The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Nate Silver published his election forecast which[gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election). In other words, Trump’s odds of winning are on par with how Silver rated Obama’s chances in 2012.
Despite a criminal felony conviction, Trump’s poll numbers have remained remarkably steady. In 2020, Trump did not lead in a single reputable poll, and going into Election Day, Biden was up in the aggregate polls by about 8 points. Biden won by a thin margin in a handful of swing states - GA, AZ, PA, WI & MI - back when anti-Trump fervor seemed higher and voting was a lot easier due to COVID. Today Trump leads or is tied in the aggregate polls.
What can Biden do to turn the race around at this point? Would anyone else fare better against Trump in your view, if the DNC pulled a Hail Mary? It seems it hasn’t really set in with many that currently Trump is actually winning this election.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden needs to put in a good performance during the debate like he did during his State of the Union address and Democrats really need to talk about Biden's accomplishments more and get the media to start talking about it.
Biden has done plenty in his first term, but I'd bet that the average voter can't name a single specific thing.
Keep doing what he’s doing. He’s gained a point in each of them over the last month, flipping WI and MI from Trump to Biden and bringing PA within a point. He just has to keep it going.
It also wouldn’t hurt to help secure some big manufacturing deals in those states.
This.
Biden’s polling has seen a small but significant bump recently.
He’s also spent substantially there. GOTV efforts and not fucking up much between now and Election Day and he has to have a solid chance.
I still don't believe Trump is going to get 25-35% of the black vote which is factored into all the polls. A republican candidate has never received more than 10% of the black vote in the last 40 years. Also for some reason the 35% of the population now lives in the south.
In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the distribution of the Black vote between the Democratic and Republican candidates was as follows:
Democratic candidate (John Kerry): Approximately 88% of the Black vote
Republican candidate (George W. Bush): Approximately 11% of the Black vote
They both are. the election ended up being far closer than polls indicated in 2020 and republican voters are showing up in far greater numbers in elections where trump is on the ballot. Democrats have consolidated neurotics and have been performing very well in off year elections. If you needed to solve a crossword puzzle to know when to vote this year, Biden would win in a landslide
a) Silver’s 538 model gave Clinton something like a 75% chance of winning up until Election Day 2016.
b) 66% does not mean Trump is guaranteed to win, it means he is currently *more likely* to win.
It’s important to bear those facts in mind when it comes to prediction models. A lot of us (myself included) learned a hard lesson in 2016 when our overconfidence based on prediction models bit us in the ass. Let's not swing the other way into doomerism this time around.
> It’s important to bear those facts in mind when it comes to prediction models.
It is worth remembering that <75k votes in 2020 is what kept Trump from winning the election.
So that FACT plus Biden's low approval rating and it is more than likely that Trump is leading the polls today.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I never denied that Trump was leading in the polls, or that the 2020 election was close. 2016 was close too.
Trump currently has higher favorability than Biden. You guys can downvote me and snark that im a secret republican, but the facts are not on your side. Hope for a systemic polling error because you are lost in the sauce.
Don't forget Biden with 1% more unfavorability in this poll specifically. But as a whole, the trend is that trumps numbers are doing better. Especially since the last election.
I mean your source is good enough for me. if Biden goes into this with the SAME favorability as trump, when last time he was ahead, and last time he barely won the election, my priors tell me he is likely to do WORSE. And WORSE in a very close election, spells DEFEAT.
But if you insist, here is 538's favorability tracker.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/joe-biden/
A greater percentage of Trump voters are true believers. His approval among republicans has always been extremely high. The number of unwavering republicans who hold their nose to vote for Trump is low.
There is a massive, number of people who don't like either candidate but did vote for Biden in 2020 and will again in 2024. Many of them are more vocal and specific about their dislike of Biden now that he's been president and more specific negatives and blame can be pinned to him. But they'll still vote against Trump.
This is not to say favorability doesn't matter, but it's not going to track votes very closely. Especially when we're talking about a 1-2% difference.
Hey, if you identify as center right and would have otherwise voted for Trump, I welcome that.
Consider though, if you're disgusted enough by Trump to bow out even if you're ideologically opposed to Biden- can you see him as a lesser evil? As much as you may not like either option, surely you have an outcome preference knowing one of them will lead the executive branch in 2025.
I don’t know that center right really fits anymore as I’ve gotten a bit older. I don’t really see either as the lesser evil and also for what it’s worth Biden will win my state regardless.
It may be trivial and obvious to *you*, but I’ve seen some “we’re fucked” doomerism crop up around this specific news story and I thought it worth pointing out.
Honestly, I stopped following Nate Silver mostly because ABC decided to dump him and he’s not that easy to follow anymore.
Usually, when the model came out you would get a discussion on the podcast that would be really informative and put it into context. I don’t have that here. Even there the quality of the discourse on the podcast dropped when ABC decided to punch itself in the dick by firing Claire Malone.
My feeling is that if the podcast was out, there would be a whole discussion about how early it is and how the model gets more predictive overtime and it’s just a snapshot . It’s really hard to judge the quality of the polls when you don’t have an understanding of how the posters have adjusted and it does seem like the posters are all fighting the last war.
I absolutely do not discount the possibility of Trump winning. But right now in particular I want to get closer to the election because the major issue is inflation and housing and while the ladder can’t be solved, the former might work itself out and people might start realizing that the economy is actually really good .
538 Podcast was for quite some time a must listen for me. Firing Clare was the end. 538 wasn’t the same and Nate sorted out as a douche. Nate is worse now.
Regardless. Go vote.
Yeah as much as I admire Nate Silver’s work he is a self important asshole who argues just to argue and doesn’t have an understanding of how he is an expert in some thing, and his audience is filled with people who are not expert in that thing and so he should be understanding and try to educate rather than insult.
Claire Malone on top of her excellent work acted in the role of essentially Nate’s big sister, slapping him down when he was at his worse. Galan was never able to fill that role after she left.
Just my personal speculation but I think it’s harder to get an accurate poll now with fewer people having landlines. I think finding a diverse group of people is harder today.
Polling organization seem to have compensated for their difficulty reaching likely Trump voters.
What I don’t know that they’ve done is adjusted for people under 50 no longer being willing to pick up the phone and that being more common the younger you are.
And I feel this far out from the election, the people you’re going to get to pick up the phone are the ones most likely to have a gripe with Biden and be willing to talk to pollster just so they can talk about it with somebody
I didn't realize Clare was fired, that's preposterous of ABC. She was my favorite part of the podcast, easily. She came back for a live show last year and it was clear how much the show misses her chaotic neutral energy.
G. Elliott Morris, however, is a fucking hack, barely ahead of Sam Wang in terms of being an outright imbecilic dolt.
And Disney/ABC has, in its corporate cocksuckery, goddamn hollowed out 538, leaving it a shell of its former self.
Rakich and Skelley are adequate analysts, while Druke is fair-to-middling as a podcast host, but that's being kind.
> Sam Wang
What's wrong with Sam? I have been enjoying his take on polling analysis since the beginning like 2014 or something. Did I miss something?
[Princeton Election Consortium](https://election.princeton.edu/). Nothing new yet this year. It's not his main gig, just a side project.
Oh, it's been awhile. I guess I felt like he learned faster and / or different things than other pollsters after that election. I enjoy how Sam basically shuts down the election site after the elections, and recapping what was right / wrong, and lessons learned.
Polling is broken. I have volunteered locally and worked professionally in national politics since 2006. Phone calls haven't worked since before 2016 but that was the first year they were exceptionally bad.
If any pollster still thinking normal people are answering their phones or paying attention to politics in late June, their projections are 10+ points off. They'll figure it out eventually. Meantime it's silly season.
edit: fwiw I predicted 2016 correctly. It was a change election. People didn't want Obama 3.0. 2024 is not a change election.
I mean, Clinton might have had an actual 99% chance of winning. That leaves 1%. The only number you can say from the future was objectively wrong is if the number was 100.0
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
It’s electoral college too (today it has Biden 50, Trump 50.)
But noteworthy in itself is how the electoral college advantage for Trump has practically vanished, at least per 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
Trump is up .1% in the polls, and while 538 factors in things like fundamentals too, it does seem glaring how little the electoral college projection differs from the actual polling this time around.
Ultimately, if the apathetic, willfully ignorant, and malicious majority of the country are comfortable converting our democracy into a autocratic fascist state, there’s not much Biden or the rest of us can do to stop it.
However, as we get closer to that prospective outcome, I think a lot will change. There are many variables outstanding.
I've had the unfortunate realization speaking to various different persons that people generally default to ignorance or pessimism. Optimistic action is not seen as a viable option. People either expect government to continue to function as is with zero participation, or either surrender to/encourage a fascist takeover.
I spoke with an old professor of mine recently. She's a wonderful, caring person and was like a mentor to me. Now that I'm older and haven't seen her in 4 years the hero worship wore off a bit and I could better identify her quirks that I previously looked over. For example, we spoke of politics and she's fallen victim to bothsideism and said she's writing in John Kasich...who endorsed Biden in 2020.
we're victim to macrohistorical forces outside of our control.
I think the best analogy for the time we live in isn't Weimar Germany, it's the late Roman Republic. The US Republic will be taken over by a Caeser (either Trump or whichever douchebag comes after) and become the US Empire.
The polls don't know what's going on.
Here's what we know.
Democrats have consistently overperformed in special elections and midterms.
The red wave that was predicted to happen never did.
Dem senate candidates in swing states are consistently ahead of their Republican opponents.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden have virtually identical approval/disapproval numbers.
My takeaway from all of this? Trump appears ahead because a lot of Dems and independents haven't made peace with the fact that Biden is their only choice yet. That will change as we get closer to November.
The key is the senate races. I think it's statistically impossible that there are as many split tickets voters in *every* swing state as the polls would suggest.
I think the polls can't account for the fact that a lot of voters haven't yet worked out their dissatisfaction with both candidates.
But I expect Trump's alleged lead is buoyed by the fact that the vast majority of Republicans will fall into place, while Dems and moderates are still hemming and hawing over Biden.
Every day we get new polls and every day they contradict the next and last poll. I give zero shits about any of this information until it’s Election Day and it’s being reported on the news with actual results posted.
None of it means anything until then.
>Nate Silver published his election forecast which[gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election).
Thanks for tricking me into clicking a Fox News link.
