FOX News poll: Trump trailing 5 Democrats

Fox polling seems to be on point, but I notice Fox News doesn't report on their own polling when they get results like this.

Also, I'm surprised Sanders is polling so high, because I hear almost nothing about him these days.

R1, yes, the Fox News *pollster* has a good reputation as it is a separate entity from the t.v. division.

The Fox pollster is composed of 2 polling companies, Beacon Research, which is a Democratic firm, and Shaw & Company, which is a Republican firm.

These numbers appear to line up very well with those published by Quinnipiac earlier in the week (although the leads for Warren, Harris & Buttigieg aren't as generous).

It's "registered" voters, not "likely" voters. They might just walk around nonchalantly playing Pokemon Go 2.0 on November 3, 2020 for all they care. And those who vote Trump will not say anything about their shameful, deplorable choice.

Trump went after the Fox News poll today:

[quote].@FoxNews Polls are always bad for me. They were against Crooked Hillary also. Something weird going on at Fox. Our polls show us leading in all 17 Swing States. For the record, I didn’t spend 30 hours with @abcnews, but rather a tiny fraction of that. More Fake News @BretBaier

That's embarrassing that he's still bringing up "Crooked Hillary."

I know it's just under a year and a half until the election but I find polls like these encouraging.

R4, you’re right in that you can’t trust polls in this election. I told my family a week before the election that Trump was going to win. They thought I was crazy because the polls showed Hillary with a lead.

But the mainstream acceptable narrative is that Trump is a monster and anyone who votes for him is a deplorable who should be shamed. So aside from some emboldened racists, most moderates and Republicans kept their mouths shut about who they were casting their vote for. I doubt many of them would tell it to a pollster with frizzy hair and an NPR tote bag.

The only way we’ll know who wins is on election night. Spoiler alert: it’ll be Trump again.

Sorry to disappoint you, R7, but you cannot make such a prediction at this time, so your "spoiler alert" is nothing more than an "I'm making shit up and indulging in wishful thinking" alert, which we already knew from the rest of your post.

R7, it is true that there is sometimes what is known as a "shy Conservative" effect at the polls where right-wing voters don't always tell pollsters who they are going to vote for, and we saw a few years ago with the Brexit vote that pollsters underestimated the support. The Midwestern polling for Trump was inaccurate in that it underestimated his support in the rural counties and overestimated Hillary's ability to get the same kind of margins in the cities that Obama did.

However, Trump had a lot of luck on his side in order to win the 2016 Election. He benefited from winning narrow margins in many of the swing states (eg. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.) which allowed him to win the Electoral College.

Trump actually lost the popular vote by a greater margin than any U.S President in history. Not only did he not win a majority of the vote the way most Republican Presidents have done in the past, he didn't even win the plurality -- Hillary Clinton did. Trump actually received a smaller percentage of the vote than Romney. Trump's share of the popular vote was the seventh-smallest in U.S. history.

That’s true, R9. But he has the economy on his side, he’s building the wall, and his base is happy with what he’s doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if he grabs more moderate votes. It all depends on the Democrats and choosing a candidate who is actually electable, which is easier said than done.

He's not building the wall, R10, and a plurality of voters don't give him credit for the economy. His base loves him; moderate voters do not.

R10 Johnson had the economy on his side in 1968 with GDP growth at a really staggering 4.8%. He had a plan on the table for a peace settlement in Vietnam, until Nixon sabotaged him. He wound up dropping out after the debacle in New Hampshire and his own internal polling showed he'd get trounced in Wisconsin.

His polling is pretty much on point for where Trump has been. Economics won't save Trump.

A Florida paper The Orlando Sentinel wrote today they are endorsing anyone but trump. They've had sufficient.

Any predictions made this far out are mostly worthless. What we can say, though, is that there are a lot of people who [italic]really[/italic] don't like Trump and who don't want him to be reelected. And that all of the major Democratic candidates absolutely [italic]can[/italic] beat Trump.

