Biden/Warren is the obvious ticket.
experience/brains
The concept of electability is a fools errand to try and decipher at this point in the primary process. I can’t believe we are taking these polls as gospel. Do we recall 2016 in which Republicans feared dearly that Trump would be destroyed by Clinton based on polls?
It’s 3 months before a single primary contest. Make no mistake, the media and party elite have double downed on their attacks of Warren/Sanders because they fear a change in status quo. The electability argument is being used by party insiders like the Clinton’s and the donor class as a means to an end to quash the ideas of the progressive front runners. Transformative policies are never popular amongst party elites.
Making decisions based upon fear is precisely how we lose in 2020.
5
Whomever the Democratic nominee is, I'm voting for them. I am not going to 'hand my vote to Trump by not voting' just because the nominee is not my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice. We need to keep our eye on the prize and make sure another 4 years of this nightmare does not happen again...ever. Everything else is secondary.
7
Dear Democrats,
Labels are silly:
- Moderate vs. Progressive
- Incrementalist vs. Revolutionary
- Wall Street Capitalist vs. Democratic Socialist
I would enthusiastically vote for any of the likely Democratic nominees over Mr. Trump on Nov 3, 2020. Sure, I have my opinions (for the primary). But the differences between the Democratic candidates pale in comparison to the common vision they all share contrasted with what Mr. Trump represents.
All of the Democratic candidates share a common goal of a brighter future, with opportunity for all Americans. They just have subtle differences on how to get there.
Vote your conscience in the primary. And vote for the ultimate Democratic nominee (whomever he or she is) on Nov 3, 2020.
===
In 2016, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
If the primary were tomorrow, I would probably vote for Pete Buttigieg. I also have positive things to say about most of the other Democratic primary candidates (including Warren, Sanders, Biden, Booker, Klobuchar, Harris, potentially Bloomberg, and others). But I will enthusiastically support the ultimate Democratic nominee on Nov 3, 2020.
Try to pin a label on me. (Labels are meaningless, and counter-productive.) And then reject your own "label".
8
With Trump and the Republicans accusing all Dems as socialists, I caution everyone to remember that the attraction to voting GOP is often centered around higher taxes.
Let’s stay in the middle of the road, shall we? And let’s stop using the provocative word ‘progressive.’
Let’s point out the gulf between the ultra rich and poor, the corporate tax loopholes, the environment and health disparities. We’re on solid ground there.
2
That’s an excellent quandary that the Democrats have dug themselves into.
Instead of asking people what they wanted, they decided a progressive leftist socialist government is what the country wants.
This proves how far out on the left fringe the progressives in DC and the coasts have pushed the Democrat Party.
Warren and Sanders are deep in this category, they are so deep there is no way they could convince any one they are anything but THE left fringe.
And the states they must win, well, they see that and see nothing they like.
Even if Bloomberg jumps in today, he is 3 years too late to this party. The fringe left will not accept him at all, and the Democrat centrists are so neglected they might not care to see who else is running any more.
How on earth do they plan to win the race, when they pandered so much to a small tini sector of society they forgot every one else exists.
Too little, way too late now.
1
The only thing that the Trump Republican Party will understand is complete and utter destruction in the 2020 elections.
The Trump Republican Party is not your father's Oldsmobile. It is a not even a "conservative" party. Rather, it is a right-wing reactionary cult movement -- echoing the 1930s. (Steven Bannon would probably agree with me on that statement.)
Any Independent or Moderate who votes for Mr. Trump, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, is not a moderate.
Anyone who would vote for Donald Trump against, say Elizabeth Warren, does not understand the threats to the American Experiment, the Constitution, or the Rule of Law that Mr. Trump personifies. I'm talking to you, Leon Cooperman. And I'm talking to you, American voters who believe that low taxes and stock market indices define the health of our nation. (And I am fortunate to have an upper middle class income and own stocks.)
Wake up, people.
Warren and Bernie are not a threat to capitalism, or to the American way. I disagree with some of what each of them propose. But they raise the right issues. And they will not be wanna-be dictators, like Mr. Trump. Most of their more extreme proposals will never see the light of day, because they respect that Congress makes laws. But at least they are raising the issues that matter.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, will fully destroy the American Experiment if he wins in 2020. We, the United States, will descend fully into a full-fledged third rate banana republic.
7
Work with Republicans on what? Oil drilling? Another tax cut? Privatizing Social Security? Sending troops to Ukraine? Also we should understand that a good number of these moderation craving Democrats will nonetheless be radicalized by Russian Facebook posts ordered from the Kremlin.
4
Dear Independents,
Welcome! The Democratic Party is a big tent.
If you would like an alternative to Mr. Trump in 2020, please join us. Register as a Democrat, and vote in our primaries. We welcome your voice, and your support.
4
Does it ever occur to self-anointed progressives that there’s a bit of a problem when they attack the polling process rather than even trying to deal with the results and attack “the MSM,” for rigging the gams, and then go shout at Trump and Trumpists for attacking the process rather than even trying to deal with the resultsand attacking “the MSM,” for rigging the game?
Oh, and I’m also tired of the “progressive,” stance against the icy blast, high on a mountaintop, their good hair riffling in the breeze, face turned to the glorious sunrise, peering eagle-eyed down upon the poor benighteds in the low valley below, preparing for the long descent bearing the Tablets of Truth that only they possess.
FYI, kids: best not brag about how much more you know than the professional types like Cohn and Silver. Best not blat about the lack of “error bars,” and statistical unreliability, when the article gives you margins of error and the pop size numbers tell anybody who ever had a stats class what the limitations are.
And best not popoff about how you “just know,” there’s a deep well of thrill out there for Sanders and Warren, especially in language stuffed with obvious suppositions and guesswork and wishful thinking.
You’ve got real enemies. Keep this up, and they’re gonna eat you alive.
Love the way the Times skews things toward the moderate candidate. This could easily have been headlined "progressive and moderate agendas in dead heat." That Liz and Bernie have the same vision for America and come in second and third tells me that this make their vision the more compelling one. When the race shakes out and one of these two is left standing, along with Joe, THEN we'll have a fair race. . . that is, if the Times will cover it fairly. You are an influential newspaper, especially among the rich and powerful who are afraid to lose their advantage. I understand the pickle you're in, but so do lots of other people and they're not happy about it. You could do a better job of what you claim to be—an unbiased newspaper—except that you can't. Newspapers gotta stay in business, don't they, and guess who's paying the bills?
4
People are saying only Vice President Biden can work across the aisles of Congress. To this I say they are misguided. Senators Warren and Sanders have written, cowritten, sponsored, and passed many laws even in a highly partisan Congress including when both sides of Congress held majority Republican control. None of the other candidates, with the exception of Vice President Biden, can say that. We need a candidate who has this experience to bring us back from the brink of destruction as a nation. The real choices are clear. Success by any of the other candidates is merely pipedreams.
6
Yeah? Name a major piece of legislation that’s got Sanders’ name on top of it.
2
@Angelsea And I might add, vote for every Democratic candidate for both houses. The aisle will be much narrower. Kick out Republican governors who won't work with Democrats, do the same with state legislators and local governments. That will also have the effect of making Republicans rethink what they want to stand for in the future.
2
@Angelsea. Notwithstanding his many years in the Senate, Sanders has passed NO significant legislation. Bellowing at rallies does not equal legislative accomplishment. Senator Warren’s signature accomplishment, the establishment of the CFPB, was not a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation (yes, I’ve read it) nor did it receive much, if any, bipartisan support. Warren is overfond of lecturing people and finger wagging. Obama had the same tendencies but controlled them better.
1
The headline is wholly misleading. The percentage of those polled who favor one of the progressive candidates exceeds those who favor Biden in every state but one. Further, with the exception of Wisconsin, where the progressives appeal to 45 percent, a sizeable 30 percent still don't know.
6
Dear Independents,
If you want to have a voice regarding who is on the 2020 ballot as an alternative to Mr. Trump, please register as a Democrat and vote in your state's primary.
5
The very first poll question should never be asked; "If the election were held today, who would you vote for?" The election is not being held today, so it is a false question. Before anyone actually votes, they will be exposed to all sorts of information that could change their mind. What they might do without the information they will get is completely irrelevant. Instead, pollsters should ask; "Who will be the best President?" or "Who would be best at bringing the country together?" The answers to these questions could provide useful information, compared to posing a question that is false on its face.
1
poles don't matter. The only thing that matters are the 13 keys to the presidency developed by Allan Lichtman. Lichtman says that we should just go ahead with the most Progressive candidate because right now there are five Keys flipped we need to flip one more. Which means we need a recession or social unrest next year does not matter who the Democrats nominate. But parallel in what he said in 2005 when he predicted the Democrats would win in 2008 is that we should not run someone who is seen as electable. Electability always goes wrong
1
Wow! I have to say I'm a little surprised by how the Times is spinning these results. The headlines and lede imply that voters don't want progressive candidates.
But if you look at the percentages that go toward the progressive candidates, in many critical states they even outnumber Biden's and the other "moderates."
I still do not understand why Democrats are responsible in their primary for picking a candidate that is palatable to Republicans? Why shouldn't we be picking a candidate that is palatable to OURSELVES? The GOP can pick a candidate palatable to themselves and apparently they already have. The last time we proposed a moderate candidate, we got Trump.
9
@Nicolas . If only Democrats voted in the general election, you would be correct. Moderates will decide the election and they simply won't vote for Sanders or Warren. Hillary Clinton is a false equivalency to any of the current moderates. She lost, not because of her moderate positions but due to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, a significant percentage of the population loathed her and she had 30 years of political baggage highlighted by her problems with ethics and e-mails. Beyond that, the American people had Clinton fatigue. I despise Mr. tRump but if you want to insure four more years of him, nominate someone on the far Left.
The percentage chart seems to contradict the article headline, which is really strange. The second and third candidates listed are both strongly progressive. Together they clearly poll better than the moderates. The correct title for the article would be, "Democrats in Battleground States Prefer PROGRESSIVE Nominee, Poll Shows". Why does the title contradict the actually polling data?
8
I think this is a fantasy. Finding enough Republicans that share common ground with Democrats is never going to happen. 99% of them only want their way or the highway. We have been burned by trying to reason with them and accommodate them in the past (look at weaknesses in Obama care meant to appease them as a case in point and then they didn't vote for it anyway). I think one of the weaknesses of the Democratic party is that we try to be reasonable and compromising and assume people will respond that way in kind, which has almost never happened in the past 20 years. We need to pursue the best policies for the country and the world period.
8
need to re-analyze all of this now with Bloomberg potentially in the mix.
I live in Miami Florida where minimum wage is $8.46 hr. Average rent 1 bdrm $1500 a month.
$1500/8.46 hourly pay= 177.3 /4=44 the amount of hours just to afford rent. How does one pay for transportation/gas electrical/ac, food, childcare, medical care/insurance?
Let’s try job on Miami Beach at largest highest profiting retailers Homegoods/TJmaxx, Publix /Wholefoods or maybe even Apple at $13 an hour...
recalculate life at this rate:
39hrsx$13hr=$2028-$1500 rent = $528 dollars a month leaves $132 a week to spend on: transportation, electric, food, childcare, medical care/insurance.
FYI:
ACA insurance FL $400 a month + $50 doc visit copay and $6500 -7500 deductible out of pocket before insurance starts paying.
Childcare $675 month cheapest place.
Electric 60-150.
This is how America is living! Payday lenders make record profits on backs of poor at 365% interest and credit card debt in US is at its highest levels in history. I am one medical emergency away from death or bankruptcy.
Voting options:
Sanders: compassionate wise old man fighting for middle and poor peoples rights 40+ years and teaching Americans to fight to create the change we and to see.
Warren: understands bankruptcy and wants to reign in corrupt Wall Street and tax dodgers.
Biden: promise to elite “nothing will change”
Buttigieg: eloquent debates in Oval Office while Americans “Pull themselves up by bootstraps” by working at Amazon for $2 dollars more at $15 an hour.
My Florida vote Sanders/Warren 2020
6
Shouldn't you be going into this election season (and we are now actually going into it, as opposed to this time last year when you and others wanted to start covering it) with at least just a small smidgen of humility after the disastrous prognostications in 2016?
Gee, people in battleground states aren't as liberal as those who believe that the majority of voters in the country are black women? What a surprise!
The far left and social justice wings of the Democratic-leaning press and the Democratic Party have been manufacturing new ways of evaluating who was and wasn't an important demographic to please in the upcoming primaries for a year now. These new ways are mostly self-serving to those belief groups.
The press has had their fingers in the pie and thumbs all over the scales in the Democratic primary race enough. Just please allow the voters to decide. It's only a few months until they start that process. I realize that elections are a bigger cash cow than super bowls, but please let us have a real election this time.
We're already living through a reality-show president elected because the press covers Twitter instead of reality. We've already been through the election-by-pollster routine, and you know what? Now we have to undo your handiwork by impeaching the president.
OBTW, how does a 1500+ sample size get a 2.8% margin of error? Or is this yet another (hi there, Nate Silver) version of our polling is far superior to any dumb old traditional statistics?
1
"Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Moderate Nominee, Poll Shows."
According to the percentages shown here, the title of this article is patently false. If you add up the percentages for the top two progressive candidates, Warren and Sanders, their combined totals are larger than those for the top two moderate candidates, Biden and Buttigieg, in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, and are either tied or within two percentage points of the combined totals for Biden and Buttigieg in Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, the top two progressives lead the top two moderates by 17 percentage points, 45% to 28%. My takeaway from this article is that, contrary to the headline, Warren and Sanders are keeping pace with or slightly outpacing Biden and Buttigieg among Democratic voters in all but one battleground state, Wisconsin, where they have a significant lead.
6
"When we ask meaningless, leading questions, people give us the answers we want!"
- New York Times/Siena College pollsters.
Kind of weird how people, when you explain to them policies and their effects, always seem to want actual progress.
I guess that's why your pollsters asks meaningless, stupid questions like, "Do you think electability is important?"
It's better than asking, "Do you want to continue to pay far more than anyone other industrialized nation for healthcare, while receiving a considerably lower quality of care?"
If a person's electability isn't determined on how they actually plan on governing, what is it based on? Tooth veneer? Popularity with the intra-Beltway cocktail set?
I suspect it's mostly a willingness not to raise the taxes of overpaid columnists.
5
Nice try NYT, but it doesn't work, especially about the talking point of moderates being preferred in Michigan Wisconsin. In the case of CNN and especially N.H. their own poll showed that Sanders was leading, Warren second and Biden a distant third, yet, they refused to acknowledge the actual poll and printed one that showed quite the opposite.
In the case of the swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016, Sanders defeated Clinton in both Michigan and Wisconsin in the primary and many voters stated if Sanders had won the democratic primary they would have voted for him over Trump. To honestly try to make anyone believe that these states will vote for a moderate democrat like Clinton over Trump is utter nonsense.
The MSM is twisting the facts o force their ideology on an unsuspecting voter.
6
It seems to me that the voters prefer “undecided”. This graph needs a redesign.
2
Let’s start with Michigan: How can a poll of 203 people be statistically valid if not statistically significant and faithfully represent a state with a population that this year cleared 10 million? Polls, at their best, are snapshots in time; at their worst, they transmute something unreliable or inaccurate into a headline, and a headline into a story-shifting narrative. That this story does not adequately discuss in context (a) the sample size used and (b) how that sample size/type holds water as a legitimate, representative dataset means this: through this story, the NYT has once again found a grain of sand and used it to tell us about the whole beach. The Times has the resources, personnel, and character to know better. This is a shame, it keeps happening, and shame on the Times if that continues.
2
@Matthew S
Why are these displayed as absolute numbers in a table?
No mention of +/-4.4% MoE, which becomes approximately an 8.8% margin of error for the difference between two candidates.
Which means we cannot be to be confident that any 'lead' is not simply the result of sampling error.
Why not a graph with margin of error bars?
Doesn't the NYT have access to basic spreadsheet software?
These are polls of 2-300ish voters in each state where you're trying to parse differences of a few percentage points each.
C'mon NYT, you should know better than trying to present a meaningful analysis based on such a small amount of data.
2
"...their core voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida are counseling them to pursue a political middle ground."
And so is the NYTimes, unabashedly, every day. I would think this paper would show some humility regarding its election prediction abilities, after last time.
How about some actual reporting on Biden, if you really want to force him down our throats? What has he done? What will he do? Will Obamacare survive if drug companies continue to charge blackmail prices? Will his carbon reduction plan be significant enough to curb climate change? Will he help raise wages or benefits for the middle and working classes?
And, do you really think he will win over swing voters, after he fumbled the son-question so pathetically in the Democratic debate?
4
Mainstream "safe" candidates of the recent past who lost:
1960 - VP Nixon
1968 - VP Humphrey
1984 - VP Mondale
1996 - Dole
2000 - VP Gore
2004 - Kerry
2008 - McCain
2012 - Romney
2016 - Clinton
(2020 - VP Biden)
Don't add Biden's name to the list of losing "mainstream/safe" candidates. Add to the list of "surprise" winners:
1960 - Kennedy
1976 - Carter
1992 - Clinton
2008 - Obama
2016 - Trump
4
Yes but who do Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, Recep Erdogan, Mohammed bin Salman and Abdel el-Sisi prefer that the Democrats select in battleground states?
2
Biden---->Democrats win
Warren or Sanders---->Democrats lose
Next case.
I do not believe your polls
3
NYT - thanks!
Fellow Democrats - please pay attention.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this undoubtedly objective poll appears directly above the article about Bloomberg throwing his ermine-lined fedora into the ring.
2
Too bad Rs don't want a "moderate" .
1
LOL, the Times making sure it warns its audience not to support anyone who threatens the interests of liberal billionaires. So transparent.
2
Polls are garbage. Your polls also showed Trump not winning. When's the last time any reader took one? They're a farce and mean absolutely nothing.
Bloomberg
Trump has removed the veil behind which Republican “dog whistles” exploited the fear and hatred of under educated whites and educated greedy racists.
Exactly how can Democrats compromise with Nazis?
So the New York Times asked some very leading questions so it could write the story it wanted to write about what the answers to those questions mean.
The way the Times has been covering politics for the last 25 years is beyond disgraceful. "The Clinton Rules" weren't enough? Your endless "Cletus Safaris" weren't enough? Now the Times has set out to rip apart the seems of the Democratic coalition? For God's sake, what are you doing? Why are you doing this?
2
After the Merrick Garland nonsense, I don't understand how anyone can believe that Republicans are willing to work with Democrats on anything other than further tax breaks and deregulation.
6
People who think Sanders and Warren will win white working class voters because the issues they address their needs are forgetting a very crucial component: white working class voters have always voted against their own interests ever since the South became Republican after the civil rights movement. Chasing that vote is like trying to catch a white whale.
3
I think the news media and pollsters skew centrist but in reality, a more left-leaning agenda is likely to attract more young voters who probably don’t bother participating in the polls.
4
@Chris I listened to the podcast where they talked about how they weighted the sample, and I have concerns about how heavily they have to weight the sample for white non-college educated people to make up for not getting many people to pick up their phones in that bracket. I'd really be interested to see how the responses in that category break down by age and gender and how many responses they actually got.
2
The more I see lefties scream at these polls, and then twist them into Klein bottles to try and get them to say the opposite of what they say, the more I am convinced that too many lefties are working way too hard to find alibis and scapegoats for their own squabbling and refusal to show up and vote in 2010 and 2014 and 2016.
It’s not just the fascist or whatever Electoral College that put Trump in office. It’s not the neocon corporatist gerrymandering. It’s not that the corporatist media suppressed the shining message of St. Bernie. It’s not even sunspots.
WE did our part to elect the dangerous clown running our country. WE handed him two years of a wacko-bird, unified Congress. WE didn’t vote, or threw our votes away in the general direction of Jill Stein or whatever other nutjob waltzed down the pike. WE screamed that our own side—Obama, for the gods’ sake!—wasn’t good enough, lefty enough, pure enough.
WE did our part. Time to fess up and face it. Time to grow up; and to really tick ya off, here’s a piece of wisdom from St Ronnie: “Oh, I’ll be happy to take half a loaf. Then I’ll come back later and get the rest.”
It’s a long road a-windin’, folks. Stop with the short cuts.
4
If the Democratic presidential primary were being held today, who would you vote for?
Ariz. Fla. Mich. N.C. Penn. Wisc.
Moderate 31% 35% 36% 31% 35% 31%
Progressive 34% 33% 38% 32% 31% 48%
Undecided 31% 29% 23% 32% 30% 19%
Just because Warren and Sanders split the progressive vote does not mean these states want a moderate.
15
People are ignoring that Bernie's and Warren's base are not the exact same. Bernie's base tends to be younger and further left leaning than Warren's base, and if one dropped out, not everyone in their base would immediately migrate to the other. Even though Warren is my first pick, the fact is that Democrats will have to work with Republicans whether we like it or not. The majority of respondents agreed with this. Pursuing unpopular or divisive policies creates the risk of worsening the already divisive political climate and alienating moderates who are the majority. And unless strong progressives somehow gain control of the entire Congress, it'll be near impossible to actually enact them.
What we need right now isn't more infighting and purity tests, what we need is to be realistic and unite for whoever wins the primary, even if they're not our first choice. Having an all or nothing view will lead to Trump's re-election.
4
@Steve
You're right that the bases are exactly the same. If one dropped out, they wouldn't go all to warren or sanders, but one thing is true: the majority of democratic voters have warren as their second choice if she isn't their first.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/
also asking the democrats to work with republicans is like clapping with one hand. The republicans don't want anything to do with "the enemy."
2
If these current attitudes (and then voting patterns) continue well into next year, there will be a Democratic convention without a nominee selected on the first ballot. On the second and subsequent ballots, if necessary, the "super delegates" will join in the voting. Those delegates will vote for the person they believe has the best chance to beat Trump. And that may not be the candidate who has promised us the most for the least cost.
Then, if the past is predictive of the future, some of the losing candidates will loudly complain that the whole thing was rigged. Their supporters will stay home in November and pout. The incumbent will be re-elected.
Please Democrats, don't let this happen. For once, don't fall in love but instead, do like the Republicans do; fall in line.
4
I believed your 2016 surveys. Then the election happened.
I don’t think I’ll rely on them this time around.
Data can be managed to represent any number of points depending upon what outcome is sought and which factors are considered.
As we have seen, without thoughtful, and even ridiculous analysis, anything can happen. Using standard quantitative methods is no longer adequate; there’s the ‘truth isn’t true’ variable that must be factored into estimate going forward.
Very little makes actual sense anymore, like these statistics and surveys. Hit the ground with new ways of gauging the thoughts/leanings of people.
Your numbers are no longer telling me anything, and I was a numbers professional, these indicators used to be reliable measurements. We got played. Move on to more outside the box thinking.
We cannot go through watching a year of surveys that show everything going our way and losing again. Don’t do it.
3
The headline of this story is "Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Moderate Nominee, Poll Shows," but that conclusion is not supported by the candidates they picked.
If we look at the top four potential nominees (the only ones consistently polling above 1%) and consider Biden and Buttigieg to be moderates, while Warren and Sanders are progressives, then the progressives out-poll the moderates in three of the six states and tie in a fourth one.
Here are the moderate vs. progressive totals:
Arizona: 29% vs. 31%
Florida: 32% vs. 32%
Michigan: 33% vs. 38%
North Carolina: 30% vs. 28%
Pennsylvania: 32% vs. 30%
Wisconsin: 28% vs. 45%
3
True, but you can't ignore the figure below it either. Most respondents favored a candidate who can work with the other side. The data can be used both ways.
1
@Steve Also true. But Democrats historically answer that sort of question that way. These numbers don't actually tell us that Democrats prefer moderates. They tell us that Democrats are desperate to beat Donald Trump and are willing to vote for a candidate who can do that even if it means sacrificing their ideals to do so.
1
but there's also the large percentage of people that said "dont know"... I wonder if that was factored in to these bogus questions. the only reason someone would want a candidate who can work with both sides is if they have an interest in both sides... I could care less what Republicans want/feel at this point. large change will always be met with resistance, and it's a good sign we are on the right track, just need to expand our voting base to the people who have been excluded and (systematically?) disenfranchised by beltway politics over the past 30 yrs
Bernie Sanders has a long history of working with GOPers.
5
Combine Biden/Buttigieg with Sanders/Warren and here's what you get:
AZ - 29% to 31%
FL - 32% to 32%
MI - 33% to 30%
NC - 30% to 28%
PA - 32% to 30%
WI - 28% to 45%
Given that no other candidate besides those four appear to have any traction after months of campaigning (increasing likelihood of dropping out) and the "Don't know" category is still huge in all states indicating a lot of Dems aren't paying attention yet, I'd say this article is drawing the wrong conclusion.
7
@Allen, I love that you and I posted nearly identical comments at the same time! The conclusion that Democrats in these states "prefer" a moderate nominee is not supported by the poll itself. Perhaps the author of this article has been spending too much time with the "Anxious Democratic Establishment": https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html
2
Progressive = joining the rest of the first world.
Moderate = keeping the rich in power
6
All moot when Bloomberg enters the race.
Key voters in my house need affordable healthcare.
Moderate dem establishment wants status quo.
I won't vote for a moderate Democrat.
Unlike Trump voters I can recognise a scam.
The DNC candidates are Republicans.
The United States is a corporate oligarchy without a Constitution and with religion.
LET IT BURN.
1
We have always been a center right nation and it's always been a struggle against fringe
1
The title of this article is misleading. the largest category is 'I don't know,' which means voters are undecided and still getting to know the candidates. The framing of this article is curious as it minimizes that 2 out of the top 3 candidates are anti-establishment figures and definitely not moderates.
Like many others here, I would prefer to see a progressive, preferably Sanders, become President. But if the polls continue to show what they do - that Biden is much more electable - then I will vote for Biden.
I try to look at Democratic success as a two-step process. Trump has taken the country so far to the right and the American electorate is so divided, and also confused thanks to Fox, Facebook and Twitter, that taking the country all the way to the left in one fell swoop may simply be asking too much.
Just like a marathon runner recovering from a life-threatening injury has to learn to walk again before beating his personal record - to avoid reinjury and potentiality chronic pain and disability - Democrats may have to take a more moderate/centrist approach at first to achieve their ultimate goal - true progressive change on a scale we have not seen since FDR.
