NYT/Siena Polls of 6 Battleground States

[SN2903]

Amazing #s for Trump.

Just what I thought Warren is a horrible fit for Michigan. Trump up 7 on her wow.

[SN2903]

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.

Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

[SN2903]

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.

Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.

You're wrong and clearly didn't watch the 2016 election. If Trump is winning WI he is likely winning MI and PA. There are similar voters in the Midwest.

[SN2903]

Interesting:

Will vote for Trump/will vote for the Dem nominee in 2020:

Wisconsin: 40/46%
Pennsylvania: 41/45%
Florida: 39/43%
Arizona: 41/44%
Michigan: 38/41%
Iowa: 41/43%
NC: 44/45%

Right now it is clear Trump is doing better in MI than PA and WI slightly.

[SN2903]

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.

Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.

You're wrong and clearly didn't watch the 2016 election. If Trump is winning WI he is likely winning MI and PA. There are similar voters in the Midwest.

There is no evidence that Trump is favored in these battlegrounds. It's not like GA, where Dems fell (narrowly) short in the midterms. I'm not saying it's impossible he wins 1,2 or 3 of these states, but neither polling nor election results since 2016 support the narrative of "Trump is favored". I'm not buying the double digit polling leads for Dems either, but if Trump is stuck at around 40% as sitting prez and has approvals underwater, I'd be worried if I was on his campaign.

He's not stuck at around 40% here, he clearly polls at least at 44%. Also, why would midterm results be relevant for this cycle?

Exactly I am so sick of dems on this forum bringing up 2018. 2016 is a much bigger indicator for 2020 than 2018 because it was a presidential electorate and the voters that switched from Obama to Trump are still by in large with Trump in the Midwest. The turnout in 2018 was wealthier, more educated and a more favorable electorate to the democrats. Trump will turn out so many voters that showed up in 16 but not in 18.

[SN2903]

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.

Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.

You're wrong and clearly didn't watch the 2016 election. If Trump is winning WI he is likely winning MI and PA. There are similar voters in the Midwest.

There is no evidence that Trump is favored in these battlegrounds. It's not like GA, where Dems fell (narrowly) short in the midterms. I'm not saying it's impossible he wins 1,2 or 3 of these states, but neither polling nor election results since 2016 support the narrative of "Trump is favored". I'm not buying the double digit polling leads for Dems either, but if Trump is stuck at around 40% as sitting prez and has approvals underwater, I'd be worried if I was on his campaign.

He's not stuck at around 40% here, he clearly polls at least at 44%. Also, why would midterm results be relevant for this cycle?

Exactly I am so sick of dems on this forum bringing up 2018. 2016 is a much bigger indicator for 2020 than 2018 because it was a presidential electorate and the voters that switched from Obama to Trump are still by in large with Trump in the Midwest.

Trump remains marred around 45% though. He hasn't expanded his base from 2016 at all. Last minute deciders and undecideds break for the party out of power, which means the Dems might only be only a few % above now but are more likely to scoop up those voters.

That's not true. In 2004 and 2012 I think most of the last minutes broke for the incumbent. There is a hidden Trump vote I still believe that.

[SN2903]

These look generally accurate, but the MI numbers are a bit too R friendly

This also is further evidence for the belief that Biden is the most electable, despite his gaffes

Hopefully, Democrats don’t mess up our chances of winning by nominating Warren

He is their best candidate but it's not saying much. He is old and very gaffe prone. He is a worse candidate than Hillary in my opinion. Hillary at least had the competence argument going for her. Biden is showing signs of senility to put it mildly and the corruption issue plays into Trump's argument about the swamp.

[SN2903]

I know Sienna is very accurate, but some of these numbers are hard to swallow. Michigan being to the right of Florida and Arizona being the biggest red flag.

Hmm... wouldn't be so sure about that. Maybe an outlier, but I think MI will vote to the right of PA at least.

