mtutiger

CBS/YouGov poll result notwithstanding, most of the polling (particularly the WSJ poll released this weekend) is suggesting that he's seen marginal improvement on economic metrics... still low, but at least headed in the right direction. People expect a huge snap back, but that's not really how the population operates after two years with an economy of high prices. Perceptions can change, but it will take time.

Usual caveats about this being a pro-Biden guy apply, but he's right that Biden will win if he wins independents by 8... and all of the polls (save CBS/YouGov) that were released this weekend do show Biden up with independents as a whole by varying degrees. I keep thinking there's a mix of non-response bias and just a lack of consolidation on his side among the base that is influencing the results right now. Both factors should be influenced by the ramping up of the actual campaign, which likely is coming after the SOTU this week.

I think Lee's point is fair about Biden not getting much credit for the relatively good economic metrics, but on a fundamental basis, you'd rather have this economy to run on anyway than the one that we had in 2022. I suspect that will matter as well prior to November.... it takes time for improved economic sentiment to start manifesting. Some of the latest polls suggest he's getting marginal boost in this metric (even if it isn't being reflected much at the top) But regardless, I'm with you that the fundamentals favor Biden more than the polls are suggesting at this moment. The fundraising and anemic grassroot participation on Trump's side is pretty eye-opening (granted even some of his supporters probably recognize that giving him $$$ is like sending it down a rathole lol)

Yeah, people memory hole it, but BLM / defund was a huge gift to Trump during that campaign and they used it well.

I agree with you, there's a long way to go. Part of the issue is that the NYT/Siena poll has become almost a news story in and of itself, so much so that it overshadows the actual average of polls which, including ones released today, show this thing about a Trump +2 advantage (not Trump +5 as Siena had). It's still pretty early, and ground really hasn't been broken on the general election campaign, the fundamentals (incumbency and money in particular) are pretty decent advantages to Biden. But while I suspect they were waiting until Super Tuesday to do much, I do think we are at a point regardless where they need to shift into general election mode and start prosecuting the case. Abortion, and the fact that voters don't really associate Trump enough with his handpicked justices who made Roe being overturned possible, is a good place to start.

One thought exercise I've gone over in my head a couple times the past few months is what would happen if he ended just keeling over sometime in the next 2-3 months. The GOP identity is so wrapped up around him at this point that, one would think, it was cause some sort of existential crisis.

Exactly, Haley's entire political career, at least within the GOP, probably hinges on that plane (ie. the MAGA movement) crashing into the mountain at this point. Not saying she won't do it, but incentives wise, I just don't know what an endorsement does for her in that regard....

We are living through weird times lol

She may still do it, I certainly don't trust her as much as I'd like on this... but I'm also not clear what exactly an endorsement gets her at this point. The Hacks on Tap pod (with Sarah Longwell as guest) had a long talk on this subject, Robert Gibbs and Axe seemed to think her young age suggests that she probably would because she's young and wants to set up a longer play in the event Trump loses or ends up convicted... but it's really really hard to see the party in its current state and think that she would have any success within its confines.

She's getting herself pretty far out on the limb here... an endorsement would be humiliating

Good Lord

For what it's worth, I plan on pulling a R ballot and casting a vote for her on March 19th (IL) provided she doesn't endorse Trump by that point. I'd like to vote early, but that's a litmus test for me. I dont agree with her on much of anything, but the general thrust of her campaign, of restoring an actual coherent ethos to the GOP, really is something I sympathize with. In the larger picture though, I dont see a non-MAGA GOP emerging any time in the near future tho

2020 probably haunts a lot of pollsters given how it was a high profile miss, and I suspect that informs their work this cycle. Especially in terms of gauging turnout. Personally, I think it's going to slip for both sides to an extent... it really comes down to who can consolidate their base and whether Biden's campaign (similar to many D candidates in 2022 races) can successfully persuade some voters to cross over.

It's worth noting that the Times poll today had a R+5 sample, compared to their last one (which had Biden 46-44 with LVs) where the sample was essentially tied (iirc). That doesn't mean that the poll is wrong, but it supposes a pretty Republican leaning electorate. The takeaway from that should be that Biden has work to do to consolidate support behind him among base and anti-Trump groups of voters, and to the extent that anything concerns me from this poll, it is that.

Campaigns have access to much better data than any of us do, and I would be surprised if either Biden or Trump's campaign placed a lot of stock in any public polling data. Also, I know that the theory that Nate Cohn presents (which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable until the actual election hits) is that the issues arise more with low-propensity voters who tend not to show up in primaries, but I also think that if Biden were actually losing 1 in 4 AA voters (which would be an epochal shift for a group that hasn't given a GOP candidate more than 20% since Eisenhower), you probably would see at least some evidence of that in these primaries. And there just hasn't been a lot of evidence. Michigan is probably the test case because it wasn't a low turnout primary relative to a typical incumbent cycle, but some of Biden's best jurisdictions in the state were Pontiac, Southfield and Benton Harbor, all heavily AA with UC down in mid-single digits in each. Detroit was up there in this regard as well. It's going to be a close election one way or another, IMO.

Just to follow up on this: The crux here is that Univision did an entire poll on Hispanics that showed Biden +27 in September '23, this Times poll (which did not sample enough Spanish speaking Hispanics, who historically vote more Democratic than Hispanics as a whole) shows Trump leading +7. Hispanics as a cohort are an issue for Biden in 24, as he underperformed Clinton with this group in 20, particularly in South Florida and Texas. The Times sample is small and has a high MOE, but the likelihood of that group actually voting for Trump +7 is nonexistent. Again, I'll take the toplines at face value, according to polling, Trump would win if the election if it were held today most likely. But even if he does, there's zero chance the tabs look anything like the ones in this sample.

"He probably did that on purpose"

I think the topline in that poll is something to be concerned about, and that Trump can win more generally. Having said that, the crosstabs (particularly the methodology they used in collecting Hispanic numbers - hardly sampling any Spanish speaking Latinos) is pretty flawed. And a number of experts on that community have chimed in today to say that as well. I think he can win, and the toplines should be taken seriously. But drawing conclusions from crosstabs that are flawed is probably not a wise idea.

This needs to go into an ad....

He's really lost his fastball....

#draintheswamp

Seems like this would matter a lot in the J6 case....

Yikes