Warren supporters: will you ever care about vs. Trump poll results?

[Alhena]

First of all, I like Warren and would be happy to vote for her. I may even do so in the primaries if I get sufficiently concerned about Biden's age and mental state.

But I admit that my support for Biden is largely based upon my loathing for Trump. The polls showing Biden doing much better than Warren against Trump are not a blip- they have been remarkably consistent for many months.
So my question for Warren supporters is: assuming the polls vs. Trump stay like they are, will that give you any cause for concern in voting for her? Do you not worry you will wake up in November 2020 to the realization that Trump will be appointing Supreme Court justices instead of a Democrat?

To me the stakes are too high to not go with Biden IF the polls continue to show him doing much better against Trump.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Peope should care about "vs. Trump" poll results when they consider the electoral college

in their results (i.e. are state by state polls). Otherwise a candidate could be chosen that wins the popular vote and loses the election (it could happen, you know).

[at140]

14. Warren has the energy to outlast Trump

in the grueling general election campaign.

[Blue_true]

18. I agree. That is the thing that I find most attractive about her candidacy.

She will make Trump look like an ignorant, sloven loser.

[LakeArenal]

26. It doesn't take a Warren presidency to do that.

He does it all by himself!!!

[Butterflylady]

54. Energy is not the question.

Who can beat the fat bastard is the question. People here have to remember that our nominee has to bring in the repugs who hate the fat bastard. Biden can do just that with plenty of energy to spare.

[at140]

62. Trump will again do 100+ rallies, Warren can do 200+ rallies

IMHO Trump eked out a win by out working Hillary. He even held a rally at mid-night on election eve.
I have no doubts in my mind the energetic dynamo Elizabeth Warren (among the 3 top contenders) is best suited to out-work fatso & out of shape Trump. And Warren is attracting very good sized crowds to her rallies.

[Blue_true]

75. A lot of people hate to admit it. It turns my stomach to even think about it.

But Trump simply out worked Hillary on the campaign trail. He loves crowd adulation, so that drove him. Our nominee simply must do his number of daily rallies, then some, the only person that has shown that she can and is willing do that is Warren. Warren also has shown that she will go anywhere to campaign. Bringing a campaign to smaller town is hard in a General, but if say she is campaigning in Orlando or Tampa Florida, hit some of the small towns nearby, and drive up to a Gainesville or Ocala to get smaller, yet large population cities. Trump held a rally in my nearest small city, Hillary did not come within 80 miles of it, I saw the effect of Trump campaigning here firsthand, his MAGATS were jacked up and later doing smaller rallies on squares. Here in Florida, statewide races are won or lost in the smaller counties, President Obama's campaign understood that, it does not look like Hillary's campaign did.

[at140]

83. Congrats for understanding and admitting reality

Trump had planned a rally in Everett, WA just before the election 2016, and the venue was only 10 miles from my residence, so curiosity got me to obtain a free ticket and attended his rally. As you said, I got to see first hand how jacked up the Trumpofiles were, same as swallowing uppers, and as you correctly observed, Trump gets all jacked up when the crowd is cheering.

Running against Trump, a laid back Hillary style campaign will not cut it, relying on polls.
Elizabeth Warren not only has the energy and stamina, but the ability to connect with crowds.
I like Biden, but he will be no match with Trump in campaign effort.

[Blue_true]

85. I agree with you on Biden. I see him running the type of campaign Hillary ran.

That WILL NOT work against someone like Trump who loves crowd adulation. In the 2020 campaign, Russia could declare war on us (other than interfering in the vote) and Trump will still go to his rallies instead of being in the Situation Room, that is the reality, the media will ignore that Trump isn't doing his job and instead broadcast testimonial of MAGATS of how much they love him and how great he is for the country and world.

The news media IS NOT going to help our candidate by digging out facts. I recently read a line from a media person about how Trump has been donating his salary since taking office, an apparent lie that person made no attempt to fact check (not that such a thing is possible since Trump won't release tax returns, but the media person could have at least pointed out that the salary donation stuff cannot be confirmed).

[wysimdnwyg]

63. That's a fallacious argument

The Democratic nominee does NOT need to "win back" the republican voters. She (or he) needs to get out the vote in general, and that's done by exciting the voters.

