I rely frequently on the YouGov polls done for the Economist. There are two reasons for this. First, they have a excellent reputation for accuracy. Second, they routinely make crosstabs available, which helps a lot if you want to dig past the simple topline numbers. Here's their latest poll of Trump vs. Biden:
Nationally, they have Trump and Biden in a dead heat, with nearly identical in-party support for both. The two also have nearly identical approval ratings.
Most of the crosstabs look reasonable with one exception: Black voters. I'm not sure what's going on here, but short of an electoral cataclysm there's no way Biden gets only 71% of the Black vote. It will almost certainly end up at 90% or so, which adds a couple of points to his overall total.
NOTE: This is a poll of all registered voters. A poll of likely voters might look a little different.
Argh! Polls of a November election in February? ?!??!?
IIRC, at this point they're useful as indicators of the nominees, but ... we already know who they're gonna be. Otherwise ... who's kidding whom here? How many people are paying any attention at all? How good an indicator of people's lives in October and November -- when some of them will be paying attention -- are their lives, and the larger world, today?
And all that is before you get to the current systemic problems with polling which are a lot worse than they were even a cycle or two ago.
Please. Major Media do poll stories as reliable filler/clickbait, but they're barely one step from televised readings by spiritual mediums.
i'd guess polling is more reliable in this race than normal, as both nominees were effectively determined months ago and both are at 100% name ID as current and former presidents.
Yes name recognition, and likewise a lot of "image," so in that respect better than usual. And partisan identification is a stronger indicator these days, and that generally doesn't change. And insofar as one can reasonably accurately characterize "the voters" in general, it's not wrong to say "we're about evenly split."
But you can write all that without a poll. The numbers in current polls -- "he's up by 2, no he's down by 5, no but he was only down by 3 last time!" -- suggest accuracy that is utterly spurious.
Many things could, and some certainly will, change materially. "The economy" (whatever exactly that is) could stay strong, or decline, or crash, and perceptions of what it's doing will vary from reality. External events will intrude -- eg, what happens if there's a ceasefire next week that Biden can take some (deserved) credit for? What's gonna happen with Trump's trials? Either Trump or Biden could have a major health event. Neither campaign has come anywhere close to hitting its stride, eg in activating its own supporters or attacking the opponent. And who knows how the media will play it -- if they start playing long-ish unedited segments of Trump rambling at some of his rallies, or he behaves that way at a debate, who knows what might happen to his image?
Polls are one step from Ouija boards right now. And again that's before the considerably worse systemic problems they have.
I dunno - polls got President Ross Perot spot on.
Poll averages are pretty accurate and a useful guide. It is easy to find an individual poll and use it to discredit polling in general. I find that the effort to deny the importance today's polling averages quite remarkable.
Some individual polls are more reliable than others, and I agree with Kevin that the poll he mentions is one of the better ones. Still, because of the electoral college, a dead heat translates to a considerable Trump advantage. Furthermore, in 2016 and 2020, Trump has systematically outperformed polling averages by a point or two.
What about the Times-Sienna poll, where Trump is 5 points ahead? That is an extremely reputable poll. Combine that result with the Republican electoral college advantage, and we are looking at a landslide victory for Trump.
IIRC, at this point they're useful as indicators of the nominees, but ... we already know who they're gonna be. Otherwise ... who's kidding whom here?
AFAIK late winter election year polling has been done for many cycles, which suggests it does have some predictive value, because we can look at history and make the appropriate calibrations.
(a) I think if the election were held tomorrow Trump's a reasonable (though not overwhelming) favorite.
(b) I also think the likely trajectory of national conditions (fading inflation and a healthy employment market), plus the inevitable increase of scrutiny on Trump (who will soon be the nominee) plus abortion politics means Joe Biden stands a pretty good chance of replacing Trump as the reasonable favorite, eventually (say, by late summer).