To me, the risk of reinjury - Trump's reelection - by far outweighs the risk of moderation - Biden's election. The country may simply not recover from another four years of Trump.
1
vote for who you want in the primaries, and then hold your nose and "vote blue" in the general if that's the approach that's required. this race belongs to the PEOPLE! dont let the establishment election complex push us around! we can do this! Sanders 2020
The article does not appear to show a margin of error. With only 200-300 people surveyed in each state, I imagine it must be large than the difference between the three major candidates.
1
Try reading it. And no, it’s not.
Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or... Bloomberg?
Klobuchar / Buttigieg.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Let's interpret this data another way.
First, a significant number of people don't know what/who they want yet.
Second, let's put the top two progressives together and the top three moderates together, because that is what the primaries will suss out: a moderate candidate against a progressive candidate.
Ariz: 31% progressive vs 30% moderate, 31% don't know
Florida: 32% progressive vs 33% moderate, 29% don't know
Mich: 38% progressive vs 34% moderate, 23% don't know
N.C.: 28% progressive vs 30% moderate, 32% don't know
Penn: 30% progressive vs 33% moderate, 30% don't know
Wisc: 45% progressive vs 28% moderate, 19% don't know
I know there were underlying questions, but clearly it is too early to draw any conclusions about what or who Democrats want. What I see more is an editorial bias against progressives and Warren in particular, since she is the most likely progressive candidate.
Instead of detailed articles about polls and "elect-ability", how about more details about each candidate's policies, so all those people who haven't decided yet can make informed decisions?
7
Yes, let's repeat all the mistakes of 2016 and nominate the party favorite who has trouble creating energy.
As others have pointed out, there's Joe and there's Warren/Sanders. There's the same-old-same-old and there's something new. Voters actually preponderate around the new.
5
It might be useful to point out that the two progressives together get a higher percentage in total than the so-called centrists in most of the states, and the undecideds are in all cases a substantial percentage of those polled. In short, any conclusions from this survey are simply inconclusive.
Say that, and stop right there.
3
I'm thinking a moderate is the way to go. The centrist GOP voters who are contemplating leaving their party will be lost if a progressive is on the ticket. Plus, Medicare for All seems too disruptive and expensive to bring in the number of voters needed to defeat Trump. I've actually been looking more closely at Mayor Pete recently. He's well spoken, young, intelligent, served in the military, uber confident, has some experience, plus some great ideas to boot. It's a coin toss. Priority 1 is either elect someone who can beat Trump regardless of their platform, or go with someone who promises big changes for all. Both have their allure.
2
POPULISM is the first of two key words in this election, as in 2018 and 2016. On the left and right - the early 2000’s status quo is not attracting voters. It does make many pundits and some voters comfortable to feel that the world hasn’t changed that much, but it has.
GROUND GAME
Ultra wealthy politicians have done this before, waiting until the last minute to jump in with money, name recognition and a splash. How many local headquarters and volunteers have been setup and organized? How much information has been gathered, debated and understood? How many relationships have been built that will be crucial in the general election? What’s the status of the online fundraising, organizing, and turnout strategies? This stuff can’t be done without planning and time. This is text book hubris.
Bloomberg’s candidacy does nothing but further cloud the primaries, making it harder for voters to hear and process the campaign. He should support the candidates he aligns with in the primary now, and support the party’s candidate in the general - with everything he’s got.
1
"Voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans"
Unfortunately, for this to happen it also requires Republicans willing to work with the candidate. Know any?
2
Polls reflect what people believe about progressivism from jaded media sources, which in the Midwest is the concept that progressives love illegals and preach identity politics. This is of course not what Sanders or Warren are about.
As soon as one of them is nominated, their themes of economic populism will saturate the media. Note that in this poll swing voters want system changes. This is what they will learn that Sanders and Warren are offering. Sanders or Warren will then decimate Trump in any debates, because they preach unification not division on behalf of all working people. Biden will of course be a complete loss.
Swing voters will come round. They are afraid of what they don't know, and I imagine they don't read a lot of books.
2
Here we have data from two, almost simultaneous Times/Siena polls. In the six state poll, Biden leads and the questions are about getting long with Republicans, normal politics and moderate vs left wing politics. The conclusion is people want the moderate candidate. But then why didn't Klobuchar get even close to Biden. I think moderation is too simple an explanation for Biden's high poll numbers.
In the Iowa poll, Warren leads and the questions are about Social Security, health care for all (the largest percentage were for that), free college. The responses show people like the things Warren is fighting for.
So we need to account for Biden's high poll numbers, Klobuchar's low rating and distinguish between fighting Republicans from fighting economic inequality.
1
So nearly half want systemic change, yet the majority wants Democrats to find common ground with Republicans, who staunchly oppose systemic change. Whether one likes it ir not, it is necessary to pick a side. I recommend the right side of history.
1
There is one way a Democratic President can work with Republicans. That’s to do whatever they want, pick right wing judges and fill their administration with conservatives. They might as well nominate Mitt Romney.
1
The title is extremely misleading. Both Warren and Sanders are progressive candidates and when you add the combined percentages they beat Biden in every state except North Carolina. So no, most Dems do not prefer a moderate candidate.
2
I think it is important for each of us to work for, and vote for, the candidate who most closely matches your political valence, BUT, if he or she is not the final presidential candidate, it is is crucial that you vote for the person on the ballot with a "D" next to their name. 2020 is not a time to make a personal political statement. The re-election of Donald Trump will not "bring on the revolution', nor will it solidify the Democratic base. It will destroy what is left of our democracy and usher in what could be the darkest times in our nation's history.
The interpretation of the data in this article is mind-boggling to me. The numbers don’t support the idea that the majority of these respondents want a centrist; on the contrary, for all states but NC, more of the respondents want someone farther left.
If we combine the percentage of votes that would go to Warren and Sanders and take them as the “more liberal” vote, and compare them to the Biden votes (representing the centrist preference), here’s what the ratios look like [more liberal : centrist]:
AZ - 31 : 24
FL - 32 : 27
MI - 38 : 30
NC - 28 : 29
PA - 30 : 28
WI - 45 : 23
3
Just blew right past the part where the pollers asked voters what kind of candidate they prefer, huh?
If you combine Warren and Sanders' vote (the non-moderates) and combine Biden, Buttigieg and Klobachar (the moderates) you find the non-moderates are more popular in those states than the moderates.
3
"A majority of those surveyed said they wanted a Democratic nominee who is more moderate than most Democrats, and they overwhelmingly preferred one who would bridge the partisan divide in Washington."
Bridge the partisan divide? What? Where have you been? I give the Rs credit for one thing, they go straight for the jugular and they go all in. They do not care about anything or anyone else The Ds on the other hand live in a total fantasy land and indulge in near constant self-flagellation. I am not sure what they stand for and neither do they. But what is really the difference anyway? Even if someone like Warren gets in, what are the chances she is going to break the hammerlock the oligarchy has over all of us. The bulk of her own party will probably not support her. Bottom line is this is way too much politics way too soon. I think the vast majority of people are just trying to survive and the oligarchy likes it that way.
1
Democrats prefer candidates who can work with Republicans. Republicans prefer candidates who will stand fast against socialistic notions like Obamacare or fake news like global warming.
Democrats will get candidates who can work with Republicans only when Republicans prefer candidates who will work with Democrats. Until then, Democrats are Charlie Brown and Republicans are Lucy and the football does not get kicked down the field. We had eight years of a very classy Charlie Brown and a bunch of Lucy's who sometimes promised to hold the football steady and pretended to hold it but openly announced and celebrated their determination to yank it away every single time.
1
The attempt of the corporate media to distract from real issues and pursue the status quo at display here!
Democrats will win no matter who they elect! They will win bigger and with more enthusiasm if they elect a progressive. That's where the energy is!
Donald Trump will lose to a rock!
2
If only it could be the 1990's again seems to be the message.
MAGA - Let's make it 1860 again.
Moderate Democrats - Let's make it 1990 again.
Progressive Democrats - Let's make it 2020.
When the house is on fire, it’s no time to talk about decorating the house, or which drapes to buy. First you have to put out the fire.
Priority one is defeating the occupant of the white house - arguing about which healthcare plan is best can come later.
If the Democrats insist on progressive purity in their nominee, we'll have Trump (or Pence, if Trump is removed) for four more years, even more catastrophic than the past three. It's that simple.
The shame is that moderates (or progressive-moderates) Buttigieg and Klobuchar are getting so little traction in the battleground states. They espouse policies more helpful than Biden's and more practical (in the sense that they have a chance of making it through Congress) than Warren's or Sanders's.
A progressive nominee can balance the ticket in the choice of running mate, but I doubt that would make up for the socialist fear factor in the battleground states. It's a shame that the word "socialist" makes most swing voters reflexively think Venezuela instead of Norway, but that's the reality.
2
If 2016 taught us anything, it is that polls are no longer valid predictors. Moreover, in the age of cell phones, their reliability has been shrinking, as it takes more effort to get a significant pool of respondents. Ask yourselves these questions: How often do you answer calls from numbers that you don't recognize? When was the last time you or someone you know participated in a poll? Hate to use the phrase, but polls are "fake news," and the elevation of them to headline status is regrettable. Like any other viral content, they may become self-fulfilling prophesies that drive an agenda and dictate the news, rather than accurately reflect popular sentiment.
2
I can't believe that after 8 years of President Obama trying to work with Republicans to no avail, that this is even a consideration. If Trump has shed light on any truth at all, it is that not only is conventional political wisdom a bankrupt defense of the status quo, it has been positively rejected by those voters who have the bravery (or stupidity, depending on your perspective) to force change, whether by voting for Trump, or by voting for one of the activist voices in the Democratic party. It is time for Democrats to take the gloves off and fight!
3
It's super concerning that 66% want to a candidate that can work with republicans. It should be painfully clear by now that republicans will not work with democrats. Whether it's Biden or Warren, Rs will not work with moderate or liberal. So vote for who you want!
2
Waiting for Steve Bullock.
1
According to this poll, the combined support for Warren and Sanders outnumbers Biden's support. The issue now is that Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, which prevents the consolidation of support by either one.
As for Trump, the writing is on the wall. The best prediction of how he will do were the 2018 midterm elections and those that occurred this week, where Democrats won, including progressives. Even the Republican win in the Mississippi gubernatorial race was only in the 5% range, which has been read as bad news. Electorally, Trump is a dead man walking. Impeachment, even without conviction, will put the nails in the coffin and bury him. Except for his numerically inconsequential, rabid base, the electorate will not vote for corruption and sociopathy. The prior election results demonstrate that those who crossed over for Trump are crossing back and even lifelong Republicans are jumping ship. I am a progressive and even I could see that Trump had a strong chance of winning the 2016 election, despite the polls favoring Hillary. Why? Because he put forward an economic populist agenda on the right, as Bernie did on the left. Economic hope carried the day. Centrist Democrats beware.
3
The headline is misleading. Sanders' and Warren's policies are so similar, that should one drop out the other will, likely, scoop up the majority of the others' supporters, putting them ahead of Biden.
1
Your framing of the findings seem odd to me. If you combine totals for Sanders and Warren (arguably two of the most progressive candidates Democrats have run in generations), the progressive / populist wing beats the moderates (led by Biden) in every state but North Carolina.
Clearly, any of the candidates running would be orders of magnitude better than the disaster that have been Trump and his corrupt, right wing extremist enablers. In terms of swing states, democratic voters seem to lean progressive on who would be best to replace them.
1
Yeah, that's rich. If you put Warren and Sanders together, you get 31% against Biden's 24% --in Arizona. You can do the rest of the math across the board but you are left with one inescapable conclusion: potential primary voters are sick of business as usual. Another thing, when this slate finally shakes out, that 31% at the bottom, the "don't knows", will shake out too. Do you think Uncle Joe will get them all?
1
Strange how voters in these states chose Trump because he promised a lot of the same things Warren and Sanders support.
Something like 72% of Americans supported universal healthcare a couple of years ago when the GOP was trying repeal the Affordable Care Act. I am not sure what has happened in the interim, but I suspect it has a lot to do with Democratic candidates attacking Warren because she is ahead so many places.
2
Wouldn't a Biden/Warren ticket be the way to go? Biden attracts the independent and centrist voters and Warren brings in the progressive votes. A big part of winning will be to cast the widest net, no? I know I'm on the outside looking in, so am I missing something that would make such a ticket impossible?
1
It's still remarkably early in the election process for heaven's sake. I think the more people pay attention to the later debates and early primaries can you then draw a conclusion.
I'm an independent in North Carolina, I have no interest in a candidate that talks about themselves like Biden and Buttigeg. They are repeating Hillary's failures.
I like people with plans with specific details knowing they are not bluster.
2
The poll results further illustrates the Democrats continue to ignore the silent majority that could make or break the presidential election in the key swing states. Many may argue that the combined support for the two leading far to the left liberal candidates (Warren and Sanders) combined exceeds that of Biden and other moderates. But the key data is in the answers to the key questions where people want to find common grounds with Republicans (I take this question as seeking common grounds with the Republican population) and be more moderate than most Dems. Warren and Sanders should listen to the voters and show that they are capable of being the voice of the (silent) majority. I am an ardent Democrat and very much like the majority of those who responded to the poll will not support the impractical policies that will lead to financial peril of this country and policies that further sow divisions rather than make amends.
2
I guess there are other people who will not support the candidates who offered the old solutions that didn't work in past. And their support could be as crucial as moderate as we all see in 2016. And I am not so sure what the voters qualify as 'common ground' with Republicans? How much these voters are ready to concede? I also notice that almost half of the voters want the structural changes of the system, it seems to me more extreme than typical Democrats? So, I guess, every person understand differently what 'moderate' means. After all, all policies if Bernie and Warren are considered moderate in Europe.
1
This comparison is not as useful as it could be. The better comparison is 1:1 comparison for each Democratic Party candidate against Trump for the GOP and then tally the Electoral votes. I strongly predict that Trump will lose the vote tally nationwide but may win the Electoral college. This is why the move to the center by Democratic Party candidates is important if you want democracy to be something we all have in our future.
4
I'm afraid Democrats are on a path towards defeat. We have candidates in the top 5 that the party doesn't want to endorse. Our front runner is a 3 time retread who, has if anyone has been watching at times, appeared to have "lost a step' when confronted with policy questions. The rush to label a front runner before Democrats get a chance to vote smacks of the very party corruption that progressives and young people are hoping to end. And now Bloomberg? and the Impeachment Inquiry which is based on the Democrats success at getting to Trump not a sure thing.
On a positive note it's nice to see several candidates moving in the Polls. It at least shows that voters are taking looks candidates to understand where they stand and want to move the country.
21
The Democratic Party as an organization has broken the trust of many of its supporters. Running Status Quo Democrats is indicative of how little it thinks of the people and their respective beliefs who make up its supposed base. The comments shaming supporters of Sanders or even those who suggest a third party do so at their own peril- further causing self inflicted rifts among people with actual commonalities. Really the bitter responses and name calling seem more in line with a Pope excommunicating people from the church.
The whole process of creating a coalition around one single person to represent all of our concerns seems so antiquated and weird and impossible. I want to spend more time directly considering issues and maybe voting specifically on them. Party controlled, representative democracy, coupled with Oligarchical drift, make most of these institutions (liberal and conservative) corrupt and the whole process questionable . Then these NYT polls always remind me that we spend more time on the popularity contest and less time on actual action.
4
Am I missing something? If you add the Sanders and Warren numbers together, the progressive vote handily outnumbers the "moderate" Biden vote in all of these races.
8
See the bus. Watch the bus drive up the hill and towards the cliff. Now, watch the bus pick up speed before driving over the cliff and tumbling down the ravine and killing all the passengers. What is that people don't understand about the difference between a primary and a general election? Readers want to combine the support of Warren and Sanders to conclude that the Democrats want a progressive candidate in the primary. Maybe so. However, that progressive candidate will be wiped off the map by tRump in a general election. Neither Warren nor Sanders stands a chance. Have Democrats learned nothing from the past two years? It's suburban moderates, many of whom are women, who flipped the House and elected a Democrat as Governor of Kentucky. These same suburban moderates will decide the election in the handful of states where the outcome is in doubt. These same suburban moderates will never vote for Warren or Sanders. So, if you want four more years of what we've been experiencing, by all means, nominate one of the two progressives and watch the bus careen down the mountain next November.
3
there is no reason to believe that moderate will do much better against Trump. All candidates are pretty even within margin of error. Clearly, moderate Biden is not a sure thing, had Buttigieg with Klobuchar will definitely lose. Sanders and Warren have exactly same chance as Biden.
@yulia. I agree with you. I don't think Biden is a good candidate and don't support him- he's simply too old and it's time for him to enjoy his grandchildren. The problem is that everyone associates the moderate wing with Biden. There are other far better moderates than he.
Add Warren and Sanders preferences together with Biden and Buttigieg preferences and you get nearly equal results except in Wisconsin where the Warren -Sanders clearly has a majority. Nervous Democrats ( and Bloomberg ) showing the fearfullness that has deprived them over the past four decades of the vibrancy they need to express to further our democracy experiment for ALL citizens.
2
The title is misleading. Considering the sum of Warren and Sanders, both are left compared to Biden's moderate, voters do prefer more aggressive reform, not moderate.
5
I'll be happy with any Democratic nominee who will appoint left wing judges to the courts....That's all, one requirement...
Trump has stacked the Federal Courts with far right Federalist Society members and the next Democratic president MUST nominate left wing judges to help offset that..
1
Why do "moderate" Democrats (like Biden) continue to cling to the myth that all we need to get stuff done is Democrats agreeing to work with Republicans? Democrats have wasted the last decade pursuing cooperation with the GOP, despite that party's clear position that it has no interest in such activity.
Of course, considering how many of them insist they'd sooner vote for Trump than for Warren, it may simply be that "moderate" Democrats are, in fact, Republicans.
6
You'd think this nation would understand our government, but many do not. The President is of the Executive branch. So many seem to think he IS a king, a ruler. No, he's a public servant. As an executive, he'll never be able to make permanent political change. His role is to execute the laws of this nation--- the laws of Congress. The Judiciary branch adjudicates those laws.
To be far right or far left and be an executive candidate merely determines whom you alienate. Step one is to heal this nation's institutions and re-establish the rule of law. So far, the Dems are blowing it.
3
Your data doesn't support your conclusion. The moderates are Klobuchar and Buttigieg, not Warren and Sanders.
4
What makes this article misleading is the following quote from it:
“None of the six states where voters were polled are casting ballots in the first stage of the primary next year, and only North Carolina votes on Super Tuesday, in early March, immediately after the initial early-voting states. So the candidate preferences could change by the time these states hold their nominating contests.”
By design it forgets one of the most important elements in primaries: momentum. Look for example at Buttigieg’s numbers (and their increase) in the early voting states. Three second place finishes (my prediction) for him in IA, NH and NV will surely alter these numbers dramatically. Now admittedly the article (correctly I believe) outlines the underlying moderation of the party and the need to address it, but because it based its assumptions on long-away states it unnecessarily creates anxiety because Buttigieg is poised to accept those moderates with open arms—once the public en Maddie knows who he is.
1
Face it, the .01 own this country. Democracy sounds nice on memorials.
1
The sample set is too small to draw conclusions. So, the conclusions in the article has to be taken with a grain of salt.
3
Work with Republicans?
Like the nomination of Merrick Garland?
Obviously Obama didn't play nice on that issue.
5
I taught American Government for more than 30 years. I learned over and over that most Americans have no common definition for the terms conservative, liberal or moderate. I also strongly suspect they do not have a common sense of what is “normal” other than some agreement that the monster now in the White House is ”abnormal.” That alone points to a significant problem with this entire article. But there are other problems. If we could agree that both Sanders and Warren represent the more progressive candidates it is significant that if you add their percentages they beat the “moderate” Biden in every state but North Carolina. In addition if you asked about issues like, Do you favor universal health care? You would get answers that contradict your conclusion. Besides all that there is one more fundamental problem - Obama was clearly in the mold of Biden and he is generally seen as a moderate, whatever that means. He never got any significant Republican cooperation. Remember Moscow Mitch’s promise to make Obama a “one term President”? How would any Democrat fair better? How do you expect any Democrat to “work with” a party that has been blindly loyal to Trump, an admitted sexual predator, a proven liar, and someone who willingly remains ignorant on the most fundamental of subjects?
4
So the only two options were "More moderate than most Democrats" and "More liberal..."? How about "as moderate as most Dems"?
When my wife is serving a meal, she'll ask me "do you want a lot or a little?", and every time I answer - about in the middle please.
Amy Klobuchar and the public option.
2
Written, “voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans.”
Read as, “I like systemic racism, I just don’t want to be called racist.”
4
Gosh, this makes so much sense. This particular group of voters is not interested in anyone who brings effectiveness or positive change (negative change is great) to the White House. Hence, let's just stick with Biden who is a likable duffer who will duff around the White House like Ronald Reagan. We wimpily don't need or want really good people in the White House. (Trump is great because he makes everybody so mad.)
2
The conclusion here is gravely flawed. The progressive votes are split between Warren and Sanders. Cumulative progressive votes vs. cumulative moderate votes is a draw or possibly even more favorable for a progressive. Of course this conclusion (and the author’s) is based on the assumption that people vote for ideology and not personality... that if Biden dropped out, those votes would go to Buttiegeg or Sanders to Warren. Yet ideology is only one aspect of many voters’ decision process. Sadly, some prefer an old white straight man, (mirroring the archetypal Judeo-Christian god?) somewhat irrespective of ideology.
7
We are sick of the status quo that leaves us at the mercy of corporations and the politicians that they buy out! Biden is in this camp, right along with the elitist republicans that he wants to work with. Our political "center" is skewed so heavily to the right that even our "moderates" would seem like hard-right conservatives in many European nations. Why should we settle for more of the same when we could elect a progressive and force the issue? Make Americans really consider if they would rather have better standards of living or four more years of presidential crime? 2020 isn't an election between going back to the "Obama years" and Donald Trump. 2020 is the election where we decide what sort of nation we are going to be in the next century. Are we a nation enslaved to the super-rich, or are we a nation that persevered in spite of them?
8
@Nick
" Biden is in this camp, right along with the elitist republicans that he wants to work with. Our political "center" is skewed so heavily to the right that even our "moderates" would seem like hard-right conservatives in many European nations. "
Very well put!
1
When discussing moderate vs. progressive popularity, I think it's valuable to also consider how the graph looks when you bundle similar candidates, particularly when the field contains this many individuals. For example, Warren and Sanders are both running on a similarly progressive platform. If you combine their polling numbers in Arizona, 31% favor a “progressive candidate”. Similarly, combining moderate candidates, such as Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, the total reaches 30% supporting a “moderate”. From this perspective, progressive vs. moderate seems like much more of a tossup than Martin acknowledges. For those interested, the same comparison in Florida yields a 32/34% progressive/moderate split, 38/34% in Michigan, 28/30% in North Carolina, 30/33% in Pennsylvania, and 45/48% in Wisconsin, respectively. I did not include Harris and Yang in this comparison because I am not as familiar with their individual platforms and wouldn’t feel confident lumping them in with either group just based on my personal knowledge, although I’d be interested to hear from anyone who can speak more fully about where they fall on the moderate-progressive spectrum.
3
It would seem that, if you combine the numbers for Warren and Sanders—the leading progressive candidates—against the combined numbers for Biden and Buttigieg—the leading moderate candidates—you would get to a different conclusion. It actually looks like, for these states, in most cases an equal or greater percentage of voters prefer one of the two progressives over one of the two leading moderates. In Michigan, for example, 38% prefer a progressive candidate, while 33% prefer a moderate candidate. Rather than concluding that these poll numbers prove that voters in these states want a moderate candidate, might it be that—at the moment—a good chunk of voters in these states want Biden? Because he's familiar? That might have nothing to do with the fact that his proposed policies are considered "moderate" by those who place the center more on the right side, where Republicans have pulled it. For those who refuse to let the right have total say over where "the center" is, many of the "too progressive" policies that Warren and Sanders are proposing feel, actually, pretty moderate—in the sense that these policies have as their goal an achievement of real, everyday-life benefits for the greatest number of citizens—a body of voters that does not include the ultra wealthy or other minority interest groups (corporate, religious) that exert a lot of effort in controlling the narrative about what counts as "moderate" and what counts as "progressive" (by which THEY mean "radical").
10
Why do people think about electability? Did republicans think Trump was electable when they nominated him? But they nominated him, right? And what happened?
He was the most unpopular candidate in history and still won. I was even happy that they nominated him because I thought that was the only candidate Hillary could won against.
Which means that all this "oh, he/she cannot win against Trump" argument is just nonsense.
6
The idea that there is a glob of moderate Democrats that couldn't help but vote for Trump in '16 because there was no viable moderate Democrat to inspire their confidence is loony bin crazy. If they could stomach voting for a candidate who showed himself, during the campaign, to be as morally and politically loathsome as Trump was(mind you, we are reminded by his supporters of that fact often when his outrages are enumerated...'I think the American people already knew this about President Trump when they voted for him in 2016.'... sound familiar?), they are not moderates looking for a hero. At this stage of the game, I'd say that if one calls oneself a Democrat and you have enough qualms about any of the possible candidates in the primary to keep you from voting for them against this intolerable incumbent we have, I'd say you need to find another party to belong to.
And, aspirationally, it's all well and good to want a candidate who will work with Republicans. One merely has to look at the Obama Administration to see how well that fantasy gameplan plays out with the current GOP. Again, if you can still say something like that as a Democrat, you need to find some other reality sand box to play in. That's not possible in this one.
7
Yeah, what we need is a moderate, common sense, third-way candidate who promises not to change anything in any meaningful sense. That's how you beat Trump in the Midwest. That's definitely the lesson we should learn from 2016.
3
@Will
Clinton who represented those things lost. Trump supporters voted for change, though he lied to them. People want change. That’s what we learned.
Most people consider themselves to be reasonable and "moderate." Most people want to restore sanity and normalcy in politics. So when asked the sort of questions posed by the survey, they will answer as they did.