Here's some vote totals to illustrate:
2008
Obama - 69,498,516
McCain - 59,948,323
Total (discounts 3rd party votes) - 129,446,839
% Voting Age Pop - 58.2%

2016
Clinton - 65,853,514
Trump - 62,984,828
Total (discounts 3rd party votes) - 128,838,342
% Voting Age Pop - 55.5%

The biggest difference there (aside from people who voted for Trump because the alternative was Hillary - we all have to admit and accept that no matter how much the members of DU may like her and are sure she would have been an excellent President, 25 years of GOP slurs against her took their toll), is that Obama brought a much better turnout. He got 4M more votes than Hillary and brought 3% better overall turnout. Biden may be favored by pollsters - and don't get me wrong, that means something - but someone who can excite the voters and drive large turnouts will dominate the general, no matter what the pollsters may think right now.

[Blue_true]

84. Excellent post.

Chamber of Commerce republicans like the predominant type in my red county are going to vote for a sane democrat, Hillary made no effort her and got a lot of their votes, but Hillary failed to buck-up her base here in my county. It WILL matter is Elizabeth Warren does a high energy rally here, she will buck up her base and even assure the Chamber of Commerce republicans that she is legit. In my state of Florida, reducing the republican's winning margin in red counties matters big, there is no escaping that. We have a smallscale beef raising business in my county, Trump has hammered American beef with his tariff nonsense, some of those farmers, some of their relatives and voting age kids will be up for grabs when given a message that speaks to the reality that they are experiencing.

[Blue_true]

80. You are wrong. Energy impacts the "maybe I will vote" voters majorly.

When Trump was making daily allusions that Hillary was ill and Hillary was taking days off the campaign trail, that MATTERED in the minds of the people who may were going to vote, I talked to some of those people and tried to convince them to vote no matter what.

A Senator Warren out on the trail going anywhere can make fun of Trump, like "it matters that a person is available in the White House at times other than 3am when he is sitting on the toilet. I have the will and energy to do the job Americans need done". She can force the loser into coming after her and force him to make critical mistake rather than letting him set the image of her campaign.

What I see from Biden is campaigning similar to how Hillary did, and that is really worrisome to me. In Senator Warren, I see someone who is out campaigning every day that she is not working and on weekends when she is, going to places that I never heard of to talk to people in those places.

[thesquanderer]

55. Yes. If polls don't show Warren handily beating Trump in WI/MI/PA/FL by primary day,

and another candidate looks significantly more likely to carry at least three of those states, I would probably change my vote.

[spooky3]

2. The polls I have seen show results different from what you described.

They typically show Biden beating Trump by perhaps a 10 point margin, but Warren beats him by 8-9.

[highplainsdem]

23. Please show me those polls. I honestly don't recall any showing Warren typically being within 1 or

2 points of Biden's margin beating Trump.

Sanders is, sometimes, though he usually doesn't do as well as Biden. Warren is in third place in all or almost all of the matchup polls I've seen and she's often tied with Trump or beating him by only a couple of points, or losing narrowly.

[Tiggeroshii]

38. Hopefully this is helpful.

Looks like there is one with her ahead by 12.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html

[highplainsdem]

41. This is more helpful, because it shows her margin over Trump compared to others:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/


If you skim down that, and keep clicking the button to show more polls, you'll see that Biden almost always outdoes the other candidates against Trump.

And yes, in a recent Quinnipiac poll Warren was ahead of Trump by 12. Biden was ahead by 16 points in that poll.

I don't think we can count on every Democratic candidate beating Trump. And since we can't, it's smartest to go with the candidate who polls best against Trump.

[Tiggeroshii]

42. I dont dispute that at all.

The question was whether there are pols with her beating trump with more than 9 points and there are. But the significance of these polls at this point is tested by history.

Take these head to head poll averages for obama against mccain 2008. Almost always did Hillary poll better. But Obama won historical coattails and brought in states that hadnt voted for a democrat in decades. Head to head polls at this point are not the best indicators of what will happen in a year from now. Keep in mind warren isnt polling much worse than obama was in head to head polls at this point in the cycle in 2008.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

[highplainsdem]

43. Spooky3 was talking about Warren typically being within a point or two of Biden in these polls of

GE match-ups against Trump. Which is why I gave the link for the page at FiveThirtyEight listing those results for lots of polls, so people could compare how she does against Trump to how Biden does, in each poll.

[Tiggeroshii]

44. Right. And i just made an argument why i think that comparison has little relevance to

What actually happens based on past polling and election results

[Ninga]

3. The primary voters will speak. Whom ever is the nominee will have gone through fire and

brimstone. The voting public will be very well acquainted with the nominee.

Whomever the nominee is, will defeat the GOP in a landslide.

The electability argument is 2016....this next election will take place in an environment never before experienced.

