Poll PANIC

[JKane]

Glad of it.  Occasional voters come out to oppose not to affirm.  We were told 2022 would be a red wave as the most recent concrete example of polls being bs.  I'll take this 1000% over "Biden's got this in a walk!" alternative.  

Poll companies make money by selling poll results and 24 hour news makes money by SCARING PEOPLE... match made in... what's a "journalism"?

Further, who the fuck answers a political poll?  "Likely voters" my ass.  "Geriatrics happy to have anybody to talk to" more likely.

And then there's...

 

[floridarob]

I pretty much told someone the same thing yesterday

[caeron]

 

Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing. Fake drama.

[stevenkesslar]

11 hours ago, caeron said:

 

Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing. Fake drama.

I was going to post in the thread about Why Biden Might Lose.  But my prediction potpourri (or verbal diarrhea) fits bit better here.  Since everything I'll say involves one form of prognostication or another.  And this post is mostly about Why Biden Might Win.

It was a good night for Biden 2024, I think.  Several pundits have noted that the Kentucky Governors race has been a perfect bellwether in this century.  Whoever is elected Kentucky Guv the year before the POTUS race, their party wins the White House next year.  Of course, that could mostly be about having the name Beshear on the ballot.  But the total impact of all the races tonight, including abortion in Ohio and the legislative races in Virginia, is that the Democratic brand is doing pretty well.  Reeves won in Mississippi again, but by no more than he did in 2019.  A Democratic win in Mississippi would have been a real shock.  Meanwhile, Beshear barely won in 2019, but seems to be winning by like 5 % tonight.

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira are just out with their update on The Emerging Democratic Majority.  They scold the woke progressive types for going way too far in the culture war, thus alienating too many moderate working class voters.  Their Plan A for winning more, especially in red states so Democrats can have a Senate majority, is to call a culture war truce.  At least in most of the places, some of the time.  Andy Beshear just proved how well that works.

I agree that horse race polls a year out mean nothing.  In 1983 Mondale was set to beat Reagan by double digits, one poll said.  The polls that most political hacks say do tend to be sticky are the approval ratings.  And on that score, time is running out for Biden.

How unpopular is Joe Biden?

Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all had lower approval ratings at some point in their first terms than Biden has right now.  But by this point, a year out, all three of them were starting to recover.  As you can see from those comparison charts.  The only three that were down this low one year out - Trump, Carter, Ford - all lost.  I was hoping by now Biden would be recovering, too:  more GDP growth, less inflation, people are now actually making more in wage hikes than inflation in 2023.  But that's not how people are feeling, yet. 

The helpful way Team Biden talks about "Bidenomics" is that they're focused on where the puck will be in Nov. 2024, not Nov. 2023.  The only problem is it takes time to get from one place to another in politics.  The point of all those approval polls is that it took a year for Reagan, Obama, and Clinton to slowly change public opinion.  Right now, Biden is going in the wrong direction still.  Of course, some people might say the other problem is Joe Biden can barely walk, let alone skate fast.  😵  That is how a lot of young people feel.  That doesn't help, either.

Biden Lacks the Best Weapon Other Incumbents Have Had

As another form of prognostication, I'll throw that piece from Jeff Greenfield in.  He makes an interesting argument, which I think is wrong.  He thinks the idea that a Presidential race is a referendum on the incumbent is often "wildly off the mark."  I agree with Alan Lichtman that Presidential races are exactly that:  an up or down referendum on the incumbent party.  Greenfield continues his argument that Biden doesn't have what Obama had:  the ability to turn his still somewhat unknown opponent into a jerk.  Because everybody knows Trump is a jerk (specifically, an indicted jerk) already.  And yet he's still slightly ahead in the polls.  But I actually think that is one of Biden's real assets.  Trump is well defined.  And people do think he is a jerk.  The only good thing about 55 % of Americans disapproving of Biden is that 55 % also disapprove of Trump.  And that number probably ain't gonna get better.