I agree

[SN2903]

My takeaways (keeping in mind that this is just one poll):

- Is there really a good reason to believe that NC is more likely to flip than GA? I could see it voting 1% to the left of GA, but not more than that. It doesn’t make much sense to rate NC a Tossup and GA Lean R, if you ask me.
- MI can’t be taken granted by Democrats and is not Lean/Likely D in a close race (although I don’t buy the Trump +6 result vs. Warren in particular--their MI numbers might be too R-friendly).
- WI can’t be taken for granted by Republicans and is not Lean R in a close race, especially if there’s a collapse in R support in WOW (in line with the suburban trends we’ve seen across the country) and urban WI (especially Milwaukee) looks more like 2018 than 2016. That said, I still think it’ll be more Republican than PA at least.
- Democrats would be colossally stupid if they didn’t go all in on Florida. Conceding 29 electoral votes when their path to 270 is already fairly narrow and other swing states might be trending away from them would be beyond dumb. It will definitely require some effort, but it’s not unwinnable even in a close race.
- IA isn’t a swing state and certainly not as "elastic" as people are making it out to be, but I’m not going to dwell on that. We could see a regression to the mean here (similar to NV 2012), but if IA is even close, Democrats already have the Senate + presidency.
- I’ve said repeatedly that AZ is one of the (if not the) shakiest states for Trump, and I don’t see it voting Republican if he’s losing other swing states like WI or FL. I’d argue that this one is actually a must-win for Democrats.
- Overall pretty bad numbers for Democrats considering that Trump seems to be trailing nationally by 5-8%. They’re probably slightly favored, but the PV/EC split will probably be even more dramatic this time if they can’t win the PV by 3.5-4%.

So just because you don't like the results you think they are R friendly? These are New York times polls. Wisconsin is absolutely tilt R in a close race and so is Michigan. I also don't buy the popular vote will be bigger for the dems. Trump will likely do better in the south than he did last time and also in Cali.

[SN2903]

MI numbers are unrealistic,  since he leads in AZ and FL, he cant be tied in MI and NV

They are unrealistic cause you don't like them? There is so much evidence pointing to Michigan being to the right of PA right now.

[SN2903]

So there could be a decent amount of Clinton-Trump voters in the Midwest? Who are these people? Clinton was an abysmal candidate for the Midwest, hardly campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, and lost them by less than 1%. The Democratic nominee will heavily target these states in 2020, and likely won't be as unpopular as Clinton. How could Trump realistically expand his margin there?

There are Clinton Trump voters I have talked to some who plan on voting for him.

[SN2903]

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

These are mostly pretty good polls for Trump, from a very good pollster.  Democrats shouldn't try to pick holes in them, but should recognize that Trump does have a realistic possibility of replicating his electoral inside straight from 2016.  However, neither should Republicans use these polls to assume that Trump is a strong favorite for reelection; he isn't.  It's possible to draw two inside straights in a row...but it sure isn't a good bet.

It's true that the election is still a year away.  There are one or two people here who routinely say "polls this far in advance are meaningless" -- at least when they don't like the results.  For those who really think polls are meaningless at this point, why are you wasting your time on a polling board?  Check back in July or so.

Polling this far in advance indeed has low predictive value for the state of the race a year from now.  But it's not zero, and the value is gradually increasing as the election gets closer. Also, although the polls don't tell us much about the November 2020 state of the race, they do tell us quite a lot about the state of the race now, especially when there are many polls that can be averaged together.

Those polls do tell us a story: Trump is the underdog at this point, but certainly not out of it yet.  And he does better against some candidates than others.  In particular, the large majority of polls show that Biden has the best results against Trump, and looking at the average (don't cherry pick individual polls) he does significantly better than Warren does.  

This is not just a matter of name recognition at this point.  Anyone who's following the campaign at all (and polls consistently show a record level of interest and enthusiasm for this election) knows who Warren is at this point.

Could Warren beat Trump?  Sure, it's very possible.  But at this point in the race, Biden looks like a significantly stronger candidate against Trump.  If this doesn't match your preferences, it's too bad; that's what the data says.  As an old poker buddy of mine once said: no matter how long you stare at a deuce in your hand, it will not transform into an ace.

Why is Warren running behind Biden?  Polls that probe this question, as the Upshot polls did, tend to show that she has specific weakness especially among the working class voters who, for better or worse, have a disproportionate electoral influence at this point in presidential politics.  Perhaps this isn't justified or fair, but it's the way that it is.  Again, look at the damn data.

Personally, I'll vote for any Democrat over Trump, but I'm rooting for Biden, and not just because I'm a moderate.  At this point, he has the best chance to beat Trump.  That's my ONLY concern right now, and I think it should be every Democrat's only concern.

