Tough National Poll For Warren

[mark46]

Joe Biden regains national lead in new poll

 

[Occams Barber]

Joe Biden regains national lead in new poll

I'm not seeing anything about Warren getting a "tough national probe".

OB

 

[mark46]

Thank you. A pox on spellcheck!

I'm not seeing anything about Warren getting a "tough national probe".

OB

 

[SimplyMe]

National polls are largely meaningless, at this point. What will matter is how the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire end up voting -- which is often at odds with what the national polls tend to show. The top finishers in Iowa and New Hampshire will quickly become the front runners -- those that do poorly, particularly front runners that do worse than expected will have big drops in the national polls.

 

[Fantine]

I like and respect Biden but can't support him.

So many people told me, "I Don't like Trump, but Hillary was worse!" Trump fans are trying to excuse a lack of judgment and ethics because they found someone who---impossible as it is to believe--was worse.

And that's why Graham is "investigating" Biden--so.that good people who are ashamed and horrified that they could support such a man can say "but Biden was worse."

Is he worse? Is Hillary? Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

But the Scapegoating of Biden will "allow" them to support someone whose behavior they loathe.

 

[Andrewn]

So many people told me, "I Don't like Trump, but Hillary was worse!" Trump fans are trying to excuse a lack of judgment and ethics because they found someone who---impossible as it is to believe--was worse.

In this season of Thanksgiving, I thank God that Hillary lost. Perhaps Biden would have had a better chance last time, but the party selected evil Hillary to run.

For the next elections, one can say "the incumbent usually wins." Is it going to be different this time? But Sanders and Biden are too old.

 

[mark46]

1) I agree that national polls are largely meaningless. However, they were very meaningful to so many a few weeks ago when they showed gains by Warren, and losses by Sanders and Biden.

2) I agree that the early states are important. It will be important for folks to be in the top 3 in Iowa and NH, in order to be able to afford all the ads and other media necessary to compete in march in over 20 states. Of course, Steyer and Bloomberg do not have these constraints.

I think that Buddigieg, Sanders and Warren will do well in the lily white states of Iowa and NH. I don't know whether NV (with a large Latino vote) and SC ( with a majority black vote) will pay much attention. The candidates must appeal to minorities. To date, only Biden has done that. After all, the majority of voters in many of the March states are minorities.

3) I agree that front runners could be hurt by not doing well in Iowa or NH. I expect the top 4 to still be viable after NH, plus Bloomberg if Biden collapses in NV and SC.

National polls are largely meaningless, at this point. What will matter is how the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire end up voting -- which is often at odds with what the national polls tend to show. The top finishers in Iowa and New Hampshire will quickly become the front runners -- those that do poorly, particularly front runners that do worse than expected will have big drops in the national polls.

 

[GodLovesCats]

National polls are largely meaningless, at this point. What will matter is how the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire end up voting -- which is often at odds with what the national polls tend to show. The top finishers in Iowa and New Hampshire will quickly become the front runners -- those that do poorly, particularly front runners that do worse than expected will have big drops in the national polls.

The problem with those states is their elections are so early Trump could still be on their ballots, then not be available to vote for in other states if the Senate miraculously convicts him. I can't remember NH ever being red, but also have only been tracking election maps in the 21st century.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In this season of Thanksgiving, I thank God that Hillary lost. Perhaps Biden would have had a better chance last time, but the party selected evil Hillary to run.

For the next elections, one can say "the incumbent usually wins." Is it going to be different this time? But Sanders and Biden are too old.

Trump is obviously the evil one. CF rules prevent me from using the correct adjectives.

Do you know for sure the incumbent usually wins the GENERAL election? Especially if most people always hated him?

 

[mark46]

NH was red last in 2000.

The problem with those states is their elections are so early Trump could still be on their ballots, then not be available to vote for in other states if the Senate miraculously convicts him. I can't remember NH ever being red, but also have only been tracking election maps in the 21st century.

 

[mark46]

Trump is obviously the evil one. CF rules prevent me from using the correct adjectives.

Do you know for sure the incumbent usually wins the GENERAL election? Especially if most people always hated him?

???

Reagan won re-election in 1984. Since then, no one has failed to win re-election but Bush Sr. He was serving the 3rd consecutive Republican term.

Look it up. Most presidents are re-elected. Let's go backward
Obama re-elected in 2012
Bush Jr re-elected in 2004
Bill Clinton re-elected in 1996
Bush Sr not re-elected in 1992, but this was 3rd term of rule under Reagan and Bush
Reagan re-elected in 1984

 

[mark46]

Are you concern with the Republican nomination. It makes no difference to the Democrats whether Trump is on the ballot in NH.

The problem with those states is their elections are so early Trump could still be on their ballots, then not be available to vote for in other states if the Senate miraculously convicts him. I can't remember NH ever being red, but also have only been tracking election maps in the 21st century.

 

[Andrewn]

Bush Sr not re-elected in 1992, but this was 3rd term of rule under Reagan and Bush

This was as unusual election in that it had 3 candidates. It's quite possible votes for Perot cost Bush Sr the re-election.

 

[Andrewn]

I think that Buddigieg, Sanders and Warren will do well in the lily white states of Iowa and NH.

No one in his right mind would support Butti gieg.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Are you concerned with the Republican nomination? It makes no difference to the Democrats whether Trump is on the ballot in NH.

I was just thinking about that at the time. Never mind.

 

[mark46]

He has a solid lead in Iowa, and one poll had him as a leading in NH. Also, he is 4th nationally. You re accusing a lot of Democrats of not being in their right mind. Upon further consideration, I guess that this kind of opinion is not unusual.

No one in his right mind would support Butti gieg.

 

[Andrewn]

He has a solid lead in Iowa, and one poll had him as a leading in NH. Also, he is 4th nationally.

Everyone knows who the 9% of Democrats voting for him are. I'm sure his husband is one of them.

 

[Andrewn]

Especially if most people always hated him?

It's not clear whom people hate more: Trump or the Democrats who have been wasting federal money and time on investigations since he was elected.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's not clear whom people hate more: Trump or the Democrats who have been wasting federal money and time on investigations since he was elected.

Yes it is. Many people who voted for Trump were really voting against Clinton; they did not like him at all. And don't forget he lost the popular vote anyway. It did not take long for Trump to "earn" the lowest job approval rating for any President.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This was as unusual election in that it had 3 candidates. It's quite possible votes for Perot cost Bush Sr the re-election.

This is an argument peoplle who vote for third party candidates make. They want to ruin it for the D or R, but do not support either of hte major party candidates. IIRC this did affect George Bush in 1992.