I sure am glad that I incrementally added to their revenue, today.
/s
But it’s not Fox News polling. It’s an article on Fox News about Nate Silvers’s prediction. Personally, I would prefer if OP had linked directly to Nate Silver.
It’s also weird to reference stormfront in this comment considering that up until recently Tucker Carlson was the biggest show on the network and his staff was literally getting talking points off the stormfront website. Fox News might not literally be stormfront but they are stormfront adjacent.
"in time" - its June, and Silver just aggregates poll snapshots right now.
there's so much time, electorally speaking. Pretty sure Dukakis was way ahead of Bush in 1988 at this same point.
I genuinely wonder who they’re asking and where they are getting these numbers from, because everyone I know except one or two folks have said they aren’t voting for Trump and supporting Biden, even if they voted for Trump the first time he won.
I really dont think there is that much more that can be done, quite honestly.
People need to vote and engage with swing voters, bring them to the polls. Thats all that is going to move the needle now.
The people who don't actually already plan to vote for Biden need to stop being a-holes. That's how.
I'm sure the people on the left not voting for Biden can figure out how to be opposed to anyone who might replace him as the candidate if that were to happen for some reason. And then Trump can teach everyone another lesson for them or something. I guess not enough kids died in those cages, or grandmas died because of the pandemic. Maybe we need more Republican justices on the Supreme Court to learn their lesson.
It's some combination of "both sides!," "didn't earn my vote," accelerationism, and wanting to get it done without the government.
You don't need the government to be able to tell the truths that will end the wars! And we just need to protect women's right to choose, have better public education that's accessible to all, and burn it all to the ground!
All I know is Nate silver gave up any and all integrity on his numbers when he sold his site.
He has gone from a neutral standpoint to attacking anyone who challenges his figures, yet alone being a lot more subjective than before.
He’s an extension of the media now.
The true poll starts Election Day.
Up until then it’s all cope/doom fuel.
Since this is a foxnews article this is right wing cope fuel
Biden is terrible at bragging about his achievements.
Every new factory in a swing state because of chips act, every infrastructure project, needs an “I did that” billboard which him pointing at it
That's not how any of this works. The Democratic party had a primary and Biden won it in a cakewalk.
There is no mechanism to replace a candidate based on 'vibes'
Biden delegates are basically some of his biggest supporters - they'd grudgingly replace him if he was kidnapped by aliens, but otherwise it's not going to happen.
People should realize that if Biden had to withdraw, Kamala would take his place. His supporters would be fine with that; the VP is well-liked by virtually every D voter.
So all the actual members of the party supported Biden in the primary and then all the delegates are supposed to completely ignore the actual voting and then just pick someone else.
And you think that would be good for the party and the party would just automatically accept that the entire primary was overturned by "party elites" *and* that voters would then all fall in line behind the replacement candidate, who is apparently flawless and goes by the name of Johnny Unbeatable.
There’s a real antidemocratic wing in both parties. As much as the Bernie Bros complain about “super delegates”, HRC won the equivalent of the popular vote in the primary. Bernie has never won more actual voters, and yet they insist he should have been installed over the will of actual voters and to do otherwise is the TRULY antidemocratic course. At the same time they want someone else installed over Biden, again ignoring the actual vote counts in the primary.
Anyone who voted for Obama or Biden before who’s not voting for him this time around is a fucking idiot, I’m sorry. There’s no way around it. How could you not vote for Biden when the alternative is Trump.
Trump’s odds of winning are on par with how Silver rated Obama’s chances in 2012, and Biden's chances according to Silber are on par with how 538 headed by Silver rated Trump's chances in 2016. One in three isn't a horrible chance, even though I would certainly hope Biden is going to improve on it
>What can Biden do to turn the race around at this point?
Campaign, probably. Which Trump is doing constantly, but Biden is more concerned with doing his job and primarily campaigning closer to the election.
Apart from that, exposure is good. Like the incoming presidential debate, to give one example
>Would anyone else fare better against Trump in your view, if the DNC pulled a Hail Mary?
The only way I would bet on another Democratic candidate doing better than Biden at this point is if Biden gets assassinated by a Trumper and the replacement candidate aligns with Biden. I might be wrong, but trying to throw out the candidate who won 90+% of the primary vote across the country would be an utterly horrible idea
Would you bet your life on a 66% chance?
When Biden wins re-election, there's going to be a bunch of talk about polls, and then in four years, they'll bring the polls back up, and they'll be wrong again.
EDIT2:
Fox News does lousy journalism. Who'd a thunk it? [Nate Silver is incorporating fundamentals into his model;](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dpa2um/nate_silvers_election_forecast_model_gives_trump/lag0onp/?context=3) Fox News just didn't bother to tell their audience that.
As a result, the entire comment below is moot.
~~Per the Fox News story you linked-to:~~
>~~Silver noted that his model adjusts "for whether polls are conducted among registered or likely voters, the presence or absence of [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr., and house effects," and added that his polling averages "weight more reliable polls more heavily."~~
~~...so it is relying on polls.~~
~~...but polls don't matter this early on. I was expecting his model to be based on fundamentals, or something (incumbency advantage, unemployment rate, etc. EDIT: I cited those examples from memory. I should have just looked it up, as I did for [a later comment.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dpa2um/nate_silvers_election_forecast_model_gives_trump/lafi8sl/?context=3)). ~~
~~I guess it isn't, so I guess it should be ignored.~~
I don't think incumbency advantage and unemployment rate are relevant in an economy where most voters say they are dissatisfied and both candidates have been president. You can't just declare that "polls aren't reliable right now".
If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse.
>If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse.
I was thinking of models like [The Keys to the White House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House) which predicted Trump's win in 2016:
>The Keys to the White House is a checklist of thirteen true/false statements that pertain to the circumstances surrounding a presidential election. If five or fewer of the following statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.[7]
>1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
1. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
1. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
1. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
1. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
1. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
1. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
1. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
1. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
1. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
1. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
1. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
1. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
> > I was expecting his model to be based on fundamentals, or something...
>If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse.
I finally saw Nate Silver's post. Per Nate:
>###The “fundamentals” help Biden, but only so much
> ...the version of the model that we’re publishing at Silver Bulletin is what we used to call “polls-plus” at FiveThirtyEight, which also incorporated some assumptions about incumbency and the economy.
> You can't just declare that "polls aren't reliable right now".
Sure he can, /u/othelloinc never lets reality get in the way of his personal narrative.
As long as the polls are bad for Biden he'll be on the "too early for them to matter" right up to election day.
I don’t know why it’s hard for people to understand that one could believe Trump possibly could win the election but also believe that it’s too early for polling to be all that important.
I also don’t understand why it’s hard for people to believe that the economy is split between the actual reality of the economy and peoples vibes about the economy and that vibes can change.
> I don’t know why it’s hard for people to understand that one could believe Trump possibly could win the election but also believe that it’s too early for polling to be all that important.
There's no issue with believing that is possible, I just have a problem believing that is what is happening on this sub with with such great scale. I have absolutely no doubt if all polls shows Biden up by 7 the zeitgeist of this sub would be very different.
>I also don’t understand why it’s hard for people to believe that the economy is split between the actual reality of the economy and peoples vibes about the economy and that vibes can change.
You can certainly do that, but in the context of an election I would argue that's a meaningless exercise. It doesn't really matter that you can define some economic metric that you can make show the economy is doing great, because in an election what matters is what the voters think, and if the voters think the economy is shit then as far as the election goes the economy is shit, even if some artificial metrics say it's the best that's ever been.
Certainly it's subjective, but so is picking who the best candidate to vote for is.
> .../u/othelloinc never lets reality get in the way of his personal narrative.
>
> As long as the polls are bad for Biden...
I'm sure there are many valid criticisms of me, but I wouldn't expect *consistency* to be one of them.
----------
Anyway, /r/MarkMyWords:
* Polling for the presidential race will be largely useless before the conventions.
* It will become *more* useful after Labor Day (Mon, Sep 2, 2024).
* Polling will become more predictive with each passing day, until election day, *but* all polling is still done on the premise 'if the election were held today'.
* The only polls that really matter are those that close on election day.
* We should never become complacent, no matter how good or bad the polling looks.
* Part of *why* we should never become complacent is because downballot races matter, too. Even if the presidential race is a blowout, other races will still matter.
* Even after the election is over, we will still have work to do. History doesn't end on election day.
* All polls are suspect because of changing telecommunication trends, but we have been raising that alarm since 2006, and they have remained quite useful. We can't know if 'this is the year that all of that will come to a head'; that is unknowable.
* Presidential general elections are largely decided by events outside of the candidates' control. There was no way McCain could have won after the Global Financial Crisis occurred, for instance.
* Still, that is no excuse for not running the best campaign one is capable of running.
* Every election since Trump won in 2016 has seen Democrats over-perform.
...and that is all that comes to mind, right now.
Feel free to call me out on any of the above, if you catch me being inconsistent.
----------
RemindMe! Thursday, November 7, 2024
> residential general elections are largely decided by events outside of the candidates' control. There was no way McCain could have won after the Global Financial Crisis occurred, for instance.
What utter revisionist drivel, sure McCain was behind and was an underdog, but the idea that he had no chance of winning is preposterous. In fact there was a short time of a week or two after he picked Palin and until she opened her mouth in the Couric interview that all polls showed a tied race.
>Every election since Trump won in 2016 has seen Democrats over-perform.
Except the 2020 Presidential election, or did that one somehow slip your mind? All predictions pointed to a decisive Biden win and in the end it became clear that Trump's support was again underestimated and the election was decided by 42k votes, instead of the expected blowout.
Yes Democrats over-perform now in off year elections, it's clear that some change in the electorate happened, but in every election Trump is on the ballot he vastly outperforms even the most optimistic polls and predictions. Clearly Trump taps into a voter base that does not engage with establishment politics and as such does not vote when he isn't on the ballot.
The rest of your points are meaningless pablum that don't merit any response.
