Kornacki just discussed some scary polling on Morning Joe

[OliverQ]

He pointed out that the top 4 candidates (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg) are all polling nationally above Trump, obviously with Biden leading the pack slightly.

But they also polled 6 battleground states: Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA.

Biden is leading Trump in all 6. Sanders is leading in 3. Warren is only leading in 1.

He also said that a lot of the people polled who voted for Democrats in the Midterm Congressional races plan on going back to Trump in 2020.

WTH?!! Why would people go back to Trump after voting for Dems in 2018? It is so disgusting to me how stupid this country is. I really have absolutely no faith this country is going to realize how dangerous Trump is and get rid of him next year.

[samnsara]

1. yeah that part about going back to vote for trump after voting in the blue wave...???

[bearsfootball516]

2. Hence why having Biden as the nominee is so important.

Independents love him, and he's the only candidate that destroys Trump in swing states.

[Butterflylady]

48. That's the more important fact.

The swing states. Biden can easily win them. The others, not so much.

[LakeArenal]

153. I'm not sure how easy.

But Joe is liked way more than a woman candidate will be. Sanders is more of a threat to Joe I believe. WI was strong for Bernie. The hate for Hillary is alive and any woman has that shadow.

But I know Joe is popular in WI.

[RandiFan1290]

3. All of those precious 'centrists' from 2018 are going to vote for trump again?

[Cha]

24. hose moderates in red districts are why we

have a Democratic House now.

[zaj]

49. This country is governed by coalition builders

Not ideological purists.

[SterlingPound]

134. What a truckload of crap

[zaj]

142. Hardly...

The right gets is power from a confederation of in-group special interest communities:

- Selfish global billionaires
- free market libertarian ideological purists
- authoritarian Christians value voters
- basket of deplorable Alt-Righters
- American emerialist neo-cons
- Western/Rural isolationist
- suburban wealthy, in-group wannabes

The left gets it's power from a confederation of out-group special interest communities:

- under-represented minorities of all kinds including black, women, LGBTQ, native American
- selfless global billionaires
- urban community dwellers
- Innovation and education value voters
- environmental champions
- next generation / youth


They both fight over the non-commited swing voters.

The winner has the strongest coalition of partners.

[SterlingPound]

145. how laws get passed has nothing to do with how people get in office

lately the winner is who ever shouts the loudest the longest

getting M4A passed with have very little to do with those coalitions

[zaj]

149. Who's going to bring the shouters out?

If you can't afford to buy the media, the house and Senate votes?

[SterlingPound]

152. big businesses will always have a voice in the room

and their money on the streets
and we wont

no matter when it eventually gets introduced as a bill
but it will and some time eventually it will get passed

i think we both know this


so lets not play chase the dog today

[zaj]

154. I'm asking you...

... how you think anyone in politics, particularly anyone on the left succeeds without building coalitions.

[MarcA]

166. Now if the ideologically pure centrists would just believe that. n/t

[Demsrule86]

65. The sure could. After a left left candidate is demonized as socialist... and they look at trillions

of dollars in new spending for programs they don't want like MFA (they prefer the ACA), Student debt forgiveness,free college etc. We won the midterms with the ACA...and by running candidates that fit their district or state.

[TheRealNorth]

140. Biden will be labeled a Trotskyist

After the Right is done with him. We should stop lending credence to the Right's red-baiting.

[Demsrule86]

143. Nonsense, Biden can withstand any such criticism...as he has already done.

[SterlingPound]

144. "They" didn't and don't know what the ACA is or was

and very little has changed imo



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/22/history-lesson-how-the-democrats-pushed-obamacare-through-the-senate/

[Demsrule86]

147. Of course they know what the ACA is...we won moderates in 18 on the ACA and took back the house.

And if we are not careful who we nominate we could lose the house. Health Care was the number one issue during the primary.

[SterlingPound]

148. "they" as in the American Populace while it was being passed

and clearly long after it was passed


the Much Maligned and very etherical "ObamaCare" is what was on trial for the election not
the "ACA"

[Demsrule86]

156. What election do you refer to...2010 was a disaster...2018 was a big success...

No matter how you slice it the ACA or Obamacare can help us win M4A won't...it wil have the opposite effect...help us lose to Trump and God fobid the house.

[still_one]

4. It is actually worse than that among likely voters in those battle ground states. Only Biden is

leading Trump in those battleground states

One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but Leads Warren in Battlegrounds
Signs that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased since 2016.

Despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.

Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error.
Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago.

The poll showed Bernie Sanders deadlocked with the president among registered voters, but trailing among likely voters.
The results suggest that Ms. Warren, who has emerged as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination, might face a number of obstacles in her pursuit of the presidency. The poll supports concerns among some Democrats that her ideology and gender — including the fraught question of “likability” — could hobble her candidacy among a crucial sliver of the electorate. And not only does she underperform her rivals, but the poll also suggests that the race could be close enough for the difference to be decisive.

In national polls, Mr. Trump’s political standing has appeared to be in grave jeopardy. His approval ratings have long been in the low 40s, and he trails Mr. Biden by almost nine points in a national polling average. But as the 2016 race showed, the story in the battleground states can be quite different. Mr. Trump won the election by sweeping Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — even while losing the national vote by two points.
Democrats would probably need to win three of the six states to win the White House, assuming other states voted as they did in 2016 — an outcome that is not at all assured.

……….


The Times/Siena poll of 3,766 registered voters was conducted from Oct. 13 to Oct. 26. The margin of sampling error for an individual state poll is plus or minus 4.4, except for Michigan at plus or minus 5.1 points. Together, the battleground sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.
The Times/Siena poll of 1,435 registered voters in Iowa was conducted from Oct. 25 to Oct. 30 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Full cross-tabs and methodology are available here.
In 2018, the Times/Siena polls had an average error of 2.5 points in 10 polls in these states over the final three weeks of the campaign. If they had been joined together as one large poll, as is the case here, the final result would have been within 1 point.

……


https://github.com/ndcohn/battleground-poll-2019/blob/master/AZ110419%20Crosstabs.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. The article says we need to win at least 3 of these.

"Mr. Trump won the election by sweeping Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina"

I think Biden takes Pennsylvania & Wisconsin. Not at all sure about the others.