Whether they will or not and how well they are doing going into the home stretch for the campaign, we'll have to wait a year or so to find out.

R7 / R11, you are disregarding the fact that Trump of 2016 is not Trump of 2019. Back in 2016, some moderates may have seen him for a "drain the swamp" type of president, and they might have seen his "directness" as a refreshing change to what we normally get from politicians. But two and a half years later it is obvious that he is fundamentally unfit for the job, and the chaos and malignancy of his presidency are weighing heavily on the country. He is not the reformer he sold himself to be - a reformer improves things - he is a destroyer of things.

I suppose he has your vote, but my god...

You mean R10, R15, not R11.

And yes, your point is absolutely correct. We saw repeatedly in 2016 that some independent voters were projecting attributes and policy views on Trump that he clearly did not have. He's much better known now and that has not worked in his favor.

He is so much worse than anyone thought he'd be in the job.

Yes, R16. Sorry R11.

Trump is only trailing Biden and Sanders. He's within the margin of error against the others.

Considering that he's better known and that he's got the power of incumbency, being "within the margin of error against the others" is a terrible place to be. It shows that he's vulnerable.

R19, yes, but he has name recognition over Warren, not to mention Harris and Pete.

Today's electoral vote take on the polling minus the actual tweets:

Late Monday night, presumably while waiting for his evening cocoa, Donald Trump went on a Twitter rampage. It was mostly the usual suspects: "Fake News," "Crooked Hillary," "No Collusion, No Obstruction!," and the expected crowd for tonight's rally all made an appearance. However, the President also announced plans for a new, apparently imminent, crackdown on illegal immigrants:

Trump is presumably telling the truth here—or some version of it, at least. ICE hardly has the means to arrest and detain/deport "millions" of people at once. "Thousands," on the other hand, is doable. In fact, this appears to be the implementation of the plan that was a bridge too far for former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and that led to her departure and that of acting ICE director Ronald Vitiello back in April. That suggests that what happens in the next few weeks is not going to be pretty. In fact, before Trump spilled the beans, it was already known that the government was preparing Fort Sill, Oklahoma for use in holding 1,400 immigrant children. That would be the same Fort Sill that was originally built to aid in "pacifying" the Native Americans, and that was used during World War II as a Japanese internment camp. Optics? Who needs optics?

And now it is time for everyone's favorite parlor game: What prompted Trump to send these tweets? Here are the obvious explanations that present themselves: 1.In view of tonight's rally, which marks the official launch of his 2020 campaign, he wants to start out with a "bang" that reminds anyone who has forgotten that he's the anti-immigration president.

2.He's upset about all of the adverse internal polls that caused him to fire several staffers, and thinks this will improve his numbers.

3.He's upset about all of the adverse internal polls that caused him to fire several staffers, and thinks this will take attention away from that story.

4.All of the above

The one thing we can be certain of is this: It takes many months of careful and diligent planning for ICE to execute a maneuver like this. If their plans are tipped, it increases the risk faced by ICE officers, and it significantly increases the risk that their targets will have vanished by the time they arrive. This is not our opinion; during last year's crackdown, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf tipped off the residents of her city, and the Dept. of Justice blew a gasket. Then-ICE deputy director Thomas D. Homan blasted Schaaf's decision as "irresponsible," said that she allowed "hundreds" of undocumented immigrants to elude the authorities, and declared that she put federal officers' lives in jeopardy. Consequently, the DoJ threatened to slap Schaaf with...wait for it...obstruction of justice charges. In view of Trump's tweets, we can only assume he will be promptly charged with obstruction by the DoJ, too. Right? (Z)

[quote][R19], yes, but he has name recognition over Warren, not to mention Harris and Pete.

But increasing name recognition has not changed how these three are polling. That's probably their ceiling, at least until the campaign begins for good.

[quote]But increasing name recognition has not changed how these three are polling.

A year ago Pete wasn't even showing in polls tRump vs so and so.

r24 That's a whole different argument.

