Brutal new Fox News poll

It does not matter, this is just smoke screen to get ppl be complacent. Come 2020, russkie will do psi ops to smoke screen the obvious vote booth hack. Remember, hackable electronic booth are rolling out thanks to Moscow Mitch.

Good news for everyone. The sooner Pete drops out the better. He's a waste of space and airtime, he moves no needle in any direction. This race is between Biden, Warren, Saunders and Harris. They all need a younger VP, but it won't be Pete.

What about electoral college polls?

Good question r3. I wish I'd asked that moron Robby Mook that question.

But our President has done wonders with the economy Barak Hoosein Obamma ruined. And he's building a wall to keep out the Mexican rapists and drug dealers. Trumpcare will finally do away with the failed Obamma thing (good riddance!). He's made friends of North Korea and Russia. And he's going to end abortion, gay "marriage", immigration and tree-hugger policies that strangle our economy. And new factories are popping-up everywhere.

Why won't you let President Trump make America great again?

Conventional mainstream centrism is a surefire way of losing so I'm more interested in Warren than anyone else. I wonder how Pete does up against Trump.

I think you always have to add a few points to Trump's numbers to account for the people who support him but are embarrassed to say so to a pollster. We learned this in my polling classes in college. People give the answer they think is more socially acceptable or that the pollster wants to hear. (see 2016)

R3, the state polls validate the numbers we're seeing in the national polls, with Trump underwater against multiple Democratic candidates in a few critical states that he absolutely must have to win.

Get it Liz Warren. You're the one that we want.

Even though it's very early, Biden's numbers in these matchups are promising. Fox's early matchup polls between Clinton and Trump in 2015 would often have Trump ahead.

Of course, these numbers will tighten, but Biden seems to have a lot of room in his numbers across the matchups done by all pollsters. His state matchup numbers against Trump are also really strong. He could make places like Ohio and Iowa actual swing states again.

Proof that Biden is far from “the only one who can beat Trump.” And from FOX News no less.

We've had quite a few polls confirming that, R11. The interesting thing about all of these polls is that Trump polls at a pretty consistent level against all of the Democratic candidates, usually in the low 40s. The difference between, say, Biden and and another Democratic candidate against Trump is the number of undecided voters who don't like Trump but who aren't familiar enough with the other candidate to put an X there. So Biden will be, e.g., 50% to 38% while Harris will be 45% to 39%. Trump remains the same while the number of undecideds go up.

There is no reason to believe that those undecided voters will suddenly, en masse, break for Trump in the election, which means that all of the major Democratic candidates absolutely can beat Trump. All the usual caveats apply: it's early, a lot can happen between now and then, coming up with the "likely voter" model is going to be problematic in 2020, etc., etc.

I don't trust Fox Polls at all. They could be using these numbers just to get Dems to step off the gas.

4 out of every 10 American voters will suck Trump's micro'shroom, no matter what.

Yeah, but that isn't enough to reelect him.

I don’t know if this is likely but I could see Fox reducing Trumps numbers to get his base riled up to turn out and so that they can say he’s rising in the polls if he needs a bump.

[quote] Proof that Biden is far from “the only one who can beat Trump.”

But the polls consistently show that Biden is one who can beat Trump by the widest margin. And state polls usually show that Biden is the one who performs best in the key swing states. If we want to be sure to beat Trump, Biden seems to be the safest bet (of course, that could still change, but so far, the polls have been pretty consistent).

R17, see R12. That point has already been addressed.

R17 Biden's poll position is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's seen as the safest bet (i.e. the one best able to beat Trump) because he highest in the polls and he's highest in the polls because he's seen as the safest bet. He stepped straight into this position, even before announcing his candidacy, purely due to his huge name recognition which is still considerably ahead of the other candidates. None of this makes him the best candidate, however, and once the Democratic field starts to narrow and the spotlight is no longer shared by 390 contenders then his lead will surely fall away.

Which age range votes most in national and state elections? Older people. Which racial demographic votes most consistently for Democrats? Black people.

Which candidate overwhelmingly polls best among these two voter segments? Joe Biden.

I’m not sold on Biden but I’m certainly not actively working against him either. I understand why the electorate is exhausted by “change”. They want an elder statesperson they can count on.

Where is Polltroll when we need him?

R20 All of which is quite true, but it leaves the ONLY reason to favour Biden as his perceived ability to beat Trump, not what he might do after having beaten Trump. If we assume that any of the top 4 candidates should, in fact, be able to beat Trump, then surely we can be more ambitious than that, especially if the aim is to energise the electorate.

Loathsome as FOX News is, I can find it plausible that they'd rather be on the attack against a Dem POTUS than have to defend Trump for another 4 years.

EVERYBODY is exhausted by that POS.

If you think that I will buy ANY Of this after what happened in 2016- you are fucking crazy

This will be a close race, if we win at ALL-

So done with people thinking that we live in a normal world.

Fuck, it wouldn't surprise me if these polls weren't faked just to lull us into a false sense of security-

Our only hope is to truly move forward. And that means Warren.

I agree with all of R19. Biden has a real, but perceived lead and popularity. It will fall away when he is compared to the brighter, better and more energized contenders.

I agree with R25, but until polls show otherwise, we need Biden to beat this piece of shit...

We are forced to go with ANYONE who has the chance to rectify this ungodly situation.

At this point (YET) It is not Warren. It is Biden. (In a perfect world, she would be my pick)

A new poll(might be the Fox one) found that Democratic voters want "normalcy" over "bold new policies." Of course, that's why Biden has been leading in all the primary polls. They don't want to go from all the Trump drama to the drama of radical change, which is what Warren and Sanders are promising. They just want normalcy again, like they had with Obama.

I will never understand those of you who close your eyes and keep wishing for things that just don't exist. Are you this obtuse in all matters in your life? Maybe you are. Maybe you are the same people who kept saying that Trump was not going to last his first year in office.

Biden has strong and it looks like pretty solid support. That hasn't changed. Instead of raging and fighting against it. Instead of trying pretend that it's built on nothing. Why not accept it for what it is and just move on. Stop posting your threads about Biden being too old. Stop posting your endless threads on Biden's gaffes. Just stop it. It's not having an affect. Deal with the reality of the situation.

This doesn't mean that you can't support who you want to support. I want Pete to be president so bad that it hurts, but I am keenly aware of his chances which means I am also strongly supporting Joe Biden. I don't like either Harris or Bernie, but I would run to polls and enthusiastically vote for them if they are the candidates.

Stop the games. Stop burying your heads in the sand. Stop trying to ignore all the polls that you don't like. All you need to do is say Joe Biden and any of the other democrats running for the nomination would be a fine president, but in the primary I am supporting XXX.

