Jump to content
270soft Forum

Poll: Obama crushes Trump in landslide


Recommended Posts

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-3156-d57a-ad7b-7f77906c0000

According to a new poll, Barack Obama would crush Trump in a landslide with 54% to 43% (3% undecided). Even if this translated to a an Electoral College vote, it would be almost impossible to get 270 EVs when losing by 11 pts nationally. This might be a clear evidence of a failed president: The new president is crushed by their predecessor in polling. 

Another poll today by another polling company also had Biden defeating Trump by 11 pts (50% to 39%). 

It's still too early, but I don't think any incumbent has polled this badly at this point in a reelection campaign and won. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This might be a clear evidence of a failed president

Failed in what sense? If he wins re-election, but still polls poorly re Obama, is that still evidence of a failed president?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Failed in what sense? If he wins re-election, but still polls poorly re Obama, is that still evidence of a failed president?

Winning re-election against weak opposition, or opposition who run badly-run campaigns or drop the ball can still be a sign of a failed, or at least poor quality elected leader. For instance, here in Canada, Justin Trudeau in 2019, or virtually every re-election by Earnest Manning for 38 years as Alberta Premier...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Trump was being trounced in polling re Sanders in May of 2016. A few examples: 53-41, 48-39, 52-40. At that point, it was much closer re H. Clinton (typically around 3 points).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Failed in what sense? If he wins re-election, but still polls poorly re Obama, is that still evidence of a failed president?

No, in that case, I'd say the argument for that would be weak until we get his polling at the end of his second term. I think if he drops to 35% or lower then he'd join George W. Bush as a rare two-term failed president. I'd say any president polling lower than their predecessor couldn't be a Great President, but they could probably be a Good president.

I'd say Trump's range is Good to Failed but with the probability leaning towards bad or failed, since he's looking like he won't be reelected, according to both state polls, national polls, approval polls, direction of the country polls, polls for voters that dislike both Trump and Biden,  etc.

I will say that if any president could get out of something like this, in whatever manner, it would be Trump. If Trump weren't Trump and were, say, Carter, Romney, McCain, Dukakis, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, we'd consider the incumbent completely doomed. I think the fact that he's Trump is the only thing any people have any hunch that he could win reelection. 

I think Trump has only three things remaining that can really save him:

  • The Coronavirus Epidemic and Recession ends soon and recovery is swift, resulting in a clear returning economy, initiatives to aid unemployed people and injured businesses, and a strong attempt at healthcare reform supported by Trump that shows some sort of understanding that hospitals, etc. will be prepared when/if this happens again. Barring these he's pretty much fucked. The "strong economy" was the one  non-ideological thing he had going in his favor that would have helped him winning votes outside of his base.
  • The new GOP attempt to investigate Hunter Biden ends up hurting Biden as much as the Benghazi investigations hurt Hillary Clinton. Trump basically needs this to help convince independents that Biden is as or more corrupt than Trump. This won't impact Democrats, but it might deter independents, especially those that like Bernie Sanders, from voting Biden. 
  • An October surprise helps Trump, whether it's election hacking, verifiable proof that China created the coronavirus, or something else. 

Overall, I think, if the election were held today--and he would lose if it were held today--the argument that Trump is a failed president is much stronger and easier to make than the argument that he's been a good president. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another poll suggesting Trump leading in swing states.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/voters-divided-over-coronavirus-cnbcchange-research-poll-finds.html

"Trump holds a narrow, 48%-46% lead over Biden among all the battleground voters surveyed, including a 41%-32% edge among independents."

So somebody has to be incorrect about voter intentions. You can't have Biden ahead by 11 p.p. nationally and behind by 2 in swing states.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Failed in what sense? If he wins re-election, but still polls poorly re Obama, is that still evidence of a failed president?

No.