However on the substantive issues most Americans, unlike TV pundits and politicians, are quite Progressive: Medicare for All (70% of Americans https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care ), Green New Deal (63% of Americans; 64% of independent voters https://grist.org/article/poll-the-green-new-deal-is-as-popular-as-legalizing-weed/ ), free public colleges, reducing the spending on defense contractors, etc.
6
@George Silverberg
That’s because these ideas are not far left and are very reasonable. Corporate Democrats keep labeling them incorrectly to hold onto power. If Biden is elected, Trump Jr will win the following election. These corporate Democrats and the MSM should get on board with what the People want!!! They are putting themselves above the country.
1
This article about Democratic voters’ preferences much less important than this about all swing state registered voters, head to head vs Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html?
Dems must win the swing states to beat Trump. Those voters are choosing Trump vs. X rather than between Dems.
Does that preference shift when the primary winner is elected? Nate Silver posted on this. Less than a majority. Calls into question ‘Biden over Trump’ supporters swinging to Warren in the general.
1
This is silly.
Republicans work for the corporations and the richest of the rich. They don’t care about the country or average Americans.
Republicans have steam rolled the country since Reagan. They won’t compromise, and they prove that over and over.
Democrats want to rein in corporate greed and corruption. They want a country that is inclusive.
It’s like oil and water.
It seems like those on the fence want to give “trickle down” a few more tries.
They seem to believe Republicans really care, and that more tax cuts for billionaires will save the country.
5
Talk about a misleading headline. Democrats by a substantial margin in every state prefer progressives -- that's why Warren's plus Sander's combined support is greater than Biden's.
8
Why do people pay attention what voters think as if voters are informed people who can make good decision? lol
Yeah, we talk about American voters who supported Iraq war with huge majority, did not believe Climate Change in majority until recent years and still 40% does not believe Climate Change is happening.
Why do you even take into account what people think?
Voters are need to be lead and herded, not to be appealed to, too. You take voters where you want them to be, not you will go what they want you to be.
Do you think Trump cared what voters thought in 2016? But they voted for him anyway although he was the most unpopular nominee in history.
Why? Because 80% of voters are sheep.
So go for moderate again as you did in 2016 and get the same result again.
4
A good outcome in 2020 (a DJT defeat!) can be delivered if people stop all this business of 'strategic' voting. Vote for what you believe in - supposedly that's what democracy is all about! No decent person with any kind of moral compass could bring themselves to vote for this 'malignant narcissist'!
3
Who are these people who want Dems to work with Republicans? Have they not been around for the last 30 years? The republicans refuse to work with Dems and consider us repugnant and un-American. The only thing to do is to crush and destroy the Republicans at the polls until they change their hateful ways and return to the belief that we are all Americans and all deserve respect.
4
It appears in America no one cares about public services or what government is for. Having several generations being told that gov is terrible, awful, only private sector demi gods who control your health and well being are trustworthy!
This lie is perpetrated and perpetuated by outlets like the NYT who have a commitment to class warfare.
Thus is the US. An oligarchy for bidness.
2
Here’s what I see, once you combine support for Warren and Sanders, who are pretty obviously splitting the non-moderate vote at this point:
AZ FL MI NC PA WI
Viable moderate 24% 27% 30% 29% 28% 23%
Viable liberal 31% 32% 38% 28% 30% 45%!
Assuming one of the top 3 is most likely to win the nomination, I see the opposite to what’s being reported here in what side of the moderate/liberal split has more support.
4
How many decades of republican "take no prisoners" politics does it take before people realize that republicans will not ever work with democrats. Biden says that if he is elected republicans will come around and work with him. I guess that Obama's experience has gone down the memory hole and Biden is now spouting his pipe dream about republican tigers changing their stripes. Ask Mitch McConnell about his and his party's willingness to compromise. Didn't he say that he would see to it that Obama's would be a one-term presidency? Now there's a conciliatory message.
6
Articles like this are why liberals are starting to be as irritated with the media almost as much as conservative are. The chart directly below the headline belies the headline itself. It doesn't show a huge margin for moderate candidates, it shows a fairly even split between liberal candidates, moderate candidates, and undecideds. If you add the liberal voters split between Warren and Sanders numbers together, you see percentages that match or exceed the Biden numbers (especially in Michigan and Wisconsin), and even if you add a faux centrist like Mayor Pete to Biden's numbers the split is pretty even. You also
also just can't write off the 20-30% of voters who haven't made up their minds yet. That is a way too big of a number of undecideds to be making any sweeping claims about what the Democratic electorate wants other than desperately to beat Donald Trump.
6
@Tina
In 2016, in the democratic primaries(and even when he was a relative unknown quantity)Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in both Michigan and Wisconsin. and when voters in these states were asked later, particularly those that voted for Trump, they stated that if Sanders was the democratic nominee, they would have voted for him instead of Trump.
It is laughable to think that in these swing states of mostly manufacturing and agriculture, that these same voters would pick another Hillary Clone over a progressive "working man's" candidate.
1
If this is true, why is Klobuchar doing so much worse then Sanders or Warren ?
could it be that this is just name recognition, as the candidates haven't actually campaigned that much in these states ?
also, did anyone at the Times actually ask these people what work with Republicans means (M Garland) ?
3
If you add the percentages for Warren and Sanders together, they beat Biden in each of your sample states except North Carolina. If you had second-choice voting, a progressive would win handily. Odd that the writer did not think of this.
3
I am an FDR/LBJ Democrat. I will vote for the Democrat.
Let the moderates find their own candidate. We’ve had a moderation of trickle down for the last 40 years and the middle class and working poor have felt the boots of the moderate policies kick them further down.
Say it isn’t so.
7
The Democrats have been working with the Republicans, and that is why we have a government owned by the rich - that is the Republican dream.
Maybe we should try having the Republicans work with the Democrats for a change.
3
Does Biden actually represent anything? Does he have a program, beliefs? Does he have a vision , passion energy ? Am I excited ?
1
And yet, these same voters are virtually split on wanting a candidate who brings change versus a “promise to bring politics in Washington back to normal.”
Trump’s election was nothing if not the rejection of Washington Normal.
We can waste time catering to a handful of moderate voters in the Midwest and risk losing the Democratic base in the process, or we can focus on electing a nominee who inspires hope and brings discouraged potential voters to the polls.
Gee, if only history could offer some hints regarding what actually works...
52
@Chickpea
“I’ll take, Who won the 2008 election for $1,000 Alex...”
9
@Chickpea The Democratic base has always been moderate, until the "progressive" contamination of the last few years. I've voted for every Democratic President since 1964. And I wonder whether I will be able to vote for a Sanders or Warren.
8
@Chickpea
I can’t decide among these candidates. Maybe healthcare for all is a good idea, or maybe is a bad idea.
Maybe climate change is real, or maybe it’s a hoax. Working with Republicans may be very good, or very bad.
All I know for sure is that I probably may not vote for Trump.
Apparently, I’m one of those undecided, ‘persuadable’ swing voters, (living in a battleground state), who will determine the outcome of the next election.
Please cater to me.
6
New Yorkers just approved Ranked Choice Voting, so let's try a thought experiment:
Imagine a Ranked Choice ballot with the listed candidates. Add up the percentages for the "moderate" candidates, Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Compare that with the total for the "progressives," Warren and Sanders.
In most of these states, Warren or Sanders would win.
2
Getting rid of Trump and winning the WH is more important than ideology. Ideology with pie in the sky without the presidency does not mean much. Democrats have to be reminded that the minority on the left and right may have the heart of the respective party but it is people in the middle select the winner. We cannot take chances in 2020 and must nominate the candidate with the best chance to defeat Trump not just in NE and Ca but across the country.
2
So they want large systemic change, yet also want the nominee to find common ground with the GOP and be moderate.
I think what this points to is that these voters want no real discussion about "identity politics." That may work on issues like health care, but what about childcare, poverty, or immigration? All of those topics are linked to gender and race.
I'm not sure what the answer is other than I just hope that these voters vote Blue No Matter Who.
3
This data set is tiny. Each of the survey sets from each state is comprised of under 300 voters. The uncertainty in the data is thus insanely high. This data cannot be taken very seriously.
5
If Democrats are so obsessed with appealing to conservatives, why not simply have their candidate selected by the Republican party? Then they could save all the time and effort of holding their own primaries.
2
they *say* they'd prefer a moderate, but in almost every state in this poll the combined sanders/warren vote is even with or ahead of the combined biden/buttigieg vote, so i'm not sure i believe them.
2
Your own poll numbers show that MORE people in at least some of these states would like a more progressive candidate than would prefer a "moderate." In Arizona, 31% would like Sanders or Warren, only 24% would pick Biden. In Florida 32% would pick one of those two candidates. It is true that in Michigan Biden alone has more support than those two candidates together and that is true (by 1%) in North Carolina as well, but not in Pennsylvania. Whereas in Wisconsin, a whacking 45% favors one of those two candidates over Biden's 23%. It is of course true that support for Sanders doesn't necessarily pass to Warren if he were to leave the race or vice versa, Last time Democrats were convinced to go with the endorsed "safe" candidate and look where we ended up as a country. Frankly, NYT, this feels like a replay with the media acting as the touts taking odds.
3
I think it’s more significant that four of the six states have a larger percentage of voters in the I-don’t-know column. Because, come on, it’s too early to know. Biden might seem like a safe choice but he’s not. We don’t need status quo. And we need these next six months to sort it all out.
3
The 62% of people surveyed who prefer a candidate who "promise[s] to find common ground with Republicans" simply aren't paying attention. They're living in the last century. Today's Republicans aren't interested in working with Democrats; a Democrat who promises otherwise isn't telling the truth.
3
It hurts that there are so many I’ll-informed and incurious voters out there who cannot even define what a moderate is. To give them a break, if they base their decisions on information gathered from traditional media they are at a disadvantage. The lack of critical thinking skills in this country is often noted but wearing ignorance as a badge of honor seems to be a uniquely American trait.
1
This story is wrong! The two "liberals", Warren and Sanders, have more voter support than ALL the other candidates combined. The liberal or progressive wing of the party is far and away the most popular. The majority do not want more decades of stagnant wages, all the money going to the wealthy, and increased costs to every everyday necessity from healthcare to housing to food. If Warren or Sanders dropped out the other candidate would have a commanding lead and this primary would be over.
5
Whoever the Democrat candidate is, he or she definitely needs to hear out the grievances of Republican VOTERS and work on the issues affecting them, our fellow Americans.
As for the Republican POLITICIANS themselves? I don't consider it mandatory for the Democrat candidate to work with people who take Russian money and don't respect the rule of law.
3
@Edward S.
If you go through the progressives policies you will see they are targeting red states to help them. The progressives, based on policy. are actually wanting to help people in this country that have been displaced and ignored during globalization.
Progressives are saying they want a country that is focused on everyday Americans and serving them. They want a country that is focused on policy for we the people. This will heal the wounds.
The only reason the policy isn’t more popular is because of right wing lies. It would be extremely popular if we did t have the extremist propaganda in this country protecting certain people.
Warren and Sanders compete for the same votes. When one of them drops out, the remaining candidate leads over Biden in all states surveyed. But when combining the votes for Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar on the assumption that one of the three survives, the survey seems to indicate that the remaining moderate wins in all states but Wisconsin (going for the more progressive candidate with a wide margin) and Michigan. The margin of error in this survey was not indicated, but I assume Arizona is a virtual tie.
2
@Eric AND Wisconsin and Michigan will decide who the next President will be. So if beating Trump is the main issue than clearly nominating yet another another moderate Democrat is not a winning strategy. The mainstream media is lying to us as this article proves again. Biden will lose the Presidency just like Gore, Kerry, and Hillary.
1
This is the same old nonsense. Early polls capture a measurement of who is the most recognizable name to voters. Everyone knows the Biden and Bernie name and amongst those two, prefer Biden. Few voters have lived the last three presidential elections saturated in any of the other’s names.
The cumulative effect of the DNC debates and the outcomes of Iowa and New Hampshire will drive massive press coverage and visibility, particularly in proximity to when people are paying attention to these names in the context of having to make their own decision about president. I.e., a TV ad in April about Christmas shopping has minimal context to one placed in November.
A poll relevant to a measurement between Biden and Bernie may suggest voters prefer a more centrist platform - duh - but it doesn’t capture the reality that a year from now Biden will likely be out of the race, not for reasons related to his centrist policies, rendering this article as nothing more than rubbish filler for a Friday edition of the newspaper. Seriously guys, there’s a whole world out there; certainly you can find something more germane to write about.
1
I can imagine some voters that may go Biden, would instead go for Trump if, say, Warren, was the candidate.
The idea of working with Republicans, however, is nothing but a delusion. It's not that a Dem wouldn't do it, it is that Repubs would be continuing their scorched earth politics. The same politics that they've been practicing since Gingrich.
1
Doesn't the chart show the exact opposite of what the headline says? More voters are weighing a progressive candidate than moderates.
4
this article avoided the biggest vote getter: the undecided. Clearly, almost 1/3 of the populace is still making up their minds. so this poll is going to change, possibly drastically. That undecided 1/3
wlll determine who wins the nomination.
The media’s presentation of meaningless polls such as this one is a result of journalism’s centrist bias. Don’t pay attention to this status quo desperation - vote for your candidate, not someone else’s.
2
I’m tired of people in these states. They are part of the reason we have Trump.
2
The headline should read “In 4 out of 6 key states, Democrats don’t yet know who they would vote for”. That’s what the top table shows. Of course, that’s not really news is it? I suspect if the poll had listed a choice of “any of the above”, that would have been the top vote-getter. At this point, pollsters and the media are trying to parse data that doesn’t really exist yet. I hope no candidate tailors their messages or policies to these early polls. I want to hear their real viewpoints and proposals, not “focus-grouped” scripted messaging.
1
I am OK with Biden, but if I could wave a magic wand and make any moderate the candidate, I would go with Klobuchar; she's got so much going for her -- everything except the numbers! And Biden is another old white man (disclosure: some of my best friends and favorite relatives are old white men) -- and it's really time someone else stepped up to the plate. BUT if I could wave my even more magic wand and change hearts and minds on a national scale, Warren would be my pick. Sorry, fellow lefties, but Bernie, besides being an old white man, is a demagogue, and I'm tired of his ranting. He should stay in Congress where he can do some more good.
@VGraz
Klobuchar told voters to their faces to look under their seats and the said. There is nothing there. Got nothing for you. That’s about in your face republican as I’ve seen.
Then asked about the recent tax cuts she won’t even repeal it to put it back to the levels they were to pay or bills. Which means she is going to work with republicans to put those taxes on all of us. She told us bold face she will assist the republicans in continuing their class warfare to put all taxation on us the people and deny us any sense of community for the people, by the people proposals.
Her numbers are low because of her policy and what she represents.
The Emperor is naked and nobody will say it. These people are too old and too infirm, too entrenched in the swamp and too narrow in their thinking. They have already been formed in an era that is bygone. What they are now and where they came from and how most of them are still in office is beyond me. Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg,,, they have all had their time to do something for the people and have not. They always have and will going forward be working for their own ego. Why else would they still be in Politics when they are pushing 80 and between them have had more than 300 years of living to get it done. They are past this time of living with the massive change we need to make. We need a younger, sharper, clearer thinking mind that can go with the new and respects the old. That would be Mayor Pete. He is articulate, educated, open to change and can think on his feet. He is respectful and able and is the only one that will stand up to what is going on right now. Biden took the current President's shot at him too personally and has been off kilter since then. Sanders is not well. Warren is out of touch and bombastic. Democrats can work with Republicans. They would no longer be working with those that walk in lockstep with Heir Trump to achieve their aims since he would be gone. Maybe we could go back to a kinder, gentler time having learned from these 4 years with this man about what we do not want. It will take at least 4 years to unwind all the damage done.
2
It's absurd that this small handful of arbitrary states decides elections. It is time to eliminate the Electoral College.
2
This is what we get from the Times. Every few days a poll that says vote for Biden. You think people would get wise to it by now.
4
I want stuff. Warren and Sanders will give me more stuff than Trump, but Trump will give me more stuff than Biden. QED.
@dgm
You mean QPQ. With the current President you always pay for what you get. He gives nothing for no cost and the cost we find, is too high in too many ways. Stop selling your very soul. He is in the fright position for his way of the deal. He always uses OPM and always will both in Business and in Government. This is clear. He spends non of his own and though his Charitable organization was private, you are still required to account for the funds. He has to do it in writing not just lie about it like what he did with the 225 million received from other governments. Where is it hidden? Where is the accountability? And he is crying over paying back only 2 million!? Incredible. We are living worse now than those in mainland Asia. Well their dear leader dips in the pot for himself too. Good on HK for working for the good of free people and free thought and anti corruption of government. We could take a lesson and take to the streets too.
How short the memories of Americans memories are. Obama was a moderate who tried his level best to work with Republicans, making many generous concessions at the beginning of his term when he did even not have to since Dems had majorities in both the house and Senate. And what did he get in return? Republicans blocking every piece of legislation he put forth thereafter, even his Supreme Court nominee. Anyone who thinks any one of the Democratic candidates can "work with Republicans" is foolish, naive or delusional. And H.Clinton was a moderate and how did that turn out? The only meaningful poll at this time is one that hypothetically pits Trump against each of the candidates. Yu will find it is Bernie who comes out on top. Because the fed up working and middle class in 2016 who had soured on liberal elites really wanted to vote for Bernie, not Trump. I cannot believe the county may make the same horrific mistake twice.
1
The title of this piece is incredibly misleading. The sum of the progressives' polling numbers (Warren and Saunders) is equal to if not greater than the sum of the moderates' polling numbers (Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar). The takeaway should be, "Moderates rally behind Biden, while Progressives still debate candidate."
If Warren or Saunders were to drop out, it is likely that the remainer would subsume the other's base, and then we would have a two candidate race. To claim battleground state voters prefer a moderate is naive and lacks a basic understanding of math.
2
There are 11 candidates listed in the graph. Democrats need to get serious about ranked voting in order to narrow the field. Their polls are all currently about who voters' first choice is. Give them the option to choose their top three candidates - or even just a second choice - and odds are that one of the more progressive candidates will stand out from the crowd.
1
Republicans won't want to elect a "moderate" that will work with Democrats. Why would we want to keep shifting to the right to meet their moving goal posts? Stop pushing Biden on voters just because party donors and elites want him. We don't. We are sick of the status quo.
2
“Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Moderate Nominee, Poll Shows”
The poll shows no such thing. After you aggregate the two progressives and then aggregate the moderates remaining, the poll shows the “Democrats” to be of two minds, or leaning progressive within a margin of error.
If this isn’t a red-handed example of MSM spin, I don’t know what is.
2
A Progressive will not win this election. Period.
The mood of the country is not being heard by the ultra “woke” crowd and their unelectable, goofy unicorn policies that have absolutely no chance of seeing the light of day in terms of passable legislation.
A moderate candidate has the best chance of ending this disastrous presidency and putting the country back on course. Bernie’s day has passed and Elizabeth Warren is red meat to the middle of the country who see her as Hillary 2.0.
This is not rocket science, people. It’s moderacy or perish.
56
@BothSides
you don't know , literally, what you are talking about
Most (not all*) progressive policies are supported by a large maj of Americans
eg, taxing the rich and strengthing social security medicare are VERY popular, even with republicans
google some poll ing data
most people support DACA and path to citizenship
*forcing people off private insurance is, for sure a looser as is open borders
13
@BothSides We've been trying your way for 40 years, and it lost us all 3 branches of the federal government and a vast majority of state governorships and legislatures.
The only democratic presidents we've had in that time have run progressive campaigns, promising change.
I'm done with trying your way, it clearly doesn't work. Nominating Joe "let's just leave things how they are" Biden is not a path to victory.
19
@BothSides
Exactly what part of forcing diabetics to go to the vet for insulin meant for cats because they can’t afford insulin meant for people, is “moderate”?
I think you are working off of a different definition of the word than I am.
11
Much of the discussion regarding moderate vs progressive misses the main point. The more important factor fit this election is the distinction between establishment vs anti-establishment. Trump won in 2016 mainly because he managed to present himself as THE anti-establishment candidate, first in the Republican primaries and then in the general election. Being anti-establishment is not the same as being populist and not the same as being moderate. Voters, of all kinds of ideological stripes, still have significant appetite for an anti-establishment candidate. That’s why the polls show a high degree of support for a hypothetical third party candidate. If a genuinely anti-establishment candidate appears, who is not a dogmatic ideologue, who is psychologically stable, and who is sufficiently pragmatic to work across party lines when necessary, that candidate could do really well in the general election. Someone like France’s Macron. In this regard the possible candidacy of Michael Bloomberg could be quite successful, if he manages to make it past the Democratic primaries or decides to run as an independent.
1
I'm sorry but I don't think this is a very useful analysis of the swing state (Democratic Party) voters - it's nice to know whom they prefer, but isn't it more important to know whom they are willing, or not willing, to vote for? And ditto for independents?
The important thing this time is WINNING THE ELECTION.
I fear that we Democratic Party leaning voters have somehow lost the sense of coalition building we had in elections that we won.
3
A more moderate candidate would seem to be more electable than Warren. Biden needs to retire. The day of the centrist billionaire has passed, so forget it Bloomberg. My hope for a late entry is Senator Sherrod Brown. The perfect candidate: progressive on economic issues but moderate on social/cultural issues. A true workers candidate.
3
I'm so glad to see these results. I know we should take these early polls with a BIG grain of salt, but I am decidedly Conservative and small-d democrat, and agree with all the majority statements/positions reflected here. I think an experienced, moderate uniter like Biden is precisely the sort of character we need right now.
2
Adding the progressives Warren and Sanders beats Biden or is within 1%. I think that means that it is pretty equally divided between progressives and moderates. So give a fair analysis and not one that keeps being biased in its interpretation towards Biden.
4
I don't really agree with the author's conclusion. Yes Biden is pulling roughly 30% of the vote. However, the two progressive candidates (Sanders and Warren) together have a greater percentage. If the choice came down to it, especially after the earliest states vote, a progressive could easily win.
2
Biden/Harris is the winning ticket. It's not the ticket I would want, as a progressive, but it will get the job done.
3
What this says to me is that there's both a split between centrists and progressives and an 'enthusiasm gap" as as well. The numbers for the centrists or moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar) v. progressives (Sanders and Warren) are:Arizona 30-31; Fla. 34-32; Mich. 34-38;
N.C. 30-28; Penn. 33-30; Wisc. 28-45. After all this time and three debates, this is cause for concern and perhaps even alarm. The Democrats need a strong candidate who can unify the party, but at this point don't seem to have one. With the very future of our democracy clearly on the ballot, it may be time for others besides Michael Bloomberg to consider entering the race. I'd urge Sen. Sherrod Brown a progressive who know show to win in the crucial, increasing red, swing state of Ohio to do so. He's progressive; can rebuild the "blue wall" as he speaks for workers; and has the experience to win.
2
The summary of these polls is actually very misleading. These polls clearly show that the majority of decided voters prefer candidates who are NOT moderate. In the key battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the sum of support for Warren, Sanders, and Yang (I'll include him as his proposals are somewhat revolutionary and not middle of the road) is on par with the sum of the moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar), and in some places greater. If Warren or Sanders were not in the race, the bulk of their voters will shift to support the other of the two, and I'm not sure that Biden or Buttigieg can overcome that mass of voters.
6
You are proclaiming that voters prefer a moderate because Biden is ahead in most of these states. However, if you add the totals of Warren and Sanders, it becomes clear that voters prefer a progressive. They are just splitting that vote between Sanders and Warren. If you add Biden with every other candidate besides Sanders and Warren, his totals will not equal the two progressives. Therefore, it is obvious that you have framed these results wrongly.
9
But Barry, this is a poll of Democrats. You don't really think Independents are going to vote in large numbers for Warren or Sanders, do you?
@DebJ
Actually, countless polls show that either Warren or Sanders would defeat Trump by at least 8 percentage points.
The headline says “Democrats”. And it incorrectly identifies these Democrats preferences.
By the way, might be good to notice that adding Warren’s and Sanders’ numbers together and declaring woke victory is kinda silly, since your numbers are coming from pollsters whose data says that voters generally prefer a moderate candidate.
I’d also like to point out that the Upshot here, and 538, do beautiful jobs of explaining what polls are, how they work, and what they do and don’t demonstrate.
Though the analysis of the polling by the NYT here is deceptive, in general it does make sense that many voters would be nervous about electing a candidate who may push for structural change. This is because we’ve all been whipsawed through three years of an experimental presidency.
I, for one, prefer bold leadership to placeholders, which is all the moderates are selling themselves as, as competent placeholders. There’s appeal to that after these 3 years (like Bullock promising that if he’s elected president we won’t have to think about him but for once every couple weeks). However, electing a moderate hands the power to define America over to Republicans, who’ve demonstrated themselves to be quite destructive. We can’t waste any opportunities to move the country forward. We are on the cusp of some very beneficial changes to our system that, if followed through on, significant evidence indicates will improve our lives. These progressive ideas aren’t harebrained as they’re being portrayed in the media (eg. on these pages). The proposals are tested, functional, and well thought. The results of these polls represent that voters believe what they’ve been told by the press.
If a moderate is elected, the GOP are then positioned to again nominate a right-wing candidate the next time around, a candidate who will capitalize on America’s hunger for change after 4-8 years of a humdrum Democratic moderate. America will continue its brutal slide.
1
You think that diatribe is an analysis?
Hoo, boy. “Bold leadership.” Politics by Lincoln commercials, I calls it.
Actually, if the preference were for moderates, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Harris would be doing better. The headline should be Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Candidate with Most Name Recognition.
4
If you combine Warren and Sanders' numbers in these polls, they easily top those of Biden in nearly all the states polled.
3
They may want a "moderate" but they sure don't elect "moderate" republicans. It is a two way street.
3
Been there, done that major.... and one question here-- are the voters in the states highlighted in the survey allowed to switch parties or otherwise vote in the primary of a party of which they are NOT a registered member?
As we know very well from 2016 a candidate can win the popular vote and still not be elected... because we got an insane system here. BTW people do lie all the time... and did you'll mention the so-called margin of error.
Terms like moderate IMO are totally meaning less.. esp. as a moderate or centrist Democrat today is similar if not identical to a 50's Republican. The real question is whom the "Biden" voters would actually vote for in the 2020 election -- and I would not be surprised if "more moderate" Trump would get their vote. BTW when I mentioned Paul Ryan to several people who were helping me in a Racine, WI supermarket -- they had not a clue as to whom I was referring. NEXT. (BTW where was the question for the Warren supporters, if Biden is the nominee will you either vote for him, vote for a third party person, or stay at home. So many lacunae.