[Cha]

25. And, Michigan! Gov Whitmer!

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Fingers crossed Cha. Any idea what Gov. Whitmer's approval is in MI?

I could probably google it.

[Cha]

42. This is the latest I could find..

Whitmer's approval rating climbs after no-fault reforms

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/06/whitmers-approval-rating-climbs-no-fault-reforms/1331332001/

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. She's running about a 30% net positive. That's wonderful. Thanks for that.

[still_one]

26. The poll indicates an difference between registered and likely voters. I think Pa is most likely

ours, and WI and MI it is probable, and even though that makes "3", I believe this will come down to Florida or Ohio, and one of those is a must win.


I would also agree that most of this is a manifestation of the electoral college, but that isn't going to change, at least now for the 2020 election, and if we have 47% that again decide not to vote, it won't cut it

[honest.abe]

90. Dont need FL or OH if we win back PA, MI, WI.

[Demsrule86]

68. Biden will win Michigan and they don't mention it but Biden is up in Ohio against Trump as well.

I think he can take Arizona and possibly Florida.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. I've never been sure about AZ. Much like TX, they keep telling us we're so close, but it...

never pans out. I'm elated to hear about MI & OH.

[Demsrule86]

94. Michigan is close...it will be a battle. Honestly, Ohio looks better right now on the ground...no

real polling.

[Celerity]

83. I would flip those. MI should be a lock, PA and WI more problematic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. I guess I was hoping for somewhat of a hometown advantage for Joe in PA. nt

[regnaD kciN]

155. Not to add to the doom'n'gloom...

...but even Biden is only leading by an average of 2%. Going into the morning of Election Day 2016, Clinton had a larger average lead than that in those states…and we all know what happened.

[Demsrule86]

160. True but Hillary was way less popular than Biden and there is no Stein effect this year...and we are

on to the Russians...also Trump is an incumbent...those are bad numbers for an incumbent.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Which probably means some of those who got swept up in the bluewave, will likely lose their...

seats. I'm thinking folks like Lucy McBath are likely one termers which will make our majority a bit slimmer. I don't care for Kornacki, and I hope like hell his analysis is wrong.

[still_one]

9. Kornacki is just regurgitating a NY Times Sienna College poll of battle ground states, and among the

top three candidates, with LIKELY voters, the poll indicates only Biden beating trump in the majority of those states.

The main culprit is the electoral college, and while we can rightfully piss and moan all we want about the electoral college, it isn't going to change before the 2020 election, and we better make sure that interference or election tampering does not occur, because regardless, this is going to be close, and we need a massive get out the vote effort. 47% NOT voting won't cut it

That is why I have been discounting National Polls. It is states that elect Presidents, not the popular vote.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. The EC works to Republican's advantage. A national popular vote would exclude them from...

the WH for generations to come. As I said earlier, I'm almost certain Biden wins back PA & WI, but I'm hard pressed to come up with a 3rd.

[Turin_C3PO]

20. I think he'd for sure take Michigan also.

I’m an optimist though. I believe ultimately that he’ll win Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. But we must get out the vote.

[still_one]

27. yup. I think it will come down to either Ohio or Florida, assuming we get out the vote as you say

[Demsrule86]

96. I think we have a better chance in Ohio but we were close in Florida in 18. However, if we win

MI, PA and WI...we don't need any other state.

[still_one]

97. Absolutely!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. I'm afraid I've lost some of the optimism I gained in '08. NC went blue in '08 & switched back....

in '12. I think we can, legitimately, be called a purple state because we keep it really close. But close isn't good enough. As you say, "we must get out the vote".

[BannonsLiver]

53. It's a solid red state and will be one for years to come

Fools gold.

[dsc]

63. No it isn't

Dems got a majority of the two party Congressional vote in 2018 and in 2012. In 2018 one GOPer ran unopposed so the totals are in GOP favor but we did win in the other 12 and would have won overall with even a 2 to 1 loss in that district. We won the governor's race, the AG race, and every single judicial race in 2016 and 2018. We got a majority of the two party vote for the legislature. That said, NC isn't a slam dunk by any means.

[BannonsLiver]

75. It'll be red in 2020

It’s not only not a slam dunk, it’s a Hail Mary. Fools gold. A waste of precious resources to spend a nickel chasing our tails there. And btw, god bless their governor but he’s been all but neutered by their legislature that is chock full of RWNJs. My point stands. It’s a reliably red state in presidential elections and will be again.

[rockfordfile]

181. No it won't North Carolinians are tired of the Republican bs.

[BannonsLiver]

187. LOL

Okay.

[OliverQ]

21. Michigan.

Michigan has lower approval for Trump than Wisconsin and PA.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Fingers crossed. My hope is that Biden wins them all, but as we only need 3, it's good to hear...

that MI is a good possible.

[Demsrule86]

70. Michigan is the third.

[femmedem]

6. Yes, it's a NYT Upshot and Siena College poll. NYT has a full story.

"...Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error.

Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago."

Also:

"In national polls, Mr. Trump’s political standing has appeared to be in grave jeopardy. His approval ratings have long been in the low 40s, and he trails Mr. Biden by almost nine points in a national polling average. But as the 2016 race showed, the story in the battleground states can be quite different. Mr. Trump won the election by sweeping Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — even while losing the national vote by two points.

Democrats would probably need to win three of the six states to win the White House, assuming other states voted as they did in 2016 — an outcome that is not at all assured..."

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The poll was conducted October 13-26.

[still_one]

29. and in this poll it favors Biden even more among likely voters

[dem4decades]

8. There's reason Trump wanted dirt on Biden. He's the one he fears

[OliverQ]

10. He wanted dirt on Warren too. He asked China to investigate her.

[dem4decades]

12. To the extent he sought dirt on Biden? Where's the investigation?

[Demsrule86]

71. As this poll and there are others clearly show, Warren will not win the midwest. She will lose in

the EC and win the popular vote like Hillary. And we could lose the House as well with her at the top of the ticket. 40 moderates gave us the House.

[OliverQ]

76. You don't know that. Half the country didn't vote.

More people support a more left-wing candidate than support a moderate. Warren and Sanders supporters outnumber Biden's.

Biden is more likely to be like Clinton than Warren or Sanders. If Biden is the nominee, lots of Dems won't bother voting again, since they don't want another status quo centrist.

