"Progressives have long dreamed of a majority anchored in those states, since they would be freed from appealing to white working-class conservatives and could focus on turning out young and nonwhite voters, who may be more progressive."
Although, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer confuse the issue, Neoliberal and Progressive are not interchangeable, and the media should know this.
Progressive can no longer use the label Liberal because Nancy's and Chuckie's conservative, right wing corporate agenda betrayed the word and the working class, and now their doing it again with progressive.
Why the writer would say "they would be freed from appealing to White working-class" is beyond. Neoliberal's like the above mentioned abandoned the White working class decades ago, and progressive politicians have absolutely no intentions of abandoning the people who are their base. Progressives will continue to try and appeal to their better angels.
1
Where is Eisenhower when you need him?
1
I see socialism and ruin in our future. Thank you public 'education'.
1
"...she underperforms Mr. Biden among well-educated white voters by even more than she does among white working-class voters. "
I would rather say that well-educated white voters are underperforming Warren.
4
Of course the highly educated aren't liking Elizabeth Warren. She's more interested in fighting for the little guy than for the millionaires and billionaires.
5
Some common sense wisdom irrespective of any of the polls:
1. When it comes to Trump, polls are meaningless as they under report his support. Two weeks before the Nov. 2016 election ABC had Hillary up by 14 points.
2. A good economy will lift an incumbent President to victory almost always.
3. Most Americans do not realize how radical the changes being proposed by Dems are and they are are not the kind of changes most Americans favor. Warren's Medicare for "All" requires jettisoning popular employer-based health care and inevitable gigantic tax increases that will shock voters. The type of health care rationing that comes with single payer systems always disproportionately negatively impacts the elderly in single-payer systems (i.e. 70M plus Boomers).
4. Democratic policies appear to favor undocumented Americans at the expense of native born minorities and Trump supporters are making inroads with minorities due to Dem policy failures and low minority unemployment.
5. Increasing crime, homelessness, and drug abuse, can be linked to Dems failure to propose a valid solution to the border crisis including 30,000 fentanyl deaths from drugs crossing over from Mexico.
6. Dems will strengthen Trump when they lose badly on impeachment in the Senate. When you have to come up with a new reason justifying impeachment every other day you do not have a solid foundation to impeach. They are more interested in taking down a President than doing the work needed for the country.
3
@Steve K
Your laundry list is out-of-date. The key objection is that last time, many voters wanted to give the television businessman Donald Trump a chance against the hugely unpopular Hillary Clinton. This time around moderate Republicans and Independents know Trump better, and will turf him out.
Also, the impeachment process damaged Bill Clinton and the Democrats, hurting Al Gore's chances. Trump has already been seriously damaged by the Mueller investigation and especially now by the Impeachment inquiry (think suburban voters, especially the women.) Any healthy Democratic candidate will win. The 'radical' charge (excluding Bernie) will be exposed as people get to know the candidates better. Warren is a Teddy Roosevelt figure, not a socialist, and she will slice Trump to bits in the debates, if she and he get that far.
3
@Peter I think you're misreading this situation. It's my assessment that you're off-base in believing that enough people are disillusioned to the point that they'd vote against economic success in favor of someone who would presumably be more in step with Congress (who I think we can all agree are universally hated). Further, I don't think that the impeachment or the Mueller investigation have done a lot of damage to Trump. They might have, if Congress could have let it simmer a little, but unhealthy anger over not getting the result they wanted has made the average voter roll their eyes and watch mostly out of morbid curiosity. Finally, the field of democratic candidates with a real shot at the nomination all carry a LOT of baggage that voters aren't likely to forgive or forget. They'll be reminded of those issues repeatedly. They'll be tied to their words and actions surrounding impeachment consistently. Meanwhile, while all of this negative baggage is hung around their necks, Trump will actually has some positive news to run on. It's been DECADES since a president could do that. This election is Trump's to lose.
2
@Peter you say "Republicans and Independents know Trump better, and will turf him out" - au contraire! They voted for Trump in 2016 despite warnings that his election would mean nuclear war, devastation, a greater depression, maybe even hunger games. instead they got prosperity, conservative judges and lower taxes. why wouldn't they vote for him again? he's a slam dunk this time around, especially when he's running against the green new deal.
1
Reading this article, and then the comments is simply confirmation that a lot of people simply don't have a clue or are living in a fantasy.
America is simply not ready to commit suicide by embracing socialist fascism.
Moreover, the idea that Trump is inept is patently absurd except to those who believe the media propaganda instead of looking at the facts.
Trump has had victory after victory and has fundamentally changed transformed the business landscape in America. This has benefited every sector of America.
Unemployment for all of the leftist created divisions of the population is at historic lows. The middle class is making more money, and more people are moving out of poverty.
This is the real challenge for the socialists.
You divided America and wrecked her economy.
Now, DJT is taking that away from you and the longer you "resist" and throw up losing efforts to impeach and undermine him the further into the hole you go.
Time to join reality folks and get on the winning team.
DJT is America. He, like America will succeed.
2
What Warren and her supporters are up against at the moment is the idea that she is far-left. However, she is squarly middle of the road compared to other developed countries. Nothing she is proposing is 'far-left'. The question is: as people start to really pay attention the closer we get to next November, will they come to understand that.
6
@Ernest Ciambarella I'm not sure how you can't say she is far left. Single payer system and breaking up corporations is a page right out of the Socialist play book. Maybe you are so far left that you do not recognize how far left she is. Life is about perspective my friend.
3
@Ernest Ciambarella check your compass son. Elizabeth Warren isn't running in a developed country, she is running here, and here she is barely left of Stalin.
2
@Jeff
Yeah. Right, Jeff. It's all about what you choose to see. Warren sees that American health care is the most expensive and least effective in the world. It is; google "Commonwealth Fund Health Care."
All other civilized nations have universal health care for their people, get far better health outcomes, and pay far far less for health care.
What nation is far behind the curve: yea you guessed it; America is Number Last.
It is not extreme to face facts.
Try it.
5
Elizabeth Warren has been gaining ground in the polls because she speaks convincingly and has the resume to show she acts, has integrity the vision and the energy to follow through. I say the same for Bernie Sanders, age be damned, in this election where we are loaded with older candidates all across the parties. Whoever the candidate of the Democratic Party turns out to be I am thankful that these issues, this vision of the so called "far left" ( the FDR left) is out there and is getting exposed. Maybe when people think instead of acting knee-jerk partisan they will realize that we are a country out of balance between corporate interests and the interests of the people, the general welfare. We have gross inequality such that money interests rule. And we have been getting meaner morally and angrier-angry and resentful enough to see such an unfit person hoisted to the presidency backed by a party desperate for more power. This is the "far left" message and why and how it gains support. If it loses and we get another 4 years of Trump, maybe we deserve that. The message must get out. People have to choose. What kind of country do we want?
12
@Potter Hear, Here!
This article falls into a far-too-convenient and lazy trap of fallacious logic. While it may be true that a steady percentage of 'R's' continue to support Trump, looking at this metric fails to consider the tens of millions of voters who have left the Republican party in disgust.
As a designer of predictive quantitative systems and avid consumer of data, I forecast a rout of historical epic proportions in 2020 – across the entire political spectrum. In the words of Winston Churchill, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they've tried everything else first."
7
@Christopher M. Are those the same metrics that had Hillary winning big in 2016?
1
@Jeff - Hillary DID win big in 2016. Where have you been? She won by 3-million votes if you haven't heard. And since then, Trump has driven tens of millions of voters away from the Republican party. I am one of them. A former R for 40 years, I am now an independent and will never vote for another Republican again. The party is bankrupt; RIP.
3
Memo to Every Democrat:
Point 1. Everyone who voted for DJT in 2016 was fully aware of his despicable nature and his ineptitude. As polls tell us and common sense reinforces, even though he is more despicable and inept than imagined has not yet and likely will not change their minds in 2020.
Point 2. We need a candidate who assures the nation of a return to civilized behavior and an incremental approach to policies that will benefit us all. Clean air and water, dealing with the warming climate, education, incremental improvements in health care.
Point 3. Keep in mind that many Americans are perfectly willing to accept anyone who rails against the evils of big government and the "deep state". But not so willing to tax billionaires some with assets well in excess of 10 billion dollars.
1
Elisabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have similar progressive policies, clearly distinct from all the others (except Tulsi Gabbard). Together they outperform Joe Biden, and in a truly democratic election (ranked-choice voting for instance) one of them would most likely win the nomination.
The winner-takes-all principle can provide odd results. Consider candidates A and B having very similar policies, each getting 33 percent of the votes, and then candidate C having a radically different policy but getting 34 percent. No comments necessary.
6
I find polls this far out from an election to be interesting but little more.
What is rather amazing is that Trump has as much support as he has despite the barrage of attacks from all sides. (Are there any polls on that?)
He is being impeached after all, Trump is not personally popular by any standard, yet his numbers haven't really fallen, possibly because his policies (immigration, defending our competitiveness, leaving forever wars, etc.) are more in line with more citizens than his bombastic personality.
Ultimately, my take is that it is now up to Democrats to convince the people that they are more competent to run things for the good of all nation and its future, not just to oust Trump. Democrats might rethink what really matters to American citizens rather than offering an ideologically based, unchartered path to an unproven future.
Not being Trump may not be enough of an argument.
3
@Si Seulement Voltaire
I agree with everything you said. The majority of the population is not going to vote for a candidate with out there liberal ideals, even if they do find Trump a despicable human being. He has done the things he has said he would do. The Democrats just need to pony up a Blue Dog candidate more likeable that will carry on semi-conservative policies and end some of the partisanship that is going on. They definitely have not done that yet and they will not win if they don't. The ringer being if the people vote again for a Democrat and the electoral college votes for Trump, we are back in the same position we were in 2016, and I can easily see that happening.
1
We cannot defeat the trump-rabble with a scary progressive nominee ...
The Center has NOT been Represented by EITHER party.
We MUST regain sanity and rule of law FIRST and build from there.
This Impeachment and or defeat in election is as important a crossroads event as ever has happened in American History.
Left to continue his reign, Trump will create a dictatorship by the time he refuses to step down in 5 years.
5
@APatriot
There is a thought he may not step down even after 4 years....
@APatriot the center as you say.. also is not represented by current “centrism”
Even warren who has never held much appeal to working class voters, actually does better with them then the upper middle class conservative swing voters. Well there are a lot more working class voters,and only “scary” progressives have any polls to point to that show that they could be motivated to turnout. Bernie far more than warren. I know this doesn’t against what you have always beloved and always been told.. but the truth is is Trump got elected due to anti-establishment FAKE populism! A democrat needs real progressive populism to combat that. I implore you to look at the potentially coalitions of all the democrats beyond the primary. You will find, Biden and Pete do not have the largest coalitions!
Less educated working class white voters need to understand that it is not enough to parrot their anger as Trump does. The real issue is who is going to fix the issues that make them angry. Hint: it won't be Trump.
3
@Barbara And how do you propose to bring them to that understanding?
1
@Carl Yaffe They will refuse to understand anything until Trump creates his own "Reichstag Fire" and refuses to leave office in January 2025. Then we will finally have a fascist regime in the US, and fascist regimes always eat their young.
There was a portion of the article that relies on poll results on the question of whether registered non-voters who prefer Trump are more likely to vote in the next election vs. registered non-voters who prefer "the democratic nominee." I'd just like to point out that until the democratic nominee is decided, these poll results are pointless. You cannot compare how supporters of a particular candidate fare against presumed supporters of a nebulous concept of who the candidate on the other side might be. People who have not yet decided who they want to win the democratic nomination cannot be expected to accurately predict how likely they are to support that candidate in the general election until they know who that candidate is. It is a waste of resources and time to have pollsters out asking these questions now.
5
@LB What would you prefer that people employed as pollsters be doing instead?
1
@Carl Yaffe They shouldn't be doing this at all because there are already many pollsters doing mock matchups between Trump and various nominees, which is far more useful information and not as misleading.
1
I was thinking more about this article and how alien the other side is, their way of thinking, so brutal and bullying and primitive. Here in Colorado, Proposition CC failed, which would have funded schools and transportation, and it's hard to live in a place where part of the population doesn't support a healthy society. I can see why 'The Big Sort' continues and it really makes me want to move, or wish that the right-wingers would all move to Texas or Wyoming. I don't want to live in a 'purple' state, I want to live in a deep blue one. For years I've thought that somehow the state and country would progress, but instead Prop CC failed and a venal thug is President of the United States. Maybe splitting the country up into 'red' and 'blue' nation-states is a good idea-maybe the sorting will produce that official result.
6
@Eugene Debs My experience in much of CO outside the I 25 corridor is that people are mindlessly dedicated to "the way we've always been and the way we've always done it." They seem to think that suicide is a part of life in Mesa County, which is solid Trump country. But asking for help goes against the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality. Militantly unenlightened and fighting to stay that way.
3
@Eugene Debs Think about Maryland. I like to tell people that our state leans so far to the left that even our crabs are blue.
@Carl Yaffe However, people aren't CRAZY in Maryland.
The media is the most important game in town. It was the media that got Trump elected. And yet Hillary won the popular vote in spite of media lack of coverage and Russian interference not to mention the suppression of voters by the Republicans.
3
@Phyliss Kirk Winning the popular vote means nothing! It's getting the elusive 270 votes from the electoral college that's important. Changing the Electoral College system would require a constitutional amendment, which would take years. We have to play the political game by the existing rules. Continually focusing on Hillary's winning the popular vote in 2016 is a distraction.
11
@MA Harry Nope! The Electoral College must be reformed to reflect 21st Century realities. That can be done without Constitutional change. It cannot be left in its 19th Century ways, when its voting power was manipulated to reflect the populations of slave states (were each slave was counted as 3/5ths of a person) and virtually empty western states. The Electoral College must reflect the actual population of each state, without any added weight for any reason. The "winner take all" thing must also be replaced by a proportional system where candidates get elector votes according to how the candidate performed in the state. Then it will be fair and accurate.
The number of people included in this analysis appears extremely low - only 75 respondents in the Biden-Not-Warren category - to make any inferences. Given that the NYT seems to want us to believe there's a statistical significance to the numbers, why not include an actual measure of significance?
12
@J Albers
I agree. Shame on the NYT trying to present an accurate statistical picture based on a 75 person sample.
6
In my town the conservative Young Americans for Freedom group is presenting a "discussion" every single week in the local junior college in the main meeting place on campus. It's like a soft version of all the GOP talking points against Dems, and all the ways in which POTUS isn't racist. The college is heavily black, Spanish, and Muslim, and the YAF is making significant inroads.
The Democrats haven't shown up even once...
7
@ms
“The Democrats haven't shown up even once...”
Perhaps they are too busy talking to each other.
6
I agree with the outcomes of this article and it seems to confirm my continuing suspicions that for some odd reason Trump could go out and shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose votes. For example, why are so many Democratic candidates beating the drum for issues that show potential voters are consistently against? If people, as another example, don't get hysterically for Medicare for All. and other issues too far left, why do they keep running on them? This election is for Democrats to lose and so far it seems very likely they will. The Republicans and Trump have been a disgrace to general national welfare, but hopefully the Democrats can get a clue?
10
This was fascinating until I got to the part about what the charts and comparisons MEANT except o yeah that part of the article was not in the article. Good one Nate you got me.
2
Another day, another article supporting a centrist candidate for the Democratic nomination. Establishmentarians are desperate to avoid a reckoning for the massive income and wealth inequality they've foisted on the American people.
10
@CMR "Establishmentarians" are desperate to win the election and THEN start dealing with the many tough issues. Too many on the far left, like Henry Clay, would rather be right than be president. (If you don't remember who he was, that's because he was "right".)
6
@Carl Yaffe
Except they never do.
4
@Not that someone I'm not sure you could call Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Bill Clinton or Obama "far left".
1
The media have a dire responsibility, now more than ever after getting Voldemort elected by 24-hour coveriage of his every vocalization in 2016, to inform the public. Calling the republicans’ 2017 tax bill “reform” does us a disservice. The only thing “reformed” by that bill was any slackening of the wealth gap.
10
@Mercedes O’Callaghan
how funny we both used "voldemort" in our comments. In mine it was a reference to Sanders, as in "he who must not be named" by the corporate media
3
NYT, can you say "Sanders". Has that become a banned word?
The reason I ask is that Sanders cuts across several of the demographics listed in the article. Further, the article leaves out several important aspects of this race. One of them is the idea of inspiration and leadership. Nate seems to think everyone will vote based on how they believe everyone else will vote. That is to say he is promoting an electability argument over policy arguments as most important to voters. That is wrong.
What is so far not measured and I doubt will ever be honestly measured is the importance of corruption (in a negative way) to the decisions of voters and the anti-establishment zeitgeist that has developed over the last decades. That notion is seeping into the non-"extremist" voters of both parties and will be increasingly important as the extremely wealthy show their hand about their own real intentions.
Those have been made very clear among Democrats and underscored where Republicans (we're talking financial elite now) have always been. They are about power for themselves to make themselves still more wealthy. Full stop. Everything else is negotiable to them and is to be used to advantage their positions of power.
I'll say it and everyone knows it is true yet still refuse to also say it out loud. It is class warfare. 'Til now, the financial elite have been kicking everyone else's behinds. Sanders changed that in his 2016 run and subsequent organizing. So say the word..."Sanders".
21
@trebor
Sanders is the "Voldemort" of the corporate media.
3
@trebor
It might be nice to live in a country in which Sanders could be a viable national candidate. Unfortunately, he is not and never could have been. THE MSM need do nothing to inhibit his campaign. A rumpled, cantankerous, elderly man with far left ideas who proclaims himself a socialist and has a Brooklyn accent will not do well more than 100 miles from saltwater. This was the case in 2016 as it would be in 2020. That so many bubble-dwellers are oblivious to this illustrates the dilemma of the Democratic Party.
10
@Realist
Whether that's true or not, that they ignore him and his army of volunteers, his superlative fund-raising, his impact on the topics of debate and the party itself, and his unprecedented grassroots support is not only incompetent journalism, its unethical.
14
Both Nate Cohn’s complicated, contra-intuitive and somewhat contradictory findings, and the range of comments in this section demonstrate the problem. Democrats refuse to coalesce around one candidate, and Trump’s base is larger and more cohesive than any Democratic faction. In that sense, the red base is more savvy than the blue. Sad.
Democrats cannot win with purism, just as they cannot win with nerds or ideologues. And if the Democrats lose this one, it may be the last one that mattered. 
8
@Realist
Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that anyone who isn't a centrist is a purist, nerd, or ideologue, and that the candidate we should all rally around is a centrist.
6
@J.C.
Not at all. Those are all independent variables. But your final clause is correct.
2
Yet another example of unfair coverage of Sanders in MSM. Fair coverage would have given us President Sanders. But here we are.
8
@JO Fair coverage would have given us a President Sanders? Perhaps, but unverifiable. But I can't see how this article, which is a pretty dry meta-analysis of recent polling, is "unfair". It's math.
3
@Bill Clarke
The article is analyzing a poll in which Sanders fared far better than Warren, yet he is mentioned in passing once at the end, and she is compared to Biden throughout. How is that honoring math? This trend in corporate media is glaring to those who are paying attention. CNN and MSNBC have made a habit of reporting inaccurate polling data - crediting Warren with better numbers than Sanders when the opposite is true, not mentioning his results when he fares better, and other such errors. CNN even published polling data shortly after Biden entered the race without including results from people under 50 (because the sample was insignificant) and not mentioning that in the reporting. There are many, many examples of the Bernie Blackout, as its been referred to since the 2016 campaign. If he were just any candidate polling in third place, this could be forgiven. But he is the most popular politician in America, he has launched a massive grassroots movement the likes of which this nation has never seen, and he's raised more money - all of it corporate free - than any other primary candidate by FAR. And publications like this one say "meh". He did make the homepage of the NYT today - so that Sydney Ember could remind us all that he had a heart attack. (Great article about Ms. Ember's Sanders' reporting in February's Jacobin magazine.)
9
@Bill Clarke how about the fact that they forgot to mention Sanders except for one sentence..
I'm confused. When did this become a two person race?
16
So if the Democratic candidate doesn't do everything they can to shoehorn themselves into this non-ideological group of people's non-ideologies, they will automatically default to the far-right incompetent buffoon?
Who are these people in the center? And what are Republicans offering them, other than fear, anger and hatred?
8
@Gary
What's the so-called "progressive left" offering them besides a blame-game focused on "patriarchy" and "white privilege"?
One would think a focus on the extreme concentration of wealth would have widespread, cross-demographic appeal -- but not when it's coupled with a poison pill attacking "whiteness."
"Less educated and often younger voters who are not conservative but who disagree with the party’s cultural left" recognize much of the rhetoric around so-called social justice as (however ironically) the argot of self-righteous snobs.
4
@Mitchell... And yet Bernie’s message to the chagrin of some party activists dwells and emphasizes “a focus on the extreme concentration of wealth”
Never really heard “white privilege” in his Stump speech
Everyone in the media forgets that Trump was only able to secure the electoral college by running away from the center and pitting state against state. Hillary Clinton won the center of the nation in 2016 simply by virtue of winning the popular vote.
What these kind of articles point out is how drastically skewed the electoral college is in favor of low-population states. Rural residents in low-population states do not represent the center of the nation.
The actual center's ideology isn't the problem for Democrats. The problem is all of the obstacles Republicans have put up to prevent certain people from voting, and preventing other's votes from counting.
No one in 2016 skipped voting, voted for the Republican, or voted for a third-party candidate because the Democratic candidate was too far left.
12
Is Pete Buttigieg mentioned at all? It’s starting to look like he’s going to win Iowa, but this seems to be mostly about Biden and Warren, as if they were well ahead. Iowa doesn’t determine everything, but it has been used as a springboard for an underdog several times before.
7
Great, the election result will depend on the most disengaged among us.
7
After reading this article, I'm real afraid that Trump will win in 2020.
3
Biden looses against Trump just like Hillary... Bernie and or Elizabeth answer fake populism with real progressive populism,
forget the polls they misled us in 2016....
4
@plamb: Do you mean that Biden looses against Trump just like Hillary because real progressives will stay home and not vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't Sanders or Warren?
4
@Stan Sutton
Yet so many moderates are telling progressives the same thing except they will vote for Trump. What foes that tell you?
If you move right you lose the left. The real problem is the electoral college is cancelling out millions of voices and votes in this country.
It would be better to mobilize the left this time than to repeat the centrist mistake. Break the electoral college if it fails. Focus on senate seats.
There is always the possibility Trump gets elected but loses both houses. The he will have to answer daily for his actions.
The left shouldn’t be beholden to the right wing extremists. This has to end.
7
@Mathias: My feeling is that moderates, liberals, progressives, etc. should vote for whomever they favor in the primary elections, then unite behind the Democratic nominee for President in the general election. That includes progressives uniting behind a moderate candidate and moderates uniting behind a progressive candidate. (As you suggest, people who have a different perspective from the presidential nominee can work to elect senators and representatives who will advocate for their views.)
In my view, this election is fundamentally a choice between Donald Trump and someone who is not Donald Trump. And that's a choice between destroying the country and saving the country, between destroying the planet and saving the planet. Anyone who the Democrats might nominate will be miles better than Donald Trump. Not voting for the Democratic nominee will be at best failing to oppose Donald Trump (and so failing to oppose the destruction of the country, failing to oppose the destruction of the world). Some who appear to be on the progressive side (and appearances can be deceiving) seem to imply that a moderate Democratic nominee shouldn't get their vote. But I have not seen anyone make a compelling argument for that position. Maybe it would make some progressive voters would feel beholden to the right. But I don't see how that matters if it allows the right to win the election and puts progressives and everyone else under their thumb.
12
There are a couple of references to "talking" to the participants. I'm not sure what that means. I hope it means you had actual conversations while doing the poll. That's really the only way you get a true "feel" for what's going on under the radar. And it sounds as if you have that "feel". This was a very good analysis and I learned a lot...and it made me hopeful. Yes, these intellectuals who have the loudest voices are self-righteous and arrogant. But, I'm from the Greatest Generation and we don't suffer fools lightly. We may not speak up, but we're smart and we know that history is the great teacher and it does repeat itself. So we express ourselves...at the voting booth! My friends who share the same age as me, firmly believe Trump will win and it may well be a landslide. We saw it coming when Warren joined Bernie in the socialist movement. WE know what socialism is...it's a heartbeat away from Communism. No matter how you design it, the people at the top get greedy and it's a winner-take-all society. We don't think, as nice as he is, Mayor Pete can make it. Too young. And Amy is not a planner. And BTW....we DO know what Black History Month is. We old...not stupid!
2
J G Smith-
The fear of socialism is the Government taking control of the means of production- over businesses and corporations.
I am afraid because corporations have taken over control of our government!
Democratic socialism emphasizes democracy.
Think Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia, France England- not Venezuela
13
Just a note. Under our current system, we have the greatest wealth an income disparity in our history. Meaning that greed at the top has taken over and it’s winner takes all. The wealthy want it this way.
14
@SXM
So do Republican and moderate Democratic voters, apparently.
1
Real Clear Politics polling averages for Bernie Sanders:
Michigan -- Bernie beats Trump by 7.3
Pennsylvania -- Bernie beats Trump by 5.4
Wisconsin -- Bernie beats Trump by 2.7
16
Polling averages give a better snapshot than one single poll, as this analysis is based on.
Real Clear Politics Polling averages for Biden
Michigan -- Biden beats Trump by 7.7
Pennsylvania -- Biden beats Trump by 7.3
Wisconsin -- Biden beats Trump by 5.7
5
Of the many depressing statements in this article, the one that just guts me is how so many people think women are “unlikable.” How is that even a thing? A whole entire gender is unlikable? Misogyny and sexism run so deep, I don’t know if we’ll ever be rid of them.
19
@L - Great point. It's actually worse than this. So many more people have an unconscious bias against women in leadership roles. What the article quoted was conscious bias only.
Put in historic context though, it's not surprising. It's only relatively recently that women were even allowed to vote and for most of western civilization, women were true second class citizens. Still today, most organized religions treat women similarly.
With time, things will change. And it will be for the better.
7
@L I'm a woman and I find Elizabeth Warren unlikable, not because of her gender but because of her shrill way of talking and her impractical proposals on health care and taxes. I had nothing against Clinton and voted for her but have since been told that she lost because so many women voters in the suburbs (presumably across the country) found her unlikable. I voted for my current Congressional representative, Carolyn Maloney, for my U.S Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, for my state senator, Liz Krueger, and for my state Assemblywoman, Rebecca Seawright. Since all of these women are incumbents, obviously a majority of their constituents must have voted for them, too. In other words, I can't speak for the Wild, Wild West but here in the Big Apple there are plenty of opportunities for women in politics.
6
@L
It's a bias, but voters are full of bias of various kinds and degrees. I guarantee this country will elect a woman president before it elects an atheist or a non-Christian.
4
The Democratic Party will not become a truly national party so long as it continues to be dominated by educated elitists. (The Credentialed Class)
Very, very few of the members of the hierarchy of the Democratic Party have ever in the military--the only truly ethnically, racially, culturally diverse institution in this country.
The hierarchy of the Democratic Party literally and figuratively looks down on "flyover America". The hierarchy of the Democratic Party listen only to other "serious thinkers" in their echo chamber. And all suffer from TDS--Trump Derangement Syndrome.
2
@R. H. Clark
Very few of the leading Republicans and Trump were in the military.
There are many integrated schools, neighborhoods, churches, and workplaces.
Nor should we look upon the military as some organization that walks on water. They slaughter civilians, torture prisoners, are trained to kill, have disparaged other people's religions, are instruments of U.S. militarism and interventionism, etc.
There is also rampant sexism, with horrendous assault, within the military. Or, don't you care about that?
However, if you wish to hold the military in such high regard, keep in mind it's been the generals who have tried to stop Trump's flagrant abuses of power, dampen his poor instincts, curb his uninformed decisions,metic.