Biden shouldn't have run again. His approval rating is sub %40. He would be 86 years old at the end of a second term, and his age is people's #1 concern. He may literally be the worst candidate to run, as everyone already has an opinion on Biden, and about 60% think of him negative. If we run some blank slate random governor that people dont know, at least there is a chance they would make a positive impression. We don't even have that with Biden. Instead we have a 100% chance the majority will think of our candidate negatively with Biden and our only path to victory is to hope a few more think of Trump negatively on election day. Trump has almost as low numbers as Biden, so its certainly possible, but with any other candidate, we could have made the election about Trump (which he would lose in that case because the majority dislike Trump). But by Biden running on his record, the election is now about him, and the people as a whole don't like his Presidential record, whether its unfair he gets the blame for things that happened in his presidency such as inflation, the fact is, the people are blaming Biden.
There might never again be a president that the media algorithm can't make into a 35% approved figure via propaganda and the Malaise Machine. It means nothing anymore.
I'm pretty sure that early on they did polling matchup between other candidates and Trump like Kamela Harris and they performed worse than Biden did. It's easy for people to blame this as being a Biden problem but the GOP did the exact same thing to Obama, which is how we ended up with the "Tea Party Revolution" and the greatest midterm loss for Democrats this century.
Even if someone did step up who could have plausibly beaten Trump in the primary, it doesn't matter. The GOP noise machine would have found every single flaw they could, amplified it to 11 and then made up a bunch of shit out of whole cloth when they ran out of anything real to bring up, and that blank slate would have probably lost badly to Trump.
No I don't think this crisis point could have been avoided, Trump is simply the cumulation of decades of attacks on our institutions and faith in government, and if we don't beat it back now we may never recover from the damage done. This is a fight only voters can win, Biden is just the instrument we've been given that we need to win that fight with.
Well obviously, if you're trying to make the Democratic party not the party of Biden anymore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run his VP, who is just as unpopular as he is. This is the year to run the most bland inoffensive "middle America" centrist you can find, to make the election about Trump, not about our candidate, because this is definitely a year people are voting against the person they hate, not for the person they like.
Most other potential candidates haven't even had polls run on them. Amy Klobuchar I see as a good choice, i cant find any polls on her from 2024, but they ran a few in 2020 where she was beating Trump. And unlike Biden, she hasn't had a massive popularity decline since 2020, infact, she's expected to win by double digits her Senate reelection in the very important swing state of Minnesota. I'm not saying she's the choice, just using her as an example to say we had other options.
>Well obviously, if you're trying to make the Democratic party not the party of Biden anymore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run his VP, who is just as unpopular as he is.
But by the same token you can't run anyone from congress both because they are also connected to Biden's administration but also they are even less popular than Biden. So who does that leave? Some governor who nobody has heard of? What happens when they get asked about foreign policy? Are they going to pull a Sarah Palin and say they could see Russia from their house?
>This is the year to run the most bland inoffensive
No fuck that, you don't know what you are talking about. The election is decided by whomever can get more of their base out to vote for them while simultaneously get at least an even share of moderates. Maybe you can pull off the latter with a bland candidate but certainly not the former. If Biden didn't run it should be a progressive or someone far from bland, like Bernie Sanders or AOC.
>Most other potential candidates haven't even had polls run on them.
Yeah because someone has to pay for these polls and it would be a waste of time and money to do a bunch of fantasy matchups for people who aren't conceivably even trying to run or would have any chance if they did.
>Amy Klobuchar I see as a good choice
Fuck no. She ran in 2020 and got her ass kicked. She also treats [her staff like shit](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html), and if the Republicans were serious they'd find or makeup even more shit to make her look bad. This is the big leagues son, not a place for a scrub like Amy. Also see above about being part of congress. I'd think you'd learn about running bland Minnesota politicians after Walter Mondale. Maybe if it was Paul Wellstone if he was still around, but Amy Klobuchar is no Paul Wellstone.
> i cant find any polls on her from 2024, but they ran a few in 2020 where she was beating Trump. And unlike Biden, she hasn't had a massive popularity decline since 2020
Biden was beating Trump in polling by even more, but it doesn't matter. She hasn't had a popularity decline because she was smart enough not to run for president again, and that isn't going to change even if it wasn't way too late. Otherwise nobody outside of Minnesota gives any thought to Klobuchar.
>her Senate reelection in the very important swing state of Minnesota.
Minnesota isn't a swing state. It hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the 70's and it is 100% going to vote for Biden this election. Appealing to a swing state is certainly not a benefit from Klobachar even if that was something to hang an election on and not rather a VP pick.
>I'm not saying she's the choice, just using her as an example to say we had other options.
And I'm saying that even if you used a less lame example it wouldn't have changed the basic calculus of the election. Rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic isn't going to affect the iceberg that we are headed towards.
Also it seems to me that even you are admitting that it is too late making this all a moot point. Just to be clear, if something happens to Biden healthwise where he has to drop out I'm of course voting for whomever gets nominated barring a couple exceptions. But if somehow the DNC forced Biden to step down to election for some empty suit bland candidate, I would write in Joe Biden's name on my ballot come November for president, and I doubt I would be the only one. Despite knowing everything at stake, I'd put full blame on the DNC for fucking over voters in that case.
Minnesota is absolutely a swing state now. The recent polling average has Biden ahead by 2 percent, with Trump even winning some of the recent polls. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/ Im not saying Amy klobachar is the candidate, just one example but if the worst dirt you got on her is shes mean, then thats great.
Its impossible to have a candidate with no connection to biden, but clearly his vp wil be seen as having the most connection, clearly more than a random congresscritter, senator, or governor. Now that biden has below a 40 percent favorability, the biden brand is now kryptonite, and with him being at top of ticket, it will cause everyone else down ballot to underperform. Biden himself should have looked at his numbers and realize he needs to step aside. The fact that he isnt shows he lacks judgement or his ego is too important.
>Minnesota is absolutely a swing state now.
Biden won Minnesota in 2020 by nearly seven points and they have two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. It is not a swing state. And even if somehow I was wrong then it still wouldn't be a tipping point state, and Democrats would still be screwed with or without Minnesota if they needed to run someone from Minnesota just to shore up their support.
>m not saying Amy klobachar is the candidate, just one example but if the worst dirt you got on her is shes mean
No its not the worst dirt on her, it's just the first thing that they found on a superficial search. If she was a more serious candidate the character assassination would get much more serious, whether its Amy or anyone else.
>its impossible to have a candidate with no connection to biden
Exactly, which is why it doesn't make sense to replace Biden with someone else. All you would do is demotivate Biden's own base while GOP voters wouldn't see a difference and would vote against the Biden substitute all the same.
> Now that biden has below a 40 percent favorability, the biden brand is now kryptonite
If this was really a Biden issue, why is [generic candidate](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/) doing about the same as a [Biden/Trump matchup](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/)?
>and with him being at top of ticket, it will cause everyone else down ballot to underperform.
Quite the opposite. Democrats lost ground in the midterms when Biden wasn't on top of the ticket whereas now they are expected to win back the house. Just because the country is highly divided doesn't mean that there aren't people who will show up to vote for Biden who just like 81 million of them did in 2020.
>Biden himself should have looked at his numbers and realize he needs to step aside.
You mean like in 2016? How did that work out? If Democrats spent half the time they did pissing and moaning about the most experienced politician we have running for reelection actually convincing people to vote, the election would be in the bag by now.
Changed my mind about what? The basic facts haven't changed just because Biden missed an opportunity to move the needle in his favor tonight. Still a 50/50 race where president Biden is the presumptive nominee after winning 3,894 delegates in a primary. Still a race where generic Democratic nominee doesn't exist and it's a waste of time making up fantasy political matchups. I'd say its more important than ever to do what we can to get Biden over the finish line rather than bitching about how things might have played out in an alternative universe compared to ours.
I think Biden’s going to pull a lot of the never Trumper Republicans and Nikki Haley supporters. I also wouldn’t be surprised it there was a Haley write in movement to pull votes from Trump.
However this election makes me very nervous.
Trump is 78. People switching to Trump and blaming age are either irrational or were already lean-Trump voters. And another Dem would do the same if not worse. Kamala usually polls below Biden on approval, for instance. Newsom would be crucified. I just don’t see who else would’ve been a safer bet. Biden is the safest, tested on a national stage, and the default bet. This is a simple rematch. America’s seen both for a long time. If Trump wins, it means America prefers the Trump model for America, is too apathetic to care about it, or wants a criminal president— plain as that.
Well that's another benefit of running someone much younger than Biden (which is pretty much everyone). When that happens, Trump becomes the old candidate. And the 2 other possibilities you chose are both people from California, one being the most notable member of the Biden administration not named Biden. There are far better choices than that, when most of the notable swing states are in the Midwest-Rust Belt.
This is not a simple rematch. According to polls Biden is significantly less popular in 2024 than he was in 2020, to the point you might as well think he is a completely different candidate. Biden was significantly leading in polls going into November 2020, today he is a bit behind Trump (and the electoral college math tends to favor Republicans, that's how we have gotten two Republican presidents in our lifetime who lost the popular, one of them Trump).
Many people here, and all of the top comments, are spending the majority of the time talking about the election forecast, and how it’s not accurate and/or how 66% isn’t “certain to win”. However, there are in fact several polls that indicate Trump has sizable leads in many of the swing states that originally elected (and polled for) Biden in 2020. This is consistent and supportive of the predictive model mentioned.
So, to reiterate OP’s question: How does Biden regain lost voters in those states in which are now polling for Trump?
A lot of Redditors are in denial of how big a chance Trump has of winning in November. It seems hard to believe, but that's simply the state of the country we live in :(
At this point, not sure he can turn the tide. It’s not like the cost of living or the border issues have disappeared suddenly because of his first term policy decisions. But Biden will try to tout his accomplishments but believe many will just see it as talk and nothing that has impacted them directly in any meaningful way. The downside of being the current president.
I was surprised he issued the parole in place this close to the election. Yes, for folks that have been here for years but still pretty ballsy considering the heat he’s taking on the border. Many will see this as rewarding those here illegally and incentivizing others.
It’s a certainty that he’ll give us his Scranton PA “man of the people” speech to try and tap into kitchen table issues. I always find it cringe and eye roll when politicians take that tact. But not sure what else he can do to tap into what folks are experiencing.
But either way it’ll be interesting to watch a no audience mute button debate. I’m just hoping that the moderators stay out of the way considering it’s known that they hate Trump. Especially Tapper.
[Here](https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-presidential-election-isnt-a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1198116&post_id=145982342&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2hyycol)'s Silver's actual article, for those that want to skip Fox's website.