[Demsrule86]

86. There is not doubt that there is support for left-wing candidates in New York and California but not

in the mid west. If we have a more fair direct votiing system, Warren or any of our fine candidates would win hands down. But we don't. And Warren (others too) will lose the EC and win the popular votes which is meaningless. Biden has a chance to destroy Trump. He is the most electable Democrat. And in order to get anything we must win in 2020. Also he has coattails for the Senate...Arizona is more likely to vote for a Democrat with Biden at the top of the ticket...Colorado too. And if he chooses Abrams as his VP, we have a shot at Georgia and North Carolina...possibly South Carolina and Texas as well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. Yes, Elizabeth is a much bigger threat to tRumpty Dumbty.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[jcgoldie]

34. Why does that matter?

Trump's a fucking fool its beyond irrelevant who he fears.

[dem4decades]

44. Really? You do realize that "fucking tool" figured out how to be elected President?

He's trying to do it again.

He feared Hillary and he, and his conspirators, made it matter.

[zaj]

51. Wow, that's a seemingly foolish statement

It's a window into a what abwhole lot of talented professionals trying to get him elected have learned. I'm waiting between Biden and Warren, but this is all that matters.


Not who can win, not who has the best ideas.

[jcgoldie]

59. Since when does Trump listen to talented professionals or behave in a rational manner?

Placing weight on his perpetually irrational and emotional kneejerk statements and letting them influence your choices is what is foolish.

[redqueen]

11. "Democrats are stuck in a doom loop of premature polling"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287326086

[BeyondGeography]

15. Kornacki and his owners loves them some scary polling

So yummy.

[redqueen]

18. I really hope people stop clicking and sharing garbage like this

It's only rewarding and encouraging the carnival barkers.

[BannonsLiver]

54. Yes

We should all bury our heads in the sand and pretend it’ll be a cakewalk.

[redqueen]

124. See the way you said something I didn't say?

That's not honest discussion.

If you're interested in actual honest discussion, try it.

[Hortensis]

77. Poor OliverQ didn't click, just watched a conservative show

where the overall theme for Democrats 2020 is always "scary."

[Demsrule86]

131. I would not call MJ a conservative show these days...and it is based on a poll...good poll. We

underestimate Trump at our peril.

[Hortensis]

137. Joe's a lifelong moderate conservative who's committed

to restoring and keeping in power the conservative ideology that took over this nation after the 1970s. He's horrified at what's happening on the right and presumably his big part in it, but his current correction, welcome as it is, is not permanent by any means. He's steering into a skid, not turning left.

[Demsrule86]

141. That is not true. Biden is not conservative...he is progressive. He put climate change and the

envrironment on the floor before anyone else and it became law signed by Reagan, he pushed the violence against women act through, he has fought for civil rights his entire life. He changed Obama's stance on Gay marrage in fact. He has fought for education as well and does not favor vouchers...he wants to increase taxes on the rich and cut defense...in short Biden is a progressive.

[Hortensis]

163. You're misunderstanding what conservative and progressive are.

President Eisenhower was a proud progressive conservative who said so. It's not so respectable among today's crazy right. But all those trumpsters who wanted Trump to put his name on (a new better and cheaper) Obamacare are progressive regarding that, as are all Sanders' left-wingers who wanted Sanders to create a new (better and cheaper) Obamacare without his name, as are all the Democrats who support Obamacare but of course want it eventually better and cheaper.

ALL believers in progressive policy, but different focuses on issues and to different degrees.

Progressivism is the belief that larger groups should act to create advances that small groups and individuals cannot or will not. Including government. Sensible conservatives of course believe government should be progressive to some degree.

Maybe especially read about conservative and liberal personality, though, as it's fascinating, and you'll learn a lot about yourself as well, not just others. Joe would have to have a brain transplant to no longer be conservative. However, his political positions can change with circumstances, whether generationally, with new administrations, or even day to day.

[Demsrule86]

177. I see interesting point of view...I will read up on it. Thanks.

[MarcA]

167. Infotainment. First order of business is ratings. Ratings mean $$$. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

136. It's premature polling until it's not...

And then it might be too late to do anything about it. Around this time in 2015, Hillary's numbers vs Trump tanked. She and Trump found themselves in essentially in a statistical tie nationally. We ignored those polls, as we convinced ourselves that A) Trump would not be the nominee and B) Even if he was, his campaign would implode.

The problem is that the polls a year out proved pretty telling and the race was a dogfight the rest of the way.

It's fine to suggest polling at this point is premature but eventually, it won't be. Eventually, we'll have a nominee. If these numbers continue to drag, at what point do we start worrying? When it's too late and we have our nominee?

[redqueen]

150. If you read the article you'll see when it's mathematically logical

to start paying attention to head to head polls.

[Drunken Irishman]

172. I did. Still didn't refute my point.

I've been hearing since April head-to-head polls don't matter. We're now at the end of 2019. In a gap smaller than the time that has elapsed, we'll likely have our nominee. It's likely in four months, we'll be beyond the point of no return with our nominee. I think this is exactly the right time to start considering head-to-head polls because, if in April, the front-runner is still losing, well we better hope to god the polls are off or will correct.

Also that article is from September. It's now almost two months outdated. Despite over a month of new data and everything, the polls still haven't budged much head-to-head.

And again, I point to 2015. At this point in 2015, Hillary had an average lead of 3 points head-to-head vs Trump.

What was her margin nationally a year later? Hm...

[redqueen]

185. This part.

Early general election polls are not informative

There are lots of people who run around telling people to “ignore the polls,” which is often bad advice in politics. Polls are extremely valuable tools that can tell us a lot about what’s going on and can often be very informative about the potential course of future events.

But this particular exercise of polling hypothetical election matchups long in advance of the election is not informative.

In their book The Timeline of Presidential Elections, Christopher Wlezien and Robert Erikson find that polling a year in advance of the election has essentially no correlation with the outcome. Polling right before the election, by contrast, has a lot of correlation with the final outcome. And there’s a healthy middle ground 100-200 days out when the correlation isn’t particularly strong, but it’s not nothing either.

(Image link doesn't work see chart at link - it clearly shows when this kind of polling is actually meaningful)

A chart showing increasing levels of correlation between polls and results from 300 days out to right before an election. Christopher Wlezien and Robert Erikson

[Drunken Irishman]

188. Yup. Still not refuting my point.

In fact, the article is pretty incorrect - at least recently. In the last two presidential elections, polls a year out almost certainly accurately measured the mood of the country and the race.

