Stu Rothenberg: Democrats try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[brooklynite]

Roll Call

Sure, Donald Trump’s job approval ratings from reputable polling firms still sit in the low- to mid-40s, and congressional investigations are likely to keep the president, his family and his administration on the defensive.

And yes, the 2018 midterms showed what a united Democratic Party looks like and that college-educated whites are swinging to the Democrats in reaction to Trump.

And of course, Trump trails a generic Democrat in early polling, confirming the view that a clear majority of American voters want change in 2020.

But even with all that, the Jeremy Corbyn wing of the Democratic Party has already succeeded in taking the heat off Trump and making the party appear so far left that moderates may not be able to support its nominee for president.

If they continue their early successes, this band of ideological purists may “save” their party from a pragmatic progressive who could actually win the White House, thereby handing Trump a second term.

[Amimnoch]

1. +1000

So spot on.

[Hortensis]

2. Stu Rothenberg tries to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Keep it up, Stu. After all, repeat anything enough and people will believe it. Most people know very few on the far left, beyond an irritating person at work or some friends of a daughter. With your help they still won't but will come to believe the tens of millions you invoke must just be...somewhere else.

Btw, on this forum, the only candidate currently available for "ideological purists" to claim as their primary choice is drawing 8% support so far.

And I think we should assume two things:
1. This forum draws left-wing zealots in numbers above their representation in the population; after all, it's important for them to believe they represent what REAL Democrats think and to tell us so.
2. Only a fraction of our 8% are what you're calling "ideological purists." Some are just ordinary Democrats who like Sanders best so far.

[riverine]

3. "the Jeremy Corbyn wing of the Democratic Party"?

if the shoe fits.

At least he didn't say "the Nicolas Maduro wing of the Democratic Party".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. If the election is an up or down referendum on Trump he likely loses.

If he can make it into a choice election he has a shot. Everything else is commentary.

[comradebillyboy]

5. I am a Democrat, not a Social Democrat or a Democratic Socialist or any other

kind of socialist. I don't support socialists or socialism.

[ProfessorPlum]

6. I'll bite

what differences in your mind distinguish Democratic policies from Social Democratic policies?

and

what is your take on the New Deal?

[Awsi Dooger]

7. Losing to an incumbent would hardly be snatching defeat

This is what Trump overcame in 2016. These are all national exit poll numbers:

* Opinion of Donald Trump: 38% favorable, 60% unfavorable
* Is Donald Trump honest and trustworthy?: 33% yes, 64% no
* Is Trump qualified to serve as president?: 38% yes, 61% no
* Does Trump have the temperament to be president?: 35% yes, 63% no
* How would you feel if Trump wins?: 40% positive, 57% negative
* Does Donald Trump's treatment of women bother you?: 70% yes, 29% no
* Opinion of the Republican Party: 40% favorable, 55% unfavorable

Those are the numbers of a winning candidate. I realize it is never popular here when I point out that incumbents have massive advantages. But you can see it reflected in those numbers. Trump managed 46% in 2016 amidst that type of negativity toward himself and his party. Our current polling adjustments are indeed in the wrong direction because Trump would be higher across the board in those categories.

It wouldn't be so bad if the electoral college tilted in our direction. But since we likely need to win the popular vote by at least 2-3% to claim the electoral college, you can see where it gets dicey. I would hate to wager under 47% on Donald Trump's share of the popular vote. Give me that number right now as over/under and as a lifelong gambler I would take the over without one second's hesitation. I don't care about subjectivity or who the incumbent is. Incumbent over 47% holds a massive favorable expectancy. That's the way any competent speculator would look at it. But if he gets to 47% then we need 50% to begin to feel safe, and 50% against an incumbent is a tall ask, especially given the guaranteed savagery that Trump and cohorts will attempt to inflict. Nothing will be out of bounds for him, knowing that his place in history is at stake.

If charisma is not our top priority in a nominee, we screwed up and we really can't complain about any outcome. The formula is not complicated against an incumbent.

[SKKY]

8. Or, as Michelle Wolf put it...

..."Somehow we'll lose by 12 points to a guy named Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor."