking "wrong."

That doesn't mean the outliers are right, but they shouldn't be rejected simply for being outliers.

[TwilightZone]

51. Emerson is an outlier.

This has been obvious for some time now. Their Sanders numbers, in particular, have been completely out-of-whack, which calls into question their overall accuracy.

[DemKittyNC]

30. Hoping for Warren

But I will of course Vote and get out the Vote for any Democratic Candidate who make the the final cut.


HAPPY 4TH EVERYONE!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

34. it is time

This old white man wants to see a woman in the White House before I croak.

The electorate is primed and ready to be fired up.

[bluewater]

41. +1

[highplainsdem]

39. Please see this DU thread, started by crazytown about the Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania

in May, for the replies about how much better Biden did among PA voters in that poll than HRC did in 2016.

Those numbers stunned even WaPo's Greg Sargent, who isn't a Biden supporter.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287120610

I do NOT believe that a woman can't beat Trump.

But I think Biden is currently the strongest candidate.

And I also believe that HRC in 2016 -- with her amazing resume, better than that of any of our current female candidates -- was a stronger candidate against Trump than any of the women currently running for president.

I believe we're going to need swing voters in swing states where Biden has a better chance than any of our other candidates.

[marylandblue]

45. I think the most consistent result in Presidential politics since Carter

is that resumes do not win elections. If anything, long resumes are an impediment, especially if most of your experience is in Washington. The shorter resume with little or no Washinton experience won in 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008 and 2016. When battling incumbents, politicians with long Washington resumes lost in 1984, 1996 and 2004. Only Bush in 1988 seems to have avoided the inverse resume effect. 2012 is inconclusive since Romney was not a Washington insider himself, but seemed to be choice of the insiders.

[wryter2000]

43. None of our candidates

Have been demonized by the press, including the “mainstream media,” for over 25 years as Hilliary was. If it weren’t for that, she would have won in a landslide.

[marylandblue]

48. That was a factor, but I don't think it really explains the whole thing.

Against all expectations, Trump also beat experienced, respected, well-financed Republicans. By any conventional measure, he was the least likely to succeed. Since he is an unconventional President, with an unconventionally loyal base, an unconventional opponent may have a better chance.

[wryter2000]

53. IMHO, it was a huge factor

There were so many people who couldn't vote for Trump but also believed all the lies against Hillary

Of course, there were other causes.

[marylandblue]

54. Well my point is even without the decades-long smear job,

it might still have been a close election. Personally, I totally did not see Trump coming at all. Based on everything I thought I knew in 2015, Trump should have gotten essentially 0 primary votes. I thought he was the Alan Keyes of 2016. But obviously he wasn't.

So in trying to learn the lessons of 2016 and recalibrate, I'm looking at what Trump did himself that helped him win and I think the only way to beat him is to see who can best combat those factors.

Everytime I say something like this, people respond that Trump won because of cheating, misogyny, Hillary hatred, the media, voter ignorance, that we did win or just about anything else, so long as we don't have to acknowledge the humiliation of losing to an orange asshole. We better acknowledge it though, because if we don't we will make the same mistake again.

Among the current candidates, only Warren and Buttigieg seem to understand what he really did. I'm on the fence about Harris. Two women and a gay kid. A college professor, a cutthroat prosecutor and a small town mayor. We need an unconventional candidate or, in other words, an "unelectable" one.

[wryter2000]

55. My guess

I believe Trump was helped tremendously in the primaries by the huge field of candidates. I have no proof, but it seems to me he would have had a much harder time of winning if he'd had to run against one establishment candidate. As it was, all the outright bigots went for him while the rest split their votes. He was winning primaries with a very small percentage of the vote.

The one and only thing I thank him for is killing the presidential aspirations of people like Chris Christie and Scott Walker.

[marylandblue]

56. Well it can't be that because he wouldn't have 90% approval

among Republicans right now. They would have turned on him and he'd have been impeached and convicted long ago. He is using his all his tricks to stay in power and it's working. We have been watching him win for 4 years now and we still can't believe it, so we ignore the facts in plain sight. What he does works. It's working on you and me right now. We are doing exactly what he wants us to do-talk about him. That's how narcissists work. Strange but true.

[Kaleva]

46. Warren or Harris, if nominated, have a very good chance of beating Trump.

[FakeNoose]

49. There is no poll that tells us what Sanders' supporters will do

... when Bernie fails to obtain the Democratic nomination.

That's the problem with these polls. Most of us Democrats have pledged that we will support the Democratic candidate whoever he/she may be, even if it's not our first choice. But the Sanders supporters won't do that, and many of them didn't do it in 2016. So there we are.