In an average of polls from Nov. 5th, 2015, Hillary led Trump 46% to 43%. A year later, she won the presidency with 48% of the vote to Trump's 46%. Hillary saw an increase of +2 and Trump an increase of +3 but the margin +3 for Hillary in 2015 only slightly changed.

On Nov. 5th, 2011, Obama led Romney in an average of polls 46% to 44%. A year later, Obama won the presidency with 51% of the vote to Romney's 47%. That was a +5 for Obama and +3 for Romney. However, like the margins with Trump and Hillary, they weren't dramatically off. Obama's margin over Romney a year out was +2 and he won the popular vote by +4 - a change of just two-points.

Pretty stark evidence that the nature of the race was pretty clear a year out from the election.

It's a little more muddled in 2008 but here's a list of polls I found from November, 2007:

Gallup: Obama 47, McCain 44 (+3)
Rasmussen: Obama 46, McCain 43 (+3)
CNN: Obama 48, McCain 48 (--)
Zogby: Obama 47, McCain 43

So, averaging those polls out and Obama led McCain 47-45.

Obama won by a much larger margin, but, for most 2008, up until the economy cratered, the election was tracking for that type of margin.

So, there's ample evidence suggesting polls are a pretty good indicator of the nature of the race this far out - at least in the last three elections and if you go back to 2004, you also see Bush winning near-universally head-to-head, so, actually the last four presidential elections.

[redqueen]

189. Hmm.

I didn't check their math, and I haven't checked the polls you mentioned, but I see what you're getting at.

I'm still not basing my primary vote based on what these matchups are saying this far out.

[snowybirdie]

13. Looks like Morning Joe

is pushing the theme today that Trump will win because he's better at marketing. Are Americans really that shallow? Certainly hope were better than that.

[Raven123]

16. Yes. Americans are that shallow. Sadly.

However, the media has to wring their hands about something every day. No newsworthy events yet as far as they are concerned. Polling data is low hanging fruit for them to banter about.

[INdemo]

106. And remember somewhere in the shadows

Tom Perez and the DNC are pushing for Biden because it’s “his turn”and like so many times before
they push for the safe choice like Mondale in 1984 and we lost by a landslide.

[emmaverybo]

115. Why should we bet on a risky choice this election? What is wrong with safe? Warren sure stayed

safe when she didn’t come out and denounce Trump for trying to get Ukraine to manufacture dirt on Biden. Why should we risk losing gains made in the midterm for one particular healthcare plan that may or may not see the light of day?

[INdemo]

123. Elizabeth Warren was the First to call for Trumps Impeachment and

In April, Elizabeth Warren became the first of the Democratic front-runners to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment
(this is in the above link)

Obviously you weren't around yet in 1984...Just so you know
She was also one of the first to comment on Ukraine.
Of course you wont read the following because you just like to trash the other candidates without checking the facts but here check this out before you put me on ingnore>
https://twitter.com/i/moments/1177753442221199360

Biden was the last candidate to comment on Impeachment and then he didn't come right out and say Trump should be impeached

[emmaverybo]

135. Right. So she was. Does not negate what I said. Not putting you on ignore. I made two

points—one that there is every reason to like “safe,” and two, that Warren (and Sanders) were the only rival candidates not to defend Biden BY NAME, to call out Trump specifically for his attack on their fellow.

I think they stayed “safe” politically in that choice, whether out of some fear Biden would be found tainted or that they would be drawing attention and sympathy to him. I think whatever the case, the decision was calculated.

Gutsy was Harris jumping right in to defend Biden BY NAME.

[INdemo]

127. You didn't read my entire post

about the DNC pushing for the "safe Choice" in 1984 and losing to Reagan by a landside..Its all there
Without the Millennial vote Biden will not win the nomination.
Biden had what 4 chances to become the nominee and voters rejected him each time.

As long as the Corporate Mafia Media pushes ""Biden is the safe choice" which doesn't reflect the whole picture this is what many will believe but its not necessarily true.
Watching Presidential politics since 1960 and I don't believe Biden will win the Iowa Caucus or NH but if he does and pulls away from the pack I will support Biden 150%

[emmaverybo]

138. Thought it was three with one of those times being his quitting the race, not rejection.

I don’t think we all support Biden because he’s safe. He is the most job-specific qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable candidate, his resume unmatched by any in the field, and greatly enhanced for his foreign policy expertise and stature on the world stage.

He remains one of the most respected and liked politicians in our party.

Your political analysis may be spot on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. If MJ were honest, they'd admit that they've given Trump much more free airtime than any other....

candidate. I can't remember a time when "rallies" were covered as a national news event. I think the media love$ Trump. How many other administrations have hourly Breaking News events? Media personalities have written countless articles, and gotten lucrative book deals just on tRump & Co.

I think any one of our candidates would be considered "boring" compared to tRump. You have to admit he's a headline generator, and he sells newspapers.

[OliverQ]

23. I mean, yes Americans are that shallow.

But I hope enough of them change.

[BannonsLiver]

55. "Are Americans really that shallow?"

Yes. And shallow is probably one of our better qualities as a people. Violent, fear addicted and proudly ignorant are a couple others.

[brooklynite]

56. Discussing polling comparisons is equal to saying Trump will win?

They discussed how the three leading candidates did in the battleground States Democrats need to win back. They never talked about how likely a Trump win was.

[ritapria]

17. Siena/NYT are putting out pro-Trump outliers

They also reported that only 44% of voters supported Trump's impeachment and removal …… WaPo/ABC has that number at 49% …...Fox News 49% ….NBC/WSJ 49% …...Siena/NYT are full of Spit

[Cha]

22. Is Kornacki ever full of shite?

[ritapria]

28. Kornacki : He of the Big Mouth - and the Small Brain

The New York Times put out the poll ...It must be The Holy Scripture of Polling ….Kornacki is jumping up and down - about to lose his mind , I imagine …..That's his usual act ….Nate Cohn of the NYT , the guy who produced this bilge, is writing on his twitter feed that voters find Elizabeth Warren "unlikeable" ….MYSOGYNY in the Battleground states - just like we saw in 2016 ? This poll is a Pro Tump outlier …...People hate Trump's gates in the Rust Belt ...He promised much - and delivered nothing

[still_one]

36. It is from the NY Times Cha based on the Sienna College, an A rated poll. It says that Biden is

leading Trump in more of those battleground states than the other Democratic nominee among registered voters, and even more among likely voters.