Then there is the bed wetting from David Axelrod and Jim Carville, who I don't normally think of as bed wetting types.  Although Axelrod actually denied in his tweet that he was wetting the bed.  Regardless, I doubt he'll be invited to sleep at The White House ever again.

I decided a while back I'm going to go all in for Alan Lichtman. He has a system that makes sense. It suggests Americans vote based on Important Stuff, like the economy, stupid, rather than on dumb commercials or polls.  More important, Lichtman's predictions have been right, every time, since 1984.  (He predicted Gore would win in 2000, which he did if you count popular votes.  After that he just focused on who would win, period.  He called 2016 for Trump.)

The nice thing about looking at it Alan's way, right or wrong, is that Biden is not only the best choice.  He is the only choice. 

Right now Biden is for sure down three keys:  lost the 2022 midterms, has no foreign policy win and is unlikely to get one, is not charismatic.  You have to be down six to lose, history says.  Lichtman would argue that most of what Greenfield says is pundit babble.  The only thing Lichtman says matters about the challenger is that he is not unifying and charismatic.  Trump is not unifying and charismatic.  So he isn't going to help Joe Biden lose a referendum on Joe Biden.  To be fair, Lichtman would argue  Biden didn't really help Trump lose the referendum on Trump in 2020.  Trump managed to do that all by himself, Lichtman says.  Mostly because of the economy, stupid.

So the way it's shaping up so far is almost exactly the same as 2016.  The election is Biden's to lose.  And the economy is the path to winning or losing it.  It is not good news that, like in 1992, most people feel like we are in a recession.  (Spoiler alert:  we're not.)  So if Biden loses the two economy keys, he's going to be hanging over the edge of the cliff.  But what the economy keys basically say is that incumbents do well when there is no recession, and the economy is growing more quickly than it did under the last two Presidential terms.  So 5 % GDP growth is the thing that will get the puck exactly where Team Biden wants it to be.  Whether Joe Biden is a fast skater or not.  Lichtman argues, with much common sense, that people care more about the economy than about how fast Joe Biden walks.

The argument for Biden being the "only" candidate that makes sense is that being an incumbent is always a positive.  And when you don't have an incumbent, but you have a divisive internal party fight, it usually ends badly.  2016 is a great example of that.  Biden gives Democrats an incumbent, and it avoids a party fight.  Lichtman says that he and his pattern recognition buddy, who was a global expert at earthquake prediction, developed variations of their system with fewer than 13 variables.  But it took 13 to be right 100 % of the time, at least so far, he says.  Of the 13, the single best predicter is whether a party has a knock down drag out internal fight.  It usually predicts they will lose.  Which is certainly true in my lifetime:  Johnson in 1968, Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Clinton in 2016, and arguably some others.  Again, all of this makes common sense if you start with the idea that American voters care about serious things, and have reasonably good judgment.

What now seems almost certain is that a fourth key is going to turn against Biden:  a third party candidate who gets over 5 % of the vote next November.  Again, it makes lots of common sense to me to argue that in a year where George Wallace or John Anderson or Ross Perot do well running as a third party, it is a sign of serious discontent with the ways things are.  And a political earthquake may be on the way. 

So do the math.  I can name almost any sitting Democratic Governor and tell you they excite me more than Biden does.  But if you assume that Lichtman predicted the last 12 Presidential elections correctly in advance because of something other than dumb luck, his theory tells us that Whitmer or Newsom or Shapiro or whoever are going to lose.  Including a significant third party run, Democratic have four strikes against them.  Not being an incumbent and being the survivor of a bitter party brawl would be the necessary and sufficient fifth and sixth nails in their coffin.  It's not personal.  It's just what history says is likely to happen.