Again, it's certainly possible that Warren can beat Trump.  But that sure looks like a shakier proposition than Biden beating Trump.  Every Democrat out there needs to ask themselves: would I rather lose with Warren or win with Biden?  Of course neither of those outcomes is a given, but right now it sure looks like Biden is more likely than not to beat Trump, while Warren is IMO a 50-50 bet.

How can you claim to be a moderate and say you would vote for Bernie Sanders or Warren who are both socialists.

[SN2903]

Wow, five pages for a poll that just came out.

Even though I believe the numbers are little too Trump-friendly in states other than North Carolina and Florida,  it's warning sign for Democrats if they go with the wrong candidate. Liz would be riskier, and she didn't perform well with the healthcare debate in recent days and weeks. A lot of Michigan workers have their union plans for healthcare and don't want the system to be overthrown completely with a plan that costs many billions. It's much smarter (and realistic) to fix Obamacare as Joe Biden proposes.

Yep but I doubt they go with Biden.

[SN2903]

How can you claim to be a moderate and say you would vote for Bernie Sanders or Warren who are both socialists.

I don't particularly like either of them, but I believe the country would survive four years of their Presidency, especially as they will have difficulty getting more extreme programs through Congress.  I don't believe it will survive another four years of Donald Trump.

It's an either-or choice.  Sometimes the choice is between bad and worse, rather than between good and bad.

Trump isn't proposing 27 trillion in new spending. How can you honestly say Warren or Bernie would be a better president? Trump is presiding over the best economy since the 60s. You may hate him as a person but there is no denying he is managing the country effectively.

Also I disagree with you slightly about the inside straight. I think if anything Trump is in a stronger position in the electoral college than even 2016. The advantage of incumbency is going to put other states possibly in his column: Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire. Trump could lose by 1-2 million votes and still win an electoral college mini landslide: 320-350 electoral votes. I also am not sure Biden is as great of a candidate as you think he is. I agree with a previous poster that the Trump campaign will dig up every bit of dirt on Biden and I think his strength in the polls is largely based off of name recognition. When Trump and his team really start spending then negative advertising on Biden (if he gets the nomination which looks less than 50% right now) I think his numbers would drop significantly nationally and in the state polls.

[SN2903]

How can you claim to be a moderate and say you would vote for Bernie Sanders or Warren who are both socialists.

I don't particularly like either of them, but I believe the country would survive four years of their Presidency, especially as they will have difficulty getting more extreme programs through Congress.  I don't believe it will survive another four years of Donald Trump.

It's an either-or choice.  Sometimes the choice is between bad and worse, rather than between good and bad.

Trump isn't proposing 27 trillion in new spending. How can you honestly say Warren or Bernie would be a better president? Trump is presiding over the best economy since the 60s. You may hate him as a person but there is no denying he is managing the country effectively.

Also I disagree with you slightly about the inside straight. I think if anything Trump is in a stronger position in the electoral college than even 2016. The advantage of incumbency is going to put other states possibly in his column: Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire. Trump could lose by 1-2 million votes and still win an electoral college mini landslide: 320-350 electoral votes. I also am not sure Biden is as great of a candidate as you think he is. I agree with a previous poster that the Trump campaign will dig up every bit of dirt on Biden and I think his strength in the polls is largely based off of name recognition. When Trump and his team really start spending then negative advertising on Biden (if he gets the nomination which looks less than 50% right now) I think his numbers would drop significantly nationally and in the state polls.

Trump and the Republicans are going to dig up all the dirt they can find on whoever his opponent is. 

Polls consistently show Biden running better against him than any other Democrat.  And no, it's not just name recognition; the NYT/Siena polls (which you tout highly) went into this question in depth.  They found that among voters who were familiar with both Biden and Warren, a strong majority preferred Biden.  To put it simply: there probably aren't a lot of persuadable voters left in the American electorate, but it looks like more of them can be persuaded to vote for Biden than Warren.

Also, "fiscal responsibility" is probably not a card that Republicans can play after the way they've zoomed up the deficit since Trump took office.

O please you can't compare Trump's deficit with proposing to basically bankrupt the nation and it's largely because no matter who is president you can't significant cut spending politically. That is a ridiculous argument.

Biden is an overrated candidate. He is their best candidate but would still be a Mitt Romney type nominee that doesn't inspire anymore. You can't win that way. I totally disagree. Biden's corruption is being covered up by the media but if he was the nominee Trump would focus on it every day.