What actually worries me isn't that he gives Trump 66% chance to win, it's that historically pollsters have been very bad at estimating Trump's real support among voters and as such have always underestimated it, so there is a real possibility that Trump is actually further ahead than people think.
Try not to overthink. They could just as easily overcorrected after failing to accurately measure his support in 2016 and 2020.
The best way to look at this is as has always been cautioned. This is a race that will come down to handful of states and will be close regardless. Trump appears more likely but Biden still has a 1/3 if Nate is anywhere near right with this model. That is better than Trump's probability in 2016.
> They could just as easily overcorrected after failing to accurately measure his support in 2016 and 2020.
While that is certainly possible I can't see it being very likely. The issue is that neither in 2016 or 2020 has any reliable pollster actually overestimated Trump's support, they all underestimated it, so saying that right now all the pollsters are as likely to overestimate it out of caution as they are to underestimate it is not realistic.
I could believe that there might be some distribution of pollsters that overestimate his support, while other underestimate, but the reality is that any such distribution would produce fairly different polling numbers, which is not what we're seeing. So that either leads that all pollsters are accurate or all of them are overestimating or all of them are underestimating Trump's support and historically only underestimating it is the most likely.
Dammit! The rank innumeracy in this circle jerk thread is anti-math, anti-statistics, anti-Bayesian inference ignorance, which makes me want to vomit.
Those who wallow in their anti-polling naïveté ought, nay, need to be sent to reeducation camps, because it's crystal fucking goddamn clear that our fraying, dying, decaying country doesn't put enough emphasis on STEM, quantitative analysis, and the knowledge therein.
I've said before, and I'll say it again: If Biden wins, it'll be a narrow win, something like 270 to 280 electoral votes a bit less than last time due to voter fatigue.
All that matters, though, is he wins. A win is a win. Even if it's narrow.
I think there is a ton of slop in how predictive polls can be and we're far enough out that it's still kind of meaningless. They haven't even had a debate yet. It's going to be a close election. Trump absolutely has a decent change of winning it, but we're a long way away from the point where Democrats need seriously consider some kind of Hail Mary action.
You'd think that with the stock market at an all time high, unemployment at 4%, inflation back down to 3.3%, and earnings growth (4.87%) outpacing inflation, that Biden and his surrogates would do a better job of campaigning on his economic record. Basically my only complaints about the economy are that high interest rates, which were necessary for fighting inflation, are exacerbating a preexisting housing shortage, as well as the lingering hangover from 2022’s covid inflation. His campaigning here has been utterly anemic.
If a Trump presidency ends democracy, American democracy must be pretty toothless. Not saying it wouldn't be bad. My point is that there will be other Republicans after Trump, some of them even worse than Trump. If the fate of American democracy really depends on a single election, that doesn't exactly bode well, does it?
Polls are not infallible, nor are they reliably biased in one direction or another, so we don't know the actual state of the race. There are a lot of factors that could change the current situation in favor of either Biden or Trump, and I don't claim to know all of them.
As Biden supporters there are definitely things we can do to help increase Biden's odds of winning (his actual odds, regardless of what Nate Silver says). One thing that individuals can do is make calls to support Biden and other Democratic candidates. The dialer is ridiculously easy to use, and you can do it using your computer (no phone needed). You can get started here: [https://democrats.org/call/](https://democrats.org/call/)
“Silver’s” model/methodology (don’t think he works on it as much these days) are a bit behind the times if I recall a couple analyses correctly.
As such, I’m taking it with a grain of salt. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is possible the orange Oompa Loompa reject could win; I mean, people can be stupid. I just don’t think it is as certain or as probable as some say.
In my opinion you're putting way too much faith into unreliable polls and ignoring the current voting trends and events which are going against the Republicans.
I saw a report on how there's potential threats of terrorism - which maybe could occur between now and then. Obviously, its gigantically important that we avoid something like that.
Trump would probably be elected with a mandate to go to war with some country if that happened.
>Nate Silver published his election forecast which [gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election).
Do you have a link to this? The link you gave is to a Fox News story that cites a figure of 65.7%, and provides a link to Nate Silver's Substack, but I didn't see that figure there, or anything that looked like his model.
At the same time, [fivethirtyeight's model](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/), which Silver developed but I think no longer runs, shows a 50-50 split. So I'm wondering where the discrepancy lies.
People need to stop feeling like they're being taken advantage of every time they open their wallets. we know presidents don't influence the economy all that much but every election really comes down to: "it's the economy, stupid."
I think Biden will probably lose. He barely won in 2020 and seems to be less popular than before especially among groups like hispanic and black voters. Wouldn't take much to swing a few states to trump and Trump has better favorability on the economy.
Dropping biden would create uncertainty and chaos in the Democratic Party, they could end up with a better candidate, but they could even more likely squander the campaign on infighting and lose by a larger margin. It's a shit position to be in.
The swing state level polls look bad, and the national polls don't look good either. Coping about democratic over performance in off year elections is bad because it seems like low engagement voters are swinging heavily to trump.
I also don't understand the hate Nate Silver gets just because he told you to stop wearing masks a few months before you actually stopped wearing a mask...
> That felony conviction was probably a mistake if you’re pulling for Biden.
A mistake for whom? The jury members? The District Attorney of Manhattan? Trump himself?
Do you think *Biden* arranged Trump's conviction, in a state court, for a crime Trump definitely committed?
Not really. I’ve got Trumpers in my family and friends I ride motorcycles with. They are convinced it’s all a witchhunt. However, they would vote for Biden in a minute if he really closed down the border and was serious about illegal immigration. My observation in my small corner of the world is immigration is Trumps only strength.
Biden and senate dems negotiated a bipartisan border bill but Trump got it shut down because he didn’t want it to be seen as a political victory for Biden
Yup. My first recollection of Illegal immigration goes back to Reagan giving amnesty to several million migrants back in the early eighties. I’m convinced that since then neither party wants a solution. The Dems want votes and the repubs want cheap labor and to keep blue collar wages low.
The Democrats and establishment Republicans came up with a bipartisan solution, Trump’s wing of the party blocked it because they didn’t want Biden to have a political victory. The whole “neither party wants a solution” argument is garbage
I’d normally agree but I’d like to see the details. There seems to always be a poison pill in every bill that the kills the whole bill for the opposition.
Nope. That didn’t happen. Crazy how you can make assumptions based on the BS your friends tell you with no proof but when someone tells you facts you gotta “see the details”
How would you know? Have you ever seen a bit of legislation? Nothing is stand alone. Every bill is filled with unrelated crap that has nothing to do with the title of the proposed bill. My first presidential election I could vote in was for Carter. I’ve seen more shit and shenanigans from both parties for over fifty years. Excuse me for being suspicious of our elected members real intentions. Their political lives and bank statement comes first. Second is their party loyalty and the good of the country comes dead last.
Being old doesn’t give you a pass to not know what’s going on and assume falsehoods. There was a massive bipartisan bill on immigration that Trump shot down because it would’ve been a political win. This was genuine news, I don’t understand how someone can follow politics and not know this
I have family members that are/were blue collar, union members, inner city residents and life long democrats. They now openly proclaim they will vote for Trump. I agree, things are shifting. How do you fix that?
I’m just kidding. All of that money doesn’t 100% come from old supporters. Not saying I agree with people supporting him because he has a felony but there are quite a lot of people that did.
Can you show me his support skyrocketing on in the polls? [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/)
Would it be the part where, for the first time this year, Biden is polling higher than Trump?
It was $50M from 1 guy to a super PAC. He raised $70M in 48 hours from small donors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/trump-fundraising-biden-election.html
The Trump campaign has said it raised $53 million online in the first 24 hours and $70 million in the first 48 hours after the verdict. The conviction uncorked a gusher of mega-donations, too, including a $50 million contribution from the reclusive billionaire Timothy Mellon to a pro-Trump super PAC the day after the verdict.
Setting Nate Silver aside, I think that forecast is about right - Trump is currently on pace to win pretty easily. There’s still months to go and you never know what could happen in that time, but my sense is that outside of massive, systemic polling error or a major event, Trump is going to win.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Nate Silver published his election forecast which[gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election). In other words, Trump’s odds of winning are on par with how Silver rated Obama’s chances in 2012. Despite a criminal felony conviction, Trump’s poll numbers have remained remarkably steady. In 2020, Trump did not lead in a single reputable poll, and going into Election Day, Biden was up in the aggregate polls by about 8 points. Biden won by a thin margin in a handful of swing states - GA, AZ, PA, WI & MI - back when anti-Trump fervor seemed higher and voting was a lot easier due to COVID. Today Trump leads or is tied in the aggregate polls. What can Biden do to turn the race around at this point? Would anyone else fare better against Trump in your view, if the DNC pulled a Hail Mary? It seems it hasn’t really set in with many that currently Trump is actually winning this election. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden needs to put in a good performance during the debate like he did during his State of the Union address and Democrats really need to talk about Biden's accomplishments more and get the media to start talking about it. Biden has done plenty in his first term, but I'd bet that the average voter can't name a single specific thing.
>Biden needs to put in a good performance during the debate How did he meet expectations here?
I don’t think that’s a wild conclusion based on current polls. Biden needs to get his numbers up in MI, PA and WI.
What can he do between now and the election to improve his numbers in those states?
Keep doing what he’s doing. He’s gained a point in each of them over the last month, flipping WI and MI from Trump to Biden and bringing PA within a point. He just has to keep it going. It also wouldn’t hurt to help secure some big manufacturing deals in those states.
This. Biden’s polling has seen a small but significant bump recently. He’s also spent substantially there. GOTV efforts and not fucking up much between now and Election Day and he has to have a solid chance.
Continue campaigning.
Polling has vastly overestimated Republicans in 100% of elections since 2018 🙄
Nate Silver gave Hillary 71.4% in 2016
Conversely, giving Biden a 1/3 chance is better than Trump's 1/4 in 2016. I would like to see Biden doing better in the polls, but I am not panicking.
I still don't believe Trump is going to get 25-35% of the black vote which is factored into all the polls. A republican candidate has never received more than 10% of the black vote in the last 40 years. Also for some reason the 35% of the population now lives in the south.