Of course, probably if Biden dropped out, we wouldn't even need a primary.  Everyone would immediately agree that obviously Kamala Harris should be POTUS.  🙄  Or Hillary Clinton.  😵  Or Bernie Sanders.  ☹️   Or Gavin Newsom.  🤔   LOL.  You get my point.  If Biden had dropped out a year ago, I'd bet that the 2024 Democratic primary would have been a bloodbath.  We're getting a taste of that with the bloodbath in Gaza, and the divided Democratic reaction to it.

All of this makes sense to me in theory.  What was sweet about tonight is that it seemed to actually work out that way, in fact.  Whatever bad things there are to say about Biden and Harris, it did not drag Democrats, or Democratic issues, down in Kentucky, or Virginia, or Ohio.

 

 

[Marc in Calif]

11 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

It was a good night for Biden 2024, I think.

Very much indeed!

And it was a VERY BAD night for Drumpf -- for 2023, for 2024, and forever into his ignomious future. 😆

[Marc in Calif]

Here's another of my favorite political bloggers -- the Rude Pundit:
___________________________________________________

Democrats Win Just About Everything Everywhere All at Once

 

In last night's absolute ass-reaming of Republicans, Democrats proved that the best strategy is just to be fucking Democrats. That means supporting abortion rights without any of the bullshit equivocating that gives credence to anti-choice arguments. That means calling out the culture war shit for the plain idiocy that it is. And it means that polls don't vote. 

 

A few takeaways on very, very good night, addressed directly to the GOP.

 

Hey, dicks,

 

1. You have pissed off the women of the United States in ways you can't even imagine. The last year has been a sequel to the Dobbs decision sending abortion rights back to the states. Call it "The Revenge of Roe" because women are in warrior mode over protecting their bodily autonomy. And you withering cocks have painted yourself into a corner with the blood of women who have been hurt and killed by the Supreme Court's monstrous decision. Who celebrated the end of Roe? Whose likely presidential candidate proudly proclaims that that he appointed the justices who made it possible? You kept telling women that actions have consequences when it comes to sex. Now look who's finding out after fucking around. And this won't stop and won't slow down. Democratic women are coming for you.

 

2. Another way you pissed off women and all parents is telling them that they don't have the right to take care of their kids. See, your child getting taught at school that slavery was bad or that gay people exist isn't impinging on your "rights" as parents. You can teach them whatever lies you want at home. What does fuck with the relationship between parents and kids is when you fucking outlaw medical treatment that  parents want for their kids, whether it's abortion or transgender care. You pass laws saying what kids can and can't talk about and force them to repress their identities and you are shitting all over parents. That's done. It failed. It failed big time. 

 

3. And Gen Z is coming after you motherfuckers. I love that we finally have a generation that has no reason to believe the moronic myth of the "good" Republican. They grew up with racist attacks on Barack Obama and then watched Donald Trump turn the joint into a plague-ridden hate camp, and they saw Republicans at every level merrily go along with it. They are woke, and your mocking of their wokeness makes you into everything they fucking despise. They have queer friends, they have trans friends, they have friends of different faiths. They watched the George Floyd video and marched in Black Lives Matter protests and then watched as you lied and said they were violent rioters. And then you banned the fucking books they like and are continuing to destroy the climate, which dicks them over for their futures. Goddamn, you are fucked with this generation. 

 

You can change. Moderate on abortion. Give up the culture wars. Do shit that shows you understand that science is real. 

 

But you're motherfuckers, so you'll likely just try to figure out how to suppress the vote. 

 

Okay, I'm done talking to the conservabitches. Lemme end here with a few awesome races beyond abortion rights in Ohio and the Virginia legislature. 

 

1. In Virginia, pre-election, on the long list of things that matter to voters, transgender issues placed dead last. That's not because they want trans people to not have rights. It's because no one fucking cares if people want to do something that harms no one. And then openly trans Danica Roem, already in the state assembly, became the first trans person to win a seat on the state Senate, beating a conservative ex-cop supported by giant loser Gov. Glenn Youngkin. That ex-cop campaigned on banning trans athletes from high school sports. And that wasn't enough to push voters away from Roem.

