Why does the conventional wisdom favor Biden?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Biden is polling at a tie in the popular versus Trump, 4 points to the right of the 2020 result. In 2020, Biden's favorability was 10 higher than Trump, while it is around the same right now.

Yet the conventional wisdom seems to be that MI is lean D, and NC is tossup along with the states WI, AZ, GA, PA, NV, giving Biden a slight edge.

[cherry mandarin]

- Biden already won in 2020, albeit narrowly.
- Biden will be the incumbent.
- Trump will have to navigate his way through a contested primary, whereas Biden's renomination will be a breeze.
- Trump has hurt his standing among moderate and undecided voters in swing states since 2020, due to election denialism, January 6, and general extremist policies and positions.
- Demographic change.
- Trump's EC edge will likely have dwindled massively, if not entirely evaporated, by 2024.
- Democratic fundraising advantage.
- Reverse coattails from strong incumbent Democratic senators in PA, WI, MN, NV, ME, NM, VA, OH, MT, etc.
- Lasting Democratic base enthusiasm from the Dobbs decision.
- Potential economic recovery.
- Third-party No Labels run could draw votes away from Trump in key states, by attracting disaffected Republican partisans.

Keep in mind that these are just arguments as to why Biden should be favoured, and the ones you listed aren't even the only components of a case for Trump (although you seem to have covered most of the main ones). Overall, it's still a toss-up for me, at least until we get clearer information heading into the GE, or on Trump's various indictments.

NC is a tossup state

Conventional wisdom according to whom? Atlas posters (as a whole) don't exactly have the most predictive track record, historically speaking.

MI is lean D

Because he won by 3+ points there last time, and Democrats did well in 2022.

WI, AZ, GA, PA, NV are toss-up races right now

In which case, there HAS been movement since 2020 (in Trump's favour, mind you—he lost all 5 of them  last time, no less).

[Arizona Iced Tea]

- Trump will have to navigate his way through a contested primary, whereas Biden's renomination will be a breeze.

I think cv has changed this a bit. Trump seems to be cruising to an easy primary win while DeSantis who once was viewed with a good chance of winning has crumbled. Meanwhile Biden is having a bit of a struggle in the Dem primary. Don't get me wrong he will beat RFK Jr and it won't even be close but for an incumbent President margin matters. Biden winning with <70, 75, even 80% is pretty weak for an incumbent primary and can forshadow show cracks in the general.

[cherry mandarin]

Trump appears to be cruising to an easy primary win; Biden is struggling a bit in the Dem primary.

Right now, it's kind of the other way around. I get that a double standard has to exist, but this still isn't an accurate representation of the facts on the ground at present.

<70, 75, even 80% is pretty weak and can foreshadow cracks in the general.

As it stands Trump isn't even going to get anywhere CLOSE to that, though. And his primary challengers are distinct enough (by virtue of them running against him) that they won't just bow out early in deference and hand over the bulk of states or delegates to him.

Besides, a lot of the RFK Jr. support in polling stems from name recognition (his father's or uncle's, not his own) alone. They won't be motivated enough to show up to vote for him in a primary, though, especially once they find out about his real policy positions, and taking into account the fact that he has no real shot at winning anything meaningful.

Another reason is that there really isn't anywhere else for "protest respondents" among the D primary voters (to park their vote) currently. Thus RFK Jr.'s total is massively inflated by people who have no intention of actually supporting him, whereas Republicans unhappy with Trump have *plenty* of options on the GOP side of things.

[cherry mandarin]

Trump appears to be cruising to an easy primary win; Biden is struggling a bit in the Dem primary.

Right now, it's kind of the other way around. I get that a double standard has to exist, but this still isn't an accurate representation of the facts on the ground at present.

<70, 75, even 80% is pretty weak and can foreshadow cracks in the general.

As it stands Trump isn't even going to get anywhere CLOSE to that, though. And his primary challengers are distinct enough (by virtue of them running against him) that they won't just bow out early in deference and hand over the bulk of states or delegates to him.

Besides, a lot of the RFK Jr. support in polling stems from name recognition (his father's or uncle's, not his own) alone. They won't be motivated enough to show up to vote for him in a primary, though, especially once they find out about his real policy positions, and taking into account the fact that he has no real shot at winning anything meaningful.

Another reason is that there really isn't anywhere else for "protest respondents" among the D primary voters (to park their vote) currently. Thus RFK Jr.'s total is massively inflated by people who have no intention of actually supporting him, whereas Republicans unhappy with Trump have *plenty* of options on the GOP side of things.

