The new IBD/TIPP poll is troubling for Democrats.

[Drunken Irishman]

Only Biden leads nationally vs Trump - but more importantly, only Biden hits 50%. These numbers should shed a light on just how close 2020 will be and that, at the end of the day, it's not likely to be the slam dunk I think many were expecting a year - or even a few months ago. Impeachment appears to have not jolted Trump's support much (in either direction).

I still maintain he's being artificially propped up by a good economy. But that strength is kind of overwhelming, as a great deal of Americans tend to vote by how their pocketbook is doing.

Still, these are alarming numbers - though, not panic-inducing yet.

Some concerns:

This isn't just name recognition anymore. Arguably the two most known candidates in the field have significantly different polling success vs Trump in this poll. Biden beats Trump by five (50-45), and Berne is losing to him 48-47. So, Trump does +3 better head-to-head vs Bernie than he does Biden and Bernie does -3 worse head-to-head vs Trump than Biden does.

More concerning, though, is the polling from Warren. She does the worst head-to-head vs Trump, losing by four.

Warren needs to figure out a way to calm electability concerns between now and the Iowa Caucus or I think you're going to see her campaign slip some more.

The final concern is just how dramatic these numbers are compared to their last poll in October.

Biden is -2 (was leading Trump +7 in their last poll)
Bernie is -8 (was leading Trump +7 in their last poll)
Warren is -12 (was leading Trump +8 in their last poll)

Only Biden has not seen a significant drop in support.

The good news, I guess, is that the dramatic shift means that polls remain volatile and are just as likely to swing back I guess if things break for a few news cycles.

But it's clear Trump has improved his ground a bit. He did the same in the most recent FOX News poll, though, Biden and Sanders still beat him.

One thing is clear, though: the narrative that Joe Biden does the best against Trump is not likely to change any. Whether you think it's a valid reason or not to vote for him, it's clear his consistency makes him a very viable candidate.

[OrlandoDem2]

1. I maintain that this will be as close as 2016 and only Biden can beat Trump.

That said, if Biden wins the nomination he must select an African American as his running mate. We
must win Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit by large margins to rebuild the blue wall. An African American may also help in GA, FL, and NC.

[Polybius]

17. If he wins, I personally think he should select Booker

I think he will choose Harris though.

[Bleacher Creature]

2. That poll also shows Trump getting 37% of the Hispanic vote against Biden.

There's no way in hell that number is right and, if it is, this country may be beyond saving.

[Thekaspervote]

6. Unfortunately many Hispanics agree with dotard's harsh immigration policy

Very much the case in AZ

[Cha]

25. They should take his damn perversion and

treasonous psychopathic behavior into consideration, too.

[Iliyah]

7. Florida maybe and no where else. . . . .

Overall t-rump and the administration along with Republicans have treated Latinos like shit. They are also f'ing with Asians as well. Middle Easterners and AA's truly are disgusted with the R" party, and many Religious groups are too.

[TwilightZone]

10. Trump got 28% in 2016.

I'd have to agree that 37% sounds rather unlikely.

[boomer_wv]

15. Noise

Just noise in the data based on small sample sizes of Hispanic voters.

[TwilightZone]

3. National polls don't matter.

The only polls that matter are state polls in the states that aren't a slam dunk for either party. That's where the war is going to be waged.

How Biden and the others are doing against Trump in places like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., are much more important than how they're doing nationally.

[elleng]

5. Right,

and it's early.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. National polls do matter in context, tho.

They matter a lot because elections don't typically act in a vacuum. What impacts the vote in Pennsylvania is certainly impacting the vote in places like Colorado and Nevada and Washington and Oregon.

Had Hillary won the national popular vote by the same margin Obama did in 2012, she ekes out wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and is president right now. But the narrowness of the national polls pointed to a very narrow election at the state-level too, which gave Trump the opening he needed to win.

Hillary also failed to win a majority of the popular vote. Again, had she, she likely is the president today.