 

2. All over the country, school board candidates backed by the savage hatemongers Moms for Liberty lost bigly. The Moms want your kids ignorant, crazy Christian, pregnant with no choice, and hiding their true identities while not allowing them to read any books that have kissing in them. They are just the fucking worst and deserve all the scorn that can be heaped on them like piles of manure. But, man, they lost so bad everywhere. In Iowa, they supported 13 candidates. Only one won. In one district, they just had to get in the top four vote-getters to get a seat. There were 8 candidates, 4 supported by Moms for Liberty. They all fucking lost. So they can fuck off all the way back to whatever crusty old bible they crawled out from under.

 

3. And in New York, Yusef Salaam, one of the Central Park Five who was imprisoned for a horrendous crime he did not commit, on whom Donald Trump once took out a full-page ad calling for his execution, who was exonerated 2002 after 13 years in confinement, won a seat on the New York City Council. Yeah, that's right. Soon, Salaam will be an elected official and Donald Trump might die behind bars. That's karma in a perfect form.

 

It's okay to feel good today, Democrats. It's okay to ignore those shit polls for Joe Biden (which, c'mon, a year out, who the fuck cares?). It's okay to celebrate that we might just have a future. 

[stevenkesslar]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:31 AM, Marc in Calif said:

Here's another of my favorite political bloggers -- the Rude Pundit:
___________________________________________________

Democrats Win Just About Everything Everywhere All at Once

 

In last night's absolute ass-reaming of Republicans, Democrats proved that the best strategy is just to be fucking Democrats. That means supporting abortion rights without any of the bullshit equivocating that gives credence to anti-choice arguments. That means calling out the culture war shit for the plain idiocy that it is. And it means that polls don't vote. 

 

A few takeaways on very, very good night, addressed directly to the GOP.

 

Hey, dicks,

 

1. You have pissed off the women of the United States in ways you can't even imagine. The last year has been a sequel to the Dobbs decision sending abortion rights back to the states. Call it "The Revenge of Roe" because women are in warrior mode over protecting their bodily autonomy. And you withering cocks have painted yourself into a corner with the blood of women who have been hurt and killed by the Supreme Court's monstrous decision. Who celebrated the end of Roe? Whose likely presidential candidate proudly proclaims that that he appointed the justices who made it possible? You kept telling women that actions have consequences when it comes to sex. Now look who's finding out after fucking around. And this won't stop and won't slow down. Democratic women are coming for you.

 

2. Another way you pissed off women and all parents is telling them that they don't have the right to take care of their kids. See, your child getting taught at school that slavery was bad or that gay people exist isn't impinging on your "rights" as parents. You can teach them whatever lies you want at home. What does fuck with the relationship between parents and kids is when you fucking outlaw medical treatment that  parents want for their kids, whether it's abortion or transgender care. You pass laws saying what kids can and can't talk about and force them to repress their identities and you are shitting all over parents. That's done. It failed. It failed big time. 

 

3. And Gen Z is coming after you motherfuckers. I love that we finally have a generation that has no reason to believe the moronic myth of the "good" Republican. They grew up with racist attacks on Barack Obama and then watched Donald Trump turn the joint into a plague-ridden hate camp, and they saw Republicans at every level merrily go along with it. They are woke, and your mocking of their wokeness makes you into everything they fucking despise. They have queer friends, they have trans friends, they have friends of different faiths. They watched the George Floyd video and marched in Black Lives Matter protests and then watched as you lied and said they were violent rioters. And then you banned the fucking books they like and are continuing to destroy the climate, which dicks them over for their futures. Goddamn, you are fucked with this generation. 

 

You can change. Moderate on abortion. Give up the culture wars. Do shit that shows you understand that science is real. 

 

But you're motherfuckers, so you'll likely just try to figure out how to suppress the vote. 

 

Okay, I'm done talking to the conservabitches. Lemme end here with a few awesome races beyond abortion rights in Ohio and the Virginia legislature. 