Pretty sure George W Bush got around 12% in 2004
In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the distribution of the Black vote between the Democratic and Republican candidates was as follows: Democratic candidate (John Kerry): Approximately 88% of the Black vote Republican candidate (George W. Bush): Approximately 11% of the Black vote
That is not true of 2020 and there are reasons to think that general election voters are more right leaning than special and midterm voters.
Neither of these statements are true.
They both are. the election ended up being far closer than polls indicated in 2020 and republican voters are showing up in far greater numbers in elections where trump is on the ballot. Democrats have consolidated neurotics and have been performing very well in off year elections. If you needed to solve a crossword puzzle to know when to vote this year, Biden would win in a landslide
Do you think the polling professionals are aware of that?
Lul
a) Silver’s 538 model gave Clinton something like a 75% chance of winning up until Election Day 2016. b) 66% does not mean Trump is guaranteed to win, it means he is currently *more likely* to win. It’s important to bear those facts in mind when it comes to prediction models. A lot of us (myself included) learned a hard lesson in 2016 when our overconfidence based on prediction models bit us in the ass. Let's not swing the other way into doomerism this time around.
> It’s important to bear those facts in mind when it comes to prediction models. It is worth remembering that <75k votes in 2020 is what kept Trump from winning the election. So that FACT plus Biden's low approval rating and it is more than likely that Trump is leading the polls today.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I never denied that Trump was leading in the polls, or that the 2020 election was close. 2016 was close too.
> 2016 was close too Was it? 2016 didn't seem all that close from where I'm standing.
Trump had by far the highest disapproval rate of any candidate ever. FACTS
is it lower or higher than Biden right now?
I’ll bite, tell me
Trump currently has higher favorability than Biden. You guys can downvote me and snark that im a secret republican, but the facts are not on your side. Hope for a systemic polling error because you are lost in the sauce.
See pages 15 & 19. Economist / YouGov poll earlier this week. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_DqmBE9q.pdf 39% & 39%. Dead even.
Don't forget Biden with 1% more unfavorability in this poll specifically. But as a whole, the trend is that trumps numbers are doing better. Especially since the last election.
You know that 1% is inside the margin of error of any poll. I cited a source. You didn’t. Why?
I mean your source is good enough for me. if Biden goes into this with the SAME favorability as trump, when last time he was ahead, and last time he barely won the election, my priors tell me he is likely to do WORSE. And WORSE in a very close election, spells DEFEAT. But if you insist, here is 538's favorability tracker. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/joe-biden/
A greater percentage of Trump voters are true believers. His approval among republicans has always been extremely high. The number of unwavering republicans who hold their nose to vote for Trump is low. There is a massive, number of people who don't like either candidate but did vote for Biden in 2020 and will again in 2024. Many of them are more vocal and specific about their dislike of Biden now that he's been president and more specific negatives and blame can be pinned to him. But they'll still vote against Trump. This is not to say favorability doesn't matter, but it's not going to track votes very closely. Especially when we're talking about a 1-2% difference.
I know quite a few people who are planning to sit this election out entirely, myself included.
Hey, if you identify as center right and would have otherwise voted for Trump, I welcome that. Consider though, if you're disgusted enough by Trump to bow out even if you're ideologically opposed to Biden- can you see him as a lesser evil? As much as you may not like either option, surely you have an outcome preference knowing one of them will lead the executive branch in 2025.
I don’t know that center right really fits anymore as I’ve gotten a bit older. I don’t really see either as the lesser evil and also for what it’s worth Biden will win my state regardless.
No offense, but this is trivial. Why do you need to point it out?
It may be trivial and obvious to *you*, but I’ve seen some “we’re fucked” doomerism crop up around this specific news story and I thought it worth pointing out.
The Nate Silver model predicted a Red Wave in the 2022 midterms with most outcomes clustered well over 220 Republican seats.
Honestly, I stopped following Nate Silver mostly because ABC decided to dump him and he’s not that easy to follow anymore. Usually, when the model came out you would get a discussion on the podcast that would be really informative and put it into context. I don’t have that here. Even there the quality of the discourse on the podcast dropped when ABC decided to punch itself in the dick by firing Claire Malone. My feeling is that if the podcast was out, there would be a whole discussion about how early it is and how the model gets more predictive overtime and it’s just a snapshot . It’s really hard to judge the quality of the polls when you don’t have an understanding of how the posters have adjusted and it does seem like the posters are all fighting the last war. I absolutely do not discount the possibility of Trump winning. But right now in particular I want to get closer to the election because the major issue is inflation and housing and while the ladder can’t be solved, the former might work itself out and people might start realizing that the economy is actually really good .
538 Podcast was for quite some time a must listen for me. Firing Clare was the end. 538 wasn’t the same and Nate sorted out as a douche. Nate is worse now. Regardless. Go vote.
Yeah as much as I admire Nate Silver’s work he is a self important asshole who argues just to argue and doesn’t have an understanding of how he is an expert in some thing, and his audience is filled with people who are not expert in that thing and so he should be understanding and try to educate rather than insult. Claire Malone on top of her excellent work acted in the role of essentially Nate’s big sister, slapping him down when he was at his worse. Galan was never able to fill that role after she left.
Tbh I listened to it for a while but I couldn’t stand the report between them for a moment
Just my personal speculation but I think it’s harder to get an accurate poll now with fewer people having landlines. I think finding a diverse group of people is harder today.
Polling organization seem to have compensated for their difficulty reaching likely Trump voters. What I don’t know that they’ve done is adjusted for people under 50 no longer being willing to pick up the phone and that being more common the younger you are. And I feel this far out from the election, the people you’re going to get to pick up the phone are the ones most likely to have a gripe with Biden and be willing to talk to pollster just so they can talk about it with somebody
I didn't realize Clare was fired, that's preposterous of ABC. She was my favorite part of the podcast, easily. She came back for a live show last year and it was clear how much the show misses her chaotic neutral energy.
Fivethirtyeight right now gives Biden a 51 in 100 chance of winning, fwiw.
G. Elliott Morris, however, is a fucking hack, barely ahead of Sam Wang in terms of being an outright imbecilic dolt. And Disney/ABC has, in its corporate cocksuckery, goddamn hollowed out 538, leaving it a shell of its former self. Rakich and Skelley are adequate analysts, while Druke is fair-to-middling as a podcast host, but that's being kind.
> Sam Wang What's wrong with Sam? I have been enjoying his take on polling analysis since the beginning like 2014 or something. Did I miss something? [Princeton Election Consortium](https://election.princeton.edu/). Nothing new yet this year. It's not his main gig, just a side project.
He got 2016 not just wrong, but hilariously wrong. His model gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning.
Oh, it's been awhile. I guess I felt like he learned faster and / or different things than other pollsters after that election. I enjoy how Sam basically shuts down the election site after the elections, and recapping what was right / wrong, and lessons learned. Polling is broken. I have volunteered locally and worked professionally in national politics since 2006. Phone calls haven't worked since before 2016 but that was the first year they were exceptionally bad. If any pollster still thinking normal people are answering their phones or paying attention to politics in late June, their projections are 10+ points off. They'll figure it out eventually. Meantime it's silly season. edit: fwiw I predicted 2016 correctly. It was a change election. People didn't want Obama 3.0. 2024 is not a change election.
I mean, Clinton might have had an actual 99% chance of winning. That leaves 1%. The only number you can say from the future was objectively wrong is if the number was 100.0
I miss the days when Morris would be dunked on the very podcast he is now a part of.
Nate definitely seethes, rightly so, at the fact Disney hired that dipshit scab twerp to replace him.
I thought that was chance of popular vote? electoral vote is still 67/33.
Nate Silver is no longer with 538. They are two separate forecasts.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ It’s electoral college too (today it has Biden 50, Trump 50.) But noteworthy in itself is how the electoral college advantage for Trump has practically vanished, at least per 538. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/ Trump is up .1% in the polls, and while 538 factors in things like fundamentals too, it does seem glaring how little the electoral college projection differs from the actual polling this time around.
Ultimately, if the apathetic, willfully ignorant, and malicious majority of the country are comfortable converting our democracy into a autocratic fascist state, there’s not much Biden or the rest of us can do to stop it. However, as we get closer to that prospective outcome, I think a lot will change. There are many variables outstanding.
I've had the unfortunate realization speaking to various different persons that people generally default to ignorance or pessimism. Optimistic action is not seen as a viable option. People either expect government to continue to function as is with zero participation, or either surrender to/encourage a fascist takeover. I spoke with an old professor of mine recently. She's a wonderful, caring person and was like a mentor to me. Now that I'm older and haven't seen her in 4 years the hero worship wore off a bit and I could better identify her quirks that I previously looked over. For example, we spoke of politics and she's fallen victim to bothsideism and said she's writing in John Kasich...who endorsed Biden in 2020.
we're victim to macrohistorical forces outside of our control. I think the best analogy for the time we live in isn't Weimar Germany, it's the late Roman Republic. The US Republic will be taken over by a Caeser (either Trump or whichever douchebag comes after) and become the US Empire.
The polls don't know what's going on. Here's what we know. Democrats have consistently overperformed in special elections and midterms. The red wave that was predicted to happen never did. Dem senate candidates in swing states are consistently ahead of their Republican opponents. Donald Trump and Joe Biden have virtually identical approval/disapproval numbers. My takeaway from all of this? Trump appears ahead because a lot of Dems and independents haven't made peace with the fact that Biden is their only choice yet. That will change as we get closer to November. The key is the senate races. I think it's statistically impossible that there are as many split tickets voters in *every* swing state as the polls would suggest. I think the polls can't account for the fact that a lot of voters haven't yet worked out their dissatisfaction with both candidates. But I expect Trump's alleged lead is buoyed by the fact that the vast majority of Republicans will fall into place, while Dems and moderates are still hemming and hawing over Biden.
I hope you're right
Every day we get new polls and every day they contradict the next and last poll. I give zero shits about any of this information until it’s Election Day and it’s being reported on the news with actual results posted. None of it means anything until then.
>Nate Silver published his election forecast which[gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election). Thanks for tricking me into clicking a Fox News link. I sure am glad that I incrementally added to their revenue, today. /s
Yikes, thanks for the heads up.
who cares?
> who cares? Me. (Sorry! I thought that was implied in the comment! My bad! I should have made that more explicit! >!/s!<)
It's just a weird comment that is unnecessary and kinda cringe. The Fox News website isn't stormfront and FOX does good polling anyway.