I love and admire Barack Obama, but it was not normalcy. People should not be afraid to criticize him. I do agree that the only thing Biden has going for him is his connection to Obama aka his familiarity. Which he reminds us of every five minutes.

People don't need to be pragmatic in primary votes. Everyone - democrat, progressive and independent MUST embrace whoever ends up being the nominee. But now is the time to argue about who you want. These people who keep saying we must choose the safest choice according to polls, when only 2 to 4 percent separate the top 4 Democrats, really should just come out in favor of Biden. Because that's what they mean. Fine. Some of us hope for a different outcome.

The larger the margin for which ever Democrat wins helps cement our hold on the House and can pull the Senate to the D too. This will come down to turnout and enthusiasm--which means no backbiting and pouting if your preferred candidate doesn't make it. People need to realize this is a fight for the 'soul' of this country.

It’s a Fox trap.

Fox is rated an A+ pollster and is on the DNC list of qualifying pollsters.

[quote]Loathsome as FOX News is, I can find it plausible that they'd rather be on the attack against a Dem POTUS than have to defend Trump for another 4 years.

This is the Fox polling organization, not Fox News. Unlike Fox News, their pollster has a good reputation.

[quoteWhy not accept it for what it is and just move on.

Because it's too early in the election cycle to reach any firm conclusions and because this isn't the first time that Biden has run for President.

The reason I’m advocating pragmatism is because of 2016. There was so much venom between the Clinton and Bernie sides that it was easy for Republicans and Russians to take advantage of the division. It’s still playing out today. If we let it happen again, it will be the way we lose.

I am an extreme liberal but I am really good with Biden. I actually love Warren, and I tolerate Sanders because of his politics (I don’t like him because of 2016 and Hillary). My feeling is that radical change will never be realistic in a country with 300 million people, so someone who steadies the ship and moves it in a positive direction is probably the best fit for our country. Obama, in an interview, talked about how that was his goal: move the country in the right direction, 2-3 degrees at a time, as it’s like a giant ship. There’s no way you can accomplish a huge change in direction in a short amount of time. It takes months and years to formulate progressive policy.

The polls may show that every one of the Democrats can be Trump at the NATIONAL level, but so what? Hillary beat Trump at the national level by 3 million votes. And she still lost the election. All that matters is the electoral college.

I think someone like Harris might be a repeat of Hillary -- soundly beating Trump nationally by getting millions more votes in California while narrowing losing to Trump in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden seems to be the one who is most likely to win those key swing states. And no, it's not just because of electability or likability or name recognition. It's also because the policy ideas of some of the other candidates -- like Warren wanting to do away with private health insurance altogether or Harris wanting to spend $100 billion to help black people buy houses -- won't go over well with voters in the more moderate swing states, even though they may excite people on the coasts.

[quote] I will never understand those of you who close your eyes and keep wishing for things that just don't exist.

I agree. I don't understand the DL'ers who keep pointing to polls that clearly show Biden is the best choice and trying to convince us that they show Biden is not the best choice.

These are polls that don't reflect the fact that this is not a national election, but a 50-state election. It's totally plausible that Trump could win even with just 40% of the popular vote (with help from Rusher and voter suppression).

[quote] They don't want to go from all the Trump drama to the drama of radical change, which is what Warren and Sanders are promising. They just want normalcy again

It's hard to go from one extreme to the other extreme so quickly. Voters don't want that sort of whiplash. Like it or not, U.S. history has generally been one of slow, incremental change. Most of the ideas proposed by Warren and Sanders have no chance of getting through Congress. Warren or Sanders would end up being a huge disappointment because they wouldn't be able to deliver on their bold agenda. They would enrage conservatives with their extremely liberal views, while disappointing liberals by failing to deliver the "revolution" they promised. The country would end up more angry and divided than ever. Someone like Warren or Sanders would be more effective following a Democratic president whose success they could build upon. Realistically, the next president will probably have to spend most of their term just repairing the damage done by Trump and dealing with a faltering economy. Things like Medicare for all or free college tuition will have to wait.

[quote] The polls may show that every one of the Democrats can be Trump at the NATIONAL level,

Obviously, that should say "can BEAT Trump at the NATIONAL level." (I don't think any of the Democrats want to be Trump. LOL.)

Trump will still end up winning. Americans are dumb as shit.

[quote]The polls may show that every one of the Democrats can be Trump at the NATIONAL level, but so what?

The state polls show the same thing.

[quote]I love and admire Barack Obama, but it was not normalcy. People should not be afraid to criticize him.

WTF does this mean? Who was afraid to criticize Obama? Why? What were the afraid of? What happened when they criticized Obama?

[quote] The state polls show the same thing.

Link?

There haven't been many state polls yet pitting the Democratic candidates against Trump, and most of the ones I've seen have shown many of the other Democrats either losing to Trump or being within the margin of error. For example, RealClearPolitics is showing that the most recent poll of Trump vs. Harris in Pennsylvania was done by Quinnipiac in May, and they were tied. ...

... Meanwhile, the same poll showed Biden beating Trump by 11 points in Pennsylvania.

But I'll admit that I probably haven't seen all of the polls out there. So R42, if you have a link showing that all of the Democrats would beat Trump in all of the swing states, please provide it. I'd love to see it.

[quote]This is the Fox polling organization, not Fox News. Unlike Fox News, their pollster has a good reputation.

Yes, this is correct. There's a difference between Fox News and the Fox polling division.

The Fox polling is actually jointly conducted by 2 polling companies -- a Democratic pollster (Beacon Research/Anderson Robbins) and a Republican pollster (Shaw & Company).

The Fox poll is usually considered a high-quality one in the polling industry, and Five Thirty Eight gives it an A rating.

Here's another example: A Quinnipiac poll from July shows Biden beating Trump in Ohio by 8 points ...

... but Trump beating Warren by 1 point. (He also beats Sanders by 1 point and is tied with Harris.)

I think the Sanders supporters are starting to give up. Even they are starting to realize that he's never going to be president. If you look at progressive sites, like Daily Kos, the Bernie supporters are disappearing, when 4 years ago, there were EVERYWHERE across social media. Most of that progressive support has been transferred to Warren, even though she isn't experiencing anywhere near the hype that surrounded Bernie in 2016.

Why are Liz and Kamala always the weakest against him? If Biden flames out then I thought Liz would be the next best choice, but it looks like Bernie is a stronger general election candidate than her.