 

1. In Virginia, pre-election, on the long list of things that matter to voters, transgender issues placed dead last. That's not because they want trans people to not have rights. It's because no one fucking cares if people want to do something that harms no one. And then openly trans Danica Roem, already in the state assembly, became the first trans person to win a seat on the state Senate, beating a conservative ex-cop supported by giant loser Gov. Glenn Youngkin. That ex-cop campaigned on banning trans athletes from high school sports. And that wasn't enough to push voters away from Roem.

 

2. All over the country, school board candidates backed by the savage hatemongers Moms for Liberty lost bigly. The Moms want your kids ignorant, crazy Christian, pregnant with no choice, and hiding their true identities while not allowing them to read any books that have kissing in them. They are just the fucking worst and deserve all the scorn that can be heaped on them like piles of manure. But, man, they lost so bad everywhere. In Iowa, they supported 13 candidates. Only one won. In one district, they just had to get in the top four vote-getters to get a seat. There were 8 candidates, 4 supported by Moms for Liberty. They all fucking lost. So they can fuck off all the way back to whatever crusty old bible they crawled out from under.

 

3. And in New York, Yusef Salaam, one of the Central Park Five who was imprisoned for a horrendous crime he did not commit, on whom Donald Trump once took out a full-page ad calling for his execution, who was exonerated 2002 after 13 years in confinement, won a seat on the New York City Council. Yeah, that's right. Soon, Salaam will be an elected official and Donald Trump might die behind bars. That's karma in a perfect form.

 

It's okay to feel good today, Democrats. It's okay to ignore those shit polls for Joe Biden (which, c'mon, a year out, who the fuck cares?). It's okay to celebrate that we might just have a future. 

I agree with everything he said.

Here are the main "but let's not get too optimistic" rejoinders that also make sense.

1.  Trump was not on the ballot in any of the elections where abortion rights did so well.  In the two elections he has been on the ballot, each time he pulled a surprisingly high level of turnout.  In each of these abortion victories, including in Ohio, it is clear that some voters - especially women - who voted for Trump before voted for abortion rights now.  So whether or how that translates into votes for other Democratic priorities or candidates when Trump is on the ballot in 2024 is not at all clear.

2.  Judis and Teixeira think Democrats need to call a culture war truce, not Republicans.  They both acknowledge that abortion in particular is a culture war positive for Democrats.  But I think they are generally right that moderate voters, including Hispanic and Black and Asian ones, feel some of the "woke" stuff is a big turn off.  If Democrats want to win Governor races in states like Kentucky, or Senate races in 2024 in states like Missouri or Indiana or West Virginia (or Montana, or Ohio) it is not even an option.

3.  The poll numbers for Trump and Biden among young voters absolutely suck for Biden.  Biden won in 2020 because Millennials and especially Gen Z carried him on their backs.  One exit poll showed him carrying voters under 30 by 24 points in 2020. Now, the margin is surprisingly close. Like a single digit. So younger voters will clearly go out and vote for a pro-abortion state Supreme Court candidate, or Governor.  But how that works out for Biden in 2024 is also completely unclear.  The polls and even more so the focus groups suggest young voters who are leaning toward Trump are basically saying, "This turd smells slightly less bad than the other turd, maybe, and it least it can walk."  Or something like that. 

4.  Unlike 2020, Biden is viewed far less favorably than a generic Democrat.  So there is a distaste for Biden, specifically.  With age being the most likely suspect.  The most telling number in that "oh shit" NYT/Sienna poll is that a generic Democrat actually does BETTER against Trump in 2024 than in 2020.  Four years ago NYT/Sienna showed Biden two points ahead of Trump.  Now they show Trump five points ahead of Biden.  On the other hand, four years ago the Times/Sienna poll showed a generic Democrat leading Trump by three points.  In other words, Biden did about as well as an unnamed generic Democrat against Trump, and actually did better than any named Democrat like Warren.  Four years later it shows a generic Democrat leading Trump by eight points.    The good news is that "generic Democrat" actually does better in 2024 than 2020.  The bad news is that today, unlike four year ago, Biden does far worse against Trump than a generic Democrat.  That explains a lot of the difference between what polls are saying, and how people are voting on everything other than Joe Biden.