It’s time to recognize that the real Trump Derangement Syndrome is what Trump, his Republican sycophants, and his deplorable supporters are suffering from.
14
Do the people who believe in these fabled "Elites" running the Dem party think about who is running the GOP? Do they believe it's a farmer, a factory worker, and a midshipman?
Stop falling for the narratives. Look at what the people do.
One example.
"Elitist" Elizabeth Warren devised the CFPB. "Common Man" Trump, with the GOP, funded by billionaire non-elitist Koch brothers tear it down.
Curse you, Elites!
11
@R. H. Clark
"The hierarchy of the Democratic Party listen only to other "serious thinkers" in their echo chamber."
Let's get this straight. What they listen to is Big Money. Period. We now have two parties who bow to the wealthy and powerful. Not much of a choice, is it?
5
Real Clear Politics polling averages Warren:
Michigan -- Warren beats Trump by 3
Wisconsin -- Warren beats Trump by 1
Pennsylvania -- Warren beats Trump by 1.7
1
@Barbara T I tried to find an average of all polls on RCP but I can't. Where are you pulling these from?
So, another Trump term as President?
I would prefer that to the extremists on the left of the Democrat presidential candidates.
1
@Randy L.
You live in Belgium? The people you call "extremists on the left" would be considered moderate at best over there. And the rest of Europe and Scandavia too.
9
@J.C.
In Belgium, the politics of those "extremists on the left" would be tantamount to harping constantly on what King Leopold did to the Congo, and decrying the European welfare state as merely a manifestation of "white privilege."
1
I’m in Alabama and I just saw my first presidential campaign ad for 2020. A white guy was talking about some issues in a sensible way, about local not-for-profit banks investing in the local community, instead of Wall Street bailouts that raid us. Issues, good values, middle ground. Then he says his name is Tom Steyer, Democrat.
In my state, we almost never hear “good community governance” ideas presented well. We’re all indoctrinated by Fox News’ fear mongering. Our state could very well be purple in a few short years, but we are treated like a dark hole of irremediable ignorance.
Have a 50-State strategy for goodness’ sake! Thank you for caring, Mr. Steyer!
11
@Bamagirl it’s not that there aren’t more democrats that care, it’s that Tom Steyer is a billionaire and can afford to advertise in a super Tuesday state this early
america will not disappoint - it will vote to be severely short changed again - to be sold down the river as the rich laugh all the way to the bank. bye bye america.
10
I think Nate prefers to have the Republicans win the election given the way he does his analysis.
2
In about 12 months we will find out how relevant this column was to understanding what happened in the 2020 election.
We can look back and note how prophetic it was or how dead wrong it was.
Events may pass this column by. All the polling and analysis will be thrown out the window if history intervenes with an "October Surprise." Similar to baseball, it is a long season.
1
Depressing essay, and depression is the enemy of voting. If you give up in advance, you're really finished. A lot will happen in the next year. I agree with those who say it's too early for polls to mean much. In the meantime, let's try to stay energized to work for the outcome so many of us desire. Just think of four more years of Trump. That should give us energy enough.
18
@Marianne DeKoven I agree - every single "analysis" I've read by Nate Cohn seems to track this way. I don't know if it's intentional or not but it's almost as if the author wants to influence a low turnout which benefits Republicans.
7
Enlightening how much voters’ race factors into trying to emerge with a winning strategy. There is this tension of winning over less educated whites that would seal the deal for the democrats. After all this paralysis by analysis, would you consider addressing issues important to them rather than alienating and vilifying them?
8
Isn't asking a question like "Do you agree a woman running for president isn't very likable?" kind of creating that thought in the listener's head? If we still must ask such ridiculous questions, I'd be curious if "Do you agree a woman running for president IS likable?" would get more favorable results. I would be shocked if phrasing wasn't responsible for at least a statistically significant different.
24
Trump 2020 because the radical Democrats want to destroy the way America rolls. TRUMP likes Capitalism and has a great economy. Trump wants America great and strong so no one will mess with us. Trump is honest: he blurts out his thoughts without a filter. Americans have grown to know and like him more.
@arikbkln Oh, we've definitely grown to know him. But I'm not aware of any evidence that a significant number of people who didn't like him to start with do now. He is "honest" in the way a lot of 8-year-olds are.
10
@Carl Yaffe Please don't insult 8 year olds. I know a lot of them (I was one myself once upon a time). But they are very polite and respectful, especially these days. Sometimes I wish they'd get into more fights/trouble but they all seem to be rather nice.
Trump is the product of a culture from a long time ago.
5
Nope, not at all. Over half want him impeached!
1
In a diverse nation there must be more than two parties to properly represent those who do not fit in either the Democrat or republican boxes. Try looking outside your borders. Most western democracies have more than two parties and therefore there can be constructive compromise.
7
We have something like single payer health care in Australia, I think, though we don't use that term. Why do so many Americans not want cheaper and better health care? Is there some secret meaning to 'single payer'?
19
@Don Macrae Yes. It is, "The government will be intruding into your personal business way more than you're comfortable with."
1
... which is somehow far worse than, "A private business will be intruding into your personal business way more than you are comfortable with."
9
@Carl Yaffe So is that your position Carl? Intruding? We're talking about the provision of a service. What is the actual downside?
3
Whites voted 58-37 for Trump in 2016. I think the vast majority of whites who voted for Clinton are not about to vote for Trump in 2020, so that's a good starting point for Democrats; today's polls are not.
Democrats MUST get out the vote of those whom Republicans have been doing their best to disenfranchise: the young, especially college students; and blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Alone they can provide the winning margins in states Clinton lost by a hair: 23,000 in Wisconsin, 11,000 in Michigan, and 44,000 in Pennsylvania (just Jill Stein's votes were enough to have made the difference in all three states).
Meanwhile, Democrats have to shore up their vote in places where she won by a hair: New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, and Nevada.
I think that overcoming or building on those slim margins is achievable simply by getting out the vote among people who are most inclined to vote Democratic but who didn't turn out - or were prevented from voting - in 2016.
The whites who voted for Trump? I think they're a lost cause for the most part, but enough of them are so disgusted with him to also make the difference for Democrats.
Bottom line:
1) The platforms in the primaries will be modified to fit reality in the general, so today's polls are meaningless.
2) People want to see a *spirit of commitment* to eventual substantive change more than the polls reflect.
3) Any of the three leading Democrats can win if the base is encouraged enough.
11
@William LeGro Bernie clearly excites the base the most.. just throwing that out there
This is a hit piece. Corporate media is doing its best to stop progressive candidates from getting elected.
Progressives need to start educating voters why their plans will help us solve our problems.
The main issue is income inequality and socialism for the wealthy. Once they understand that they will vote for warren and sanders. Those are our only choices, because that is where the enthusiasm is.
14
@Karan Corporate media won't stop so-called "progressive" candidates from being elected; the majority of Democratic voters will do that for them. Because they know that the result of nominating Warren or Sanders will be the re-election of Trump.
2
@Carl Yaffe
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
I'm so tired of this nonsense that we have to nominate a Republican-lite candidate or Trump will be re-elected.
We tried that 3 years ago. The only certain path to defeat is to do exactly what we did the last time we were defeated.
2
@J.C. Clinton didn't lose because she was/is "Republican-lite". She lost because she was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign.
I believe, as a Jewish grandfather myself, that that is the only position to which Bernie should aspire at this point. But if others need to learn that the hard way, so be it.
As for the sky falling, remember to duck and cover.
1
So Sanders remains at the top of nearly every poll, and in a close second or third in the ones he doesn't lead. Head to head against Trump, he polls as strong or better than Biden and Warren. And yet this purportedly detailed Times analysis basically excludes him as a factor, as a candidate, and as a symbol. This is where one really sees that the corporate media gets what it deserves: Trump.
20
I have found Kamala Harris to be the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump. She has a strong criminal justice background, is articulate, and has an appealing persona. She can also present the best case against Trump’s and would inspire underrepresented populations to vote.
Unfortunately Harris is rarely mentioned.
4
I really don't know what will happen in this country if Trump wins. So many people I know are literally living for the day he leaves office. All of us at this end, from the 20s daughters to myself in my 60s will lock step and vote for ANYONE who can beat this guy. We don't even care if we don't feel totally comfortable with the person's viewpoints or policies. Can you promise winning ? You are in!
9
@Gigi P no one can promise they will win...it is in fact up to you, the voter to decide who to vote for! To that end might I suggest a few things: look at crossover appeal, independent favorables, base turn out, polling cross tabs and overall coalition potential. This means who motivates the most people between college and no college, working class and independent (the largest voting segments), Latinos, and young people up to age 35-45.
Corrupt Donnie had fewer votes in 2016. He has done nothing to add to his total. Either moving progressive or staying moderate will win if the Dem's unite behind the nominee.
For the last decade I have believed that income inequality is the most fundamental issue we face where we have not made any progress. Even climate change has seen more progress. Because of this, I support Senator Warren. I will vote for her in the primary and "any Blue will due" in November.
5
KellyAnne Conway started a highly successful polling company in D.C. Should I put any faith into polls? KellyAnne wouldn't skew a poll in favor of one candidate over another, would she?
Polls are like scientific studies. The buyer can get pretty much anything they want in the end.
And why on earth would I care who other people are voting for? I'm not going to change my vote because someone like KellyAnne came up with a poll telling me my candidate can't win. How about someone poll Michael Moore who was pretty much the only person who called the last election correctly? He is far more accurate. And he hails from the Rustbelt.
4
So how do Democrats win?
One thing that stood out, that we have known, is that white-working class voters will vote for Trump even though Warren's plans would be much, much better for them.
Of course, all Republicans do is cut taxes for the wealthy which increases the deficit / debt. To be paid for by us, our children, and grandchildren.
So anybody not wealthy is voting against their own economic self-interest when they vote Republican. Not to mention against the good of the country.
And all those billionaires will never even get to spend the extra billions they get.
4
@Independent for starters “analyses” like this could include all top tier candidates during it’s time of publishing! Bernie sanders for one whose coalition is more similar to Biden’s, trade old for young African-American for Latino and increased enthusiasm from the working class
Well, though I consider myself a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, I want to win this election, not get stuck with a principles-before-practicality campaign which seems to be inflicting too many of my fellow Democrats. Warren has always seemed too shrill to me, her single-payer proposal strikes me as wildly unrealistic, and her tax-the-rich proposals look more like vindictiveness than common sense. (What's wrong with a graduated income tax? It worked well for decades, before the Republicans eviscerated it.) Bernie is so egocentric it gives me a pain. I had been looking very seriously at Mayor Pete, but upon the basis of this story, and the main poll upon which it's based (and which I think the Times reported earlier) Biden looks better and better to me. I only hope and pray he picks a younger woman as his vice presidential candidate.
2
@Piri Halasz “Not me, Us” the words of a paragon of ego...
Still a long way to go until the next election. Not going to stress out over polls taken a year out. If they continue to hold this way for the next 6 to 9 months then Democrats HAVE to retake the Senate. And that's where the efforts and your donations need to go. Dems in mid-terns and special elections have been killing it. No reason to think they can't continue to make gains in next years election.
7
Clearly Warren has some really very serious problems with every demographic, less educated and more educated, people of color
have almost no interest in Warren at all. While some people in Iowa seem to like Warren, their numbers are much too low to elect her president. As Trump knows, Warren's nomination would be most helpful to Trump's reelection.
3
As someone who has taught college students, I would note a few things:
1) a lot of young people are apolitical, partly because they are under financial stress and mostly thinking week-to-week about surviving
2) People who don't pay much attention think Trump is basically doing fine, because they think most presidents are basically doing fine
3) Trump has an advantage because he seizes people's attention. He's a reality tv star. And in an era of video gaming, and 20 streaming channels, and Youtube -- the ability to hold people's attention is a kind of superpower. Trump is awful, yes, as a human being and as a president, but he's compelling to watch.
None of that, to me, says that Democrats should abandon their principles. I think they should choose a candidate the old-fashioned way: based on who the most primary voters want. (And no superdelegates swinging the election.)
Then, they should double-down on making that person seem passionate and funny on Twitter, and keep the messaging simple. (We'll reduce college debt. Job creation. The opioid crisis.) Young people are NOT as conservative on gun control -- their schools are being put at risk.
Trump's big strength is that he sells entertainment. His big weakness is that that's all he sells. His jobs and health care policies are meaningless garbage.
When people start paying attention, they can be convinced. But only if messaging is done right, in a fun, accessible way. And I don't think Biden has it in him to do it.
14
@RVC
Thank you, this was well reasoned. I think it's accurate too.
2
Yes, but how about Pete? He's from a rural State, the same one that Pence was governor of. And Pete has an excellent chance of getting the Democratic nomination. The religious and athiests like Pete too. And he had been in the military, in a war, unlike Trump who faked bone spurs. I suspect, by the time of the election, much of our military will vote against Trump, especially if Pete is his opponent.
6
@Brian Sussman yes, but which Pete? The progressive who entered the race, or the Pete who found little room in that lane, did a 180 on most issues, and became a corporatist centrist?
4
@Bob Claster Pete was always a corporate centrist. Just ask the folks he worked with at McKinsey.
The rest is all panache -- but panache has a lot going for it. Just ask Trump. ;-)
2
@Bob Claster
Not sure which, Bob. Probably the third Pete who gets inaugurated.
Don't we miss Obama? The thing was, in addition to being ethical and hilarious when he chose, he was very cerebral, dispassionate and measured. Some of the excitement I have observed about Trump is the pendulum swinging the other way and the hunger for some emotional "meat." The Democrats have to figure a way to offer some emotional "meat." Something hopeful, patriotic and unifying (Not dividing. Sorry, Nate. Poorly educated are not the only ones who think identity politics has gone too far.)
The tendency toward cultural conservatism among the Obama/Trump voters often gets overlooked by the commenters here. While we may not get a Democratic candidate that espouses much in the way of cultural conservatism, it would be smart to have a candidate that demonstrates respect and appreciation for those who choose a more culturally conservative life style and world view.
2
As in 2016, the result of next year's presidential election will probably depend on the votes (or non-votes) of a relatively small number of people in 3-5 states. If the Democrats don't focus on that fact as their top priority for the next 51 weeks, the outcome will probably be the same.
8
I don't think that Arizona is as red as it might appear. McSally is underwater by around 5-8 points, and many in the rural areas - while leaning right - are getting tired of the constant Trump drama.
8
We need to read more about Pete Butigig. I’ve seen little about Pete recently. He’s the most sensible candidate with an excellent manner of presenting himself - and of presenting his views.
9
@Cwhale
I love Pete (though his husband has dibs), but he tries too hard at the "excellent manner of presenting himself." It shows.
For Warren to win, the transition path from private to Medicare for all that she plan to release is critical. It should convince the public not be afraid of public health care system. The doctors and hospitals will still be there as they are now. So, there won’t be any change in the quality of health care. It is just that your bills will be paid by the government instead of private companies. This way, a billionaire and a homeless person will get the same quality health care. The private health insurance companies can bid for contracts to process the claims. They still will be in business and profitable. Next, how the government is going to pay for it. Just pay all the insurance premiums currently paid by individuals and corporations to the government instead of private companies. No need for additional taxes. We will be happy for helping the poor and sick with health care without loosing our own. It is also easy to manage our health care system.
4
@Kodali
A couple of quibbles:
"The private health insurance companies can bid for contracts to process the claims. They still will be in business and profitable.... Just pay all the insurance premiums to the government." Wait a minute! We leave those thieves in business, and add a layer of government bureaucracy to boot? Not so fast!
"We will be happy for helping the poor and sick with health care without loosing our own?" Who'll pay the difference? The 1%? Then say so!
I like Amy Klobuchar. None of these articles talk about her. She is very intelligent and knowledgeable and has been elected 3 times statewide. She won in some counties that went for Trump. She knows how the Senate works. She has her name on 100 bills that have passed the Senate. She can work across the aisle. She doesn't say Medicare for all only. How about this middle of the road Midwesterner.
17
@D.Rosen
I love Klobuchar, but she needs to resist being characterized as "middle-of-the-road," and re-cast that as "down-to-earth."
1
I am by no means a Sanders supporter. But at the same time, I don't understand why this article doesn't spill as much ink on Sanders as it does Biden and Warren. After all, the three of them are the front runners, not just Biden and Warren. I'm very interested to know how Sanders fits into these conclusions.
36
Just want to put it out there: the thesis of this article is that Democrats can't afford to lose the rust belt. Though Sanders is scarcely mentioned, the Times-Siena poll puts Sanders up two points in Michigan, while Biden is even with Trump, and Warren is down 6 points. What do we think the deal is with those numbers? Certainly misogyny would seem to play a role given the gap between Sanders and Warren and the similarity of their policies; but could we also positively examine the apparent appeal of Sanders in the rust belt, despite the prevailing cultural conservatism the article identifies?
28
@rk Don't forget, Bernie beat Clinton in Wisconsin and Michigan, not to mention every county in W VA. His 2020 campaign is solidly aimed at the working class, and is showing strong results. 3rd quarter had 1.4 million donations, with Warren not even a close 2nd at just over 500,000. It's the working class who been stayed home in 2016, correctly assessing that neither candidate cared a bit about them. But Sanders' combination of compassion and integrity is winning the day. Stay tuned.
9
Those who are complete cultural conservatives can love Bernie’s message. He isn’t talking cultural- he’s talking economic justice.
4
@rk Misogyny may not play as big a role as you think, there are real and interesting differences in the policies of Sanders and Warren that go beyond their gender. Also I believe it is a smear to insinuate that the reason Sanders is ahead is because his supporters hate women.
3
STOP already with the polls. they are useless - look at 2016. In fact, in my view, they can be dangerous. When people sacrifice what they stand for, what's important to them, because a poll says their candidate is unlikely to win, well, you've got a problem. We need rank choice voting - and we need it bad. That would start to making polling far more irrelevant, and would allow people to be comfortable with their candidate of choice. Donald Trump would NEVER have survived a rank choice voting scenario.....
56
I completely agree. You vote for who you WANT to win, not who you think will win.
2
T R U M P 2020
And the reason is that he has kept his campaign promises.
People want less immigration. Less taxes.
Less wars.
He wins on that basis. And on the basis of your polls.
14
@Plush Less wars - I agree.
You cannot have less taxes AND less immigration. Without immigration, the US cannot sustain population growth among its workforce. It is that workforce that pays for Social Security, Medicare, etc. And it also keeps the U.S. competitive globally.
So, unless you want to raise taxes to sustain those programs, you can't cut off immigration, unless you want to set off a rampant debt crisis.
6
@Plush And what people DON'T want is a president who makes a real effort to improve our healthcare delivery system. And who takes environmental problems and climate change seriously. And who treats our allies, our military heroes, and minority groups respectfully even when he disagrees with them. And also treats women with respect. And who doesn't treat his position as an opportunity to enrich himself. And who values the truth and doesn't lie constantly. And who acts in a manner that brings credit to the country, to his office, and to himself, rather than like a bad imitation of a junior high school bully.
Yes sir, I think you've nailed it!
7
@Plush
Kept Promises:
Mexico sent that check for the wall. It was the biggest ever!
Trump's replacement healthcare system is amazing. Bigger, better, and cheaper!!!
Trump's tax cuts have resulted in the largest tax increases ever for millions and millions. My increase was more than 25% from $14K to $18K.
Trump's tax returns that he promised to release were "perfect".
10
The problem for the democrats is this: The party does not have a viable candidate.
26
All of them are a better choice than the incumbent. What qualities and qualifications does Trump have that makes him a better option?
35
@Sang
Every candidate wants to defeat Trump, as long as he/she is the one to do it. They are defeating themselves - and likely will end up with a party platform no one will be comfortable supporting with a full heart. And they have created a massive distraction with the quixotic impeachment debacle yet to come. The election may be over before they stagger to their convention. It’s a shame.
1
What do you mean by “viable”?
After this article Trump will never ever again refer to the Times as fake news. What a one sided pessimistic article. I like the paper but it really blew the-by comparison-quite minor Hillary email controversy into the Taj Mahal.
As I read the last 2 elections, suburban women helped change the House in 2018 and Virginia and other suburban areas last week. Stacey Abrams in conservative Georgia ran as an unapologetic progressive got out new voters, young voters and blacks and brought the loss from a standard 2-3% to 1/2 %. This model can be applied to many states from Georgia to Texas to the Midwest. I don’t think it will be easy but based on this article, we should fold now.
22
@Mike Right. The poll is just fine except for the actual elections in which Democrats prevailed both in 2018 (biggest turnover in the history of Congress) and remarkable victories in VA and KY. I think I am going with the actual voting patterns.
4
I'd advise avoiding the term "abandoning the Rust Belt", even in the specific strategic context used here, since Rust Belt voters are the ones most likely to already feel abandoned by Democrats, to the party's continuing peril. "Refocusing efforts" would be a preferable phrase and less susceptible to out-of-context sound bite abuse.
8
Jobs, education, and expand Obamacare if Dems want to win. Focus on impeachment and eliminate private insurance if they want to lose.
17
@Ylem Once we get past the impeachment process (and he will be impeached but not removed from office) I don't think Democrats will focus on impeachment. They'll be fully engaged in the contest between the so-called "moderates" and the most left. And that's a debate Democrats must have in the primary.
1
@Annie Agreed and well said. I hope the Left/moderate split does not cripple us once again.
Keep it simple. Don't vote based upon what you think other people will do. Vote your conscience and trust others to do the same. Polling failed miserably for Democrats in 2016. Trump's appeal was in the plain language that he used to align with the fears and discontents of voters. Obama had the same skill. What falls repeatedly under the radar of political consultants advising the Democrat establishment is that people gravitate to what they perceive as genuine interest. This is where Sanders, Warren, Yang (and I'd argue Corey Booker) shine and it is a shame that pundits and establishment polls don't believe this. Clinton failed in the same way that all master technicians struggle as leaders. Technical prowess alone, unfortunately isn't enough to inspire, and try as she did, she could not speak in a language recognizable to regular folks. Instead of acknowledging the zeitgeist of this political moment (passion sells and sustained passion determines the feasibility of ideas), established polls and pundits alike, flood us with this horserace nonsense, all of their projected worries, inducing anxiety among all of us, centrists in particular. If you've witnessed a bully being knocked down a few notches, you know that Donald Trump can be defeated and that our fears of some "unfair" Trump victory will define us if we keep listening to the aforementioned fearful class.
23
Why does this article all but ignore Sanders? The actual poll linked in the second sentence shows that he is as viable a candidate as Warren if not more so.
32
@Sara D He really isn't and that will become apparent. In fact, all he is is a Warren spoiler. Democrats will never nominate someone who is not actually a Democrat.
@John F And if you are right it would be the dumbest electoral strategy ever as most voters are independent and heat both parties. If sanders can win the primaries, I bet the general gets easier
We need to remember that Hillary was no progressive. Young voters didn’t turn out for her, progressives didn’t turn out for her, women in the South didn’t turn out for her, and white men definitely didn’t turn out for her, African Americans... lacked enthusiasm. What do we learn from that? That we need to back Joe Biden?
18
@Richard Frank African-Americans strongly support Biden. In fact he still leads nationally. That will become apparent on Super-Tuesday.
1
@Richard Frank
She wasn't a progressive when she ran in 2016, but she was a progressive when she went up against Obama in 2008. And I think people remembered that and thought she was acting like a centrist to get elected.
1
@John F African-American primary voters supported Clinton too, but in the general very depressed turn out .
For All the Democrats who say they are looking who can beat Trump, rather than who it is they like and agree most with, it is shocking how much of their thought process ignores the differences between a primary and a general election
This column is analyzing the election analyses even though we are a year out from the election. Sometimes, we over-analyze to the point where we twist ourselves into a knot.
14
Trump’s signature issues are immigration, tariffs and his tax cuts. The Democrats’ problem is that they have not articulated clear alternative policies on either of these issues. It is not enough to decry Trump’s cruelty and excesses on immigration. The Democrats need to offer a coherent immigration policy of their own, which, among other things addresses the genuine border crisis. Similarly, on trade, it is not enough to criticize Trump’s destructive trade wars. The Democratic candidates need to explain what and how they would do differently. I have not heard much on either of these topics from any of the Democratic candidates. Perhaps part of the reason is that many Democratic voters tacitly support Trump’s extreme protectionism and his anti-foreigner crusade. But that’s not a good excuse for avoiding the subject. Amazingly enough, the Democrats have not made mobilizing the Latino vote a central theme of their campaign. On taxes too, the Democrats need to offer a comprehensive repeal-and-replace plan for Trump’s tax cut. They have not done that either, so far. Instead, the Democrats are talking about outlawing private health insurance, slavery reparations and confiscatory wealth taxes. Sounds like a good plan for losing the election.
9
@Berto Collins - Listening to the first couple of debates, I was convinced that the Democrats were all running for President of the Illegal Immigrants of the United States.
I didn't hear them address anything that I was concerned about. I don't have school debt and I already have Medicaid. I don't plan on getting an abortion in my lifetime. I'm not here illegally.
Other than brush up on my Spanish language skills and get a hug from Marianne, they were a waste of my time. Too bad I didn't hear someone say, "I will not tolerate anyone entering our country illegally for any reason and before spending a single penny on illegals, I will spend that money to get every homeless vet off of our streets and into housing". Not even the two vets running came up with anything close to that.
1
Avoiding the great mistake of 2020
The worst, most dangerous president in modern history: hundreds of thousands killed, ISIS born, millions fleeing, deep recession, trillions of dollars gone. And then there's President Trump, who despite his lying, pandering and outrageous trolling has fallen short of all that. By Trump designating the press as the "enemy of the people," the Times understandably sees his removal as imperative. Which means we will read more columns about "electability" -- shorthand for a pundit-designated candidate. (Trump was deemed "unelectable" by the press.)
For many of us, the top priority isn't electing Joe Biden to stop the bleeding -- it's moving forward and finding a bold, new role for government to promote the general Welfare and establish Justice. Sanders and Warren, in that order, are devoted to this cause -- anyone else is just temporizing. If they lose, the Republic will survive, as it survived the more disastrous Bush years. But they won't lose.
Vote to affirm your values and goals, not to defer to the media's fear.
17
@Tim Clark
Remember George McGovern?
1
@Mark
George McGovern was a man ahead of his time. His time is now.
I would remind the Times and its pollsters how wrong they were in 2016. The polls were wildly inaccurate then, and there is no indication that they are any more accurate today.
14
I agree, and I think people make a very different decision in the voting booth than they do in the polling booth. At least I hope so.
4
@Brian Cornelius
Nate Cohn is extrapolating his opinion of what the polls mean at the moment. It is an interpretation of numbers which may or may not indicate what Nate thinks they do. Pollsters were sure Hillary Clinton would win. They are starting to seem less reliable than weather forecasts.
@grouchonyy Sadly, they weren't. The result was within the margin of error of the polls. Medicare for all and allowing the party to seem in favor of open borders, plus the idiotic political correctness that infects the left these days are a sure recipe for disaster. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Bernie Bros were one of the major reasons we got Trump last time. The same crew are back, now joined by Warren's foolishness (her plans will never make it through any conceivable Congress, but they will lose her massive numbers of votes). This article strikes a bleak tone, and it is extraordinary given the criminal we have in the White House that the Democrats could lose the next election. But by god they are doing their best.
We really need to get the Dems talking more about the environment. I also can’t understand why a poling piece like this one fails to address the issue.
10
The most courageous part of your brief Mr. Cohn was your "the emperor has no clothes" moment. Here I refer to your entirely correct observation concerning the baleful impact of the social "sciences" wing of academia and their argot and invented terminology imported wholesale into our party's politics. In fact, you were too kind when you said it has spread widely. It hasn't among whole swaths of the electorate who never heard of these terms.