There is a potential for some to be lulled into complacency by National Polls, when it is states that determine the President.

This is also a direct result of the electoral college.

I believe this will come down to either Florida or Ohio, and that presumes that we get out the vote

[evertonfc]

30. Biden

is the only candidate that WILL beat Trump. The others MIGHT and Warren unlikely too.

[tikka]

33. People voted against Traitor45 and Republican policies hoping to improve their lives.

They haven't seen any change because Moscow Mitch has stymied the Democratic agenda. All people hear now is Traitor's lies, right wing controlled media, and impeachment. Shortsighted, yes. Ill informed, yes.

[still_one]

40. The problem is except in select areas, farming, auto industry, the economy "appears to be doing just

fine", and while there is a timebomb ticking with regard to the economy and the ballooning deficit, that has not hit home yet

A lot of this right now is perception.

I agree with you that the "media", especially the financial networks, are covering for trump

[INdemo]

129. I would not include the farming community

Trumps rebate to Farmers is a joke unless they farm thousands of acres or have a couple thousand head of livestock.

If there is Cheap Corn and Farmers grind that corn for feed and then get top price for their livestock and then get a rebate for their grain crop then they are living in high heaven.

[still_one]

139. I meant the farming and auto industry have been hurt the worst by his policies, and even with this

supposedly half assed phase I trade agreement where no details are given, yet alone even happen, it will take a good long time for them to recover from this boondoggle

[INdemo]

183. Sorry I just mis-read your post

I work part time in Industrial Maintenance work and I remember a couple gigs a GM and I will tell you this, that they (GM Workers) had no appreciation for Obama after he saved their jobs.
Just like GM Execs are all for Trump after he eased the emission standards. Never mind the fact that Trumps cost them millions with the trade tariffs.

[still_one]

184. That's sad. I hope their eyes are open now

[beachbumbob]

37. nonsense that people who voted democraticin 2018 will vote trump in 2020, I suspect

1 person may have said that and then Kornacki did the trump embellishment. The purpose of the US media is no different from a propaganda machine

[Demsrule86]

72. The polls say otherwise.

[Celerity]

85. +1

[brush]

38. That's repug Kornacki's job to spew dangerous, skewed polls which favor trump.

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2019, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't believe all those people who voted against trump in 2018 are going back to trump in 2020, especially white women. Why would they? It's not like he reformed and somehow managed to erase his history of egregious misogyny from their minds.

All he's done is extort the Ukrainians, desert the Kurds and get impeached.

And all that's just lately.

Fuck Kornacki.

[Demsrule86]

73. This is a good poll A+ and it is not the only one. Trump will beat all but Biden, I am convinced of

this.

[brush]

78. Thank you. I'm leaning Biden too. Polls continue to say he's the...

one who beats trump by the largest margin. And that's the top priority now—to beat trump to save the republic.

[Demsrule86]

84. I will vote for any Democrat, I just want Trump gone. I am hoping he has coattail for the Senate as

well, I can see how if he is the top of the ticket it benefits Colorado and Arizona...and if he chooses Abrams as VP maybe North Carolina and Georgia.

[brush]

88. Abrams as VP would be good. She's mesmerizing on the stump...

but would she accept it? I thought she said a while back she wasn't interested.

[Demsrule86]

101. Recently she has said she is open to being a VP ...she said it before when she was considering a run

for the presidency herself.

[OliverQ]

126. Emerson polling yesterday of Michigan shows Sanders winning Michigan by more than Biden.

[brush]

130. Well that's one for Sanders as opposed to many for Biden.

Kind of makes one wonder though who's going to actually go with a near-eighty-year-old who just had a heart attack?

[brush]

133. No heart attack thougn, is a Democrat and won't be painted as...

as a socialist by trump and the repugs.

[Siwsan]

39. I pay as much attention to Kornacki as I do to my cat when she says her food bowl is empty

[LAS14]

104. So... that means you pay very close attention to Kornacki? Otherwise, poor cat! nt

[Siwsan]

120. Sophie Stinky Toes is weird. If she sees anything but solid food, to her it's an empty bowl

My other cat, Boudicca, was the same way. Eat until she saw a TINY fragment of the bottom of the bowl - lots of food along the sides, and 'MEOWWWWW!!!!!!!"

[LAS14]

122. :-)

[TexasTowelie]

41. The quickest path to victory was to win the one state with 38 electoral votes

while also leaving other options on the table. So much for Plan A, hopefully Plans B, C, and D will still work.

[Tipperary]

161. No way were we going to win Texas.

If you are talking about O’Rourke, he was unable to win a statewide race against probably the most hated politician in years, so no way was he going to carry Texas, never mind all the other states.

[TexasTowelie]

165. Wrong answer.

While Ted Cruz is hated on a national basis, he does have his base of support in Texas. Trump does not enjoy nearly as much support in Texas and is thought of as a damn Yankee.

I wish that people that know absolutely nothing about Texas would stop telling actual Texans what is going on in their own state.

[Tipperary]

168. So why did O'Rourke not win in his own state?

I have relatives in Texas, who tell me rump is pretty damn popular there. Somehow I thought he won Texas last go-round?

[TexasTowelie]

174. As I said, Cruz is more popular in Texas than Trump.

The 2016 GOP primary results:
Ted Cruz 1,241,118 43.76%
Donald Trump 758,762 26.75%

Nearly a 500K vote difference.

Meanwhile, Cruz only won the Senate race in 2018 by 215K votes.

Beto's success in the polls preceding the Senate election also spurred Cruz to go into overdrive to get his voters out. Trump doesn't have that type of organization in Texas.

[Tipperary]

175. I think rump is pretty likely to win Texas.

It is really not any kind of swing state. Damn, I miss Ann Richards.

[TexasTowelie]

176. He is now

that Democrats in Texas won't have a reason to turn out for a favorite son candidate. We had a fighting chance to get 38 electoral college votes that just went "poof." The worst part though is how it will effect down-ballot races. With the correct ticket the Democrats had the chance of taking back the Texas House, but now all that we can expect for the future is another decade of gerrymandering.