No one is voting for Biden 6 months from now. I just don't get the people who believe this. That IS what Bernie taught us. Don't believe the status quo is an automatic go. Datalounge is populated by old white men who only care about gay marriage and their personal safety. The rest of the country and world have much more at stake. A progressive candidate will win the nomination. Anyone can lose against Trump. Biden would lose all the debates against him. He's an old creep who was on the wrong side of just about everything before Obama gave him a reflected sheen of integrity and sense.

Anyone who thinks that Obama righted the ship any degree that has not been turned back ten fold is not paying attention to what needs to be done NOW.

r51 Bernie is an old crook and is a disgrace. He is going to drop out before Iowa. Already polling in single digits. LMAO

Oh please. These polls are so full of shit. Of course Trump is going to win again.

I didn't vote for Bernie R52. But I will vote for Warren. And Bernie will support her nomination. Wait and see. Warren is going to do what Hillary couldn't. Because she's not Hillary. Hillary didn't lose because she is a woman and Biden won't win just because he's an ancient white man.

[quote]A progressive candidate will win the nomination.

What reality are you living in? Do you not pay attention to how this country votes in national elections? I would love to have a sip of the Kool-Aid that progressives and democratic socialists drink, it must be a wild trip.

screw fox's poll

They need to do a "who's going to get off their ass and vote" poll

I have a feeling the results will be much different

Given how much vitriol DLers direct at successful gay men, non-stereotypical gay men and millennials, the Pete-hate at R2 should not be surprising.

But it is.

He's the gay mayor of some tiny midwestern city that no one ever heard of before and he's outraising and outpolling more than a dozen much better known candidates, and he's become a national figure, His success tells lots of 12 year old gay kids who may be hating themselves because they think being gay means there are a lot of things they can't be, that they're wrong , that they can be whatever they want.

Most DLers seem quite proud/supportive of him, but so bananas that the haters are still hating.

Biden is not an overwhelming frontrunner in the same way Hillary was 4 years ago, so it's possible his leads will diminish by the time early 2020 rolls around.

However, at this point in time, Biden does have a more comfortable lead and cushion over Trump than the other Democrats nationally, and is also doing better in the Midwestern states, and in states like Florida (and sometimes Texas).

He appears to have more crossover appeal to Independents and a small number of Republicans than Hillary did.

Here's a recent analysis by Harry Enten:

[quote]His success tells lots of 12 year old gay kids who may be hating themselves because they think being gay means there are a lot of things they can't be, that they're wrong , that they can be whatever they want.

Well that's not how it works. Jesus. Most gay kids don't need to feel that way and they would be unlikely to feel encouraged by Buttigieg. There are many more accessible and openly gay men to look up to who are successful in all areas of life. Pete is a candidate, so is Marianne Williamson. There's room for anyone who has the ambition and cash. To run. Black kids were encouraged by Obama too, no doubt. So they learned a harsh lesson. Because he did nothing for the black community and refused to represent them. At least Obama was cool and elegant and could sing. He had an incredible running mate: His WIFE.

Gays have a lot of disposable income. Pete is a boring dude who stayed in the closet until he was the age of jesus in an era and rare air environments where it wasn't necessary. He served in the military for no other reason than to satisfy conservative ambition and found himself a traditional political wife. He's the opposite of brave. He's a gay man stripped of definition. Pete is not in any way a step forward for gay people and he sure doesn't poll high at all. I wouldn't call him a national figure. Not yet. Nothing to inspire 12 year old kids who hate themselves. That millennial dude is always giving himself away. Every post he writes is about his much younger perspective. Sketchy dude. I'm 43 bitch. What is your point?

Nobody hates Pete because he is gay, but only a very insecure dude needs to see his running as something radical or progressive for gay people. He's got something to prove, but it's not for gay children. Ha. The GOP is full of gay men like Pete Buttigieg. They ordered their wives from the same catalogue.

Seek help R59.

R59 = Cory Booker, jealous that an openly-gay man is beating him.

r58 Biden is not overwhelming favorite because he is competing with 2 dozen other candidates and at least 4 of them are well known nationally. Hillary was the only well known candidate last time until a crazy old retarded man caught fire

Yes, R62.

That's why I said:

[quote]Biden is not an overwhelming frontrunner in the same way Hillary was 4 years ago, so it's possible his leads will diminish by the time early 2020 rolls around.

But for now, Biden still has the most advantages (see Harry Enten analysis above).

Just keep in mind how much money the GOP has to spend. They will be running ads on a loop trashing the Democratic candidate and party (ending your private insurance, prisoner voting rights, healthcare for illegals, reparations, etc). This will freak the voting public which tends to be older the fuck out. We already saw that there is no limit to how low Trump will go (parading Bill’s women out, saying his opponent’s father killed JFK, etc). Then the Russians will be back.

The poll troll comes to Biden's defense, as always on DL. He's aspierational in that way. Thankfully, his is not the real world.

[quote] Nobody hates Pete because he is gay

We literally have articles and posts slamming him for not being gay enough or not coming out of the closet earlier in his life.

Polls are still mainly reflecting name recognition on the Dem side. But the numbers for Trump are truly bleak. If his numbers continue to drop, at some point his aides will face a decision about whether to show him the facts. I think they will be justifiably afraid to do so, as his temper tantrums continue to spiral out of control. At some point it becomes impossible to run a campaign if the candidate refuses to face reality

[quote]Polls are still mainly reflecting name recognition on the Dem side.

No matter how many times you say that, it's not going to magically come true.

[quote]I love and admire Barack Obama, but it was not normalcy.

It absolutely was normal, with the exception of the Teapartier rage which we underestimated at the time. But underestimating bigotry is also pretty normal for the US, to be honest.

[QUOTE]Polls are still mainly reflecting name recognition on the Dem side.

Then why does Liz Warren poll better than Bernie on a regular basis? You mean to tell me that Dems know her better than the runner up to the 2016 nomination? The guy who millions of them already voted for?

Warren is surging, no doubt about it. I'm arguing that much of Biden's apparent lead in the polls rests on a (rapidly eroding) basis of name recognition. The importance of his "gaffes" is often overstated, but he has a limited window of time in which to establish himself as the real peer of Warren, Sanders, Harris, etc., and he may not be able to do it

R71 Not sure what you mean by "rapidly eroding" name recognition? I think one of more salient points of what's happened so far is that there's the general opinion that Biden's about ready to fall in the polls (from the first debate on... event after event, mistake after mistake) but the fact is his support isn't eroding... has remained pretty solid.

What's true is that Warren is eating away at Bernie's support, and at this point is Biden's biggest threat. I'm surprised Pete is falling into the third tier... he's got money, a well run campaign, and he's going nowhere. For the record, Warren is my choice.