In fact, our party's left wing talks to itself and preaches to the choir, though I love their energy and they belong in the Big Tent they otherwise abhor. They have decided Pres. Obama is a political apostate for dissing the purity obsessed "woke" bunch and Speaker Pelosi (who spent decades being vilified by the GOP hard right as a "leftie nut" from San Francisco) is to be cancelled and ignored when she observes Michigan is not California. The electoral college still runs through Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and disgruntled farmers in Iowa. Regrettably if Cohn is right Hispanics are not riding to our rescue, and suburban white women and angry farmers in the trade war look more and more the answer.
11
It would be nice to see fewer NYT (and other news sources') articles about candidates' electability, and more articles about policy viability -- both potential popularity and once enacted. But I did click on this Cohn article and have on many similar NYT articles over the years, so I am part of the problem. An occasional click on such would be quite enough.
7
No Sanders represented here and the pushing of inexperienced Pete tells the story. SANDERS IS SURGING! This unbalanced coverage will further deteriorate faith in the crippled media as we proceed. Is ignoring Bernie really a good longerterm strategy? Media have you not learned anything!? Nothing from Bush v Gore!? Nothing from the Swift Boat debacle!? Nothing of the rush to war in Iraq!? Nothing of how Trump was promoted by media networks amidst disbelief? Disregard Sanders at further cost to the industry. Poor choices. And, Mayor Pete, really!? Ugh...centrist corporate funded talking points from a mayor of a racially polarized Midwest ‘city’. Ridiculous.
16
@Wilks Fortunately, he is not. The latest Iowa poll shows him in fourth place. But you nutcases may well re-elect Trump once again, just as you did last time. You think you are the voice of the working class, but the working class, false consciousness or whatever, are the Trumpers, and Bernie is not going to get them to vote for him. Look at the toxicity of his brand among moderate voters, and voila, a recipe for electoral disaster.
2
@andrew scull, Dude, 'moderates' helped get us to the place we are today. The center is not electing the next President regardless of party.
1
This is based on a crazy-small sample. Not really scientific.
5
Nate,
Why do you presume to know anything about scientific surveys? You have zero credibility and zero advanced training on this subject and I’m truly amazed that editors give you so much space.
More importantly, these polls are worthless. I really don’t care what others think. I want to know more facts about the candidates so I can make a wise decision.
How about investigating some important questions of a substantive nature?!?
If you do discuss polls, please provide link to scientific details about the survey, how sample was selected, response rates and other details that allow us to evaluate the validity and reliability of items and methods and your interpretation.
The NYT Siena college survey has gotten front page news in multiple articles and rehashed presentations. But I can find no links to the survey methods. Cmon. Treat us like adults, some of whom have advanced training and interest especially given your rather wild conclusions — of which I’m very suspicious.
15
This time of year in 1991, I had never heard of Bill Clinton. Bush 43 was a lock to win. Same in 2007, with Obama. HRC was the presumed nominee.
There are a lot of wild cards out there, not the least of which is a major mag 12 ($1 trillion) climate change disaster. Others include terrorism, North Korea, a Iran nuke, a major epidemic, or a meltdown of the economy; this time the wild card will be the jokers in charge.
Much of what Nate Cohn writes is worth rememebering. What I don't want to read a year from now is "How close we came to flipping xxxxxx." We don't get participation points unless we. out participate The Other Side.
3
The Times/Siena polls mean absolute bupkes.
Repeat after me: WE ARE A FULL YEAR OUT FROM THE GENERAL ELECTION.
6
I realize Nate Cohn developed a brand through his success at crunching data or polling figures to predict future outcomes. But the arcane ::read tedious minutiae:: that permeates this piece hides what Nate doesn’t want to admit. National and regional polling data has proven unreliable in general elections up and through the eve of election day. Why should any Democrat read this fodder and rely on it? The answer is we shouldn’t. I wish the NYT would cut down on polling data articles like this a year before the general. They are pointless.
8
Anecdotal comment that probably doesn't mean much:
I just spent 2 weeks in a rural community in Arizona, and it was comforting (slightly, anyway) to know one 81 year old Trump voter who is definitely going to vote for the Democrat who wins the Primary.
10
Arizona voters in total will not vote for Warren over Trump. Even Biden will be close, very close, and he may lose. The only way I see Biden taking Arizona is with a strong ground game. The way Biden can win Arizona without a strong ground game is playing up the Republicans health care plans in this state. Nothing makes people become nonpartisan as fast as losing health care.
5
Why does this analysis leave out any mention of Bernie Sanders?
29
@Michael Oh, there are all sorts of reasons, none of them terribly pretty. For starters, polling should have a big warning label on it stating that the poll only counts those voters not tech-savvy enough to avoid unsolicited phone calls, which a big chunk of Bernie's supporters are. Nate, whose head is still so far up Hillary's rear, is probably still blaming Bernie for her 2016 humiliation. And if Bernie gets his way and eliminates the vultures of the private health insurance industry, that'll cut deeply into the budget of the NY Times, MSNBC, etc. But fundamentally, any candidate or movement that threatens the status quo is, and always has been, viewed by the NY Times et. al. as aberrant, fringe, and not worth discussion. Despite the fact that Bernie's fundraising is off the charts, he has a veritable volunteer army, and a fiercely loyal fan base. They must preserve the status quo at all costs.
3
@Michael Because he hasn't any chance of winning.
Regardless of who ends up carrying the torch for the Dems in 2020, if inspiring young people to vote is essential to victory the issue of "climate change" must be considered first and foremost. Most certainly health care coverage is important, but young people are typically less concerned about their health insurance than they are about the peril they may be facing in decades to come if something is not done in the immediate future. Moreover, in view of the obvious recent acceleration of the climate change problem, what are the odds a catastrophic event will occur in the next 12 months which emphasizes its importance and tends to persuade even to the luddites among us that something must be done? I would say the odds are better than even such an event (or events) will occur and if the Dems are not out in front on the issue it will be costly.
36
@sloreader Agreed!
2
@sloreader You seem to be another example of a coastal citizen out of touch with the Midwest (full disclosure, I lived in the SF Bay Area for 12 years). While we all know about the horrible climate-fueled fires in California, you apparently don't know about the climate-exacerbated floods in the Midwest that hurt farmers that will still vote for Trump! Unfortunately, it is still too easy for the ideological right to dismiss these events as "just part of nature". As a scientist who is terribly concerned about climate change, unfortunately it alone, or as the single dominant issue, would not be enough here in the Midwest to ensure victory for a democratic candidate.
9
@Doug I did not mean to suggest it should be a single dominant issue, I am just trying to say it may be far more important than our geriatric leading contenders believe it to be. Although I agree the effects of climate change are obvious in California, as you justly point out, even the most rigid science deniers are likely to be shaken to their core before too long. That said, depending upon the "idealogical right" for votes is probably not what any of the candidates should be spending their time on regardless.
6
The US needs more than two parties OR it needs to outlaw parties entirely and everyone runs as Independents. Also take the money out of it.
5
Elizabeth Warren has strong beliefs, which benefit the movement toward a Single Payer health care system. I support a Single Payer system, and I agree with Senator Warren on the wealthy paying their taxes - no tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
12
That voters can sometimes vote against their own self interests and even their values, continues to defy some polling results. Author, Thomas Frank was definitely on to something in his "What's The Matter With Kansas?" book, the takeaway from which can be applied nationally. Furthermore, social media and Russian trolls misinformation continue to muddy election outcomes. It's not entirely clear whether a majority of Americans believe a female is better equipped or even equally qualified to be leader of the free world as a man when it comes to actually casting a vote. Some past polling has indicated a degree of reservation among voters across all demographic groups, both young and old.
4
Polls are useful in a way, and sometimes they are right on the money. But sometimes we forget that it is the questions that are asked, and how they are worded, that make a difference.
I agree with other commenters here: we are a long way out from the 2020 election. The only thing we need to concentrate on is to make sure that everyone who wants to has an opportunity to vote, and that we work to make sure the process is fair by become involved ourselves.
26
It's interesting to me that everyone reads these early polls as a sign of what will happen when the real campaigns get underway. At this point in the (very crowded) 2016 Republican primaries, no one would have predicted a Donald Trump victory. Most general election voters' views of the candidates, despite what they tell pollsters, aren't even informed or settled yet. Democrats won't win this election by running Republicans as standard bearers.
35
The Democrats are in trouble because they are wasting so much time trying to decide who their candidate will be out of a pool of more than 20 potential candidates. They should be busy carving a platform and campaigning against trump NOW. They need to conduct real research to find out what each segment of the population is looking for in a president. Polls are just numbers they need qualitative information that can be evaluated by competent researchers.
20
The front runners have been building platforms, and running against is already assumed. Dems voters say beating Trump is their number 1 desire. So, running against him is already implied.
I think the Dems are on the right track. Whoever wins the nom will be who Dem voters want, with the support of the entire party.
3
Siena College? Excuse me, but who/what is Siena College and how did it become a reliable source of poling data?
7
@Sloop Plus, polls are just a snapshot, especially this far out. The media relies way too much on polls.
5
@Sloop
I used to work at the Siena College Research Institute. Try Googling it. It was boring work, but it's legit and has been for a long time.
2
We're just slightly less than a year out from the election, so I take all polls with a grain (boulder sized) of salt...
13
What it all comes back to is that the theories grounded in postmodernism, such as critical race theory, etc., that have come to now dominate the Democratic Party (and their aligned media), have succeeded in "disuniting America," just as devoted Democrat's Democrat, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. predicted in his book, The Disuniting Of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Or, as more recently argued, by Columbia professor Mark Lilla, in The Once And Future Liberal (arguing for an end to identity politics). It is not that people like Cornel West do not have some very on-point critiques of American politics and policies. It is that these critiques and the Democratic Party's attempted remedies have succeeded in fracturing their coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
That is, succeeded in not just disuniting America but, as we tragically learned in 2016, disuniting the Democratic Party's coalition itself.
Has the embrace of identity politics and extremist political correctness really been worth it? While perhaps centrist in many ways, Hillary was not nimble enough to disavow and push back on these trends in 2016 and instead seemingly embraced them. Certainly in her rhetoric. Purity and wokeness plus $5 can buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, while sadly losing elections to Donald Trump. Too bad people like Amy Klobuchar seem barely to be making any traction.
18
@GRH
Perhaps Stephen Miller and his white supremacy reading list have more to do with “identity politics”. This election is about choosing between fascism and democracy. Klobuchar is a corporate stooge.
4
Don't forget that 50% of the population has below average intelligence/education.
These voters are disproportionately located in the middle America. rural states, and disproporationately located in the disproportionately influencial Electoral College states As such, campaign dollars go a lot further in these group-think little towns.
Russia knows this, and the Republicans know this. That is why the "2 senators per state" regardless of population, is the policy that has created a Senate of mediocre Senators, blindly supporting the current Russian choice.
Not only do the Senators from these rural states represent fewer citizens than the Senators from the populated states, but they are also less competent, due to the nature of probabilities. Are we more likely to find a shark in a swimming pool or in the ocean. Can the best in, say, North Dakota or Kentucky, measure up to the best in California or New York?
I believe Mr. Bloomberg, smartest of the candidate lot, knows this as well as the Russians, and will spend money where it goes the furthest: in rural and biased Electoral College states. North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, etc.
11
@Samm
Today he went to Arkansas.
@Samm
Whoa, buddy. "Below average intelligence"? This smacks of racist memes. Most people, though not college educated, are intelligent and can figure things out. They may not be informed about specific candidates' positions, but they most surely have an idea of who they are as Americans. As for Senators' representation, the Founding Fathers reached a compromise that gave each state two senators regardless of population. It seems to many unfortunate that some states with less population than Washington DC have two senators who can vote to block legislation they don't like, but that's how the system was set up. Originally, senators were appointed by state legislatures, not elected by popular vote. That changed with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. And, Lord knows, we've had some real dunces elected to Congress. So, who's to say who is "intelligent" and who isn't?
In his research among remote native peoples in Amazonia in the 1930s, Claude Levi Strauss was able to see that they were every bit as intelligent as the suavest Parisian intellectual. He distinguished cultural contexts and we should too. I know nothing about farming, but I know that every successful farmer keeps track of international markets, availability of credit, prices of seed and other resources, and knows when to plant. How many city slickers are that smart?
8
Bernie/Warren are not only unelectable but would bring four more years of Trump. Way to polarizing, left to win.
Pete is surging in Iowa, moving up in NH, and when Biden collapses, he will be there to take over.
He will be next and best president.
18
@Simon sez
The only thing left is to win in 2020. Won’t be Buttigeg.
2
@Simon Sez In your dreams. An American war vet would serve us better than this mayor. Mattis or any number of experienced battlefield officers or NCOs have more smarts and leadership experience, and they put their lives on the line for our freedom and safety. Pete may surge but in the end it will all be froth.
@Simon Sez a mayor of a small town? Please. And what will make him the best? Do what?
3
There's a reason why discussions of polls and electability such as this sound like a tangled multi-car pileup of irrelevant ideas on a slippery road--and that reason is the spectral presence of the electoral college looming over every attempt at rational discussion of presidential elections. Hillary won in 2016 by 3 million votes yet she lost? Trump lost yet he won and we endlessly discus why people elected him as if they did? Discussions of the next election are forced to be about not ideas or personalities really but how to beat the electoral college, a frightening oddity built into our democracy that has become a major stumbling block to democracy right along with gerrymandering, voter suppression, outside interference, and wholesale changing or tossing away of votes. Just admitting that this is what we are up against, shadow boxing with a presence that doesn't belong in the room, at least makes a kind of sense of the senseless.
22
@freyda , it's really not that complicated. The point is it is not necessary to win another 100,000 votes in California or NY. Because even if the most moderate Democrat is the nominee, those states are still going blue. The point is to win back Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And a centrist, moderate candidate is the way to do it. The rules are the same for both sides.
And, BTW, both parties ruthlessly engage in and take advantage of gerrymandering whenever they can. Agreed it is a stumbling block to democracy but unfortunately it is true in "blue" areas also.
11
@GRH we tried this. 4 years ago. Didn't work.
Meanwhile, we waste month after month on senseless debates and candidates - like Steyer - that have absolutely no chance of winning. The Democrats should sit down in a room and pick the best candidate and start campaigning in the states that they must win to beat Trump. They seem not to understand the gravity of the situation. They act like they have all this time to figure out what they stand for. We don't. This is not the time to decide the future of the D party.
12
@Andrew Macdonald But which Democrats should be in the room? They can't get their act together, again. The party is split along ideological lines. Meanwhile the P-grabber in the Oval Office continues to offend women, people of color, immigrants, and others as though there is no opposition to his reckless and feckless behavior. Go MAGA Man! Opps. Did I just write that?
I've read and listened to a lot of these analyses and I still don't get it. HRC, an historically negatively viewed candidate with weak campaigning skills lost by less than 78,000 in three states, WI, PA and MI, states where she failed to campaign with vigor.
The President is about to be impeached on nationally TV with a parade of credible witnesses set to testify to his crimes.
And I'm supposed to believe that 2020 is a lost cause? That candidates with higher favorables, who campaign on helping the working class, bringing more affordable health coverage, fighting corruption, etc. None of these Democrats can beat a lying, cheat who has committed bribery and high crimes and misdemeanor, and is overall the worst disaster to ever move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?
None of them can beat that? I don't get it.
73
@srf Many voters outside the Washington Beltway and the coasts get that Trump is a hero for them. They identify with his reckless behavior and his ability to poke his finger in the eyes of liberal intellectuals and Dem pols who seem, again, to be hung up on identity politics.
6
@srf Amazing, isn't it?
4
Exactly. When I hear how unelectable Warren/Sanders are I just laugh the myself. The same was said of Trump. Nothing about this upcoming election is out if the bounds of possibility. Not to mention, as you have, Trump’s horrible approval ratings. These the-sky-is-falling Democrats were famously referred to as the ‘bedwetters’.
6
After reading your article it appears Trump has a greater chance to be re-elected. I do not understand how anyone would vote for this malevolent individual, who has already committed impeachable offenses in open view, and is a stain on our country and humanity in general.
I guess voters do not care about morality, honesty or integrity.
23
@Jim Jim, it's more than that. People rather choose the devil they think they know than some Eastern establishment liberal with pie-in-the-sky ideas. Most voters are bread-and-butter voters who ask, what's this guy going to do for me. Even if Trump does nothing for them, he continues to stick his finger in the eyes of liberals and to belittle people like Biden who is on his third attempt to win the Dem nomination. We shouldn't forget that Trump won on his first try against a field of more experienced Republican politicians, beating out Cruz, Bush, and the others. People admire a winner no matter what his sins have been.
1
These polls only confirm one depressing truth: There is only one Democrat who can claim any real electability, and he is constitutionally barred from being elected to a third term.
10
Don't ignore Harris and Klobuchar. Both are brilliant and capable of taking down Trump. Harris would eviscerate Trump in any debate. Kamela represents a modified progressive approach. Klobuchar would be a strong centrist replacing Biden as the moderate candidate. It's far too early to limit the contenders to just Biden and Warren. Don't forget bernie. The problem with the American populace is that they don't understand the benefits of universal health care or the true threats of climate change, unfortunately you are doomed to travel down the same worn path allowing the haves to dominate the havenots.
13
@Tom no, it is that the Republicans appeal to the gut and that is how most people vote. Read The Political Brain
@Tom And all-too-many of them aren't about to understand those things - indeed have a visceral reaction against them. With time, one hopes they can be educated, but that certainly won't be accomplished in a few months.
@Tom
Most Americans understand the true threats of climate change, but don't relish the prospect of some all-pervasive authority telling them to give up their cars while India and China keep burning coal. They recognize that the world is too crowded, and that this is a threat to either our lives or our freedom -- or both.
When a deer sees headlights, he knows he's in danger -- but "he" would evidently prefer to stop the oncoming car and argue about pronouns.
1
Did Trump activate a lot of voters who otherwise would have stayed home in 2016? This question, as far as I know, has never been addressed in a popular forum. I believe this was one major reason he won the Electoral College, because he activated at least several million voters who wouldn't have bothered to vote.
This is an X factor in any election, not just one of high turnout as 2020 is likely to be. Trump motivated voters with outrage, with the idea that he was a different kind of candidate who understood some of the important issues facing them.
Take immigration. It is easy to cast restrictive nativists as ignorant, backward people but the fact is we have had massive waves of immigration, by legal, illegal and semi-legal means, that compares with the historic waves toward the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. What angers people, in addition to all the signs and voice messages in Spanish (why do I have to pick my language in my own country?) is the fact some many immigrants come here and do better than native born. How can this be?, they ask themselves. (There are many reasons including diving in to educational opportunities, loan societies among other immigrants and the willingness to take any work, etc.)
The U.S. needs a candidate who can think boldly but act moderately, one who understands the difficulties and hardships of many and who can convince that he or she will do something about them. That candidate can win going away over blowhard Trump.
10
The old people who always vote hate pressing 1 for English. That, in a nutshell, is why Trump won. Sadly, the Democratic candidates continue to be tone deaf on this issue.
3
@Doug
You might be right but, in general, I see that sort of thing as contributing to the idea that people might think this is no longer their country or the way they understood it. We live in a multi-cultural county in Maryland where 1/3 of the residents are not native born. No problem. We enjoy the diversity that comes to the local culture and to foods as well. However, I can see that some people would get uncomfortable with the idea. Would they rather visit a foreign nation than live with the impression that their neighborhood is being changed into one? Perhaps it is a matter of just too much change too fast.
4
@Doug Unrelated, but still: what I do not like is that in every online form where I have to click the option female as opposed to male, mrs as opposed to mr, woman as opposed to man, my sex is listed as the second option. Every bloody form. Would it kill men if occasionally they came second?
1
Mr. Cohn seems to be a committed pessimist, from a Democratic perspective. We are doomed, according to his calculus, to four more years of the most calamitous Administration in our nation's history.
Shall I just move to New Zealand now?
No. Instead, I shall labor on behalf of Progressive principles in the coming months, and then on behalf of whichever candidate is chosen by the Democratic party, because another term in office for Trump will move us further down a path toward climate catastrophe and rapaciously escalating economic inequality.
15
I really do not favor the Bernie or Bust crowd who seems to always fall back on the fact that their candidate of choice is not being mentioned by main stream media, that there is a black out in regards to his polling, his following, and the numbers. But to not mention him at all in this article only gives their claims credence. Biden and Warren are not the only candidates who are pulling in enormous crowds. I would hate to sympathize with them, but, gee, here it is.
16
@elizabeth hook
Bernie got ignored to death the last time around.
If so many of the people taking this poll can’t see that Trump is evil, how can we believe they understood the questions being asked of them in this poll?
12
Put simply, how did you account for folk who did not answer the phone, of choice?
As made clear by an earlier NYT missive, your sample could easily be non-representative.
With smartphones and a plague of robocalling, not answering unknown callers becomes default behavior. True in my case, so I would never be polled.
You are only polling folk who answer the phone.
17
@Preston L. Bannister : I get two or three calls a day from numbers I don't know and I don't answer. Yesterday I thought, 'these calls are probably pollsters and maybe I should answer'. But, I agree. These polls may not be reliable any more.
1
Maybe the Trump administration ending DACA via the Supreme Court will be the spur that gets Hispanics mobilized and voting, wreaking havoc on polling data from the last election cycle. A lot can happen in 12 months...
10
While Bernie is within the margin of error in battleground states, the Times conveniently omits him in these polls/discussions.
I send to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name. Time to do the same for Bernie in the Times’ name.
17
I am losing any inspiration to care about politics in this country. Where a lying buffoon of a con man exerts a Stalinist like grip on his minority, by voter count, Party. While that Party games a broken Constitution to run the country like an international organized crime syndicate. And half the voters are thrilled, OK or just apathetic about letting them double down on the lies, the grifting and the sleaze for another 4 years. We'll see what happens.
13
Since sanders will be the Democratic nominee, this article seems a waste.
5
Can we put Bernie and Elizabeth together as candidates?
7
@Natural Woman
What most of the polls seem to ignore is the simple fact that, if Sanders and Warren supporters are considered as one voting bloc (as they may if these two conspire), that bloc is much larger than any other combination of candidates.
5
Low voter turn out has to do with citizen burn out. Our country is being run by a bunch of white, male, rich, corporate connected idiots who don't know and don't care what the average American's life is like. They were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and most voters who don't vote know that. There's no connection between these people and my hard, hard life. That's the problem with American elections.
10
It must be incredibly tiring and boring for journalists to have to come up with endless analyses of who will be the dem front runner a year from now. How can anyone possibly know? Articles like this are a waste of digital space. I’m sure when journalists are given an assignment for an article like this they must make one huge eye roll. I know I would.
6
Slights and snubs.
Sigh...
C'mon Nate 'n NYT, get the thumbs off the scale.
Your bias is showing.
You seem to have forgotten a leading candidate.
Jeez, it's like mean girls on a playground with you guys.
12
If there isn't an African-American on the ticket, they will repeat 2016. Having Cory Booker as VP candidate last time would have made the difference in PA, NC, FL, MI, WI. At least it
would have counteracted the Russian Facebook trolls who actively discouraged Black Americans from voting in cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Detroit.
We're still under attack America, wake up or kiss the republic goodbye forever.
7
I would honestly like to see this, and all other columns like this disappear from the face of the earth.
Not a single vote has been cast.
Is it really necessary to decide the election prior to that?
6
I can't help feeling this situation among working class workers has a lot to do with the destruction of the workers' movement, i.e. unions. The more unions weakened, the more Republicans emphasized 'cultural' issues like abortion or gun laws. They're the real culture warriors.
25
This poll didn't even mention climate change, which it seemed to view as an insignificant issue. That won't happen in 10 or 20 or 40 years, when it will be on everyone's mind but also too late to undo the horrific damage.
26
@Ivan Goldman you can't address climate change without first addressing the root cause--overpopulation.
4
I would be happy to vote for a progressive like Warren or Sanders, but just don't believe they can win. We already know the popular vote is irrelevant, and the only number that means anything is 270 in the Electoral College. IMO, the path to victory over Trump goes through the center, not the far left.
32
Absolutely. And the only way to reach 270 electoral college votes is to nominate a candidate who can appeal to the persuadable voters in a handful of swing states. That means a practical centrist like Biden or Klobuchar. Warren or Sanders won’t be able to carry those states.
4
@Mark McIntyre
Be happy and effective... vote for them. Your rationale doesn't hold water, a vote for the center is a vote for republicans.
3
@Tom Republicans haven't been the center for quite a while and are not the center now. Thinking like yours will give us Trump for four more years.
2
This analysis neglects the spirit of the candidate - arguably the biggest draw to voters exercising their voting conviction. It is the energy, the charisma, the intangible sway of the person as a leader that leads people to the polls on a Tuesday. That is second to policy, second even to identity (cough, cough Barak Obama).
Nate - lots of stuff on policy and identity in here, but not enough on gravitas.
It is why Obama was elected, Bill Clinton elected, and why Al Gore or John Kerry could get nowhere. It is why the Trump edged Hillary. Trump for all his atrociousness, is a leader.
It is why Elizabeth Warren feels more like a leader than stumbling Joe Biden, even with a bit too progressive policies for some. You want someone to win? Give us candidates that embody the presence to be be in front of the pack and be trusted for us to follow.
19
@VDET You've nailed it. I'm an informatician and I love data but this is a case where not only is the forest being missed for the trees, but the trees are being missed for the roots.
I think elections hinge on currently non-quantifiable aspects of personality like charisma, trust worthyness, etc. Trump is not bright from an intellectual perspective but his confidence projects an aura of knowing. He jokes around and of course lies a lot and is able to persuade those who wish to believe him.
But as you noted, Obama was charismatic. If Obama had run again in 2016, he would've won even though the country was ready for change because of the holistic qualities that made him who he was. Trump is liked by the other side for the same reasons. And then these people influence the make up of the party they leave behind but rational choice hasn't been how humans operate, pretty much ever.
9
Biden, Warren, Biden, Warren, Biden, Warren.
Um, what about any of the other Dem candidates?
Given the still large field of Dem candidates, there's no telling who'll begin to actually emerge as a delegate front-runner partway into the primaries.
It might seem easy now to rule out anyone other than Biden and Warren. But, let's keep in mind that in 2016, on the Republican side, Trump was not the front-runner until well into the primaries. And, before the primaries began, nearly no one expected him to be the eventual nominee.
I really wish the media, prognosticators like Cohn, etc. would stop prematurely narrowing the field of Dem candidates before even a single vote has been cast.
46
@fact or friction
Yes, Nate & NYT, what about the other candidates.
No thumbing the scale again.
6
@fact or friction Ummmm- maybe because it is going to Biden, Warren or Sanders?
and pls do not tell me that Pete is second in Iowa. He can only win in liberal, white states.
2
@Lefthalfbach And those are the only places where Warren and Sanders can win.
Two things about this article concern me. First, the sample size for the part of the electorate that may still be up for grabs, particularly white, non-college voters, is extremely small. And that leads to a second point. Beyond the labels "low turnout voters" and "persuadable voters," is the very real act of organizing and mobilizing individuals, as happened in 2018 and 2019. Nate Cohn provides some useful insights for readers to ponder. None of this is engraved in stone, however; we have the potential to realize a different outcome through our actions.
11
Statistics and polls. Statistics and polls. If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't have had HRC leading Trump by a significant margin until a few hours before he won. I watched that arrow of your move all night, and will never trust this stuff again.
49
@Andrea you don't seem to understand statistics and polls. Nate Silver called the election wrong in 2016, but in terms of percentage his call was extremely accurate. The problem is that when an election is that close, the tiniest error—in the wrong direction—means your prediction is wrong.
This is why Silver was nervous in the weeks, days, and minutes leading up to the final count.
But polling that shows trends that are bigger than the margin of error can mean something. These numbers aren't predicting the future; they're helping us understand the forces at work.