No matter who the Democratic candidate is, the political right wing will portray them as an extreme left-wing socialist who is out of touch with "American values." Progressives naively hoped that Obama was one of them, but he actually governed as a moderate and a pragmatist, despite the Republican and Faux News insistence on portraying him as a far-left ideologue. Those who think a "moderate" Democrat would be able to "work across the political divide" have either been in a coma for the past decade or are willfully ignorant of the almost total obstruction by Republicans in Congress during that time (does Merrick Garland ring any bells?). And any self-proclaimed "moderate" who says they would rather see Trump re-elected than vote for a progressive is not really a moderate, unless "moderate" now means someone who is just fine with a far-right judiciary for decades to come, environmental destruction, voter suppression, and a transactional foreign policy that favors authoritarian dictators over our democratic allies.
2
This pole does not show that voters prefer a moderate. What it shows is that the majority of voters prefer Warren and Sanders. What it shows is that 75% to 80% do not support Biden.
3
We had a Democrat for 8 years who “could work with Republicans” and they refused to work with him right down to shredding the integrity of the Supreme Court.
These swing state voters are either out of their minds, deeply deluded or victims of an abusive relationship with the GOP.
4
It’s a trap!
I’m done with this: “I want a candidate who can work with the other side”
That’s just something people say to justify a position they hold deeply.
It means nothing.
You know how I know that: there’s a panel segment on Trump voters that CNN does regularly, and while I never watch CNN, I do check the latest on that - if only to see Alyson Camerota’s pained expressions to hear those Trump supporters.
Every segment the (different) Trump supporters want someone who can compromise and get along with the other side. Every single time (because it’s the Motherhood and apple pie equivalent in politics).
You know why they are spouting nonsense? Because the same panel had a voter who wouldn’t stop supporting Trump even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. When asked incredulously, she justified saying: I’ll want to know why he shot the other person...
So, spare me this “get along with the other guy”. It means nothing. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m good”. When you’re overdosing on drugs.
It’s why Trump voters were underrepresented in the polling for 2016. They didn’t say what they really wanted to say.
4
I would like to hear more from Andrew Yang.
"A New York Times/Siena College survey in six key states also showed voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans."
Maybe these people have been asleep for the last few decades but the Republicans will NOT work with ANY Democratic president regardless of their centrism. The GOP will paint ANY Democrat who runs as a radical leftist socialist who will abort your baby at birth and force you to marry someone of the same sex. The Democrats reach across the aisle every time and they, like Lucy, keep pulling back the football and the Democrats, like Charlie Brown, fall for it every time.
2
Don't know is winning..that should be the top column
ANY Democrat on the list stands head and shoulders above the crass, corrupt, and incompetent incumbent.
2
...for whom would you vote.
Are the people voting for Biden in total denial? The man is incoherent. His mental capacity is fading before our eyes and ears. I hope he ends this campaign before he is lead off the stage by aids.
1
Trump may end emerging as the "status quo" candidate. If the economy is humming along, the "devil you know" may be preferable to an unknown like Sanders or Warren.
For the majority of people who are employed, have corporate insurance, and are seeing their 401k grown; the worst excesses of Trump may seem remote compared to the disruption potential from Sanders/Warren.
Obviously, those without insurance or unemployed will be open to a change candidate, but the American system is built around preserving the status quo (very hard to pass Constitutional Amendments, need strong majorities to pass laws through the House and Senate).
22
@James I have a high-paying job, 401(k), and employer health insurance. But I am hoping for a Sanders or Warren Presidency, because I care about the future of my country and the planet, and not just myself for the next 4 years.
12
@James
I think a lot of people are a bit duped by the "economy humming along" thing. A lot of the so-called jobs in the low unemployment range are low-paying, part-time, and with no benefits. A person has to work 2 or more of these just to stay alive. Neither are they going to be invested in the stock market and such. That's not going to be perceived as "humming along" no matter how you want to spin it.
6
@James $1 trillion deficit in a boom period is unheard off. Tick. Tick tick
Stock markets always fail in the 4th year of a republican presidency. Look back at history
2
I'm not sure how the conclusion is that voters prefer a moderate. More voters prefer either Warren or Sanders than Joe Biden. Maybe if every candidate other than Warren or Sander were tallied, you might get a plurality, but nearly a thrid of primary voters are still undecided, so it's a bit of a stretch to draw any firm conclusions from this poll.
What would be most informative is to poll all of these candidates against Trump in a general election. That's really what matters and hopefully should help guide the decision-making process in the primaries.
1
I haven't read the article just looked at the graphic.
What I saw under the headline that voters in these states prefer a moderate is that in every state except the lone southern state included NC, Warren plus Sanders beats Biden.
Not so sure the headline is accurate.
3
Key point here is that 45% want a progressive (Warren/Sanders) vs 28% want a moderate (Biden/Buttigieg). Also, you have to believe that the poll takers skew toward older/more moderate voters.
4
Right now I'm leaning toward Biden over Warren. That's not because I like Biden's moderate stance so much over Warren's, though. I actually like a lot of Warren wants to do. I'm just worried about beating Trump, and I think he's got the better chance to do that. To me, that's is the MOST important factor after everything else. I can still be convinced that Warren can beat him, but I need to see more from her. So, it's Biden, for now. I'll bet a lot of the people in those other states feel as I do.
40
@Arthur
And the rest of us think that Clinton 2.0 will have about as much appeal as Clinton 1.0 did. I heard Warren speak at the Iowa state fair, and I think that she’s got what it takes to appeal to swing state voters. Her plans would benefit most of them in big ways and she’s incredibly good at explaining the plans in an understandable way. Besides that, she just comes across as a relatable down-home kind of person. She’s from the Midwest and she did well due to her own hard work. She’s struggled in ways that Trump will never understand, but regular people will. I think that as more people hear her personal story, her fan base will continue to grow.
17
@Arthur Bernie is the only one who beats Trump in every single battleground state. If your primary focus is beating trump and not policy, vote for Sanders.
5
@Arthur Worry about beating Trump is one of the primary things that keeps me on Team Warren and off Team Sanders. My never Trump Republican parents would never be able to vote for a socialist like Sanders, but could be convinced to vote for a former Republican from Oklahoma like Warren. Do I worry that some low information voters who are familiar with the Sanders brand might be fooled by advertising on Warren that they wouldn't be about Sanders? Yes. But the thing I keep coming back to is that my parents, and people like them, vote in every single election. Doesn't matter if its an off year, a primary with no important races on it, raining, blizzarding, whatever, they vote. They are much more of a sure thing than a person who could be swayed by a couple of well targeted Facebook ads. I might be convinced to vote for Biden for electibility reasons if he was running a campaign that showed he was serious in his understanding of what a modern campaign needs to look like or how important this election is, but so far I am not seeing that. If Uncle Joe wants my vote he needs to get out of the candidate protection program and into a selfie line.
3
Two points to those demanding a progressive. First, Barack Obama was a moderate and he crushed the opposition in 2008 and 2012. Second, only 29% of Americans identify as Democrat. Commentators here note that it's so unfair not to combine Warren and Sander voters. OK, let's do and also do a little simple math. Half of 29% is 14.5%. So those clamoring for a progressive candidate think that in the general the other 85.5% of America - which is still predominately center-right - is going to vote for the extreme left agenda. Dream on - and I think Trump should give you all a special shout out in January 2021 for handing him a second term.
1
@John J. Barack Obama generated an energy among voters that we're simply NOT seeing with Biden, and he ran a campaign on change. Biden's campaign is better described as "return to status quo."
While not as weak as Hillary Clinton was, Biden looks to perform more like Clinton than like Obama.
2
Obama ran on "hope" and "change" as campaign slogans... he hardly showed up like a moderate. his eventual presidency was more moderate, but the campaign was a shot in the arm that the dem party needed. much like this time, they had no legit other person running, so he sparked the youth vote and won. the youth component is huge in turning over the Presidency, and most young people want something bold and incorruptible a la Sanders
1
Two points to those demanding a progressive. First, Barack Obama was a moderate and he crushed the opposition in 2008 and 2012. Second, only 29% of Americans identify as Democrat. Commentators here note that it's so unfair not to combine Warren and Sander voters. OK, let's do and also do a little simple math. Half of 29% is 14.5%. So those clamoring for a progressive candidate think that in the general the other 85.5% of America - which is still predominately center-right - is going to vote for the extreme left agenda. Dream on - and I think Trump should give you all a special shout out in January 2021 for handing him a second term.
Can we assume that Sanders and Warren are not "moderates"? In that case the top two non-moderates combined beat Biden 31-24. If you put Buttigieg's tally to the moderate column, it's a draw.
The thing about voting your conscience in the primary is, what if that produces a nominee who goes into the general election with a platform that is DOA anywhere except a Democratic primary?
It is customary to “pivot to the center” ( which is a euphemism for flip flopping) for the general. But will Warren or Sanders really jettison their beloved Medicare fo All / elimination of private insurance projects?
Vote your dreams and aspirations in the general. But when you end up with an unelectable candidate don’t be surprised the day after Election Day.
2
Biden/Warren ticket covers the gamut of voters. Also note the "undecideds" are as large, or larger, than the numbers for the candidates.
Unfortunately the House impeachment proceedings are throwing the electable Biden under the bus.
Since the best defense of Trump is to prove that he was right about Biden.
They say that politics is the art of the possible.
The belief by so-called moderate Democrats in the illusory existence of moderate Republican is far more about delusion than anything else. Yes, they do exist. But they are generally not among Republican candidates these days nor among those elected as Republicans.
Even Mr. Moderation, Michael Bloomberg, is wise enough to realize he wants to bring his dog-and-pony middle-of-the-road sideshow to Democratic voters, rather than test the waters of moderation in the R party's tolerance for moderate Republicanism.
People should realize that the calls for moderation among Dems are pretty much a call for them to adopt the Republican political agenda of mostly Looney-Tuned Dear Leaderism, if with slightly different details about desired incomes.
This nation has spent most of the last 40 years following that same R agenda and look where it's gotten us. Doubling down on more of the same is nothing more than accepting that the values to the left of center aren't just in second place, but cruelly stomped out.
R resistance to impeachment is another fine example of the irrationality of misguided appeals to heed the center stripes. To see Trump's lame imitation of mafia-boss self-dealing as acceptable is a stark rejection of the rule of law.
There is no better definition of where real middle of the road is than respect for the rule of law.
4 more years of "compromise" with Trump and his minions and we can put a stake in America.
3
Dangerously naive. These Republicans are not the Republicans of your grandparent's era.
By their actions at the federal and state levels Republicans have forfeited any claim that they are a legitimate political party that is capable of, or even interested in, governing.
They are more interested in ruling, not governing, and consider it unnatural that anyone else is in power, and will do anything, including violating the Constitution, to stay in power.
Obama tried meeting these people halfway and was stabbed in the back every time.
3
The winner in every state is not biden but “I don’t know” it is still name recognition for far to many voters.
Biden is gone , it is not a question “if”but “when”. No energy , no money. mainstream / corporate support will not be enough.
Actually, the poll shows that a large percentage of voters in these states are supporting either sanders or warren. besides Biden, buttigieg and klobuchar, who is considered "moderate"?? the left wing of the party is more popular overall even if Biden is the single most popular candidate in these states. Also, primary winners don't necessarily lead to winning that state in the general. I am pretty sure that HRC won both wisconsin and pennsylvania in 2016 over bernie sanders. While I believe that these NYT polls are completely on the level, the presentation this week is definitely biased in one direction: towards Biden and supposedly more electable "moderates".
1
"A majority of those surveyed said they wanted a Democratic nominee who is more moderate than most Democrats, and they overwhelmingly preferred one who would bridge the partisan divide in Washington. "
Hahaha. Obama tried to be common ground in his first term and how did Republicans treat him? It took him until his second term that he understood Republicans would not do anything that will allow him accomplish anything.
Vote for Biden and get the same. Then complain in 8 eight years that nothing is done in D.C and vote for a crazy Republican to straighten things up which in turn will go back 50 years. Then vote for another moderate Democrat who will not push for anything. Then another crazy Republican.
There is no bottom level for ignorance of American voters. :-)
4
Yes, both Sanders and Warren's percentages exceed Biden in the primaries. However, these are the primaries. The general is a different story because all the voters vote, not just the democrats. So, although Sanders and Warren combined may win over Biden, they will not win in the general. Their agenda is simply not supported by most of the independents and non-democratic moderates in these swing states that are ready to abandon Trump. They will not support:
1) reparations
2) decriminalizing illegal border crossing
3) raising taxes for free health care for illegals
4) raising taxes for medicare for all while eliminating private health insurance
5) raising taxes for free college for everyone
6) raising taxes to eliminate student debt
and on and on...
They will hold their nose and vote for Trump. There are simply not enough electoral votes in the blue states. And impeachment is not helping either. Yes, Trump deserves to be impeached. But if he is not removed, this makes him a vindicated martyr. The hearings should proceed but not the trial. Let the voters decide based on the evidence the hearings put forth.
2020 is the democrats' election to lose. And Warren' and Sanders' agenda will do a good job of losing. 2018 and Tuesday's winners are not lefty progressives. Take a lesson.
1
Democrats win as a center-left coalition. The candidate who unites and appeals to both groups will win. I like Warren, but I think Amy Klobuchar would be the strongest nominee. She's plenty progressive on the issues (read this from her website: https://medium.com/@AmyforAmerica/amys-first-100-days-b7adf9f91262 ). She has proven she can win, repeatedly, the general election in a competitive state; no one else on the November debate platform has done that.
1
Yeah, and the moderate/centrist choice worked SO WELL for the Dems in 2016...
1
Kind of strange that a "majority" want a moderate (a very slim majority you should notice), but if you add together the percentages for Warren and Sanders they are above those of Biden + Buttigieg + Klobuchar.
Once Sanders eventually drops out, which he should have done already, do you think those people are going to bizarre manchurian Tulsi Gabbard? Do you think they're going to Biden, the person they most reject? Do you think they're going to Buttigieg, whom they find calculating and insincere? Or Klobuchar who has not registered outside the cognoscenti at all (and whose main feature seems to be saying "hold your horses" to the liberals)? They're going to Warren.
If Obama hadn't wasted two years being hornswaggled by Mitch McConnell we would have a public option today, "working with republicans" is a half-cooked canard.
1
You can't work with the Republicans - they are radical, inflexible, and focused on greed. I've got an idea. All you neoliberal Dems (including you, New York Times) should take over the Republican Party and openly represent corporate and billionaire interests, as you desire. Then the Progressives take control of the Democratic Party and run a *real* change agent for President, someone who will take on the monied classes and climate change without fear of offending the neoliberal wing of the party - because the neoliberal wing will now be Republicans!
"voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans."
It takes two to tango.
1. We’re still early in the process, so relax.
2. It’s not a good sign that self-anointed “progressives,” would rather scream at the data than think about what it means.
3. I am well and truly tired of the ideological purists. Good thing there’s not that many of them.
4. Let’s try and get over the notion that deep in their hearts, Americans long to be liberated by...the Left.
5. Let’s try and accept the fact that a lot of people aren’t dumb or enslaved: they just disagree with you.
6. Before you yell too much about how Obama didn’t do nothing, look stuff up.
7. Either find out what terms like “liberal,” mean, or stop using them.
8. Please learn that screaming at people isn’t fighting. It’s screaming.
9. Before the next time you yell about Obama and Biden and the pointlessness of “working across the aisle,” do try and at least notice that the Democrats lost their majorities in the 2010 and 2014 midterms because WE DIDN’T BOTHER TO VOTE.
Please show up and vote this time around.
2
As much as I like Warren, I believe Biden is the surest bet against Trump. Provided however, Biden doesn't put his foot in his mouth too often.
1
The lede here is completely misleading. Sanders and Warren are both progressive. They're splitting the progressive vote. By my count, the two of them together lead every poll here. Arizona- W+S= 31% of electorate wants a progressive to 24% for more of the same neolib (Biden). Fla - 32% progressive v. 27% Biden. Michigan a whopping 39% progressive v 30% Biden, etc, etc. You all need to figure out how to do some math.
How is the NYT missing that if you combine Warren and Sanders, Democrats overwhelmingly prefer a progressive candidate?
1
Please - REPRESENT THE DATA ACCURATELY!
If Harris is 3% why isn't she above Klobucher?
Why is Gabbard in the position she's in above Yang?
If your chart is inaccurate, what does that say about your story?
P.S.
Maybe Bloomberg and Biden will cancel each other out- Good News for America!
Excuse me but the rest of us Democrats in 44 other states have a say in this. These six states may not be representative of the consensus opinion and as has been apparent to many of us readers the NYT has a bias toward what the editorial board views as a "moderate" candidates. We had one the last go round, she lost.
2
"It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. Sampling error in individual states is higher"
We cannot make any comparisons without knowing what the state margin of error was. Are these state by state comparisons legitimate? My guess is, with sample sizes of ~200 per state, no.
This NY Times nonsense reporting and now polling trying to convince the readership that Warren and Sanders have no backing is reminiscent of 2016. Full Stop.
I find it interesting that the NYT graphic chose to place Harris and Yang *below* Klobuchar and Gabbard, even though they have stronger overall support in the states mentioned, in total and comparing numbers:
Harris: 311110
Yang: 221100
Klobuchar: 211100
Gabbard: 111100
1
Polls mean nothing.
All of the discussions of "who's on first" ignore the reality that all of the Sanders and Warren supporters are likely to prefer Sanders or Warren over all others. Add their percentages together for a more accurate picture.
1
Polling only 200-300 people per state? I don't know what to make of these results based on that small a sample. Urban vs. suburban vs. rural? East, west, north, south of a state? Residents of any given state aren't monoliths. For example, here in Ohio, Cleveland is much more progressive than Cincinnati, the rural boundary towns are much more conservative and college towns much more liberal. How do you poll any state that effectively if you're only talking to a few hundred folks?
Liberals elect Trump and then demand moderates come to heel to support them in saving the Republic. How rich!
I’m a moderate. 90% of the damage Trump will do has already been done. I support having a liberal run against Trump, most likely Warren, so that when she loses by the most breathtaking margin since Mondale maybe the liberals will stop crying. Doubtful, but possible.
What the last 20 years has taught anyone without a bilateral lobotomy is that when liberals vote for the Democrat, the Democrat wins, and when liberals vote for Santa Claus (Nader, Stein, et al.) the Republican wins. So if liberals want to keep electing Republicans, by all means. Enjoy.
2
Well, the results are not surprising if they used landlines to poll potential voters.
I agree, except I wonder if Warren/Sanders could run as a pair or alternatively Warren pairs with a moderate like Buttigeig. I can see those too as a good pairing.
Have Republican primary voters ever worried about "electability"?
Democrats are so worried about appealing to some imaginary moderate voter that they can't even vote for the candidate they prefer in the primary! Isn't that the purpose of having a primary? That YOU as a member of the party get to decide who represents you in the general election?
Here's an idea: Vote for the candidate who YOU think has the best policies. Do your best to convince others to agree with you, and let the chips fall where they may.
Didn't Dems already make this mistake with John Kerry in 2004? (the last time they ran against an unpopular, GOP presidential incumbent)
95
Conversely, do you remember Eugene McCarthy? He was also loved by college educated people and didn’t win the primary. The American electorate doesn’t seem to like egg-heads or people that appeal to egg-heads. I’m not saying that’s good. It just is.
2
@Tommy G They also made the same mistake in 2016 by electing Clinton over Sanders. Sanders was beating Trump by landslide margins in every poll. Clinton only by 1 or two points (which in the end represented how the popular vote panned out).
3
@GMM
Eugene McCarthy was not the Democratic nominee for President.
1
The combined percentage of Warren and Sanders (progressive) voters is greater than that of Biden (moderate) voters. So the majority voters in these states actually prefer a progressive candidate, not a moderate one.
3
The situation would change drastically if one of the most progressive candidates, i.e. Warren and Sanders - are absent.
Now these two front running candidates are dividing the progressive lot among Democrats. Biden is the most preferred candidate for influential lobby within Democratic party that used to be the core support for Hillary Clinton. Biden is also massively promoted by vested interests in corporate America.
One of the reasons for Hilary's defeat was alienation of Sanders supporters by Democratic party and pro-business Dem lobby (not much different than mainstream GOP politicians.) Biden's nomination is expected to do the same and gift Trump one more term.
US needs a drastic change to shake up its business-usual attitude. Going back to "normal" to result the same polarization and rise of crony capitalism. That "normal" actually led Trump to become our President. It must change.
1
If key state's voters actually prefer a moderate, why aren't Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing better in the polls? They're moderates.
I don't think these polls suggest a preference for a moderate. so much as they suggest 1) greater name recognition for a former vice president, and 2) the fact that progressive votes are split between Warren and Sanders.
5
Exactly!!!
I think the question about returning government to normal vs systematic change is very loaded and has a centrist stant.
It does not ask if people want systematic change to government, but to American society, which suggests a sort of cultural revolution, not a political and economic one, which Warren and Sanders are promoting.
Imagine if it asked if people wanted a return to politics as normal, or a more equitable system of wealth distribution.
2
Actually, what this shows is that Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote. If they pledged to work together, perhaps with one as Pres and one as VP, they would unify the progressive vote and would become the clear leader. They are friends and mostly believe the same things. But if they can't work together it is likely that they will both lose.
3
" Democrats in the country’s most pivotal general election battlegrounds prefer a moderate presidential nominee..."
Not sure how one draws that conclusion from the graph. If Warren drops out, most of her voters will go to Sanders, and vice versa. Their combined numbers beat Biden in every state. And if Bloomberg's entrance has any noticeable impact, it certainly won't be to draw voters from either of them.
3
I am frankly shocked that Democratic voters are so afraid of progress. While I would vote for any Democrat who runs against Trump, it would be more in sorrow than with joy if it were Biden. It would seem that in wanting a Democrat who could work with Republicans when the evidence is in that Republicans are never going to work with Democrats that there are more Democrats than I imagined who have bought into the "moderate" jargon. And if they have, why Biden over Buttigieg? This poll is a major revelation and an even greater disappointment. Well, hopefully, there's still time for changes before we get to the final reckoning.
1
I'm afraid The Times, MSNBC, CNN, my usual source of information on the election, offer far fewer articles and shows on the Sanders campaign than on other candidates. We hear daily about Biden, often about Warren and the others.
I and many who favor Bernie feel the media neglect him and feel this an egregious fault. His agenda is positive while other candidates support them only partially, making them much more liable to neglect and change.
It is imperative we elect someone with a strong, positive voice — Medicare For All, a minimum wage of $15, Free tuition in state colleges, and restricting the big banks and its officers,
who had so much to do with the depression of ’08 and still received huge bonuses at years end.
3
And I’m afraid I got way past tired of these “them medias and corporations and neocon Clintonses WON’T LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD ABOUT ST. BERNIE,” arguments back about August, 2016.
For tactical purposes, am I the only liberal progressive here who thinks Warren and Sanders need to get together and decide which of them should drop out? Let's *consolidate* the progressive vote and see how that matches up against VP Joe. I mean, desperate times call for desperate measures, no?
3
If we wait for one of them to voluntarily step aside before the Democratic convention, we will be waiting in vain.
The ego is a powerful deterrent to doing the right thing. cf: Bernie’s slow-poke endorsement of Hilary.
please note that the combined vote for bernie & liz in all these states exceeds that of biden.
the corporate democrats will lose this election.
the only way trump loses is at the hands of millions of millennials who demand actual progress on social democracy, ending fossil-nuke power and protection of the vote (and vote count) without which we go nowhere.
3
If Democrats don't win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they will lose the Presidential election. And in order to win those states, the Democratic nominee will have to be a moderate. Not hard to understand. The question is are Democrats willing to nominate a moderate in order to get rid of Trump? I certainly am.
4
@Robert
I disagree — moderate Clinton didn’t beat Trump. Why should voters be more excited about Biden?
@E Good question. I think Clinton's problem was 1) her baggage and 2) bad campaign strategy. She took the Midwest states for granted, which was a fatal mistake in retrospect.
I would like to see Mayor Pete as nominee, or Amy Klobuchar. I am not too excited about Biden.
1
They want a Democrat who can work with Republicans? No problem. But first, they’ll have to elect Republicans who are willing to work with Dems.
4
I find the questions misleading. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. e.g back to normal vs systematic change...
and is the sample of 1568 polled not rather small? I'd love to see an app that collects a million +
2
This column misrepresents the obvious. Warren and Sanders are NOT "moderates" yet if you combine their polling and contrast it will the polling of the "moderates" it is clear that, in fact, Democrats in those states DO NOT prefer a moderate.
Enough with this line of bologna.
1
"...voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans."
the assumption—a fallacious one—being Republicans will work with Democrats.
Republican have not been willing to work with Democrats since 1993 and they have made their intransigence the main plank of the Republican Party's platform.
1
The questions present false choices. Find common ground with republicans? The only way to do that is complete surrender. Obama tried to find common ground, and every time he moved in their direction, they moved the goalposts further back. Bring politics in Washington back to normal? What does that even mean when one party values power at whatever cost to the nation?
3
No. Add up support for Sanders and Warren. Then add up support for everyone else.
Biden has name recognition in his advantage. This race is very much in flux and in play.
3
Team Warren!
What we need to do is take away the labels that define us as Republican, Democrat or Independent. We need to stop big businesses from owning our elected officials with large donations to their campaigns and kick backs under the table.
When big business donates money to a politician, they are in fact buying the ability to sway votes with that politician. The reason Republicans and Democrats square off at one another and end up unable to work together, is that big business is dictating their votes.
Each politician should be allowed X amount of taxpayer dollars to present their case to Americans. Each candidate should be given an allotted amount of prepaid televised time and newspaper print to state their case. No individual or business donations should be allowed - period.
And on the really big issues that our political parties cannot agree on, no matter how hard they try - the final vote should be placed with taxpayers. If after 60 days the Democrats and Republicans cannot come to a resolution regarding any matters before them, then American taxpayers are automatically given the final say by voting.
