More polls out showing Biden losing every swing state.

[everyonematters]

Emotional attachment is fine for sports or entertainment.; this is about the future of our country. Wake up Democrats!

Normally in a presidential election, you have the incumbent and a challenger that voters need to learn about. In this case, the voters already know both presumed nominees. That's why the polls are relevant.

Dean Phillips is a good man. He is the most viable alternative to Biden, and he would beat Trump because is a three term congressman who is not 81 years old.

[nini]

1. Lol

[Sal_NV]

2. Are these the same polls that predicted that the Dems were going to lose big in 2022?

Thanks for the concern.

[brooklynite]

6. Again, there weren't polls saying Democrats would lose big in 2020...

There were ANALYSTS and PUNDITS who said that. Polls said the races would be close. And they were.

[asm128]

12. 2022, not 2020

(Reading comprehension is important)

Further, and despite your quite repeated, and incorrect, assertions, the polls were calling for a red wave in 2022, not just the pundits.

For example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2022/11/16/pollsters-got-it-wrong-2018-2020-elections-statistical-sophistry-accuracy-sonnenfeld-tian/amp/

[Polybius]

22. In the final week though, the only Senate race polls got wrong in 2022 was NV

They had the Republican ahead by like 1 or 2 points.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. The key there is "final week". We are not in the final week (I'm glad of that). . . . nt

[W_HAMILTON]

27. "In the final week"

Last edited Thu Dec 14, 2023, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Thank you for acknowledging that these polls mean absolutely nothing this far out.

EDIT: Also, even your underlying claim is wrong.

RCP polling average for Pennsylvania the final week showed Oz with a +0.4 advantage. He lost -- Fetterman won by 4.9 points (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/pa/pennsylvania_senate_oz_vs_fetterman-7695.html).

RCP polling average for Georgia the final week showed Walker with a +1.4 advantage. He lost -- Warnock won by 0.9 points (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/ga/georgia-senate-walker-vs-warnock-7329.html).

RCP polling average for Arizona the final week showed Masters with a +0.3 advantage. He lost -- Kelly won by 4.9 points (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/az/arizona-senate-masters-vs-kelly-7390.html).

RCP polling average for Nevada the final week showed Laxalt with a +3.4 advantage. He lost -- Cortez Masto won by 0.9 points (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/nv/nevada_senate_laxalt_vs_cortez_masto-7392.html).

[LanguageLover]

82. Beg to disagree

I compiled the 538 Averages before the 2022 Elections. Some of the results were the following:

Senate Races
Maggie Hassan of NH Predicted to Win by 4% Won by 10% (+6% diff)
Fetterman of PA Predicted to LOSE by 1% Won by 5% (+6% diff)
Barnes of WI Predicted to LOSE by 5% Lost by 1% (+4% diff)
Warnock of GA Predicted to LOSE by 1% Won by 2% (+3% diff)
Bennet of CO Predicted to Win by 8% Won by 15% (+7% diff)

Governor Races
Shapiro of PA Predicted to Win by 10% Won by 15% (+5% diff)
Evers of WI Predicted to LOSE by 0.4% Won by 3.4% (+4% diff)

The Dems clearly outperformed the Polls in 2022 by about 3-7 percentage points.

538 predicted the Dems to have a 41% Chance of winning the Senate (meaning just 50-50).
The Dems won it 51-49, beating the prediction handsomely.

I had pointed it out last May in a post titled "What's Wrong with the Polls?"

Please note that if the poll predicts a 8% victory margin and finally it is 15%, then that was a bad poll !! If the poll predicted a loss by 5% and finally it is a loss by 1%, that too is a bad poll because it turned into a squeaker! As far as the "polls" are concerned, in all of the above cases cited the predictions were wrong. That's the way I look at it.

[brooklynite]

53. I'm talking about 2022...

There were very few blowout wins for Democrats. Just a lot of close ones.

[Celerity]

23. on this we agree

[W_HAMILTON]

33. You realize we can go back and see the polls at the time, right?

RealClearPolitics final projection for the 2022 Senate races based on final polls:

53 seats - Republicans
47 seats - Democrats

Final polling averages showed Republicans winning Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia (spoiler alert: they lost all four).

Taken from: (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map-rcp-projection.html)

RealClearPolitics final projection for 2022 House races based on final polls:

227 seats - Republicans
174 seats - Democrats
34 seats - Toss-ups

Numbers-wise, it ended up being 222 Republicans to 213 Democrats. You can give *every* *single* *one* of the polling toss-ups to Democrats -- something unheard of from a polling hypothetical perspective -- and they STILL would be lower than the number they actually ended up winning. They DRASTICALLY overperformed from what they polls were predicting.