19
That and people didn’t want to admit to wanting a misogynistIc and xenophobic POTUS.
2
@Andrea,
a course in statistics and probability might help; and a VEN diagram should help.
1
I'll keep writing this until the actual election next year: when will the Times and other MSM do polling that measures the depth and breadth of scorn and disgust on the part of a majority of Americans towards the Trump regime and everything it stands for?
We get it: under-educated whites are pretty ambivalent about Trump and will most likely vote for him again. We also get it that very wealthy Dems are nervous about Warren, Sanders, et al.
What we don't see in polling is how those who voted Democratic in 2018, thus taking control of the House, is why they voted; that is, what emotional tugs caused voters to come out strongly for Dems or reject Trump's politics.
There are attitudes out there that would lead you to conclude that many folks simply cannot stand Trump and what he stands for. Polling might reveal the depth of their disgust and what steps they are taking to become actively engaged in working to throw out the Republican Administration and its Congressional toadies.
If you bother to look for it.
28
@PaulB67 Is it possible the scorn and disgust you feel is simply not as universal as you think?
I was certain McGovern would win. Everyone I knew was for him.
7
@PaulB67
Depth and breadth of disgust with Trump doesn't matter. Voters still only get to cast a single vote, no matter how horrified by him they are.
5
@PaulB67 depth of individual disgust does not equal more votes by those ambivalent. You don't get more votes just because you are more engaged
5
It seems you are slicing and dicing samples to the extreme. The margins of error must be pretty high. I think all election analysts are missing the real samples: any women no matter how educated, no matter how wealthy and no matter skin color, and any person of color no matter how educated or wealthy. These two samples represent people severely abused by Trump, and their turnout, I bet, is going to be high.
10
@Alex Taft The question, though, who will they vote for. The truth is that projecting our own views onto the population at large is a sure path to error.
5
Hey Nate, your polls continue to depress me...can you at least through your polling show a path for Dems to win? I feel after reading that it’s not even worth holding the election
10
You know what, Nate? I don't really care and neither should Elizabeth Warren.
The citizens of this country, young and old alike, are just ignorant. There, I've said it. Just try taking away Social Security and Medicare, and the hoi polloi on both sides of the partisan divide will start screaming their heads off. Yet, they don't seem to understand that our nation's infrastructure is horrible, we pay twice as much per capita for our health care without any better health outcomes as all the other developed nations, our kids routinely score terribly against international students, and our score on wealth distribution puts us in the same category as nations only now emerging from third world country status.
But, no, just give me that olde-timey religion, a six pack and a gun safe full of AR-15's and everything is just GREAT!
Ignorance.
So, you know what? Elizabeth Warren should just keep delivering the message....if people don't understand it, they'll get exactly what they deserve.
44
@CF
But *I* do not want 'what they deserve'.
'What they deserve' has proven to be disastrous for us all.
5
@CF Hmmm. The overwhelming majority of those you despise are educated in public schools.
Is it possible our educational system is appalling?
Why is there no vocational path for most students?
Why are our public schools apparently producing the cartoon characters you describe?
Hating doesn’t really help.
4
non-progressive progressive stance.
2
This is untrustworthy nonsense. He studiously refuses to even mention Sanders, the candidate who won 23 primaries last time around. It's impossible to take seriously.
30
We are all well aware of the NYT’s biases against progressive candidates, not to mention the disproportionate coverage of Hillary’s emails versus the multitude of lies and scandals surrounding the GIP candidate. But to write an article about polling results and the merits of Democratic candidates while completely ignoring one of the top 3 is simply appalling. You may not like Bernie Sanders and the dangers he presents to the greedy, corrupt oligarchs. Nevertheless, he has millions of devoted followers who are working to save this country and we’re not going anywhere, whether you ignore us or not.
34
@Elljay Sanders had a recent myocardial infarction (heart attack) and is too old. A vote for him would be a vote for his Vice President as he is unlikely to last a full 4 year term. His time has come and passed.
2
So, we’re going to lose. Yay.
5
Time to send for Gore!
2
I am not a fanboy apologist for Elizabeth Warren, but she is not a “liberal college professor from Massachusetts.” Yeah, she did all that, but before that life she was a broke kid from a broke family in Oklahoma. She has memories of knowing what it’s like to want for things you need but can’t have because the money just wasn’t there.
53
@X Truth isn't always the same as the dominant narrative. I think most less informed people will view her as a college professor from Massachusetts
4
@X
She is also a former Republican, and former corporate (bankruptcy) lawyer. THAT is why the powers that be desperately want her to be seen as 'too liberal' - she knows exactly how corporations hide the evidence of their crimes.
13
The simplest conclusion from this report is that Cohn can not read tea leaves at all. Nothing is clear or definite, and every evidence is not giving any clear signal.
The problem is not the data, it's the people! People have not paid sufficient attention to election and candidates up to now and probably won't until Nov 5th 2020.
Do you blame them? They are struggling to live from day to day, battling snow, freezing rain, fire, black outs, traffic jams, and kids.
Joe Biden? Yeah, heard about the guy, is he from East Coast or West Coast? His face looks familiar but can't pin it down from where?
Elizabeth Warren? huh? Seems to show up in the news a lot but not sure why...
National health plan? sounds good but seems to cost a lot of money and what about my current health plan?
Cohn's article will be just like Wall Street analyst report, it sounds plausible but soon be forgotten. But no worries, mate, Cohn will write again soon...
11
Only fools think about ‘electability’.
5
Thank you for a good analysis of the States we Democrats have to win to beat Trump. To some extend the new Progressives seem like the McGovern supporters.
My State Washington would vote for a blind mule (no disrespected intended) to defeat Trump.
Want to beat Trump? A moderate. Biden my current choice but if he fades there other good choices. Senator Sherrod Brown does not want it. That makes him a great choice!
13
"...Joe Biden has no special strength with white voters without a college degree..."
It's not just Biden, its all of them. But the real kicker is, where these white voters without college degrees are. They are in precisely those states where; Trump defeated his Republican Party challengers in 2016. And, where he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election in, 2016.
6
@roger g.
Exactly. Educated voters need to move to these states if Democrats stand a chance.
There's one big problem with this analysis, and it's the same problem with Trump's Ukraine gambit: Biden will not be the Democratic nominee. However good he looks on paper, as he has always looked on paper, Biden and his campaign will continue to stumble as he has stumbled in every presidential campaign he has ever run. Biden simply is not and has never been the kind of inspiring candidate who can ride out and come back from missteps: every stumble becomes a further hobbling, until the whole campaign peters out. Democrats worried about beating Trump need to get real: Biden is not an option.
Analysis and commentary that persists in presenting Biden in the mix, as if he were a real option, are only using him as a stalking horse for the wealthy and their affluent milieu's worries about Warren - an ounce of prevention - before she has a full chance to present her plans to voters. The candidates whose chances are rated and compared in this piece, Biden, Trump, Clinton, Obama and Romney, all have something in common. They have run national presidential campaigns in the past with all the exposure to the vast American public that alone can bring. Warren has not. Warren is still working in Iowa and New Hampshire. So how is it that this supposedly sophisticated polling analysis is committing the most fundamental of mistakes - comparing apples to oranges - without drawing much comment on the fact? Because every worry about Warren simply looks reasonable to those deathly afraid of her.
12
I found The Daily’s summary of this poll much more enlightening that this article; my major takeaways from The Daily’s summary being a) resistance towards Warren in these states seems very much rooted in her gender rather than her policies, and b) Sanders outperforms her solidly in all 6 states.
This article hardly mentions Sanders at all - disappointing.
34
@John Jolley Disappointing, but hardly surprising. The NYT and every other mainstream media outlet despises Bernie because of the threat he represents to the ruling class.
5
What's really shocking is the number of commenters who seem to be arguing that because the polling was wrong in 2016, this polling is wrong too. So are liberals now the ones claiming, "fake news!" when data does not support the argument? Moreover, I thought we had all agreed that it wasn't the polling that was the problem, so much as it was Russian interference in the elections. Are we abandoning that line of reasoning now too?
If democrats want to win in 2020, I have 3 words of advice: Pete and Amy.
9
No Amy on the top of the ticket. She has solid experience. Pete is a newbie.
9
@aliceann100 I like Amy too. Being female is a disadvantage. Maybe she’ll be a vice presidential candidate and be put in the spotlight.
3
@Eric A poll is not a fact therefore it cannot be considered fake news. Polls are educated guesses based on many different variables selected by the poller. One incorrect variable can render a poll unreliable. They way a question is asked can do that also as can failure to ask a significant question. Add to all that the fact that the election is a year away and polls are pretty meaningless at this point. A poll is basically nothing more than a gamble.
3
Interesting that the poll rates policies promoted by the 2020 candidates with little reference to some of the more damaging presidential edicts that give industry permission to pollute your air, soil and water. I wonder how these less educated and undecided voters feel about that.
8
The whole emphasis on electability is a fool's errand - nobody knows. People should support who they like and not who they think other people in another state will like. The pundits and polls have consistently been wrong about electability and, frankly, are not helpful.
8
Trump has tons of secret supporters, people ashamed to say that they are for him but people who WILL vote for him.
There are millions of people around the country who do not normally vote. Lots of them will come out for Trump.
We dither and argue on the Bl;ue Side, while underestimating TRump's latent strength.
Here is the Reality in the cold, harsh light of dawn:
1. The Senate is not going to remove Trump from Office.
2.A 51 Senator Vote to remove him is not going to magically change the minds of Trump supporters because they actually do not care what Senators think.
3.Trump is going to be a formidable candidate.
4. He will wion if we nominate a Progressive.
19
@Lefthalfbach Yep. It was amazing to see how many cars suddenly had Trump bumperstickers the day after the election.
You pundits should leave us alone and let us vote for the candidates we like best. Stop trying to steer our choices by your analyses about who is most likely to beat Trump. It distorts the whole process of choosing who the best candidate is.
22
No surprise - if you are an economist
From the Brookings Institution
"America has two economies - and they're diverging fast"
"Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000."
"As such, the Democratic Party is now anchored in the nation’s booming, but highly unequal, metro areas, while the GOP relies on aging and economically stagnant manufacturing-reliant rural and exurban communities."
"The concentration of more than 70% of the nation’s professional and digital services economy in the territory of one party would seem to register an almost unsustainable degree of polarization."
=============
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/09/10/america-has-two-economies-and-theyre-diverging-fast/
6
For me it's real simple. Not Trump? Electable. Period.
It's someone who forgot to wash his/her hands after using the bathroom against the guy who is burning down the entire restaurant.
18
Interesting. If this is indeed the condition of the population's political leanings, why can't the media report like it were? Just report straight down the middle.
1
Donald Trump was elected president. Now what was it you were saying about "electability?"
16
If the 2018 and 2019 elections are anything to go buy, Trump is losing the suburbs and it will be a democrat landslide in 2020.
9
I would have liked to see a poll of the people that are secret Trumpers. What is the percentage “ly’in democrats”?
1
I must’ve missed the part of the article discussing senator Sanders’ electability... oh, wait....
8
According to Nate Cohn"Today’s activist left draws its intellectual energy from critiques of capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and structures of domination."
The above is ridiculous phrasing, made to seem incomprehensible and weird... "structures of domination"????
Sanders has been working his entire life to improve the lives and opportunity of ordinary working people.
The colossal and growing income/wealth inequality is obscene, with the richest .1 percent taking in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
There are real reasons why 9 percent of Obama voters voted for Trump.
Obama promised "hope and change", but did not deliver either to ordinary people, and Hillary was certainly not going to.
So they voted for Trump's politically incorrect brashness and talk of real change.
Real change is desperately needed. Facts show that the American ideal of equal opportunity is dead.
Sanders does not divide people into identities, he has always talked about improving the lives of ALL working families.
Having health care for ALL, QUALITY child care for ALL, QUALITY early childhood education for ALL, QUALITY k-12 education for ALL, and tuition free continuing education would begin to create more equal opportunity.
Those ideas are not difficult for people to grasp, and to see the difference they would make in their lives.
Sanders most definitely can beat Trump!
President Sanders 2020!
A Future To Believe In!
9
@Lucy Cooke -- Exactly Right! There is a reason why 75 percent of all Democratic-voters under age 50 were #NeverHillary and voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries -- especially in rustbelt states that were strongly #StopTPP and #FightFor15. Clinton toured the world promoting the TPP as the new "gold standard" while Senator Sanders called it "another lousy trade deal that won't protect American workers." Senator Sanders was totally against the invasion of Iraq, as well. Trump was able to capture these voters with an anti-war message, as well as a promise to re-do NAFTA. "Moderate" Democrats are not going to win the rust belt, and you can already forget about North Carolina and Florida. They are Trump 100% so a candidate that can win North Carolina in the primary is sure to lose that state in the general elections. (Biden has zero path via the electoral college.)
8
1. Clinton actually rejected TPP in 2016. Stupid thing to do, too.
2. Your other “facts,” also aren’t facts.
3. This just in: rejecting numbers you don’t like is very Trump.
1
@Robert -- Actually, in nations with less income disparity a burger-flipper is paid around $25 per hour and has benefits, including paid annual vacations and healthcare. We used to have a thriving middle class in this country, but now we have the very rich that have seen 200% income gains from stock investments and the very poor workers, who saw 5% wage gains during the same 15 years that has been dominated by union-busting, and wealth tax cuts. Sixty of the top Fortune 500 corporations pay ZERO taxes. There is also an estimated $14 trillion offshored by the rich to avoid taxes. This is NOT democracy. This is a trickle-UP economics that has robbed labor to benefit the 1% global defense and foreign manufacturing investments crowd that buys our government lawmakers via "campaign contributions" and federal lobbyist job promises.
1
Wow, they found voters who are not conservative but who do not share the cultural left's unrelenting outrage at Pres. Trump. I though I was the only one!
8
Who is ' black', ' white', ' non- white' and ' people of color'?
There is only one biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
What we call race aka color is an evolutionary fit human pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at different altitudes and latitudes primarily related to producing Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations in ecologically isolated human populations over time and space.
What we call race aka ethnicity aka national origin is an evil malign socioeconomic political educational demographic historical white European American Judeo-Christian majority supremacist nationalist right-wing myth meant to legally and morally justify humanity denying black African American enslavement and equality defying separate and unequal black African Jim Crow.
While color aka race is a scientific myth, racism is an historical reality.
See ' The Race Myth: Why We Pretend That Race Exists In America' Joseph L Graves; ' Watson Decoded' American Masters PBS.
4
I challenge anyone to summarize this article in one coherent paragraph. Other than Democrats Are In Trouble - which we already know - what's your point?
8
Yikes! Maybe Bloomberg plus Stacey Abrams is our best option!?
2
@PNRN,
Stacey Abrams belongs in the very Progressive column with Warren and Sanders; she will not win a national election; remember, Georgia in 2018.
2
@JRS
I'm talking for VP to Bloomberg, (giving her experience for a later run at the top spot). No reason Progressives can't play well with Moderates.
Oh, and about not-winning Georgia? If she hadn't been robbed of votes, she would have. Republicans aren't big on playing fair.
@JRS
I'm talking for VP to Bloomberg, (giving her experience for a later run at the top spot). No reason Progressives can't play well with Moderates.
I wonder why every time I read a story from Cohn about polling I end up feeling worse? I say that as someone who leans pretty far left. Are things really that bad or are his analyses really that skewed?
3
Not to sound scarred by 2016, but I can't see putting too much stock in polling data this far out. The UpShot (or 538) didn't do too well in 2016 predicting a Trump victory. Although in their defense, not many pollsters saw it coming either.
One obvious flaw in this analysis; it discounts young voters. Why aren't they even mentioned? And why isn't Pete Buttigieg mentioned? If you polled young voters, college-educated or not, white or non-white, from the Rust Belt or the Sun Belt, I think you might see some substantial enthusiasm for Mayor Pete.
If Pete Buttigieg wins Iowa, and the polling shows him winning right now (but of course, that's suspect), who knows how many voters, old and young, may take a second look at him? The UpShot might not want to ignore Pete Buttigieg, the young, Rhodes Scholar from the Mid-West who did a stint in Iraq. He's not too far left, but has a solid Democrat platform. They might find themselves on the losing side again in 2020. Watch and listen to Buttigieg, he's a compelling candidate.
9
@thetruthfirst The young don't vote.
2
Young, diverse, moderate, from the mid-west, and a veteran. And did I mention someone with the intelligence of a listener?
3
Young voters are a crucial group for 2020. If they will turn out for this election, it could be nearly a free 10% boost in total votes for whoever runs against Trump. In addition to their near-unanimous position on the environment and guns, they are also the group with by far the largest potential to significantly increase their voting participation -if the coming election doesn't motivate them, I can't imagine what would.
Start talking to them about voting, getting registered, etc and spreading the word to All their friends, Now.
23
This demographic is why Sanders isn't accurately represented in the polls. He is strong in the polls, but were they to be able to take into account young voters who are not categorized as "likely voters", Sanders would be ahead of the other candidates by a clear margin.
13
There are a few things that we all know. One is that the NYT, like all of the establishment media, strongly opposes both Warren and Sanders and the very idea of real, progressive economic change. Social change is fine, but definitely not economic.
The next thing we know is that the phrasing of poll questions is critical to the answers as well as the selection of the sample. Even the most honest, well-intentioned pollsters can slew results by unconscious phrasing and selection.
The next thing we know is that the polls could not have been more wrong in 2016. Why? No one is quite sure, but those results badly shattered American faith in polling, especially early polling like this.
All this does not necessarily mean that these polls are wrong, but it does mean one that readers should look at them carefully and with a jaundiced eye.
35
@Jack Robinson The poles were not that bad in 2016. Fivethirtyeight's models based on the poles only showed Clinton winning a bit less than 70% of the time, so it wasn't exactly a huge surprise that she lost. National poles showed Clinton winning and she did win the national vote. National poles are much more accurate than individual state poles because they pole more people and state idiosyncrasies tend to cancel each other out but presidential elections are a bunch of state elections, not a national election.
5
@Jack Robinson
"There are a few things that we all know. One is that the NYT, like all of the establishment media, strongly opposes both Warren and Sanders ..."
We don't know anything of the kind. The NY Times is not biased against Sanders and Warren. If you folks could somehow manage to stop sounding so much like Trump minions, we would take you more seriously. Moreover, it isn't the "establishment media." It is the Constitutional free press.
8
The polls were wrong for the same reason Sanders' polls don't fully reflect just how much support he has. He is inspiring infrequent or first time voters to go to the polls which is what happened with Trump. Normal not wealthy Americans are sick and tired of establishment candidates and I am almost sure Dems will lose if they put up an establishment candidate like Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or God forbid, Bloomberg. The establishment doesnt want change but the majority of Americans do and starting with Medicare for All.
6
Putting aside if we believe polls, a legitimate question, the most discouraging result was the number of folks who had not voted for trump, who would now. It is disheartening not just because of the consequences in the election, but what it says about our country.
85
People who are working are not left with much time or energy to properly research candidates. Media is not trusted because they do spin and lie, so then people are easily mislead. Productivity is way up for workers but wages are terrible. People are angry with the establishment and want change. I hope many will choose Sanders instead of Trump since he is honest and has a good record and he has lead the way on healthcare, climate change, immigration, housing, criminal justice reform and so much more.
3
In short: Not a single one of the present crop of candidates is anything like a sure thing versus Trump. Warren (who is, in my view, a strong candidate) should stop campaigning as if she is a Sanders minion. Nate omits a significant poll finding cited by NPR news a week or so ago. A sizeable fraction of the folks who prefer Biden or Sanders to Warren are motivated by gender as strongly as by policy. Like it or not, that, to my mind, is the central tension right now for her campaign. The question is, what can we do about it? If this were not the case, she would be leading both Biden and Sanders in all of the swing states, and would in all likelihood be doing better against Trump as well.
28
After the polls from 2016 failed so miserably, I find it difficult to get through an article that breathlessly tells me that This Latest Poll has discovered some never-before-reported secret about the electorate. Polls don't guarantee anything. Haven't we learned that yet? Present us with the candidate's policies, with their family life, with things that help us elect a good, responsible adult who won't sell us out once in office. Someone who won't make our air dirtier, our water more polluted, and our healthcare harder to come by. Forget polls.
28
@ Helping Hand It wasn't accuracy of t the polls that were the prediction problem in 2016, it was Jim Comey intervening ten days before the election. Polling didn't have time to account reasonably accurately to that. For almost all of his presidency Trump has has net disapproval ratings. But those ratings are based on national samples. They don't account for the problem of the electoral college, which advantages rural states.
3
@Helping Hand Polls werent wrong in 2016. Your interpretation of them was. Polls had HRC winning the popular vote ... and she did. There was not much polling done in rust belt states that HRC lost, and the few that were had the race very tight. FiveThirtyEight had a model based on available pollling that essentially handicapped the odds of Trump winning as 1/3. Would you put a gun to your head that had a 33% chance of going off?
5
@Helping Hand
"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
2
I seriously don't get how polls like these have any ability to predict who can and can't beat trump. Sure, maybe X% like Biden and Y% like Warren - but when the primary is over and it's all down to one candidate against trump, what's that going to be like.
I don't buy those Biden-Trump or Warren-Trump polls taken now as giving any idea of what those numbers will be like next fall when the country is staring down the barrel of someone they might not totally dig versus 4 more years of trump.
19
The polls were completely wrong in 2016. I wish that every article that dissects polling data would mention what has been done to make polling more accurate. I suspect nothing has been done.
As misleading as polling is, I believe it is even worse when there are multiple micro analysis.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just voted fo the candidates they feel good about, or the ones whose policies they agree with.
10
@Jerry S
The polls were only wrong in 2016 if you don't understand statistics. Giving Trump a 33% chance of winning doesn't extrapolate to a 66% advantage for Clinton.
The 2016 outcome was well within the margin of error. The only people left who don't realize this had expectation that were not based in reality.
26
@Jerry S
The polls were accurate in the sense that Clinton won the popular vote by the same margin the polls said she was leading.
19
@Michael-in-Vegas Your talking about polls just before the election. How did Trump match up against Clinton a year before the election?
2
Mr. Cohn talks a lot in findings about "the Democrats" rather than, as he should throughout, "the current crop of Democratic candidates." If he had done the latter rather than the former, his final sentence -- that the Dems don't have the appeal in critical states that they did with Obama -- would be far more illuminating. Because what he is really saying, if he had taken the time to follow through on his thought, is that the existing crop of candidates vying for their party's nomination for the highest office in the land simply does not have any crossover appeal, and that each and every one of them stands to lose to the Republican candidate (almost surely Trump), barring an unforeseen protracted and precipitous dive in the economy.
5
I think Sanders can beat Trump. He has raised more money, has more donors (who are not maxxed out), more people at his rallies, more volunteers, he polls as the most trusted, and polls show him beating Trump. He has been the true leader of the Democratic party, resetting the agenda around getting money out of politics to tackle corruption, Medicare for All, and GND. Sanders was the first and fights for All Americans wealthy or not. He is the good to Trump's evil and is a populist candidate. An establishment candidate will lose just like in 2016.
9
@Iconoclast
Succinct and on point.
Well done.
2
"Her challenge is particularly great in the best-educated areas. In census tracts where at least 45 percent have a college degree, she leads Mr. Trump by 15 points, compared with Mr. Biden’s 23-point lead."
Indeed. Because well educated people, regardless of color, know that her economic policies, if implemented, will be damaging to the country.
15
@Michael Or maybe, they realize that her polices will never become law, so they worry about her ability to realize this herself.
3
@Michael I think it's more like these areas are wealthier suburbs where voters in principle support progressive taxation but fear a Warren tax bill just might whack them also. Also, they don't want to be told that their stock options and bonuses are the result of some moral flaw.
I don't think this is necessarily valid, but that's what I hear in the background. Bernie has the same issue.
1
@Gregg54 . Agree! Well-educated frequently work at places that provide excellent health benefits or earn the level of salary that enables them to buy a “Cadillac” plan. Most of my friends are politically engaged and liberal but they blanch at the idea of losing their excellent health coverage as much as they cheered the fight for the ACA. I suspect Warren and Sanders are right on principle RE M4A but even Democrats, despite our reputation, are more than a little distrustful of “government” healthcare. Even though we all end up there (and I haven’t heard any complaints from my retired friends.)
1
Were these landline polls? We all know who still uses those...
That said IF these polls are accurate in how the electorate thinks, then the Dems need to seriously overhaul all of their talking points and/or get behind a new candidate who can say what this article prescribes. Also, hammer how Dems need to win Congress and most state seats/governorships (in case Trump wins again).
2
@John W No, they weren’t just landlines. “The Daily” podcast of Nov 5, “Who’s Actually Electable in 2020?” is an interview of Nate Cohn about the poll if you’re interested.
Thanks to Nate Cohn once more for what feels like a well-grounded analysis. If Democrats chances are not easily assured, why do they push policies far to the left and not aligned with what potential voters want or understand. Elizabeth Warren often says that to win Democrats must "go big." What she misses and may not understand is that in order to win, Democrats must be in tune with voters whose support they will be need but support that is not currently assured.
9
I believe that the Democratic base will eventually vote for whomever is on the Democratic ticket even if a Labrador Retriever. Given that this is likely true, why must the Democratic nomination be given to the likes of Warren or Sanders that will only further alienate those undecided and harm the chances of getting Trump/Pence out of office in 2020? Makes no sense.
The big mistake that Dems are making is thinking that this is all about policy; it's not. It's much more fundamental. Obama was the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the traditional conservative power structure and was a confirmation of the Republican's deepest fears. Trump and Republicans have one and only one agenda; preserve and retain power at ALL cost.
Further reading below:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
5
@Casual_Observer Owning two Labradors, I'm pretty sure I would prefer the canine choice to any of the current crop of D candidates or the current occupant.
@Casual_Observer
I cannot agree that Warren or Sanders will "alienate" undecided voters. 2016 demonstrated the weakness of a centrist candidate against Trump. Sanders would have handily defeated Trump.
2
I feel the exact opposite that you do. Trump won because people are sick of the establishment candidates who have over the last 40 years allowed the wealthy to take everything while the working people become much more productive but don't gain in wages. That impetus put Trump in the White House.
Please learn from what happened in 2016. Pick a candidate that is not taking corporate PAC money and big donations so that they can be free to represent the American people and not only corporations! Can't you see that the wealthy and corporations are controlling everything and it was the establishment that enabled that and they do not want change. Please, my fellow Americans, support a candidate that isn't bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations! This is our chance to save our country!
Why should we support an establishment candidate when we have the chance to elect a person who isn't afraid to change the things that are hurting our people?
8
With the outdated polling methods that reply on landlines and voter registration, it is hard to trust the results of these polls. For example, Andrew Yang consistently won all the twitter based polls and twitter audits show that he has the highest percentage of real human twitter followers rather than bots among the politicians, but he consistently polled in 3-4% percent in these published polls. No wonder the press and the pollsters were shocked in 2016 when Trump won. The polling methodology urgently needs an upgrade to be representative of today's voters.
5
The answer is the candidate you didnt mention - the one who is now leading in Iowa: Mayor Pete.
17
Very nice to see some original polling and thought.
There are so many 'Stories' put out and then retained past their shelf-life in the political pundit arena, especially when you consider how long it takes a 'journal' to publish an article.
Right now, I'm just fed up with the Democrat non-contenders debating fine points of policy and tearing each other up on things that people know will never survive the first contact with the legislative process, but which score them points, as if this is all a High School Debate Club Contest with the feckless National Press just interested in the latest Sound Bite and Swirling Controversy, because they have no clue how to analyze and come up with an adult position or article.
6
Four years ago the polls and the experts all told us that Donald Trump was totally unelectable. Why would we believe the polls and experts now on electability? Vote in the primary for the candidate you want to win, and deal with "electability" when it's a two person race.