Harry Enten, August 15:

[quote]Rote: Biden remains the most likely to get the nomination. The other candidates combined have a better shot than Biden... Semi-new element: Probably greater than 50% shot Biden or Warren get nomination.

Name recognition doesn't erode in a short time. It would take several years for Biden's name recognition to erode at this point.

Fox already starting to convince democrat voters that it will not be necessary to go vote... you won already, guys, stay home... business as usual.

[QUOTE]Warren is surging, no doubt about it. I'm arguing that much of Biden's apparent lead in the polls rests on a (rapidly eroding) basis of name recognition.

Ah, so polls are all about name recognition.. when it comes to Joe Biden. Everyone else has earned their place on their own merit. Got it.

r73 what do you mean third tier ? Who is in first and second tier ?

No way is Trump polling at 39%. They're lying. It's a number they've decided to look like Trump is an underdog (outsider! rebel!) but still respectably in the race.

This isn't 2016 when he was an unknown quantity about to work his genius on the country's ills. His daily failures for 2.5 years are egregious. He's fired. He can't win without Russia.

He's not in third tier. He's second tier and still in 5th place.

Trump is losing white women suburban voters. He's not getting them back unless he can pull off some kind of gun control legislation, which is looking unlikely.

If Warren gets the nom, she will lose. Too many Americans who actually vote aren't going to go for a school marm. They would prefer a pussy-grabbing racist and clown who entertains them and syas what they want to, but can't.

I’m Impressed with Warren’s grit and campaigning, but I too think she would lose big , maybe at Dukakis levels. Americans don’t connect with Massachusetts candidates, including Romney. We can whine about regional bias, but it ain’t changing, and Warren is not the one to change it. Her personality, speaking style, and mannerisms are not very relatable to middle America and swing staters.

My only worry with Biden is that he'll deteriorate mentally as we get closer to the election.

Biden today is fine, a lot of his gaffes are what he's always done rather than because he's old. But I do worry that if he starts to lose it in 2020, then that gives Trump an advantage. Just don't want him to be the American von Hindenburg.

R81/R82: None of what you say is true, so save your "concerns".

R77/R79 "Third tier" means down into single digits (down = dropping from double in previous months' polls). That he may be "fifth".. is misleading. The distance between him and fourth (Harris) is much more than between him and sixth (Beto, Klo, Yang, Booker... depending on the poll). Even after generating lots of $ ($100s from me... I like him). a well run campaign, shifting to "policy" statements from general "feel good" messaging, targeted outreach both to communities of color and rural voter, good performance in the debates... despite everything going "right" so far, his support has measurably dropped.

He was not in double digits, R85, and you know it. The last Fox News national poll had him at 5%. That's not double digits.

r85 harris dropped to single digits too. Pete is polling very well in early states , often in double digits. National polling at this time is meaningless.

As much as I like her, Warren would be a terrible nominee. How would she win back Michigan and Wisconsin? And she wouldn’t put any swing states (like Florida, Ohio, Iowa) back into play. No, she’d be a worse nominee than even Bernie.

R88: Much as you don't like Warren and are trolling with your unlinked, unverified, unsubstantiated claims, I don't give a fuck what you have to say.

You are talking to the wind R88. They live in some kind of alternate reality that is filled with rainbows and lollipops. It must be nice to live in the world with blinder on. I like Elizabeth Warren. She is smart and the kind of person who would make a great president. The problem is she isn't going to get us the votes we need where we need them.

The Democrats need to keep pushing that the economic recovery started in the Obama administration. Then categorically list how Trump has damaged the economy since he's been President.

The Immigration thing is just bait, a red herring to get the Democrats acting all Socialist and kum-ba-yah and anti-American- which AOWM (Angry Old White Men) loathe.

But nobody does. They keep talking about goddamn healthcare.

So here we are, left with about a half-dozen candidates who are either elderly, women or a minority.

who do you think will take the lead if Trump ends up not running?

Uncle Joe is steaming on ahead despite the gaffes. It's going to be him.

What does this matter when the Electoral College gives outsize weight to REDNECK, RED-STATE DEPLORABLES who are going to vote for Trump?

I know they weigh twice as much as the average American. But their votes shouldn't!

R94 Well, the system isn't going to change before the election, so a candidate who is competitive in the states that Hillary lost and old swing states is the best bet. I think that's Biden or possibly Bernie. Biden is very strong in PA and MI. He's even polling well in Ohio against Trump, which could make it a swing state again. He's also the only candidate who has polled ahead of Trump in Arizona. Of course these numbers could change, but they're definitely something worth considering.

[quote]It must be nice to live in the world with blinder [sic] on.

You would know more than we would, since you're basically making up shit about Warren and her performance against Trump. You don't have the data to back up your claims.

Trump is not having to worry. Day before election will be huge power outage in every state that Democrat would win. Result will be big chaos and then Supreme Court will rule for Trump victory.

[quote]No way is Trump polling at 39%.

I do wonder how he could be polling at 39% when his popularity is a few points higher than that, but it's probably explained by the difference in methodology and in the margin of error.

[quote]As much as I like her, Warren would be a terrible nominee.

I think she would make a great VP candidate. Everyone yells at me when I say this, but I think Biden-Warren would be a pretty powerful ticket in terms of bringing out the votes in the right places.

I would be happy to vote for Biden-Warren, but I would rather vote for Warren-Castro or Warren-Booker.

[quote]Stop posting your threads about Biden being too old. Stop posting your endless threads on Biden's gaffes. Just stop it. It's not having an affect. Deal with the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that Biden is too old to be President. You need to deal with it.

Trump is not going to win. He won by a narrow margin primarily in 3 Midwestern states.

His base is still going to vote for him. But those undecided swing voters are NOT his base.

And last time they went for him primarily because of strong distrust/dislike of Hillary Clinton. And also because they viewed Trump as a political outsider who would bring a fresh perspective to the White House as a successful businessman.

Well, those voters now realize that Trump was never a successful businessman, and he is actually a Nazi who is destroying the country day by day. Those midwestern voters are not going to vote for him again, and he can’t win without them.

Agree 100% with everything R102 posted.

Well done, friend,

I would also add that many of them convinced themselves that he'd become more presidential once he was elected, that the obnoxious boor thing was just an act he was putting on to get elected. Or that he'd grow bored of being president and let people like Paul Ryan run the country. Or that Ivanka would play a major role and would push him towards the center.

Clearly none of that is true now, so all those suburban women are not voting for him..

And as for you R94, until 2016, the electoral college was our friend. It still is--there are far more votes in deep blue states than in deep red ones, so the Democrats start out with the advantage, not the Republicans.

Warren/Castro.

Castro could give us Texas, Arizona, and Colorado.