[pbrower2a]

With few exceptions, incumbent Presidents seeking re-election get re-elected. Dubya was a nearly-unmitigated disaster as President, but few caught on to that until too late. He got re-elected, and his bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his sponsorship of a speculative boom that would go bust. One needed to be close to the dispatches from southwest Asia or have a sophisticated knowledge of economic history to recognize that Dubya would be a disaster, which is very different from ideological disenchantment.

 Trump left far less ambiguity about his awfulness as President, yet he came close to getting re-elected. Figure that Donald Trump was the most erratic of Presidents in more than a century, and up until a century ago the federal government had little role in economic life except in wartime. The Teapot Dome scandal of a century ago probably drew less attention in mass culture than did the apolitical Black Sox scandal of roughly the same time, and the effects of the Teapot Dome scandal had less influence upon contemporary politics than the Black Sox scandal had upon mere entertainment.

Most of the time, incumbents running for re-election to high office (large-city mayors, State Governors, US Senators. and of course the Presidency) show why they were elected the first time. Unless his mental state deteriorates severely he is probably the second-savviest figure in American politics. (The 22nd Amendment disqualifies the other such person. You know who). Joe Biden promised to offer sane, rational, honest government and a sober foreign policy, and he has given us exactly that. If his mental state deteriorates, then we have the example of Ronald Reagan, who at least had some good people around him who could do the most important things and reduce the Presidency to ceremony. That worked.

When they fail, incumbent Presidents may have failed to deliver on promises even if 'more of the same', essentially the appeal of Herbert Hoover. Jimmy Carter made impossible promises about inflation (that it could end with little pain); he faced a diplomatic disaster as American hostages were incarcerated in Iran; furthermore, the cultural change behind the rise of the Religious Right gutted his constituency of Southern white moderates. Jimmy Carter wasn't right-wing enough for people who went from mainline Christianity to evangelical-fundamentalist Christianity. The elder Bush? His agenda went stale, and he could never offer anything more than "more of the same". In the case of Donald Trump, he got elected despite getting less than a plurality of the popular vote and failed to win over people who thought him troublesome in the previous election. He proved exactly what many dreaded of him.

So far...

President Biden doesn't have an economic meltdown to make Americans want a drastic alternative. The one thing that ensures an economic meltdown, a speculative bubble that wastes capital that in same times goes either into investment in job-creating plant and equipment or into cost-cutting or capacity-creating infrastructure, isn't happening.  Do you want some evidence that we actually have huge investments in plant and equipment? Ford Motor Company has a veritable building boom dedicated to new capacity for manufacturing vehicles, as I noticed on a couple trips to Dearborn, Michigan. We have no glaring scandals involving the current President. Ford Motor Company isn't in the commercial real estate business.

The wise money seems to be upon a reprise of the 2020 Presidential election in 2024. Trump is already campaigning, and President Biden isn't. The Biden campaign is already well funded, which means that his campaign is likely to rely more heavily upon advertising than upon campaign appearances. President Biden can claim some credit for the abatement of the COVID-19 plague that Trump bungled. Trump has legal problems of his own doing, and Biden doesn't. Trump supporters tend to be older while Biden supporters are younger... and even if older voters are more stalwart voters than the young, elderly voters aren't so stalwart when they go senile or die. About 1.5% of the electorate, almost entirely the part over 50, dies off each year. New voters about 20% more D than R are supplanting voters about 5% more R than D... which is good for about a 1.5% shift in the electorate on that matter alone. Yes, the war in Ukraine has gone badly -- for Vladimir Putin, one of Trump's buddies.       

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I said there isn't any red wave the poll in OH shows that it's no red wave if Trump is only up 6 and Brown is leading and FL is only 4

All the S Gov races Ds are competetive even LA where Shawn Wilson was supposed to be throttled and ALLRED isn't Beto he doesn't have a stuttering problem all Edays aren't the same it was a Neutral Environment and we only won the PVI by 1 but in 20 we won the PVI by 5 and it was a Neutral Environment that's why it's not the same map every Edays

The only red wave there is in WV Manchin is gonna be blanched , FL, MO and TX are competetive with Phil Ehr now inFL

[Skill and Chance]

- Trump will have to navigate his way through a contested primary, whereas Biden's renomination will be a breeze.

I think cv has changed this a bit. Trump seems to be cruising to an easy primary win while DeSantis who once was viewed with a good chance of winning has crumbled. Meanwhile Biden is having a bit of a struggle in the Dem primary. Don't get me wrong he will beat RFK Jr and it won't even be close but for an incumbent President margin matters. Biden winning with <70, 75, even 80% is pretty weak for an incumbent primary and can forshadow show cracks in the general.