6
You over weighted white non college degree voters, according to your comments on The Daily. At that same time I see no mention at all if a core constituency who either comes out in force or stays home and without whom no Democrat has won in the modern era. Black voters, and particularly Black women voters, will decide the general election.
Putin understood how vital turnout was and targeted Black voters throughout the 2016 campaign with lies about Hillary Clinton. (Given the baggage she had it is notable that Putin resorted to lying. Truth can be contextualized, lies cannot.)
The question Democrats need to be asking is which candidate excites them the most? Who will they volunteer for? Who will they drive neighbors to the polls for? That is the candidate the Democrats need at the top of the ticket.
6
It's still early in the race and a lot of folks aren't paying attention yet. By the time they do, Warren and Sanders will have their framing and messages clarified and easy to grasp; that a tax on the wealthy could vastly improve middle class financial security by making the "infrastructure" of modern life more affordable (health care, college, child care) for the vast majority of Americans. They will appeal to our sense of the American dream, and sell their ideas as increasing opportunity and freedom, and as a rescue from the unsustainable economic path we've been on the past 40 years. The alternative is increasing wealth concentration, diminished opportunities, and the erosion of our democracy.
9
Blah, blah, blah....! Everyone seems to be so entranced with polls. Here’s the thing, despite what people say on questionnaires what folks are really looking for are qualities. Show me a candidate with conviction, fortitude, moral righteousness, and compassion and I’ll show you someone who will bend the polls.
I remember the dialogue with Micheal J. Fox in “The American President”: “People want LEADERSHIP, Mr President....”
4
@Hector "The American President" was fiction.
Nate, why don't you go for it, and start including Bloomberg? It may make the Times happy.
5
The problem seems to be that the Democrats keep putting up candidates that are too well educated -- law degrees, Phds etc.. What the Democrats need is a handsome, stupid candidate with good teeth and the patience to spend at least a half hour every morning getting his hair right. Yeah, that's the ticket. We need to dumb this thing down to the level of the swing voters.
7
@Gone Coastal
Your condescension towards swing voters seems to start from the premise that those who disagree with you are less intelligent. Presumably, those swing voters weren't as stupid when they voted for an oratorically gifted but inexperienced young African American in 2008.
3
@Gone Coastal
Well - Obama and Clinton were highly educated lawyers who managed to eek out two terms. So there's that ...
@Brad. I think Gone C is fed up with being told we have to cater to the opinions of “swing”voters, “undecided” voters, Midwestern voters as if they were less capable of grasping what’s at stake for our country. The condescension is also on the part of political analysts and pollsters. The upper Midwest had their own variety of Progressivism back in the 20th century- why not again? The two candidates in the most left field have to work harder to explain how and why they ended up there. There’s a case to be made but there is a half-century (at least!) of Republican propaganda to counter. Remind people of how we got here: Gilded Age II.
1
A difficult article to 'translate' - the more one tries to read for comprehension the more the world salad piles up.
4
@R. Zeyen It was perfectly clear to me, and as cleanly written as one could on complex polling data.
4
@Joe Schmoe To me it was a very selective one or two issue presentation wrapped in why Democrats can't win - word salad without adequate dressing to get it swallowed.
3
The things these polls aren’t measuring are excitement and momentum.
At this stage of the race, it’s not about the numbers now. It’s the direction those numbers are going that counts.
4
Perhaps, if you started to report what Elizabeth Warrens plans are low info voters who dont have the time due to holding down multiple jobs, and child care may be able to follow iand see the benefits to the country and themselves of electing her.
The most important issue is to follow what she is going to do with the money that the government collects, her policy for redistributing wealth are key to briding working and middle income families.
7
@Kelly perhaps, if you started to report what Elizabeth Warrens plans are low info voters, who dont have the time, due to holding down multiple jobs, child care and trying to survive, then may be able to follow and see the benefits to the country and themselves of electing her. Her plans are simple to follow and easily critiqued.
The most important issue is to follow what she is going to do with the money that the government collects, her policy for redistributing wealth, is key to bridging the gaps between working and middle income families.
2
Backing and voting for the Democratic Party is like buying an index fund including the whole S and P. Good bet. Better than all eggs in one viewpoint basket. Elizabeth Warren would give the philosophical pendulum a good hard push back toward equilibrium and she would lead a restoration of lawful procedural governance. In waiting would be Nikky Haley, fully competent, well experienced, liked and likable, ready, willing, and able to fully restore and revive her party.
3
I am one of those, sliver, middle of the road voters and do not buy the electability story. Over the years I have seen the Democrat Party continue to move left, election after election. Nancy Pelosi is a good example. The only reason she supports those middle of the road representatives is to get her agenda passed, which is not middle of the road (i.e. she has made it plain that she is from San Francisco and probably as liberal as Elizabeth Warren). Once these middle of the road representatives gets elected, they are told the following by Party Leadership: If you want to be assigned to that committee you need to vote how leadership tells you or if you want some campaign funds form the DNC, you need to vote how leadership tells you. The system has been corrupted by both parties, which panders to the left or the right.
4
@Rod "Over the years I have seen the Democrat Party continue to move left, election after election."
Given that the Democratic Party has objectively moved to the right with every election since Carter, I think it's safe to disregard the rest of your submission.
6
@Rod I totally disagree, in the last 30 years America has moved to the extreme right. Reagan and the first Bush would now be considered lefties.
3
Strong evidence that the Democratic candidates are not popular with voters who say they are conservative or Republican. Brilliant analysis Nate!
20
Steve Bullock. Amy Klobachar, though she will have the woman bias, which from the poll was really quite strong, close to 40%. Pete Buttigieg, he's weak on what we usually look for in job experience.
The one thing that unites non-Trump supporters, who are a majority, is winning the election.
Unfortunately, as we saw with GW Bush, the chickens didn't come home to roost until the middle of his second term. The same will be true with Trump. The middle class tax raise will hit in 2021. Health care will be far worse and the Fed will probably not be able to keep the economic ship upright with Trump throwing cannonballs onto the deck right and left.
6
Viewed from a distance, the Democratic message is mostly carried by the Presidential candidates, and a few leading figures in the House and Senate.
Up close, I recall it being carried by people that I knew from the PTA and local politics. Mostly employed and well-paid, but of a class where time between jobs could be long, and where fears of age discrimination could not be completely brushed away.
They were educated and intelligent people, who could see that “free tuition” and “medicare for all” would not be panaceas, any more than “No Child Left Behind” led to improvements in education. They were the people, by and large, whose taxes paid for the six-hundred dollar toilet seats on military aircraft, and their cast of mind might best be described as skeptical: the beneficiaries of “critical thinking”, learned in a day when American education had not yet declined to where it is now.
It is this group of people that the Democrats absolutely must retain. They may seem like a small number of relatively privileged families, but ultimately they are the people who convince others, and to do this, they need to feel not only included in the Democratic platform, but that the platform itself makes sense.
7
Once again we get a detailed analysis of polls. The parties, the press, some not-for-profits spend millions on polls. We still don't know that the lever the voter pulls results in a vote that is counted for the candidate they choose.
Where are the audits of the votes? Where is the evidence that our votes and counts are accurate?
A vibrant press needs to take on the challenges of today, and not continue to pretend to the pre-hacking rules of the game.
How about some time and investigation into the reliability of the count?
4
Will Republicans apply their defense strategy to the nine or so instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Muller report, being an un-indicted co-conspirator in violating election laws, and continuing violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
1
Not sure why any of this is relevant. "trump" is not running in 2020: he will be out of the white house one way or the other before that election.
7
@Mathew
We hope.
The other option is that Trump will be in office and given the green light from the Republican Party to fix the election in any manner he chooses.
Not “running” for office really — more like a roll through a stop light.
4
@Chickpea
That is not an option we will tolerate. We simply can't afford to. And we will NOT allow it to happen.
3
If we manage to see Trump's tax returns, the polling and the candidates strategies will change.
4
Why does this “analysis” omit Bernie Sanders? WHY?????!!
22
Bernie blackout.
6
@wsidemike Look the NYT ignored him in 2016 (yeah, I know, mind boggling isn't it...) and continue to do so today...for a 'quality' paper it's scandalous..
Just imagine how well he would do if he got just a sliver of the coverage that Warren (Bernie wannabe) gets and soon I'm sure what Bloomers will get as the new NYT poster child !
NYT readers seem to be in a 'Bubble' for the most part and blinkered to what's happening on the ground. At the moment it's all 'background' noise and we shall see the evidence in 12 weeks time.
Ignore Bernie if you wish but by Christ I wish he was British and running my God forsaken country !!
3
I'd like to see a poll on voters who will vote for anyone to beat Trump. I don't like Michael Bloomberg at all but I will be forced to vote for him if he were the nominee. Any other Democratic candidate as well. There are a lot of us out here.
6
So in general less educated voters are less engaged in politics. Anyone who believes that people will vote who haven't before or in several of the last elections but will certainly do so in 2020 and definitely vote for trump can stop by I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
5
I’ve read the article twice and mulled over the meaning of populist and I still can’t figure out why the author categorises Warren’s policies as such. If they are populist so were the high marginal rates of tax postwar period until the 1980’s. So is the U.K.’s NHS. In fact they are the antithesis of populist. They are specifically designed to combat populism by reordering the political economy which helps the vast majority of real people without recourse to nationalism, trade wars and bashing the poor.
9
Pete is polling just under Warren in Iowa - Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders, then Biden. It will be an interesting election season.
1
@Michelle Actually, as of today, Pete is #1 in Iowa!
2
Nominate a centrist and we lose. They don't lose because they are, and will forever be, taken well care of. They don't know struggle and never will know struggle. To quote George Carlin: "they don't care about you".
7
@Ross "we", "they", "never". A whole lot of unquantified pronouns with Carlin platitude thrown in at the end, classic.
3
@Ross What on earth does a dead hippy comedian have to do with contemporary politics? One would hope our voters have more credible sources for political thought.
1
@Joe Schmoe
Because from out of the court jesters mouth comes words of wisdom and biting truth.
Quite often more credible than the pundits and opinions one finds in the media.
2
Here in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, I protest weekly with 40 or 50 others against Trump every Tuesday at noon outside Senator Toomey’s local office. The response of passing cars is overwhelmingly positive and has grown over the last 130 plus weeks. My back of the envelope calculation is that Trump’s “popularity” sinks each week as folks (especially woman from every age group) intending to vote straight Democratic in 2020 rises.
17
@the doctor
Thanks you for being such an engaged, patriotic American!
1
Interesting that Bernie Sanders is not mentioned at all even though he comes ahead of Trump in many polls including the NYT one done in the states that are being discussed here. It is a pity that the mainstream media continues to ignore and under report Bernie as they did back in 2016. I just hope that the Democrats will not make the same mistake as 2016. Those who did not vote for Hilary as a matter of principle and who were Bernie supporters, will not vote for Biden either and we may just find ourselves with another 4 years of this debacle ... but young people are done voting for the “least bad” candidate. Democrats need a candidate who has the conviction of his/her ideas and Biden is not that candidate.
What I also want to understand is why is it that free college and free healthcare are such revolutionary ideas ??! Europe has had both for a long long time and they are doing fine, thank you very much.
20
The idea that Warren is too far left is simply libertarian republican hyperbole. Her ideas are no more left than previous democratic presidents. Compared to the extremes of the far right she is less off the scales. We being told to accept a new norm, that making our country work for the common good of all people is far left insanity.
The real fact is that not doing something is insanity. The pump that feeds money into the hands of the wealthy has become too strong with the result that growth is low and wages do not reflect the demand for labor.
16
If the US were a truly democratic country, a few hundred thousand uneducated voters in 3 swing states would not determine the outcome of the most important election in 80 years. I don't understand why the rest of the country puts up with presidents who do not have support of the majority for some antiquated system conceived to protect the institution of slavery or southern states.
13
@Lucy -Are you suggesting that only the educated should be allowed to vote?
3
I don't believe that Medicare for All is the primary obstacle to the more liberal candidates like Elizabeth Warren. While it is a giant leap, it impacts everyone equally, and people may consider letting her give it a try with appropriate understanding.
What hurts in swing states are liberal proposals that help some at the expense of others. Reparations- taking from Whites, Asians and Hispanics to give to Blacks; healthcare for illegal immigrants while citizens lack healthcare; debt forgiveness for college loans while many sacrificed to pay back their individual loans; free college paid for by taxpayers who don't go to college; pathway for citizenship for those who gamed the system.
Its all about perceived fairness.
11
So who really likes progressive intellectuals with a PowerPoint presentation for every issue? It seems that the answer is only other progressive intellectuals. Blacks, Hispanics, young people without college degrees - do they really care about intersectionality and the patriarchy, or would they rather have a little respect and a job with decent pay? If things keep on the way they're going, a surprising number of them may decide that Trump's their man, warts and all. They're working and making money, and they don't really care about how much chaos there is in DC.
5
The upshot of this Upshot is simple. It is not identity, demographics, skin color, personal virtue or education that determine the voter’s choice. It is the candidate’s ideology. I am highly educated. I want a woman President. I don’t particularly like Biden and I am disgusted by his son’s behavior in Ukraine. But I will vote for him (or Mayor Pete) in the primaries because I despise Warren’s demagogic class warfare. Since her wealth tax is not going to bring in any revenue, I know she will go after people like me - upper middle class. And for what? So she can destroy medical research, undermine science and technology, muzzle free speech, and tank the economy. I paid high taxes when I lived in Europe but at least I knew what I was getting. Warren’s proposals are either unconstitutional or ruinous or both. And as for the “woke” virtue-signaling of her supporters - it would be funny if it were not so dangerous to liberal democracy.
4
@Mor
You're highly educated and you are calling Warren a demagogue? And despise is a pretty harsh word, one that might be reserved for our current occupant of the White House but you feel free to vilify one of the democratic candidates. Class warfare got you worried, does it? Maybe possible it's at the root of your entire reply? I guess you have plans to become a billionaire or at least a member of the elite; you may consider yourself one of them, even now or maybe simply an 'admirer'.
I am so relieved that you are an expert on the wealth tax, you must know more than the leaders in the countries where it is currently imposed. (Yes, I know that several European countries no longer use a wealth tax. However, I don't know whether the wealth tax is a panacea for how to level the playing field in this country but it's interesting how the mere mention of the subject gets some people ready to spout all sorts of unfounded predictions. Yours follows:
"So she can destroy medical research, undermine science and technology, muzzle free speech, and tank the economy."
Seriously? Amazing what your highly educated background did for you. It made you wealthy and arrogant. I am not certain it is doing anything for anyone else now that I've read your 'diatribe'. I am so grateful you're around to warn us about the evils that will come if Warren were to become our next President. Not buying it Mor....but count me an undecided Democrat.
1
@MAG It is interesting how facts make members of the radical left so riled up that they are reduced to personal insults and non sequiturs. You may want to check out why France has repealed the wealth tax. You may want to look into the difference between M4A and every other universal healthcare system in the civilized world (hint: they all allow private health insurance). You may consider why the idea of breaking up tech companies can only come from someone who does not understand technology. And finally, you may want to learn the dismal history of socialism and its abject failure - an excellent subject to educate yourself about this week when we are celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. Education is a value in itself. But you are right: it can also make you wealthy or at least comfortably off. I came to this country as a penniless immigrant and I worked my way to where I am now by dint of hard work and education. You may try something similar.
The real problem seems to be those who are non-college educated and white. The Republicans know what they are doing when they oppose free college. Every time we take a white and keep him or her from going to college, we get another Republican voter. And apparently getting into the Democrats' column requires at least a BA.
@S H ah yes very in the spirit of the basket of deplorables 10/10
If Democrats think that a single payer healthcare system such as the one Canada adopted 50 years ago is too radical, this country will never be able to move fast enough to adequately address the exponentially greater problem of addressing the climate crisis. The forces working to convince US citizens that a healthcare system that covers everyone at half the cost are the same that are standing in the way of addressing climate change.
Every American will have to participate, and vast structural changes will have to be performed on the economy. There will be challenges and opportunities. If a Democratic Candidate cannot honestly address healthcare reform because their hands are tied by their benefactors, they will come nowhere near solving the climate crisis.
9
If there is a single Democratic candidate can beat Trump, Bloomberg will not enter. I am counting on you, please, the country can't handle 4 more year of Trump.
2
Thanks for this. The focus on low-turnout voters leads to aggressive complaints of voter suppression. In Georgia that is a perennial complaint; even with record numbers of voters, the unsubstantiated "lots of voters turned away" continues. I'm weary of this.
Any analysis that motivates a political party into developing better candidates and proposes effective ways to handle today's issues needs to be taken seriously.
1
What this shows and many people keep forgetting is the election is based on the electoral college and you have about 7 or 8 States that are really in play that determined the election. You basically got the East and West Coast that's going to vote democratic almost a matter what the South is gonna vote Republican and most of the Midwest. That is why when Moody analytics looked at it a few weeks ago and The New York Times looked at the key swing States trump looks to have a very good chance of getting re elected. The national poll where trump is doing even worst on the East and West Coast It will lose by even bigger margins of that and then the last election really don't matter under the electoral college system If you look at the key battleground States there is no way they're going to vote for a socialist or far left candidate even though they don't like trump Based on that hopefully the democrats will nominate somebody that can carry these States
2
@Jdavid So the we will continue (though not as bad) with a president NOT for ALL but for just a few! The whole argument that eliminating the electoral college will give those states no say is insane since they are in the minority & they have total say with the electoral college! So how is that fair to the rest of the country? Popular vote is the way it should be!
1
@Jdavid - Absolutely true. And yet -- the Democrats are spending all their time whittling down their candidate list where? In Iowa and New Hampshire, which are not important swing states. The Democratic primaries should BEGIN in swing states and let THOSE voters be heard FIRST. But that's only important if they want to win. Otherwise, they should stick to the same old calendar -- and watch Trump take those states again when the Democratic nominee is one they had NO voice in choosing and NO appetite for.
Democrats trusted polling results in the 2016 election and look where it got us. Don't let anyone, especially a conservative pundit, tell you who is "electable" or not.
8
So the Midwest is not as strong for Democrats....
Well, we had Tim Ryan in the race and Amy Klobuchar is hanging in, both moderates from the Midwest and both virtually ignored by mainstream media. I have been dismayed by the lack of coverage all along. If no one gets to know them, then no one will vote for them. Instead the mainstream media focuses on the progressives in the party, along with Pete Buttigieg who is gay and thus seems to be worthy of extra coverage. This is media malfeasance at the level of the false equivalency between Hillary Clinton's emails and Trump's various misdeeds such as mocking the disabled and Gold Star families, grabbing genitals, multiple bankruptcies, lack of knowledge of just about everything relevant, etc. etc.
5
The fate of the whole world hinges on climate protection. Apparently no one in the pivotal Middle West cares about the issue. Maybe that is why the politicians want to avoid discussing it. Is it time to sneak into Canada before the rush starts?
7
Pretending Bernie Sanders does not exist is bad journalism. If there's some reason you discount his polling, which is stronger than Warren's in these states, you need to make that case. Ignoring him won't make him go away and won't make people not vote for him.
16
@KateR
By that logic, I guess they're pretending Pete B. doesn't exist too. The Times is comparing the two front-runners. Bernie is not one. He's in fourth place nationally. It's not bad journalism, and Bernie is not a victim. I don't understand why his supporters constantly try to make him one.
2
Persuadable voters in battleground states don't want "an extremist candidate who is going to make their financial situation worse through burdensome taxes". But guess what, the Democrats could nominate George W. Bush and the Republicans would tell those persuadable voters that he's a far left socialist. The Democrats are going to need an enthused, activist base and money (to run ads) to counter that misinformation, and they are only going to get that by nominating Sanders or Warren.
Nominate a centrist again and you'll lose the base and you'll also lose the middle, as you won't have the means to counter GOP lies.
6
Warren basically vilifies successful white collar workers.
Her message is, "You don't deserve your success and we're going to make you pay for everything."
Why is it a surprise they don't want to vote for her?
7
The underlying fear that Trump will win again is building. His near total disregard for laws and ethics is beyond disturbing but the true calamity for the future of the country is so that many millions are eager to endorse him again and millions of others are oblivious to it all.
5
At present, there is only one problem with our country, and that is polarization. Trump took the presidency and invited no one who opposed him to share in making the country better. He has made polarization ten times worse. Trumpees will even blame the left for polarization by electing Obama. Considering the colossal and existential problems facing our country and the world it is essential that we work together. I hate Trump just as much as the next guy. Republicans have sold out our institutions and billionaires run the world, but if we elect progressives who want structural change (Which won't get done) we are simply sticking our finger in the eyes of the people who did it to us with Trump, and nothing will get done. America needs a time out, and Biden seems to be the only prospect.
66
@Sean O'Brien
There are no time outs or do-overs. Climate change, in particular, will not wait for us to simmer down. The world is heating up and so is the electorate. There is no guarantee that a Biden presidency will make the country any less polarized. A good portion of voters out there now believe the conspiracy theories about Biden.
The can's been kicked down the road far enough. It's time to pick up the can of worms and start dealing with them.
18
@Sean O'Brien -- What we need is Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran an extremely close race vs Hillary Clinton in 2016 in spite of the fact that her Corporate Democrats pulled every dirty trick possible, including a smear campaign coordinated with mainstream media from inside the DNC! Young voters are now AWAKE and increased their voting power by more than 200 percent in the 2018 Midterms. In the 2016 election, 75% of Democratic-voters under age 50 were #NeverHillary due to #endlesswars and her Wall Street global investment crowd politics (that represents defense-industry and foreign manufacturing profiteers and fights AGAINST $15 minimum wage and unions -- Clinton sat on Walmart board when workers who protested wages and conditions were FIRED.) The first thing the Clinton-dominated Democrats did in 2015 was reverse Obama's ban on federal lobbyist direct payments to the DNC. Biden would be a sure low-voter-turnout candidate and guarantee Trump's win. Sanders has more than a million ACTIVISTS pledged to go with him to Washington DC to PUSH REAL CHANGE (what we thought we were getting from Obama, but instead we got Hillary Clinton/ with Bill Clinton on the road to collect the money she lost in the campaign.
10
The problem is, the next guy doesn’t hate Trump so much.
1
Nate , you were wrong before ; not suggesting you are this time but articles like this don't serve the public well and only sows confusion and an unwillingness to bother to vote . It will be what it will be and people will vote in the continued partisan manner . It seems voting for the best qualified is no longer a reason to cast a ballot but more an incredible fear of everything fueled by the media , andespecially the misinformation the social networks generate . Common sense , a record of a candidates past work no longer seems to matter ; the swamp Trump said he would clean only got bigger and deeper and we have no one to blame but ourselves and our self delusions . Doing the right thing is no longer a consideration . Trump will win a second term because we are so entangled in this morass of demographics that has become the abnormal norm .
This is very helpful. There is way too much emphasis on the the polling from Iowa and New Hampshire. One state has the candidates going door-to-door for months and the other is well, let's say....self-consciously independent- minded in this process.
I wish the Democratic party had the closest states in 2016 voting first in the primary season. But hey, our system is the best in the world, so why ever change it?
@DALE1102 Why not have all primaries on the same day?
1
The next election should be an easy win for Democrats but it won't be. Rarely have they had an opponent who inspires such justifiable passion against him. People who don't absolutely love Trump absolutely despise him.
Yet if anything, Democrats are worrying their supporters who recognize that they seem so determined to lose.
There are Democrats who know that they must not talk only to the left but there are Democrats who suspect being centrist will not inspire passion in their base.
Democrats currently have several candidates with quite serious if not fatal weaknesses. Biden, Sanders and Warrren are also simply old (like many Republicans). Democrats have the same generational resistance to grooming, supporting and passing the torch to the next generation. Obama had magnetic, smart youthfulness, but Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker and Julian Castro can't seem to climb above the pack and unite a country of whites, Latinos, Asians and blacks.
Especially, Democrats do not control the conversation. Instead,Trump does with his repulsive tweets and insults that are masterful media distractions. Republicans have perfected sales and marketing, while Democrats have perfected the lack of a clear message and simple slogan that everyone can understand and rally around.
Trump deserves to be impeached but if the Senate won't convict, and if Democrats have a highly flawed candidate, then the unthinkable nightmare re-election of Trump could happen. Democrats must get their act together.
3
@Marc I'm sympathetic to your argument, but who are these "Democrats" you keep talking about? You write like there's still a powerful party apparatus that can anoint a nominee. It hasn't worked like that for awhile now. Trump was the absolute last choice of the RNC, and he still won on the strength of his message and his popular appeal. Now he owns the place, with no meaningful primary competition. We have dozens of candidates for the Democratic nomination, and more still jumping in. Candidates who would never have been viable in earlier cycles now lead the polls, while traditionally strong candidates trail. I'm not sure where this is all heading, but the rules have changed, and I don't see anyone in the Democratic Party with the power to "get their act together." We're all just along for the ride.
2
@Aaron M.
By Democrats I mean, obviously, Democratic candidates and their supporters both individually and as a whole, not a
"party apparatus" nor something like the RNC, which suggests organizational abilities and overriding structures that Democrats don't seem to have anyway. But all this is just an digression into definitions of words and misses the bigger picture.
Yes, Democrats have "dozens" of candidates and positive developments. Some see that as better, and some see it as worse. But so what? And so what if the rules are changing? It's all pointless if none of the candidates break out decisively and more important, if none of them can win in the general election.
If they don't win, why? Is it because of confused, unfocused messaging, policies that don't resonate with the country as a whole, and incidentally slow, reactionary responses to tweets that get all the attention?
I would vote for a ham sandwich rather than Trump. But I shouldn't have to and many in the country won't if the Democractic candidate isn't seen as far better for the job. Democrats don't have to win me over. They don't have to win their own supporters. They have to win enough of the votes of groups that are critical but currently don't see a reason to vote for a Democrat, to put it mildly.
That's all that matters. And it shouldn't be so difficult running against Trump. Yet the scary outcome still seems possible.
1
This article confirms the difficulty of analyzing voting patterns and developing winning strategies. Also, the fact the Trump has any wide support has to be troubling for people who support democracy. That an authoritarian candidate can win a national election is disturbing enough but to govern in an authoritarian manner and not lose significant support is even worse. This suggests that even much darker days may be ahead for the US. Why blacks and Hispanics don't come out to vote against a white nationalist president backed by a white nationalist party is really hard to figure. It appears large numbers of people in these two groups are completely disconnected from the democratic process and nobody can figure out how to get them connected. There may be no way to get more of these people to vote but certainly Democrats should give it their best try.
3
Dear Journalists,
Please report on news. What is the point of some analysis of polls. We get it, we are relying on an antiquated and ridiculous system. We need the popular vote and not the electoral college. We need so many changes, it would take hours to cover it all. The complete disaster of 2016 has continued unabated and we need it to stop soon. Start hammering on the truth for once and stop tiptoeing around it.
Yours Truly,
The American people
4
Bruce, the first graphic is not a surprise to me. Because Romney is a traditional country club republican and at least not overtly racist, he simply did not fire the hearts of angry white folks the way Trump does. As both McCain and Romney showed, because of the way our demographics have shifted, the republicans are no longer able to win without this group. Those who are puzzled by republican politicians' lack of concern over Trump's conduct should not be: their survival, not just his, seems to depend on the Trump base.
1
To put the Democrats’ dilemma in perspective, consider that in order to win in 2020 they have to do something unprecedented in the history of democracy: open a tent wide enough to accommodate every sane person in the country, an ideological spectrum that spans all the way from AOC to Mitt Romney. We can’t afford to take any constituency within that spectrum for granted, because a consequential chunk of American electorate has a pesky habit of staying home if there isn’t a candidate they feel they can vote for; the strategy of nominating a “safe” candidate that offends the fewest sensibilities that voters will rally behind out of shared revulsion toward the opposition has never worked. Romney, Kerry, Dole and Mondale can attest to this, and so can Hillary. The winners are those with strong visions that don’t change with the political winds and incite real passion from voters. Hatred of Trump isn’t enough to win this, no matter how many of us think that it should be.
