TPM: New Polls Suggest Dems Should Chill the F Out

[Dennis Donovan]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/new-polls-suggest-dems-should-chill-the-f-out

By Josh Marshall

February 10, 2020 3:46 p.m.

Two important new polls have come out this afternoon. They’re clarifying on a number of grounds. The first is that President Trump’s rise is the polls is at best overstated. Quinnipiac puts him at 43% approval, on the high side for that poll but the same as their previous three polls back into December. Monmouth has him at 44%. Their previous three polls had him at 43%. Just moments ago Yougov released a new batch of polls which put Trump at 41%, basically where he’s been since forever. (I put more stock in Quinnipiac and Monmouth but it’s another important data point.) Take this all together and they suggest Trump is in a relatively strong position based on where he’s been over the last three years. But there’s little evidence here of some game-changing move. Certainly nothing like the 49% Gallup found last week, which remains a distant outlier.

Quinnipiac has head to head match ups with Democrats. All the top candidates beat Trump by significant margins. Bloomberg 51-42, Sanders 51-43, Biden 50-43. There’s a lot of information that tells us that President Trump can definitely win reelection. But these numbers all point to an incumbent who has an uphill climb at best. And at least for now there’s little evidence suggesting a really different situation than we’ve had to date.

They also certainly suggest that if you think Sanders is a weak general election candidate that must be based on the predicted effects of attacks that have yet to happen. Because 51-43 is pretty solid.

The White House, in a moment of fragmentation and disappointment for Democrats, is trying to further demoralize the opposition. These numbers suggest that, technically speaking, Democrats should chill the fuck out.

</snip>

Exactly.

[Mike 03]

1. Thanks for posting.

[BusyBeingBest]

2. Bernie does better than Biden against Trump.

(Bloomberg even better!) Maybe everyone can stop freaking out now. Jeez.

[Iliyah]

5. Yeah, but VP Biden is generally under constant attacks from the

right and left . . .

[BusyBeingBest]

18. This is true. Biden has had a rough time, and not all of his own making.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. So is everyone.

[still_one]

27. Just like what happened to Hillary

[Perseus]

39. Biden is in constant attack from the right, not the left, but Bernie has been in constant attack

form the left, one can see it here in DU.

I think it was Michael Moore who said this and those words resonate in my brain every day..."Democrats should easily win in November 2020, but we have to wait and see if the Democrats themselves screw things up for them." It is not verbatim but we all get the idea, and with all this bashing between candidates and supporters I see we are hurting ourselves too much. I want Moore to be right about the 1st part, wrong on the second, so lets make sure we don't screw things up.

[ehrnst]

53. Fact checking and daring to disagree with a politician running for POTUS

is what is known as "par for the course" not "attacks."

It sounds as though you think that the campaign should not be expected to endure such things.

That doesn't show a great deal of confidence in a campaign being able to survive the par for the course vetting and analysis that all others are subject to.

[ananda]

59. Which is utterly crazy.

Bernie is the only candidate who consistently speaks
a pro-people anti-corporate message... and btw, this
is very popular.

[DENVERPOPS]

65. Nothing compared

to the Wrath of Hell they are about to obliterate Biden with.........

Why the hell doesn't anyone worry about why the Republicans have been trying to repeatedly and unrelentlessly been trying to destroy Biden??????????????? If their corruption of the voting system falls short, their insurance is taking out their biggest threat before an election and the Dem's most electable person.

[ehrnst]

6. But Bernie is the only one that the GOP is promoting, and Biden is being trashed by them.

No poll can take into account what public opinion would be after the GOP turn their guns on Bernie, like they already have on Biden - who they think is the biggest threat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/team-that-rigged-gop-primaries-accuses-democrats-rigging-iowa-against-sanders/

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-claim-pelosi-intentionally-helping-biden-and-hurting-bernie-sanders-2020-1

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/us/politics/trump-sanders-bloomberg-2020.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/20/18508880/karl-rove-bernie-sanders-could-beat-donald-trump-in-2020

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/07/bernie-sanders-republican-senate-1307296

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/

So there's that.

[Perseus]

40. Well, that is what happened in 2016, the question is, do they have a point?

The "Washington Post" is not republican propaganda, or the NYTIMES, or USAToday, or Vox...not sure how this is republican propaganda.

No, I have not read the articles. I will.

[Perseus]

41. Hmmm, Just by the title I can see all they are trying to do is what happened in 2016

They are trying to divide us, they want to make Sanders supporters very mad to make sure they do what they did in 2016, some stayed home and some voted for trump...