[Funtatlaguy]

4. I think after we get our nominee, he or she will rise

in all of the important state polls that we need in the electoral college.
55% of this country would NEVER vote for Trump. Just gotta GOTV.

[TCJ70]

5. If they ever show her losing to him. Until then, no.

[RockRaven]

6. What did the polls say about Clinton and Sanders "v Trump" or "v GOP nominee" in 2016 primary?

I genuinely do not recall what the numbers were...

but my point is that there are no guarantees that what those polls show will manifest in reality 14-15 months from now. Or national poll numbers might show the limits of their relevance because of the Electoral College, as it was with Clinton/Trump in 2016.

It would be unwise to ignore those polls ENTIRELY, but IMO it would also be unwise to give them veto authority in regards to a candidate who you like and believe in.

[TCJ70]

11. Polls from that time showed Sanders beating Trump handily...

...generally by a wider margin than Clinton.

[thesquanderer]

46. Yes, that was the biggest reason I voted for Sanders. (n/t)

[thesquanderer]

51. Here are the numbers you asked for...

Trump vs Sanders

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Trump vs. Clinton

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

For the most accurate comparisons, you should scroll the two charts so that you can compare how they do on the same date, from the same pollster.

[we can do it]

7. Eye do.

[Joe941]

8. Anyone with a pulse will beat tRump.

[sharedvalues]

10. Yes, and question who is going to beat the GOP 2020-2024.

[at140]

64. Politely disagree

Only reason Trump eked out a win in 2016 was the relentless 100+ rallies he held.
He even held a rally at mid-night on election eve. Those rallies help spread the message and gets local media attention...at very little cost.

Only Warren among the 3 top contenders has the energy to outwork Trump in 2020. And she is getting excellent turnout at her rallies.

[Joe941]

65. Oh Yes... The Biden and Bernie are too old and don't have the energy to keep up with tRump argument.

You know tRump is 73 himself.

[at140]

66. As a long time golfer, let me clue you in about a few things.

I was a physical wreck at age 55, with chest pains after eating steak, no energy after working 8 hours and becoming a couch potato, hip joint pain, and elevated blood pressure. Then I started having faint feeling at work in the mornings but was ok after lunch break.

So I resigned from a good and secure job at 57, thinking what good is money if I die of a heart attack.
With suddenly loads of free time on hand, moved from expensive Chicago burbs to a small town in Wash state and joined a cheap golf club in Washougal, WA. It was a basically a blue collar private club with lot of members from the paper mill in Camas, WA. Started playing golf 5 week days every week, and walk the course since could not afford riding cart. In a private club one can play unlimited golf for a fixed monthly fee. So it was ideal for a retired guy like me. Now I am 79, and have zero pains and zero medical expenses. I no longer belong to a private golf club, but exercise every other day in nearby Gym.

To make a long story short, walking 30 miles every week (5 rounds of 18 holes), my health improved like crazy. No more chest pains, blood pressure under 130/80, no more hip joint pain, no more fainting spells.
But here is the kicker...in a private club you get to know lot of members, since only members can play. And what I observed was that even the old farts who rode riding carts hardly ever had heart attacks. Most were fat and drank booze after the game. Usual cause of death was cancer. Which told me that playing golf regularly even while riding makes you physically strong. And my guess is that is the main reason Trump could do 100+ rallies all over the country last time. I expect Trump to do 100+ rallies again before election 2020.

Which is why I am backing Elizabeth Warren. She seems the most energetic of the 3 leading in polls. She can easily do 100+ energetic rallies before Nov 2020. Well, actually I also like her knowledge, experience and agenda on banking & wall street issues.

[MrsCoffee]

71. Did You Know that golf courses are the fifth most common place for people to suffer from sudden

cardiac arrest?

https://www.kron4.com/news/golf-and-sudden-cardiac-arrest/

[at140]

73. Correct, most golf is played on public courses by

occasional golfers who play less than 5 rounds a month during the year.

I played most of my golf in private golf clubs, where golfers average 15 rounds per month and I can't remember any member dying of a heart attack on golf course or at home. And since only members can play, I got to know all the regular golfers.

The public courses in Chicago area where I golfed prior to retirement, were over crowded with mobs of golfers. The private courses on the other hand are sparse and wide open most of the time.

[MrsCoffee]

70. Um, no. It was treason. He didn't eek out shit.

[sharedvalues]

9. Best part about Warren is how AFRAID of her the right is.

Also, we need someone who is going to beat the GOP 2020-2024, not just someone who can win in 2020. All the Dems can win in 2020. Not all can beat McConnell.