I don’t claim to have the answer, but it seems sensible to identify a few things that WON’T work:
1. Polls. They told us Hillary had it in the bag. They were wrong. Stop relying on them for your decisions.
2. Thinking that Hillary “really” won. She didn’t. Those three million votes don’t matter. The Electoral College is still a thing.
3. Using 1972 as a club to beat candidates with. A lot has changed since then. Let’s concentrate on not repeating 2016.
We all know the definition of insanity.
200
@James Jacobs The electoral college is a device that denies the popular will. Clinton has as much right to claim the legitimate presidency as anyone, she got more votes. In a sane world it doesn’t matter where you vote. One person one vote.
8
@James Jacobs
At first I was with you and then I wasn't. Yep, this is and should be a vote for sanity, decency, ethics and morals, against the utter opposite. But then you go on to put your finger in the eye of the Democrats whom you apparently disagree with. Please do not hate on the decent, sane, ethical and moral folks with whom you can agree to disagree. You want to be able to vote for the nominee no matter who that is. We Democrats really do all want to get to the same place eventually.
6
@PAUL NOLAN our electoral rules didn't sneak up on us. Stop talking about being good at chess when the game was checkers.
8
Let’s me say it again and again. American progressives are Europe’s conservatives. American white educated folks pay a lot of lip service to progressive ideals as long as they have little to do with their pocket books and their children educational advantages. They also like to dress up just not fashion forward. They like to be friendly but only at the playground never to invite you for dinner or reciprocate your invitation. They are still afraid of emancipation. I am a non native white FYI
2
Thanks for clueing us in on the Biden-But-Not-Warren voters. What about the Warren-But-Not-Biden voters? This study of sorts is stacked to reinforce the 'milquetoast middle-of-the-road' take always pushed by the NYT.
As another said, there are issues such as the wealth tax on billonaires, outlining where the money actually goes in our current hideously exploitative profit-based medical cartel, where Warren should be able to make inroads on the working class & middle-class of every color.
4
I often think of how little the punditocracy knows about America its history and the reality of the enlightenment into which it was born. In 1776 Rousseau was still breathing the social contract had never been written for a Jeffersonian democracy.
It was into this reality that the conservative philosopher, wit and lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote his letter to the American Congress addressing the unwritten existing social contract of the English Speaking World.
https://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html
The birth of what is wrongly called American Conservatism has lead to the disappearance of a real nation state south of our border. America is dysfunctional not because of differing political philosophies but because America has little if any purpose after Reagan defined government as the enemy of the people. The world is roiling because Reagan was ignorant of the reality of the unintended consequences of anarchists in a once well ordered society.
It is 2019 and sometimes we need the fewer options governments of the people offer to protect citizens from those all too willing to break all the rules of civility and public discourse.
We have a wonderful Yiddish expression (plotke machers) for those that delight in causing friction and distrust and maybe it is time in this time when harmony is most needed to get the Meadows, Jordans, Gohmerts and Cruzes out of your politics where the process seems broken beyond repair.
2
The electability argument is a convenient delusion not backed by history. How many of these same people insisting that Warren or Sanders can't get elected said the same thing about Obama? They said the democrats just gave the election to republicans because a black man with a Muslim name would never win. And in response to this example, these folks will say, "Obama was a unique politician and that won't happen again". I think it's time to stop trying to figure out the safest choice and vote for the best candidate. I think that is Warren.
1
Basically this data says that the United States remains a primitive country, regardless of class.
3
After all of this confusing data I guess I will just have to vote in my state's primary for the candidate I would most like to see become POTUS. I cannot decipher which candidate is most likely to beat Trump. Anyone who has declared himself a candidate for POTUS so far would be a better POTUS than the current political grifter now in the job.
4
I want more affordable health care, more restrained capitalism, and fair financial distribution. I want a better immigration system. And I want investment in technologies to improve our odds to thrive under the new climate reality.
BUT nothing of this will happen if TRUMP is not taken down.
Most Americans are ready to remove TRUMP but they are not ready for the other items, at least not in the states that are necessary to win an electoral college election.
So, to all progressists that did not feel like voting to Hillary but now are behind Warren.....You messed up in 2016, please do not mess up again. If Warren is the nominee you better get on the road and work to get people to vote.
And please stop comparing with Obamas' election....in the new social-media-era....that was thousands of light-years ago and on a completely different universe.
5
The polls, the pundits and the Dems don't get it.
After centuries, we are all united in rage and disgust against government. Democracies now have one thing in common, a practical inability to modify themselves to reflect the needs of the time. They have dropped the ball with money politics, grid-lock, growing income inequality, climate change even our health. Trump harnesses that rage..Dems fan it with a field of old politicians who boast of their political experience in a patently dysfunctional system.
That is the perception. To win they must change that.
3
I don’t care what voters in “swing states” think. Talking about swing states supports the legal fiction that people pick the president when it’s only the people from some states that elect president. I don’t care what Ohioans, Pennsylvanians, Florida etc residents think any more than others. The constitutional provision of an electoral college denies Americans a one person one vote equality, making our presidency a sham as if we were still the original 13 separate colonies. Were you live should have no bearing on the weight of your vote in a modern republic. A pox on swing states.
3
@PAUL NOLAN
Let me know if ignoring reality gets you what you want. Never works for me with cookies...
4
Just once I wish that a NYT article would reveal the methodology of these polls. Given how completely inaccurate polls were in 2016, I have a hard time trusting any of this data. Were the surveys conducted over landlines? Cellphones? In person? If so, where? Over the internet? So less than 4000 registered voters were surveyed (according to the link), of which 75 were chosen for the Biden-Not-Warren graphic. 75! Call me dubious.
7
The poll that forms the basis of Cohn’s speculations seems to be an outlier. It is among the least favorable of recent polls.
Uh, after the chances the times have Trump to win I’ll never trust them again on this topic.
1
I posted this same concern when the Times published these poll findings, and here it is again: there are other recent polls (viewable on FiveThirtyEight.com) looking at individual Dems head-to-head with Trump that show vastly different results. Their data is just as valid as the Times' - if you really want to know the story thus far, you can't just ignore it.
The problem with elections is that there's huge variance in the population you're sampling with each poll. This drastically increases the likelihood that individual polls will, through no fault of their own, paint a misleading picture. The more data you have, the more accurate you can be - which is why the failure to include other recent polls in this analysis is somewhat troubling.
1
Let’s have a moment of reality. It’s going to be Joe Biden. Pulling people from the middle and even right of middle (people who turn out to vote) will be important to winning. Voters who are more progressive or left will pull the level for Biden because he’s better than the lunatic in the White House. For all of his shortcomings, Biden can close the sale here. None of the others can do that; although they present some intriguing VP possibilities and the potential for a follow up presidential run for that VP.
1
an article like this requires the authors and their editors to reveal their pre-existing beliefs and preferences. Their is so much subjectivity here that such caveats are needed. One thing is clear, the authors and their editors do not want Warren to be the democratic candidate.
Let us not, so soon, forget how totally wrong pollsters were in the last presidential election. Let us not, so soon, forget the ny times did everything it could to prevent Sanders from being the candidate last time, and look where we are today.
2
"The Biden-but-not-Warren voters in these areas say she’s too far to the left, 79 percent to 9 percent. They oppose moving to a single-payer health system, support the president’s tax reform and are relatively likely to say they’re conservative or Republican."
I bet these are fake Biden voters. When it comes to the election day, they will vote for Republicans.
Of course they want Biden to win the primary. Fat chance.
1
A major portion of our country is living in a different reality. If I watched Fox News I would definitely be a Trump supporter.
1
It like I have been saying, most people are serfs and they like it that way. Especially working class people without an education. Which is to say a formal education, because they have definitely been educated by the propaganda on their phones and TVs.
I really dislike Trump, but if the serfs want him they will get him, and they definitely deserve him.
There is a reason their lives don't get better and it's because they don't want it to get better. The working class, as they are called, are really subservient followers who will never break free of their cult.
We should let them have what they want, which is to suffer as underlings to the wealthy. They like it.
2
All the time, effort and money put into this story and it's pure speculation. How about delving deeply into each candidate's plan for climate control or healthcare or gun legislation? That would help voters decide more than interviewing 89 conservatives about possible Democratic candidates a year before election day. All of this is complete nonsense.
3
This is a political analysis of a sort that would not make sense in any other republic.
Americans are accustomed to the poison they swallow, poured from the oldest constitution in the world, but it is still poison and it is killing us. If we want one country instead of two, we need to abolish the obsolete, unfair Electoral College.
3
These surveys don’t upend anything, they confirm what we already know: Biden has a good chance of beating Trump, and Warren has zero chance of beating Trump. It’s not complicated.
4
It is not my position to meet low information people where they are comfortable. I will promote what is ethical and fair and not bow to not offending those who hold power and priviledge.
Democracies can be wrong and promote terrible policies. I will not lobby for or in support of those positions even if my fellow citizens would rather "take it to the SJWs" as if they are crusaders against justice.
We get a government that reflects what we are.
1
Please vote for Joe Biden. He is the only candidate that can win. He is old yes but compassionate and a decent human being. He knows how to undo all this chaos.
4
After the 2016 election results and the erroneous projected results, can someone explain why people are getting their shirt in a knot a year prior to the 2020 election?
3
That's a lot of chewing over one poll with a 5 percent error rating. And a lot of premature chewing, since we haven't seen any reality yet. So "support" for x means pretty much nothing. Chew away, though. I'm not sure when the newspapers began to think that this is how you report on elections, but there it is.
2
I was expecting real analysis here, except all I really got was a short look at Biden and an extended shot at Warren.
The one line that people were not particularly accepting of some of the more culturally liberal ideas or completely outraged at Trump should be common sense.
Stick to talking about people’s pocketbooks and expenses and a win will come. Leave cultural ideas to society itself and do not try to legislate forced acceptance or pandering to demographics. Nobody wants to hear about reparations, open borders, or how we will prioritize foreigners over citizens. Likewise, Trump was elected and he focused on issues that were relatable to a degree. His execution has been horrible and he is a despicable person, but that does not take away from the fact that globalization and the marriage between the corporate and political state have only harmed the average worker in the US.
3
What a depressing article. I had hoped that Democrats would rally no matter which candidate ran and that more people than not were unhappy about Trump. If that isn't true, and I can't really see which candidate is a "winner" after reading this analysis, then it looks like another four years (or more?) of a very destructive presidency. I like Warren because she is smart and has thought out some darn good plans, not all of which she would be able to bring to fruition in reality. That said, I would vote for one of my cats before I would vote for the current occupant of the White House because I believe that this administration is toxic to its core. Unless I am not an outlier, it looks as if the US is in big trouble.
1
from article, ". Today’s activist left draws its intellectual energy from critiques of capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and structures of domination."
The above is ridiculous phrasing, made to seem incomprehensible and weird... "structures of domination"????
Sanders has been working his entire life to improve the lives and opportunity of ordinary working people.
The colossal and growing income/wealth inequality is obscene, with the richest .1 percent taking in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
There are real reasons why 9 percent of Obama voters voted for Trump.
Obama promised "hope and change", but did not deliver either to ordinary people, and Hillary was certainly not going to.
So they voted for Trump's politically incorrect brashness and talk of real change.
Real change is desperately needed. Facts show that the American ideal of equal opportunity is dead.
Sanders does not divide people into identities, he has always talked about improving the lives of ALL working families.
Having health care for ALL, QUALITY child care for ALL, QUALITY early childhood education for ALL, QUALITY k-12 education for ALL, and tuition free continuing education would begin to create more equal opportunity.
Those ideas are not difficult for people to grasp, and to see the difference they would make in their lives.
Sanders most definitely can beat Trump!
President Sanders 2020!
A Future To Believe In!
11
We are a year out, and yet we are still subjected to these attempts to brainwash people away from the progressive choices.
Hey, even Bill Gates is cool with an extra $20 billion with a B taxes.
2
Warren’s issue remains the same, but I doubt she can change it since she based her entire campaign on that.
She is so far left that she’s nearly off the map.
She cannot turn about now and tell people she’d be willing to compromise because she has been saying ‘my way or no way for months’. She also cannot be seen as a uniter, since her fans are far left Liberals and no one else. She would not appeal to centrist Democrats, much less to any undecided Republican. And she is running on a campaign to raise your taxes, which eliminates every single middle class household living on the edge, where one more bill can cause the house to collapse. Try telling them that their taxes are going up to pay for Liberal Art colleges and illegal’s medicare. Yet she drove her self so far deep in this direction that no one with a brain can support her now.
Bidden is so deeply mired in scandal, in corruption inquiries, in his nepotism, that this is all that the news talks about. If he came out of that, he would be dragged into Obama times scandals (housing crash, Fast and Furious, etc) that happened under his watch in the WH.
The Democrats need a candidate for the closet Trump voters, the kind that will not even tell their own family they voted for Trump.
But so far not one of the 18 is close to being that person.
3
@AutumnLeaf . “Closet” Trump voters will vote for Trump again either in the closet or out. Why would a Democrat be thinking about them? So we can lose some of our own?
Do the polls actually capture the latent resentment for trump that is festering because of recurring events like fraud settlements, one last Friday, one last year and at least one in 2015 or dog whistling to racists or compulsive lies and cringe inducing bragadoccio?
1
The ridiculousness of this point of view is that it's a year before the election. Elizabeth Warren hasn't had the American people's ear with respect to framing herself as an alternative to Donald Trump, only against other democrats. I know that Nate Cohn's reply, and not an unreasonable one, is that this kind of data can historically be very accurate. The problem with that is that there is no history appropriate to a candidate like Trump
1
How, in a 2,000 word piece on electability in the Democratic primary, is the word "Sanders" only mentioned once? I'm a woman of color, a progressive voter, and an avid New York Times reader, but this is the type of reporting that gives credence to the Right's otherwise silly accusation of "fake news."
9
What I'm hearing:
Poor, non-white youth see Trump's popularity as not surprising, since they don't think he made white supremacy "worse," just more obvious.
And the "woke" crowd doesn't impress them because feminism and gay rights aren't priorities in the ghetto.
The disenfranchised won't feel MORE enfranchised by voting for an iconoclast, and voting for a moderate would be a white supremacist in sheep's clothing.
So they just don't see democracy as worth a day in line at the polls.
1
This merely shows that “conventional wisdom” is, once again, remarkably unwise and ill-informed. It’s no wonder.
1
My grandparents were born in Ireland, so I'm gifted with Irish citizenship. If Trump wins, we'll be making a reverse trip "across the pond". No, I won't be disloyal by doing so. I'm a veteran who opposed both Vietnam and Iraq, but I've always recognized that we have legitimate security interests including NATO, Ukraine and northern Syria. Anyone that votes for Trump, for whatever reason, will be rewarding a man who has sold out our security interests in some very sensitive places. Many of trump's voters seem not to care. I do know that the Irish care about their legitimate interests, so I'll feel very comfortable living there.
9
@Bob Burke I’m a vet that feels much the same as you but don’t have the option of leaving the states so good luck I’ll be here opposing the republicans until the day I die.
3
I’d like to ask the devotees of St. Bernie to show us all their data that supports their two giant fallacies: that there’s a Mighty Wave of the Silent Majority a-building out there someplace; that the young folks and progressives and hispanics and whatever that they figure they already have in the bag are gonna turn out this time.
Then I’d like to ask them where they’re hiding the evidence that grandiose plans they’re never gonna get enacted are really gonna move voters the ways that Trump’s blaring appeals to racism and Christian nuttiness move voters.
8
One of the very frustrating things about this article is how it draws so sweeping conclusions from one set of polls. And there are widely varying polls from its results. For instants the same day the times trumpeted it’s doom and gloom results, the Washington post came out with a national poll showing Joe Biden leading by 17, Elizabeth Warren leading by 15 and Bernie Sanders leading by 14. As Nate Cohn, and anyone else who follows these things knows, it is not possible for Violet to be leading by 17 nationally and just a sliver in all of these battleground states. And in Michigan which shows the Democrats really struggling there is a wild variation between that and the Emerson pole of Michigan which shows Biden up by 12, Sanders up by 14 and Warren up by eight. I am not questioning the integrity of the New York Times polls, just the wisdom of hinging a series of doom and gloom articles on one set of polls that may or may not be an outlier.
4
@Mike Z
Was the Washington Post poll projected to the Electoral College count? How did the Democratic candidates do in the EC?
@Robert
Not directly, but Nate Silver at 538 calculates that there is a direct correlation, accounting for how much Bluer or Redder a state is than the nation. So for instance, if Ohio is 5% redder than the Nation as a whole, then Biden would be up by 12% in Ohio. of course, I think the WaPo poll was an outlier, just like I think the Sienna College Polls tend to be bearish on the Dems. Also, let us not forget how dramatically stronger the Dems were in the Emerson Michigan poll than the Sienna Poll, in the field at the same time. And Emerson is hardly a pollster with a pro-Dem house effect. That is why it is important to see polls of individual states from a number of pollsters, not just one poll in one week from one pollster. It is important to note that almost none of the prognostication pundits in 2018 called as big a Blue Wave as happened. But most national polls show the Dems up 8-12 over Trump nationally, even though the field has not been sorted out. I am not recklessly optimistic, and the election may come down to a choice of basic decency and honor versus dollars, since the media narrative is that the economy is very strong. But ironically, those Midwest states have not benefited nearly as much as the Coastal Blue ones...
1
So, it's quite obvious what the Democratic party nominee for President will have to do in order to win: moderate their stand on health care, pledge to work with the financial and technology companies instead of tearing them apart, advocate for gun control measures that are not confiscatory, reform the policies on the borders while standing firmly against illegal border crossing, and stay away from divisive social and cultural leftism. Also, keep the celebrities away!
3
None of these polls means anything. All that matter are the primary voters. Just like it doesnt matter that Trump lost the popular vote, it doesnt matter what these battleground states think until AFTER the Dems have chosen a candidate.
If anyone thinks that anyone is going to care I'd Warren is "too far left" when she is the ONLY way to get Trump out of office you are crazy. If anyone thinks that black people will not vote for Buttigeig if it is a choice between him and Trump you are crazy.
The Dems need to focus on who will DO THE BEST JOB of cleaning up after Trump and putting this country back on track.
It doesnt matter what ANYONE thinks today, it only matters what people think, and how motivates they are to go to the polls, in November 2020.
2
Regarding Hilary Clinton's election loss, it didn't help that she was over confident and failed to visit key swing states like Wisconsin. Over confidence also bred arrogance. She was invited to speak at a forum at Notre Dame University, an event often attended by Presidents, including Obama. The response of her campaign: "We see no benefit in reaching out to White Catholics." Ouch!
6
Unless Democrats take back Senate, it does not matter even if a Democrat miraculously wins WH. That said trump will win because of the economy.
2
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Blessed are those who do not see yet believe. To those who believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1
After Nate Cohn's "Hillary Clinton 84% likely to win" claim on Nov 7th 2016, it's real hard to take his polling analysis as credible. That's even if the NYTimes did the polling.
The election is a year away. Hillary Clinton polled well, and she still had to have the nomination "won" for her. She also polled well against Trump.
In Nov 2015, most TV and press opinion supposed that Trump wouldn't win the republican nomination, let alone the presidency.
5
He couldn't have predicted Comey.
1
@mr :
Comey released the letter BEFORE Cohn made his Dewey Defeats Truman claim. No need for Cohn to predict it. He was just grossly wrong.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of the Comey letter. She lost because she was a deeply unpopular candidate who took "her" win for granted in 6 swing states in which she slightly lead Trump in polls. She didn't bother to run strong ground games in most of those states, whereas Obama most certainly did in close states in 2012. She'd only needed to win 3 or 4 of those states, but only won one.
Earlier in the fall of 2016, Donna Brazile, interim head of the DNC, warned team Clinton that they needed much stronger on the ground campaigns in Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Ms Brazile was ignored.
Hillary's choices, her defense of Wall Street, the fact that Trump ran to her left in the general election, and won debates 2 and 3 told 2X Obama voters to "vote Trump or stay home". Many heeded her call.
2
What a frightening set of conclusions concerning Americans. After all Trump has done nationally and internationally, all has said, the coldness he projects, his corruption, his laziness, and his unwillingness the do his job, Trump still has strong support. Americans will get the leadership they deserve, all of us.
I’m an Arizona Democrat who frequently visit the Bay Area. One of the most off-putting and arrogant attitudes I get from (some) Bay Area progressives is that it’s “not their job” to persuade moderate and independent voters. And that it’s “not their job” to explain to the “unenlightened” such arcane, academic and very divisive notions of “white privilege”. And that they don’t “need” older white swing voters to win the election. That they need only to “activate” the youth voters.
So my response to them is: “Then it’s “not my job” to explain why Trump will win the 2020 election and as a result, by 2024, the United States will have a 7-2 right wing packed Supreme Court.”
6
More hairsplitting of hairsplitting from times pollsters. In a country where elections are decided by 0.4 percent of the votes what are you actually polling here, 20 or 30 voters in your categories of this but not that? In the end we’ll see elections decided by one guy in rural Minnesota and the nyt can write from page stories about him for years before each election.
2
Aqui? I guess it’s payback time.
I'd like to see a Biden and Klobucher ticket. i think it could win the Rust Belt states.
3
Please stop using “likeability” when discussing Warren. You don’t use that as a qualifier for Biden. Why do women have to be likable but men don’t? It smacks of sexism.
Once the Dems have selected a candidate, then most will hop onto that train, in effect combining the poll numbers.
4
@Martha Wiley
Because sadly, that's reality. See the 2016 election.
In the meantime the democratic primaries are becoming a joke with everyone and anyone with lot of time and money jumping into the pool.
1
Perhaps the poll showing in Arizona reflects on the President’s attacks on the native son John McCain.
1
I think the polls are asking the wrong questions. The ones you ask are too tame to really gauge the current atmosphere.
Here’s some:
“Do you believe Trump is crazy”
“Would you vote for an impeached President “
“Would you want to work with Trump as your Boss, then why elect him as the Boss of the US”
“Do you believe there is a better Republican candidate than Trump”
“Do you think Trumps behavior is representative of your own behavior “
8
Mr. Cohn knows better.
—> This is a mountain on analysis based on a foundation of quicksand. <—
1. Each state in the poll had only a couple hundred respondents. So, the results had LARGE margins of error. Most findings fell within them, so the leading candidates performed comparably.
2. Any researcher worth his salt knows once you drill into data by subgroups—e.g., less educated whites—the margins of error are even LARGER and any conclusions even more suspect. A key problem is there are *fewer* respondents in any subgroup. Even finer breakdowns, say, white, high school males will have so few respondents, the margins of error will be GIGANTIC.
3. Response rates on surveys these days are abysmal. Most people do not answer and those who do are unrepresentative. The only way to get even semi-plausible results is to *weight* the samples, i.e., adjust the findings to mirror known demographics in a state. That is a fraught process.
4. Those models are crucial to having faith in the results. Pollsters often use *past* turnout rates, but in today's political climate, with voter suppression and massive registration drives, such results can be way off.
5. The 6-state poll was taken in mid-to-late October, before major impeachment developments, so it doesn't reflect current beliefs.
7. Any poll taken 3 months before the first primary is unreliable.
8. Any poll taken over a year before an election is UTTERLY MISLEADING!
In short, Cohn is writing fiction!
3
Come on NYT!
These polling articles are really the definition of “fake news”.
Your polls had Hilary up by 6 points going into the election and predicted a Democratic victory.
How did that work out?
Polls are too unpredictable and only take the measure in a thin sliver of time. They are useful up to a point, but the endless articles referencing polls are really not useful for voters.
4
What is missing from this anti-left analysis is that the Times, along with the rest of corporate media, has skewed the results with their coverage of 'extreme left' views. As there are no progressive op-ed writers at the times, their coverage of Bernie is either negative or non-existant, and their inability to see their own Heisenbergian effect on the polling they take is not there, it is impossible for any of the people they're trying to convince to hear their words.
If the Times continues to believe its own anti-progressive bias, and believes itself to be the sage centrist, then none of these passive-aggressive tactics will work.
9
@Andrew G
Paul Krugman, Michelle Goldberg, Frank Bruni, Charles Blow, to name a few progressive columnists.
1
Depressing and inducing hopelessness
2
what deebee said up in Rochester, Minnesota
1
I REALLY wish we'd get MORE articles clearing outlining and comparing candidates' actual positions on the very real issues that face the nation, and LESS opining speculations or poll-driven commentary!
What ever happened to actual NEWS?
5
Fewer will likely "give it a pass" in 2020; the stakes are sky high from almost everyone's point of view. The writer shows the prez election will be close, all the way to Nov 2020. So, I guess I will continue my e-subscription to NYT for another year!
1
I would vote for Warren perhaps, stay home for Biden.
2
@Sean
So you're OK with Trump winning another term?
@Sean: If you “stay home” for any Democratic opponent of Trump, you are complicit in the destruction of America’s position in the world.
1
To Sean
Will refuse to vote for Biden should he be the nominee? And thereby helping Trump win in 2020.
Let me ask you this, how would letting Trump select another two Supreme Court Justices and letting him pack the Federal judiciary for another four years help progressive causes for the next 30 year?
2
All this polling really shows is that, as usual, the Democratic Party's quadrennial firing squad is forming a nice circle.
6
I wonder how all this breaks down under the true American political parties of America: The party of The News Hour and the party of Fox News.
Good piece as always
Frankly, I’ve decided to forgo NYT assessments and predictions regarding elections after the last debacle.
8
If Democrats go with an angry far-lefty from New England (Sanders) or an elite far-lefty from New England (Warren) then Trump will almost certainly be reelected — which would be a disaster for America.
8
If democrats will try to please moderate republicans, leaving behind far left, then they definitely will lose as they did in 2016.
3
Another year of this endless focus on the sliver of the population that actually decides presidential races in the US. So tiring, and so pathetic. We need to fix the rot. Abolish the electoral college, automatic registration... etc etc. etc. !!!
3
Maybe mention the candidate that ran in 2016 and is running now and has a huge following? His name rhymes Bernie Sanders
4
So this means that only Biden has a shot?
Until there is an actual Democratic candidate all these columns by "experts" and polls are just click bait.
7
This is a read it and weep article.
6
@KF2 i read it as a rehash of the nate silver , john barbaro convo from the daily last week.
Between now and the election there is time enough to reshuffle the deck over and over. Wild cards constantly being turned over creates entirely unpredictable dynamics.
No mention of Pete Buttigieg, the current front-runner in Iowa? The Times seems to be missing the story here.
8
Dear Mr. Cohn,
It's curious that your article totally omits referencing the third of the three Dem front runners, Bernie Sanders, this despite the fact that the article to which you linked, written by you, describing the very poll that is also the focus of your present article shows him performing better against Trump than one of the other three front runners you do mention.
Sincerely,
GS
9
My theory is that the economy has been drawing more and more people from rural areas and small towns to metropolitan areas for over 100 years. In the 1960's, Kevin Phillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority that cited the growth of the suburbs as the future base of the Republican Party. But, today, the suburbs are becoming economically and culturally more identified with their urban centers, suburban millennials often go to college and pick up left wing social thinking, and the result is more Democratic voters in the suburbs, especially women. Since Democrats have a growing demographic base and Republicans have a shrinking demographic base, it does seem important for Democrats to: a) avoid alienating moderate voters in the suburbs, and b) generate positive excitement that can produce a large turnout of a larger potential demographic base.
3
Senator Moynihan argued for federal money for welfare and mass transit because states like New York contributed far more than their pro rata share to the federal budget than they received in federal spending which overwhelmingly went to southern states for military bases.
But if we eliminate all unnecessary federal spending, and recognize that the military budget is now largely spent for high tech weapons that are as likely to be spent in states like New York I believe that the enlightened states would receive a huge dividend.