In recent history, it actually seems like the more you had to compete in a primary, the better.   See Biden coming back from 4th in NH in 2020, Trump 2016, Obama 2008, etc.   

[Redban]

Biden is polling at a tie in the popular versus Trump, 4 points to the right of the 2020 result. In 2020, Biden's favorability was 10 higher than Trump, while it is around the same right now.

Yet the conventional wisdom seems to be that MI is lean D, and NC is tossup along with the states WI, AZ, GA, PA, NV, giving Biden a slight edge.

The conventional wisdom on this site is that Biden is certain to win. Why? Because this is a far-left website, with just a minority of conservatives and Republicans . The people on this site who claim that Biden is certain to win are merely uttering their wishes, not offering predictions or analysis

[wbrocks67]

The only reason Biden is really close to Trump in most polls that have it close is that these polls generally have something like Biden 43, Trump 43, with a ton of undecided, and usually those undecided lean Dem, with groups like young voters or minorities who may not *love* that Biden is the nominee but will come home in the end. Meanwhile there's a reason why Trump's ceiling is usually around ~45 in most of these polls because his dedicated supporters are already with him and he's maxing out.

[Sir Mohamed]

- He's the incumbent and already beat Trump; rematches often don't work out well for the previous loser.
- Low unemployment, economy is relatively good, no scandal or foreign policy failure
- Trump hasn't done anything to expand his base, instead his name has become more toxic post J6 and indictments
- Dems performed well in all battlegrounds in 2022 (states Biden flipped in 2020)
- Polling only looks competitive because a decent number of D-leaners remain not exicted about Biden, but will never vote for Trump
- Trump got more unhinged since he left office and is likely to continue until the election
- All previous incumbents since Reagan other than HW looked more vulnerable with a year or 2 out than they actually were.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

The only reason Biden is really close to Trump in most polls that have it close is that these polls generally have something like Biden 43, Trump 43, with a ton of undecided, and usually those undecided lean Dem, with groups like young voters or minorities who may not *love* that Biden is the nominee but will come home in the end. Meanwhile there's a reason why Trump's ceiling is usually around ~45 in most of these polls because his dedicated supporters are already with him and he's maxing out.

Independent voters also poll similarly, those undecideds are not all people who dislike Biden for not being left enough lol.

[wbrocks67]

The only reason Biden is really close to Trump in most polls that have it close is that these polls generally have something like Biden 43, Trump 43, with a ton of undecided, and usually those undecided lean Dem, with groups like young voters or minorities who may not *love* that Biden is the nominee but will come home in the end. Meanwhile there's a reason why Trump's ceiling is usually around ~45 in most of these polls because his dedicated supporters are already with him and he's maxing out.

Independent voters also poll similarly, those undecideds are not all people who dislike Biden for not being left enough lol.

It's the same thing though, in that whether it's that he's not left enough or they just don't love either option, but they're still more likely to ultimately vote for Biden in the end, especially given something like the 2022 results.

[WalterWhite]

Probably because:
- Biden is the incumbent.
- Approval ratings will not matter very much given that both Biden and Trump are unpopular; what will matter is who is more unpopular.
- Democrats overperformed in the 2022 midterm elections. (only losing the PV by 3% when previous midterms saw incumbent parties lose the PV by 8%, 7%, 6%, and 9%)
- Polls underestimated Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, which indicates that polls will underestimate Democrats in the 2024 elections. (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=557857.0)

[Spectator]

95% of the time, rematches end up worse for the loser.

“But a presidential race isn’t the same as a gubernatorial, Senate, or House race!” will be the retort, but I think it applies in principle nonetheless to a presidential race.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Polls this far out amount to nothing. Once we get into the late spring, summer of 2024 I’ll look at them

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Most of the time, incumbents running for re-election to high office (large-city mayors, State Governors, US Senators. and of course the Presidency) show why they were elected the first time.

President Biden doesn't have an economic meltdown to make Americans want a drastic alternative. The one thing that ensures an economic meltdown, a speculative bubble that wastes capital that in same times goes either into investment in job-creating plant and equipment or into cost-cutting or capacity-creating infrastructure, isn't happening. 

Real wages have continuously fallen since Biden has taken office. Biden ran as a generic not-Trump candidate the first time; now he has a negative record, which is why tons of voters switched from viewing him favorably to not.