Taken from: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/house/elections-map.html

Don't try to rewrite history here. Yes, the pundits and prognosticators were full of shit, but many of them were full of shit because they were relying on polling that was full of shit.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Well Done! (nt)

[brooklynite]

55. We're not talking about the NUMBER of Democratic wins...

We’re talking about the closeness of the margins. The polls said many of the races would be close. Many of them were.

CT05 D+0.8
NY18 D+1.3
OR06 D+2.4
CO08 D+0.8
NM02 D+0.7
PA07 D+2.0
PA08 D+2.4
WA03 D+0.8
AZ01 R+0.8
AZ06 R+1.5
CA13 R+0.4
CA03 R+0.2
NJ07 R+2.8
NY17 R+0.6
NY19 R+1.6
NY22 R+1.0
OR05 R+2.1
IA03 R+0.7
MI10 R+0.5
NE02 R+2.4
GA-SEN D+2.4
NV-SEN D+0.9
WI-SEN R+1.0
AZ-GOV D+0.6

[W_HAMILTON]

59. Of course we are talking about the number of wins...

...because it's already damn obvious that many of the determinative races will be close, hence why they get polled so frequently to begin with.

[womanofthehills]

72. Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll Dec 14

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[mcar]

3. Biden is the best, most successful president of my lifetime

I'm 65. Why in the world would any Democrat even consider voting for some unknown rich dude who has no experience, no name recognition, and no apparent reason to run except "Biden is old and I'm not?"

[ZonkerHarris]

4. Dean Phillips is an overly ambitious idiot and a moron taking money from GOP billionaires. Rethink your take.

[brooklynite]

5. Peanuts! Popcorn!

[former9thward]

7. No one knows Dean Phillips however good he may be.

I believe the most viable alternative to Biden, if it ever arose, would be a governor of a major state. Preferably in the Midwest where many of the swing states are located. Such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Secondly, Governor Newsom of CA or Governor Hochul of NY.

[obamanut2012]

8. Yup, for 2028, Whitmer or Newsom are the blue chip candidates imo

And, even this time, if something terrible were to happen to Biden.

Harris would be an excellent President, but some people just do not like her for reasons.

[xmas74]

63. They would be top options

If something happened to Biden. Evers from Wisconsin is also great except for his age.

[shrike3]

16. I would agree with you.

Newsome acquits himself well, but I don't know if a California governor would play well elsewhere in the country. I live among MAGAs and they've all been brainwashed to think that California is some apocalyptic hellhole.

Whitmer might play well. Hard to tell, but I think she'd play better than Newsome.

[Mr.Bill]

56. The republicans

are scared shitless of Newsom, whenever he might run. That's why they spend so much time telling lies about California.

[shrike3]

64. I'm not so sure the lies haven't worked.

Again, I live in MAGA country. Say "California" and it's game over. Any national candidate is going to have to pull from the middle of the country and I'm not sure a California governor could do that. But it's all hypothetical at this point.

[Mr.Bill]

66. Oh. it's working alright.

Newsom will have to stand up and refute it, but I think he's someone who can do just that.

[shrike3]

70. We'll see.

[honest.abe]

19. Yes, Whitmire would be my first choice, Newsome second.

But only if Joe decides to retire.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Citing polls at this stage is really worthless

I do not pay much attention to polling at this stage and one of the top pollsters agrees.

Link to tweet

Dean Phillips has zero chance of being the nominee but he could hurt President Biden and help TFG.

[PlanetBev]

10. Wait a minute.....

Just the other day, someone posted a poll on DU that said Biden was ahead by 4% in every swing state.

Polls at this time mean nothing.

[Bev54]

30. Yes

Reuters/IPSOS poll.

[peggysue2]

50. Not a coincidence

Any time there's a positive poll for Biden it is 'strangely' countered by a negative poll.

I'm going to take Rachel Bitecofer's advice: Calm down, ignore the noise (polls) this far out and concentrate on the signal (actual elections) coming up before the presidential, not to mention the wins Dems have had within the last 2 years.

Bitecofer knows a hell of a lot about election ups and downs and has been very accurate in her political analyses and on the mark with effective strategy suggestions.

Ignore the noise and do the work. Because this will be a slog to the finish.

And no, Dean Phillips is viable only in his imagination. You don't switch out horses when one has a clear advantage (incumbency) and the other invokes the immediate query: Who?

Unless there's an Act of God, the 2024 election will be a rematch.

Get ready for it!

[womanofthehills]

68. If you read that posted polling article - Biden was only ahead if it was Biden & Trump

When you added Kennedy, Stein and West into the mix, Trump was ahead - so it was a very misleading title.