Want a productive, well oiled working government? Take the power away from big business and "for profit government employees".
3
This blows my mind that we are finding ourselves in this position. Could somebody please tell me how these surveys are being conducted? Are these only people who still have landlines? If so, that would skew the results.
4
This question (do you want a candidate who can work with Republicans) is always asked on the Democratic side (it is not a neutral question; it is a "push discussion" designed to push less progressive views on the moderate and left-leaning electorate to preserve the status quo for the wealthy), but is far less discussed pertaining to the conservative electorate (do you want a candidate that can work with Democrats? is far less of a priority question). This is part of how the political center is consistently shifted right-ward (at least on economic issues) to the point that if Bernie Sanders read verbatim some speeches by a revered moderate Democrat of the past, such as JFK, the media and today's democrats would react by crying "oh, there goes radical, commie bernie again with his crazy ideas". The media knows very well that the Republicans are far less concerned with working with Democrats but still forcefully promotes this discussion of "should the democrats bend over backwards and beg the republicans to 'compromise'?"
3
he's not my choice, but Bernie was/is pretty good at the whole working with others thing. lets not forget he's really an independent
1
Once again the claim that Republican lite is the solution to defeating Trump. Trump was unelectable yet he was elected albeit by the electoral college. The reason, people were fed up with the status quo. Clinton, whom I voted for, was the insider status quo candidate. She did not inspire the turn out necessary to overcome what is now Trump's base.
Democrats need the younger generation to come out and vote in numbers, big numbers. They favor Sanders or Warren. The center these days is pretty far right, having been dragged there by the ever more extreme Republicans. A shift to the left is needed and is what under 40 crowd 30? is looking for. Klobuchar doesn't poll well for a reason, Biden has failed twice in runs at the Presidency and the reasons remain the same. A political Fatal case of foot in mouth disease and he is the ultimate insider politician with the long debunked belief he can work with Republicans. Forget the Republicans just defeat them all, they need to purged. I am all for a conservative voice but not the extreme right version of the Republicans that exists now and is tearing apart our Democracy putting power and money before country.
1
"they overwhelmingly preferred one who would bridge the partisan divide in Washington."
From my understanding it takes 2 to tango.
2
Any port in a storm. As long as Trump is president, we are in extreme danger, and the most urgent thing is to win in 2020, however we can. Biden may not be ideal, but he’s got a good chance of winning. Warren doesn’t.
Just picture yourself on November 4, 2020, staring at the abyss of four more years of Trump, and thinking, “We might have won, but we backed a candidate who was too far to the left.”
1
Isn't the sum of Warren + Sanders greater than Biden in every state shown?
3
2000, 2004, 2016 - Centrist moderates Lost. 1,000 do-nothing democrats have been wiped out in the last 10yrs at the state level. Obama's victory in 2008 hinged on 'hope and change' he never delivered, fooling the electorate for a short time. With crushing medical, house and education costs the vast majority of America will not show up for another status quo democratic loser (Biden) or even anti-establishment poser (Warren). It's Sanders or another 4yrs of Trump. It's time the moderates swallow it and get it line.
"Work with Republicans"?? This is what decades of media "false balance" has done. Given us a public that has somehow failed to notice that the Republicans operate solely by uncompromising opposition to any Democrat, not matter how conservative.
2
Really? I’ve given up on my fellow American’s. I was young when the US botched the Bay of Pigs crisis, watched the Watergate hearings while in college, cringed during the Trickle down economics era, cringed again during Clinton’s impeachment, nearly gave up all hope when W was elected and watched as we went to war without cause...then Trump...and I naively thought that after Trump made fun in public of a crippled reporter, my fellow Americans would absolutely reject him as unsound, if not a cruel, heartless, egomaniac. The middle class is gone, big business owns the government and demands the we remain complacent, the wealth gap is as great as it was just before the Great Depression, young folks can’t pay off their student loans and will have great difficulty achieving sound economic footing, we still won’t accept the fact that minorities have been disadvantaged in this country for, well, since Europeans arrived...and...I was a scientist before I retired...the climate is absolutely in crisis and it is our fault. Really? We want the status quo? Please, read! Please, look at what humans did with their small island in the Pacific Ocean - Easter Island. What did they think when they cut the last tree down? Maybe, “Hey, once all our trees are gone, we’re going to go extinct, oh well, not my problem.”
1
At he risk of bursting anybody'd balloons-any survey with less than a thousand participants (never mind less than 300) is really not trustworthy.
1
Interesting and telling that in three states where women are still considered to be the "property of their husbands," Warren is looked upon as "less important than any man."
Check out PA, FL, and NC. Patriarchy still exists. AZ surprises me. Then, again, the samples are miniscule and irrelevant, in my opinion.
1
I disagree with the conclusion in the headline. Support for Warren Sanders > Biden’s in every state the article mentions.
2
I find it ridiculous that people won't vote for the Progressive candidate because regardless of whether you agree with their policies or not for the most part none of these policies will get passed by Congress. This is why we do not have the public option in Obamacare. The Democrats need to concentrate on the Congressional races to ensure that whoever wins the Presidency will have a Democratic Congress.
1
Why does a Republican never have to “work with” Democrats? Only Democrats need to act like Republicans. This is pure propaganda from the wealthy status quo.
2
If you add the totals for Sanders and Warren together, they’re larger than that of Joe Biden. So what’s with the headline?
1
I seem to recall these are the same two organizations that had Clinton beating Trump soundly in both the popular vote (they were right) and the electoral vote (they were so very wrong) up until about 9:00 pm on Tuesday, November 8, so I can't take anything you guys write seriously until you explain why you were so deadly wrong. Take it from one who is Seldom Wright.
Once Sanders bows out, Warren will get his voters and overcome Biden.
As a pragmatic progressive, I lean toward a moderate candidate for the simple reason that I think they stand a better chance at ending the Trump nightmare. But the notion that a moderate will be able to "work with Republicans" is the stuff of unicorns and rainbows. There IS no "Republican Party," and if they hang on to the Senate, McConnell or his successor will be as resolute in throwing rocks in the gears as he was for 8 years of the Obama presidency. But hey ... if that's the ridiculous veneer a Democrat needs to woo swing state voters - fine. Let's all join hands and work together. I'm sure the Freedom Caucus can't wait to extend an olive branch.
79
@gdurt
That’s the truth.
The Republican Party is a predatory business. It’s only about money.
Helping the country or the American People would be bad for profits.
They have no interest in it.
5
@gdurt I don't think you realize how poisoned the well actually is. Three decades of Republicans moving the goalpost to the right with left centrists who disguise capitulation as compromise has its consequences. No matter how boring and disingenuous the left had seemed, the argument had always been presented to many on the left that they should consider the right to be much worse. Now after crying wolf for so long, we actually have one in office. The younger generations have demonstrated their disdain through willful inaction in the last election. The only real question that matters is, are you less likely to come out to vote for a progressive against Trump than a progressive voter is likely to come out and vote for a centrist. I see a vote for a progressive (or as you so deem, a non-pramatist) as the more pragmatic choice.
6
@gdurt
Isn’t Bernie winning in New Hampshire and Nevada.
Actually, this data does NOT suggest a preference for a "moderate nominee". If you add up the votes for Warren & Sanders (both of whom represent the progressive wing of the party and have similar views), the progressive view beats the moderate view in every example except North Carolina, where Biden beats Warren + Sanders by a mere one percentage point.
The real takeaway is that the progressive worldview is leading.
I used to be a Sanders supporter, but given his advanced age, his heart troubles, and his lack of dynamism and experience (compared to Warren), the best chance the progressives have is for Sanders to step down and encourage his supporters to back Warren.
8
1 1 does not equal 2 in politics. It’s not a group think vote.
1
If you are going to combine Warren and Sanders to get the progressive vote, it only makes sense to add Buttigieg and Klobuchar to Biden to get the moderate vote. When you do that, three states become a dead heat (within 2 points of each other) and the other three split 2-1 in favor of progressives. Nevertheless, the writer is correct that the headline is misleading.
@Rose. You may think it makes sense to put Bernie and Warren voters in the same camp, but I’m here to tell you, my friends who are Bernie bros say if Warren is the nominee, they will stay home or vote third party.
I want to see a poll that says “If Warren (or Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Bloomberg) were the Democratic nominee against Trump, who would you vote for?” “First, WOULD you vote, or would you sit this one out?”
Voter enthusiasm drives voter turnout: people don't show up for a candidate they "slightly prefer".
Biden's campaign is struggling to raise funds, and his rallies don't attract the crowds that Sanders or Warren do.
This idea that we should once again run a moderate candidate "for our own good" to try to attract unenthusiastic moderates is harmful because it dims the passion of Democratic voters. Instead we're reliant on "moderate" voters who were nevertheless content to elect an extremist Republican.
Didn't we learn from 2016?
8
@K & S
Yes, exactly. And also, analogously, from 2004.
1
@K & S
Exactly. There are moderates and independents, which can both be swing voters. However, these male swing voters in PA and OH, who could not vote for Hilary may decide to vote for Trump at the last minute, because the Senate did acquit him, right?
These are fickle voters, who listen to labels of 'socialism' and may be xenophobic or harbor bigoted ideas that they hide. The Democratic party needs to stop catering to these voters. They had a moderate in 2016 and they squandered it, likely because she was a woman. If Biden does not get the nomination, they will swing anyway. We might as well vote our values and have faith. The newest crop of young college voters may save us.
1
What does 'back to normal' mean? Bipartisan? They can't even agree on infrastructure funding. I'm afraid we left the normal station along time ago.
8
One of the most interesting tidbits from this poll is that it represents Mayor Buttigieg's true support among the electorate, which is to say barely above the bottom tier. It's about time for the mainstream press to admit that all the promotion of his candidacy has succeeded only with the very liberal Democratic activists, and that his supposed top level standing is just a mirage.
5
I suspect that Buttigieg is not well known among the voters in these states. He is developing much enthusiasm among voters who have read/heard him and are familiar with his persona and background.
1
The headline is the opposite of what the data shows. Adding the polling for the two far left candidates - Warren and Sanders — shows that the demand for the far left either ties or exceeds that for the so-called moderate Biden. In Wisconsin the lead is 45 percent for the far left and 20 percent for the so called moderate Biden.
6
Isn’t the idea of "working with Republicans" a fantasy? Obama was definitely a moderate, and the only big things he got done were in his first 2 years when Democrats also controlled Congress.
2
Wait until Bernie hands his delegates over to Warren next June. Moderates will truly show us what they really are when they choose Trump over Warren in the general - stone-cold Republicans.
@JM. Let’s hope if Warren IS the nominee, Bernie immediately supports her, instead of dragging his feet like the last time.
1
If you focus on the Big Three: two of them, Warren and Sanders, are progressive and one, Biden, is moderate. Assuming that neither Warren or Sanders would run a 3rd party rebellion, that means the progressive support is greater than Biden's in every state but North Carolina.
2
In the words of the column's headline, "If the Democratic primary were held today...", I would not be eligible to vote, because I am not a registered Democrat (and I'm not a registered Republican either).
We need to get rid of Party Politics, we need to weaken political parties. I hate political parties, so I want more of them.
We need open primaries and rank-choice voting to trim the fields fairly, not with marginal third party spoilers. Let them hold their caucuses and conventions, but stop making us all pay for their private-entry public elections.
I am in the age bracket (76) where most are Binder voters. I am a MA liberal with a liking for Moderate candidates (Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar), but Biden doesn't register with me at all due to his age and his frequent flubs. No wonder his staff keeps his schedule light!! Would have loved to see Sherrod Brown in the race--a great, appealing Moderate!! Since he is not a choice, let's hope Mayor Pete can keep getting more traction and chase crazy left wingers Sanders and Warren to the sidelines.
1
Please stop trying to push the media-friendly "moderate Democrat" agenda. Bernie Sanders fired up the party in 2016 and was cheated out of the nomination. The media is trying to do the same thing again by fearmongering. The GOP has irredeemably gone off the rails and is now a defunct party. The concept of 'working across the aisle' is dead. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, he/she will be attacked by the wingnuts as too liberal. Even as old as I am - a boomer, I can't imagine going back to the corporate friendly past. Young voters will not tolerate another progressive candidate being shafted by the machine like Bernie was. The media and party apparatchiks putting their thumbs on the scale will give us another four years of trump - and that might be enough to destroy our country.
4
This boomer agrees completely. Thanks for saying it so well. If only the Democrats would listen to their voters—— and if only the GOP had exercised the power of the party. We might have had a Jeb Bush / Sanders contest. Wow. Things would be different.
Klobuchar has the right stuff to capture centrist Republicans sick of Trump. The Republicans standing lockstep with the President over the vote for "impeachment inquiry" is an anomaly. Not a single Republican congressperson could even support an INQUIRY?! That is not how the conservative and independent voters will behave at the polls.
If a hard left candidate is nominated by the Democrats say hello to four more years of Trump.
Buttigieg is doing well BECAUSE he is centrist. He and Amy actually DO look like the future of the American electorate. A gay veteran or a woman can get elected. That they are white people doesn't reduce their talents or change how different they actually are from every other President in the past.
1
The key is in the "don't know" category. That wins hands down! This means there is room for a new someone else or that Democrats are the wishy washy type who only make up their mind at the last moment. Come on fellow dems it is still just a poll!
1
Now let's see the poll showing Republicans want Trump to work with Democrats.
1
It takes two to tango. The question is if Republicans are willing to work with Democrats. They were certainly not willing to work with Obama ... "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." --Mitch M. Why WOULD they want to help Obama succeed? So they could lose the presidency? It's power politics. Republicans and Democrats will work together only when they are forced to and have no other choice. Running on that platform is naive. All Republicans have to do is say "no" and one big promise not kept. It's a scam to limit social justice and progress. Obama won Pa., Oh, Mich., etc. without Republican help so can other Dems. HRC lost thinking she could win Ariz.
It is so en vogue for "centrists" to look down their noses at Ms. Warren and Sanders electing instead to vote for a return to the very vanilla system that gave us Trump in the first place. Have no fear of Warren or Sanders. If a fraction of their policies is made law you and your loved ones would most certainly benefit; however, the business as usual Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, etc. get us half measures as policy and fractional progress as real legislation. Americans are excited for this election. it is time for a real progress with healthcare, gun control, environmental action, women's and minority rights. Now is not the time for a retreat to the center, because the center, over the last 40 years has been driven far too far to the right.
2
Other polling finds Americans want reforms that are progressive. It's all in how you ask the questions. Voters will always signal a more positive reaction to something that is labelled "moderate" versus "radical." Let's consider some "radical" ideas from the past:
- abolishing slavery
- right to vote for women
- a forty hour work week
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Affordable Care Act
No candidate could have been more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton in 2016 - yet she failed to produce in many key states.
8
Spot on. I prefer cashews but will eat almonds. They’re healthier anyway.
2
What polling would that be, exactly?
And as for Hillary Clinton, the trumpist screaming about her being a radical could be heard across the land.
To me it is not rocket science. If the policies of either party is first and foremost oppose the other party and deny the people in it may not agree with you we will not Govern well with whichever extreme we choose.
If you average all 6 states the leader is "don't know". Recall when polls showed so many feeble minded voters who hated Obamacare but all in favor of the Affordable Care Act. No doubt those same voters today will hate socialism / government intervention but be all in favor of universal healthcare, environmental health, ending the rigged system. And ask those same voters who want to "seek common ground" what that common ground might be. And let's not lose sight that Obamacare currently stands repealed in full by a lower court, that the next higher court appears more than likely to uphold that ruling, and hence it will fall to Chief Justice Roberts to come to the rescue yet a third time.
3
Democrats gonna Democrat, huh?
It's bizarre that so many Democratic voters would place such a premium on a nominee's ability to "reach across the aisle" and work with Republicans. Were these folks asleep the last ten years? Were they not around for the Clinton years? I don't know how clearer it can be that the GOP will absolutely not work with a Democratic president. Like, at all. Republicans' only purpose when a Democrat holds the White House is to make sure that Democrat fails at whatever he or she does. It is amazing to me that there are a substantial number of Dem voters out there for whom this isn't starkly obvious.
As for wanting a moderate to get the nod...this is suddenly an emerging sentiment, and I believe, a losing one. Who is the last moderate to win the presidency as a Democrat? Before saying "Barack Obama," keep in mind that Obama was unequivocally anti-war, relatively inexperienced, and of course, black. He was certainly not seen as the safe, moderate choice in 2008. So which moderate Dem has won? Clinton? Kerry? Gore?
Fact of the matter is that the "safe, electable" Dems don't inspire large numbers of people to go to the polls. This should be self-evident, no? "No we can't" or "Let's just go back to the way things were" are not exactly the strongest of rallying cries.
Dems can very much lose the race next year. The culprit is that undying Democratic timidity.
9
This issue is not symmetric. Based on the comments here, why do centrist voters seem to prefer an extremist Republican candidate who has shown time and again that he does not work with Democrats at all?
2
I've only lived in solidly red or solidly blue states so my vote has never mattered. I really envy those of you who live in battleground states, it must be nice to have a vote that actually counts for something. Please choose wisely, the rest of the nation will be counting on you.
2
To me the poll indicates that most votes in these swing stated still have not come to grasp that the Republican Party is now basically a white nationalist party and supports autocratic government. Its positions have been said to be further right than the white nationalist party in France. So how can the Democrats find a way to work with the Republicans who no longer support liberal democracy? Unless the Republicans change and decide to stick with the Constitution bipartisan government doesn't seem possible. It is not surprising that there isn't more support for a bold progressive agenda, after all not everyone has got the democratic socialist fever, but when it comes to climate change there is no viable option but adopting a very bold agenda to reduce emissions or wait for catastrophic climate change to occur on a global scale. The early signs of what is to come are already here. If voters in the swing states don't know that they need to wake up fast.
The electoral college flaw causes the US to have worse government because key states can make decisions that overrule the majority.
This is such a fundamental flaw in American democracy that it must be fixed.
America continues on a descending spiral, in part because those who benefit from control do not want to share decision making.
That leads them to voter suppression, maintaining the electoral college, and other anti democratic actions that undermine the will of the public.
1
If these people who fear a "radical" extreme candidate don't vote for the Democratic candidate that is chosen they are effectively voting for the MOST radical extreme candidate to ever sit in the White House.
Warren and Sanders don't come close to the crazy extremism of the current occupant of the White House. He will hold the historic record for the least moderate person to ever sit in the White House.
2
Please look at the questions that directly ask whether a so called progressive is preferred. Not surprisingly, they aren't. This is not the time to attempt to foist ideological purity on the rest of the electorate, as evidenced by the disparity in preferences between those with the most to lose and the highly educated progressives. Warren or Sanders will lose to Trump, and elitist progressives will enjoy four more years of demonizing Trump voters, many of whom would have voted for one of the moderates as we've saw in 2018 and more recent elections.
2
Not true, if you combine Warren and Sanders, there’s a reason two progressives are leading over a dozen candidates
3
Ah right, working with republicans, that clarion call that led us to such a successful Obama administration.
What evidence does anyone have from the previous 20 years to demonstrate Republicans would ever work with any of these candidates on anything?
If the Democrats nominated Jeb Bush next year and he won, congress still wouldn't accomplish anything because the GOP is not interested in governance, its interested in power.
Democrats have tried the centrist route before and more often than not its been a huge loser.
1
The polling science seems sound, but this analysis is majorly lacking. The most common thing among supporters of all candidates is that their second choice is Warren, so she has the best chance a producing a strong cohesive base. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/
1
Good lord! Who are these finnicky and unaware voters who want "a moderate presidential nominee who would seek common ground with Republicans"? When will they stop thinking that any Republicans -- all of whom have sold their conscience, integrity and soul to a top lieutenant of the devil -- will ever, ever work with any Democrat? And when will you stop fabricating polls that ask idiotic and fatuous questions about a Pollyanna world that hasn't existed since, well, the Civil War? The country needs a powerful push to rebuild from the Republican damage that has been waged so relentlessly for 20 years -- punishing all but the 1%, fabricating wars to benefit crony businesses, stuffing the courts with the most vile, cruel, repressive and reactionary toadies to the wealthy, and sadly speeding us toward their endgame of demolishing democracy and establishing the oligarchy/aristocracy they've wanted since, well, 1776.
2
I'm tired of the corruption. I'm tired of politicians who live phony public lives, hiding their secrets in order to "lead the people".
I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg.
1
This survey is good data collection and bad analysis. People can be moderates on policy and in temperament. If you say people want a moderate "who can work with Republicans" then you are focusing on temperament. Here's how these candidates break down:
Biden: moderate policy+temperament
Warren: progressive policy+fighter
Sanders: leftist policy+the fightiest
Buttigieg: progressive policy+moderate temperament all of a sudden
Klobuchar: moderate policy+temperament
Harris: moderate policy+fighter
Gabbard: ????
Yang: progressive policy+moderate temperament
Booker: progressive policy+radical love (moderate I guess)
O'Rourke: out of it now, but mixed policy+fighter
So being charitable, your moderate camp is Biden, Klobuchar, Yang, and I'll give you Buttigieg and Booker. Fighting camp is Warren, Sanders, and Harris, and Beto. Here is how those camps break down by state, Moderates/Fighters/Don't Know:
AZ: 31/34/31
FL: 34/33/29
MI: 35/38/23
NC: 31/31/32
PA: 35/31/30
WI: 31/47/19
I understand they say 62/33 they want someone who will find common ground. But, they support fighters at least as much if not more than the 'moderates'.
You do understand that the Democratic primaries don’t decide the election, yes?
@Robert Yes. I don't see your point.
Republicans elect a billionaire who cuts taxes on the rich and engages in vast corruption, while pandering to the Far Right in every possible way.
But Democrats must avoid talk of extremism. Really. Do you think that will stop the Republican attack machine from using fear-based rhetoric to make every Dem sound like a fire-breathing Stalinist?
1
I only care about erasing Trump from our current history. Which Democratic candidate is the best choice?
Certainly not a Progressive. A Moderate for sure.
3
Here is the cold hard truth....the Republicans are not interested in working with the Democrats. All you have to do is look at the eight years of the Obama presidency. They blocked or voted against everything that the Dems tried to do. The fiasco of the Merrick Garland non-confirmation was the pinnacle of the Republicans obstruction. Garland was a well worn, middle of the road justice by every account. Many Democrats felt that he was not liberal enough yet the Republicans acted like Obama had nominated Karl Marx to the Supreme Court and used the election as a fake pretext not to nominate him. Middle of the road centrists like Biden, Buttegieg and Klobuchar have this fantastical notion that a "reasonable" Democrat will be able to "work with Republicans" despite there not being one shred of evidence that has existed at all since the days of Newt Gingrich. We need to wake up and see what's really going on here.
2
This is not a useful article: since the two most left-wing candidates garner a greater percentage of support than Mr. Biden, the whole premise of this article falls apart under scrutiny.
Furthermore, with so many undecided voters, we don't know how the chips will fall ultimately.
Finally, the only thing we should be thinking about is who can win a general election. The opinions of Democratic party members are less important.
4
Work with republicans - how quaint - I guess another 4 years of trump and a depression will be required for them to wake up. I am all for it too - the republicans cooperated with Mr. Obama not at all for eight years.
2
How can they prefer more moderate candidates when more support Sanders and Warren combined than Biden?
2
Of course Democrats and Republicans should work together on policy... a two party system makes sense for checks and balances, and compromise where necessary. But, I've seen too many instances these past 10 years where Democrats tried to work with Republicans, only to be squashed down and lied to. It reminds me how weak and ineffective our Congressional Democrats can be. It's embarrassing. I want to see bolder, tougher, louder, Congressional Democrats fighting for what is right and not capitulating to Republicans.
98
@Tom Republicans know that they can intimidate and push Democrats around and they do just that! Republicans only compromise when they are forced. That's politics. They feel they are fighting for the soul of the country. Our win their loss.
4
@Tom
Moderate democrats are weak democrats. They are democrats that are republican but will say nice things about minorities but actually do very little.
4
Have you asked these people who want someone to "work with Republicans" exactly how, given the current belligerent Republican Party, they expect to do that? The polled voters are giving "wouldn't that be nice" answers, vague wishes--and that needs to be examined as strongly as other questions.
It's early. Hard to imagine people standing in line for hours on Tuesday to vote for minor tweaks to the ACA.
Me too in Georgia. I would rather not just cast a vote against Trump. I want a Dem I feel will work well as President. That is definitely not Warren. Come on Bloomberg!
1
I have some good friends who are Sanders or Warren fans, and they don't like Biden since they think he isn't left enough to not exciting people enough. The latter argument I get due to past elections of moderates losing like Kerry, but this election is so different.
While there is movement for populism or progressive policies, it's very concentrated right now in the coasts to an outlier like Chicago in the heartland. But the battleground states are still purple to preferring candidates who come off as moderates, not very liberal on many issues or proposing large changes like Medicare for All. The fact of the matter is the presidency goes through battleground states, and places like Michigan and Pennsylvania aren't liberal like California or New York. They can't lose focus since it will either alienate voters to stay home, and bad turnout hurts Democrats, or people who don't consume news everyday stick with Trump over taking a chance.
2
Look, Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report queried SWING voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania last week. On the issue of Warren/Sanders Medicare for all(and with it the abolition of private health insurance for Americans), these swing voters were strongly opposed. Now, I am as progressive as most here, but FACTS are FACTS. Do you want incremental change that will bring about a strong Medicare and private health insurance component, OR do you want another 4 years of Donald Trump? It is that simple.
2
I'm really surprised Andrew Yang wasn't higher in these polls. He typically does really well among conservative voters and young democrats. Perhaps only asking registered democrats in such a divisive election cycle isn’t necessarily going to produce the best results. I'd be curious how many registered Republicans are planning on switching so that they can participate in the democratic primary.
Add Warren & Biden numbers & you may conclude the opposite of the headline statement?
It’s a trap!
I’m done with this: “I want a candidate who can work with the other side”
That’s just something people say to justify a position they hold deeply.
It means nothing.
You know how I know that: there’s a panel segment on Trump voters that CNN does regularly, and while I never watch CNN, I do check the latest on that - if only to see Alyson Camerota’s pained expressions to hear those Trump supporters.
Every segment the (different) Trump supporters want someone who can compromise and get along with the other side. Every single time (because it’s the Motherhood and apple pie equivalent in politics).
