Five Polling Results That May Change the Way You Think About Electability

[StevieM]

~snip~

Democratic voters have a clear ideological choice in this year’s presidential primaries.

But if there is any lesson from the recent New York Times/Siena College surveys of the six closest states carried by the president, it’s that the Democrats have been presented with a series of choices about how to win back the White House that are not really even distinct choices at all.

It is often posited, for instance, that Democrats face a choice between a moderate who might win back a crucial sliver of white working-class voters who flipped from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, or a progressive who might mobilize a new coalition of young progressives, perhaps especially in the rapidly diversifying Sun Belt states.

But for the most part, these choices are not grounded in the attitudes of the electorate in the most competitive states.

Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/upshot/democratic-polls-battleground-states.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

[oldsoftie]

1. I'm not ruling out anything until next year

[JoeOtterbein]

2. Clip:

...snip

Joe Biden has no special strength with white voters without a college degree.
It would have been reasonable to expect, as I did, that “middle-class Joe” from Scranton, Pa., would show strength by winning back the white working-class voters who defected from the Democrats in 2016. If he could do so, he would rebuild the so-called blue wall of traditionally competitive states across the Midwest. Add to this the college-educated white voters whom Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and Mr. Biden would have a commanding lead.

snip...

[msongs]

3. oddly enuff joe still polls first in most polls while bernie is mosstly 3rd lol nt

[JoeOtterbein]

5. True.

Bernie is mostly 3rd out of like 23.

[thesquanderer]

16. This is not about how the candidates poll against each other, but how they poll against Trump.

So Sanders is mostly 2nd.

[NoMoreRepugs]

4. Blah, blah, blah, blah - blah... so many miles to go and so many stories already about how Trump is

almost unbeatable at this point?? I call BULLSHIT.

[StevieM]

6. I just thought it was an interesting article and worth looking at.

I don't think Trump will win. I feel that all of our candidate can beat him.

[Demsrule86]

8. I don't think so...not only will some candidates not beat Trump but we could lose the house as

well. Trump has a EC path. We are not looking to win back a 'sliver of working class voters' but the blue wall without which we will lose and not just in 20 but likely 24 and beyond. As it stands now we have no path to the presidency without the blue wall.

[Thekaspervote]

9. This!

[thesquanderer]

17. re: "As it stands now we have no path to the presidency without the blue wall."

Well, that's essentially what much of the article is dealing with. The rust belt (blue wall) is not a sure thing, so it's worth also focussing resources elsewhere:

All considered, Democrats appear to be caught between their past and their imagined future: They have made substantial gains in the Sun Belt, but not enough for it to represent the path of least resistance. The Rust Belt remains the clearer path, if the party had to make a true choice, but it is not so secure that the party would be wise to abandon efforts to find an alternative further south.

[ms liberty]

7. Interesting article. n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

10. We don't have an ideal candidate in 2020

That's been the problem all along. It's the reason I don't participate here and haven't been paying much attention, to the impeachment stuff or anything else.

To defeat an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term, you need an ideal candidate. Since we lack any semblance of that in 2020, we are 100% dependent on Donald Trump continuing to implode, keeping his approval rating low enough to the point we can eek out a victory despite a flawed challenger.

Perhaps that will happen. But it is difficult for me to have any confidence in something that is so low percentage, via the big picture situational spotlight I always employ.

Depth means absolutely nothing. That is the argument I've emphasized on sports sites for more than 20 years, and political sites for nearly similar duration. The touts toward our depth of field were laughable. It is far preferable to have one Tiger Woods than 25 Jason Dufners. Democrats in 2020 don't have anything remotely resembling a political version of Tiger Woods. If we had Barack Obama again I would be grinning on cruise control. Trump would be finished. It would be exhilarating to experience. Instead we've got one mediocre stiff after another.

If I had to summarize I'd say we would be in great shape if Amy were male. Or if Pete were heterosexual. And we'd be in fairly good shape if Biden were 20 years younger.

Given the combinations we do have, Trump can get away with virtually anything, knowing he maintains excellent opportunity.

I don't need to read about electability. I have studied the related math and ideological realities of every state since 1992. Consequently I am not suckered by asinine polls that don't represent political realities at all. Last fall the moronic assertions were that Florida voters had made a phenomenal choice by going bold with Andrew Gillum instead of another bland moderate in Gwen Graham. Meanwhile we threw away the governorship and may have taken down the senate seat in combo. There is no question that Gwen Graham would have prevailed.