Eliminate federal support for rural electrification and high speed internet. Eliminate federal subsidies for health care. If people in Georgia and Mississippi want to die from rickets, that is their constitutional right. I believe that would provide enlightened states more than enough money to deal with our problems.
9
An article that does not include Bernie Sanders is beside the point. Isn't it clear that the votes for progressives--that is, Sanders and Warren--are clearly much greater than the votes for Biden, the moderate.
13
@dan
Then the sad news is that Bernie loses the General Election and America dies of Trumpism.
2
I feel these poll results imply that the Democrats need a different standard-bearer than someone who is ideologically determined to go-for-broke and roll the dice with our nation's fate as the stakes. Unfortunately Senators Sanders and Warren are simply much too risky. Her mandatory Medicare for All Plan is simply an albatross in too many of the crucial swing states. I'm still hoping she will recognize this political reality and tack a little towards the center--after all it's still early in the race. As for Bernie, he obviously will stick to the far left and would produce a McGovern scale debacle.
19
@Zenith If Warren tacks to center, she loses a lot of Bernie's supporters and looks weak and uncommitted. She's already so timid and politically unskilled--or poorly advised--that she's failed to employ one of the best methods of selling a tricky item like single payer and its tax consequences. I'm not going to detail it because I don't support her and I'm pretty confident she won't be the nominee anyway.
Democrats have got to get out of their smug, self-affirming bubbles and start listening to what real people on the other side think and feel. It takes some time for them to be comfortable enough to talk. They have to trust you. They're not speaking up in mixed company because they won't risk being subjected to sneering and shaming from so-called liberals, who are anything but in reality.
Sadly, I see 2016 happening all over again when I read the comments to articles like this. Get over being incredulous that some would vote "against their best interests" and take the time to find out WHY.
1
The problem with all this discussion of conservative vs. progressive Democrats is that in the end, its beside the point. I'm sorry to say, but not a single one of the Democratic candidates have the uplifting personality and character -- charisma, if you will -- that is needed to carry the day.
20
@Artis give me a candidate of substance above 'charisma' and I will take that person with open arms and an open mind.
We have seen where charisma takes us. In the USA Reagan had it, look at the damage he did to the USA, with his Reaganomics, you're still paying the price today.
In the UK we had Thatcher, she destroyed whole communities in the UK, pitting family against family (sound famikiar?)
Tony Blair took us into the Iraq war which was the seed of ISIS, I saw him speak, very charism atic.
Before Kenned y, the first TV president with his huge charisma and vigor (a l ie, he was a very sick man) politicians were judged on substance mostly.
I don't want slick and ins piring, I want integrity and policies that favour the working man and woman not the bilkionaires.
Many in the USA are massively inspired by candidates Warren, Sanders, Har ris, and were by Beto.
Y ou assume because they don't float your boat, they have no charisma. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place.
To be fair, I would vote for a stuffed moose rather than allow the disaster that is trump cause 4 more years of catastrophic damage.
Beware the shiny arti cle, all that glitters is not gold, and fools gold is well named.
2
Because that is totally what empowered Trump's ascendancy and his uplifiting message is a a wonder for the world.
But nah. Its the democrats that need to sell themselves and pretty themselves up.
2
@Artis I might agree, but if charisma was so important, how did Trump get elected? Any charm he has is superficial, and most of the time he's a bully. A segment of the population will always gravitate to tyrants, unfortunately.
1
What was the sample size of this poll?
How was it conducted?
What is the margin of error?
As others here have asked what was the methodology?
I am a resident of NC - and while I am Independent/center left, I think I can say with certainty a “left/progressive” Democratic Candidate will not carry this state. The softer language of a Klobuchar or Booker would go farther to that end.
11
Also in NC here and in my area (deep red), I've seen multiple Sanders bumper stickers (Onslow County went overwhelmingly for Trump too)...so the progressive message is resonating. I do agree on needing more information regarding the polling conducted for this piece because we also need to factor in how NC implemented voter ID requirements and how the state is gerrymandered to the point of not even being a "democratic government institution" and certainly not a "representative democracy."
17
@Flea we had lots of voters in Florida the last time who before the primaries talked about voting for either Trump or Bernie. I saw some of their cars with Bernie bumper stickers, and them Trump after the primaries. I can’t understand this myself, but it was the case.
5
These polls are useless in determining how well each Democratic candidate would do against Trump. Right now, they aren't running against Trump, they are running against each other.
A Biden supporter has a huge incentive to claim to a pollster that they would support Trump over all of the candidates except Biden. Similarly, supporters of the other candidates can claim to pollsters that only their candidate would have their support. It only takes a handful of people doing this to skew the results. And since Biden leads the polls, this would have the effect of magnifying that lead as well.
30
Why didn't the poll include more candidates in a head-to-head poll? The poll chose the 3 leading candidates in the primary polls, but the concern behind electability is exactly that the primary polls don't reflect the actual strength of the candidates in a head-to-head election vs trump.
The Democratic Party needs to project inclusiveness and openness, and journalistic coverage cannot be separated from that need. If coverage Democratic leaning journals is regionally biased it will unavoidably damage the perception of inclusiveness and openness of the Democratic Party itself.
5
Well, the polls were severely amiss in the 2016 election, even right up to the end, so I don’t put a lot of stock in them, especially at this early stage. But I’m pulling for Biden.
11
@RJH The national polls were accurate. In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump was within the margin of error
1
Someone should do a poll on how people feel about the candidates, regardless of their positions. It might be astonishing.
23
I find it curious that the article mentions Warren 18 times, and Sanders only once (and that negatively), despite Sanders polling better than Warren in the battleground states this article is about (See "Polling the Battlegrounds" chart in the article).
132
Sigh.
It’s because the only times that anybody’s leading more than the margin of error, it’s Biden, Trump or Warren.
A two-point lead means zip. Please learn how to read a poll; if you wanna Bernie-cheer, just say that he’s running far higher than Joe Biden likesto think about.
2
@S. Pucci You find it curious? I find it typical.
10
@S. Pucci
the blackout continues.
Its becoming comical.
10
The most important point this Upshot writer makes is the one that describes today's activists whose ideologies emanate from academia (I count myself among those). We wonder why so many in this country vote against their own self-interests. After all, we've all read Marx who argued that the revolution would emerge out of the proletariat's righteous anger. But, things were different in the 19th century and Marx couldn't predict 21st century global economics and the hold that fundamental religion would exert on the working person. I'm afraid that progressive Democrats are preaching to the small sliver of the already converted, although I desperately hope that I am proven wrong.
36
@JH - it's good that you are realizing that. The article makes it clear that a lot of people, including those the Democrats assume are votes they own, are not engaged in politics. They aren't looking to Washington to change their lives.
Remember, please, that the sweeping legislative victories made by progressives in the past were during times when there was something very much lacking right now - big Democratic majorities in House and Senate.
I'm a center-left independent who's going to vote against Trump no matter who runs, but I know other independents, including former Republicans, who'd be torn if they had to choose between Trump and the more progressive candidates currently in the running.
I'd prefer if the Democrats went for a more incremental approach. Fix gaps in Obamacare rather than overturn it AND employer plans, for example. Help states better adapt a number of climate and clean energy steps, don't insist that it's a revolution. Not that I disagree with some of the more progressive goals, but realistically, the makeup of the House and Senate should help govern what you run on.
50
@JH
I think you're right, they are preaching to the choir. They don't even want the members out in the pews to utter a dissonant note. I've always been rather liberal, even before it was popular; however, my experiences with liberal ideologues has been very negative.
Example: standardized testing in schools. I agree that it isn't the be all, end all. I agree that its over rated and over used. However, standardized tests provide valid data for teachers and administrators, if the test reflects what is being taught. This slight deviation in ideology made me a pariah. The preaching of tolerance was there but so were the waves of hate at my betrayal.
8
I wish more people (maybe event the candidates themselves?) would make your point: Congress writes and passes laws. Warren, Sanders or any of the other candidates may not be able to get a Medicare for All unless both the Senate and House are Democrat-controlled. In some ways, this has given some historical balance to the Presidency as it is rare to have a majority and presidency controlled by one party. What this means to me is that election platforms are to be taken as a “wish list” rather than a concrete roadmap. I don’t love the idea of losing my private insurance but the chances of that happening, or happening abruptly without some sort of transition are not actually that high. Let’s not freak out people! Look beyond to what the candidates are actually saying: I care about the wellbeing of the poor and middle class and want to lessen their burden. Now look at the subtext of Trump’s message: I pander to the wealthy and dictators and love nepotism.
Curious to hear Nate’s thoughts on how proactive voter suppression by the GOP in some of these battleground states informed the polling data and/or informs his conclusions of the data.
25
@T. Barrett
The intent of this article seems to me to depress Dems and energize the opposition. I think I’ll stick to 538.
Democrats must / should have ranked choice primaries. That way for example, the Bernie/ Warren vote is not split, and we would get the person the majority of Americans desire, to be on the presidential ticket. What a nice change that would be, and what our founders intended.
91
@Nell Eakin
The primaries don't involve the majority of Americans.
2
Thank you. As noted previously, this is exactly the information and analysis that is most relevant to the presidential election. There are many people that are deluded by the often-cited wide Democratic advantage in the nationwide polls. Nate Cohn continues to emphasize the more relevant polling in battleground states and he stresses the natural advantage of the incumbent. The election shapes up to be very, very close. This type of outstanding analysis offers some important clues about potential winning strategies.
20
If I may immodestly but accurately say this, I'm highly educated (Ph.D.), and I have supported Warren all along, as do many of my equally "highly educated" friends...both black and white.
But then, I live in New York City, a pleasantly blue place.
64
@Robin Cunningham Then you better be sure and send your dollars to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Get Out The Vote there, shouldn't you? Work hard, the election will turn on YOU and YOUR dollars.
Google a worthy cause in those 3 states, be it groups fighting Voter ID laws, or huge GOTV operation of the DNC and give give give!
5
@Robin Cunningham
The blue tint may be the only pleasant thing about NYC.
2
@Robin Cunningham M.D. here and fully supporting Warren and Sanders
1
When Americans talk about right and left in politics, they usually separate the two based on whether private enterprise or the public sector is best suited to provide better lives for the middle class.
American politics since Reagan has featured two parties solidly on the right. Private enterprise is far preferred. Government interference is to be avoided.
It’s little wonder that a politician who challenges this philosophy is considered strange. But before she’s discarded as too far left, we should examine how well the conventional wisdom is working.
Americans have failed to notice that in other developed countries, the middle class has fared much better lately. Their citizens don’t worry that an illness will bankrupt them. They don’t have to take out huge loans so their children can get a college education. They have money salted away to support them comfortably in retirement. They have better infrastructure.
The lives of the middle class in these countries has improved while in America it’s become harder. The reason for this is no secret. Other countries have invested in systems that benefit their people.
America made a different choice. It invested in corporations and “job creators” in the hope the prosperity they created filtered down to everyone else. This hasn’t worked out as planned. Someone who understands this and offers solutions that put the wellbeing of the country’s people first should not be dismissed out of hand.
216
@Robert C. Hinkley
That is not what Nate has said. You need to stop being reactionary and listen to what he says in the article. He argues that the election will be quite a challenge for progressives BASED on polling, and dismisses no one.
"Real solutions" may have nothing to do with who gets elected President. Moreover, if the solutions are packaged as "Democratic Socialism", Trump will win. If the same solutions are posed as "Socially Democracy", Democrats may have a chance. Progressives are being so rigid- and it will lose them the election.
12
@Robert C. Hinkley Other countries are doing better because they don't have Republicans who are interested only in tax cuts for the rich, putting neanderthals on the Federal bench and spending money only on the military
5
@Robert C. Hinkley This is a nice expatiation that doesn't change the poll numbers.
1
Seniors who currently benefit and love Medicare may not like the Sanders idea that they will have to pay higher taxes for what they already have and risk Medicare may get diluted when expansion takes place
14
@Bob R Maybe they'll just have to become good citizens.
1
@Bob R except that they DO NOT have to pay more taxes and will not have to accept any sort of "dilution". Those are just Putin lies. And I am not a Sanders fan. I dislike his base intensely.
On the other side of the age spectrum, young healthy adults with few medical expenses probably will not like their taxes going up either since they will not see a “net” benefit.
If in fact, the Democrats need to select a moderate, I would rather it be Klobuchar than Biden, who inspires no energy from anyone I know. A Klobuchar/Booker ticket might be nice. I prefer Elizabeth Warren's positions and think she would be a great President but I doubt she can win the general.
59
@Mary If you had ever personally worked with Elizabeth Warren, you would have realized after not too long that she is arrogant and somewhat rigid.
1
@Mary
Totally. Upper Midwestern moderate plus idealistic black man. Something for everyone!
3
@Mary
Is THAT what you gathered from the write up and the data here? Because what I heard is that it really doesn't matter. Absent an economic downturn, Trump is going to win either way. We won't win the Sunbelt on a youth and minority strategy, and even Joe Biden won't attract the old working class, to say nothing of Klobuchar, Harris, Booker, Bloomberg, or Patrick.
That's what I heard.
The next poll I would like to see in these swing states is one involving possible president/vice president tickets. A Biden/ Harris one would be enticing, similarly Sanders/Klobuchar, and the one that could be the most interesting: Warren with a moderate as her running mate such as ex Ohio governor John Kasich, or perhaps Michael Bennett. Each Democratic contender needs a counterweight. Age with youth, progressive paired with centrist. On the other hand: if Trump were to dump Pence for Nikki Haley in 2020, all bets are off.
8
@Rick Morris
Based on Nikki's talk show rollout tour of her book, that might be exactly what she is angling for . . . .
1
@Rick Morris Agree. I always thought Trump would dump Pence, unless he takes the spear for the impeachment mess. Haley always seemed like a better choice for Trump.
1
@Rick Morris Kasich is a Republican. There's a much better VP choice from Ohio for Warren, and that is Sen. Sherrod Brown.
1
So we lose?? Two things these polls fail to take into account.
One would be the nature of a campaign in which the Democrat is battling Trump directly rather than having to battle the nine other people on the stage. And hopefully it would be a candidate who would unite all the disparate parts within the Democratic tent. To that extent, comparisons to Hillary's campaign seem pointless. She had a lot of personal baggage and she could never gain complete support of Sanders voters, let alone independent voters. Plus, of course, the extent of the Constitute-shredding trump presidency wasn't yet clear to everyone.
Two, nobody knows how all the weeks of public impeachment hearings will further weaken trump. Maybe the near-daily attacks will not weaken his base support, but they could convince swing-staters that there's really no there there for them.
55
@Steve On the one hand I agree. Statements from Cohn that Warren only beats Trump with 5% instead of Bidens 8% amongst college educated mixed raced plumber who also dropped out of college while being weedsmokers who are lukewarm on abortion but enthusiastic Marriage equality supporters ....... seem facetious.
Yes, I exaggerate. But like the other Nate says: Don't get lost in the cross tabs. It's about the only good thing he says.
1
There's a deep irony that so many in Arizona oppose the idea of single payer system given that so many in the state rely on Medicare.
Perhaps the Dems need to run an ad campaign that says "Medicare, a single payer medical system, brought to you by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and saved, again and again, by the Democratic Party -- a political party committed to helping older Americans."
Forget focusing on the candidates. The party should be running on programs and platforms. Americans should know the political origins and supporters of the programs so critical to their lives
441
@historyprof
I don't see that as an irony at all. Retirement-age people are differently situated from working-age people. That's why Medicare was created.
2
@historyprof
Retired people are the epitome of "I've got mine" and are unwilling to do anything to help others. Of course they don't want any more tax money going to single payer. It's the same reason they don't vote to support funding increases in school in districts they live in. Their kids already went there, so why should they contribute now?
People without a stake in the future shouldn't be allowed to vote.
6
You make a fantastic point. And the idea for the ad is spot on.
8
I think Liz Warren is just not explaining the advantages of single payer well. She's not making the case that businesses and people are already paying high premiums and deductibles, which would be driven down by both government price negotiation and the elimination of profit and executive compensation in the health insurance industry.
In short, it should be an easy case to make, that people's will pay higher taxes, but less money overall because it would negate even higher health care costs. For some reason, nobody is saying this. I don't understand why. That's all she should be saying about it. Over and over again.
55
@Justin I think she has said that over and over. But she is reluctantly saying that it will raise taxes because then she'll be pasted as a Taxachusetts Left wing Liberal by Trump. I heard her say, in last debate, overall costs will go down, but she could not bring herself to use the Tax word.
8
@Justin I agree. If her argument was framed in takehome pay, instead of taxes, she wins the argument because that's how the math works. We compared our paycheck stubs with European friends in similar fields receiving similar pay. They have MORE TAKEHOME PAY because we have much more withholding for taxes and "benefits." This is likely the same math for most middle and upper-middle-income people. Lower-income people may have different math, but it probably involves less security in healthcare and retirement.
Despite an upper middle income, healthcare premiums of $15,000 per year plus $7500 annual deductible, I could go bankrupt if I come down with the wrong illness.
I'm really baffled that businesses, small and large, wouldn't want to get out of the business of being a healthcare provider. Or why anyone would think that a healthcare system that answers to shareholder's profit motives is a good idea. Pre-1973, we didn't think it was a good idea, either. Allowing heathcare to be for-profit (Nixon in 1973) was a wrong turn and we should right that ship NOW.
20
@Justin
If Bernie Sanders can't get unions to buy into a Cadillac tax, how is he or Warren or anyone else going to get them, and everyone else happy with their health care, to go for single-payer when it will mean for those with the best plans they will have to make do with less?
There is so much else to talk about that unifies most people against Trump— the environment, poor public schools, high college tuition costs, infrastructure spending, and borrowing to pay for tax cuts— that I am bewildered by candidates' unwillingness or inability to get away from this sinkhole and just talk about getting the ACA back to where it was on January 20, 2017.
10
They polled about Medicare for all. Why didn't they poll about raising taxes on the wealthy? To me it is polling on the most divisive issue for candidates like Warren and Sanders while leaving out the most compelling. I could easily see Warren next year talking about the raw deal the working and middle class has gotten from the GOP and their wealthy backers (and candidate) and that it's time to make them pay. That is an argument that would appeal to those less educated voters along with minority voters.
29
I don't think the problem is that polling is doubling down on the divisive issue of MFA, but that Warren herself is doubling down and digging in. It's a losing strategy, and makes me question her political acumen. Which is upsetting because she was my candidate. My doubts grow.
37
@Nellea That's exactly where I am. I really like Warren, both as a policymaker and a person, but by pushing Medicare for All so hard and digging in her heels on the cost/tax issue, she's turned off a good number of voters, including some progressives like myself. I still hope that she will somehow recover.
1
As a moderate swing voter, my objection to Warren that for every problem that needs solving, she proposes a new law or a new government agency. She would turn the USA into something like France, where the government controls everything and there is no job creation. Would an Apple, which started in Steve Job's family garage, have ever begun in France? Of course not.
9
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the last of their kind. There are no more "rags to riches" stories in the US. The wealthy is a small club and they have successfully closed the door to new members. Big business is not going to help us. We need to do that ourselves. To do that we need our government to work for we the people and not exclusively for corporate America, which is what we have now.
47
@badodds Very true. I've work for corporate 500 company and each year they keep cutting hours and others benefits. Now for holidays they want us to do pot luck and on doctors appreciating days they tell us aka associates to do pot luck. Corporate don't care about you, they always find ways cut cut expenses like now fulltime employees only gets 30 hours a week. How can peoples survive on this. We need to find ways for corporations to pay more tax so employees pays less in healthcare.
11
@Bill France has a very robust "Silicone Valley." It's located in the South, near Nice and the lovely coast. They have the finest healthcare system in the world, and the word entrepreneur is French.
Deregulation has been a hideous disaster for the US, with for-profit medicine, for-profit prisons, and banks gambling with our pensions, mortgages, and 401k's.
Capitalism requires regulation to protect the interests of the many against the profit for the few, at the expense of the many. (paraphrase from Star Trek: Wrath of Khan). What Warren proposes is actually not that radical, it's more like turning the clock back to Nixon and/or Eisenhower.
16
Oh, i'd be less sanguine about the election if every pollster didn't always hedge their bet.
Used to be polls reported the methodology, the sample size, the exact questions and any trends and the margin of error.
Now it seems polls are run by media/entertainment organizations that mostly test the penetration of their editorial opinion.
If Fox calls something hot pink and then a poll measures "hot pink" it's more a clue about Fox's audience than about color preferences.
24
Quality comment.
You write about those who "support the president’s tax reform." Can we please be a bit more precise in our language here?
First, it would be better categorized as Ryan and McConnell's tax bill, as it was a standard GOP tax legislation - again - that robs the Treasury and gives that money to the richest people and makes middle class people make up the slack today and also tomorrow.
Second, can you please stop calling it "reform?" Call it a "scam" or a "scheme" or a "con" or if you must, just "legislation." But "reform" implies some sort of good-government policy, and there has never been a GOP tax scheme that hasn't enabled the one policy that all Republicans always agree on, and have effectively achieved for the past 40 years: increasing income inequality.
267
These articles on polling so often lack any explanation of methodology. Why? Perhaps an in-depth explanation of whom was polled and how might run the risk of calling attention to how little the youth vote is represented, which tends to favor Bernie Sanders to a degree that seems uncomfortable to the powers that be.
Also, note how infrequently the Climate Crisis is mentioned, an issue that happens to be one of the primary sources of Sanders' support, as well as one of the top concerns of Democratic voters. Take a look at past debates; he notes the emergency of our collapsing ecosystem at seemingly every opportunity he is (stingily) allotted. Sanders has earned people's trust because he speaks up for what is morally imperative. That is the reason he has my vote.
36
@Waabananang Bernie has my vote too. And, I believe many of these polls showing various demographic groups supporting a Wall Street Democrat instead of a Progressive Democrat, reflect the impact of the constant media drumbeat of the "unelectability" of a Sanders or Warren. I do not believe that most of those folks would vote for Trump or stay home, if a Progressive Democrat were nominated, anymore than I believe progressives like me would vote for Trump or stay home if Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Patrick or Klobuchar were the Wall Street Democrat nominee.
18
There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost but I believe the most crucial reason was that everyone thought she would win. Even Trump thought that. He didn’t even write an acceptance speech!
That complacency I believe was the difference maker. This will not happen again.
106
This is important stuff.
I am a Warren voter through and through. But my relatives in Missouri, North Carolina, Maine and Colorado, all active voters, tell me that she won't succeed in their states.
Part of the problem is that few folks in swing states have had the chance, as I have, to hear the candidates in person. Other than Sanders, I have seen and met every major Democratic candidate.
I'm not sure of the right answer for this election, but I am quite clear that the current primary schedule does not serve the process well. For the 2024 election, we should have a better mix of states to start the primary season.
17
When I read this article, I always believe that those who get the most affected by the elections don't show up to actually cast a ballot. This is sad but so true. The apathy is appalling. I vote to protect my best interest and it break my heart to realize that those who will "suffer" the most, just decide to give it a pass.
61
@TheniD They think its a waste of time as "AZ is such a Red state" even if it isn't necessarily true
Exactly correct! It’s so frustrating when those that will benefit the most, those that we support policy for don’t come out to vote. Obama went out on a limb for many and many didn’t vote. Gofigure..
@TheniD
I agree that voter apathy is a huge problem especially for the Democratic Party, with millions who didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t believe their lives would be any different under President Clinton vs Trump. I hope enough of them realize their mistake by next year to ensure that does not happen again.
What I struggle with even more than that, is the voter that is educated on the issues but protested the 2016 election because they felt Sanders was cheated the nomination. I understand the frustration, and understand if they felt a need to protest, but how is subjecting the world to 4 years of Trumpian climate change denial in action (among his other policies that make the world less inhabitable) a responsible means of protest? How does an ultra progressive that supports Sanders & the Green New Deal look someone from the next generation in the eye and say, “I’m sorry that I contributed to the acceleration of the destruction of the planet. But, I had to do SOMETHING to demonstrate my displeasure with the DNC!” Meanwhile, some of these same Sanders supporters are already planning to sit out in 2020 if Biden is the nominee.
With what is at stake today, sitting out the election because the candidate’s positions aren’t left enough is not taking the moral high ground - it’s infantile and cowardly. Vote D so we can live to see another day, and keep pushing the center to the left.
2
Moderates win.
Also people who lay out a vision without too many details because everything is going to have to change anyway once in office.
The wealth tax is quite popular actually if it's kept simple.
And, let's remember, this is one poll.
I've seen its main conclusions contradicted by other polls already.
So, certainty is elusive.
We need a decent, slightly progressive (because Americans lean left on the major issues) candidate upon whom Americans can project their hopes and their own decency.
Candidates are like canvasses.
We paint ourselves and our dreams onto them. They should be a bit gauzy and allow us to imagine and aspire.
As Mario Cuomo said, "Campaign in poetry, govern in prose."
Warren, Sanders… too much prose… repetitive, off-putting at times.
Let's hear a reassuring message that heals our wounded American soul.
The contrast to the evil one will be like water in the desert.
43
@Paul King
Healing America's wounded soul...
I'd start with doing something about the embarrassing, colossal and growing income/wealth inequality, where the richest .1 percent take in over 188 times the income of the bottom 90 percent.
The majority of Americans need and want change, not reasurrance of the status quo.
Sanders' integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage will enthuse more Americans to vote.
With a Sanders presidency there will be "A Future To Believe In", not miracles, but a real change in the trajectory of America towards a more fair, equal, sustainable and thriving society and economy.
Sanders will beat Trump.
12
Excellent point about campaigns vs governance. I was all in on Warren but doubling down on MFA is a losing campaign strategy. It frightens many, and it can't happen in any version of reality anyway. She may as well run on Unicorns for all. I do disagree with your opening sentence though. Moderate Democrats win, yes. But Moderate Republicans lose. It gives the GOP little incentive to be reasonable.
7
Mayor Pete to the rescue!
4
As some commenters have already pointed out, this article is heavy on verbal "analysis" but light on quantitative evidence. Overall it seems premature to draw these conclusions. Let's see how things look after a few primaries. As far as I can see, Hillary in PA in 2016 had nothing like Obama's organization on the ground in 2008, and her supporters had nothing like the enthusiasm that Obama generated. I know, because I saw and participated in both campaigns. Lesson: getting enthusiastic folks to work hard to get out the vote will make the crucial difference for the Democrats in 2020 vs. 2016. Biden and the other blah "moderates" just can't do it.
30
@J Johnson
Like McGovern? Your position is not really supported by past elections. Winners usually get strong support from both arms of their parties.
Think about electability as math:
Appeal to base voters
+ Appeal to swing voters
+ Ability to raise money
- Likelihood of demotivating base voters
- Likelihood of repelling swing voters
By this formal, Democrats' most electable candidates are Cory Booker and Kamala Harris--relatively young Senators of color whose mainstream-ish views don't scare Wall Street and have plausible pitches to persuadable whites, many of whom already supported Obama.
Instead, we're likely to nominate either Biden, a proven lousy presidential candidate who seems to be losing his fastball, or Warren/Bernie, whose views guarantee that the corporate media will demonize them.
I find Warren enormously compelling as a brilliant policy thinker who's politically fearless. (Bernie, less so.) But a utilitarian perspective--that our first priority must be to end the tangible and spiritual harm Trump does every day--suggests we need to nominate Harris or Booker. I wish I had more faith that either could win--not in November, but in February/March.