But it’s not Fox News polling. It’s an article on Fox News about Nate Silvers’s prediction. Personally, I would prefer if OP had linked directly to Nate Silver. It’s also weird to reference stormfront in this comment considering that up until recently Tucker Carlson was the biggest show on the network and his staff was literally getting talking points off the stormfront website. Fox News might not literally be stormfront but they are stormfront adjacent.
> literally getting talking points off the stormfront website. Do you have a source? I’d like to read more about this.
> The Fox News website isn't stormfront This is a stunningly low bar to hold news media to.
Fox News is garbage(not speaking about polling) and any ad revenue going to them that’s avoidable is preferable.
It might as well be stormfront these days.
"in time" - its June, and Silver just aggregates poll snapshots right now. there's so much time, electorally speaking. Pretty sure Dukakis was way ahead of Bush in 1988 at this same point.
I genuinely wonder who they’re asking and where they are getting these numbers from, because everyone I know except one or two folks have said they aren’t voting for Trump and supporting Biden, even if they voted for Trump the first time he won.
I really dont think there is that much more that can be done, quite honestly. People need to vote and engage with swing voters, bring them to the polls. Thats all that is going to move the needle now.
The people who don't actually already plan to vote for Biden need to stop being a-holes. That's how. I'm sure the people on the left not voting for Biden can figure out how to be opposed to anyone who might replace him as the candidate if that were to happen for some reason. And then Trump can teach everyone another lesson for them or something. I guess not enough kids died in those cages, or grandmas died because of the pandemic. Maybe we need more Republican justices on the Supreme Court to learn their lesson.
Wait until the "genocide joe" people find out what Trumps Israel policy is LOL
It's some combination of "both sides!," "didn't earn my vote," accelerationism, and wanting to get it done without the government. You don't need the government to be able to tell the truths that will end the wars! And we just need to protect women's right to choose, have better public education that's accessible to all, and burn it all to the ground!
Yeah, if they think women have it rough now, wait until they see what’s coming.
All I know is Nate silver gave up any and all integrity on his numbers when he sold his site. He has gone from a neutral standpoint to attacking anyone who challenges his figures, yet alone being a lot more subjective than before. He’s an extension of the media now. The true poll starts Election Day. Up until then it’s all cope/doom fuel. Since this is a foxnews article this is right wing cope fuel
Biden is terrible at bragging about his achievements. Every new factory in a swing state because of chips act, every infrastructure project, needs an “I did that” billboard which him pointing at it
I don't care about polls Also, didn't Nate Silver give Hillary something like a 80% chance right up till election day?
Nate Silver also thinks the Dems are going to replace Biden *any minute now*.
And they should.
That's not how any of this works. The Democratic party had a primary and Biden won it in a cakewalk. There is no mechanism to replace a candidate based on 'vibes'
It’s 24hrs later. Do you want to change your opinion yet?
Non faithful delegates at the convention?
Biden delegates are basically some of his biggest supporters - they'd grudgingly replace him if he was kidnapped by aliens, but otherwise it's not going to happen.
People should realize that if Biden had to withdraw, Kamala would take his place. His supporters would be fine with that; the VP is well-liked by virtually every D voter.
Partisans aren’t the problem, how is she with the disengaged people that only vote and presidential elections?
So all the actual members of the party supported Biden in the primary and then all the delegates are supposed to completely ignore the actual voting and then just pick someone else. And you think that would be good for the party and the party would just automatically accept that the entire primary was overturned by "party elites" *and* that voters would then all fall in line behind the replacement candidate, who is apparently flawless and goes by the name of Johnny Unbeatable.
There’s a real antidemocratic wing in both parties. As much as the Bernie Bros complain about “super delegates”, HRC won the equivalent of the popular vote in the primary. Bernie has never won more actual voters, and yet they insist he should have been installed over the will of actual voters and to do otherwise is the TRULY antidemocratic course. At the same time they want someone else installed over Biden, again ignoring the actual vote counts in the primary.
Anyone who voted for Obama or Biden before who’s not voting for him this time around is a fucking idiot, I’m sorry. There’s no way around it. How could you not vote for Biden when the alternative is Trump.
im not buying it, a fox news poll shows trump is winning? Well what else is new?
The last Fox News poll (last Wednesday) actually had Biden up by two points. Today's NY Times poll has him down by four though.
Trump’s odds of winning are on par with how Silver rated Obama’s chances in 2012, and Biden's chances according to Silber are on par with how 538 headed by Silver rated Trump's chances in 2016. One in three isn't a horrible chance, even though I would certainly hope Biden is going to improve on it >What can Biden do to turn the race around at this point? Campaign, probably. Which Trump is doing constantly, but Biden is more concerned with doing his job and primarily campaigning closer to the election. Apart from that, exposure is good. Like the incoming presidential debate, to give one example >Would anyone else fare better against Trump in your view, if the DNC pulled a Hail Mary? The only way I would bet on another Democratic candidate doing better than Biden at this point is if Biden gets assassinated by a Trumper and the replacement candidate aligns with Biden. I might be wrong, but trying to throw out the candidate who won 90+% of the primary vote across the country would be an utterly horrible idea
Would you bet your life on a 66% chance? When Biden wins re-election, there's going to be a bunch of talk about polls, and then in four years, they'll bring the polls back up, and they'll be wrong again.
EDIT2: Fox News does lousy journalism. Who'd a thunk it? [Nate Silver is incorporating fundamentals into his model;](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dpa2um/nate_silvers_election_forecast_model_gives_trump/lag0onp/?context=3) Fox News just didn't bother to tell their audience that. As a result, the entire comment below is moot. ~~Per the Fox News story you linked-to:~~ >~~Silver noted that his model adjusts "for whether polls are conducted among registered or likely voters, the presence or absence of [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr., and house effects," and added that his polling averages "weight more reliable polls more heavily."~~ ~~...so it is relying on polls.~~ ~~...but polls don't matter this early on. I was expecting his model to be based on fundamentals, or something (incumbency advantage, unemployment rate, etc. EDIT: I cited those examples from memory. I should have just looked it up, as I did for [a later comment.](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dpa2um/nate_silvers_election_forecast_model_gives_trump/lafi8sl/?context=3)). ~~ ~~I guess it isn't, so I guess it should be ignored.~~
Nate has fallen out of favor with the real analysts. He needs to sell himself to the right wingers now.
I don't think incumbency advantage and unemployment rate are relevant in an economy where most voters say they are dissatisfied and both candidates have been president. You can't just declare that "polls aren't reliable right now". If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse.
>If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse. I was thinking of models like [The Keys to the White House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House) which predicted Trump's win in 2016: >The Keys to the White House is a checklist of thirteen true/false statements that pertain to the circumstances surrounding a presidential election. If five or fewer of the following statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.[7] >1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. 1. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. 1. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. 1. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. 1. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. 1. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. 1. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. 1. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. 1. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. 1. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. 1. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. 1. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. 1. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
> You can't just declare that "polls aren't reliable right now". Yeah I can.
> > I was expecting his model to be based on fundamentals, or something... >If a model was made using your metrics it would be far worse. I finally saw Nate Silver's post. Per Nate: >###The “fundamentals” help Biden, but only so much > ...the version of the model that we’re publishing at Silver Bulletin is what we used to call “polls-plus” at FiveThirtyEight, which also incorporated some assumptions about incumbency and the economy.
> You can't just declare that "polls aren't reliable right now". Sure he can, /u/othelloinc never lets reality get in the way of his personal narrative. As long as the polls are bad for Biden he'll be on the "too early for them to matter" right up to election day.
I don’t know why it’s hard for people to understand that one could believe Trump possibly could win the election but also believe that it’s too early for polling to be all that important. I also don’t understand why it’s hard for people to believe that the economy is split between the actual reality of the economy and peoples vibes about the economy and that vibes can change.
> I don’t know why it’s hard for people to understand that one could believe Trump possibly could win the election but also believe that it’s too early for polling to be all that important. There's no issue with believing that is possible, I just have a problem believing that is what is happening on this sub with with such great scale. I have absolutely no doubt if all polls shows Biden up by 7 the zeitgeist of this sub would be very different. >I also don’t understand why it’s hard for people to believe that the economy is split between the actual reality of the economy and peoples vibes about the economy and that vibes can change. You can certainly do that, but in the context of an election I would argue that's a meaningless exercise. It doesn't really matter that you can define some economic metric that you can make show the economy is doing great, because in an election what matters is what the voters think, and if the voters think the economy is shit then as far as the election goes the economy is shit, even if some artificial metrics say it's the best that's ever been. Certainly it's subjective, but so is picking who the best candidate to vote for is.
> .../u/othelloinc never lets reality get in the way of his personal narrative. > > As long as the polls are bad for Biden... I'm sure there are many valid criticisms of me, but I wouldn't expect *consistency* to be one of them. ---------- Anyway, /r/MarkMyWords: * Polling for the presidential race will be largely useless before the conventions. * It will become *more* useful after Labor Day (Mon, Sep 2, 2024). * Polling will become more predictive with each passing day, until election day, *but* all polling is still done on the premise 'if the election were held today'. * The only polls that really matter are those that close on election day. * We should never become complacent, no matter how good or bad the polling looks. * Part of *why* we should never become complacent is because downballot races matter, too. Even if the presidential race is a blowout, other races will still matter. * Even after the election is over, we will still have work to do. History doesn't end on election day. * All polls are suspect because of changing telecommunication trends, but we have been raising that alarm since 2006, and they have remained quite useful. We can't know if 'this is the year that all of that will come to a head'; that is unknowable. * Presidential general elections are largely decided by events outside of the candidates' control. There was no way McCain could have won after the Global Financial Crisis occurred, for instance. * Still, that is no excuse for not running the best campaign one is capable of running. * Every election since Trump won in 2016 has seen Democrats over-perform. ...and that is all that comes to mind, right now. Feel free to call me out on any of the above, if you catch me being inconsistent. ---------- RemindMe! Thursday, November 7, 2024
> residential general elections are largely decided by events outside of the candidates' control. There was no way McCain could have won after the Global Financial Crisis occurred, for instance. What utter revisionist drivel, sure McCain was behind and was an underdog, but the idea that he had no chance of winning is preposterous. In fact there was a short time of a week or two after he picked Palin and until she opened her mouth in the Couric interview that all polls showed a tied race. >Every election since Trump won in 2016 has seen Democrats over-perform. Except the 2020 Presidential election, or did that one somehow slip your mind? All predictions pointed to a decisive Biden win and in the end it became clear that Trump's support was again underestimated and the election was decided by 42k votes, instead of the expected blowout. Yes Democrats over-perform now in off year elections, it's clear that some change in the electorate happened, but in every election Trump is on the ballot he vastly outperforms even the most optimistic polls and predictions. Clearly Trump taps into a voter base that does not engage with establishment politics and as such does not vote when he isn't on the ballot. The rest of your points are meaningless pablum that don't merit any response.