This is getting very concerning!! Here are new polls taken today in swing states. When Kennedy, Stein, West are in the NC poll - Trump is up by 11.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Polybius]

92. That was an outlier n/t

[LiberalFighter]

11. Viable option? People don't know who the hell he is.

He has less name recognition than Mike Johnson did before becoming Speaker.

[jcgoldie]

13. Biden will obviously be the nominee

This Dean Phillips bullshit does not help. Trashing.

[maxrandb]

14. Is that you Vlad?

The frickin Retrumplican nominee hasn't even been selected yet.

Saw a recent poll that has Dems losing with young people.

That poll used 2020 voting data.

Care to guess how many young people turned 18 since 2020, or how many MAGA septuagenarians have died from COVID, drinking bleach, or shoving flashlights up their asses since 2020?

[shrike3]

15. Emotional attachment has nothing to do with it.

Is this going to be another hit-and-run thread, Dean Phillips guy?

Be nice if you got a little backbone and actually answered some of these responses.

[TheFarseer]

17. I half suspect

Our nominee is not in the race yet.

[shrike3]

18. I have a gut feeling something's going on behind the scenes.

But since I don't know exactly WHAT is going on behind the scenes, I won't speculate.

[womanofthehills]

69. The Rock is saying he was invited to White House

Hinted that they talked about presidential stuff. He says different stuff in different interviews-kind of toys with - like he is a possibility to run in future.

[shrike3]

71. Heh. I doubt that. Anyway, I wasn't even aware of the Rock.

If anything is going on behind the scenes, it's with party regulars.

[Buckeyeblue]

48. It's practically January. Unless there is an emergency Joe is pretty much locked into running

I don't know how another candidate could get a strong team together and overcome the distraction of Joe deciding not to run. I think it would prevent a new candidate or candidates from getting any type of momentum.

[honest.abe]

20. Dean Phillips?? Of all the options we have available I would put him at around 10th.

[lees1975]

21. Right after four A rated polls showed Biden with a four point lead in the swing states?

Someone is screwing with the polling data to produce these shifts in public opinion. Money interest from somewhere, either Russia or corporate Trump world.

Well, maybe they'll ring alarm bells with enough Democratic voters to get Biden up to that 90 million vote threshold. Otherwise, watch them "tighten" a couple of weeks before the election, to keep their credibility.

Money runs everything in this country, polls included, which is why there has been an explosion of them in the last few election cycles.

What would be the motivation behind buying them off to screw with the data? To change Biden's campaign strategy, cause them to second guess what they need to emphasize, distract from economic policy that is working to lower inflation and produce, oh goodness, the highest stock market value in its history?

Biden will win by 8 percent easily, perhaps 10, and get right up next to 400 electoral votes.

[maxsolomon]

24. Doom! Gloom!

Why bother voting, let's just crown Motherfucker now.

[Bayard]

89. Exactly

This is all a bunch of horse shit.

[DestinyIsles]

26. A Dean Phillips stan I see

[Bev54]

28. Give us a break, Dean who?

[lamp_shade]

29. Hit and run

[shrike3]

38. Just like last time.

[Walleye]

31. That's nuts, I love Joe Biden I don't wanna vote for anybody else I don't know who the hell Dean Phillips is to

What makes you think the Democrats aren’t awake, we can’t let the magas panic us into making a stupid move like nominating somebody nobody ever heard of. Sorry. I think the stock market rally is going to pick things up. And I think the impeachment is going to backfire on them

[gab13by13]

32. Wow, how is this thread not illegal?

I need a refresher course on the rules.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

34. No.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.


And, NO.

[Torchlight]

35. I admire your emotional attachment to Mr. Phillips.

(written with the same amount of evidence as your own assertion)

[Bleacher Creature]

36. WTAF??

Biden could drop out tomorrow (he absolutely should not) and Dean Phillips wouldn't be anywhere close to the best candidate to take his place. I don't think he'd even make the top 200.

What a joke.

[Quixote1818]

37. People are not paying attention to the election yet. nt

[Captain Zero]

39. So run a poll of Dean Phillips vs Trump

What do you think it will turn up?

[FHRRK]

40. Duly noted!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218526695

[Hekate]

41. Who is Dean Phillips? I mean really -- who the hell is he, and why is he primarying my president?

And why are you so keen that he should be?

[pinkstarburst]

42. I've never even heard of Dean Phillips

Even if Biden were not the nominee (and he is) we have plenty of strong options, not... someone I've never heard of.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Unrec

Terrible take.