5
@Fred DiChavis. I suggest the Democrats stick their necks out for once and stick _to_ their principles. It’s not like the Republicans ever spend much time thinking about which of their candidates will appeal to Democrats. Granted: appealing to an imaginary past is an easier sell than an imagined future. I’ve been a political moderate all my life but after 2016 I am done with that. When Democrats choose candidates based on a sort of check-list of features design to appeal to “the other side”, it never works out for us (Dukakis, Kerry). Going too Establishment doesn’t work out well either. Vote for the candidate with a destination we agree with and a good road map for getting us there. If we lose, we lose. Why do we think it’s OUR responsibility if Trump gets another 4? It’ll be the responsibility of every person who voted for him or who opted not to vote at all. If the country took a chance on the utterly unqualified Trump, they can take a chance on any one of the candidates from our side. Who would have ever thought he was “electable”— until he was elected?
@Fred DiChavis How is Warren politically fearless? She let Bernie push policies like M4A and didn't endorse him in 2016, and now swoops in and appropriates his whole platform. Also Harris and Booker are both wall street suckups, just like Hillary, and just like Hillary they'd both lose.
1
Persona, not platform: that’s the lesson of this analysis, and it’s consistent with election results over the past four decades.
When Democrats have won, they offered appealing and articulate candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Carter won in 1976 only because he ran against Ford, who carried the weight of the Nixon pardon through the campaign, but when Reagan came along in 1980, Carter could not compete. The same goes for other Democratic candidates over the years, and it’s a shame because so many of them, most notably Hillary, would have been much, much better presidents than the successful Republican.
Democrats face a problem in 2020 because the candidates do not wow the voters. Warren has handcuffed herself to the issue of single-payer medical care as well as an array of programs she calls ambitious that draw modest popular support. Sanders has an appeal that comes from a consistency of values over the years (that Warren lacks), but he is a risky bet. Though he doesn’t wow anybody, Biden seems safe to Americans. Democrats must hope that appeals to voters tired of Trump’s dramas.
19
@A
Persona, not platform is a good mantra when considering the low-turnout voter. These voters are not idealogical, nor do they have high information access. They decide on character. Mayor Pete is an option, but I think Booker, if he can get some traction, has the benefit of black turnout.
Warren is unelectable an that is sad in some ways but her unrealistic goals worthy as they might be are not going to happen. time and again the swing voters are ignored by the two parties extremeward movement then they fret over the swing voters... Then there's the turnout issue. it ought to be addressed somehow, mandatory perhaps? "use it ir lose it"?. i keep thinking that we are losing the ability to govern ourselves.
6
Note that if Clinton has picked up the 2% of the voters in the three state set out in the piece she would have won assuming the same turnout. Biden's town hall on CNN last night demonstrated how effective he can be in the kind of setting that the Democratic candidate will be dealing with in the general election. In summary. Don't downplay the 2% improvement of Biden over the 2016 numbers.
13
If the polls were meaningful we would be wondering about who would oppose President Clinton in 2020.
Warren and Sanders cannot win the general, in my opinion, because Dems depend on robust union support. Many union members do not want to be forced to give up the insurance that their unions fought hard for. The general public is also wary of Medicare for All. It appeals to a small segment of Democrats.
Sadly, Mayor Pete is probably out of contention because he is gay (as am I). He is the smartest of the lot, the most eloquent and analytical. He reminds me of President Obama. The religious conservatives would crawl through molten lava to vote for Trump.
15
@David Cary Hart
Wait - Buttigieg is smarter than Elizabeth Warren? He's a bright guy, and I am glad that he has a promising political future, but it is just plain sexist to allege that he is smarter than Warren. And as much as I like Pete, he is nowhere near as "eloquent and analytical" as Elizabeth. You might disagree with her policies, but I wouldn't bark up that tree if I were you.
1
@David Cary Hart Don't discount him. About 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage. I think the media is making it a bigger issue than it really is. Of course, it's okay that we have a serial adulterer as president, but not to elect one who is in a committed traditional marriage? Shouldn't matter, should it?
@David Cary Hart
Mayor Pete is out of contention only because he is too young.
Let him serve as governor for a term or two and then he will be ready.
1
You mention that patriarchy is a major issue for the progressive flank of the Dems. I’m sure that’s true in some locations: San Fran, Berkeley, Portland, Park Slope, and the NYT newsroom. I’m also certain that in the MANY political discussions I’ve had, and the MANY events I’ve attended, it has not come up one single time. Wonder what that might imply.
15
@stevevelo
Patriarchy is a huge issue for me, and I don't live in any of those places. (I am a white, middle aged parent who works for the church).
@Cousy - patriarchy is not a huge issue for me, and I don’t live in any of those places.
Publishing polls without setting out the statistical error can be very misleading. The error range for 75 people sampled is plus or minus 12%. This puts the second graphic ( Biden-Not-Warren Voters) in the category of No Significant Difference. It also helps to know how the respondents were selected and what questions were asked.
94
A long article patiently explaining that the Progressives are a small minority of the country and that we cannot win with their platform.
We have seen this before. I invite your attention to the 72 and 84 elections.
37
@Lefthalfbach -
Add up Bernie and Warren supporters.
Add up Biden/name-recognition and Klobuchar supporters.
Progressives are the majority of the Democratic Party.
What fraction of the GOP supported Trump in the GOP primaries?
But once nominated, even though he had small-fraction support, they voted GOP in the general election.
Dems will similarly unite in the general.
How did nominating a centrist, Hillary, work out for you in the last election?
2
@Lefthalfbach 1984 was 35 years ago. The Democrat was running against an incredibly popular incumbent. Trump is not that.
@Greg a
What about 1972?
I was an adult for both those elections- well, eligible to vote, anyway. I am telling you that the Delusions of the Left are as strong now as they were then.
If Blacks and Browns vote on their employment status since Trump took office Dems will lose.
If those with an IRA or 401K vote on their account balance since Trump , Dems will lose.
If small business owners vote on their business volume since Trump, Dems will lose.
If Consumer confidence is on the ballot, Dems will lose.
If real estate value is on the ballot , Dems will lose.
Shall I continue?
10
@Joe Paper If following the rule of law is on the ballot, Trump will lose.
If upholding the presidential oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution is on the ballot, Trump will lose.
If protecting and preserving the institutions that underpin our democracy is on the ballot, Trump will lose.
If maintaining the Western alliances that keep us safe is on the ballot, Trump will lose.
If practicing long-accepted presidential norms is on the ballot, Trump will lose.
If CIVILITY, DECENCY, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY are on the ballot, Trump will lose.
And if you care more about the size of your 401(k) than you do about the continued survival of our democracy, you will lose. In fact, we all will lose.
42
@Deborah Williams Debbie, none of yours can be put on the kitchen table Thanksgiving Day.
1
@Deborah Williams This exchange pretty much says it all. The electorate is baked.
Warren and Sanders do not play well to educated well-off Democrats. These folks do not think they will benefit; in fact, they fear losing benefits they already have (like Cadillac healthcare plans...)
But the MEDIA constantly covers the “front runners,” giving short shrift to the more moderate candidates. Traditional media, through their relentless pursuit of ratings, just might help reelect the current occupant of the Oval Office...
I sincerely hope they realize this—and care about the pivotal part they play in the selection process.
15
@Babs
I live in a precinct where 97% of the voters are college educated (I am one of the few without a graduate degree) and the average home assessment is over $2 million.
Warren is the dominant candidate by far.
34
The first graphic in this article is extremely puzzling and disturbing. It shows both Clinton and Biden underperforming Obama among educated whites in swing states. Wait what?! How is this possible?? I believe the only answer is the rise of fake news on social media.
6
Here we go again! Another conservative pollster telling Democrats that they must not be Democrats, but instead must pander to rural white racists in order to be "electable." Not a single word about how Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. Not a word in this discussion about "battleground states" about how Republican legislatures have created these "battlegrounds" through racist gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Instead we're told that it's the Democratic message, not voter suppression that's the problem.
We've heard this before. We were told not to nominate a Black guy back in 2008. "Not electable."
We will nominate Elizabeth Warren for president. She will win. And The Upshot and its conservative pundits will likely pretend that they never told us that she couldn't win.
509
@Sean The problem is not the popular vote, which the Dems clearly have. It is that votes are not evenly distributed across the states because of the electoral college.
94
@Sean
The electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression are all realities that can’t be wished away. No matter how unfair they are, you can’t ignore them when doing the political calculations on how to beat Trump.
122
@Sean
Nate Cohn came to the NYT via The New Republic...
A publication not exactly known for its conservative bona fides.
57
I would like to see a study that determines whether published polls influence voter decisions. There is a strong inclination to vote for "the winner" or "the leader of the pack." Also, when poll results are broken down by socioeconomics, doesn't that promote "identity group" voting?
6
These polls are interesting but until the Democrats actually choose a candidate, the impeachment hearings and vote in Congress are over and unforeseen crises afflict the country they have minimal predictive value.
40
Messaging is crucial here. Drop fancy terms. Speak directly to voters about difficult subjects like:
--Life Does a right to own a gun overrule the right to safety? We impose restrictions on drivers though it's our right to drive. Why limit contraception if one is against abortion? Why ignore the compelling reasons women obtain abortions, the rarity of late term abortions? Since "life" refers to all species how is it that that word stays limited to anti-choice discussions? Trump is arguably the most anti-life of all major leaders in the world.
--Jobs: Automation costs jobs and that's not the fault of Democrats. Clean jobs can work in rust belt states but clean power is ridiculed.
--Economy: Daily Wall Street averages ignore devastating long term costs from climate change. Wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, sea level rise--all have massive costs.
And I'm just getting started here.
24
Can we all stop the electability analysis, please? You think I won’t vote for Candidate X because s/he is too old/young/conservative/radical/etc for my demographic group, and I think the same thing about you based on who you are, but in fact we both actually do support and would vote for X—except what we’ve read about X’s electability makes us think we should consider someone else. Am I the only person who thinks this is insane? Or am I missing something?
137
@Darcy
"Am I the only person who thinks this is insane? Or am I missing something?"
Yes/no and yes/no. Best as I can understand it, the problem is that we take these demographic polls too literally, too directly personal.
No ONE of us will adhere to the demographic prediction, but like an actuarial study, over large numbers the study can provide useful information.
1
There is not one good stand out democratic candidate. How can you get out the vote if you yourself don't want to vote for any one of them. Not one of them is inspiring. Without inspiration the democrats are losing this round.
4
Nah. Many of us are thinking, Vote blue, no matter who.
18
@Ellen F. Dobson anyone is better than the current criminal in the White House. I will vote for the Democratic candidate. Republicans have lost me completely with their unwillingness to stand with the constitution. From a former Republican.
Exactly what one would have expected. The key in many states will lie with the suburban middle classes and in urban areas with black and Latino voters. Neither Biden nor Warren can succeed without a running mate from one of the two latter groups.
5
But less education means greater lack of information on any policy implications-- let alone progressive or regressive! Thus Cohn's analysis is highly suspect.
3
As someone in a swing state, let me break it out. If you want:
1. no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid
2. no worker or consumer rights
3. no environmental protection
4. tax cuts for billionaires
5. unlimited corporate welfare
5. a military budget larger than the next eight countries put together....
.... then please vote Republican. But these points are not communicated enough by Democrats. Instead, they focus on what voters do not want:
1. health care for illegals
2. amnesty
3. loss of private health insurance
Democrats = shooting oneself in both feet. I cannot see that changing.
822
BRAVO!
42
@DeeBee These aren’t what Democrats focus in. It’s what the press (mainstream and Fox) focus on within the broad party spectrum.
132
@DeeBee Technically, it would be more correct to say that voters in the swing states shoot themselves in the foot. They are good people and well trained to be subservient to their wealthy overlords. They were born and bred to be the fodder that produces wealth for others. It is their purpose in life. Trump is their ideal king.
63
Why was Bernie not included? Isn't he running ahead of Warren?
38
The Democrats are focused on the wrong geography. The West is the future. Listen to Arizona.
2
@Chris The West may be worth looking into. But if we are going to think long term about the future, we need to seriously win over the young folks who are staying home and not voting. We need to give them a reason to feel democrats have something to offer them. Ending the current healthcare nightmare may be the ticket. Getting them to identify as Democrats and in the habit of voting will pay dividends in the future.
Nothing new here. There are more whites, and they have a higher propensity to vote than Hispanics and African Americans. So who wins that matchup?
2
Cogent point about how some of the left's critical focus and language has its basis in academia. This tells me the in order to win the White House, the left and center-left need to emphasize real-life, practical solutions to the problems that confront us.
As a white, 61 year-old, college-educated, coastal elitist, I hate the idea of dumbing-down what are very serious matters. But I think that while Ph.D.s are arguing about modes of alienation, the Demcratic candidate has to keep it simple, stupid.
24
To me, the clear democratic candidate is Buttigieg. He's brilliant. These people need to get over their gay hangup.
12
@Lisa Spinelli I think the hang up is more the fact that Pete comes across as a smarmy, insincere narcissist—a small town mayor with big legal problems and a record as a heartless gentrifier. While he trails in 4th place, he brags that he’s in a head-to-head race with Elizabeth Warren. Voters are already sick of having a delusional braggart as president. No thanks!
8
@Lisa Spinelli The "hangup(s)" are age, experience and lack of state wide electoral success. He will make a strong Presidential candidate in 2028 if he is elected to any office higher than medium sized city mayor.
4
@Lisa Spinelli or Amy Klobucher.
The Biden-but-not-Warren voters in these areas say she’s too far to the left, 79 percent to 9 percent. They oppose moving to a single-payer health system, support the president’s tax reform and are relatively likely to say they’re conservative or Republican.
Do we want a candidate who will support Trump's tax cuts? Better to oppose and educate.
18
If there were a large and decisive constituency favoring "moderate" liberal measures - or the status quo - why didn't Hillary win? Maybe Democrats should try to get support in some other way. If there is ever going to be major reform, which could be necessary to have real democracy in the country, the center may have to be shifted considerably. How could a large majority be assembled other than on economic issues, relying on those who are being left behind in the still-growing inequality?
10
@skeptonomist
Hilary lost because there was an ample reservoir of visceral, ofttimes irrational hatred for her among a significant part of the electorate. Mix in the campaign's hubris and underestimation of Trump and, voila!
Ms. Clinton was a flawed candidate whose flaws could not be mitigated because of a misguided electoral strategy.
PS I voted for her.
@skeptonomist Hillary did win - 2.9 million more votes, Unfortunately, winning the most votes isn't enough in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. The Democratic candidates are battling Soviet Intelligence and their allies - the Republican Party and Wiki-Leaks. Facebook, Google and the mainstream press faithfully spout whatever disinformation comes from the bot army regardless of accuracy. Voters must sort through a blizzard of misinformation to make informed decisions. Then comes the Senate, heavily weighted in favor of conservative rural voters, and prepared to stop legislation that offends their big donors. Democracy is at risk in a voting system that so relentlessly circumvents the choices of voters.
Dang this is grim. If half the country can't see what's wrong with Trump, that he's a constantly lying, self-serving, treasonous puppet of Putin, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to give up on America.
647
@Dan Stackhouse
1. More voters are voting against a party or candidate than they are voting for a party or candidate. The Democratic party, its leaders and its policies, have little appeal in middle America.
2. Let's go ahead and give up on America. Specifically, let's send more federal money and control over Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc. to the states and then carry out reforms there. Let the Republicans run their states and Democrats improve their's. Why the insistence that Oklahoma and Massachusetts have the same healthcare system? Can't we just agree to disagree? What if that's the only way forward?
30
So rather than lamenting how grim this is, could the educated people who read the Times and comment start a conversation about how to effectively communicate to Trump supporters why we find Trumpism abhorrent and horrifying? I am worn out by the dismissal of the uneducated as unable to be educated. I believe progressive means being committed to educating everyone. Let’s start walking the talk. Please?
37
@Tom Meadowcroft I have to agree with you Tom as to #2. If Trump were to win a second term, I would be the first in line to sign up for a disbanding of the Union. What's the point of pretending there is such a thing as 'United States' while living under a criminal and regressive enterprise? Your approach is slightly different in devolving decisions to the individual states, but I've felt that this country could easily be 4 or 5 independent countries and function just fine, and in the process find commonality along regional lines. While I'm not always in sync with rural, fellow Mid-Westerners, I would still have more in common with them when dealing with Great Lakes/upper Mississippi River water-shed rights, agricultural and land use policy, geographical cohesiveness, and even the weather than I do with the South or the desert Southwest. Perhaps it is finally time to re-examine this whole premise of a single 'united states'. The 2020 election will be the telling. Will we be going forward as a single country, or should we acknowledge we've become a failure that no longer can reflect the will of the majority?
33
True enough that the "sensibility" called political correctness is offensive to the non-college swing voters, as are attacks on gun rights. Hillary was simply a moron on these matters. Warren and Sanders at least have some respect for gun rights.
And while "stop and frisk" went a bit far under Bloomberg, those who live near the streets, but not on them, have much more sympathy for aggressive policing of the dangerous than do those who live in gated communities.
Bloomberg thinks he is more "conservative" than Warren and Sanders, but he is simply "more oligarch." His position on guns is so vociferously anti-gun rights that Bloomberg Smug would do even worse with the non-college working class voter than did Hillary Smug.
1
Depressing that it’s even this close. I’d be real interested in seeing how the polls change with Bloomberg entering.
1
Although it has been argued that VP pick doesn't have a major impact Nationally as to which party to vote for, I believe Trump's pick for VP in 2016 was key in his victory. Aside from his religious support from the right, Pence was a popular midwesterner in Republican circles. I often wonder if Hillary Clinton picked a popular midwestern Democrat as her VP, would we be in the situation we are now?
Second, "getting out the vote" campaigns matters! How many visits to WI, MI, and PA did the Democrats do in 2016? Clearly not enough. In 2018, Governor Scott Walker found out the hard way in WI when Democrats mobilized their supporters.
47
@Progers9
I was a part of the get the vote out in PA in 2016.
The big problem I saw was that there wasn't any coordination between the groups.
We all had the same lists for door knocking and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we went to the same door over and over again.
That said, I think next year that the Democrats are going to be very serious about every aspect of this election. I know I'll be pushing very hard for intergroup cooperation from the day the nominee is selected.
97
@Progers9
This is why I want Warren to pick Stacy Abrams for her VP. Abrams knows how to get out the vote and would be a pick that would excite Black voters about the ticket.
11
If Hillary had picked Sanders as her VP she would've won.
The margin would have been to high for dirty tricks and Russian interference to swing it to Trump's favour, and it would have prevented the Russian bot Bernie Bros/Bernie or Bust narrative.
As for trying to woo Trump voters, that's a ridiculous idea, they're cult members who won't leave him even if he does shoot someone on 5th avenue [and some of them will be a ongoing threat to society, as Russia intends - they want civil strife in the U.S. and have been manipulating to that end].
The Dems shouldn't try to make a safe space for disaffected GOP voters, and become Republican lite, despite the both siderism punditry of David Brooks and other beltway types. Or the conservative operatives in independent clothing that write think pieces, including for this very paper. They just know the writing is on the wall for Trump and want the least progressive President possible while the GOP rebuilds and hopes everyone forgets their complicity.
The Dems should instead take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to instigate real long lasting change that will benefit them in the long run.
Policies that one enacted will be hard to turn back, and particularity election reforms to level the playing field.
And if they could reign in the oligarchy that would be helpful for democracy and society.
The simplest concept is to copy what the counties with the highest happiness index do…
19
Republicans have the advantage in that they are pretty well unified over a few key values, low taxes,less regulation, second amendment, and a cultural conservatism. Democrats are all over the board. Climate change. Unions and jobs. Social justice. Wealth inequality. Racism. They are much harder to unify around a single candidate or platform. As Will Rogers said " I don't belong to any organize political party, I'm a Democrat".
32
@Bob and Immigration I left out Immigration
1
@Bob You say that Republicans are unified around four key values. You then say Democrats are all over the board, but you also cite four key values. Seems that Democrats are just as united as Republicans!
2
@Bob
And they have also demonstrated they don’t care if you lie, cheat, steal, obstruct justice, cavort with enemy so long as you are pro-gun, pro tax cuts for the wealthy, pro welfare for corporations, anti equal rights and wear hypocrisy as a badge of honor. And happy to character assassinate decorated combat veterans who tell the truth. Sigh.
9
Concur in part but all politics is local still holds. The wisconsin turnout was the lowest in 20 years for the 2016 election. Analysis showed turnout of normally democratic voters was down by 2-4% (represents about 100,000 voters). Trump won Wisconsin by roughly 23,000 votes.
65
@tom - This is not complicated. I’m writing from Milwaukee, the most populous county in the state, with the biggest minority population by FAR. Trump won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes. Voter turnout in Milwaukee was down by 50,000 votes. Do the math.
16
@tom
This is true. And turnout was not down because Clinton was too far to the left, it should be noted.
6
It doesn't make sense to talk about "electability" without talking about the potential to recruit volunteers. In 2008, Barak Obama benefited from record turnout drummed up by his record number of campaign volunteers. Doesn't it follow that volunteers will be a crucial component of the next Democratic president's path to "electability" as well?
Mr. Cohn argues that firing up "ideologically consistent voters" is unimportant because "virtually all of the[m]...will be drawn to the polls" anyway. Sure, we can depend on most of these folks to get themselves to the polls, but can we count on them for months of door-knocking and phone-calling to bring others to the polls? It may depend on how inspiring the candidate is.
67
@Carrie Nielsen
In PA in 2016 we had a fair amount of volunteers, especially starting around Halloween.
The problem was that very few people took Trump seriously until October and by then it was a panicked rush that didn't get us over the bar.
3
@James Jones It's safe to say that attitude won't be here this time. We know Trump can win now, we're not taking any chances.
1
A little paralysis through analysis guys.
It is not rocket science. Middle America in swing states that elect presidents in the electoral college want moderate, progressive candidates.
They did not want an identity/social engineering obsessed, neo con, elect me president because I am a woman and my time has come and the era of the white man is over candidate like Hillary. She not only ticked off men she ticked off a majority of white women who voted against her.
Examples of what middle America want.
1-Spirit of roe not abortion on demand.
2-Fair, sensible immigration policy not open borders.
3-Selective trade tariffs on the worst of slave labor countries taking American jobs not an insane trade war.
4-Reigning in Wall Street not a massive wealth tax.
5-A national, affordable, quality health plan not a massive socialist plan like England has.
Etc. Etc.
The polls prove it with Biden consistency in the lead re both the democratic nomination and the best person to beat Trump.
Don't complicate it.
205
@Paul - England doesn't have a "socialist' health plan, but provides essential medical care for all legal residents, plus a flourishing world-leading private sector for those who want it. And any health plan that covers everyone has to be "massive".
161
@Paul Voters were “ticked off” by Hillary due to years of targeted propaganda against her by Fox News & the GOP. It’s incredibly tragic. This “my time has come” narrative is false and ignorant.
169
@Paul As much as you might hate Hillary -- ginned up hate amongst all sorts of groups -- her positions fit exactly with all five of your "Examples of what middle America want."
Here are the top 10 reasons Hillary lost (and they have nothing to do with "what middle America wants"):
1. Our 18th century electoral system that overrides majority vote. So much for one person, one vote.
2. The elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
3. James Comey.
4. Fake news. And by that I mean Fox news and its ilk, spreading lies and disinformation.
5. Lies -- Trumps incessant lies (amplified by swooning coverage) (see number 6!)
6. Swooning uncritical coverage of Trump during the 2016 campaign. Every Nuremberg type rally unadorned, covering every goosestep.
7. Russian interference
8. The headwinds of being the party in power for the last 8 years. There is a contrary nature to the American electorate, no matter how successful the in power party has been.
9. The contemptible failure of the Democrats to defend Obama over his 8 years. Running away from his incredibly great record in the 2014 mid terms was shameful. Denied a wellspring of support for Democrats.
10. Prejudice and misogyny. How dare we have a woman after the black man!
Many of these headwinds still exist. Until we have an actual democracy -- one person one vote, free of foreign interference, free of voter suppression, free of propagandized "news", we'll forever be prey to minority rule.
498
These polls should be a real eye opener to Democrat strategists. They certainly Illustrate the challenge Dems will have in flipping back Pennsylvania & those Midwest states that voted for Trump in 2016. Can’t these Americans see the con that’s been played on them by Trump & these ‘not your parents’ Republican Party politicians ? I guess that expectation is hard to come by when malevolent forces like Fox News have managed to brainwash many into believing absolute nonsense. Honestly, the lack of critical thinking skills across America is frightening. Americans shouldn’t need an Ivy League education to be able to discern fiction from fact.
168
@Redskyatnight
The lack of critical thinking skills may be more evident among those who campaign on the same unpopular policy agenda with little mid-America appeal, and then berate mid-America for being stupid, election after election. Those fine-tuned critical thinking skills might be used to discern a policy agenda better suited to the whole country, rather than a few coastal population concentrations. "If they're not convinced yet we should yell at them more loudly" hasn't seemed to work yet. One aspect of critical thinking is accepting the idea that you might be wrong.
8
@Tom Meadowcroft "a policy agenda better suited to the whole country, rather than a few coastal population concentrations"? I have no interest in appealing to Trump voters. His corruption is obvious and his climate change denial is an existential threat. For whatever reason (I'm sick of trying to figure it out) republicans approve of his behavior. Those of us who oppose him and his enablers must stick to our principles and do our best to defeat him. If he's re-elected, for me, the American experiment will be over.
3
@Tom Meadowcroft A real health care ssytem that covers everyone, reduces worry, and costs less *should* be popular with everyone, regardless of political party. This should be obvious, so yes, I think people who don't buy it are uniformed (probably because they watch FOX News) and/or are lacking critical thinking skills.
An awful lot of determinations based on states wherein none of the Democratic candidates have yet to campaign.
27
@dearworld2 Plus, "Results among 75 respondents" is not a great basis for making any conclusions. Please, NY TImes -give us a much larger survey that is credible before making pronouncements!
13
I really hope all the progressives who insist that Senator Sanders would have no problem beating Trump read this article. It does give one pause.
I would be happy to see Senator Warren in the White House. But can she get there? I certainly don't know. It seems incredible that so many of our fellow Americans can be so blind as to want to keep Trump in. But we have to deal with reality.
246
@Jack Toner The power of the demagogue like Trump is strong. When a candidate like Hillary (see my post) does not answer middle America's needs, they will fall for a con like Trump.
9
@Jack Toner Why would it give me pause? The article is not about Sanders (24 mentions of Biden, 19 of Warren, and 1 of Sanders). I don't take seriously analysis that pretends Sanders does not exist.
79
@Jack Toner
Why does it give pause? It mentions Sanders exactly once, and indirectly at that.
36
"They oppose moving to a single-payer health system, support the president’s tax reform..."
Tax reform?! Tax cuts are like heroin; pleasurable and hard to resist, but have not helped the economy.
160
@Bartolo It's amazing just how terrible the economy is right now. High unemployment, the stock market plunging, minorities without jobs, inflation raging, etc.
5
@Bartolo
People don't vote based on "the economy". They vote based on their paycheck.
6
@Bartolo
Democrats need to learn how to sell. They should stop talking about a "single payer" health system and talk about expanding Medicare coverage to more people. If it is a gradual, voluntary expansion, people will be much more amenable to it.
10
My take is that this is an interesting set of polls but they disgree substantially from the few other polls that exist. Trump voters are older, and less educated and male and that means they are far more likely to have died and more likely to die in the next year. Polls will never be acurrate enough to predict the outcome in these states.
6
How can readers evaluate the numbers here without knowing the margin of error for each poll, and what percentage of the people contacted agreed to answer the questions?
180
@marks
Pollsters know how to poll. Few are us are expert enough to second-guess them.
2
@Polaris
Well, except some of us make a living in various sciences using statistics and scientific methods including sampling and polling methodologies. So many of us are knowledgeable.
10
@marks Thanks for this comment. It's something that has been bugging me as well in the NYT coverage of this poll. I found some information on the Siena College website that has additional detail on the polling margins of error and methodology. See the link below.
https://scri.siena.edu/2019/10/30/across-6-battleground-states-voters-oppose-impeaching-removing-trump-52-44/
4