[LakeArenal]

27. The right is afraid of all the candidates.

[griffi94]

12. I will not

I like Biden fine but he's had his time. Every election cycle seems to be the same.
Democrats lament that if young voters turned out we would crush the repubs, then we nominate a status quo
candidate that has no appeal to anybody under the age of 35. It seems like a better idea to offer a change to the status quo
with a candidate whose vision is inspirational rather one who is largely more of same but seems more electable.
I'm voting for policies I agree with and I'm done voting for toothless placeholders.
That whole argument of don't overreach got blown out of the water.

[lapfog_1]

19. Biden- 76, Warren - 70

I guess that 6 year difference is a really a big dividing line.

so... Obama was a toothless placeholder.. or maybe Hillary Clinton was...

[griffi94]

22. Biden is a status quo candidate

Obama did the best he could after 2010. He did have a super majority the first 2 years but the Democrats decided
single payer was over reach. It's hard to fault President Obama for trying to work with republicans, but now we
know that's not possible. So to hell with the status quo. Another Old white guy with a decades long record of centrist, corporate friendly votes isn't going to grow the party.
I'll happily vote for Biden if he's our candidate but he's not my first choice.

[LincolnRossiter]

34. The"old white guy" insult is so lazy and cheesy. Which of this immutable characteristics can he

change? Kind of silly to condemn a candidate for things he didn’t choose.

[griffi94]

36. He chose his centrist positions

Biden's OK just a bit too status quo for my tastes. A bit more centrist than I'm going to support
in the primary.

[emulatorloo]

79. Donald Trump is the status quo now.

Biden’s a liberal, which is not “centrist.” But Warren is left liberal so she to the left of him on some issues. All our candidates agree w each other mostly.

[griffi94]

81. I agree

And in the general election I will be happy to vote for our nominee.
But I still prefer Warren's more progressive positions. Joe may be liberal compared to Trump but
I'm not using Trump as any kind of benchmark. Compared to Warren, Biden is still a centrist.

[emulatorloo]

82. I like both Warren and Biden, so i'm happy they are both doing well

[vsrazdem]

56. Yes to what you said.

[Joe941]

68. I'm sick of this "old white guy" line...

It is about policy and not age and race. Bringing that up just shows prejudice on your part. I expect that from goppers not progressives.

[griffi94]

74. Perhaps some Pepto-Bismol

Would bring you some relief.
Good luck. Feel better soon.

[at140]

67. We all don't age at equal rates

I am in much better physical shape at 79 than I was at 55. You may want to read my post #66.

[LakeArenal]

28. Again everyone has an opinion.

[griffi94]

29. And you're welcome to yours

Good luck.

[LakeArenal]

30. Warren needs more luck than I.

[griffi94]

31. I'm sure she'll take all the luck she can get

And good luck to you too

[redstateblues]

32. In rust belt WI poll EW is tied with Trump. Joe is up 9

Can EW win back the rust belt? I’m not confident. I’m sure Joe can. The numbers are what they are

[griffi94]

33. I'm confident

My views are more aligned with Warren. My primary vote is based on that.

[redstateblues]

35. EW looks weak in the rust belt. That's where the next election is won or lost.

[griffi94]

37. She'll be fine

It's still a long way out. Trump's not going to stop being Trump. The repubs aren't expanding their base at all.
I'm all in for EW. No status quo candidates for me in the primary.

[RhodeIslandOne]

39. If people listen to her words, instead of what FOX News tells them....

....she will win.

[BeyondGeography]

13. Five months before people actually start voting? I can't think of anything less relevant.

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2019, 10:40 PM - Edit history (2)

Plus based on their respective campaigns to date, Biden’s numbers have nowhere to go but down and Warren’s will continue to improve.

[cwydro]

59. This.

Thank you.

[hurl]

15. Maybe closer to the general

I don't put much stock in the polls at this point, and I am not convinced VP Biden is our strongest candidate. We have many great candidates, including him. The insistence from some of his supporters here that he is the only one capable of beating Trump is divisive and insulting to the rest of our great field. I'm proud of our deep bench.

[oldsoftie]

16. And just to stir things, if it WERE Warren, then what kind of VP should she pick??

This requires a lot of thought.

[thesquanderer]

47. I'd be pulling for Buttigieg as her VP. Because...

He has the potential for good midwest appeal. He's a bit more moderate for balance. At his age, he'd be well positioned to run in 8 years. And because I'd love to see him debate Pence!