[Hekate]

45. Hit and run post. But I can tell you are deeply concerned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. If you are going to put out a controversial thesis it's incumbent on you to defend it.

[ismnotwasm]

46. lol no.

[GreenWave]

47. Wait til the sham impeachment inquiry gets out to everyone.

You will see folks rally round Biden.

[duckworth969]

49. Stop it with polls!

Such nonsense.

GOTV!

[emulatorloo]

51. DEAN PHILLIPS? You've got to be joking.

[CrispyQ]

52. Dean Phillips would get trounced by any repub.

And about that 81 years...

[MichMan]

54. The President is going to win by nearly 15 points.

All of these polls are bogus

[snowybirdie]

57. Why don't we

Have a special group for all those who like posting polls showing Biden loses? That way those of us who are tired of seeing them here can just ignore.

[MacKasey]

58. President Biden has not started campaigning

The campaign starts in January 2024

[tazkcmo]

60. Kamala Harris for me

But that's in 2028. I'll go with Joe four more years, thanks.
BTW, got a link for those "more polls"?

[gibraltar72]

61. I get very weary of this stuff

Yeah a few people say they want a Dem other than Joe. They will come home when faced with the alternative. Polling now means less than nothing IMHO. I will be on phones stirring up votes for Joe and other Dems when it counts for something.

[Kingofalldems]

62. Ahhh-got it out there I see.

[tavernier]

65. I would never accuse anyone posting here

of being full of shit. I’m not that kind of a person.

[spanone]

67. ...and watch out for that red wave!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. HE IS POLLING AT TWO PERCENT!!!

And yes, I intended to shout and embolden my response.

[DFW]

75. Exactly four years ago, a Republican strategist asked me what I thought would happen in the upcoming (2020) election.

I asked, my wish, or my opinion? The question was seeking my opinion. I said the presidential nominee would be Joe Biden, and that he would win the election. I was wrong (in December 2019) about his ultimate VP pick, although I don't think I was wrong about whom he wanted for his VP. Joe Biden's reputation for being a realist and a pragmatist were not born of someone's fantasy. The Republican was amazed. Joe Biden? Really? I said, yes, really, as he will be the last man standing when everyone else's tragic flaws (check: Greek tragedy) had knocked them out. The only thing the Republicans had to toss against him was his age, and since Trump, at 3 years younger and already showing beginning signs of mental deterioration, couldn't present much of an alternative in that regard, the best he could come up with was "Sleepy Joe." Well, he put Trump's aspriations for a second term to sleep, alright.

Obviously, both Republicans and Russians will try to pump as much money as can be pumped into West, Stein, Williamson and Bobby, Jr. without waving a Soviet flag at their rallies. But that's all the more reason why I think Trump will not be their nominee. His mental condition will not be on the upswing. They are desperately searching for their own Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer. If they have found him or her, they are being extremely smart about not letting on, and being smart is not their forte. Still, the stopped clock principle applies.

By the way, as these two are definitely on the A list for the nomination in 2028, can we PLEASE learn to spell their names correctly? This is not a Republican board.

[rso]

76. Polls

On your point that Trump will not be the Russians’ nominee, there’s no one else that I’m aware of who on the GQP or “independent” side has even a remote chance of winning the Election, so they are stuck with Trump, but of course they can covertly encourage people to vote for third parties in order to hurt Biden.

[DFW]

78. I am not so sure they are stuck with Trump.

I think their big money knows he's a guaranteed loser, and would jump at the chance to back someone whose name and hairstyle is very different. It's not too late in the game for them to trot out someone who is both right of center and sensible, although, being Republcans, being sensible may be a disqualifying factor in itself.

[rso]

90. Polls

But would that person be a Russian asset like Trump ?. Because if he/she is not, they are of no use to Russia.

[shrike3]

84. Mea culpa. I spelled Newsom's name incorrectly.

I pledge to do better.

[DFW]

91. That's the way, uh huh uh huh, I LIKE iT!!

To help you distinguish:

EXCERPTS FROM THE OFFICIAL DICTIONARY OF REPUBLICANESE

In Republicanese, many words that sound alike may be spelled differently at random. A few prominent examples:

In Republicanese, the following words may be spelled at random using any of the three ways given:

A.) Two, Too, To
B.) Their, They're, There
c.) Your, Yore, You're

The Republicanese version of Robin Hood therefore starts with "In days of you're...."

The only rule is that the correct use of them as in English is never permitted twice in a row.