If Trump wins re-election, it will be evidence of a failed country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The Coronavirus Epidemic and Recession ends soon and recovery is swift, resulting in a clear returning economy, initiatives to aid unemployed people and injured businesses, and a strong attempt at healthcare reform supported by Trump that shows some sort of understanding that hospitals, etc. will be prepared when/if this happens again. Barring these he's pretty much fucked. The "strong economy" was the one  non-ideological thing he had going in his favor that would have helped him winning votes outside of his base.

If this does happen, it will be a credit to the Governors (including the Republican ones), not Trump.  He accepted zero responsibility, put it all on the governors to fight amongst themselves, and then told us to inject harmful disinfectant into our bodies.  

If we get through this, it will be thanks to the governors and the first responders and everyone else who stepped up in a leadership vacuum.  

When you refuse all responsibility, you don't get the credit either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Another poll suggesting Trump leading in swing states.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/voters-divided-over-coronavirus-cnbcchange-research-poll-finds.html

"Trump holds a narrow, 48%-46% lead over Biden among all the battleground voters surveyed, including a 41%-32% edge among independents."

So somebody has to be incorrect about voter intentions. You can't have Biden ahead by 11 p.p. nationally and behind by 2 in swing states.

Change Research has a really low poll rating. In addition to Biden outpolling Trump nationally every single time. He's winning in every battleground state in state-specific polls most of the time, excluding TX and GA, where he's winning about half the time against Trump. I do think if Trump shows any lead in a collective battleground state poll, then it helps that Trump's best performances are in TX, GA, and FL, which have more people than the other battleground states. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

If this does happen, it will be a credit to the Governors (including the Republican ones), not Trump.  He accepted zero responsibility, put it all on the governors to fight amongst themselves, and then told us to inject harmful disinfectant into our bodies.  

If we get through this, it will be thanks to the governors and the first responders and everyone else who stepped up in a leadership vacuum.  

When you refuse all responsibility, you don't get the credit either.

Yeah, I agree, but we are talking about our electorate.

I also agree with you that if Trump wins reelection, it's because we're a failed country. I'm actually strongly considering moving to Canada if he wins reelection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Yeah, I agree, but we are talking about our electorate.

I also agree with you that if Trump wins reelection, it's because we're a failed country. I'm actually strongly considering moving to Canada if he wins reelection. 

The only Canadians I know are both on this board.  One defends Trump, the other hates everything.  I'll stay here.  ;c)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I do think if Trump shows any lead in a collective battleground state poll, then it helps that Trump's best performances are in TX, GA, and FL, which have more people than the other battleground states. 

This is a good point. You have to drill down into the specifics of the swing state %s. Just as a national lead can be misleading if a candidate is running up the %s in states like CA and NY, say, which have huge populations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

If we get through this

How could the U.S. not 'get through this' - a virus that has an IFR of perhaps 0.4% (1 in 250), and with the typical person dying being 80+ and who would have died anyway within 1 year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

How could the U.S. not 'get through this' - a virus that has an IFR of perhaps 0.4% (1 in 250), and with the typical person dying being 80+ and who would have died anyway within 1 year?

If victory is a done deal, guaranteed by math and not leadership, then why would Trump get a boost?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

The only Canadians I know are both on this board.  One defends Trump, the other hates everything.  I'll stay here.  ;c)

Actually, there's three. @Edouard was born and raised in France, but is a permanent resident of Quebec (to the point of being able to vote). And I don't hate everything - for instance I'm a big proponent of justice for all without distinctions by class, race, gender, identity, or position - but since that concept would, if properly in the place, put Bush and all in high government like him in International War Crimes Tribunals instead of immunity to all possible criminal charges, investigation, or indictments - or serious, transparent review in retrospect for possible criminal wrongdoing - by pure politicized fiat, be come to loggerheads, because you effectively believe such politicians should - for some reason - be utterly immune and untouchable to such criminal accountability, but I believe, ideally, justice should apply the same to all. In fact, those of greater power and responsibility should bear a much HIGHER of criminal accountability, because of the greater scope and damage their crimes can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm actually strongly considering moving to Canada if he wins reelection

Why? I have a hard time imagining saying I'd move to another country because a politician wins or doesn't win an election. It seems like a crazy sentiment to me. I'd move to another country because it has a nicer climate, a stronger economy, and so on. But because a politician wins or doesn't win an election?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

If victory is a done deal, guaranteed by math and not leadership, then why would Trump get a boost?