National, name recognition is still pretty low with Pete, but he is +1 with tRump right now. So, increasing name recognition has put him neck to neck with tRump in a fairly short period of time. What happens next, who knows, but it looks good for Pete. And Warren and Harris.

Where do single-issue or single-candidate voters sit in comparison to moderate voters?

[quote] some moderates may have seen him for a "drain the swamp" type of president, and they might have seen his "directness" as a refreshing change to what we normally get from politicians. But two and a half years later it is obvious that he is fundamentally unfit for the job, and the chaos and malignancy of his presidency are weighing heavily on the country.

Single-issue voters don't limit themselves to one election cycle. Single-issue voters don't care about how badly their candidate would mess up anything else in their country. The chaos and malignancy of the presidency weigh heavily on the country, that I agree with,, but the single-issue voters and my-candidate-or-else-I-stay-home voters let us know they're still here.

The President is focusing on alternative polls. And so is America.

He's the People's President.

What percentage of the voting block among Republicans and moderates are single-issue voters , R27? Again, this presidency is extraordinary in its chaos and malignancy, worldwide in fact, which is why relying on historical patterns is probably not going to give us a reliable theory on which to rest our predictions.

This presidency is an exception to the rule. His campaign in 2016 was an exception to the rule. If you look at his approval numbers it doesn't seem that the majority of people like this exception.

r27, the only two groups who stayed home in 2016 were Bernie supporters and the people who thought Hillary was anointed so why bother voting crowds. The trump supporters turned out in droves and will again in 2020. Hillary ensured that turnout by calling a significant portion of the country deplorable.

[quote]Hillary ensured that turnout by calling a significant portion of the country deplorable.

There isn't a single analysis of the 2016 election that supports this statement, even if it was your reason for not voting for Clinton.

[quote] Hillary ensured that turnout by calling a significant portion of the country deplorable.

Oh for god's sake, just go fuck yourself.

I don't know what that percentage is. Voters have said "I always vote for the pro-life candidate" and "I always vote for the candidate who tells me the other candidate will take away my guns" so I know they exist. I have NOT heard from single-issue voters "Hrm, maybe other things like government wasting my taxpayer dollars or weakening our infrastructure bother me just as much as abortion or gun control." Nor have I read anonymous confessions "Gee, I messed up in refraining from voting in 2016. This is terrible and I'm motivated not only to go to the polls but to get nonvoters to educate themselves about candidates and motivate them to head to the polls as well."

R33, we can't really know what the effect of the single-issue voters on the election might be if we don't know how many there are. I'm sure there are many, but more so among the conservatives. Democrats and liberals are capable of caring about many important issues at once.

As we learned in 2016, what really matters is the electoral college.

R35, he is down in the polls in the key states.

Here is to hoping Drumpf is shitting his pants right now. Ha!

R35, the pollster cited in that article, Optimus, has a C- ranking on 538, with a +1 Republican bias.

Here's what I'm looking at.

FLA

Biden +9

PA

Biden +1

MICH

Biden +3

WIS

Biden +6

R39, Do you know how important it is to those in Swing states re 100% stopping illegal immigration?

Biden will be just as bad of a President as Trump.

That's just unpossible at this point.

And I've lived under every President since Eisenhower. Trump has created a new low water mark for what it means to be a failed President. Even Carter will get re-evaluated up.

R41 writes,

[quote]Biden will be just as bad of a President as Trump.

Joe Biden will not president of the United States.

I don't care if this traitor is down 20% vs every Democrat on the face of the Earth. I want him polling 60% below.

I want these traitors and white trash cretins to crawl back into their shitholes and never vote again. I want this orange traitor to be stomped into Oblivion come November, 2020. I want there to be no doubt of the ass kicking he has taken.

R44 Ah, you sing the sweet refrains of the McGovern supporters in 1974.

R44 writes,

[quote]I want there to be no doubt of the ass kicking he has taken.

A good 15 to 16 years ago, much of this was also said of the [prior] Republican U.S. president?

Now look at how “Democrats“ feel!