You know why they are spouting nonsense? Because the same panel had a voter who wouldn’t stop supporting Trump even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. When asked incredulously, she justified saying: I’ll want to know why he shot the other person...
So, spare me this “get along with the other guy”. It means nothing. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m good”. When you’re overdosing on drugs.
It’s why Trump voters were underrepresented in the polling for 2016. They didn’t say what they really wanted to say.
6
Yes, by all means a moderate! That’s how we elected Presidents Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.
6
Breaking news: Tanner Gallagher surveys 100 people in San Francisco and find a 15 percent approval of president Donald Trump. The end of his presidency must finally be near!
1
Sadly, I don’t trust the NYT who seems to have an agenda here ( and i’ m a life long reader and subscriber) especially given its recent history ( HRC and her emails story, etc) and I don’t put much stock in early presidential polling either. Of course, the voters want a return to “ normalcy” - who doesn’t- but the R party doesn’t and has devoted the past 10 years demonstrating that fact. Compromise with extremists doesn’t work and we are not in normal times.
3
Most respondents said "Don't Know," but go off.
Well, if all this is true, the Nation is doomed! Some democrats just want "back to normal". We are left with a rigged system and a Corrupt and Fake president. Again.
1
The NYTimes is really working very hard to blow up the numbers in one survey into a whole sequence of articles all spun to say "Democrats should nominate a moderate". Its also running lots of critical articles on Warren's policies, all of which emphasize only the cost to the federal government with no mention of the benefit to the American people or the overall economic impact. As well as publishing lots of op eds about how the left is too extreme. We all get it, the editorial team at the Times wants a moderate candidate. But the tortured use of statistics here is awful. Please stop bending the facts to fit your desired outcome. Notice that mostly Warren plus Sanders out polls the sum of the less progressive but viable candidates. And admit what that means.
6
Stop slicing and dicing the data to fit your narratives.
Please just tell us the result of ALL the polls. I’ll be disappointed in your paper, if the results differ from what you’re showing here.
1
The graph directly under the headline completely contradicts the headline.
1
I believe the times bias is showing. I live in NC and I can tell you that democrats here know we cannot work with republicans in good faith because that's just not what today's republicans do. The republican legislature here has been at war with democrats since they took office, gerrymandering districts and stripping our Democratic governor of power. No, we don't want republican or republican-light or any other milktoast candidate. We want a fighter like Warren or Sanders. You cannot trust this bogus, rigged polling and you know it.
5
Yep, that worked out great in 2016, let's give that a shot. Clinton/Bloomberg 2016!
5
Work with "Republicans"? Ha Ha Ha Ha! There are no "republicans" of the type that used to work with the other party- they are gone and we are left with "OK, I'll work with you to do it all my way"
1
NYTimes, stop the deceptive labeling.
"Moderate" "Conservative" "Trumpist" "Far-left Progressive"
They are ALL diverting us from the worst crime in human history: our spiral toward horror for our grandchildren, followed by our extinction.
The political reporters and community of columnists in the New York Times are diverting us too.
3
I'm sorry, this is the real headline:
"After Nonstop Bashing and/or Ignoring, Sanders Still Doing Great. Ex-BFF of the Stop Sanders Crew, Warren, Doing Very Well, Too. Name Recognition, not Ideology, Likely Accounts for Gaffe-Machine Biden's Popularity."
OK, a long headline. But you get the drift.
The questions are silly, too. I would like fundamental change AND a less toxic scene in DC. (I'll take the first; the second won't happen. Ever. Not with the GOP as it is now and apparently will ever be.)
Now moving on: exactly how, why, and for what possible purpose should anyone "reach across the aisle" to these nutcases in the GOP? Let's have concentration camps with cots? Let's agree to half-ignore climate change?
The NYT serves the rich and professional classes. They want a nice corporate board-country, where everyone's polite, agrees on fundamentals, is nonracist -- but doesn't change anything structural at any level. Oh, and where all love kale, too.
4
It's not possible to find common ground with Republicans. They are an authoritarian white supremacist political party that will do anything to stay in power. All this poll shows is that a lot of people don't pay much attention to politics.
3
There are too many assumptions made because of polls--look how utterly minimal this one was!--and then those polls influence voters. I can understand politicians wanting the information, but I wish we (voters) could make up our own minds without the wobbly predictions of polls.
Going forward, I only want one president. Currently we have two: the elected president and the senate majority leader, who is elected by the state of Kentucky.
While we can vote for the presidential candidate whose values and promises most closely align with our own, the voters have no say in the Senate Majority Leader national basis. If we have a Democratic president, but do not replace the current Senate Majority Leader, we again will have a president who achieves his campaign promises through executive orders rather than legislation, as was the case with President Obama.
I raise this as an issue for the 2020 elections. If we elect a democrat for president, we must also flip the Senate.
1
When you combine Warren and Sanders totals, the data appears to indicate that nearly 30% of the surveyed consistently prefer a candidate who is progressive over a 'moderate'.
11
I wish Santa was real and that Republicans would work with Democrats. Having watched Republicans block and obstruct Democrats at every level from State election results to Supreme Court nominations, we know that Republicans don't work with Democrats. So why on earth should Democrats work with Republicans?
11
Where have these people been the last 11 years. You can't work with 'NO'. I really don't believe these polls. So much depends on who is contacted and how the questions are phrased. I would prefer that things get done-things that benefit the people. Unfortunately the publicans don't feel that way.
7
Obama attempted to work with Republicans when he took office in 2009, only to be disregarded and shunned. McConnell said it was his job to make Obama a one term President.
In other words, there will be no cooperation from the GOP. For them, it is tax cuts and abortion. Everything else they propose is just a smoke screen. Until voters decide they have had enough of a do nothing Congress and remove the Republicans from majority status in the Senate, it matters little which Democrat is elected President.
12
Work with Republicans? Have these people been asleep for the past decade?
12
Problem: Mainstream media is not giving the moderate candidates other than Biden much attention. Buttigieg gets some, but Klobuchar gets very little. How about upping their coverage and perhaps Harris's?
2
"Voters want a candidate who can work with Republicans." What a joke. How about Republicans work with Democrats for once? I keep reading these articles that voters don't want an "extreme" candidate like Warren or Sanders. To that I say, Trump is the most extreme president we have had since Andrew Jackson. The entire GOP has gone so far right they are bordering on fascism. Let them come to the middle.
13
it is truly baffling to me why democrats think Joe Biden is a viable presidential candidate. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
12
I just listened to a Freakonomics Radio podcast about the Political Duopoly that is made up of our two dominant political parties. I encourage civically-minded people to take a listen. I wonder if either party truly cares what their ENTIRE customer base wants. The charge of “collusion to perpetuate their own party and keep others out” is compelling.
This doesn’t mean that I opt out of civic participation by any means, but I am a proponent of election and electoral reform.
2
There isn’t a person I’ve meet is for Biden. Maybe 10 people meet with Joe at his rallies, possible a couple of hundred people meet with Elizabeth at her rallies, Bernie’s rallies come in at 25,000 people. I guess the people want Joe??? Any thinking person will start to think why is the media pushing Joe at us???
7
How ridiculous is this headline? Republicans will never, I repeat, never work with any Democrat on anything. Period. Ever. End of story. If there are voters out there who think some magical Democrat who will win over Republicans in congress exists they are greatly mistaken. The GOP is broken for possibly ever. Voters need to vote for a fighter who will do what is best of the country and not for themselves. Left, right center, it doesn't matter. Democrats are alone, and must use the power of the house and hopefully by retaking the Senate will once again create the type of country that helps all people, not just the rich, or the racists.
9
My polls — weekly (and over the last year) ‘in the streets’ of Portland Maine and Portsmouth NH. — do not agree with yours.
3
Running moderate dem worked so well in 2016...let’s try it again! The last three Presidential elections have been won on a platform of “change”
8
Democrats obsession with a left wing agenda will ensure Trump 2.0. The flawed primary system is relegating the country to another four years of Trump. Dems Wake UP!
There is an authoritarian underbelly in our country which exposed itself in the last election. Its going to take a coalition of the decent Americans, red and blue, to cast this ugly side of our nation back into darkness.
The only way to accomplish this is for the majority to vote blue no matter who
2
Know this: the vast majority of Sanders and Warren backers will back any Progressive over a Biden/Buttigieg-type corporate candidate. Warren and Sanders people are, with few exceptions, the same people.
So rightly read, your poll shows "Democrats in Battleground States Prefer"--a Progressive. According to your own poll, a Progressive beats Biden in Pennsylvania, runs even with Biden in North Carolina, and soundly thrashes Biden in both Arizona and Florida. In Michigan and Wisconsin, either Progressive utterly annihilates your buddy Biden.
Your corporate bias is hanging all the way out, Times.
12
It's fine if people want a more moderate candidate, but they're completely naive if they think any Democrat can work with the Republicans. Obama tried to do this with all of his heart, and that's why he basically accomplished nothing legislatively after the Democrats lost their congressional majorities.
At the very least the moderates need to campaign on winning the Senate and abolishing the filibuster. McConnell isn't suddenly going to play nice even if Biden wins and whispers sweet nothings in his ear.
153
@Andrew
The point is not to elect someone who can work with Republicans. The point is to nominate someone to unseat Donald Trump and I believe a moderate has the best chance.
I personally would love to see Warren or Sanders in the WH. But America is not ready for a Democratic Socialist.
5
@Andrew this is my problem with moderates and independents. They are just not paying close enough attention to see that Trumpian-foreign contributions destroyed Hilaryism for being moderate and they are working on Bidenism now.
Obama was a popular moderate and republicans blocked everything he proposed. We cannot save moderation for now, but we can save America by rejecting foreign influence. Unless we protect this country's systems and elections, moderates will always be a threat to foreign contributor's intent on feasting on conspiracy theories and extremism.
4
@Oliver
The democratic party ran a moderate in 2016, which failed miserably, because you buy conservative labels such as 'socialism' or 'crooked'. Voters like this are easily influenced by false stories backed by dark foreign money.
Moderates are not owed a do-over. Bernie and Warren's voters alone will top Biden's. That is good enough for me.
4
Set aside intra-party battleground state polls for a moment. What do battleground state polls, taken from the full spectrum of the electorate, show when matching particular Democratic candidates one-on-one against Trump--i.e., Biden v. Trump, Sanders v. Trump, Warren v. Trump. etc.? Beating Trump is first and foremost; we wont govern if we dont win, and the reality is we will need help in the battleground states from more than just party activists.
Realistically, I do not think it is possible to work with the Republicans in Congress. Not too many years ago we witnessed how they treated and impugned a president who handily carried the Mid West, who in hindsight was moderate in his views. I do not see the Mitch McConnell’s, the Lindsey Graham’s, and company going anywhere soon. They will be unforgiving of a Democratic President no matter if s/he be Warren or Biden and everyone in-between. There is a solution, however, for our more progressive candidates if they intend to win over the hearts of the Independent and moderate. That is: Go to them. Show them with realistic facts and policies that their needs and challenges will be heard and acted upon, that they will not be left behind.
4
"Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Moderate Nominee"
Well if that's the case, why isn't Amy Klochubar showing better polling results? Amy is about as middle of the road as you can get, is from the Midwest, and an excellent track record in the Senate.
Makes me wonder how the questioner was structured.
3
NONE of the college educated, professional women I know in Virginia want to give up their gold plated healthcare for ...they know not what. (I, on the other hand, have only a health share policy and I would LOVE a public option.)
You can like it or not, but this is a HUGE issue with voters, and Virginia is not a place that embraces radical change.
4
You should point out to their friends that they do not own their gold-plated health insurance policy - they just rent it, and it can be taken away at any time.
This article illustrates once again how much the electoral college-which was designed to prevent a Donald Trump-does not work as envisioned and in fact can be rigged to ensure minority rule. Toss in the states' partisan gerrymandering, lifetime judges, and an impossible amendment process, and one realizes the Sacred US Constitution needs a serious rewrite. This will never happen without an unthinkable upheaval or a mass enlightenment.
2
It's not a question of Democrats wanting to work with Republicans. The fact is that Republicans do not want to, and will not work with Democrats, in any meaningful way.
3
How many were polled in each state? "survey of 1,568 Democratic primary voters in the six states" ... does that mean overall? If so, then average of about 260 people per state - not a good indicator at all. Also, should be noted much higher up in the story that the six states will not be voting in the first round of primaries -- that is extremely important. Many change their minds after the first states actually vote.
1
Recently, the Republicans made it very clear that they would not work with any Democrat.
They voted against impeachment without even looking at the evidence or the facts.
They made it clear that they don't care about the Country, the Constitution or their constituents. They put Trump over all three.
Their actions speak volumes. They won't work with Democrats, no matter who is elected.
5
This is simply not true.
Here in Minnesota everyone I know wants to see United Health Group put out of business.
Sure, it's a $250 billion company but the evil ways in which they conduct their business needs to stop.
The college educated women I associate with in the suburbs who despise Donald Trump are all prepared to sacrifice their property values, quality of their schools via reduced property tax collections, and a huge increase in unemployment..if it means we can have Single Payer insurance.
These same women realize they are going to have to wait to see a new doctor, but they've already concluded that defeating Donald Trump is more important than being able to keep their doctors since most of their doctors have already said they're retiring if Single Payer kicks in.
I'm not sure of the economic fallout, but experts tell me to expect Minneapolis and the suburbs to see the same impact that Detroit had in the mid-80's.
Yes it might be bad. It might mean we exchange our Pilates for walking the dog..and exchanging our Soy Chai Latte's for water..and trading in our Escalade's for Camry's..but those are small prices to pay for getting us to Single Payer.
The college educated women living in the suburbs are ready to fight for the equality and diversity promised in the GND and M4A plans..as long as they can continue to hire their housecleaners from Guatamela without having to ask if they're here legally or not.
1
Amen, we all need to be willing to give up things that matter little to achieve what really matters.
Odd. These voters had a moderate dem to vote for in 2016, and didn't turn out.
Forgive me if I don't bank on swing-state centrists in 2020. If you can't vote for any dem on that list over Trump or staying home, you're a lost cause.
6
Biden’s supporters will vote for the Democratic nominee. Warren’s supporters will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But Bernie Sanders supporters will vote for the third party candidate or stay home if they don’t get their wish.
4
So let the moderates vote for a centrist and let liberals vote for a liberal; that’s the whole point of a primary, that one is not obliged to hold one’s nose and vote strategically.
2
In my heart I want Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to be the next president of the US. But in my head I believe that voting my conscience in this election is the fastest way to re elect Donald Trump.
2
The radicals among the Democrats declare that there should be no cooperation with the Republicans because they are ideologically inflexible. How ideologically flexible are they? Republicans are half of the population of this country. Add to this conservative or moderate Democrats, and the “democratic socialists” become a tiny minority. So how are the radicals going to govern in the unlikely event Warren or Sanders is elected President? Impose their will upon the rest of us? Override the Supreme Court and the Senate? How long will the Congress remain Democratic if the President tries to push through M4A by executive order? There have been examples in history of forcing utopia unto the unwilling population. None ended well.
1
Better headline: "Poll results indicate that Democrats in Battleground states are delusional"
The idea that Republicans are going to work with Democrats is ludicrous. Merrick Garland's nomination being completely ignored was the final nail in the coffin of hope for bipartisan solutions. It's not that Democrats haven't reached out, it's that every time they do, the Republicans simply swat the outstretched hand away.
Electing a Democrat under the guise of being able to work with Republicans is pointless. The Republicans, going back at least to the "Contract on America" and the impeachment of Clinton, have made it clear that the only time they are going "work with" a Democrat is when a Democrat is doing exactly what the Republicans want.
I can't think of a single issue in my entire lifetime where a Republican said "well, we watered down what we wanted in order to make common cause with the Democrats on this". Not once.
1
I watch the slate of Democratic candidates with trepidation. The Commonwealth of Virginia is not a place where radical ideas are embraced.
Senator Tim Kaine is HUGELY popular here, however ...
During 2016 he cited facts and evidence to push back against Pence.
He was lambasted here for his “out of character” and “aggressive” performance in the Vice Presidential debate.
I suggest Democrats take another look at Booker and Klobuchar. They could definitely win in Virginia. The others?? I’m not so sure.
2
The progressive vote is split between Warren and Sanders. Even if you add in Buttigieg with Biden, I still don’t see how you draw the conclusion this article claims to draw.
1
Steve Bullock should be getting more press and public attention. He exactly fits the bill for someone who can work with Republicans and get things done.
1
Polling question: Would you rather live in a magical world where everyone gets along? Or, would you rather get in a fight?
Very informative.
Democrats prefer moderates? That’s what the headline says, but the poll says otherwise. The poll says 30 to 40 percent of the party side with Warren/Biden. 15 to 20 percent prefer Biden. 1 to 3 percent prefer “others” and 25 percent are undecided.
Democrats prefer progressives.
1
"...want a candidate who could work with Republicans."
uhhhh... that would require Republicans being willing to work with a Democratic candidate.... and they have shown they are unwilling to do so.
2
Face facts, there are no moderates among the Democrat presidential candidates. They are all scared to death of the far left radicals that now control the Democrat agenda, so they kowtow to them and approve whatever crazy policies that the Squad and like minded socialists demand. Case in point: the Green New Deal, which will throw hundreds of thousands of energy sector workers onto unemployment rolls, and decimate the auto industry. There is not one Democrat candidate willing to stand up to these radical leftists, and that is why not one of them will ever be elected president.
3
@paul While the Green New Deal is slightly utopic (and is by the way not part of most of the candidates' agendas), it's not true that it would decimate the auto industry, since it is an opportunity for that industry to adapt and make electric cars. As for energy sector workers, there will be many new jobs in the new "green" energy sectors, to at least partially make up for the lost ones. Progress should not be held back just because somebody might lose their job. By that logic we'd still be riding in horse carriages, in order not to put the workers in that industry out of work.
@gus This argument that electric cars are better for the environment is bunk. How do you think electricity is generated? In most cases it is with coal or natural gas, both of which pollute the atmosphere. Plugging your electric car into an outlet at night is not a "clean" process. It just gives you a false sense of superiority over those of us who use gas powered vehicles. And by the way, take a look at your electric bill at the end of the month. It will be a whopper.
I’m in a swing state and I’ll vote for a centrist or vote for Trump but never will I vote for any flavor socialist
3
@Stefan
Sounds like you're not interested in what any of the candidates have to offer and just intend to vote "not Democrat," no matter what they offer.
I'm always amused at what Americans think socialism means. Here in Canada we are fairly socialist, and while we have our problems, most people have access to health care and other social programs that benefit us all. Many countries in Europe are the same. We have better quality of life and live longer.
But okay, keep on voting for the party that stands on the backs of its constituents and lives on their money.
Absurd. Between 19 - 31% of respondents said they "don't know" who they're voting for. The poll also excludes people who haven't voted before which was a huge deciding factor in 2018 as well as the recent elections. And tell me, how can close to half of Americans want "systemic changes" in US society yet more than 65% want a moderate who will work with republicans? Balderdash, I say.
You people are gonna have no idea what hit you in 2020. Progressives are coming so get ready.
1
Let's see what happens in Iowa. Iowa again? Why does Iowa have so much say in all this every 4 years? Anyway . . .
How about Governor Steve Bullock of Montana? Or Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado? I gotta give 'em a shout out.
Must work with Republicans.
Those states with the power. Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida. Must win those states. Or, come November 2020, get second place in a two horse race.
Difficult to understand wanting to “work with Republicans.” To do what - lower taxes? Ignore gun control? Decimate the environment? Underfund education and welfare? Turn corporate America loose to make as much money as it can, at whatever cost to the society and the planet?
I want a Democrat who refuses to give into the Republicans, on virtually any level. The GOP has proven itself to be completely irresponsible and short-sighted.
1
Many of the positions of the supposedly radical candidates have substantial majority support. However, we are constantly told that these are not moderate positions, leading me to wonder whether "moderate" means supported by a conservative minority.
What the Democrats need, IMO, is a candidate who speaks passionately about restoring an honorable government, and who clearly outlines the values they will use to govern, but does not lead with proposals that the mainstream media will insist on calling radical. It's unfortunate that such obfuscation is necessary, but it seems to be necessary in our times.
1
I think that the conclusion reached in your interpretation of the poll is invalid. Although Biden wins the percentage count in each state, if you combine the totals for Warren and Sanders the outcome favors a progressive candidate. If either of the progressive candidates were to drop out, their support would most likely go to the other one. The remaining progressive would outpoll or be in close range with all of the moderates combined.
Although Biden has the majority here, the progressive vote outpolls the moderates overall.
4
While I generally agree with the main conclusion (most Democrats prefer a moderate candidate), these statistics appear to tell a other story. If you add up the percentages for the main moderate candidates and compare the total with the combined percentages for Warren and Sanders, there is even split.
5
I live in Florida. I was a registered Democrat for as long as I've lived in the state and worked as a volunteer lawyer for Obama and Clinton. I am now registered as "No Party Affiliation." I cannot support the policy proposals being put out by Warren or Sanders but would vote for Bloomberg without hesitation. We must be pragmatic and defeat Trump. We will not accomplish this if Warren is the nominee.
6
@Woland If the Democrats nominate anyone other than Sanders, Warren or Gabbard, I will vote third party once again and cancel your vote. I believe the nation needs a major overhaul, and replacing Trump with a moderate Democrat will do nothing to accomplish that.
51
@Fred McTaggart
Your stand, if repeated by others, will get Trump reelected just as the Sanders people who didn't vote or voted for a third party helped him get elected in 2016. Your no-vote is again a vote for Trump. Congratulations.
10
@Woland Can you elaborate on why you support employment based health insurance and what you see so wrong with other countries socialized healthcare?
I'm genuinely interested because I've never met anyone on Earth that thinks like you. To me it seems "moderates" like you are fake, planted here to push this theme of "moderation" that doesn't really exist.
What is actually extreme about Bernie or Warren? They are similar on most thinks except support a Canadian/European style healthcare that has been proven to work great in dozens of countries around the world.
What is so out there with them that you would not vote for them but would for Bloomberg and Biden?
3
As many have pointed out, the problem with this desire for "a moderate Democrat that can work with Republicans" is that it's not really possible in the modern political climate. Not because Democrats aren't willing to come to the table but because there are simply so few, if any, moderate Republican willing to do the same thing and actually compromise with Democrats.
Those paying attention know that Dems have gotten burned by this in the past; Obama's good faith attempts to include the republicans on healthcare reform when he had super majorities in the house and senate being the classic example.
But, the goal for Dems is to win the white house. So even if "working with republicans" is unrealistic in practice (i.e., once elected) that doesn't mean its bad politics to run on now while one is trying to get elected.
The question is if and when a "moderate Democrat who can reach across the isle" is elected (lets not kid ourselves we are talking about Joe B.) would they be naive enough to allow themselves to be burned by the Republicans again in the name of bipartisanship.
Democrats need to win the electoral college. That is the game. If offering a safe, nostalgic, choice to middle america, will win then so be it. The Dems cannot dismiss these indicators that there is a significant segment of the population in key swing states that want an alternative to Trump but don't want to vote for someone they feel is "radically left" (weather that is a fair characterization or not).
11
In the 2016 primaries Bernie beat Hillary in the primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin, against the moderate Hillary. Trump in the primary railed against his moderate candidates, calling out Jeb Bush for his brothers war in Iraq and McCain. The idea the moderates win anymore is being pushed by the corporate media, so people will chose candidates that end up supporting their corporate friendly policies.
10
@steve
Hillary Clinton was no ordinary moderate. She came with the baggage of “the Clintons,” so that really doesn’t count. To black progressives Obama is a moderate and he won twice. Bill Clinton is a moderate and HE won twice.
Dukakis and McGovern were progressives and they lost big. I’m a progressive. But the record shows that the moderates were the most successful Democrats.
And as far as Trump beating the moderate, Trump has no ideological bearing. He believes in money, corruption and power. That’s HIS ideology.
The fact that the election process caters to “battleground states and swing states” is more proof we need a popular vote system. Or ranked choice for the top two or three then have a runoff. The country as a whole should get to decide not just a select few states. We’ve only seen candidates here in CA for money meetings.
11
@CGR
Except Warren who had a town hall in San Diego and up North.
Biden, Harris and Buttigieg have had numerous big money donor events. They aren't interested in the hearing from the average American. Their campaigns are ego-driven.
Buttigieg has been sneaking in and out Santa Barbara for private donor parties with Montecito celebrities, millionaires and billionaires.
1
On Polling
Deciding who would be best among the three top Democrat contenders is a tough call. Joe no doubt has the experience, is steady, has the "class' and would no doubt put the country back on track and return prestige to the Presidency. Liz, an absolute firebrand, also has experience, is totally dedicated to 'the common people', and has the advantage of striking terror into the oligarchy of the rich running the country. To sum her up is simple: As the Wehrmacht feared Patton, so does Wall Street fear Warren. Bernie has his strengths, supporting a much more share the wealth programs, 'take from the rich and give to poor' is a good summation. Not a true socialist either, he has good ideas that could work in our basic capitalist system.
Sometimes I think we should somehow take the best of these candidates, and put them in hierarchical positions which would best maximize their strengths. For example, Joe as Pres, Liz as V.P, and Bernie as Secretary of State or similar high powered location. This would ensure Joe's longevity as Pres, as if something happens to him, that would unleash Warren, something the oligarchy absolutely does not want. She could still influence strongly as a V.P., and still be the first woman V.P.. So long as Bernie is up there somewhere, he could also be strong influence.
Of course, this is all 'wish list', I don't know how it's going to shake out. Plus, Dems must retake the Senate and retain the House to get anything done. Wait and see.
1
There is no working with Republicans. I thought we learned that lesson under Obama. They will unanimously vote against their own policies (the ACA was the Republican plan of the 1990s) if they perceive it helps their opponents.
11
It is fair to say that Sanders and Warren both share very similar policies as opposed to Biden.
So a better way to look at the polls is to combine the Warren and Sanders voters.
In WI Biden at 23%, Warren- Sanders at 45%. Only in PA and NC are there close races between stay the course Biden and progressives Warren and Sanders.