Trump will get a boost if the economy is doing well. I say that because it tends to be the case that economic indicators correlate with re-election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Why? I have a hard time imagining saying I'd move to another country because a politician wins or doesn't win an election. It seems like a crazy sentiment to me. I'd move to another country because it has a nicer climate, a stronger economy, and so on. But because a politician wins or doesn't win an election?

That's probably because we've never such an atrocious election situation in our history - at least Federally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Change Research has a really low poll rating

My comment about this poll relates to the thread you started here

http://270soft.ipbhost.com/topic/17394-outlier-poll-with-trump-crushing-biden/

I said it makes sense to wait for more corroborating data from other polls re Trump leading in swing states. We now have corroboration. I don't think it's definitive corroboration, but both of these suggest the swing state equation is favouring Trump at this point.

Not that I think that matters much at this point either way, as there's 5 1/2 months to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Trump will get a boost if the economy is doing well. I say that because it tends to be the case that economic indicators correlate with re-election.

That's largely what I was referencing as well, except that Trump will deserve none of the credit as he did none of the work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

That's largely what I was referencing as well, except that Trump will deserve none of the credit as he did none of the work.  

A fun election that happened up here in Canada that's a good case and point to consider. In 1957 (I made a scenario for this one, in fact), the Liberal PM Louis St. Laurent lost to John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives DESPITE a booming and prosperous economy - based on the attitudes and tenor of St. Laurent's complacent government style and odious cabinet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's probably because we've never such an atrocious election situation in our history - at least Federally.

I view Trump agnostically, leaning towards thinking he's done a good job overall, but I've never thought that it's worth moving about any politician I'm familiar with. I could see moving if a party's policies tank the economy and you no longer have a job, say. That's a bit different, though - it's reckoning with a changed economic situation.

With a few exceptions, people focus too much on national political leaders. Yes, individual leaders are important. But in a nation, there's much more going on that's important typically outside a national political figure. I suppose it makes sense to me that it could be a straw that breaks the camel's back for some people - they were thinking of moving anyway, and if you add in election of so-and-so, that makes the difference. I suppose a person could say it's what the election represents - a nation gone bad, say. But if that's the case, it's not really the election that matters, especially when we're talking very tight races.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

A fun election that happened up here in Canada that's a good case and point to consider. In 1957 (I made a scenario for this one, in fact), the Liberal PM Louis St. Laurent lost to John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives DESPITE a booming and prosperous economy - based on the attitudes and tenor of St. Laurent's complacent government style and odious cabinet.

Yes, I'm not saying it's the end all be all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I view Trump agnostically, leaning towards thinking he's done a good job overall, but I've never thought that it's worth moving about any politician I'm familiar with. I could see moving if a party's policies tank the economy and you no longer have a job, say. That's a bit different, though - it's reckoning with a changed economic situation.

With a few exceptions, people focus too much on national political leaders. Yes, individual leaders are important. But in a nation, there's much more going on that's important typically outside a national political figure. I suppose it makes sense to me that it could be a straw that breaks the camel's back for some people - they were thinking of moving anyway, and if you add in election of so-and-so, that makes the difference. I suppose a person could say it's what the election represents - a nation gone bad, say. But if that's the case, it's not really the election that matters, especially when we're talking very tight races.

So, you wouldn't, if you had been there and had the wherewithal, left Germany on the March 1933 Election if you were Jewish, Romani, Homosexual, Communist, Socialist, Jehovah's Witness, or Seventh-Day Adventist (or strongly suspected of being one or more of the above), or South African in 1948 if you were Black and still enjoying a pre-1948 Cape Qualified Franchise? There's actually no election would leave because of unless it was purely economic that you're aware of? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...