[oldsoftie]

49. Military back round would also be important

Fair or not, like it or not, if we have a female nominee, she will HAVE to have a strong VP pick to calm any fears that "fence sitters' may have about electing a woman as President. I.E., Sanders as VP (i know, would never happen) would be a terrible choice for Warren.

I remember the 08 campaign; many worried about McCains age (remember when age was a thing?). And when he picked Palin as VP, a lot of people thought "Holy crap, if anything DID happen to the President, SHE takes over??!?? Nope"

[thesquanderer]

52. Good point, vet on the ticket is another strong positive. (n/t)

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Clinton Had a +13 Over Trump Around This Time

Take a look for yourself and count how many times Clinton posted a double-digit lead over Trump.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

What this doesn't show is how soft her numbers were. There was a massive enthusiasm gap for an establishment candidate that was far too cozy with Wall Street millionaires and billionaires.

I voted for Clinton and I would certainly vote for Biden, but he is not the strongest candidate by a long shot. There is a similar enthusiasm gap.

No one can tell me that Biden would ever, ever ever be in this position if he had not balanced out the ticket for Obama. As a candidate on his own merely as a Senator from Delaware, he'd be lucky to make the next debate.

[oldsoftie]

50. But there is no enthusiasm gap on beating trump. Thats the HUGE difference from '16

[DrFunkenstein]

72. Compare Trump Crowds to Biden Crowds

There's a reason why Trump has repeatedly gone after Biden for his meager attendances. Then you look at the crowds for Warren, Sanders, Harris...

[oldsoftie]

78. I remember Hillary drawing large crowds. Crowd size means nothing.

Trump only goes where he KNOWS he'll draw big crowds. The Dems go everywhere

[rownesheck]

20. Who the hell

are these morons who would vote for Biden over trump, but would pick trump over Warren?! Is that what these polls are suggesting?! If so, this country is just one giant turd burger! I hope I just don't understand how polls work.

[Desert Dem]

21. 👍

[BeyondGeography]

24. It's not even that...it's Democrats saying who they think will win a given matchup

It’s crap.

[thesquanderer]

48. Yes, polls of how people think other people will vote are crap. But...

... actual head-to-head polls are useful.

[BeyondGeography]

53. She's doing fine by any measurement IMO

Quinnipiac had her +7 v Trump eg. She’s frankly way ahead of where I thought she’d be on electability at this early point. If she starts winning states in the primary all the numbers will move around and things will take care of themselves.

[Demsrule86]

60. She is not doing fine in the state polls where we need to win...or in AA community.

Biden can win...while Warren has my vote in a general, I say she wins the popular vote and loses the EC...she would win a direct election but we don't have those.

[Politicub]

25. I don't place much stock in them. So, no,

even if Warren were at the top of all of them. they tell us very little this far out.

And “electability” sums and opinions are equally useless when it comes to the primaries.

This election will be about getting out the vote. Trump matchups mean nothing at this point in time. I’ll care more about polls next year.

[crazytown]

40. Yes. After Iowa.

[Quixote1818]

45. I would attribute the slight advantage to Biden being his slightly larger name recognition than

Warren at this stage. That gap will close as more people tune into the election and get to know her.

[Bradical79]

88. Glanced at some Ohio polls, and that seems to be the case to me.

Biden was the only one I saw in + territory here (+2), but the percentages for Trump were smaller vs. all the other candidates. Just a lot of undecideds.

[Jirel]

57. Nope. Not until the pack gets narrowed during the primaries.

Those polls are meaningless right now, just like the polls with the ginormous Rethuglican pack in 2016 were meaningless. Nobody took Needy Amin seriously among them early on, much less as a winning nom vs. Clinton. Polls can give you a weak read on trends, but at this stage they say nothing about who would win in a real head to head battle.

[cwydro]

58. Why aren't you asking this of all other candidates' supporters?

Feeling a wee bit nervous about Warren?

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. Why are we even having a primary, then?

[ChubbyStar]

69. Why arent you in your own thread?

Not one reply.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. If Joe is the nom he will pick a great person as VP I am sure, hopefully someone like Liz

Ant that person will be there to fill in if something happens to Joe.

At this point ALL that matters is

[jberryhill]

77. Nope

[Kurt V.]

86. we have a very unique opportunity. trump is (bar cheating, which is a real possibility) going to

lose. our candidate must see the future realistically. thats warren, not biden. so far biden is riding name recognition and being a pretty darn good guy. but now is the time to make a fundamental change in American history.

[Bradical79]

87. Nope

At this point, they're pretty much irrelevant. Unless it's a massive difference when it comes down to the final 2 or 3, I'm not taking it into account at all.