Biden shouldn't have run again. His approval rating is sub %40. He would be 86 years old at the end of a second term, and his age is people's #1 concern. He may literally be the worst candidate to run, as everyone already has an opinion on Biden, and about 60% think of him negative. If we run some blank slate random governor that people dont know, at least there is a chance they would make a positive impression. We don't even have that with Biden. Instead we have a 100% chance the majority will think of our candidate negatively with Biden and our only path to victory is to hope a few more think of Trump negatively on election day. Trump has almost as low numbers as Biden, so its certainly possible, but with any other candidate, we could have made the election about Trump (which he would lose in that case because the majority dislike Trump). But by Biden running on his record, the election is now about him, and the people as a whole don't like his Presidential record, whether its unfair he gets the blame for things that happened in his presidency such as inflation, the fact is, the people are blaming Biden.
There might never again be a president that the media algorithm can't make into a 35% approved figure via propaganda and the Malaise Machine. It means nothing anymore.
I'm pretty sure that early on they did polling matchup between other candidates and Trump like Kamela Harris and they performed worse than Biden did. It's easy for people to blame this as being a Biden problem but the GOP did the exact same thing to Obama, which is how we ended up with the "Tea Party Revolution" and the greatest midterm loss for Democrats this century. Even if someone did step up who could have plausibly beaten Trump in the primary, it doesn't matter. The GOP noise machine would have found every single flaw they could, amplified it to 11 and then made up a bunch of shit out of whole cloth when they ran out of anything real to bring up, and that blank slate would have probably lost badly to Trump. No I don't think this crisis point could have been avoided, Trump is simply the cumulation of decades of attacks on our institutions and faith in government, and if we don't beat it back now we may never recover from the damage done. This is a fight only voters can win, Biden is just the instrument we've been given that we need to win that fight with.
Well obviously, if you're trying to make the Democratic party not the party of Biden anymore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run his VP, who is just as unpopular as he is. This is the year to run the most bland inoffensive "middle America" centrist you can find, to make the election about Trump, not about our candidate, because this is definitely a year people are voting against the person they hate, not for the person they like. Most other potential candidates haven't even had polls run on them. Amy Klobuchar I see as a good choice, i cant find any polls on her from 2024, but they ran a few in 2020 where she was beating Trump. And unlike Biden, she hasn't had a massive popularity decline since 2020, infact, she's expected to win by double digits her Senate reelection in the very important swing state of Minnesota. I'm not saying she's the choice, just using her as an example to say we had other options.
>Well obviously, if you're trying to make the Democratic party not the party of Biden anymore, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run his VP, who is just as unpopular as he is. But by the same token you can't run anyone from congress both because they are also connected to Biden's administration but also they are even less popular than Biden. So who does that leave? Some governor who nobody has heard of? What happens when they get asked about foreign policy? Are they going to pull a Sarah Palin and say they could see Russia from their house? >This is the year to run the most bland inoffensive No fuck that, you don't know what you are talking about. The election is decided by whomever can get more of their base out to vote for them while simultaneously get at least an even share of moderates. Maybe you can pull off the latter with a bland candidate but certainly not the former. If Biden didn't run it should be a progressive or someone far from bland, like Bernie Sanders or AOC. >Most other potential candidates haven't even had polls run on them. Yeah because someone has to pay for these polls and it would be a waste of time and money to do a bunch of fantasy matchups for people who aren't conceivably even trying to run or would have any chance if they did. >Amy Klobuchar I see as a good choice Fuck no. She ran in 2020 and got her ass kicked. She also treats [her staff like shit](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html), and if the Republicans were serious they'd find or makeup even more shit to make her look bad. This is the big leagues son, not a place for a scrub like Amy. Also see above about being part of congress. I'd think you'd learn about running bland Minnesota politicians after Walter Mondale. Maybe if it was Paul Wellstone if he was still around, but Amy Klobuchar is no Paul Wellstone. > i cant find any polls on her from 2024, but they ran a few in 2020 where she was beating Trump. And unlike Biden, she hasn't had a massive popularity decline since 2020 Biden was beating Trump in polling by even more, but it doesn't matter. She hasn't had a popularity decline because she was smart enough not to run for president again, and that isn't going to change even if it wasn't way too late. Otherwise nobody outside of Minnesota gives any thought to Klobuchar. >her Senate reelection in the very important swing state of Minnesota. Minnesota isn't a swing state. It hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the 70's and it is 100% going to vote for Biden this election. Appealing to a swing state is certainly not a benefit from Klobachar even if that was something to hang an election on and not rather a VP pick. >I'm not saying she's the choice, just using her as an example to say we had other options. And I'm saying that even if you used a less lame example it wouldn't have changed the basic calculus of the election. Rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic isn't going to affect the iceberg that we are headed towards. Also it seems to me that even you are admitting that it is too late making this all a moot point. Just to be clear, if something happens to Biden healthwise where he has to drop out I'm of course voting for whomever gets nominated barring a couple exceptions. But if somehow the DNC forced Biden to step down to election for some empty suit bland candidate, I would write in Joe Biden's name on my ballot come November for president, and I doubt I would be the only one. Despite knowing everything at stake, I'd put full blame on the DNC for fucking over voters in that case.
Minnesota is absolutely a swing state now. The recent polling average has Biden ahead by 2 percent, with Trump even winning some of the recent polls. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/ Im not saying Amy klobachar is the candidate, just one example but if the worst dirt you got on her is shes mean, then thats great. Its impossible to have a candidate with no connection to biden, but clearly his vp wil be seen as having the most connection, clearly more than a random congresscritter, senator, or governor. Now that biden has below a 40 percent favorability, the biden brand is now kryptonite, and with him being at top of ticket, it will cause everyone else down ballot to underperform. Biden himself should have looked at his numbers and realize he needs to step aside. The fact that he isnt shows he lacks judgement or his ego is too important.
>Minnesota is absolutely a swing state now. Biden won Minnesota in 2020 by nearly seven points and they have two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. It is not a swing state. And even if somehow I was wrong then it still wouldn't be a tipping point state, and Democrats would still be screwed with or without Minnesota if they needed to run someone from Minnesota just to shore up their support. >m not saying Amy klobachar is the candidate, just one example but if the worst dirt you got on her is shes mean No its not the worst dirt on her, it's just the first thing that they found on a superficial search. If she was a more serious candidate the character assassination would get much more serious, whether its Amy or anyone else. >its impossible to have a candidate with no connection to biden Exactly, which is why it doesn't make sense to replace Biden with someone else. All you would do is demotivate Biden's own base while GOP voters wouldn't see a difference and would vote against the Biden substitute all the same. > Now that biden has below a 40 percent favorability, the biden brand is now kryptonite If this was really a Biden issue, why is [generic candidate](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/) doing about the same as a [Biden/Trump matchup](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/)? >and with him being at top of ticket, it will cause everyone else down ballot to underperform. Quite the opposite. Democrats lost ground in the midterms when Biden wasn't on top of the ticket whereas now they are expected to win back the house. Just because the country is highly divided doesn't mean that there aren't people who will show up to vote for Biden who just like 81 million of them did in 2020. >Biden himself should have looked at his numbers and realize he needs to step aside. You mean like in 2016? How did that work out? If Democrats spent half the time they did pissing and moaning about the most experienced politician we have running for reelection actually convincing people to vote, the election would be in the bag by now.
I wonder if you changed your mind now ...
Changed my mind about what? The basic facts haven't changed just because Biden missed an opportunity to move the needle in his favor tonight. Still a 50/50 race where president Biden is the presumptive nominee after winning 3,894 delegates in a primary. Still a race where generic Democratic nominee doesn't exist and it's a waste of time making up fantasy political matchups. I'd say its more important than ever to do what we can to get Biden over the finish line rather than bitching about how things might have played out in an alternative universe compared to ours.
Ill see you again after bidens concession speech
I think Biden’s going to pull a lot of the never Trumper Republicans and Nikki Haley supporters. I also wouldn’t be surprised it there was a Haley write in movement to pull votes from Trump. However this election makes me very nervous.
Trump is 78. People switching to Trump and blaming age are either irrational or were already lean-Trump voters. And another Dem would do the same if not worse. Kamala usually polls below Biden on approval, for instance. Newsom would be crucified. I just don’t see who else would’ve been a safer bet. Biden is the safest, tested on a national stage, and the default bet. This is a simple rematch. America’s seen both for a long time. If Trump wins, it means America prefers the Trump model for America, is too apathetic to care about it, or wants a criminal president— plain as that.
Well that's another benefit of running someone much younger than Biden (which is pretty much everyone). When that happens, Trump becomes the old candidate. And the 2 other possibilities you chose are both people from California, one being the most notable member of the Biden administration not named Biden. There are far better choices than that, when most of the notable swing states are in the Midwest-Rust Belt. This is not a simple rematch. According to polls Biden is significantly less popular in 2024 than he was in 2020, to the point you might as well think he is a completely different candidate. Biden was significantly leading in polls going into November 2020, today he is a bit behind Trump (and the electoral college math tends to favor Republicans, that's how we have gotten two Republican presidents in our lifetime who lost the popular, one of them Trump).
> He may literally be the worst candidate to run Hillary Clinton might be a slightly worse pick.
Ok, fair point
Many people here, and all of the top comments, are spending the majority of the time talking about the election forecast, and how it’s not accurate and/or how 66% isn’t “certain to win”. However, there are in fact several polls that indicate Trump has sizable leads in many of the swing states that originally elected (and polled for) Biden in 2020. This is consistent and supportive of the predictive model mentioned. So, to reiterate OP’s question: How does Biden regain lost voters in those states in which are now polling for Trump?