Words with single letters that change meaning when that letter is doubled must never be used in correct English context. The classic example is “lose” vs. “loose.” In Republicanese, if you do not win an election, then you “loose” that election. Conversely, if your (Republicanese: you’re) belt is too tight, you need it more “lose” in order to be comfortable. Another example would be the Republicanese, “I met Donald Trump, and he was rudder than I imagined,” vs. “I grabbed the ruder and was able to steer the boat to shore.”
In English, the contraction for "it is" is written "it's." To show possession referring to something previously mentioned, one writes "its." In Republicanese, it is the other way around. Example:
English: “It's impractical for a building to have its solar panels in the basement.”
Republicanese: “Its impractical for a building to have it's solar panels in the basement.”

In Republicanese, idiomatic expressions that use words that are homonyms with animals in English must use the spelling that denotes the animal.
Three examples:
In English, when someone wins a race by a very small margin, one can say, “He won the race by a hair.” In Republicanese, one writes, “He won the race by a hare.”
In English, someone fleeing the law can be said to be on “on the lam.” In Republicanese, that is spelled “on the lamb.”
In English, when one starts to lose their voice after shouting for an extended time, one says, “he shouted himself hoarse.” In Republicanese, one writes, “He shouted himself horse.”

In Republicanese, an apostrophe is used to form a plural, whereas this is never correct in English. But it must be done at random, never systematically. For example, Bill and Hillary are "the Clinton's," but Bill, Chelsea and Hillary are "the Clintons." The other way around is also correct. In Republicanese, either form is correct as long as it is not spelled the same way twice in a row.
Example:
In English, one writes "The Clintons like dogs."
In Republicanese, this can be written as "The Clinton's like dogs," or "The Clintons like dog's" or "The Clinton's like dog's." The only version that would be incorrect in Republicanese would be to use no apostrophe at all. Only English is written that way.

[onecaliberal]

77. Yesterday was the opposite. Putrids puppet is going to jail, not the white house.

[Bettie]

79. You know he's funded by Republican billionaires, right?

Hmmmmm....why would they be supporting him?

Guess it's a mystery.

[kcr]

80. Ridiculous

We need an unrec button

[NBachers]

81. Who dat??

[JustAnotherGen]

83. Zero value at this time

No need to pay attention until June. That's when my state's primary takes place.

[GP6971]

88. Hello.

[SWBTATTReg]

86. Oh gee, another demand that 'we' wake up, smell the salt so to speak. I don't need to go back and remind

some that tRUMP has lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and to be soon, 2024. In short, after tRUMP got into office, he has cost repugs a lot.

As long as tRUMP is around, IMHO, he will continue to cost republicans seats. I predict that this will happen too, in 2024, with not just Pres. Biden winning again, but w/ the Senate majority strengthened, if not just retained, and the House majority restored to the Democratic Party.

Big reason I see the democratic House majority being restored is that voters have now seen what republicans are wanting solely (not interested in what voters want obviously), and are kicking the GOP out, to give Pres. Biden a full-fledged vote of confidence. Attacks on individual rights also seems to be causing voter outrage against the GOP too.

I say this not that I have evidence of this happening, but w/ people I talk to, w/ the few who are tRUMP voters who talk tRUMP endlessly, is actually zero! A couple of these people I would have never thought they would turn against tRUMP.

I've never encountered this, that all of my friends that were tRUMP enthusiasts are now ZERO in number. Don't get me wrong, I've always been a total democratic nerd, but I do talk w/ a whole wide range of people, who of course, have a whole wide range of opinions, and there were always some tRUMP fanatics among them. ZERO.

Maybe, just maybe, tRUMPdom is over the rainbow, and the rainbow is fading away, and the end of tRUMP is near?

[bigtree]

87. not this poll

Heather Timmons @HeathaT
In the seven states where the election was closest in 2020 -- Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Michigan -- Biden has a 4-point lead among Americans who said they were sure to vote, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows

In the seven states where the election was closest in 2020 -- Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Michigan -- Biden had a 4-point lead among Americans who said they were sure to vote.

...his candidacy likely will be buttressed by the public's continued support of abortion rights, as well as his advocacy for gun control, climate-change measures and higher taxes on the ultra-rich, the new poll showed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vs-trump-would-be-close-rematch-with-rfk-jr-threat-biden-reutersipsos-poll-2023-12-12/

[Polybius]

93. That's head-to-head

When third-party candidates were included, Trump was ahead.

[standingtall]

94. Can you tell me the last time an incumbent Democratic President faced a serious Primary

and Democrats still went on to win the Presidency? Yeah me neither. Thankfully there is no serious Primary challenger to Biden. Ousting an incumbent President would pretty much be just giving the Presidency to Trump especially this Dean Phillips guy who no one has ever heard of. If there were a viable alternative to Biden this guy would be way way way way down the list.