I'm not saying Biden should drop out.  The opposite.  Either way, it's going to be a close race.  And if I had to bet, I'd bet on Lichtman's Keys.  Meaning, having Biden run as the incumbent is more likely to be a plus, not a minus.  Partly I'd bet that way because, so far, his prediction system has always been right.  But also because it just makes common sense to me.  Running with an incumbent, and focusing on unifying the party rather than having an internal bloodbath, is probably going to help Democrats.  That said, Lichtman's own theory is basically playing the odds.  The model is simple enough: when you have these variables, history says it usually works out this way.  In 2024, there is no question that Biden will be testing how much the power of incumbency is really a benefit.  I don't think the polls are all wrong.  Biden on the top of the ticket is at best a mixed blessing. 

My hope, which is reasonable, is that if we are not in a recession next Fall, and the economy and stock market keep growing between now and then, that will likely be enough to carry Biden and Democrats to victory.  It's certainly not bad news for Democrats that even though people are still pissed about inflation, and about half of Americans feel like we are in a recession, they don't seem to be taking it out on Democrats every chance they get.  Lichtman himself is saying the verdict is out.  In addition to his two economy keys, he also points to his two "war and peace" keys.  When he did that brief interview above several months ago, I assumed that Ukraine was going to be neither a success nor a failure a year from now.  But now that there is a second war in play, the chances of a foreign policy success or failure altering the outcome of the POTUS race seems higher.

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

Well this is a funny coincidence.  That manages to make Nate Silver look stupid, anyway.

Yesterday Politico put up a "don't wet your pants" opinion piece by Jim Messina, who ran Obama's 2012 campaign.  What jumped out at me is this:

Quote

Back in 2011, we were in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and unemployment was historically high. But I believed then — and I still believe — that the economy is what voters care about most, so we focused our energy on building up Obama’s economic message ...  That work paid off, with approval of Obama’s handling of the economy rising from 35 percent in November 2011 to 48 percent right before the election. 

Quote

The Biden campaign has a much better economy than we did in 2011, and its individual policies are very popular; there is still plenty of time to break through with voters — the policies they like are actually Bidenomics.

That's all true.  Obama/Biden had an economy that stayed in a deep rut for a long time, which cost them dearly in 2010.  One of the reasons 2022 may not have been as bad as feared for Democrats is precisely because we were not in a deep rut, like in 2010.  And the Biden/Harris economy of 2023 looks like a sleek machine compared to the Obama/Biden economy of 2011.  In Nov. 2011 the misery index was 12.  In Nov. 2020 the misery index was 7.8. Today the misery index is 7.5

I can't think of any of this without going back to Lichtman's Keys.  And the basic idea that American voters are smart, not stupid.  And they vote based on Important Stuff, like the economy, stupid, rather than Dumb Shit, like polls.  Messina obviously agrees.  And Team Biden does plan to win a referendum on the economy in a year.  But they are clearly not winning it yet.  If Obama could put lipstick on a pig, even a senile Biden can perhaps put lipstick on an economy growing at 5 % this quarter.

In the process of saying don't wet your pants, Messina went after Nate Silver yesterday:

Quote

A lot of Democrats romanticize the 2012 Obama campaign. But if you were there, you know it was a knock-down, drag-out battle — not just with Republicans, but with bad media narratives. One such narrative hit us on Nov. 3, 2011, when the New York Times Magazine published an analysis giving Obama a 17 percent chance to win reelection.