Liz would take Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and maybe Maine. She could lose Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

The remaining states would go as they went in 2016. Doesn’t that make it a Dem landslide?

I think Warren will be the candidate, and will probably pick Castro.

He has the advantage of not being a sitting Senator, so a Democratic Senate seat won’t be lost...other than Warren’s.

^ as for “how”, Texas, Arizona, and Colorado will be close whomever runs. Castro could take the states due to ethnic affinity.

As for Liz’s states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all going to the Dems this time anyway. All she has to do is not screw up, and not let Trump walk over her. She’ll take New Hampster and maybe Maine due to regional familiarity. She might lose the South due to anti progressive, anti-woman sentiment.

Her biggest task will be just as written - don’t screw up, don’t let Trump walk on her, and keep breathing through Election Day.

R105, and Massachusetts will replace her with Joe Kennedy in a special election.

Castro was at 2% in the last Emerson poll in Texas (8/1-8/3). Biden, Beto, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Pete were ahead of him. Why would he give us Texas (or any of the other states) again?

Castro is not popular in Texas, which is why he's too chicken shit to run for statewide office. Beto is much more popular than either Castro brother.

He would add nothing to the ticket, and actually hurt it with his extremely unpopular open borders policy.

[quote]Her biggest task will be just as written - don’t screw up, don’t let Trump walk on her, and keep breathing through Election Day.

That’s largely what she’s been doing. She’s carefully staying on message, and not attacking or engaging in mudslinging with the other candidates. It seems to be working...her poll numbers continue to go up.

Why was it that in 2016 election NO ONE predicted Trump would win but he did. People have learned not to say they support Trump to the pollsters, many of their friends or neighbors but they will vote for him. I think that will be the case in 2020. Plus, if Biden is out and the plank of the Dem Party goes toward Socialism that will only help those on the fence.

Castro/Beto/Castro, whatever! Run Carmen Miranda if that’s what it takes.

Why is Sanders even running? Hecwill just decide the ticket in the end.

R111, Because the country was not ready for a woman president. They're not ready in 2020, either. Pundits are too scared to say it on TV, but everybody knows it.

R114, it just will take the right woman and circumstances. Evita, Indira, Golda, Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto. All had charisma and succeeded in countries that would “never” elect a woman, until they did.

I don’t think Liz has that charisma, but she could still win as a technocrat. Especially if the economy tanks.

FWIW, in my little corner of Millennial-land, most all of my friends supported Bernie in 2016 simply because he was Not Hillary and because he was the only one talking about how for many people life was not rainbows and unicorns.

But the rise of the BernieBro subculture and the fact that there are plenty of other acceptable candidates running this time (Pete, Warren, Beto) means that there are few Bernie supporters left.

Beto is not an acceptable candidate.

Good news, R116.

Unless someone does something to restore the Integrity of our electoral system none of this matters. He'll steal this election too.

Sometimes, in fact most times, I worry that polls and votes no longer matter. American democracy is already dead. They just haven't published the obituary yet.

Joe Biden isn't going to restore anything but the cracks in his face. He'll be the first president to die from too much plastic surgery. I can't stand that pompous fool. Uncle Joe my ass. He's the uncle they warn young girls to stay away from. As we say in the south, YUK.

'Few Bernie supporters left' is a gross exaggeration. Instead, the millennial Democratic support is split between Sanders and Warren, with nearly half the poll support (first choice) between them. Sanders enjoys 1st (sometimes 2nd - its narrow) support by millennials at least around 20%+, which is substantially less than the same time in 2015 I believe, but definitely keeps him at a strong level with them going into the primaries. Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg each have less than half the millennial support of either Sanders and Warren by the way.

(Buttigieg is being supported by older white gays, not young anything gays. With news of him so actively courting superdelegate support, I don't see him anticipating being president but instead preparing for a power position and increased influence from a possible brokered convention next year.)

The Gen X support is more split between Biden, Warren, and Sander, with Biden still in the lead. Boomers and older are largely for Biden.

I think its much less accurate to say that Sanders appeal has collapsed or something, but that the progressive and youth vote is split between the progressive capitalist and the democratic socialist, indicating that in 2016 there were indeed a lot that were anti-Clinton and only cared about that, but also that there were still many that were truly pro-Sanders and he has built a base in the last few years that you can't ignore as easily as before. It was probably a good move in the debates to at least hold a peaceful stance between the two for now, but eventually one will have to give up and either endorse the other or a Biden (or someone) in the lead, unless we want a hell of a weird convention.

If you're older, you more likely expect Biden will not drain support enough to lose the lead. If you're younger, you more likely either expect a steady Warren rise to presidency as she makes her case or that Sanders will continue to mobilize his structure and get some big wins to rise above. Harris and Buttigieg and O’Rourke have their corners of support but aside from the positive introduction to Buttigieg, a higher level of POC support for Harris and her one debate surge, and O'Rourke's earlier hopes, none have broken through to the top tier, but they're the ones that may be most likely to break into 2nd-3rd place at this point. We'll see the field narrow to less than 10 soon enough anyway.

The concern for Sanders is that even as the field has diversified, and even as he is definitely not in a weak position, there's a chance that he's hit his effective ceiling of support without something more drastic occurring or maybe a drain of support (Biden supporters 2nd choice is Sanders, if you can believe it) that helps him out later on. But his concern isn't that millennials don't support him. All we know now is that while millennials support him, some support Warren more, but generally they would take either. You won't be seeing enthusiastic Millennials(/Gen Zers) for Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, O'Rourke so far - the most you can hope for is that they're not nearly as disengaged as when they witnessed older voters put Clinton in front of them.

correction: Sanders was ~20% Dem support in Aug 2015 but I meant in the framework of him only having one competitor. On one hand you'd think a single big competitor to Clinton in 2015 would do better than 20% (and later he did, up to the 40s, though some DLers would like to ignore this), but on the other hand him maintaining at least 15-20% today with such a crowded field is at least a small accomplishment for him.

Point is, he's not weak except with Boomers+, and he's not even that bad there (~10-15%). His problem isn't being in a bad position today, its that he might be hitting his peak already and will only either maintain or gradually lower. In any case, his campaign isn't likely freaking out nearly as much as Biden's is every so often (a drop to sticking in the 20s% for him might as well be nearly a defeat, because he'd so clearly lose the consensus and have to directly compete with a still large field, and he hasn't been the best at that).

TL;DR but I said "in my corner of the Millennial World" meaning "in my group of friends and social media acquaintances whose political leanings I am aware of"

Not "everyone in the US between the ages of 21 and 39"

I know you used anecdote.

