JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Poll showing Sanders beating Trump...in Texas.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
It's an interesting result but from a pollster without much of a track record. The same poll showed most of the Democratic field beating Trump.
If Texas really is in play, that's very bad news for the GOP.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Collection of different polls, most showing Dems beating Trump
RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls
RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls
I keep an eye on that list, but fivethirtyeight has a good poll round up too:
Latest Polls
fivethirtyeight gives a rating to each pollster. I've noticed over the last month that the A and B grade pollsters have Trump's approval in the low 40s and high 30s, while the lower ranked pollsters still have him in the higher 40s.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I don't believe them either. Buttiegieg beating Trump? How many people across the US who don't follow politics even know who he is?
It's all about Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
I wonder how banning of fracking is playing in some of these states.
An open seat election is different from the re-election of an incumbent. How the party holding the seat is viewed can affect the race in an open seat, but when an incumbent is running, the first question voters ask is "does this person deserve another term?" If the answer is "yes" most people stop thinking about the race and that makes unseating an incumbent tougher. However if the answer is not "yes" that gives a challenger an opening. A recent SSRS poll found only 36% answered "yes" to that question and 60% said "no". When 64% of the population are looking at someone else, that's a bad sign for the incumbent. Compare to GW Bush and Obama in the 3rd year of their first term and both were closer to 50/50.
Rachel Bitecofer who is a political science professor in Virginia called 40 of 42 of the House races last year with her analysis model. She has applied it to the 2020 election and has concluded that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are now out of reach for Trump. She said Florida still looks good for him because he's popular with silent generation voters (born before 1945) and Florida has more of those than any state.
In 2016 the Democrats were divided going into the election, both candidates had record high unfavorability ratings, and Trump was an unknown about how he would govern. All were contributing factors in the election and they are not factors for 2020. Democrats attitude is "vote blue no matter who" for 2020 and the entire world has gotten intimately knowledgeable about how badly he governs. While Trump's unfavorability ratings remain high, there is nobody in the Democratic field now who can generate the kind of negatives Hillary did.
In other news, 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production was knocked offline today in a drone attack. It probably won't be out for long, but oil prices will go up for a while. With the world economy already unsteady, this could trigger a recession.
I'm not sure anyone can call these states without knowing who the candidate is on the other side. Will it make no difference to these energy producing states what Warren's position is on fracking? They will vote blue no matter what? I don't think that is a reasonable position.
Of course, if there is a recession, Trump is out. But this attack won't be the reason. Saudi has said that they'll have full production back in a few days. The US is better prepared to deal with an oil shock nowadays anyway.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Buttiegieg is basically a "generic Dem" for people who don't follow politics. At this point it is just that - Trump vs a Dem. Ofcourse 14 months before the general election is not a very good indicator - it just says the incumbent (Trump) is not in a good position. Usually the incumbents have to be in a solid position at this time to win in a year.
I posted the fav//unfav of Trump earlier by state. That is a better indicator.
I think we have had a long discussion about this earlier. Remember Hillary did beat Trump in national vote. Not just that, the error in national polling was more in '12 than in '16.
Last edited:
Polls that took the electoral college into account still had Hillary willing by a large margin ahead of the election.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Not polls per se - but poll aggregators.
But also remember that there was an unusually large "don't knows" in the beginning of November and Comey provided the needed Oct/Nov surprise. Yet, Trump won by a very small margin in 3 pivotal states. 538 gave Trump a 30% chance, which I think was pretty good. Problem was NYT, Huffpo and other aggregators who gave 90%+ chance to Hillary.
ps : Apparently people didn't figure out something was amiss in Michigan, even after the large "upset" defeat of Hillary by Sanders in the primary.
Bitecofer used that fav/unfav by state as an indicator of how underwater Trump is in the Upper Midwest. Even his campaign has been looking for other states he might be able to flip red because their internal polling looks just as bad there.
I follow the state fav/unfav closely. It's a good bellwether.
If you went by just the national vote polls it looked like an easy win for Hillary. But state by state there were too many nail biters.