It's an eminently winnable race for both candidates at this point, and in my view Biden is the favorite because of (b). Also, Trump is an objectively weak nominee by historical standards (he's lost the popular vote twice now). And there still remains the X factor of Trump's legal problems (no, they won't shake his base; but the effect of damaging revelations on persuadable voters could hurt him). Moreover, Haley's support suggests Trump's strength with moderate Republican voters is questionable. I also have to believe the odds suggest fading salience for both the Gaza situation and the border crisis (the latter would be more helpful to Republicans if it blew up in, say, July of this year; but at some point all news stories diminish in terms of their effect on voter behavior, as they lose recency).
But Democrats shouldn't kid themselves this isn't going to be a vicious, nailbiting dogfight that could very conceivably result in a Trump restoration. And I doubt that, even if (as I expect) Biden becomes the favorite at some point, his odds will be much better than 60%.
If ever there were a gutcheck moment for democracy in America, this is it.
If ever there were a gutcheck moment for democracy in America, this is it.
Yes, your analysis is reasonable, even if I consider it to be overly optimistic.
But, I am left with the feeling that, but for Biden's very unwise decision to run again, it didn't have to be this way. How nice it would have been for Biden to have endorsed a successor who didn't have his baggage, and then let that candidate run on Biden's record. It would have been a Democratic landslide. As it is, Biden is dragging down what could and should have been a very good year for us.
Earth 2 to Earth 1: It still could and should happen.
"How nice it would have been for Biden to have endorsed a successor who didn't have his baggage, and then let that candidate run on Biden's record. It would have been a Democratic landslide."
I agree! Mr. Imaginary-Victory Man can and would easily easily be victorious! Why oh why didn't Biden take this simple step of endorsing the unbeatable IVM (after of course identifying who they are)--it all seems so easy when you fantasize and ignore details and specifics!
Especially when you invent reasons to rationalize why this is impossible. Impossible, I say!
I'll go first if you do:
I think that Biden is a great president, and is doing a great job. He's surrounded by a good team, and is making progress on a number of fronts that I care about. I'm happy to pull the lever for a second Biden term. Is he old? Yup! But I don't particularly care. (in fact, I'm perfectly happy with Harris taking over if Biden dies or something midway during term 2--that is how VPs work , after all)
Now, you go: Who, specifically, do you want to run? And what's your plan for getting them through the primaries (or even on the ballots at this point), and building them up nationally against other competitors such that they are in a good place to prevail in November?
And, if you say "well, if only XYZ person had started ABC months ago, my plan would have worked" please recognize that that might be a good premise for a novel or fictional teevee series, but in the real world, we need to work on real things, not kvetch about what might have been.
How nice it would have been for Biden to have endorsed a successor who didn't have his baggage, and then let that candidate run on Biden's record.
Kamala Harris would very likely have been the strongest contender for the nomination had Biden announced last year he wasn't running. The mere fact that a lot of pro-Democratic pundits and political hobbyists swoon for the likes of Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly hardly means the primaries would've shaken out that way. And the evidence suggests at minimum Harris is no stronger against Trump than Biden is.
In terms of choosing the nominee, I like where we are now, both because I believe Joe Biden is our strongest bet, but also because, in the off chance he decides at the last minute not to run, I reckon an open convention stands a better chance at choosing a strong nominee than the primaries do.
Biden could have only endorsed Harris so I don't see how predictions of a landslide make sense.
+1
I guess by definition this means I'm out of touch with the general electorate, but: I cannot understand this at all. I can only assume that voters are stupid, even stupider than I thought they were in 2000 or 2004 or 2016 or during the pandemic, and to be totally honest, it makes me question why even bother trying to change their minds.
Agreed. It boggles my mind that someone as immoral and corrupt as Trump can be tied with Biden. What in the world are these people thinking? It reminds me of the Bible scene where the crowd is shouting “Give us Barabbus.”
I used to wonder how all those German people would be cheering for Hitler who would lead to their destruction. Now I know.
>I used to wonder how all those German people would be cheering for Hitler who would lead to their destruction. Now I know.