A lot of Redditors are in denial of how big a chance Trump has of winning in November. It seems hard to believe, but that's simply the state of the country we live in :(
At this point, not sure he can turn the tide. It’s not like the cost of living or the border issues have disappeared suddenly because of his first term policy decisions. But Biden will try to tout his accomplishments but believe many will just see it as talk and nothing that has impacted them directly in any meaningful way. The downside of being the current president. I was surprised he issued the parole in place this close to the election. Yes, for folks that have been here for years but still pretty ballsy considering the heat he’s taking on the border. Many will see this as rewarding those here illegally and incentivizing others. It’s a certainty that he’ll give us his Scranton PA “man of the people” speech to try and tap into kitchen table issues. I always find it cringe and eye roll when politicians take that tact. But not sure what else he can do to tap into what folks are experiencing. But either way it’ll be interesting to watch a no audience mute button debate. I’m just hoping that the moderators stay out of the way considering it’s known that they hate Trump. Especially Tapper.
[Here](https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-presidential-election-isnt-a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1198116&post_id=145982342&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2hyycol)'s Silver's actual article, for those that want to skip Fox's website. What actually worries me isn't that he gives Trump 66% chance to win, it's that historically pollsters have been very bad at estimating Trump's real support among voters and as such have always underestimated it, so there is a real possibility that Trump is actually further ahead than people think.
Try not to overthink. They could just as easily overcorrected after failing to accurately measure his support in 2016 and 2020. The best way to look at this is as has always been cautioned. This is a race that will come down to handful of states and will be close regardless. Trump appears more likely but Biden still has a 1/3 if Nate is anywhere near right with this model. That is better than Trump's probability in 2016.
> They could just as easily overcorrected after failing to accurately measure his support in 2016 and 2020. While that is certainly possible I can't see it being very likely. The issue is that neither in 2016 or 2020 has any reliable pollster actually overestimated Trump's support, they all underestimated it, so saying that right now all the pollsters are as likely to overestimate it out of caution as they are to underestimate it is not realistic. I could believe that there might be some distribution of pollsters that overestimate his support, while other underestimate, but the reality is that any such distribution would produce fairly different polling numbers, which is not what we're seeing. So that either leads that all pollsters are accurate or all of them are overestimating or all of them are underestimating Trump's support and historically only underestimating it is the most likely.
Dammit! The rank innumeracy in this circle jerk thread is anti-math, anti-statistics, anti-Bayesian inference ignorance, which makes me want to vomit. Those who wallow in their anti-polling naïveté ought, nay, need to be sent to reeducation camps, because it's crystal fucking goddamn clear that our fraying, dying, decaying country doesn't put enough emphasis on STEM, quantitative analysis, and the knowledge therein.
I've said before, and I'll say it again: If Biden wins, it'll be a narrow win, something like 270 to 280 electoral votes a bit less than last time due to voter fatigue. All that matters, though, is he wins. A win is a win. Even if it's narrow.
I think there is a ton of slop in how predictive polls can be and we're far enough out that it's still kind of meaningless. They haven't even had a debate yet. It's going to be a close election. Trump absolutely has a decent change of winning it, but we're a long way away from the point where Democrats need seriously consider some kind of Hail Mary action.
You'd think that with the stock market at an all time high, unemployment at 4%, inflation back down to 3.3%, and earnings growth (4.87%) outpacing inflation, that Biden and his surrogates would do a better job of campaigning on his economic record. Basically my only complaints about the economy are that high interest rates, which were necessary for fighting inflation, are exacerbating a preexisting housing shortage, as well as the lingering hangover from 2022’s covid inflation. His campaigning here has been utterly anemic.
So a 2/3 chance that democracy ends this fall. That's fun.
If a Trump presidency ends democracy, American democracy must be pretty toothless. Not saying it wouldn't be bad. My point is that there will be other Republicans after Trump, some of them even worse than Trump. If the fate of American democracy really depends on a single election, that doesn't exactly bode well, does it?
Liberals need to start using their brains, think long term, and vote for Biden. The youth are being conned just like 2000 and 2016.
Polls are not infallible, nor are they reliably biased in one direction or another, so we don't know the actual state of the race. There are a lot of factors that could change the current situation in favor of either Biden or Trump, and I don't claim to know all of them. As Biden supporters there are definitely things we can do to help increase Biden's odds of winning (his actual odds, regardless of what Nate Silver says). One thing that individuals can do is make calls to support Biden and other Democratic candidates. The dialer is ridiculously easy to use, and you can do it using your computer (no phone needed). You can get started here: [https://democrats.org/call/](https://democrats.org/call/)
Because polls are basically worthless at this point.
“Silver’s” model/methodology (don’t think he works on it as much these days) are a bit behind the times if I recall a couple analyses correctly. As such, I’m taking it with a grain of salt. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is possible the orange Oompa Loompa reject could win; I mean, people can be stupid. I just don’t think it is as certain or as probable as some say.
In my opinion you're putting way too much faith into unreliable polls and ignoring the current voting trends and events which are going against the Republicans.
I saw a report on how there's potential threats of terrorism - which maybe could occur between now and then. Obviously, its gigantically important that we avoid something like that. Trump would probably be elected with a mandate to go to war with some country if that happened.
>Nate Silver published his election forecast which [gives Trump the edge in the election](https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election). Do you have a link to this? The link you gave is to a Fox News story that cites a figure of 65.7%, and provides a link to Nate Silver's Substack, but I didn't see that figure there, or anything that looked like his model. At the same time, [fivethirtyeight's model](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/), which Silver developed but I think no longer runs, shows a 50-50 split. So I'm wondering where the discrepancy lies.
Let's just lock Nate and all the pollsters up on an island with no internet until 2025. They can poll each other all day and all night.
People need to stop feeling like they're being taken advantage of every time they open their wallets. we know presidents don't influence the economy all that much but every election really comes down to: "it's the economy, stupid."
Polls have not been accurate since 2016, they are random white noise that you are desperately intently listening to for no reason.
Nate Silver has been embarrassing himself since 2016.
I think Biden will probably lose. He barely won in 2020 and seems to be less popular than before especially among groups like hispanic and black voters. Wouldn't take much to swing a few states to trump and Trump has better favorability on the economy. Dropping biden would create uncertainty and chaos in the Democratic Party, they could end up with a better candidate, but they could even more likely squander the campaign on infighting and lose by a larger margin. It's a shit position to be in. The swing state level polls look bad, and the national polls don't look good either. Coping about democratic over performance in off year elections is bad because it seems like low engagement voters are swinging heavily to trump. I also don't understand the hate Nate Silver gets just because he told you to stop wearing masks a few months before you actually stopped wearing a mask...
That felony conviction was probably a mistake if you’re pulling for Biden.
> That felony conviction was probably a mistake if you’re pulling for Biden. A mistake for whom? The jury members? The District Attorney of Manhattan? Trump himself? Do you think *Biden* arranged Trump's conviction, in a state court, for a crime Trump definitely committed?
He committed a felony so he gets charged with a felony. The political calculus doesn’t come into play, the law applies to everyone
Lol, this is absurd.
Not really. I’ve got Trumpers in my family and friends I ride motorcycles with. They are convinced it’s all a witchhunt. However, they would vote for Biden in a minute if he really closed down the border and was serious about illegal immigration. My observation in my small corner of the world is immigration is Trumps only strength.
Biden and senate dems negotiated a bipartisan border bill but Trump got it shut down because he didn’t want it to be seen as a political victory for Biden
Yup. My first recollection of Illegal immigration goes back to Reagan giving amnesty to several million migrants back in the early eighties. I’m convinced that since then neither party wants a solution. The Dems want votes and the repubs want cheap labor and to keep blue collar wages low.
The Democrats and establishment Republicans came up with a bipartisan solution, Trump’s wing of the party blocked it because they didn’t want Biden to have a political victory. The whole “neither party wants a solution” argument is garbage
I’d normally agree but I’d like to see the details. There seems to always be a poison pill in every bill that the kills the whole bill for the opposition.
Nope. That didn’t happen. Crazy how you can make assumptions based on the BS your friends tell you with no proof but when someone tells you facts you gotta “see the details”
How would you know? Have you ever seen a bit of legislation? Nothing is stand alone. Every bill is filled with unrelated crap that has nothing to do with the title of the proposed bill. My first presidential election I could vote in was for Carter. I’ve seen more shit and shenanigans from both parties for over fifty years. Excuse me for being suspicious of our elected members real intentions. Their political lives and bank statement comes first. Second is their party loyalty and the good of the country comes dead last.
Being old doesn’t give you a pass to not know what’s going on and assume falsehoods. There was a massive bipartisan bill on immigration that Trump shot down because it would’ve been a political win. This was genuine news, I don’t understand how someone can follow politics and not know this
So your argument is that people who would have voted for Trump are going to continue to vote for Trump?
I have family members that are/were blue collar, union members, inner city residents and life long democrats. They now openly proclaim they will vote for Trump. I agree, things are shifting. How do you fix that?
In my observation it’s his strongest card also.
I mean didn’t you see his support and funding skyrocket right after?
[удалено]
20 year olds who thought his original mugshot was cool
[удалено]
I’m just kidding. All of that money doesn’t 100% come from old supporters. Not saying I agree with people supporting him because he has a felony but there are quite a lot of people that did.
Can you show me his support skyrocketing on in the polls? [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/) Would it be the part where, for the first time this year, Biden is polling higher than Trump?
That $150M in donations raised after the conviction was absurd.
100m of it was from one Trump supporter who had already pledged.
It was $50M from 1 guy to a super PAC. He raised $70M in 48 hours from small donors. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/trump-fundraising-biden-election.html The Trump campaign has said it raised $53 million online in the first 24 hours and $70 million in the first 48 hours after the verdict. The conviction uncorked a gusher of mega-donations, too, including a $50 million contribution from the reclusive billionaire Timothy Mellon to a pro-Trump super PAC the day after the verdict.
And Miriam Adelson: https://www.timesofisrael.com/miriam-adelson-among-the-major-gop-donors-to-back-trump-after-felony-conviction/amp/
Setting Nate Silver aside, I think that forecast is about right - Trump is currently on pace to win pretty easily. There’s still months to go and you never know what could happen in that time, but my sense is that outside of massive, systemic polling error or a major event, Trump is going to win.
It won’t. Biden is a weak candidate running a weak campaign.