SUSA National: Biden +13, Sanders +12, Warren/Pete +7, Bloomberg +6, Harris +5

[GeorgiaModerate]

Survey USA, Nov. 20-21, 3850 RV

Biden 52, Trump 39
Sanders 52, Trump 40
Warren 49, Trump 42
Buttigieg 48, Trump 41
Bloomberg 46, Trump 40
Harris 47, Trump 42

Biden 53, Pence 36
Sanders 52, Pence 38
Warren 48, Pence 41
Harris 46, Pence 41
Buttigieg 45, Pence 40
Bloomberg 44, Pence 39

Some highlights:

* Among Protestants, Trump had led Biden by 17, now 4.
* Among voters "able to save for a rainy day," Trump had led Biden by 10, now trails by 2.
* Among white middle-class voters, Trump had led Biden by 12, now 3.
* Among upper-income voters, Trump has never trailed Biden, but today is down by 7.
* Among voters who tell SurveyUSA they are "making ends meet," Biden once led by 6, now leads by 15.
* In the Midwest, Biden once led Trump by 3, now leads Trump by 14.

[President Johnson]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs are the ones that blocked Garland to get rid of soft money in politics, Joe Biden, Hilary and Obama wanted Garland; subsequently,  Trump and McConnell cant talk about Hunter Biden and Ukraine and nepotism

[Frenchrepublican]

Lol. They’re are using a 41/32 D sample. These people are not credible

[Frenchrepublican]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

It really depends of which pollster you’re looking at. You have the MULAW/Emerson polls universe where Trump is doing fairly well and then you have the SurveyUSA/Fox-News polls universe where Biden is on the verge of the largest landslide win for a democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

It really depends of which pollster you’re looking at. You have the MULAW/Emerson polls universe where Trump is doing fairly well and then you have the SurveyUSA/Fox-News polls universe where Biden is on the verge of the largest landslide win for a democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson

Maybe...just maybe...the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It usually is.

[Frenchrepublican]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

It really depends of which pollster you’re looking at. You have the MULAW/Emerson polls universe where Trump is doing fairly well and then you have the SurveyUSA/Fox-News polls universe where Biden is on the verge of the largest landslide win for a democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson

Maybe...just maybe...the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It usually is.

It’s also my opinion. I’m just pointing out the enormous gap you have between some different pollsters

[MT Treasurer]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

It really depends of which pollster you’re looking at. You have the MULAW/Emerson polls universe where Trump is doing fairly well and then you have the SurveyUSA/Fox-News polls universe where Biden is on the verge of the largest landslide win for a democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson

Maybe...just maybe...the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It usually is.

This, although I would add that the divergence between the NPV and the swing state results will likely be even more dramatic in 2020, which partly explains why several swing state polls are showing better numbers for Trump than the national polls.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Knock it out of the park Uncle Joe!

[BP🌹]

Lol. They’re are using a 41/32 D sample. These people are not credible

When you find yourself unskewing every single poll - which you have - you're probably the one's who wrong.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is gonna be a landslide,  with Dems taking both Houses of Congress

[Annatar]

Has there been another cycle like this, with national polls suggesting a 1984 style wipe out and swing state polls like Siena and Marquette showing it basically tied. It would be hilarious if we got to October 2020 and one set of polls had say Biden up 12% and than there were Marquette and Siena polls showing him losing states like Wisconsin and Michigan.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is no SN losing the 278 freiwal, the 50 state strategy is alive and well, due to ongoing impeachment of Trump. How dare the Sean Hannity and Limbaugh throw the nepotism charge at Biden, McConnell has made a live of skirting the campaign finance laws

[SN2903]

Survey USA is garbage

[Yellowhammer]

Yet more evidence that with respect to electability, we seem to have the Biden/Bernie tier, and then the Warren/Buttigieg tier which consistently underperforms by mid-single digits.

[libertpaulian]

I *still* don't buy that Bernie is as electable as these polls make him out to be.

[pbrower2a]

Trump barely kracking 40% against any contender is a bad sign. Apparantly, impeachment hasn't moved the needle much, which is also good Joe Biden. The fake scandal Republicans try to get him in doesn't work.

It really depends of which pollster you’re looking at. You have the MULAW/Emerson polls universe where Trump is doing fairly well and then you have the SurveyUSA/Fox-News polls universe where Biden is on the verge of the largest landslide win for a democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson

Maybe...just maybe...the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It usually is.