I also know you turned it into the conclusion of "But the rise of the BernieBro subculture and the fact that there are plenty of other acceptable candidates running this time (Pete, Warren, Beto) means that there are few Bernie supporters left."

"there are few Bernie supporters left"

So I responded to that, not the anecdote, with data and my impressions from it. I responded with basically "because of XYZ there are not few Bernie supporters left, but fewer dedicated to his win than before, but still as many leaning or dedicated progressive".

Biden is the "Panic Nominee".

His support will lessen as time progresses.

Mark my words.

[quote] His support will lessen as time progresses.

DataLoungers have been saying this every day for the past 3 or 4 months, and it hasn't happened yet.

Wait for it R126.

Clinton and Obama were polling poorly at this stage of their respective races.

As things progress and the public becomes more familiar with candidates, this will hinder Biden.

Unfortunately, his main draw is recognition and his questionably "successful" history.

True, R127. Obama didn't start beating Hillary in the polls until February 2007. There's time.

And Nervous Nellies will fear-monger in regards to Trump.

But if he continues on in his current trajectory - outlandish declarations (buying Greenland), economic miscalculations, confusing speech patterns, controversial statements, mounting administration lawsuits - he will likely go down. And if Republicans don't recognize this potential timeline, and redirect, they will be in for a big fall.

For example, another large mass shooting could alight the U.S. public consciousness like dry tinder to matches. Perhaps even to demand demonstrations modelled after Hong Kong. And although Moscow Mitch has base support, it is weakening. As is Barr's with the Epstein deal. There are only so many hits the tower can take before it is weakened. And then comes crashing down.

If Warren stays the steady course, as others have noted, she might walk away as the technocrat victor.

Although, it'd be interesting to see what bold possibilities outlier candidates like Inslee and Yang could provide....

r125 is right, r126

There are some serious financial problems with the family, with Joe Biden using his kids to take kickbacks from, among other countries, China.

Once the "gaffe" thing is accepted, the Repugs will attack Biden on corruption. And they'll have enormous ammunition.

We need a different primary candidate from Biden. He's too vulnerable.

OP - those polls are not real. They are decoy polls intended to lull Democrats into a false and premature sense of victory. It will convince many marginal voters to stay home because they will believe their vote isn’t necessary.

I posted Harry Enten's latest prediction at R73.

Enten calculates that Biden winning the nomination is still the most likely probability at this point based on the numbers.

However, if Biden falters, Enten says that Warren now appears to be the next most likely to win the nomination.

OP, I think trump losing to 4 democratic candidates in this Fox News poll is the significant information gleamed from this poll. The margin of error is high for a fox news sub sample poll, so biden and sanders are basically the same. They have lead basically all polls (intention to vote studies). You cannot say that Sanders is dropping to Biden. This would not be a statistical significant or accurate statement. Actually, this poll is good news for Sanders ans his supporters, at least, the ones that understand statistics.

[quote] means that there are few Bernie supporters left [among my friends and acquaintances]

You wrote a freaking 800+ word essay because you misread my post lol

So DL

R133, there were two major aspects to this poll: the first was how they polled against Trump; the second was how they polled against each other. That was the drop I referred to. Note the section in bold:

[quote]It's also bad news for Sanders (and Buttigieg) as he drops in the [bold]Democratic primary polling[/bold]:

[quote]Biden - 31%, Warren - 20%, [bold]Sanders - 10%[/bold], Harris - 8%, everyone else at 3% or lower

Sanders at 10% in the Democratic primary is a significant drop against Biden and Warren. This poll was bad news for Sanders.

Now what was that you were saying about "understanding statistics?"

R135 Right you are. Sanders dropping to 10%, 1/2 of what Warren polls, is 1) a surprise and 2) a possible warning flag on his candidacy. Let's see if this poll is an outlier. Of course we have the actual voting still to happen, so there's that....

Everyone hates Trump. It's impossible not to.

[quote] Clinton and Obama were polling poorly at this stage of their respective races.

This is not true. Obama in 2008 was obviously trailing Clinton at this stage of the race, but he was solidly in second place and well into the double digits. Also, Obama was able to overtake Clinton largely because of his charisma and his electrifying speech after his Iowa victory. None of the current crop of candidates have that Obama-like charisma. For someone like Buttigieg, O'Rourke, Klobuchar, Booker, etc., to become a serious contender to Biden would be similar to someone like Richardson, Kucinich, or (ironically) Biden in 2008 becoming a serious contender to Clinton and Obama, In other words, highly, highly unlikely.

There weren't 20 fucking people in the race when Hillary and Obama were running in 2008. So naturally their polling percentages were higher than 10%.

Give it up Biden Troll. He's not going to be the nominee.

[r135] you understand absolute numbers, but clearly not statistics. The margin of error for a subsample intention to vote study can be more than 5%. A 2% difference with a margin of error of more than 5% means the two percentage difference (that you are seeing) is not statistical significant. This study found no statistical difference between Biden and Sanders.

R140, do you really not understand just how dumb your response is? For the third time: this is not about the comparison between Biden vs. Trump and Sanders vs. Trump. [bold]This is about Biden vs. Sanders.[/bold]

In the poll of how the respondents would vote in the Democratic primary, [bold]Biden got 31% and Sanders got 10%[/bold]. That is a "statistically significant" drop for Sanders and a "statistically significant" difference between Biden and Sanders.

Man, I even bolded it for you in the response in R135, repeated for you exactly what I was talking about and you *still* botched it in your response. Are you really so incapable of reading?

So yes, I got the numbers right [italic]and[/italic] the statistics right and you, once again, end up with egg on your face, having utterly failed to comprehend ... anything. You really need to delete your account.

Here is an important part of the Fox Poll that was highlighted by Josh Kraushaar & Harry Enten that puts Biden in a stronger position against Trump than Hillary:

[quote]This is VERY, VERY different than what happened in 2016.

[quote]“Voters who have a negative view of both Trump and Biden back Biden 43-10% in the head to head matchup”

We're tired of hearing about Biden. He won't be the nominee.

down with joe

One of the top tier will be the nominee. No one - including addled, angry, pervy uncle Joe has a lock on anything at this point.

Speaking of statistics....I love this from Hillary today.

[quote]“Voters who have a negative view of both Trump and Biden back Biden 43-10% in the head to head matchup.

A portion of these people are the Dem "progressives".

Based on this, I'm tentatively encouraged that they will come out to vote for whoever the Dem nominee is instead of sitting it out.

That's why I'm not really concerned about the current Democratic primary, r147. While Democrats may disagree on who the best candidate is, they all agree that they want to get rid of Trump. I think it will be easier in 2020 for people to get over it when their candidate wasn't selected and subsequently unite behind the candidate that was.