[Demsrule86]

180. It has already begun in the house ...and one day Texas will again have a Democratic Senator

and governor...and just like Virginia when you least expect it...Texas will be blue...I know this in my heart...and the gerrymandering and voter suppression only work for a while and then one day soon...the state will be blue.

[TexasTowelie]

182. We did gain several House seats in the 2018 election.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a tough struggle for Democrats to gain control of the Texas House to prevent gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The demographics may change prior to the 2030 census, but a lot of damage can be done in the meantime.

[33taw]

43. Dems are stuck campaigning in Iowa.

[JudyM]

46. Hopefully it's greatly undercounting the youth vote.

Hopefully the under-30’s will come out in droves.

[comradebillyboy]

87. I wouldn't hang my hat on the youth vote...

[JudyM]

92. We can do a much better job of outreach to them, and they are more engaged than in the past.

Just my hope...

[Demsrule86]

103. I hear this every year and ...it is always the same. They don't come out.

[JudyM]

116. Not true. There was a 79 percent increase in 18-29 turnout between 2014 and 2018.

Among 18- to 29-year-olds, voter turnout went from 20 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2018, the largest percentage point increase for any age group — a 79 percent jump.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-election-turnout.html

[Demsrule86]

146. 79% of a tiny amount...

Sanders would be president today had they turned out to vote... in 16. He had a great deal of support from them.

[TexasTowelie]

173. Another example of how statistics can be manipulated to deliver a desired message.

It's the largest percentage point increase because the other groups already have a significantly higher turnout. It's similar comparing immature economies to mature economies--the immature companies can show larger percentage increases because nothing has been developed so even a modest change will be over-magnified. A mature economy may show a lower percentage increase because they are already near the top of the heap; however, the financial increase (in dollar or other currencies) may still be greater for the mature economy compared to the immature economy.

Also comparing one data point (2014) to another data point (2018) is not indicative of any type of trend and any changes could easily be attributed to random occurrence rather than a long-term change in behavior among young voters. We'll need several more data points to be able to call it a trend instead of a blip.

For those who have experience with numbers, it is as easy to slant statistics as it is too slant the tone of a research paper for a desired grade. I know because I've done both successfully since I was 18 years old because I knew the audiences I was addressing.

[Demsrule86]

178. So true...my Dad had a book 'how to lie with statistics...he was a salesman and later and inventor.

I still have the book on my shelf and refer to it...fascinating...you know there are lies, damned lies and then statistics!

[MFM008]

47. B U L L S H *T

Polls now mean NOTHING.

[Demsrule86]

179. I am sure the ones showing your candidate ahead are meangiful to you...I know the ones

favoring Biden are undoubtedly completely correct...hehe.

[MFM008]

186. no

My candidate is the one who is on the ballot against FLATUS.

[usaf-vet]

50. In my part of Wisconsin everyone has a cellphone. No land lines we move our number to a cellphone.

Everyone I know has some cellphone app that screens incoming calls to whitelist your contacts ONLY. Calls that are not recognized produce one short ring then it's gone. However, my app captures the number and puts the unanswered ones on the blacklist.

We have three cellphones get lots of calls but NEVER have been polled because they can't get through.

That has to be affecting the polling. Online internet polls I will answer IF it is from an obvious GOP site. In that case, I use a throw-away email address and always answer the polls as if I wore a MAGA hat to bed each night.

So I wouldn't believe Wisconsin polls. I poll as it gets closer to the election by watching yard signs and bumper stickers.

One final point our RW Rep. Sean Duffy (from a gerrymandered district) resigned from Congress to "spend more time with family" then went right to work for CNN.

Maybe I'm deluding myself but I think the tide HAS changed in Wisconsin. IMO they wouldn't have won Wisconsin in 2016 without Russian interference.

[BannonsLiver]

57. I think we're all deluding ourselves.

[inwiththenew]

52. Bottom line is that it is going to be a battle next year that will take all hands on deck

Anyone thinking that because of the victories last year and Trump's unpopularity that it will be an easy win is mistaken. The amount of fuckery that is going to go on next year is going to make 2016 look like a model election.

[crazytown]

58. Another 'Only Biden' post

ho-hum

"the polls are what the polls are"

[Demsrule86]

60. Some of us were criticized and ridiculed when we said impeachment and/or moving too far left in our

Democratic nominee could cause a loss of the house as well as in the 2020 presidenetial general election. We hate Trump so there is a tendency to think everyone must, but it is not true and Republicans care about the courts and tend to fall in line. Consider the media has all but said Warren will be the nomimee...she is already being portrayed as very left by righties...Nancy Pelosi has sounded the alarm about some of the proposals. We need to remember this is at best a center left country and it is not anyone but Trump in many areas of the country including the mid west which we must win in order to stop Trump.

And impeachment is aobut 50/50 an those who oppose it live in areas we need to win for the Senate and the presidential races...some of those states sent Democrats to the House in 2020. The house is at risk with impeachment.If we force moderate Democrats to vote for impeachment with no chance of conviction, we are making a mistake that could cost us the House. Don't get me wrong. Trump deserves to be impeached. And I want him gone...but I want to keep the House.

[OliverQ]

67. Impeachment is the right thing to do regardless of the Politics.

[Demsrule86]

80. Not if Trump remains and gets four more years and we lose the House. There is never a 'regardless

of politics' moment in this sort of thing. The point of impeachment is not to humiliate the president as was done to Clinton. It is to have a trial in the Senate and consider removal...if we can't remove him and this is known before impeachment begins what is the point? And if he then wins anothe four years because of our removal efforts and we lose the house as welll...we have been very very foolish and 'won' nothing. Trump would be free to continue packing the courts and likely replace Ginsberg ...he could cage more kids, put Gay people in mental hospitals (yes he has suggested this)...there is no end to the bad shit he could do including tryingBiden, Clinton and Obama for treason as he has threatened using manufactured evidence acquired through blackmailing foreign governments. And we would have accomplishmed nothing... The idea that we must impeach that it is our duty is a legalistic argument for a process that could very well destroy our Republic.