It’s also my opinion. I’m just pointing out the enormous gap you have between some different pollsters

It all will reduce to turnout. Trump would win the popular vote with the electorates of 2010 and 2014, and would squeak by in the electoral college while being behind by about 2% nationwide in the popular vote with an electorate like that of 2016.

One demographic trend hurts Republicans: that every year, about 1.6%  of the electorate quits voting due to  death and debility. Figure that the average voter starts voting around 25 and quits voting around age 85 as a pattern. Roughly half the electorate is over 55, and that part is the bulk of people dying off or going senile. The new voters who replace those are 35 or younger.

People over 55 vote about 52-47 R, and people under 35 vote about 60-40 D. Younger voters replace older voters dying off, so every year the Democrats gain about a 25% edge in the margin of the electorate as 1.6% of the electorate appears as the youngest generation of voters. That is only 0.4% of the vote as a margin of change, but that alone makes a difference of 2.4% of the electoral result.

Figure that Donald Trump has little to offer the youngest voters who as a whole are not amenable to racist populism and who have nothing to gain from his economic agenda and an anti-intellectualism that grates on anyone who has a student loan to pay off but meager pay. 

It is easy to believe that because the last three Presidents sought and achieved re-election that such is the norm. All three ran on the agenda on which they ran, and one got re-elected despite having lost the popular vote the first time. Unless something has changed, one should expect Trump to get re-elected.

Something has changed in the electorate, and it shows in the 2018 House elections. Voters were taking it out on the President and on Congress. The GOP gained in the Senate, but only because the Senate had more vulnerable Democrats than Republicans.  Democrats wiped out Republicans in the Senate in non-swing D states in the Senate... 2018 looks like a mirror image of 2010.

OK, Obama still got re-elected despite losing the House and a bunch of Senate seats two years earlier... but Trump is about as different from Obama as is possible. Trump is unable to appeal much  beyond the ultra-partisan base. To win re-election he must avoid losing about a 1% swing in the popular vote nationwide, and the Democrat must be more effective in winning swing states.

One gets re-elected either by

(1) winning in a blowout of 400+ electoral votes -- which hasn't happened since Reagan in 1984
(2) winning with much the same map as in the previous election, typically exchanging a few states, or
(3) losing a couple states that one can afford to lose but still winning.

To this:

(1) Obviously, only the most deluded of Trump supporters think that he is going to win such states as Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington on the way to 400+ electoral votes in 2020 in a 45-state romp.

(2) A Republican would have good reason to expect Trump to get re-elected if states that he barely lost in 2016 showed signs of being close. Those that were within 5% of going for him seem to be spiraling out of reach. At this point, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Hampshire look like states that can go to the Democrat by double-digit margins based upon such polls as I have seen.  I have seen little on the two electoral votes of Maine at-large, but if New Hampshire seems to be swinging decisively away from Trump despite usually being close in Presidential elections, then guess what is likely in Maine.

(3) In theory, Trump could lose two states that he won by less than 10% and still win. I have seen some close polls in Texas, a state that Republicans have been able to consider out of reach for Democrats since 2000; if Bill Clinton could not win Texas in 1992 or 1996 despite being from a neighboring state, then Texas is out of reach for Democrats under most circumstances.

Winning everything that he won by less than 11% puts him at 232 electoral votes. At that point, Texas alone would be enough to get the Democrat to 270. OK, no Democrat is going to win Texas while being swept across the board in all other states that Trump lost by 10% or less.

Florida alone puts the Democrat at 261 electoral votes, which means that Trump could stand to lose any state that he won with nine or fewer electoral votes. The only such state that he lost by 10% or less is Iowa... and he is not going to lose Iowa without also losing some other state. Florida and Arizona, which are quite different, put the Democrat at 272.

Pennsylvania alone puts the Democrat at 252 electoral votes. Such leaves President Trump with more wiggle room than does Florida, but also plenty of ways in which to lose.  The most likely Trump loss not involving Texas or Florida involves the three states that Trump won by 1% or less -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That combination of net losses for Trump puts the Democrat at 278, which allows some differential changes. Trump polling in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina has been weak, and those three together put the Democrat at 274. There is thus no state that Hillary Clinton lost that is an absolute must-win for the Democratic nominee for President.

OK, Trump can win if he is able to force the political dynamic in his favor. He has had plenty of time in which to do so, but he has yet to do so. He has not become more effective in reaching out to voters that he never had. Demographic change that supports a Democratic trend does not help him.  I can see him losing a constituency (national security above all else) that Republicans usually have locked up to Democrats who have received it with little effort.