The polls for the Upper Midwest states Trump won by a small margin were polling close, but with a small Hillary advantage. The polls didn't take into account minorities being turned away by practices that made it harder for them to vote. PA, MI, and WI all had Republican governors and secretaries of state who could play games to help Republicans. Thanks to the 2018 blue wave those states have flipped blue and Democrats are in control of elections there.
Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had voting systems that were easy to manipulate the vote by outside players. Some by court order and some by new "management" those states are beginning to clean up their act for 2020. There may still be the possibility of vote tampering, but it should be more difficult. And even where it is easy, there will be those looking. All the US NATO allies want to see a fair election in 2020 and they will be watching for Russian interference as well as internal groups in the US.
Trump is also bucking a trend that has been rock solid since approval polling became a regular thing, nobody has ever won re-election with a negative approval rating. GW Bush and Obama had been down in the polls but came up above 50% bust before election day. George HW Bush, Carter, and Ford all had negative approval ratings going into the election. Trump's approval rating has been unusually stable and he's never broken 46% approval in the Gallip poll. The only polls where he scored higher are rated fairly low by fivethirtyeight. A pretty solid 60% of Americans have decided Trump definitely does not deserve a second term and another 4% are on the fence.
As Rick Wilson has pointed out, there is a large number of people who will crawl over broken glass to vote against Donald Trump. The usually Republican tricks to make voting more difficult for minorities is going to be a lot less effective in 2020. Most of that 60% who do not think Trump should be reelected know that anybody in the Democratic field would make a better president than Trump, even if they don't agree with on a single issue with the candidate. There are former Republicans willing to campaign for Bernie or Warren if they are nominated because they realize a sane lefty who believes in rule of law is far better than a malignant narcissist dumber than Forrest Gump.
But if Mitch McConnell is still in control of the Senate in 2021 nothing will get fixed even if the best possible person gets elected president.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Its really weird how the far-right fascists in US, UK are so similar. And in India too.
Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.
ps : Since in '20 the votes for the Senator would closely reflect those for the President, if Dems win the WH, they will probably gain enough seats in the Senate too, given how many seats Republicans have to defend this time.
Make a deal....... say's the man that can't make a deal unless it is scripted for TV.
There is a strange coincidence in the views of NYT columnist Charles Blow and Clarence Thomas in a New Yorker review of his attitude to race. No matter how hard they try it is very difficult for Anglos to consider Blacks human beings from the gitgo.
Opinion | Joe Biden Is Problematic
Clarence Thomas | The New Yorker
I remember as the chair of the local Nuclear Freeze Campaign arranging a meeting with some leaders of the Sacramento peace movement (all white) and contacts with leaders in the African American community to join our movement to stop the nuclear arms race. In describing the purpose of the peace movement the first speaker began, "You folks...." prompting some of the target community to walk out immediately. Very embarrassing as the venue was my home.
An advice. The first rule as a human being is to treat others as human beings.
Opinion | Joe Biden Is Problematic
Clarence Thomas | The New Yorker
I remember as the chair of the local Nuclear Freeze Campaign arranging a meeting with some leaders of the Sacramento peace movement (all white) and contacts with leaders in the African American community to join our movement to stop the nuclear arms race. In describing the purpose of the peace movement the first speaker began, "You folks...." prompting some of the target community to walk out immediately. Very embarrassing as the venue was my home.
An advice. The first rule as a human being is to treat others as human beings.
Last edited:
Hank42
Legacy Supporter
Noob question here, maybe the wrong sub-forum(Mods feel free to move):
With the bombing of the Saudi oil field by unconfirmed actors, and oil prices sky rocketting 43% in the past hour in response, TSLA stock is down today. I would expect the opposite. Taking into account other reasons for TSLA to be down, I'd still expect some positive offset. What am I missing?
With the bombing of the Saudi oil field by unconfirmed actors, and oil prices sky rocketting 43% in the past hour in response, TSLA stock is down today. I would expect the opposite. Taking into account other reasons for TSLA to be down, I'd still expect some positive offset. What am I missing?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Hank42
Legacy Supporter
Yes, my bad,14% - I inadvertently zoomed my chart. Question still stands as valid - should an oil correction correlate to a TSLA price movement?
- Status
Similar threads