[honest.abe]

114. That is all speculation.

No one knows for sure what the ultimate effects of impeachment proceedings could have politically. One could argue it both ways and make a good case for both scenarios. So forget trying to predict the future and just do the right thing.. which is impeach the asshole. There has never been a President more deserving of impeachment than Donald Trump. To not go forward with impeachment would be a complete negligence of the duty of our elected leaders.

[Demsrule86]

158. some of our house members are under water...was posted here earlier.

So it could happen...hope not but Impeachment is not popular in red states or even purple states...God knows Trump deserves it. But to say no matter if we lose, we must do the right thing and impeach is foolish...if Trump gets four more years due to impeachment than we have failed our republic...and if we lose the house too...a disaster of epic proportions for us, han we have failed in all way including our children, party, country and Republic. The only thing that matters next year is getting rid of Trump.

[Skya Rhen]

61. I recall someone on DU saying that a paper bag could beat Trump. I hope that these polls wake us up.

We can't play games with this upcoming general election and we can't bury our heads in the sand. Trump can and probably will win a second term.

I, for one, am extremely grateful that Biden decided to get into this race. It won't be easy but he is the only candidate that gives us a fighting chance to pluck a few of the swing states from Trump, thereby giving Democrats the victory. This is going to be an uphill battle, for sure.

[Demsrule86]

64. I had one tell me that they know Biden is the better candidate but they want a progressive candidate

(Biden is progessiveWTF) so now is the time as anyone can beat Trump. I told folks over and over...IMHO, anyone can't beat Trump...Biden can but the others...I don't think they can.

[Skya Rhen]

66. Well, the polls definitely back up the view that Biden can beat Trump while the others can't.

[Demsrule86]

81. That has always been true. Some simply are determined to have a different candidate who will lose

in my humble opinion.

[Skya Rhen]

99. Agreed. Some people just don't want Trump out of office as desperately as other people do.

[Demsrule86]

100. I don't get it...do they really think the parties are the same or some such thing?

[UncleNoel]

62. Anybody can say anything. Doesn't make it true...

[Turin_C3PO]

69. The polls will go up and down

as we approach Election Day. I happen to believe polling will get better for us once the public impeachment hearings get going.

[DeminPennswoods]

79. Likely voters

Using LVs produces much closer results because Rs tend to vote in every election while Dems vote more sporadically. One of the screening questions is usally some form of how often one votes.

For ex, in Pennsylvania, Trump is heavily underwater. This has been a consistent result in the monthy FandM Poll, the gold standard of state polling. Just a year ago, Dems swept all the statewide offices, including re-electing Gov Wolf. Wolf's opponent was Trump clone Scott Wagner by 15+ points. Sen Casey beat Trump clone Lou Barletta by double digits.

Warren has not even campaigned in PA. Her economic populism will play very well here when she starts campaigning here, assuming she's been successful in the earlier primaries.

Don't get fooled because the cable news networks are going to do everything they can to ensure there's a close "horserace" narrative for the next year. Think about the situation being reversed and a Dem president was at 40% approval.

[Demsrule86]

82. Warren will not do well in PA...I lived in that state for a number of years and worked elections.

[DeminPennswoods]

91. I've lived here my entire life

and worked as a judge of elections. I can tell you, her message of taking it to "them" on behalf of the "little guys" will be well received. You need look no further than how well Sanders did vs Clinton in the 2016 PA primary. He won the rural counties; she won the more populous ones, but the rural counties are what put Trump over the top in the general election. I live among Trumpers. They are grievance driven, but they want gov't to work on their behalf, too. Warren's plans address those grievances.

[Demsrule86]

93. She needs the Black vote and is not doing well with this...you have to rack up the numbers in

the cities because the rest of PA is Alabama. I live in Ohio near PA now and we get the PA media here. That has not changed. I will respectfully disagree with you about Warren's chances. And Biden was born in PA...so no Biden has the best chance and Warren has an uphill climb. I don't think she can do it. Can she win in the Philly suburbs also...doubtful.

[Skya Rhen]

95. This is not reflected in the polls which provide the best predictor of outcomes. Gut feelings aren't

as reliable.

[Historic NY]

98. Well right now if they keep up the socialist name tagging we will lose.....

thats a given.

Americans are more hesitant about voting for a “democratic socialist” than they were in 2018, according to the new survey. Fifty-three percent said they would “never” or were “hesitant” to vote for a candidate who identified as such, compared to 47 percent in 2018.


[link:https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243362/meaning-socialism-americans-today.aspx|]

[link:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467684-70-percent-of-millennials-say-theyd-vote-for-a-socialist-poll|]

[LAS14]

102. I'm counting on the trend of people choosing Warren after...

... they get to know her continuing. It's what happened to me, for sure. She's even got this champion of the golden mean excited about making big changes.

[Demsrule86]

108. The superbeing candidate approach. Once they get to know our candidate, she will sweep the election

because what is not to like? While I like Warren, and would vote for her. I do not believe she will move voters in WI, PA and MI. Her plan for manufacturing is to level the playing field abroad...safety, wage and environmental standards improved...but we know in Ohio and other places that won't work. Such 'improvements' never work as they are never enforced. Biden has a better plan. We should not nominate someone whom we have to introduce to the country and count on their charm to be enough to sway voters in areas where polls show the candidate is clearly under water based on significant policy differences...it is way to risky. We must get rid of Trump. Biden is the most electable candidate.

[LAS14]

110. Like we had to "introduce" Obama? nt

[emmaverybo]

117. Warren is not Obama. He was a more transcendent figure. He had extraordinary intellectual

gifts, oratory talent and skill, charisma, had written a compelling memoir, addressed not issues but deep feelings and hopes in the nation. He moved and inspired. That is not Warren’s forte or her passion. She is all about plans and issues n the realm of the domestic economy. He sounded much larger themes.

[LAS14]

119. Well, I'm moved and inspired! And a bunch of others are also. It remains to be seen...

... how many.

[emmaverybo]

121. Yes. I do see that Warren's supporters are both inspired and moved by her message of

changing lives through transforming domestic economic policies and politics as well as by her personality, vision, drive.

[Demsrule86]

159. Not even close to being the same thing...Obama ran a middle of the road campaign with wide appeal.

Warren is not doing this. She will not appeal to the midwest or other states. We could lose for example Virginia or Colorado. Also, Obama picked Biden to help him win the midwestern states. Obama lost most of the primaries there. Biden did his job. Obama won Ohio twice as well as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and others.