Yup. There is nothing special about the U.S., and there was nothing unique about Germany in the 30s. They, actually, had the excuse of a terrible economy. We have no excuse other than we've become an Idiocracy.
It's really news to you that the US electorate in the aggregate views things very differently from the readership of a well-known liberal pundit?
And yes, of course many voters are "stupid" in the sense that they're too busy living life to devote much time to following policy and politics. That's why elites matter. Unfortunately our elites are probably the worst they've been since the 1850s.
Mr Drum is a "well-known liberal pundit"? Liberal? Is this a new definition?
Mr. Drum is "on the spectrum". But he is in fact way more liberal and certainly way more informed than Americans in the aggregate.
Liberal? Is this a new definition?
It's the definition that has been prevalent in the United States (though not so much in Europe) for decades.
They may have crosstabs but they didn't ask if these registered voters voted in 2020. The fatal flaw of all these polls is the increasing problem of participation bias. You can't peek into this if polls don't bother to ask whether someone voted in the previous cycle. This problem is slightly diminished when they switch to likely voters, but the issue does not go away.
This, and today's NYTimes poll confirms my priors: the polls are wrong, the press is wrong, and the voters are wrong.
That way I don't have to criticize Biden for not saying he'd be a one-term president (right after the 2022 mid-terms). Best to follow in the footsteps of Ruth Bader Ginsburg: fail to make a timely exit.
Biden will lose. What will you do then? It’s fine. Everyone is looking forward to it!
In the past week, Trump is tied with Biden in two polls and ahead of Biden by at least 4 points in three polls.
March 2 NY Times Poll: Trump 48%, Biden 44%
March 2 NY Times Poll: Haley 46%; Biden 37%
March 1 Forbes/Harris Poll: Trump 52%, Biden 48%
March 1 Forbes/Harris Poll: Trump 43%, Biden 38%, Kennedy 14%, West 3%
February 28 The Economist/YouGov Poll: Trump 44%, Biden 44%
February 27 The Morning Consult Poll: Trump 44%, Biden 43%
February 26 Harvard/Harris Poll: Trump 54%, Biden 47%
February 26 Harvard/Harris Poll: Trump 44%, Biden 37%, Kennedy 18%
Good news for Trump supporters! You may stay home, confident of victory!
If Biden gets the same numbers of votes as Trump nationally, that's probably a disaster. That would likely mean that Biden wins California and New York by a gazillion votes as usual and loses most swing states.
I'm not saying it's a hopeless situation for Biden, just that he will has to run a bit stronger than he's polling right now.
I don't remember the exact explanation, but there are indications that the Electoral College advantage for Trump may be smaller or even non-existent (ie, it could flip to Dems) this cycle. I think it has something to do with growing Democratic dominance among the college-educated: absolutely locking down this group could help them (narrowly) prevail in swing states, even as Trump runs up big margins in places like Kansas and Alabama. Also, greater GOP strength among non-white working class voters could trim Dem margins in places like New York and California, while not remotely threatening Biden's chances of winning such states.
Other than avid followers of Kevin is anyone even thinking of the November election?
People who vote Republican are actively planning to kill their neighbors,
https://old.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1b523uv/worship_the_tangerine_tyrant_or_else/
If Sarah Longwell's focus groups are anything to go by, at least half the people who voted in 2020 don't believe at this point that it'll be trump against Biden this year.
Maybe that should be a screening question too, so we can have some idea what people say who aren't taking it as just a hypothetical matchup.
Is it just me or are these polls are being done right now to try an induce some sort intervention from top Democrats to try and convince Biden to announce he won't run? ala Ezra Kelin who also works for the New York Times. I mean, man, everyone wants their brokered convention fantasy filled don't they?
Probably just me but I do have to ask this question? when George Bush I was behind in the 18 points to Michael Dukakis or whenever George Bush II trailed John Kerry, was their any attempt by Republicans to try and get either Bush to step down from the GOP ticket? I didn't think so either.