[TwilightZone]

9. No, they really don't matter.

Clinton was ahead in the national polls in 2016 at the end. Many assumed that the polls were wrong, but the national polls, on average, were pretty much right on and told us exactly nothing about the outcome. It just gave people a false sense of security and a false belief that they understood what was happening in the election.

"What impacts the vote in Pennsylvania is certainly impacting the vote in places like Colorado and Nevada and Washington and Oregon"

Each state is represent of its own voting bloc and nothing more. Assuming that one can simply extrapolate one state to another or national trends to individual states is simply wrong.

"Hillary also failed to win a majority of the popular vote."

The popular vote is irrelevant. We should really know that by now. Had she gotten another 70,000 votes in three states, she would have still been well under a majority and would have won.

[Polybius]

20. Well, if a national poll is showing a 3 point lead, then I worry

Even if it's accurate, we can win by 3 and still lose the EC. But if every one is saying we win by 10-12 points, then we're winning this election handily.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. I think 3+ is a lock.

If Hillary had even won the national popular vote by 3+ in 2016, she likely wins the presidency.

Remember, she lost PA, WI and MI by a combined 77,000 votes.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. This is a silly argument.

It's just not factual to say the national popular vote doesn't matter. It absolutely does matter. It sets the mood for the election.

Again, something you refuse to refute: had Hillary carried the popular vote by the margins Obama did in 2012, she absolutely would be president today.

She didn't. If the election is close in the popular vote, it reasons states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan will be close, too. Only someone so fully removed from reality would make the opposite claim. And if those states are close, it means the election can change on a dime.

Just look at the last two presidential elections to get a full grasp of how the national popular vote is good indicator of where the race is going.

2016:

Hillary won the popular vote by roughly two-percent nationally.

She lost Pennsylvania by .71%.
She lost Michigan by .22%
She lost Wisconsin by .77%

She lost each of those states by fewer than a percentage point.

2012:

Obama won the popular vote by roughly four-percent nationally.

He won Pennsylvania by 5.38%
He won Michigan by 9.46%
He won Wisconsin by 6.94%

Obama did two-points better nationally than Hillary and it trickled down to the state level.

IF any of the Democrats lose the popular vote in 2020, they're likely losing at least one of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan and certainly aren't winning Ohio and Florida.

It took Trump the perfect storm, and a very, very narrow win in three states Democrats generally win, to become president. Had Hillary just won 80,000 more votes in those three states, she's president right now. Alas...

The popular vote absolutely tells us what kind of election we're looking at. If the Democrat wins the popular vote by only two-points again in 2020, it's very possible they're going to lose the election. If they win it by 4+, though? It's hard to see how Trump wins because that shift likely will be felt in every state - not just liberal ones (as was the case in 2016, where Hillary under-performed in nearly every state compared to Obama in 2012).

[still_one]

27. and in those critical swing states Jill Stein got 1% of the vote

[Drunken Irishman]

28. Yes. As was the case in 2000 with New Hampshire and Florida.

There was definitely a warning in all the pre-election polling and that was just how far under 50% Hillary was. It meant a third party candidate could swoop in and win just enough to throw the election to Trump and what do you know? That's exactly what happened.

I still maintain that if the Democrat in 2020 wins 50% of the national popular vote, they're going to win the presidency.

[still_one]

31. Probably, but the electoral college does make it difficult

[Iliyah]

12. I am a strong believer that foreign . . .

identities had a prominent hand in the 2016 elections with the help of Republicans. They cheated and stole it, period.

That said, Republicans with the help of the foreign identities are going to do it again.

Republicans right now are doing what they did in 2016 in the EC states. Look at WI and the continued purging.

Detroit, MI - many of the votes where not tallied. Other EC states, irregularities.

And yes, HRC should have been President and that is why the Republicans are fighting any mention of election tampering.

[Thekaspervote]

4. One has to wonder if the impeachment process has shifted those numbers

[evertonfc]

11. The most troubling

part is these numbers are versus an impeached President- well, soon to be. Warren isn't going to be President. Biden can expand the map. We have a slate of candidates that, to be fair, are not terribly exciting. Old, white and Washington insiders. Biden is are only hope to win the White House.