[Fiendish Thingy]

107. Without math to back it up, Kornacki's touch screens are meaningless

Was there any sourcing on his statements, or just his usual hyperbole?

[scheming daemons]

109. Because of M4A. Liz Warren's campaign is tone-deaf.

All we have to do is get in line with the majority of the people, and we'll win.

M4A is a loser.

[emmaverybo]

118. That right there, not listening, not using political insight, is the problem. It's like M4All

becomes the Moby Dick that will sink us all. What the hay? There are other ways to cover everyone and still,allow for choice. I see a rigidity I do not like.

[LenaBaby61]

111. This polling by Kornwacky, yeah well 🙄 ...

NOT shocked.

Tell you what though, and it's something we've known about since 2016 and it's that we STILL don't have fair elections right here in the good old USA. THAT'S the bottom line.

We know what to expect from thuglicans and MoscowMitch ie: gerrymandering, "new" voter laws where only registered gun-owners can vote, and where students CAN'T vote even though they have valid student ID cards. Cross-check will show up again, and of course thuglicans have other voter-suppression surprises/tactics they'll be throwing @ the Democratic electorate in 2020. I have a friend who said let's just overwhelm them at the polls in November. Okay, even if that does happen at the polls this next fall, you don't think that 'they' know how to adjust with "new" cheating measures? You know, killing off/adding enough thuglican votes so that Fascist-in-chief could squeak through again to another controversial/tainted GE victory.

Finally, we have tRump's buddies the ruskies still out here of course planning on doing 'something' to help their fat treasonous asset back into the Oval Office--that's a given. But, do we know who else could possible interfere into our elections? WHAT could that country do in this NEXT General Election if they choose to or are forced to meddle because fatso threatens them or is in cahoots with them? I'm sure the ruskies WILL have a 50-state strategy planned for this next time around also for us here in this country. But what could another country do to us this time around in 2020, mess with our old, out-dated electrical grids? Wipe all of the folks votes off the voter rolls even if we DO come out en mass to vote their fat asset out of office?

Russia May Not Be the Only Threat to U.S. Elections in 2020.

BY ERIC TUCKER / AP OCTOBER 30, 2019
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russia interfered in the 2016 election and may try to sway next year’s vote as well. But it’s not the only nation with an eye on U.S. politics.

American officials sounding the alarm about foreign efforts to disrupt the 2020 election include multiple countries in that warning. Concerns abound not only about possible hacking of campaigns, but also about the spread of disinformation on social media and potential efforts to breach voting databases and even alter votes.

The anxiety goes beyond the possibility that U.S. adversaries could directly affect election results: The mere hint of foreign meddling could undermine public confidence in vote tallies — a worrisome possibility in a tight election.

“Unfortunately, it’s not just Russia anymore. In particular, China, Iran, a couple of others, studied what the Russians did in 2016,” said James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

https://time.com/5713739/us-election-threats-2020/

[highplainsdem]

113. I'm assuming Kornacki was talking about the NYT/Siena polls which showed Warren leading in Iowa,

a poll her supporters have been very happy about since it came out a couple of days ago. It's been getting a lot of media attention even while almost all the national polls show Biden ahead.

Anyway, NYT/Siena is the pollster whose battleground polls came out today, with the GE matchup results they found in the same time period.

[kennetha]

112. 2016 Repeat

Democrats will no doubt win the popular vote, perhaps by as much as 5 million, as Trump's support in places like California simply craters. But he (or Pence or whomever else they run if Trump is impeached and removed and barred from serving in any office ever again) may well win the EC.

That's what the combination of national polls and battleground polls is forecasting.

[OliverQ]

125. So to update this, this Siena/NYT poll

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2019, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

shows Warren losing Michigan to Trump by 6 points. I don't understand that at all since he's wrecked their economy and his approval has plummeted there more than Wisconsin and PA.

I just looked at yesterday's Emerson poll, and it had Warren beating Trump in Michigan by 8 points. Sanders wins by a whopping 14 points.

So how could Siena College be so drastically in favor of Trump in Michigan?

[TheRealNorth]

157. Many things to look at

Are they polling Likely Voters? Registered Voters? Everyone?

Are they forcing people to choose or are they allowed to pick undecided.

One thing you have to consider that in 2016 the polls in the last 2 weeks showed around 8% undecided and those broke decidedly for Trump in the swing states.

[Demsrule86]

162. That usually happens with incumbents. But this time Trump is the incumbent...I was always told in

campaigning that incumbents below 50% are in trouble...now Trump is a bit of a special case...I know. However, I still think whiile heh as a good chance that in the end if Biden if is the candidate he will rebuild the Obama coalition and Trump will lose...anyone else, it is a crap shoot...and the odds don't favor us.

I know Hillary wasn't an incumbent but she was a close as you come...running after a two term Obama presidency...kind of running for a third term for the Obama coalition. I think incumbency could be consider for that reason with the 2016 election.

[jberryhill]

151. The first vote hasn't even been cast in the primaries

Where people will stand next November is a total crapshoot.

[cwydro]

164. Yep.

This.

[totodeinhere]

171. Of course, but the point is that regardless of where the electorate stands a year from now the

election will be decided for better or worse in the swing states.

[helpisontheway]

169. I'm mentally preparing myself for Trump to win. Many democrats want the person

that makes them feel warm and fuzzy instead of who can win. I’m worried that we are going to blow our one chance to get that troll out of the White House. I think of how he took out all of the Republicans in their primary and then won (with Russian social media meddling) the states that were needed for electoral college. Then to hear that he is still strong in those states makes me ill. Could he possibly win PA, WI and and Michigan again? Just the thought makes me ill. However, if we blow this then I guess we get exactly what we deserve .

[totodeinhere]

170. This is why national polls may be interesting but as we know we don't elect presidents with the

popular vote. It's all about the swing states. We already know that Trump will lose both New York Sate and California by a wide margin. And that's great but those big margins will pad the national Democratic vote while not impacting swing states where the election will be decided. What we really don't want to see is his losing the popular vote again yet winning another narrow Electoral College victory.

[okieinpain]

190. Lol, I still wonder how warren or sanders will

Sale med4all to this country of folks.