This is not support for Sanders as far as I can see...I cannot read the Washington post, I am not a member.

[ehrnst]

44. Hmmm, no, only one is from 2016...

And no, these are not disinformation, any more than reporting what Mitch McConnell is saying is "trying to divide us..."

Reading the links before you dismiss the content is helpful....

And here is the relevant content from the WAPO article:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287496707

You're welcome.

[ehrnst]

42. Um... no it's happening now. That's clear when you actually read the articles at the links..

These are reports of the GOP pushing Sanders, or portraying him as a victim...

Pro Tip: Read the links before refuting and dismissing the content therein.

[Perseus]

43. In case you don't get my post where I seem to be answering myself

This is the republican strategy to divide democrats, to make Sanders followers angry so they won't vote or vote for the con.

I don't see any of it as helping Sanders. I hope we don't start believing any of this, it is disinformation targeted to divide Democrats.

[ehrnst]

45. I'm responding to YOUR posts responding to me.

You jumped in to dismiss the content of a response that I was making to someone else....

[TwilightZone]

7. "Bernie does better than Biden against Trump" - not in most polls

He has a slight lead in this poll, but it's just one poll. Looking at multiple polls, Biden still has a slight edge.

Bernie does slightly better than Biden in two of the last eight polls.

Biden does slightly better than Bernie in the other six.

Average for Biden: +5.6 and he's leading Trump in all polls
Average for Sanders: +4.3 and trails Trump in one poll (IBD/TIPP)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html

[BusyBeingBest]

8. Let's watch how it trends though. I think that's key.

Poll-wise, nothing before Iowa really matters.

[ehrnst]

13. Goalposts moved...

You claimed Bernie was beating Biden.

Are you retracting that?

[BusyBeingBest]

16. As of this poll, he is.

If Joe does better than Bernie next time, then I'll say so.

[ehrnst]

47. You were responding to a post about this poll...

Biden does slightly better than Bernie in the other six.

Average for Biden: +5.6 and he's leading Trump in all polls
Average for Sanders: +4.3 and trails Trump in one poll (IBD/TIPP)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html

[TexasTowelie]

9. A one point advantage isn't statistically significant.

We'll get a much better idea where the race is heading on Super Tuesday. Originally, I thought Biden would lead by a margin of 150-200 delegates, but I'm adjusting my forecast to a 100-150 delegate lead.

[BusyBeingBest]

12. No, it's not. It's pretty close together between Bloomberg, Bernie

and Biden (the killer B's, LOL). But Josh Marshall is illustrating that all is not lost if Bernie gets the nomination, as many here assert.

[ehrnst]

15. So now you don't think "Poll-wise, nothing before Iowa really matters?"

[BusyBeingBest]

20. How could it matter? Once there's actual contests, polls from the past are

just a snapshot of the past.

[ehrnst]

25. So what polls were you citing here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287497320#post2

[BusyBeingBest]

26. The Quinnipiac that Marshall refers to today.

[ehrnst]

37. Thanks for the clarification.

So this poll will be irrelevant once the NH primary is done.

[emmaverybo]

21. We can say that before the right has started in? I hate to think Trump and Repugs are the better

strategists, but it is foolhardy of us not to realize they are keeping their powder dry for a reason.

[BusyBeingBest]

24. I think what comforts me about Bernie (and he's not my first choice, incidentally)

is that he stays on message very consistently and is a pretty forceful counter-puncher, which will be necessary for any nominee.

[emmaverybo]

28. I believe we put way too much emphasis on debating with Trump. History shows us many presidential

debates in which the incumbent was a bumbling idiot next to our far superior nominee and guess who was called the winner? We don’t even know if Trump will debate.

I am alarmed, greatly.

[BusyBeingBest]

32. Well, I'm not speaking strictly debates, I mean his campaign has shown itself

to be fairly aggressive in putting out consistent messaging and in counter-attacking.

[emmaverybo]

33. Biden took the fight to Trump day 1. Bernie was too busy tearing down the Dem party and Dems.

I don’t doubt that if Bernie is successful in his strategy (one that helps Trump, who wants to run against Bernie) he will be feisty and solid in a campaign against Trump. He will also be spending a lot of time fending off the Socialist/ Communist propaganda Trump’s campaign will throw at him, armed with loads of OPPO research.

[BusyBeingBest]

35. We'll have to agree to disagree on some of what you say. But I feel certain that no matter who

our nominee is, there's going to be piles of oppo, so a street fighter like Bernie might do all right.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Sure! But they know that they can influence and scare

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Millions with the "socialism" meme. They say it like it means a world of horrors. There is no better gift to them than that

[ehrnst]

55. So, if 'millions are scared' by the mere mention of

"progressive' how does a truly progressive candidate get over that and win?