There is a massive amount of overinvestment in stocks and bonds, particular tech stocks, from the artificially low interest rates in the past. The higher interest rates have already caused a few banks to fail, and a meltdown is likely. China's reopening has temporarily buoyed our economy and lowered inflation (as supply chains return to normal), but this does not change the fundamentals.

[wbrocks67]

Most of the time, incumbents running for re-election to high office (large-city mayors, State Governors, US Senators. and of course the Presidency) show why they were elected the first time.

President Biden doesn't have an economic meltdown to make Americans want a drastic alternative. The one thing that ensures an economic meltdown, a speculative bubble that wastes capital that in same times goes either into investment in job-creating plant and equipment or into cost-cutting or capacity-creating infrastructure, isn't happening. 

Real wages have continuously fallen since Biden has taken office. Biden ran as a generic not-Trump candidate the first time; now he has a negative record, which is why tons of voters switched from viewing him favorably to not.

There is a massive amount of overinvestment in stocks and bonds, particular tech stocks, from the artificially low interest rates in the past. The higher interest rates have already caused a few banks to fail, and a meltdown is likely. China's reopening has temporarily buoyed our economy and lowered inflation (as supply chains return to normal), but this does not change the fundamentals.

sis... just... no

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Incumbent advantage for one. It's rare for presidents to not be re-elected. Also, it is not uncommon for incumbents to be trailing challengers this far out. W trailed John Kerry at points. Romney led Obama.

Trump never overcame his deficit with Biden mainly because we were in the middle of a pandemic and people realized how inept Trump was at leading the country. I still believe he is re-elected in 2020 if Covid never happens.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have the 303 Senate map thru 28 this Eday cycle we have many more red state Ds aside from WV which has 2% blk and MT but MT likes Tester MO, OH, FL, MO and TX, AZ have substantial blk numbers and Latinos

Budd is Safe in 28 and Ernst is too in 26 but Collins, Tillis, Sullivan, Cornyn, Johnson and Vañce are vulnerable in 26/28

There is no way a 2016 comparison because Baldwin, Casey and Hill Harper will win in MI, PA and WI

[Vosem]

Because incumbents usually win; because the Democratic Party has a small advantage over the Republican Party in presidential elections structurally; and because his likeliest opponent, Trump, has enormous flaws, such that he'll find it difficult to appeal to many voters who should be part of an anti-Biden coalition.

Incumbent advantage for one. It's rare for presidents to not be re-elected. Also, it is not uncommon for incumbents to be trailing challengers this far out. W trailed John Kerry at points. Romney led Obama.

Trump never overcame his deficit with Biden mainly because we were in the middle of a pandemic and people realized how inept Trump was at leading the country. I still believe he is re-elected in 2020 if Covid never happens.

I'll push back against this: Bush led all of his Democratic opponents throughout 2003, and he only trailed Kerry during April and August 2004. Romney poked his neck above Obama twice: briefly in November 2011 at the peak of the fiscal cliff crisis, and then again briefly after the first debate.

Biden's current position, of mostly trailing or tying Trump in polls, is not as bad as Trump was doing in 2019. (And notably Clinton was actually much worse off in early 1995 against likely Republican nominee Colin Powell -- though Powell ended up not running). But it is definitely quite a bit worse than Bush or Obama were doing at this stage.

[cherry mandarin]

incumbent Presidents may have failed to deliver on promises even if 'more of the same', essentially the appeal of Herbert Hoover. Jimmy Carter made impossible promises about inflation (that it could end with little pain); he faced a diplomatic disaster as American hostages were incarcerated in Iran; furthermore, the cultural change behind the rise of the Religious Right gutted his constituency of Southern white moderates. The elder Bush? His agenda went stale, and he could never offer anything more than "more of the same". In the case of Donald Trump, he got elected despite getting less than a plurality of the popular vote and failed to win over people in the previous election.

This is definitely your hindsight bias speaking here. We could've made an equally strong, if not MUCH more persuasive, case for voting out EVERY SINGLE incumbent president toward the dusk of their first terms. The same thing's certainly true for Biden, too.

In recent history, it actually seems like the more you had to compete in a primary, the better. See Biden coming back from 4th in NH in 2020, Trump 2016, Obama 2008, etc.