I get that Trump is a threat to the country and I believe that. But liberals need to get the mentality out of their head that Trump should be losing and does not have a base of support. He does and he has every chance of winning and that was true going all the way back to Jan. 6. The man sent the country to hell in 2020 and still nearly won. People need to stop kidding themselves or think that magically Newsome (Gov. French Laundry) or Whitmer (Gov. Lockdown except for me!) would automatically win. Stop whining and get to work or get what you deserve.
Maybe I shouldn't ask that question...
" was their any attempt by Republicans to try and get either Bush to step down from the GOP ticket? I didn't think so either."
The subtle difference is that Bush could string together an audible sentence.
Boy, could he!
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"
"Our nation must come together to unite."
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
You could be right: something seems to be going on. The NY Times in particular has been been hammering Biden via highly pessimistic and negative headlines.
Ukraine too.
Times/Siena poll with TFG up by 5 points over Biden, 48 to 43%, is getting widespread attention. In the same poll, 53% of respondents "think Trump has committed serious Federal crimes" including 21% of those who expressed the intent to vote for him, just a bit below the crazification factor.
Also in the T/S poll, 51% of respondents consider the state of the economy to be 'poor'. It's a wonder that these folks didn't jump out of high windows during the Great Recession. Seriously, I would like to see a poll that asked people what they think the unemployment rate is, and what they think the number representing 'low' unemployment is; questions about actual and 'good' rates of inflation, GDP growth rate, and maybe a few more. My expectation is that a lot of people have no clue whatever about economic measures. I'm pretty sure that at least a plurality would think that prices declining across the board would be a good thing. We had that in the last century; it was called the Great Depression.
Here are the cross-tabs https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/03/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html
The only way we could have gotten prices back to 2019 levels or even lower was to crash the economy deliberately with double-digit interest rates ala Paul Volcker in 1980 which cost Jimmy Carter his job. The Biden Administration was not stupid enough nor would they have gone along with any idea like that after it tore the Democratic Party apart causing deliberate mass unemployment to reduce prices. If paying more for eggs (largely because of Avaian Flu) disconcerts people that much to vote for Trump (who plans to raise prices through massive tariffs and immigration crackdowns) then they'll get what they deserve.
The bottom line is, what people like Klein and others don't understand, is that Joe Biden, like it or not, is the center of the Democratic Party, the only party in this country right now both big enough and responsible enough to rule. Take him out and you will have chaos - not some earnest competition for the nomination out of a West Wing episode that will break down on racial and class lines because all the candidates generally agree with each other on the topics. Oh, and you will most certainly have a left-wing candidate screaming about Gaza and Climate Change -- get ready for that! The ancient Greeks once believe that if ever Zeus, ruler of the Gods, fell the whole universe would descend into chaos because he held the universe together as its central force. Well, take out Biden and that's exactly what's going to happen to the Democratic Party
Trump’s problem is that he has a hard ceiling in a situation where almost everyone has made up their mind about him. He’s gonna get low 40s without trying, but struggle very hard for more than that.
There only way I could imagine him doing better is if he did the classic pivot to the middle, but he seems constitutionally unable to do that. He thrives on the adulation of people who already are his, and uninclined to do what it would take to win over others. And the coming trials, whether or not concluded by the election, will be driving him nuts, likely preventing any pivot. He “says what he thinks” (at the moment), and that is not going to be helpful.
Biden won 2020 popular vote 51.3% to 46.8%, +4.5. 1.9% "other"
Hillary won 2016 popular vote 48.2% to 46.1%, +2.1, 5.7% "other"
We know Trump's ceiling is in the 46-47% range. Has Biden really "lost" 7.3% of popular support since 2020 if he's polling at 44%? Where is it? It's not showing up in Trump support. Is it sitting in "undecided" or "other"? I have to believe there is a lot of soft put persuadable Biden support there.
To me it's imperative that there is minimal 3rd party or "other" votes in November. That killed Hillary as much as anything.
If Trump doesn't poll much better than 47%, which I doubt he will, then what's Biden's path to 50%? It's minimizing the 3rd party vote. The math has to add up to 100%..