Quote

Silver’s 2011 analysis did not age well: A year later, Obama wiped the floor with Mitt Romney. But Silver wasn’t alone. In this publication, polling done a year out had Obama tied with Romney in 10 battleground states; we ended up winning 9 of them. In December 2011, a Gallup poll had Obama losing to Romney by 5 percent across 12 battleground states; we won 11.

Again, if it is the economy, stupid, Biden should be in a position to do the same.

I'm guessing Nate Silver did not read Messina.  So it's just a coincidence that he wants to repeat history.  Or maybe he did read Messina.  And this is Nate's way of saying, "Fuck you, Jim."   Or is it, "Fuck you, Joe" ?

Nate Silver says it’s risky for Dems to nominate Biden

Actually, if you read the whole article Silver wrote, his basic point is that it is risky for Democrats to either nominate Biden, or not nominate him.  I guess that means the 2024 race between Biden and Trump is going to involve risk.  Geez!  Who knew?

I'm happy for Nate.  In that predicting elections involve risk probably will age better than saying Obama, or Biden, has a 17 % chance of winning.

All of this is making me feel better.  Especially the part about actually winning, a lot, on Tuesday.

I put my diapers back in the drawer.  For now.  Hopefully neither I or Joe Biden will be needing them in the next year.  🙄

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EmmetK]

Looks like you forgot to post one jpeg:

 

And it's not just the NY Times/Siena poll, it's FOX, Harvard/Harris, Quinnipiac, Yahoo, Marquette, etc. EVERY legitimate polling organization has Trump ahead.
And when RFK Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornell West are factored into the deal, Trump's lead only increases. If/when Manchin enters the race, that should ensure a Trump landslide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_kennedy_vs_west_vs_stein-8329.html

Make sure to get all of your Trump/2024 jpegs handy...  about 4 years worth!  l

[Bingo T Dog]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Looks like you forgot to post one jpeg:

 

And it's not just the NY Times/Siena poll, it's FOX, Harvard/Harris, Quinnipiac, Yahoo, Marquette, etc. EVERY legitimate polling organization has Trump ahead.
And when RFK Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornell West are factored into the deal, Trump's lead only increases. If/when Manchin enters the race, that should ensure a Trump landslide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_kennedy_vs_west_vs_stein-8329.html

Make sure to get all of your Trump/2024 jpegs handy...  about 4 years worth!  l

I was toilet trained on the NY Times.  That's all it's good for.  The election is one year away.  A lot can happen.

[EmmetK]

6 hours ago, Bingo T Dog said:

I was toilet trained on the NY Times.  That's all it's good for.  The election is one year away.  A lot can happen.

Exactly my point. If left-wing, Trump hating NY Times has Trump ahead by 6, his real lead is probably double that.

[Marc in Calif]

On 11/18/2023 at 10:17 PM, EmmetK said:

Exactly my point. If left-wing, Trump hating NY Times has Trump ahead by 6, his real lead is probably double that.

Yes, the left-wing New York Times poll from September 2011 predicted that left-wing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election had dropped significantly:

President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.

You're very smart to trust New York Times polls. They are ALWAYS predictive of election results in the year preceding a presidential election. 🤡🤡🤡

[EmmetK]

38 minutes ago, Marc in Calif said:

Yes, the left-wing New York Times poll from September 2011 predicted that left-wing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election had dropped significantly:

President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.

You're very smart to trust New York Times polls. They are ALWAYS predictive of election results in the year preceding a presidential election. 🤡🤡🤡

The link you provided has a firewall so it cannot be seen. However, based on the headline, it did not say that Obama was trailing, and trailing outside of the polls margin of error like the current NYTimes/Siena poll states.  It merely says his support is eroding. HUGE difference between the two. 

[Marc in Calif]

10 hours ago, EmmetK said:

The link you provided has a firewall so it cannot be seen. However, based on the headline, it did not say that Obama was trailing, and trailing outside of the polls margin of error like the current NYTimes/Siena poll states.  It merely says his support is eroding. HUGE difference between the two. 