So it turns out that Trump is a "uniter" after all. Who knew?

A new CNN poll out today, which has better news for Sanders but also better news for Biden. Harris, on the other hand, has completely lost her first-debate bounce. This poll is also good news For Castro, since it's a qualifying poll for the Houston debate next month. With this poll, he has now qualified, the 10th candidate to do so. Steyer needs one additional poll; Gabbard needs two. Both say that they have met the fundraising threshold.

Biden - 29%

Sanders - 15%

Warren - 14%

Harris - 5%

A couple of tidbits from the poll:

[quote]Biden's advantage in the poll is boosted by stronger support from self-identified Democrats (31%) than from independents (23%), older voters (34% among those age 45 and older) than younger ones (23% among those under age 45) and from moderate and conservative voters (34%) than liberals (22%).

[quote]Among liberals, in fact, the race is a near three-way tie: 23% choose Warren and 22% each back Biden and Sanders. No other candidate even hits 5% among this group.

I should qualify the "better news for Biden" statement in r149: it's better news than the last CNN poll, which had him at 7 points lower than today's poll. Biden's lead in the CNN poll is roughly in line with his lead in the Fox News poll that began this thread.

R149 Pete was also 5% in that poll. So, Harris and Pete are now both "second tier." I do think that not having a POC in the top tier is not a good thing for Democrats.... ultimately.

[quote] A new CNN poll out today, which has better news for Sanders but also better news for Biden. Harris, on the other hand, has completely lost her first-debate bounce.

[quote] Among liberals, in fact, the race is a near three-way tie: 23% choose Warren and 22% each back Biden and Sanders. No other candidate even hits 5% among this group.

So Biden's support (29%) is now equal to the second and third place candidates COMBINED. (Sanders 15%, Warren 14%). And BIden fares just as well among the party's liberal base as both Warren and Sanders. It'll be interesting to see how DataLounge tries to spin this poll to convince us that it shows Biden is failing.

[quote]It'll be interesting to see how DataLounge tries to spin this poll to convince us that it shows Biden is failing.

Three letters: CNN

The whole network is invested in Trump remaining president.

r152 National poll = meaningless.

[quote]National poll = meaningless.

Yes, but the state polls in the earliest-voting primaries (IA, NV, NH, SC) show Biden with just as big a lead - with the exception of NH, where he's neck & neck with Sanders (not a surprise, since Sanders is from VT) and SC, where Biden has a gigantic lead.

It's also not "meaningless," as movement in the national poll provides valid information.

Can any good ever come of a “Fox News Poll” or the bearer of said poll?

R157, as mentioned above, the Fox Poll is separate from the Fox News division. The Fox pollster is considered a good one in the polling industry and has an A-rating at 538.

The Fox pollster is actually run by 2 polling companies -- a Democratic pollster & a Republican pollster.

As mentioned everywhere, the PollTroll is a frightened basement gay who pushes Joe Biden down everyone's throat. As if Uncle Joe didn't do enough of that himself. Ouch Joe, don't touch me there. Creeps. Both of them.

R159, ad hominem attacks are the first sign of a losing argument. You keep attacking me personally just for reporting the numbers.

I'm not sure what your issue is -- you are the only one who has ever attacked me personally here.

Meanwhile, state polling for *COLORADO* shows Trump trailing all top Democratic candidates:

Biden/Trump: 55% - 45%

Sanders/Trump: 55% - 45%

Buttigieg/Trump: 55% - 45%

Warren/Trump: 53% - 46%

Harris/Trump: 51% - 48%

[Emerson College / August 19, 2019 / 1000 Respondents / MOE 3% / IVR]

[quote]I'm not sure what your issue is -- you are the only one who has ever attacked me personally here.

I dislike you dude. It's personal. That's what ad hominem means. Your stats may or may not be of value to DL. Stats reporters lend themselves to a bit of investigation of their own. You ARE way off in a few ways I've been trained to recognize my dude. Not about your business. Good luck with that. Peace to a PollTroll.

I don't think most Americans are really paying attention yet. It's not going to get serious until next year.

MARY! @R162.

I know it's early, but every poll has shown that Biden and Sanders are the two most electable Democrats, and they do roughly the same against Trump, give or take a couple of points. Warren is always a couple of points behind them.

Start by revealing your age bitch. At R164. I've never heard anyone say MARY anyplace but on DL. Still not sure what it means but it's like "gurl" for the fruitiest of old fags right? Really old fags. Anyway, y'all are over 60 and not in a demographic that counts anywhere other than national elections PollTroll. No wonder you skew your info to grandpa Biden. As I said, I see some problems with your presentation of "facts" as well as your passive aggressive posting style and patterns. Certain things repeat in your language and timing. Thanks for revealing your age to be 55 to 66. I learned much more about you than that fool. White men can't jump. Don't try it bitch.

It is all too early to tell. The main indicator here is that Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris are the top 4. Other than that, we know very little... Any of the 4 are WORLDS better than the current repellant administration. THAT we can agree upon.

R166, I'm nowhere near as old as you think I am.

I am 41. I've been on DL for about 15 years since I was in my mid-20's.

Not everyone here is an Elder Gay.

Feel confident R168. A truth is on your side!

What the fuck does PollTroll age have to do with anything, and who the fuck are you to demand anything from anyone, R166?

Huh? What did I demand R170? You can't get blood from anonymous liars. The truth is out there. About the PollTroll. May his leaving be joyful & may he never return. Amen.

You demanded that he post his age.

[quote] Start by revealing your age bitch.

Huh yourself, bitch.

R171 AKA 'King' might I suggest you get an authenticated name if you, and your posting history, want to be taken (semi) seriously.

Don't you DARE go after our beloved Poll Troll R171.

BE GONE!

Huh? The PollTroll is beloved by ancient white gay men conditioned to lose.

R175 is a desperate attention-whore.

[quote]Meanwhile, state polling for *COLORADO* shows Trump trailing all top Democratic candidates:

Hopefully good news for Dems picking up Cory Gardner's Senate seat.

I appreciate you, PollTroll!

Underestimate Hair Furor (and Russian shenanigans) at your own peril…

Silly to troll the troll. Pointless.

I think "Bernie beats Trump by almost as much as Joe" can be explained, at this early stage, as simply name recognition. A significant % of American voters (or sadly, Americans who will or won't vote), just are tired of Trump and will be for anyone else whose name they recognize. Bernie is known... what's a Kamala, what's a Buttigieg....?

SUCK IT, DON-DON!!!! AND GO BLOW A DEAD BEAR WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!

R160 Attacking the you instead of the numbers is an obvious troll tactic. Probably a combination of trolling and mental illness (its writing style is psycho).