8
There seems to be a concerted effort to head off Warren and the progressive wing of the party, akin to what happened when the DNC went all in for Clinton in 2016. I empathize with the fear that a progressive candidate will lose against Trump. But I also realized that the moneyed interests do not like the policies of Warren or Sanders. (Is billionare Bloomberg's talk of entering the race a kind of warning shot to progressives?) I'm on the fence. Sure I want to defeat Trump above all else. But I also want real action on climate change, college debt, real healthcare reform. etc. I worry that people like Biden, Bloomberg (and now, Buttiege?) mean "same as it ever was."
11
@Brown
Exactly! It is the status quo vs. change and rebuilding the middle class.
Warren 2020.
4
When have Republicans shown a willingness to compromise or work with Democrats since 2009? The idea that Democrats can make reasonable accommodations with this trumped up version of the Republican Party is pure fantasy.
4
Generally, most Dems DO want to reach across the aisle and embrace peace and harmony with the Republicans. But, in reality, this isn't an attainable goal. At this point, the Rs will need to be at a place where THEY want to reach across the aisle. We can be there waiting and accepting it if it ever comes. Growing up in a dysfunctional family, I can see how this pans out before it happens. The Rs "my way or the highway" seems strong and the sheep flock to it; the Dems want to play nice and reach out to others, and for some reason this looks like we are fawning to our overlords, the Republicans. At this point, Democrats need to be strong amongst themselves and strive for the future and the candidate that THEY want. This strength of spirit will make us stronger and possibly more appealing to lost sheep. Just my two cents.
3
We have a country that is diametrically opposed on many views: Open vs Closed borders, Sanctuary cities, Legal vs. Illegal immigrants, Welfare Spending, Military Spending, Trade agreements with other countries, Approaches towards dealing with climate change, Manufacturing / Jobs creation, and Healthcare (Govt. run vs Private) to name a few. With about an equal split and also based on party affiliation. Most of the discourse is uncivil at best, outright antagonistic and brutal at worst. Things will not change until both sides start to act like adults and agree to really listen and compromise. In such an environment is it any surprise that people want moderation...
1
This feels like the beginning of a shift where the Democrats become much more progressive after decades of being pulled toward the center, the current moderate Democrats become the new GOP, and hopefully the current GOP is resigned to the dustbin of regrettable experiments.
But that shift isn't going to happen in a year.
While I prefer the ideas put forth by the so-called "radical left" candidates, my current Southern address and my rural Midwestern upbringing helps me understand that those candidates are going to have a tough time selling their ideas to folks who are already pretty close culturally to becoming Republicans anyway. I will vote for whoever wins the nomination and I hope all the "I would never vote for Warren/Biden/Bernie/etc" folks change their tune by Nov. 3. None of those people is remotely worse than the alternative.
7
Despite recent news coverage claiming that Virginia has cemented its blue-ness, this is an overly simplistic and possibly damaging talking point.
Virginians are many things, and becoming more diverse each election; HOWEVER, Virginia is quite moderate and expanses of red votes cover the state. Successful Democrats in Virginia are not shouty; they are not radical. Witness our two Senators—Kaine and Warner. They often head BIPARTISAN efforts.
Please, please fellow Democrats: Do not make a strategic Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania style miscalculation and assume any candidate can win in Virginia!!!
1
No, they don’t “prefer a moderate.” Warren and Sanders combined outperform Biden in all but one of the states mentioned. Voters prefer a candidate that will realign the party - away from Clintonists overly friendly to the wealthiest corporate interests and toward the working class.
This whole point of view is skewed. Warren and Sanders are traditional New Deal Democrats. Stop categorizing them as Leninist.
5
The numbers presented in this poll clearly contradict the premise of the article that voters in these battleground states prefer a moderate Democratic candidate to a progressive.
The combined percentages for Warren and Sanders significantly exceed Biden’s in each and every state, thereby challenging the stated conclusion of the poll analysts.
It doesn’t take much forethought to understand that eventually one of the two progressive candidates will prevail as the election draws near, and the other will drop out of the running. At that point, supporters of the two constituencies are highly likely to join forces. Furthermore, when the race finally pares down to two candidates—Trump vs. the Democratic nominee—to whom are supporters of the lower polling Democratic candidates in this poll going to shift their votes? Add those percentages to the mix. The numbers speak for themselves.
Recent articles in The NY Times seem to belie a not-so-hidden bias in favor of a “moderate” Democratic Party candidate. Notwithstanding, the truth is compared to the neo-Fascism at the very core of policies advocated by Trump and his Republican Party enablers, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are genuine moderates in this election.
What this poll says to me is that a significant percentage of the American electorate believe that the time is NOW to restore democracy and sanity in our nation. This poll speaks truth to power in the hearts and minds of the majority of those surveyed.
7
Based on the analysis of these responses, the only appropriate, and logical strategy to the election is to impeach trump.
Or am I reading the trend of the electorate erroneously?
2
The results don't support the headline conclusion. Dems who want more "radical" (wow, radical as Canada!) policies are split between the two most left/progressive candidates, but they sum equal to or higher than Biden (even if one includes Platitude Pete).
Yet the policies of the left/progressives are the ones the most popular at large (and much higher support among Democrats), even finding that puff "common ground," perhaps because there's something in it for everyone of the bottom 90%. Policies need to be part of this survey in order to give it context, as questions about "most Democrats" and such inherently lack it.
3
Trump will be re-elected if the Dems don’t nominate a candidate who can get back the voters in the swing states who voted for Obama twice and then for Trump. Neither Warren nor Sanders can do that with their extreme proposals. Even Biden is polling within the margin of error against Trump in these states currently. This is not the time to debate taking away private health insurance (Warren) or increasing taxes on the middle class (Sanders). Trump will win if Dems don’t have a viable electoral college strategy to defeat him. That is reality, like it or not.
The question that should have been asked - which one of these candidates can defeat Donald Trump?
I understand that to get elected in red states one must appear willing to compromise with Republicans on issues their constituents feel strongly about. However, I hope they keep in mind that however much they may be willing to compromise their counterparts will not cooperate. They want the whole pie, not half a pie, so in the end you must have the power to get what is necessary or you will get nothing at all. That means a Democratic majority in the House, the Senate and a Democratic President. Even that will face serious hurdles with a heavily biased Supreme Court likely to declare unconstitutional laws that challenge the present system.
1
So here's how I'd reorganize the parties: One party hellbent on the intentional destruction of democracy. One party of "can't we all just get along?" incrementalism, timidity, and well-intentioned but out-of-it Boomers.
And one party for our children and their children to have their best lives, no matter how many eggs get broken.
2
For those who genuinely support the policy positions of any of the candidates, I admire that. Please vote your conscience in the primary, and then for the eventual nominee on Nov 3, 2020.
However, some people base their support primarily on the notion of electability. They try to predict who other people will vote for, rather than on their own preferences. They even try to predict who moderate Republicans might vote for. That is a fool's errand.
Do you think Republican voters consider supporting a primary candidate based on attracting moderate Democrats? If they did, they would have nominated John Kasich in 2016.
20
You can't just ignore polling and statistics that show a moderate Democrat is more likely to win. Republican voters and Democrat voters are not the same and it is not safe to assume that using a Republican strategy will work for Democrats.
1
@Nick M
"Republican voters and Democrat voters are not the same"
You are correct. Republican voters are more likely to reliably show up at the polls, and vote loyally for their party's nominee. As Chris Matthews said about each party's candidates, "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line."
The only way that Democracy works properly is if every voter chooses the candidate he or she most prefers, not the candidate he or she thinks someone else prefers. Only then will the election winner best represent the will of the people.
===
But speaking of polls, as you brought up ... Most polls I'll seen showing hypothetical match-ups between Mr. Trump and Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg show Mr. Trump receives almost identical shares of votes against any of those four. The Democrat's share against Mr. Trump varies a little between the candidate (vs. undecided), but that is more likely due to name recognition at this point. (These polls include ones in the swing states, not just national polls.) I don't see major statistical differences between any of the Democratic candidates in regard to the potential general election outcome at this stage.
3
@MidtownATL Well said! The choice may be difficult in the primaries, it shouldn't be in the general - regardless of the outcome of the former.
2
It’s a three person race – Biden, Warren, and Sanders. The rest are just noise.
Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, while Biden has the center to himself.
If either Warren or Sanders dropped out of the race (and eventually one of them will), her/his supporters would mostly gravitate to the other one, not to Biden. It is therefore more correct to consider the total of Warren/Sander vs. Biden.
In this case, Biden loses.
Bottom line – Democratic voters lean very progressive, not centrist, even in these core swing states.
(Caveat: This assumes that undecided voters split in the same proportion as decided voters.)
19
Every poll that says otherwise is as wrong as the polls that anointed Hillary right up until the end.
1
Yet another article in the Times cautioning Democrats that their fascination with the ultra-left will come back to hurt them. Fair warning to Democrats. While Joe Biden is the favorite of moderates, he may be surpassed by Michael Bloomberg in the center lane. Too many Democrats remain convinced that ideology is more important than winning, if they can't have the candidate whose ideology they prefer, they won't vote at all. Or the corollary of that seems to be, if it's a centrist, they'll stay home. Give us what we want or else risk losing the election is what I hear from them.
7
@blgreenie Are you not hearing the exact same from the center? Any right-thinking person will vote the dem nominee come next year. Dems ran to the center in '16 and lost in these exact states.
1
Combine the Warren and Sanders percentages, and they exceed Biden and the next "moderate". Eventually, either voluntarily or by circumstances, the Warren/Sanders support will unify behind one or the other.
Bloomberg? Do you really think people would want to elect a 77 year old with over $50 billion, who wants to take away your guns, your cigarettes, and your Big Gulp sodas? I don't.
Uh, oh, Hillary is warming up under the stands, and is about to enter the bullpen.
13
@RM I agree the times is running article after article trying to scare us into supporting a moderate.
In the end only 1 candidate is running for president. Bernie will bring out far more voters who would stay home if Biden runs than moderates will stay home if Bernie runs.
In the end, moderates are more practical. When faced with a Trump re election they are not going to stay home.
5
You may be correct that the Warren camp and Sanders camp will combine and would be a force. But there are many many voters who are more cautious on social and taxation issues. Don’t too quickly discount that these voters would vote for Trump or stay home.
5
@Steve If Warren/Sanders win then moderates will stay home or vote Republican. For a moderate who cares about taxation issues and the economy, the re-election of Trump (painful as it may be) is more feasible than electing extreme progressives who we do not know the outcome of their novel FAR left ideas.
20
Obama tried to work with republicans but they did not want to, rather stalling Congress trying to make him a one-term president.
The only way Republicans will work with a democratic president is if they get beaten badly in the 2020 election. Otherwise, they will continue to obstruct compromise with fake news and conspiracy theories.
I hope this impeachment process will show their supporters how little integrity they have left.
32
Any of the Democrats could work with the GOP, but the feelings aren't mutual, if the Obama presidency is any indication.
33
State-by-state polls like this one are what politicians and voters need to see. A small number of voters in a handful of states will
decide America’s fate. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Trump run a voter taxi service in those states.
3
@shillingfarmer - and yet, so far, very few of these candidates have travelled to Arizona. I know our primary is late in the game, but we are going to be a key swing state in 2020.
1
As I recall, black voters in 2008 initially preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, mainly because they thought Clinton had the better chance of winning in the general election.
Joe Biden, who was also a candidate in 2008, was far back among the also-ran's.
What changed? Once Obama won a few primaries, blacks saw -- perhaps to both their surprise and as an answer to their prayers -- that he was indeed electable and their support quickly pivoted in his direction.
Biden looks more electable right now but once his record and his link to son Hunter Biden's plum job in Ukraine gets a more thorough airing out -- and by Democrats, not Trump, his lead as front runner will diminish.
The desire for a more moderate choice in the key battleground states should give Buttigieg and Klobuchar hope ... but Sanders and Warren pause for concern.
Biden will most likely have the super-delegates on his side, so if there is no clear winner by the convention, he will probably be the nominee ... if he lies low and avoids sounding like an even more syntactically and logically challenged candidate than either of the two Bush's.
Buttigieg is very well-spoken, quick on his feet ,and with enough of a resume and lifestyle to offer a little bit of something to conservatives and progressives. Yeah, he's young and many of his character-shaping life experiences lie ahead of him.
But Mayor Pete would be an audacious choice ... on par for audacity with DJT, so it'd be quite a match-up.
7
And why is it perennially "Moderate Democrats" bearing the responsibility of working with Republicans? I don't ever recall seeing a poll showing Republican voters preferring GOP candidates who want to work with Democrats.
This article and the poll on which it is based are just another transparent attempts by neoliberal centrists to put the Democratic Party back into it's losing "Oliver Twist" mode.
Sorry, President Obama was the last moderate Democrat who bent himself and the Democratic Party into a pretzel "reaching across the aisle" to Republicans who interpreted such gestures as naive and weak.
And after eight years of "moderate accommodation" by Democrats the country chose.......... Donald J. Trump.
39
The country didn't choose Trump. Hillary ran a bad campaign. Plain and simple. She had it and lost it by not addressing issues that some people cared about and ignoring WI, MI, PA. She let him paint her as the Wall Street/billionaire's buddy and didn't defend herself. All we did was argue over what happened to Bernie rather than stay focused. FYI, I'm not defending Trump, I'm just reminding people what happened.
1
Are they delusional? Or just not up to snuff on the last several decades when the GOP decided to adopt obstructionism as it modus operandi?
Sorry, kids, I’ve bad news for you: Whoever is elected will have to contend with a corrupt, hyper partisan, fascistic GOP. To pretend or assume that the congressional polarization and dysfunction is Democrat’s’ fault is akin to blaming the victim, with the aggravation that those victims include the rest of the nation.
34
Of course!
Democrats are not known for trying to be better than anyone else - we just basically want what’s better for everybody! And that includes people who are Republican, too.
We don’t want people, anybody, to go without healthcare. We want everyone to have a great education, and make public education great for everyone. We want everyone to enjoy our great natural resources. Sounds like we should be the ones wearing the MAGA hats!
There is no way I would wish bad on my Republican neighbors. What we really want is to try to persuade them, I guess, the country would be better off if everyone had opportunity, if everyone is healthy, if everyone could go to parks that are mindfully supported by our government. But that does not mean Democrats approve of waste, either.
I don’t think the Republican Party stands for greed and selfishness - on the whole. There has been great divisiveness. We all do need to pull back. We do need to compromise. We will not get anything meaningful accomplished by being arrogant, stubborn, ungiving, and unforgiving.
We all have lessons to learn here. In the next debate perhaps we should take heed regarding who actually could reach across the aisle, not just for a handshake, but for some sound work for everyone in this country.
Stop the blame. Donald Trump isn’t even worth those words!
2
I’m not in a battleground state and I want a moderate.....support Amy!
2
Tried that three years ago with “moderate” Hillary Clinton. Didn’t work then. Likely won’t work this time either!
10
Why is it democrats who need a moderate? Why don’t they tell republicans to get a “moderate,” too?! That right there tells you the fallacy of this “poll.”
Wall Street people are so scared democrats will nominate a candidate who actually reigns in their greed!
17
The Republicans hated/hate Obama. How are they going to like Biden any better? He’s too old. He’ll be one term.
8
I am a lifelong Democrat. At the first debate, Trump will make Biden look like Grandpa Simpson.
Warren ‘20
11
"...who can work with Republicans." Now THAT's funny.
26
Can anyone explain, in policy terms, what it means to be on the "extreme left"? On issue after issue, from income redistribution to gun control to freedom of choice to election reform to immigration to healthcare etc. etc. etc. the center of gravity is on the left.
This labeling has become nothing more than a way for conservative Republicans to divide the left because when they talk about issues they lose. And it works.
19
If one looks at the combined percentages of Warren and Sanders, it indicates an unambiguous voter preference for a progressive platform. Any promise to find common ground with the GOP is the proverbial "fools mission"
310
@Roger
Sure, let’s add up the percentages in the 6 states presented. The support for the two progressive candidates ranges from 28% to 45%. Warren and Sanders enjoy branding all other candidates as moderates. That means the moderates get 55% to 72% of the vote. Therefore, there is an unambiguous preference for a moderate candidate.
13
But the polls the media are pushing as valid as trying so hard to tell us the Bernie and his progressive agenda has no chance. The national story line they are pushing is only a moderate can win. I guess they think they still have us brainwashed into thinking trickle-down works, so we better be nice to the billionaires... Ha! Okay, Bill!
13
Exactly.... Warren and Sanders together meet or beat the percentages of Biden and Pete. The article headline is misleading but not surprising.
26
There is a year before this election, and no one has really campaigned in those states. I think the most critical part of this survey is the fact that 30% of people don't know who they would vote for. That's a lot of people up for grabs, and let's face it, I'm sure the same was said about Republicans in 2016. But it was Trump who won the nomination and still received support in the general.
On a separate note, nearly 50% of voters in those swing states STRONGLY disapprove of Trump, and if Democrats can't turn those into votes there is a problem with the party.
10
American politics and political inclinations have become reactionary rather than being reasoned and proactive. Byt that, I do not mean, nor do I imply progressive or moderate. I mean the voters think about the upcoming elections in terms of reacting to what they see. They react to Trump, they react to Biden, they react to Sanders, ... and that forms the basis of who they support. That is how Hillary Clinton lost the election and how the next candidate from either party will lose the election. It is more about not losing rather than winning that seems to matter.
The electorate should be more capable that that.
4
Well that’s hilarious. Every time the Dems reach across the isle on substantial issues like ACA they get their hand bitten. I remember Obama compromising again and again and the result was still no. I think it’s in the Dems DNA to continue to do reach across as their coalition is broad, but the GOP mantra seems to be “My way or the Highway”.
80
This is not the time for those opposed to Trump Fascism to turn Left. Real conservatives can join with real centrists and realistic progressives to beat the devil. Fascism has always won out when it could claim a threat from the Left.
2
@n1789 Please explain why Hummingbird is wrong.
1
The Republicans will claim a threat from the left, and call everything that’s not a giveaway to the rich “socialism”, no matter who the candidate is.
11
@n1789 How did we get trump to begin with, then? How did the Democrats come to lose their 60 year majority in Congress in the early 90s, and gradually slide near to the point of national extinction a few years ago the more "moderate" and "centrist" (read: conservative) they became?
1
Democrats who want a moderate who can work across party and ideological lines need look no further than Amy Klobuchar.
2
Barack Obama made every effort to work with the GOP (Good Old Putin) and we have lots of proof including a stolen Supreme Court pick to see how that “worked”. Republicans are not interested in governing or compromise. The only solution is to vote Democratic.
44
@George Tafelski Republicans know how to wield power for their constituents, the very wealthy. Sadly the current cadre of establishment Democrats aren't interested in the doing the same, or they would nominate someone who went beyond the bland platitudes of holding hands with Republicans who stealing the wealth of, and denying healthcare to, the vast majority of the people. The establishment moderates like Biden have no desire to challenge this at all.
1
@P.Law
Absolutely accurate and well said.
In the first table, note this:
Warren + Sanders > Biden + Buttigieg.
That doesn't look like preferring the moderates to me...
132
@Nathan Hansard In the NYT survey of voters in key battleground states, there was a sizable percentage of people who would vote for Sanders but not Warren. So just because they like Sanders doesn't mean they'd support Warren.
2
@Nathan Hansard
Exactly my reading of the table, too. And why is the NYT even reporting these polls? While these polls are likely very interesting to the candidates' campaigns, by publishing them so early in the conest, the NYT appears to be pushing a narrative -- one supporting moderate candidates. While the Times can argue that it is simply informing the public, I regard this type of information as being no different than Comey informing us about the FBI's Hillary Clinton investigation, which arguably changed the trajectory of the 2016 election.
For this survey to validate the headline, the question should have been: "Do you prefer a moderate, a progressive, or a conservative Democratic candidate?" But either way you slice it, the survey results show that there are either equal numbers of progressive voters as there are moderate voters, or progressives outnumber moderates in states like AZ, FL, and MI.
Furthermore, this article appeared on my screen under an advertisement from Merrill Lynch. The NYT needs to do a better job of avoiding the appearance of partiality.
And I disagree with @Diana in this thread: I believe that whether Warren or Sanders wins the nomination, their supporters will vote for whoever the progressive candidate is. If Warren is the candidate, Sanders supporters will not sit it out or write in Biden, and vice versa. Now, if Biden is the candidate, the Dems will have a lot of explaining -- and convincing -- to do.
If a million black men were not still disenfranchised in Florida the poll might be very different. Unfortunately Republican governor Ron DeSantis has blocked a constitutional amendment that would have restored thier right to vote. DeSantis got elected in part with a massive payment from jailed Giuliani associate Lev Parnas. Parnas tipped the election in Florida, and Florida may tip the nation. Is Parnas working for Putin or for himself?
8
Please throw these labels away.
If the choice comes down to Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump, and Elizabeth Warren is who people are afraid of? If people think Elizabeth Warren is the radical one who can’t work across the aisle?
Then centrists are the problem, and the NYT will once again be complicit.
186
@Noah G Absolutely right.
15
@Noah G Thank you! I was wondering how long it would take for the Times and other “perceived” left media outlets to start brainwashing efforts against candidates who want to tax the obscenely rich appropriately. I’m over 60 and have watched the media benefit the 1% with the “trickle down” argument veiled as “Americans prefer centrists” for years. Because of this, the only changes I’ve seen in 40 years of adulthood have been a crumbling infrastructure, bankrupting due to exorbitant healthcare costs, rampant homelessness and the young turning against older generations because they know they will have to work twice as hard for half as much. Just look at the framing of the survey questions! The reason I don’t participate in surveys, but I digress. Anyone with half a brain knows Warren won’t be able to magically achieve Medicaid or free college for all in one, or even two terms, they are certainly worthy goals! The current national deficit wasn’t created by policies that benefited average Americans, but rather by welfare for the rich. Defense industry companies, Wall St./banking, for profit medical system, etc., etc., etc., these are the privileged who ALWAYS benefit by the same old “sky is gonna fall if we make sweeping changes” arguments pushed by the media. So, I expect Trump or Biden will win in 2020 and the country will continue it’s downward spiral.
22
@Noah G It is interesting that almost everyone who is upset about this poll are from states where any democrat will easily win. Remember that this poll is about the crucial states that Trump won. Look at the poll carefully and see if you may be looking at these results with a losing New York state of mind. How surprised were you the day after the 2016 election when Ms. Clinton lost all of these states?
10
As every sentient being knows working with the Republicans means giving them what they want without exception
70
with his ties to Ukraine, there is no way Biden wins the White House, not happening, Warren will win the nomination and lose the general to Trump.
4
Weird headline, given the polling data. Warren + Sanders beat Biden + Buttigieg + Klobuchar soundly in Michigan and Wisconsin and are pretty close to even with them (statistical error) in the other states. I understand the anxiety about the left-leaning candidates and it seems the NYT is really afraid of them. But I'm convinced either Warren or Sanders will beat Trump, and I'm convinced that Biden is still the worst bet because his shelf life is over. It's relatively fresh faces (Reagan, Clinton, W, Obama, Trump) who win elections usually.
52
@Geoff Garver
Indeed! And undecided beats everyone at this early point
7
They want “a candidate who can work with Republicans”??!! What does that even mean, in the context of at least the past 40 years when most republicans have refused, time and time again, to “work with Democrats”??!! Or does that not matter?
It seems to me that these voters are NOT so-called “moderates” at all but rather Republicans “lite” - or wolves in sheep’s clothing. To all Democrats, I’d say: beware of these kinds of people and ignore, move on, use all your energy and power to ensure that everyone else goes out and votes ... BLUE!
57
@M. Haines Exactly! And, don’t participate in surveys that frame questions to achieve conclusions and arguments they (insert organization and sensationalist agenda) want Americans to believe.
2
And how, pray tell, do you work with people who's definition of compromise is total capitulation?
26
Republicans won’t work with any democrat. Do we remember Obama?’
These voters are naive or worse.
29
Voters feel entitled to want anything, including for pigs to fly, that they were twenty years younger, that gravity did not apply to delicate items accidentally dropped. The constraints of reality mean that for democracy to work, voters had better grow up, swallow their childish wants, and consider what is possible. If you want Democrats who work with Republican, you're going to have to manage getting Republicans who will work with Democrats. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
45
@Bounds The "ault" talk always comes from people who are solely interested in protecting what's theirs, and are actually opposed to what real democracy (like that of Canada and much of Europe) can actually be. Talk about toddler stamping their feet.
2
I read this and got even more excited about Michael Bloomberg’s chances
3
It's amazing how many people are zombies. Quick test: how many of you "moderate preferrers" chose not to vote for Clinton? OH, so NOW you prefer a moderate?
"I wish I hadn't left the iron on" is not much of a personal philosophy.
14
I was not able to get beyond Clinton's past behavior to even think of her as "moderate" or not. I suspect I wasn't the only one.
1
@Margo Yes, I know there are many. "She broke email rules!" Heaven forfend.
So, the vast majority of those polled "want a candidate who will find common ground with Republicans."
Mine isn't a scientific, statistical response to the falling-down idiocy of this Hail Mary to the existentially-challenged Corporate Democrats down at the DNC, but here goes...
Where in God's name did you find the participants in this poll? In a freshly unsealed 1950s bomb shelter?
They want a candidate who says Brett Kavanaugh, now that I think about it, is really a swell guy? Someone who really enjoys the company of billionaires and would be comfortable getting a big check after a weekend on Jamie Dimon's yacht?
Please get something more serious to distract us with now that Bernie Sanders is moving up in the polls and drawing the largest and most enthusiastic audiences.
Perhaps an opinion piece on how we can really sew up this election by telling everyone under forty not to bother voting.
91
@Brian Just look at where (i.e. for whom) the people turn out. For Sanders and Warren, and on the other side for Trump. No one turns out for bland oatmeal. The same will happen at the polls, yet because these voters have been slapped into cowering by the repeated losses of Democratic centrists to hardline Republicans since the 90s, they fear putting up anyone with a spine who will actually fight for something rather than acquiesce to the elite.
10
@Brian Yes on the bomb shelter, but...look carefully at how the questions were framed. I absolutely refuse to participate in surveys because the questions are always framed to achieve the outcome the surveying entity is bent on promoting and/or sensationalizing.
6
The only way to work with the current republican congress would be further cut taxes for the rich, ban abortion, repeal the entire ACA.