I mean like winning by nearly 4 million in a primary, and getting more GE votes than any candidate not named Obama.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. Fixed it, to socialism. But in red States progressive and

Liberal are like dirty words.

All I can do is describe what it's like and warn that it's not the right time. These low info's need to be remediated. Might take years to reverse trump ideas.

It's up to supporters of Sanders and Warren to convince us that they can make up for it somehow.

[BusyBeingBest]

56. I honestly believe most of America already has some familiarity

with Bernie Sanders. He's not a fresh face. So attacking him on being a progressive or a socialist is only going to have so much power and impact. It's kind of like Democrats reviving "grab her by the pussy" for 2020. We will remind voters of that certainly, but it's not going to have the same force this time around--it's been out there a while and most people have made up their minds about the fact that Trump is sleazy, and they either care or they don't by now.

[ehrnst]

54. You would not guess that he is a 'street fighter'

from the outrage expressed by many of his supporters over the vetting, fact checking, and the tiniest bit of criticism that all POTUS candidates are subject to.

[BusyBeingBest]

57. Outrage can be an effective tactic. Look at the GOP. Outrage 24/7 over everything Democrats do.

Fox News is the outrage factory. Keeps the rabble all ginned up and spoiling for a fight, LOL. Imagine the worst of the Bernie fan club clashing with the worst of the Trump cultists. That would be something. But yeah, the Sanders camp doesn't let anything slide. That's annoying in a primary but not bad in a GE.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. Good point. I may be biased but want Texas to turn blue

Not a chance in hell we'd come even close here with BS or EW in my humble opinion. But has advantages I guess ..wouldn't have to spend a cent here.

[emmaverybo]

17. When MSM turns its attention to Bernie, that is when things change. He has not been vetted.

And Trump has left him alone for a reason.

Meanwhile Biden has been attacked by the left and the right, now moderates piling on, and MSM salivated over every negative story, dismissed any positives with short shifting.

[BusyBeingBest]

23. I don't know, I feel like Bernie has been better-vetted than some other

people in the race. Buttigieg, for example. Not as much as Biden, but Biden's been around literally forever.

[still_one]

29. Exactly. Also, Bloomberg has changed the dynamics, plus the question remains which candidates won't

make it to Super Tuesday, because they drop out

[ahlnord]

34. Agreed

This is most certainly true. Bernie has escaped vetting, while Trump and his minions (both domestic and Russian) promote Bernie and try to destroy Biden. There is a reason for this.

[Cha]

58. BS hasn't been "vetted" yet by the treasonous assholes

[BusyBeingBest]

60. Well, to be fair, only Biden has been in a general election

fight (as VP). And the GOP STILL came up with some new material this time around. No one is immune to dirt-digging. People like Buttigieg and Klobuchar and Warren will face it too.

[Cha]

64. Again.. BS has not been vetted by the treasonous assholes

[jimfields33]

3. Those percentages add up to 93 and 94 percent

Are the 6 and 7 percent unsure? That is a big percentage right there.

[Dem2]

4. I feel some relief

Especially seeing a probable up-and-comer Bloomberg with the highest margin of all.

Personally I don't give a shit who beats Pendejo Naranja, so long as he goes down.

[superpatriotman]

10. AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

I feel like Tweak on South Park!

Chilling out?! NO WAY!!!!1!

[mcar]

11. Thank you

It's been making me crazy the way the MSM is pushing that one poll, even ignoring their own polls. They want a horse race.

There is no need to panic. The primary is the primary.

[CentralMass]

14. He won with 46% of the vote in 2016.

[ehrnst]

19. No, it was 43.1%... But when he recited his performance before several his endorsements of HRC

He always talked about his delegate count, not the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

He did best in caucuses, where there is no "popular vote."

So there's that.

[Quackers]

30. How does Bloomberg get listed as a top candidate but Warren and Pete don't?

Is that bias by the writer or did the polls show Bloomberg above them? Genuinely curious.

Edited to add: looks like it’s directly from the poll. They used the top 3. Here are the results for everyone.
Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;
Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;
Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;
Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;
Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;
Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655

[MoonlitKnight]

69. All in the margin of error

The only consistent number is Trump’s.

This poll basically says all of the contenders are currently leading Trump.