The PollTroll is obviously on the spectrum, but I'm not sure that it's fair to call him mentally ill.

I'm still mystified as to why Biden is polling so well.

Biden looks good because many Americans do not like the bitchy liberals. I am a socialist but Harris and some of the others have forced me to Joe. I never wanted to vote for Biden but we need someone who can win...maybe Warren. I liked Harris than her bitchy side came shining through. No thanks.

Sherrod Brown was a good candidate for workers...but he dropped out. I hope he eventually comes back in. Workers wages and affordable housing is what we need most.

It's too bad Klobuchar isn't any good. I good, approachable, relatable middle class middle western centrist woman who could savage Trump could win this election. She isn't that. Warren (my choice) isn't either. Stacy Abrams would have been close.

R185, Sherrod Brown would be #1 or #2 right now if he had gotten in the race. He actually would have been the perfect combo to attract both centrists and progressives, and he appeals to Midwesterners, since he's from Ohio. He has to be kicking himself right now.

[quote]I'm still mystified as to why Biden is polling so well.

One guess for some people: a return to normality. "I'm tired of the drama," "I'm nervous about things like 'the Green New Deal'," "I'm nervous about 'Medicare for All' and what it will mean to me, since I like my insurance." "Can't we get a President who knows how to work with Congress?" "Can't we get a President who will not tweet this exhausting shit dozens of times a day?" "Can't we get an adult in the White House?" "Ooga booga 'SOCIALISM' ooga booga."

For other people, it's more along the lines of "I'd vote for Bugs Bunny if he had the best chance to take Trump out."

2016 absolutely was a "change" election. I'm thinking the pendulum has swung back a bit as people realize that "change" doesn't necessarily mean "good change." Does that mean Biden will take the nomination and the Presidency? Of course not, as there's a long way to go, but, for now, anyway, he's been pretty consistently on top, both on top of the Democratic primary and on top of Trump.

Biden is a known, comfortable choice. Nothing to think about too hard.

I like Biden—I think the thing to remember is that massive change doesn’t happen overnight for a nation of 300 million people. It’s just not possible. You need someone at the helm that will point the ship in the right direction and have patience. That’s Biden. I love the other candidates but their plans aren’t realistic; not that they’re not the right thing to do. But because massive change isn’t possible —because of our massive population and complex government structure.

BIden is a comfortable choice, but he needs a sharp brain like Kamala as a running mate (someone who can actually debate and actually make a rational and coherent point). We need a female on the ticket and these two need to learn to get along because she is the ONE.

Except that Elizabeth Warren is the one, r191.

You need an attack dog as your running mate, and preferably someone who can pull the parts of the country that you can't. Warren could likely fulfill that role. Harris could as well.

And yes, I wasn't sure about using 'attack dog', but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it.

As long as Biden is the best chance for beating Trump he has my vote. We can't have another close stolen election. The margin of victory has to be large enough to overcome GOP/Russian vote tampering.

We need sherrod to stay in the Senate.

Fucking cunt face dewhine would stick us with some idiotic twat like that goddamned useless Portman.

Sherrod needs to stay right where he is until we're rid of dewhine, Portman or both of those useless pricks.

R192, Warren is too far off with policy sadly. I do liker her, but her running mate is Sanders. Kamala and Biden are very much closer to lock step.

Kamala stands no chance. Blacks don't like that she married a white man, she comes across as a colossal bitch, and her policies are very unclear. Face it bitches, Biden is going to be our nominee and he will probably pic Castro as his running mate.

[quote]I'm still mystified as to why Biden is polling so well.

I swear, gays can be so clueless at times when it comes to the real world. Do you really think that families want to see a huge increase in their taxes under a Warren or Sanders presidency? They have kids, homes, college educations, etc. to think about.

R198 nice talking points.

Let's not get cocky, Democrats. Remember in late October, 2016? After beating Trump in all three debates, handily, and after the 'grab em by the pussy' tape, it looked to everyone like Hillary had it in the bag. We shouldn't take any votes for granted.

I find it odd that this poll came out and doesn't seem to match any other polls. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't a message to Trump from TPTB at Fox, or an attempt to rile up his base.

By the way, I am in love with the PollTroll.

New Associated Press poll today has Trump's approval rating down to 36%

NEW YORK (AP) — About six in 10 Americans disapprove of President Trump's overall job performance, according to a new poll released Thursday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which finds some support for the president's handling of the U.S. economy but gives him weak marks on other major issues.

Just 36% of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president; 62% disapprove.

The numbers may be ugly for a first-term president facing reelection in 14 months, but they are remarkably consistent. Trump's approval rating has never dipped below 32% or risen above 42% in AP-NORC polls since he took office. By comparison, President Barack Obama's approval never dropped below 40% in polling by Gallup.

The poor grades extend to Trump's handling of several key issues: immigration, health care, foreign policy and guns. Views of the Republican president's handling of the economy remain a relative bright spot despite fears of a potential recession, but at least 60% of Americans disapprove of his performance on other issues. The consistency suggests the president's weak standing with the American people is calcified after two years of near-constant political crises and divisive rhetoric at the White House.

Another brutal poll, this time from Quinnipiac, that basically reaffirms the Fox Poll numbers. This is bad news for Trump.

Biden over Trump 54% - 38%

Sanders over Trump 53% - 39%

Warren over Trump 52% - 40%

Harris over Trump 51% - 40%

Buttigieg over Trump 49% - 40%

So which Democratic candidate can beat Trump? All of them.

In the Democratic primary, this poll contradicts the recent outlier poll that had the top three Democratic candidates tied. This is something like the third poll in this same time period that does that, so that outlier poll can safely be ignored, particularly since it only polled 300 people and had a 6% margin of error.

Biden - 32%

Warren - 19%

Sanders -15%

Harris at 7%, Buttigieg at 5%, Yang at 3%; everyone else at 1% or less.

Link to the Quinnipiac poll. Also note that the poll shows that 50% of the voters "disapprove strongly" of the way that Trump is handling his job. He can't even get a break on the economy, his best attribute, as 46% approve and 49% disapprove of his handling of the economy.

A lot of people are wary of polls after 2016.

R205 So Warren is now ahead of Bernie and solidly in 2nd place. These two really need to pool resources and voter bases, but Bernie will presumably battle on to the end, regardless.

Yeah, idiots, R207. We've been over this hundreds, if not thousands, of times, and I'm not going to do it again.

And we all think that's fantastic, r209.

Yes. The Bern victims will once again scream and stomp their feet and vote for a traitor when their precious old geezer loses the nomination.

That old spitting fool needs to sit down, shut up and go away!

He's a true champion!