27
Common ground is only common when it favors what you believe in and want to happen.
3
If the democrats had listened to the people in 2016 and nominated a moderate progressive instead of the identity/social engineering obsessed, neo con, elect me president because I am a woman and my time has come Hillary, America would not be in the mess it is now with the ego maniac demagogue Trump.
Democrats learn from history or forever be condemned to repeat its' worst mistakes.
17
Well, don’t forget Cambridge Analytica.
@Paul OK, Boomer.
Anyone but Trump. Democrats must vote for the Democratic candidate. No one can be worse than Trump, every Democrat is better and many of their plans won't pass Congress but it's a good start. Here's wise words from Seth MacFarlane, Democrats should head them:
Dear Liberals & Independents (and Democrats)
In 2020, there will be a candidate competing against Donald Trump for President. It is very likely this candidate:
1. Isn't your first choice
2. Isn't 100% ideologically pure
3. Has made mistakes in their life
4. Might not really excite you all that much
5. Has ideas you are uncomfortable with
Please start the process of getting over that now, instead of waiting until 2020.
36
In 2016 the Democrats asked us to hold our noses and vote for Hillary. That’s a one time thing, and they are quite mistaken if they think we will all do that again.
3
I have this as a meme and post it on Twitter and FB on a regular basis.
@getGar: "In 2020, there will be a candidate competing against Donald Trump for President. It is very likely this candidate:
1. Isn't your first choice
2. Isn't 100% ideologically pure
3. Has made mistakes in their life
4. Might not really excite you all that much
5. Has ideas you are uncomfortable with
Actually, my first choice would be to vote for a candidate that has ideas I am comfortable with, hasn’t made mistakes, and excites me.
But my second choice would certainly be to vote for a candidate that makes mistakes, and has ideas that I am uncomfortable with.
But the big question is can the Replubicans work with anyone?!
31
Sherrod Brown, please, please reconsider!
" I don't buy the left or the right. " Let's make the United States united again.
3
Sanders and Warren together trounce the field of "moderates" combined. The only way to get to numbers of the "common ground" types is the "Don't Knows".
In other words, the Times is effectively arguing that low information voters, who will never be among the enthusiasts for progressive change, to set the party agenda.
How'd that work out the last time?
Is it landlines which has rendered American polling worthless for the last few elections?
34
@jrd, You note,"Sanders and Warren together trounce the field of "moderates" combined." But first, they would not be running together in the Presidential race; only one would. And second, that nominee would not be running against against the "moderates" in their party. He/She would be running against Trump or Pence. Such a "woke" candidate would be called a democratic socialist, which would soon morph into socialist, and then morph into communist.
2
working with republicans is the same as standing, hat in hand, begging for a handout. republicans, as they currently are, will not work with democrats.
15
Ballot access laws are the new poll tax. The establishment parties benefit from byzantine ballot access laws that make it difficult for alternative candidates to “qualify” for our vote. Nine states don’t even allow voters to write-in names of their preferred candidates.
Disenfranchising candidates is part of the power elites’ election game as well. Forty-five states have “sore loser” laws denying defeated candidates the right to run again on a third-party line. If a candidate believes political kingmakers thwarted his/her prospects of winning the Democrat or Republican nomination, his/her political job application cannot be re-submitted to the voters – it’s against the duopoly’s rules.
In 1775, John Adams warned us about this: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” It’s time to do more than just dread the Hobson’s choice of Biden-Trump or Warren-Trump.
4
Would they support a Republican nominee who showed zero interest in working with the other party? That’s their choice. Support someone who reflects their values and wants what’s best for the country — literally any democratic nominee. Or suport a vile human being who supports none of their values and has no interest in reaching across the aisle.
14
Would someone who wants a candidate who will work with Republicans please explain in what fantasy world they see this as a possibility. Republicans constantly move the goalposts, tolerate behavior in their party that they always denounce in Democrats, explode deficits which they abhor when a Democrat is in office and this only scratches the surface. The hypocrisy in the R. Party is stunning and malicious.
15
I don't know what universe these voters are living in. Republicans will not work with any Democrat - a so called moderate one or a liberal one. And they really want things in Washington to return to "business as usual" or "back to normal?" What is normal? When Mitch McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Obama's Supreme Court pick, or when McConnell's main goal in 2008 was to undermine Obama before he even entered the Oval Office? Who is the NYT reaching in this poll? I'm very doubtful of these data.
16
What's with these 62% of people who want someone who can find common ground with Republicans? Wake up my friends! The Republicans are NOT interested!
11
Do people think Trump is a moderate? So the choice is I will prefer a corrupt extremist over a liberal/progressive? Furthermore, it is not clear what people mean by “moderate”.
7
I prefer a moderate who could work over - not with - Republicans. It is time to claw back the gains that were made by Democrats (and moderate Republicans) in the past and eviscerated by so-called Republican reactionaries these past two decades.
Working with the current Republican party members makes as much sense letting an infant play with vipers.
118
@Greg
I would be OK voting for a moderate in the general, but I think a lot of people on here seem blind to just how tired the progressive base is with moderates and inoffensive middle ground policies being the only option. Economically things were not good for the majority of working Americans before Trump, and another candidate promising just a return to business as usual, "Nothing would fundamentally change," as Biden put it is not going to excite anyone.
I think there is this cynical bet on the part of the moderates that economic progressives will grit their teeth once again and vote for a moderate because of Trump, whereas moderates would not do that, but in my opinion a push to the center will drive down voting as much as a push to the left. Not only that, but it will write off the huge number of Americans who have not been turning out even before, because they see nothing for them in politics. If any of these apathetic voters can be brought back it will be with something new, not the same old same old.
6
@Rocky
Hey Rocky.
Good points. I am hopefully thinking that perhaps some of the people who say the voted for Trump because they despised Hillary Clinton would vote democratic again. Maybe that is wishful thinking.
I do not disagree with many of the policies of economic progressives. However, I worry that some of the proposed policies are not economically viable and that some candidates may be pitching ideas on which they won't be able to deliver.
@Greg
Hear, hear!
Since the Republican candidate is so extreme, it is certainly sensible for the Democratic candidate to try to reach a wider audience, by assuming a moderate position.
1
That’s not much of an argument. Trump is so abhorrent that any sentient being running against him should be preferred by all rational people.
1
First if you combine Warren and Sanders the combination exceeds Biden in every state except NC. Also, what use is there to asking about ‘working with the Republicans’. It’s a ‘what if this could come true’ question. Sure, IF a moderate could somehow have Republicans work with them then yes there could be a path out of our obvious misery. Obama was a moderate who reproposed Republican ideas and was told ‘nothing from you’. There is not going to be anything from Republicans but obstruction so the question should not even be asked. Here is a better idea, make Warren be moderate. How? For one just start saying it. Progressive proposals today are not radical. They are solutions for big old festering problems. Warrens proposals are moderate. She is a moderate. She has nice moderate proposals to tax the rich and every regular worker in America loves that!
16
@Brian -- Funny math. You merging two candidates to try to hide the simple fact - neither of the choices beats Biden in this specific poll. Only one candidate gets the nomination. Democrats polled in this set of states are not preferring a progressive candidate.
Regarding your mention of Obama and the GOP - we still got Obamacare, which was big, and the GOP has failed to kill it. Damage it? Yes. But note also that three very Red states just voted last year to expand Medicare in their states.
So some realism, please. Look back at when Presidents were able to get huge, sweeping progressive programs and laws enacted and you see what we won't have after the election - large Democrat majorities in House AND Senate.
Incremental fixes are possible. Many Republicans and Independents are unhappy enough with Trump to vote the other way - if they feel safe doing so.
You may want scold them for wanting to feel safe, but again, that's part of the problem.
So no funny math saying a Warren/Sanders merge beats Biden. Neither progressive beats Biden in these polls. Ignoring that is a good way to re-elect Trump.
I fear that all this polling is to some degree self reinforcing. People will support the ones they think can really win, those who were atop the last few polls they saw. The upshot is that the same 3 stay on top. They are preferred because they are winning and winning because they are on top on the polls.
Maybe leave it alone for a month or 2 see what happens
3
No surprise here. But if anything, it just goes to show what the more progressive candidates have so far failed to pick up on.
And it will cost them, and Democrats dearly in the end.
I would prefer Republicans who will work with Democrats. On the last decade or more, their reluctance has gone beyond obstinacy to outright endurance. Why ask Democrats to bend when Republicans will not, will not, will not be even minimally interested in joint effort?
11
We want normalcy. We need experience and civility. We want Joe.
1
@Dorothy Joe China? Joe Ukraine? No, what you mean is a Democrat moderate. Not a corrupt politician who enriches his family. Joe Biden is unelectable because he even used Air Force Two to get a one billion dollar contract for his son and SecState Kerry's son in Beijing. And, the Ukraine deal. We need a CLEAN moderate. There aren't any running. That is the tragedy of both the Party and the country.
1
The bare numbers make me a little suspicious of the conclusion drawn in this article. Adding up the Warren and Sanders percentages gets you about the same totals as the percentages of Biden and Buttigieg. And more fundamentally, sure everyone wants to work with Republicans but they don’t want to work with Dems so this is a false proposition in which to build a theory of the voters’ mind.
13
How has this poll been conducted? If the poll was taken by landline phone, consider who still has one of those.
7
Progressive democratic primary voters (and I'm one) can easily forget that it is the general election that counts. And we cannot afford to lose this time around. With favorable headwinds, I would urge progressives to put themselves in moderate Republican shoes (just for a minute!), and see who them could possibly vote for. We cannot make a mistake this time around. And this story is a wake up call.
1
Sanders is the only Democrat my Trump neighbors would support. I do put myself in their shoes. People can’t afford health care. People can’t afford college education.
7
Sanders votes plus Warren votes equals preference for a...moderate. I’m no mathematical wiz but I understand basic addition.
8
Having just read the headline, I have to ask, it's great that moderate Democrats want a candidate who'll work with the Republicans, but why would they expect the Republicans will work with us? Didn't work so well with Obama, did it?
During the US revolutionary war, the British wore red coats, marched in straight lines, and expected their opponents to follow British perceived notions of warfare. What did that get them?
Until the Republican party can learn to play nice with others, we need to do what is necessary to implement our policies.
6
One interesting observation I recall reading, after the October NYT/Sienna poll first printed, was that the voter-ID splits in Michigan seemed heavily weighted with an atypical proportion of Independent voters.
The strong implication was that the Sienna poll was an outlier, perhaps due to modeled composition.
I wonder if this article merits a follow-up in which the positioning of the candidates is measured using more than one poll, from more than one pollster?
1
This poll seems to indicate there is still time for a candidate other than those you polled for to take the lead, a moderate obviously, someone who can actually get things done with the help of Republicans, and someone with a proven track record of beating Trump. For the life of me I just don't understand why Steve Bullock's name doesn't come up as the guy to fit this bill. Please enlighten me.
The podcast discussing the results of the poll was so interesting , I listed to it twice! I’m afraid there will be backlash by many progressives over what may be perceived as pushing a Biden agenda. Nevertheless, it is obvious. The country is polarized and the few remaining sane moderates prefer anybody who isn’t an extreme! At the moment the only viable candidate is Biden. For moderates who don’t want to see Trump re-elected , but don’t want to fundamentally change America, Biden is the best , emergency fix. If Democrats make any other extreme progressive the candidate , then most moderates will either re-elect Trump or worse- they will NOT vote. This will happen not just in battle ground states as mentioned , but also in the South in areas with a potential to turn blue (ie. GA and TX) Choose wisely for accept another 4 years of T!
1
@Conny Really? Moderates won't vote? They're all in favor of bipartisanship when it comes to working with right-wing extremists, but not when it comes to working with relatively centrist progressives? It's not like Warren and Sanders are proposing to turn the USA into the USSR... they are proposing to turn it into a fairly normal functioning "western" democracy of the type that has flourished in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan for decades. Universal health care, strong social safety net, worker protections, reasonable gun control... none of these ideas are extreme in the least bit when you consider how well they've been done outside the USA for a long time now.
2
With Mitch McConnell in power, "working with Republicans" means giving in to Republicans. People who say this must be old enough to remember a time when the parties actually did work together occasionally.
8
Just looking at the chart. If you combine Warren and Sander’s polling numbers, they beat Biden in every single state. So in fact they don’t prefer a moderate. They’re just split between which progressive they like better.
26
Perhaps they just don't prefer Biden and have not yet examined the promises from the others.
Exactly who are the Republicans with whom a “moderate” Democrat would work? Susan Collins, maybe, and . . . ? Out of the gate in President Obama’s first term Mitch McConnell vowed to make him a one-term president. The amount of cooperation that followed was, predictably, virtually zero.
From Clinton on, Democrats have been counseled to follow the middle path. Meanwhile - since Reagan, really - Republicans gave us supply side economics, growing income and wealth inequality, endless war, environmental degradation, and Donald Trump.
We need a president who will lead us out of this mess, not deeper into it.
18
Let's do this: the new Democratic president gives the Republicans one chance to work together. If s/he is obstructed then that's it. Even one chance is being generous. Obama didn't learn that lesson soon enough.
3
@CarolSon Why bother? How about if, instead, the Republicans start showing any inclination AT ALL towards being able to compromise on even small issues BEFORE Democrats-- moderate, moonbat, or otherwise-- talk about bipartisanship as a goal?
Instead of wondering if it's the height of wisdom to elect someone like Joe Biden because he might be able to pull off this alleged "reach across the aisle", we should instead be wondering if it wasn't Uncle Joe whispering in Barack's ear about being moderate that kept President Obama from being more progressive the whole time! How many opportunities have been squandered already because of this consensus mirage?
A moderate democrat in a swing state to win a national election. I find this concept or mindset generally wrong.
For a democrat in a red or red-leaning state, as long as you hold views for: abortion right, gun control, gay marriage, illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship, etc, you are no longer a moderate any more, you are a total liberal with all those "sins". There is no way they'll vote for you. On the other hand, a "true" moderate democrat in those red-leaning states most likely holds the opposite views on the above issues so this personal has a much better chance to win in those states. But this "true" red state moderate democrat is totally unacceptable in any other blue state. There is absolutely no chance for this moderate to win the primary.
There is a symmetrical scenario on the republican side: moderate republicans Charlie Baker (MA governor) and Larry Hogan (MD governor) can win and remain very popular in those blue states, but they all have to hold liberal views (except for tax policies, which are the only ones acceptable by blue state voters).
It seems increasingly likely that Trump will not be on the ballot in 2020. I would bet that he has a temper tantrum and declares that, due to the presidential abuse he has suffered, he has decided not to run. The country doesn’t deserve him.
Then what?
4
@WDP Yeah, I like your optimism, but even doddering Donald knows that the Oval Office is the reason he's getting so much attention right now (and staying out of jail, maybe even)... not only does he NOT want to leave, he's made mention of needing to stay past his term limit! He literally feeds off the energy of the nation and he is well aware that he can't leave the White House without having to put his ego on a diet.
Michael Bloomberg changed everything. The candidates listed here should drop out of the race now. Mr. Bloomberg is better than all of them.
1
How does anyone work with the current iteration of Repubs? Mitch McConnell's preference is for political and judicial power rather than functioning government. I don't see him changing his cynical playbook for any Dem Pres. I too would like government to go back to being realistic compromise and conversation rather than the scorched earth war it has become. (Thank you Newt G) But I can't see how it happens.
1
62% prefer a candidate that promises "to find common ground with Republicans".
Find common ground with a party that suspended the Constitution so they could rig the Supreme Court when the last President was a Democrat ?
Find common ground with a party that passed a billionaire tax cut welfare program with zero public hearings ?
Find common ground with a party that came within a vote of ripping healthcare from 15 million Americans and replacing it with early funerals ?
Find common ground with a party that refuses to consider any legislation that passes the current House of Representatives ?
Find common ground with a party that blindly supports Presidential law-breaking as far as the human eye can see ?
What exactly is the purpose of finding common ground with a party that has repeatedly demonstrated corrupt, oligarchic values and no respect for the United States Constitution ?
Maybe the Republican Party should start finding some common ground with the United States Constitution and the nonrich before expecting a single vote from an American citizen.
25
Why are you trying to attack the innate preferences of these voters? It won't change their minds.
It may be entertaining to watch the theatrics on Capital Hill, but in the end that has little value for most of us who want government run in a professional manner with reasoned decisions absent the influence of money interests or political posturing.
Of course the Dems in these states do. They also want to win and aren't willing to go down fighting believing they didn't compromise.
The left-wing of the Democratic Party is going to re-elect Trump, and in their haughty, self-righteous, despair, grieving another four years of Trump they will complain, but refuse to take responsibility because they won't compromise or do what is necessary and support the only candidate who can beat Trump.
2
People in battleground states and split communities are largely not as intelligent or connected with reality as people in deep blue enclaves are.
Their lower incomes, their lack of culture, and their lack of political imagination are testament to this fact.
They may say they want Biden, and this is likely true. But it’s similar to how they say they want fried chicken, football, McDonald’s, soda, and cigarettes. It may feel good and comforting to them, but it only leads to obesity, diabetes, cancer, brain damage, and demise.
Therefore it is up to us - the white and woke progressive vanguard, and those well educated minorities who are similarly woke - to show them the Right Path. Just like we have with school reform, bans on full contact sports, and cigarette and soda taxes in our own more progressive communities.
This piece tells me one thing, and one thing only; we need to work harder to teach others the Right Path. And we need to work harder to make sure someone like Warren is the nominee.
There are still far too many ignoramuses within the Democratic Party. We simply need to out donate them, out organize them, and outvote them. Based on our own record of intelligence and hard work, I’m confident we can do this though.
Was this a landline poll only? If it was, that is a substantial flaw. Baby boomers and gen-X people who still answer their home phones don't represent the entire Democratic Party.
1
In 2016 those same Democrats wanted the moderate Hillary, which gave us Trump, who is anything but moderate.
3
Enough with the polls and quotes from 70year olds. Focus on helpful policies. From both parties. I don’t think the Republicans have many.
2
The poll is useless in its implications and borders on fraud. The most relevant question to have asked the participants was whether that participant would be voting for any Democrat candidate over Trump, notwithstanding their preference for "a moderate" candidate or one in the image of "moderate Joe Biden." This sound to me like a Biden sponsored poll.
4
These swing state polls are nothing more than name recognition contests at this time. Trump and Biden have the most name recognition - not more complicated than that. The Democratic contenders are not spending time and resources in those swing states yet. All the Democratic candidates are focusing their resources on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - the first caucus/primary states.
If Warren wins Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary - she leads in most polls in both states (however, it’s close in both states), she will have strong momentum to win the nomination. But the Democratic caucuses/primaries look like they will be a long, drawn out contest. If Bloomberg enters, he would definitely change the dynamics (takes out Biden, helps Warren, or Bloomberg could even win nomination). Once Democrats have their nominee, the swing state polls will matter - a lot (more than national polls, which will predict popular vote, which any Democrat is likely to win given that the majority of the country detest or are simply tired of Trump). What those swing state polls are telling us even now is that Trump - even after obstructing justice, being a Putin Puppet, being an overt racist, being credibly accused of sexual assault by about 20 women and of rape, withholding military aid from an ally fighting for its survival in a war against Russia as leverage to get dirt, made up dirt, on Biden, after being impeached but not removed) - has a very real and strong chance of being re-elected.
2
Where is Michael Bennet on this list? He is the candidate independent voters are looking for. He just registered in New Hampshire. He needs to get more exposure.
Of course "key states" say they prefer a "moderate." Almost by definition, the majority of voters in swing states have no ideology or principles to guide their choices. Consequently, these "moderates" float wherever the winds and currents take them.
It seems highly doubtful that swing state voters even understand what "moderate" means if they would voter for Trump rather than a progressive candidate.
Since fear is the strongest force in politics, swing state voters are especially vulnerable to well-funded propaganda campaigns by corporatists and Big Lies by demagogues.
If these morally unanchored swing voters have not already been repulsed by Trump, then Republicans can hate-monger and race-bait them into voting against American democracy again.
2
Not long ago, my main concern was that Warren and Sanders would split the progressive vote at a time when the country badly needs a reformer in the White House.
Now, I'm terrified that Warren will win -- not because I don't agree with most of her proposals, but because I fear she may lose to Donald Trump.
This survey shows why. Sure, these voters are naive -- no Democrat can find common ground with today's Republicans, because the Republicans have no intention of doing so.
But we need these voters to defeat Donald Trump. There is nothing remotely as important.
What good will running a progressive candidate do if we lose our democracy?
In the last election, I voted for Bernie Sanders. But right now, we are fools if we don't support the candidate most likely to drive this president out of office.
I would vote for Dracula if it meant defeating Donald Trump.
As pollsters know the answer you get depends on how you phrase the question – this one biased and result expected.
Voters will do as they will and explanations will abound.
As pollsters know the answer you get depends on how you phrase the question – this one biased and result expected. Voters will do as they will and explanations will abound.
Put it up a little truth won't hurt.
Why is Yang so far down on the list when he is polling better than the candidates above him?Please don’t end up don’t like what CNN and other big media outlets have done and ignore his movement.
A candidate who can “work with the Republicans” is only a useful measuring tool if the Republicans are willing to work with a Democratic president — which we know they are not. Remember Merrick Garland!
1
This article is based off of one survey. There are other surveys which came out even the same day as the one the article cites, and those surveys show totally different results. (They are all at Fivethirtyeight's poll site, see them!) . Why is this one survey somehow taken as God's own Truth? Talk about picking and choosing your data!
Those Dems want a leader who "seeks a middle ground" and "works with Republicans"? Which country have they been living in? Obama tried all that, and the Republicans refused to cooperate on anything.
Finally, the "people want a moderate" theory was tested in 2016.
1
Perhaps a more accurate title for this article, based on the poll data, might be "Democrats in Battleground States Prefer A Progressive Nominee" since the combined data for Warren and Sanders is greater than that for Biden in all but one state. Gosh, I wonder why some progressives think the NY Times and other such corporate media are biased in favor of status quo, corporate candidates like Joe Biden. In normal times, a corporate bias might be a acceptable for a corporation like the NY Times. But at times like this, when our future is threatened by climate change and massive economic inequality a little more objectivity might be in order.
2
These poll results are insane. The problem isn’t that Democrats won’t work with Republicans. The problem is that the Republicans refuse to work with Democrats. That’s been the case for a long time, and no amount of wishing will change it.
Of course, these results are from very small samples, exclude many potential voters, and was done a year before the general election, and months before the primary in any of these states. Grain of salt is advised.
1
Look at the numbers; Moderates get about 30%, Progressives get about 30% and Don't knows get about 30%.
Stop with the garbage Warren or Sanders cannot win. Sorry, but if Biden wins the primary many progressives will stay at home - just like 2016. If Warren or Sanders win, moderates will still vote for them thinking they can't get some of their policies through, unless they are ready to deal with Trump for another 4 years.
1
Yes, and we elected a Congresswoman in 2016 who promised she would work with Republicans. She is one of the most partisan persons in the Congress and her only achievement is voting for the impeachment inquiry. She is so aloof from our people here that she is even uninterested in stopping robocalls. She is uninterested in cooperative comprehensive immigration legislation, in cooperating with Republicans on any climate legislation, in getting citizenship for DACA people, in working to pass the USMCA, in ANYTHING that calls for working with Republicans that she is a total fraud. BUT, she got elected by claiming she would be "working with Republicans."
Polls of self-identified Democrats are of little use at this point with respect to the general election. Most of those polled will vote for the Democratic nominee. Independents are those who have to be polled - they are much more numerous than either Democrats or Republicans, although probably less likely to vote. The positions of the candidates are still not well known and possible swing voters probably have not paid much attention yet.
What might be useful is questions which get at not just what Independents prefer, but whether they are actually likely to vote. For major change to occur, it may be necessary to get a very large turnout. If someone did not vote in previous elections, does this mean they are perfectly satisfied with the status quo, or just don't think that candidates offering the status quo are worth voting for? The very low ratings of both parties indicates the latter. In fact most people seem to want a better party than either of the existing ones.
Dems, we can do better. Many of the moderates align more closely with GOP values than democratic ones. And when it comes down to it, the republicans aren’t gonna switch sides. Don’t sell our chance for progress in a misguided play for electability.
19
Here’s the deal:
The people in the Democratic Party who prefer Sanders and Warren represent 40%~ of the party. Because they’re strong progressives, almost no one outside the Democratic Party will vote for them.
The people in the Democratic Party who support Biden and the moderates represent 60%~ of the party. Because their political positions are more palatable across the political spectrum, they also stand to lure in a considerable swath of Independents, even moderate Republicans who don’t want to hold their nose and vote Trump.
That’s the only math that matters to me. Do we embrace “True Believers” and lose in a landslide? Or do we build a coalition across the political spectrum and make Trump a one term president?
My personal views best align with Bernie and Elizabeth, but I’m willing to play the long game here...
Biden-Booker in 2020 so we can avoid Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court in 2021...
11
You forget that most American families struggle to pay for for profit health care and high interest student debt. American families need Medicare for All and free community college or vocational education.
3
@Zejee You speak on behalf of American families, but they’ll speak for themselves next year... I agree with you. I just don’t think most Americans do!
1
@Myles "The only math that matters to me" translated: "Let's offer no differentiation so the poorly informed have as much leeway as possible to vote for Trump. Or stay home.
Voters have to show the maturity to make tough decisions. Coke vs. Pepsi is not such a one. And those who want that to be the choice are cynically disrespectful of the democratic process. And in that I may I agree they have great validation in so being.
This election is about one thing only, and that is removing Trump from office to save our democracy. From that vantage point, when nothing else matters, we need to win the swing states at all cost. This is not the time for a Progressive, because the country as a whole is not quite ready. If the swing states want a moderate Dem, then let’s just decide on one, and make that happen. Pete, Joe, Michael, I don’t really care, as long as they can beat Trump. After that, we can get back to all of the other noble ideals. This is a war that we cannot afford to lose.
4
Until the actual field winnows down a bit, these polls only reflect vague notions of what voters actually want. Look how many people haven’t even decided. It’s obvious that as long as both Warren and Sanders are in the race that the progressive vote is split. I see no indication that either plan to drop out, so we have a long way to go before there is a true front runner.
21