[Laelth]

31. Excellent. Thank you.

Daffy Duck could beat Trump in November 2020. Daffy knows what the American people know, and it's a message the American people are prepared to deliver to the Great Pumpkin later this year:



-Laelth

[Wounded Bear]

36. Gallup has lost a lot of credibility IMHO...

always have to take them with a grain of salt. Not as bad as Rasmussen, maybe, but definitely seems to have a right lean lately.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

73. I have watched Gallup's daily poll since

Day 1. Then they switched to weekly, now monthly. No wild swings at all until this month's spike. But over time, you definitely can see a trend line. It's very interesting to watch. His lowest approval #s we're in late 2017 - mid to high 30s. Same time Steve Cohen D-TN introduced 5 articles of impeachment.

One time I tried to look at the news preceding the dips and couldn't find any glaring correlations. But still think a key to us winning is to figure out the main things Republicans don't like about him and roll with that. I know one was treatment of kids at border.

[Xipe Totec]

38. 49% is not an outlier, it's an out and out liar. nt

[sandensea]

48. +1

You're right: Their polls almost always lean to the right.

Gallup has been carrying water for Republicans ever since a Nebraska-based GOPee front bought them out in '88 (shortly after George Gallup died).

[sandensea]

46. Big Media does SO MUCH of the GOP's gaslighting for them

Thank you, Dennis, for reminding us where we really stand.

And just wait until the debt bubble pops, and the Trump slump really sets in.

He'll have to declare martial law to stop the election.

[Pepsidog]

49. Thanks I feel better

[dominic savio]

50. Josh is the best...

[eissa]

52. I'm so tired of all this hand-wringing, Chicken Little routine

I'm in social media groups where we have people almost daily throwing in the towel.
"It's all over, trump is going to win!"
"Democrats won't unite behind a candidate!"

Blah, blah, blah. This isn't 2016, so I wish everyone would stop comparing this election to that one. There were a multitude of reasons for that loss, none of which I want to bring up because they've been discussed ad nauseam. I will say this though:

1) trump is the president of his base, a very loyal base to be sure, but one that hasn't grown.
2) He won three swing states -- WI, PA, MI -- by about 70,000 votes. These are states that we won in 2008 and 2012, and winning them again is doable.
3) Yes, there were those who stayed home in 2016, and whatever their reasons for doing so won't be repeated in 2020, at least not by the same margins.
4) Primaries are rough -- the 1992 primary makes the one from 2016 and this one look like child's play. We have some great candidates, and it goes without saying that any of them would be infinitely better that what we have now. It won't be hard to convince those fence-sitters of that once we have our nominee.
5) Stop panicking!

[Kitchari]

61. K&R. n/t

[peggysue2]

62. Josh Marshall is well-informed and level-headed

I know absolutely that what he's saying here is true and accurate. Yet still my stomach churns because there's so, so much at risk and we seem to be dangling over the abyss.

I suspect I'm not alone in the stomach-churning department.

[RhodeIslandOne]

63. The polls mean jack if they are not tied to the electoral college.

We could win the popular vote by zillions and this orange slumlord fuckstick will still be awarded the participation trophy of 1600 Penn. Ave. because 100 assholes in Ed Gein, Wisconsin don't want transgender people to use the bathroom at Edna's Greasy Spoon.

[MoonlitKnight]

71. Amen!

That should be on a billboard.

[democrattotheend]

66. Good article. This makes me feel a little better

Out of curiosity, I looked at historic polling data for the last 2 elections where there was an incumbent president (2004 and 2012), and it confirmed my suspicion that Trump's numbers in these hypothetical matchups are not where an incumbent would want to be at this point. Especially an incumbent running virtually unopposed while the other party is in the midst of a contentious primary season.

At this point in 2012, Obama was leading by 2-6 points in most polls, and most polls had his share at 47-49%.

2004 is a bit murkier - a couple polls showed Kerry leading big in February of 2004, but most polls had it significantly closer, and Bush's percentage was a few points higher than Trump's in most polls. Also, Kerry was below 50% in most of the polls he led. A month later in 2004, things shifted and Bush was leading most polls.

That said, I expect Trump's percentage to creep up a bit in polls released in the next couple weeks, as this tends to lag a bit behind the approval rating polls. Also, keephe may only need to win 46-47% of the popular vote to be re-elected.

Still, 42-43% is not a good percentage for an incumbent. Republicans should be worried.

[MoonlitKnight]

68. Yes. Chill out and vote for the one you like best.

No need to tear down the others.
No need to guess who other voters might like.
No need to be afraid.

We’ve got this. Vote for the one you love then vote for the one we are with come the general.

[IronLionZion]

70. We can chill out after we win

it's going to take some work because the other side is going all in on voter suppression and misinformation