There were no Republican candidates in the poll at that time. So the people who the New York Times polled at the time changed their minds -- perhaps many times before the 2012 election

That's what polls do: they track opinion at only the time when they are adminstered. 

Your exquisite trust in any current poll is amusing. And it leads you to make foolish statements.

But I hope you keep believing in Drumpf and his chances to win another election. The grief you experience will be all the more devastating when it comes! And it will... because voters' opinions change.  ⌛

[EmmetK]

7 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

There were no Republican candidates in the poll at that time. So the people who the New York Times polled at the time changed their minds -- perhaps many times before the 2012 election

That's what polls do: they track opinion at only the time when they are adminstered. 

Your exquisite trust in any current poll is amusing. And it leads you to make foolish statements.

But I hope you keep believing in Drumpf and his chances to win another election. The grief you experience will be all the more devastating when it comes! And it will... because voters' opinions change.  ⌛

So if there were no declared Republican candidates at the time, you are comparing apples to oranges.
One poll merely registers enthusiasm for a candidate and the other poll is an actual snapshot of an election comparing the 2 front-runners. This concept is clearly difficult for you to comprehend.

And while you're chewing on that, here's another poll that just came out yesterday....   Trump by 4 in a two-way race. Trump by 6 in a four-way race. 

And this poll is from Emerson, another firm, like the NY Times, not friendly to Trump. 

Touche!

[EmmetK]

3 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

So if there were no declared Republican candidates at the time, you are comparing apples to oranges.
One poll merely registers enthusiasm for a candidate and the other poll is an actual snapshot of an election comparing the 2 front-runners. This concept is clearly difficult for you to comprehend.

And while you're chewing on that, here's another poll that just came out yesterday....   Trump by 4 in a two-way race. Trump by 6 in a four-way race. 

And this poll is from Emerson, another firm, like the NY Times, not friendly to Trump. 

Happy Thanksgiving.
Next year at this time, we will be referring to Donald John Trump as President-Elect.

Enjoy your turkey while digesting that.

Touche!

 

[forky123]

37 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Next year at this time, we will be referring to Donald John Trump as President-Elect.

Or as inmate 4036545

 

 

[Moses]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

Or as inmate 4036545

Or as one of speakers on Biden's funerals. Nobody knows.

[forky123]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Or as one of speakers on Biden's funerals. Nobody knows.

Funerals?? Just how many Bidens do you think Trump's cult will kill?

[Marc in Calif]

8 hours ago, EmmetK said:

And this poll is from Emerson, another firm, like the NY Times, not friendly to Trump. 

It's so funny that you get excited -- and even orgasmic -- by reading polls a year before the 2024 election. 🤡

Keep going, if it makes you so enthusiastic. You'll be wiping all the egg of your face AFTER the election. 😁

[EmmetK]

17 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

It's so funny that you get excited -- and even orgasmic -- by reading polls a year before the 2024 election. 🤡

Keep going, if it makes you so enthusiastic. You'll be wiping all the egg of your face AFTER the election. 😁

I'd still rather be ahead by 6 than trailing by 6.
Biden's dementia and other infirmities will continue to worsen in 2024.  Will he be campaigning from a Delaware nursing home in 2024?  Also, Jill Stein's and Cornell West's campaigns will be getting off the ground next year as the hard left seeks alternatives to Dementia Joe.
Trump's lead will increase exponentially.

[forky123]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Trump's lead will increase exponentially.

I don't think you understand what exponentially means. Trump's lead is also capped by the number of traitors in the US willing to support an insurrectionist. 

 

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Biden's dementia and other infirmities will continue to worsen in 2024.

So will Trump's. 

[floridarob]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Will he be campaigning from a Delaware nursing home in 2024? 

And Trump from Mar a Lago with an ankle bracelet..... 

You seem to think this guy is coherent and not a step away from a nursing home as well......TONS and TONS of examples how this guy has lost his marbles, including just about everyone that has worked for him saying he shouldn't be president..... but he's your guy