[quote]Do you know how important it is to those in Swing states re 100% stopping illegal immigration?

Not important enough to give Trump a victory, in the absence of any other factor. He tried this in 2018, remember?

R46

That Michelle O has built a personal friendship with George B in no way changes how the majority of Democrats regard his presidency.

High standards, R48.

The following may be what one can expect of the “Democrats,” and Donald Trump, in the future.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the election next year, R49. Try again.

R50,

I am not here for you.

Respond appropriately—or fuck off.

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. These are your co-workers, neighbors, fellow U.S. Americans.

This country was built on evil and tragedy. It was once covered with millions of Native Americans. Now they are 1% of the population. That's called 'holocaust'.

Can we make America great? I don't know; it's never been done.

R51, there's nothing to respond to, as nothing you've written has anything to do with the topic of this or anything to do with the election next year.

So the only appropriate response is to basically tell you to fuck off in return and come back when you've got something worth responding to.

Atta boy, R53.

R49, you’re an idiot.

Polls. Mean. Nothing.

Polls. Tell. Us. That. Trump. Is. In. Trouble.

R56, I want him to lose. Don't get me wrong.

Polls mean nothing? Someone should tell that to the candidates who spend millions on them.

I get so tired of these idiots who completely misunderstand the lessons of 2016 and who pretend that no poll can ever be trusted again. They are worse than the idiots who read too much into the polls and insist that they can predict the 2020 election on the basis of a poll today.

So much stupidity; so little time.

R53,

I was first to write “fuck off.”

Come back here, in 10 years, to tell us how you love Donald Trump just as much as Michelle Obama (and other right wing “Democrats”) love George W. Bush.

No one is gonna fuckin do that, R60.

LOL.... What, are you 5 years old, R60?

I love how you can't defend your post, though. Thank you for confirming that you're a moron.

Tell me about it, R59. Mostly it’s *Trump supporters* who repeat that shit, but there are also some nervous nellie Democratic voters who don’t understand what happened in 2016, either.

If you “polls don’t matter!” dummies want, you can choose to disregard the *forecasters*. But polling in swing states where T is down 10 to Biden? Of course it could all change; things could magically go Trump’s way somehow for some reason that no one can imagine at this moment (no, a war that no one wants is not going to juice his Favorable ratings, either), but if in October next year he’s still doing as badly as he is now in those swing states, relax. Show up and vote and he’ll lose.

A poll this early is just a snapshot. You cannot predict the primary campaign or the election from these polls. That does not make them meaningless. What you can see from these polls, in aggregate, is general trends: you can see which candidates are doing well, which messages appear to be resonating with the voters, and so on.

So what can we determine from recent polls?

1. Trump is in trouble. For an incumbent president to be doing this poorly with an economy in decent shape is not good news for his reelection campaign. [bold]That does not mean he will lose.[/bold]

2. All of the major Democratic candidates absolutely [italic]can[/italic] win. They're all doing well enough right now to show that they can be competitive in the election. [bold]That does not mean that any of them will win.[/bold]

3. Biden has an edge but it remains to be seen how much of that edge comes from his perceived electability vs. how much people really want him, specifically, and whether that edge will last once the campaign really gets going.

4. Sanders is not where he wanted to be. He has a lot of money and massive name recognition but he's getting seriously challenged by the second-tier candidates and Biden did far better on entrance to the race than the Sanders campaign thought he would. [bold]That does not mean that he's out of it.[/bold]

Polls mean nothing when the Internet Research Agency is still hard at work brainwashing deplorables and FB is selling fake ads targeting cultists.

Polls mean nothing when the Russians are still standing by waiting to hack into voting machines to make sure their traitor wins.

I get it. Polls suddenly means nothing when your favorite candidate is not beating trump by huge points. I am not sure who is worst the deplorables or progressives who are denial.

Ignore the polls and just vote.

I don't care about the polls at this point.

I'll pay attention when Russia enters the race

If polls are enough to trigger the Cheeto, then they're worth something to me