On election night long before the result was final I looked at the exit poll and posted a thread here regarding the devastating finding that 44% (later amended to 46%) of Florida voters rejected Andrew Gillum as too liberal for the state. Likewise in Georgia there were 42% dismissing Stacey Abrams as too liberal. Those are astonishing numbers. In 27 years I have never seen anything like it.

Elizabeth Warren is 4642. Those numbers might as well be stenciled across her forehead. She is 4642. It would be the same devastating electability reality as 2018 with Gillum and Abrams. These results are never unleashed without warning. There is always a tipoff. The 2014 midterms and white working class unrest pointed squarely to 2016 in those midwestern states. Likewise that 4642 signals what will play out in one pivotal state after another, if we nominate someone who is easily defined as a socialist. Notice the Republicans have shelved that word temporarily, waiting for full onslaught once our nominee is finalized. Warren would be bombarded to such extent that word association of her name to socialist would be astronomical.

This is not a Rachel Maddow world. That is what posters here fail to understand. Rachel Maddow does not attend golf tournaments or college football games or anything else where those white working class voters are front and center, and extremely loud and bold. If you do frequent events like that then you fully understand that Donald Trump is still underestimated by not only the polling but the betting odds.

White males will believe any and all stupidity. I had one guy at a college football game last weekend asserting to me that billions of dollars were being diverted from social security funds to pay for the impeachment process.

That is what we face in 2020. White working class America is so powerful we could not afford to lose so many percentage points among that previously under participating block. By far the most relevant aspect of the article linked in the OP is that hispanics are not enthusiastic toward 2020, compared to other pivotal groups. No kidding. I mentioned that here countless times beginning nearly a year ago. Anyone who counts on the hispanic vote denying Donald Trump in 2020 is a rank moron. We will not receive the expected or logical split among that group. This is something that a Rachel Maddow could never anticipate. She can only compile and backward analyze, not anticipate via astute and atypical situational grasp.

I won't be posting often. I hope Trump continues to talk and somehow we get razor thin lucky.

[Beartracks]

11. Thanks for posting a well thought-out analysis. I fear you are correct.

A diverse America still includes, of course, white working class males. We can't ignore them, or underestimate their outsized importance to winning, especially in those critical midwest states. Pretending we don't need them is wishful thinking.

We need to thoroughly beat back Republicans, up and down the ballot, and all across the country.

===========

[BlueMTexpat]

12. There has NEVER been the

mythical "ideal candidate." If there are people who are still waiting for this, I warn you that it's like waiting for Godot. Who will never appear.

We have a LOT of excellent candidates, however. And almost every single one is head and shoulders+ above ANY Republican alternative.

But please don't let my comment stop you from posting here. You certainly have a right to your opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Awsi's analysis certainly gives me pause.

And we should have never lost the FL Senate race, never.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Trump's approval rating has been proven to be extraordinarily inelastic.

He has eleven months to improve it. The economy is slowing. Last quarter GDP growth was 1.9%. This quarter is projected to come in at less than 1.0%. With slow GDP growth comes slow wage growth.

This could be 1980 redux. In retrospect any Republican would have won.



I hope you are well. Oh, your analysis is always welcome.

[redqueen]

20. I live in a rural, deep red area in a red state

and our experiences of the white working class are similar.

It's this that partly leads me to support Yang - I think he can get a lot of swing voters and soft Trump voters too.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. While I don't concur with

some of the conclusions in this article, it is certainly an interesting read.

One thing though (I admit that I very quickly skimmed through, so I may have missed a reference to this), the article doesn't seem to allow for the fact that Biden is likely the best-known candidate by virtue of his long career in politics.

Given that Warren is a comparatively recent politician, the fact that she is still comparatively unknown makes her showing all the more impressive at this point.

JMO.

[thesquanderer]

18. Interesting article. The key paragraph to me is this one:

The party’s leading candidates have not yet reached the real missing piece of the Democratic coalition: less educated and often younger voters who are not conservative but who disagree with the party’s cultural left and do not share that group’s unrelenting outrage at the president’s conduct.

If this is the group who makes the difference, then who would be our best candidate?

[StevieM]

19. I guess that depends on how you are defining "cultural left."

I don't think it refers to their position on gay rights. Younger voters tend to think of hostility towards LGBT people and gay marriage as ridiculous.

Maybe it refers to their point of view on gun control? Or whether they like Colin Kaepernick?

[redqueen]

22. Look at the recent forays by Yang and later Obama

into criticizing cancel culture.

[redqueen]

21. Yang nt