[Downtown Hound]

13. 45% is pretty much what I think his vote tally will be

I think it will be 52% to 45% with third party getting the remainder. So I wouldn't panic just yet. Besides, barring some total turn of evens, I think it's going to be Biden.

The thing I'm most worried about is shennanigans involving voting with the GOP in swing states. In my opinion, that's our biggest threat in 2020.

[Joe941]

14. I think you will be surprised at how easily tRump will be beaten.

I predict this will be a landslide victory. tRump's negatives remain high and he is certainly not likable. History has proven this combination amounts to a landslide victory for the other side.

[Tiggeroshii]

19. Hope your right. But the last thing to accurately indicate either way are

Early GE polls.

[judeling]

16. This poll gives me no concern

If it replicates over time after SC I would be.
But it is his numbers to look at now and at best this poll has him at the high end of a very consistent average.

The election may be close or it may be a Democratic blow out. But as the polls (not just one poll) stand right now it is Trump with the hill to climb.

[Tiggeroshii]

21. ..no concern at all

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-we-take-these-early-general-election-polls-seriously-no/amp/

[judeling]

22. Correct

Although it should be noted that polls at this point in a campaign are not really determinative. That is much less true for reelection campaigns.

The closest actual model for this election is 2004. And there are significant differences that will hurt Trump. Foremost is that will there was a significant anti-Bush sentiment, it was less personal. People despise Trump, Bush had some likability. Bush ran as Team USA, Trump is all Trump.

So it could be close, but only because of structural issues.

[Tiggeroshii]

18. Early GE polls are crap. 538 agrees.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-we-take-these-early-general-election-polls-seriously-no/

[Joe941]

24. This.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. You left out this all important one...

The last presidential election featured one of the more accurate sets of early polls for this point in the cycle: Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump 46.2 percent to 41.2 percent in an average of all polls conducted in November and December 2015, missing the eventual national popular vote margin by about 3 points.3 (The actual result was Clinton 48.0 percent, Trump 46.0 percent

Also, 2012 was pretty accurate. So, the two most recent elections, far more relevant than what happened in 1944, shows that the race was remarkably stable even a year out.

It's the exception to a rule that doesn't account for the changing dynamics of a presidential election. In 1992, Bill Clinton didn't announce his presidential bid until October, 1991. Of course the polling would be different when comparing that election to this one, where candidates had announced their bids months before October.

It's just not a good comparison. Beyond that, we're also far more divided as a country today along partisan lines that, for the most part, it's a very narrow patch of voters who are going to be persuaded. It's not the 90s anymore where the Democratic candidate is going to sweep all regions of the country. Bill Clinton won 379 electoral votes in 1996 - the most EV of any candidate since. Even Obama, in 2008, couldn't win that many electoral votes.

Basically, 45% of the country is going to vote for the Republican no matter what and 45% of the country is going to vote for the Democrat no matter what. That leaves 10% to decide the election. Whoever wins a majority of that ten-percent wins the election.

Obama did in 2008 and 2012, Trump did in 2016.

But one thing is constant: we had a good idea these last two election cycles of where the mood was nationally. Your own link shows this.

[Shrek]

32. I appreciate your data and thoughtful analysis

Your posts in this thread have been very helpful to me.

[Doodley]

30. We need to wake up to the fact that Democrats have not convinced a single (net) voter

that Trump is not good for America or the world. His approval is where it was when he was inaugurated. If we can't figure out how to communicate something so simple and so obvious and convince just one voter, we will not win the next election.

[quickesst]

33. if Joe Biden is the nominee....

.... I hope he chooses the person most qualified to carry out the duties of Vice President. At this point, I have no idea who that person will be regardless of race or gender. I believe Joe Biden is by far the most qualified person to be the Democratic nominee. I hope to have that same belief in his choice for a running mate.