This 100%. Competitive primaries usually work to sharpen candidates' knives and adequately prepare *them* for the upcoming GE ahead, not to mention  validating that they're the strongest possible nominee *for* their party.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

SCOTUS DECISION ON DOBBS AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INSULATED RS FROM PROGRESSIVE ATTACKS, THESE MAGA DECISIONS BY ACB AND GORSUCH HAVE ENERGIVES PROGRESSIVES PARTICULARLY WHITE FEMALES TO VOTE , Trump was doing much better particularly in NV before CRT verdict but he is doing worse that's why OH is 6 pts MOE and FL is 4 Biden isn't down 10 in FL if Scott is only ahead 4D


BUSH W AND TRUMP IN 2000/04/16 WON 52% OF THE WHITE FEMALE VOTE NOW THEY ARE BACK DOWN TO 42%

That's why I say stop worrying about Manchin Affirmative Action was the decider in this race white females especially single one work blue collar and struggle single moms do like blk and Latinos most of the 65M impoverished are single white female moms, Latinos and blks


Rs can say they do for Evangelical White females but they can't say anything for single moms

[WalterWhite]

Because incumbents usually win; because the Democratic Party has a small advantage over the Republican Party in presidential elections structurally; and because his likeliest opponent, Trump, has enormous flaws, such that he'll find it difficult to appeal to many voters who should be part of an anti-Biden coalition.

Incumbent advantage for one. It's rare for presidents to not be re-elected. Also, it is not uncommon for incumbents to be trailing challengers this far out. W trailed John Kerry at points. Romney led Obama.

Trump never overcame his deficit with Biden mainly because we were in the middle of a pandemic and people realized how inept Trump was at leading the country. I still believe he is re-elected in 2020 if Covid never happens.

I'll push back against this: Bush led all of his Democratic opponents throughout 2003, and he only trailed Kerry during April and August 2004. Romney poked his neck above Obama twice: briefly in November 2011 at the peak of the fiscal cliff crisis, and then again briefly after the first debate.

Biden's current position, of mostly trailing or tying Trump in polls, is not as bad as Trump was doing in 2019. (And notably Clinton was actually much worse off in early 1995 against likely Republican nominee Colin Powell -- though Powell ended up not running). But it is definitely quite a bit worse than Bush or Obama were doing at this stage.

I think a lot of this is due to name recognition. Kerry did not have as much name recognition as Bush; Romney did not have as much name recognition as Obama. Undecided voters usually vote against incumbents because people familiar with incumbents are usually more comfortable saying they support incumbents. This is why Biden is leading Ramaswamy by massive margins in polling; people do not know who Ramaswamy is.

However, both Trump and Biden probably have equal name recognition; they are both former/current presidents. This is certainly a unique situation and must be analyzed as such.

[Vosem]

Because incumbents usually win; because the Democratic Party has a small advantage over the Republican Party in presidential elections structurally; and because his likeliest opponent, Trump, has enormous flaws, such that he'll find it difficult to appeal to many voters who should be part of an anti-Biden coalition.

Incumbent advantage for one. It's rare for presidents to not be re-elected. Also, it is not uncommon for incumbents to be trailing challengers this far out. W trailed John Kerry at points. Romney led Obama.

Trump never overcame his deficit with Biden mainly because we were in the middle of a pandemic and people realized how inept Trump was at leading the country. I still believe he is re-elected in 2020 if Covid never happens.

I'll push back against this: Bush led all of his Democratic opponents throughout 2003, and he only trailed Kerry during April and August 2004. Romney poked his neck above Obama twice: briefly in November 2011 at the peak of the fiscal cliff crisis, and then again briefly after the first debate.

Biden's current position, of mostly trailing or tying Trump in polls, is not as bad as Trump was doing in 2019. (And notably Clinton was actually much worse off in early 1995 against likely Republican nominee Colin Powell -- though Powell ended up not running). But it is definitely quite a bit worse than Bush or Obama were doing at this stage.

I think a lot of this is due to name recognition. Kerry did not have as much name recognition as Bush; Romney did not have as much name recognition as Obama. Undecided voters usually vote against incumbents because people familiar with incumbents are usually more comfortable saying they support incumbents. This is why Biden is leading Ramaswamy by massive margins in polling; people do not know who Ramaswamy is.

However, both Trump and Biden probably have equal name recognition; they are both former/current presidents. This is certainly a unique situation and must be analyzed as such.

Has there been lots of Biden vs. Ramaswamy polling? A few months ago Biden was trailing DeSantis worse than Trump, though now it seems like that's mostly gone. I've seen very little polling comparing Biden to other Republicans*. (And undecideds don't normally break for or against the incumbent; that really depends on the race. They do usually break towards the status quo in referendums, but even that's "usually" rather than a hard rule of some sort.)

*You know one name I'd be curious to see? Mitt Romney. Sky-high name recognition, clearly separated from Trump, but still actually pretty controversially conservative. My guess is he'd be leading by a lot, though of course a campaign would grind that lead down.