New Economists/YouGov poll, electability question: Biden 65%, Warren 57%, Sanders 52%, Harris 47%

[highplainsdem]

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mujbtdyiti/econTabReport.pdf


This question was asked about each major candidate:

If the candidate listed below were to become the Democratic nominee, do you think they would beat or lose to Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential election?


The percentages in the subject line are from the Democrats who responded. Dems still consider Biden most electable.


Btw, this is section 26A of the poll, starting on page 146.

[Skya Rhen]

1. Joe is definitely the most electable.

[Thekaspervote]

3. Yes Joe Biden is indeed the most well liked electable candidate

[jcgoldie]

6. Actually the polls I've seen measuring candidate likeability do not support that thesis

Elect-ability is a different matter.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/29/8931604/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-2020-election-democrats

[Demsrule86]

12. I call that wishful thinking...not polling.

[jcgoldie]

14. Ahh

Please enlighten as to the difference between "wishful thinking" and polling other than the obvious fact that you do not like the results?

[bluewater]

2. WOAH! Warren looking strong!

Wow! And she's moved up +4 in the primary race in this poll too! Biden was -1 there.


Economist/YouGov JB 21 (-1) EW 20 (+4) BS 16 (+3) KH 8 (-) Beto 5 (+3) PB 5 (-3)

[Hortensis]

4. Biden's fine, but there's a lot of delusion in these polls that's worrisome.

I've had the misfortune to live most of my life in conservative communities. Not planned, just happened. If I had it to do over again, we wouldn't have left West Hollywood until we moved to the PNW.

There's a great deal of distrust of Elizabeth Warren among moderate conservatives -- the ones we need to draw from. I believe she could overcome some of it with more exposure, but the right would be working to turn the distrust into a chasm and casting her as epitomizing everything they fear about the far left. I like a lot about her, but I do not expect to be able to vote for her and hope she will become an important part of our next government in a different powerful position.

As for Sanders, he IS what conservatives fear and despise in the far left. No misunderstanding. And what swiftboaters would do with the material in his background would make their scrabbling to create a scandal our of a home server look like a pathetic joke. In the real world, in the real existential election coming up, he'd drive the wobblies to the polls to vote against him.

[RhodeIslandOne]

19. I agree

I think Warren appeals to many low info voters who Trump won over last time, but her points in this case make sense and are the truth. And that scares conservatives who just want that boilerplate Republican Romney/Bush type back in the White House.

[yerop]

5. Electability polls aren't worth much. Trump had a 60% unfavorable rating before 2016.

see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/02/other-electability-problem-voters-arent-great-determining-electability/

[thesquanderer]

7. Polls that ask the public who THEY would vote for against Trump are valuable. But...

...these polls that ask Dems who they think OTHER people will vote for are pointless, IMO. I wish they'd stop doing these. If a pollster wants to know how Warren (or whoever) would do against Trump, let them ask voters who they would vote for in that matchup. Not who they think other people would vote for in that matchup. One accurately reflects the current strengths of the candidates, the other reflects nothing of value.

[highplainsdem]

11. Electability polls are important. No matter how much you might like a candidate who has

very little chance of being elected, do you really want to waste your primary vote on that candidate?


We're voting for our party's standard bearer AGAINST TRUMP, and that makes electability the single most important consideration.

We're not voting for which candidate we like the most, or which candidate's policies we like best.

We're picking a political champion to defeat the political enemy.

[thesquanderer]

15. I'm afraid you missed my point completely.

I agree with you 100% that "electability {is} the single most important consideration".

But polls like this are NOT polls of who is most electable. The polls that indicate who is most electable are the "head to head" polls... the ones that ask voters who they would pick in a head-to-head matchup between Trump and some other candidate.

Instead, the poll you quote is not asking people the supremely important question of who they would vote for. Instead, it asks people who they think OTHER people will vote for (i.e. "who do you think would win" ). Not at all the same thing! And unlike asking people who they would vote for, this feeling about who OTHERS would pick us not terribly helpful in gauging who actually WOULD beat Trump.

[Hortensis]

20. I get your point, and noting just what they're measuring

is kinda critical.

However, but possible point occurred to me: That people have a strong tendency to vote the way they think people like them will. We know that's a very big factor in voting behavior. So this question may actually be inviting people to provide information about themselves from a different angle. In any case, polls are expensive, and this isn't a junk poll, so I'm ready to believe that each question is trying to dig out something or things they've decided is needed for analysis. That's the only possibility that occurs to me, though.

[Demsrule86]

13. I think people are more honest...some won't admit to say voting for Trump...studies have shown

they are more accurate than asking who will you vote for.

[thesquanderer]

16. People actually KNOW who they are likely to vote for. They have NO way of knowing...

...who other people will vote for (unless they are parroting other more valid polls, in which case you might as well just go look at the more valid polls yourself). So their answer to that question is largely a result of their own biases and what they have read in articles about, well, who people would vote for, which just creates a circular argument (i.e. they think X would beat Y because they read that X would beat Y, which really tells you nothing).

I just had an exchange in another thread with someone who said Warren can't beat Trump because she would lose the key midwest states that cost us the election last time. And then I showed that every poll of Warren vs. Trump in those states shows Warren winning. So what's more accurate, asking people in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who they would vote for if the choice was Trump or Warren? Or asking a bunch of random people across the country who they think people in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania would vote for? The former tells us how the vote would likely go if the election were held today. The latter just tells us what people's biases are and what people have heard/read other people saying. What's the point of asking what you think others will do, when you could actually ask those other people what they would do? I understand what you're saying, some people may lie about what they would do. But some random person in some other state has no way to provide more accurate info than what you'd get asking the people involved. The info can only be less based on fact, not more.

[bluewater]

17. Great analysis!

[Demsrule86]

21. It is a way to get to what they really think...some are embarrassed to say who they are for.

I would imagine this is true with Trump and some other candidates...

[stonecutter357]

8. let's go Joe !

[oasis]

9. Slings and arrows of outrageous media falling flat. nt

[Cha]

18. But they're trying so hard!

My theory is.. We Won't Be Fooled Again.. not that most of us here were Ever fooled.

oasis

[Scurrilous]

10. K&R