It’s easy to get whiplash looking at the polls. I’ll give you just two examples from today’s menu to demonstrate my point. A new national Fox News survey has excellent news for Joe Biden and plenty of rationale for making him the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2020.
Democratic primary voters increasingly feel the need to nominate a candidate who can beat President Trump in 2020, and more think Joe Biden can do that than any of the other top Democratic hopefuls. In addition, while most Democratic primary voters are satisfied with their field, more than a quarter wish they had other options, according to a new Fox News Poll.
Biden leads the nomination race with the backing of 31 percent of Democratic primary voters, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 21 percent, Bernie Sanders at 19 percent, and Pete Buttigieg at 7 percent. In early October, Biden was at 32 percent, Warren 22, Sanders 17, and Buttigieg 4.
Biden leads Trump 51 percent to 39 percent. That’s the largest margin of any candidate in the poll and makes Biden the only candidate to carry an actual majority of the vote or to hold Trump under 40 percent. Biden also scores highest among Democrats as the candidate who best shares their positions on issues and as the most likely candidate to beat Trump.
But the nomination isn’t won in a national election, and an Iowa survey conducted by New York Times/Siena College Research has very little good news for Biden and plenty of rationale for not making him the party’s nominee in 2020. The top line numbers aren’t disastrous but he does come in fourth place at 17 percent behind Elizabeth Warren (22 percent), Bernie Sanders (19 percent), and Pete Buttigieg (18 percent).
Most striking in the survey, which polled 439 likely Democratic caucus-goers in the last week of October, was that Biden pulled only 2 percent of his support from 18- to 29-year-olds, and only 3 percent from 30- to 44-year-olds. His support came almost exclusively from voters older than 45. (The Iowa poll has a small sample size, though the poll was weighted for age, race, region, turnout, gender, and education.)
This age divide in the Democratic field isn’t only in Iowa, and it isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s reflective of a larger ideological fight that transcends race as a dividing line in the Democratic Party. Younger voters — both white and nonwhite — who are typically more progressive are backing candidates like Warren and Sanders, while older Americans are sticking with Biden.
Of course, you can spin these results two ways. If you want to defend Biden’s candidacy, you can argue that young voters lean so hard against the Republican Party that Democrats don’t really need to worry about persuading them with their candidate. Biden’s strength is that he does about as well as all the others despite getting virtually no first-choice support from anyone under 45 years of age. He’s the best option for digging into Trump’s support.
Yet, it seems pretty dangerous to ignore the near-unanimous consensus of young voters that they do not want Biden as their alternative to Trump. Maybe the vast majority of them will hold their nose and vote for him in the general election, but how many will lose interest and not vote? How many will volunteer or donate money?
There’s no simple answer to these questions.Young people (in this case, people under 45) have more appetite for risk, and Biden represents the opposite of risk. The surest way to lose to Trump is to run a candidate whose policies make people so nervous that Trump looks like a safer bet. Biden isn’t going to create that problem and Trump will have a hell of a time trying to beat that drum. But a return to normalcy sounds better to people who can actually remember an economy that worked for them, and that excludes the youngest voters who came of age near or right after the Great Recession.
Much of Trump’s base has been watching their local economy contract since the 1970’s, and it has made them angry and not a little crazy. Millennial voters are similar in their desire for a change from the status quo, which is why radical change has more appeal to them.
Biden’s advantage is that his appeal is strongest among the swingiest voters. He won’t maximize Democratic turnout, but he will avoid creating weaknesses in the suburbs where older white professionals remember the Obama and Clinton days very fondly because they prospered after difficult times under the Bushes. His appeal to older voters helps reduce the generational gap and presents incredible problems for Trump in his effort to win a narrow majority from a very divided electorate.
He appears safe because he consistently polls the best in head-to-head matchups against Trump, and voters who want a sure thing and aren’t looking for big changes are comfortable with him.
But Biden would have to perform on the campaign trail. A lot of people don’t see a vibrant candidate who is sure on his feet. There are reasons to doubt that he’d be as much of a sure thing as he currently appears to be once the general election kicks off.
There’s probably more risk in going with Biden than is reflected in these survey results. His candidacy could also be a lost opportunity for progressives. After all, he’s not the only one showing a strong lead against Trump. If any of them would win, why play it safe when a more ambitious option is available?
It doesn’t help that some polls show Biden in a commanding position and others show him tanking.
I can’t tell you who to support, but I can say that Biden presents a real conundrum. If he’s your guy, it probably means that you’re not too uncomfortable financially but you’re very uncomfortable culturally. You want Trump out, and anything that risks that outcome isn’t worth considering. That’s a completely valid point of view, especially when you consider that the more progressive candidates aren’t going to be able to enact their bolder proposals anyway. But it is not really clear that Biden is the safest choice. That could be a mirage. And maybe it’s worth rolling the dice and risking a loss rather than getting too little change at a time when everything appears broken.
It would make sense that Trump’s true base is 23 percent, which is even lower than the Alan Keyes Constant.
It’s hard to imagine what it would take for a substantial slice of that 43% of Trump’s 41% to change their minds. Will believe it when I see it.
Good summary. I’m 52 and supporting Bernie Sanders. We’ll see what the primary gives us. I’m not feeling too hopeful given how much is arrayed against my candidate of choice.
I’m genuinely interested to know why you don’t think having a heart attack in the middle of the campaign isn’t a disqualifying event.
Not a Sanders man but he bounced back well. Biden remains more feeble-seeming than Sanders. I’m astounded by how geriatric this election will likely be. But I can’t get excited about Buttigieg or any of the remaining younger candidates. If Yang were a realistic choice, maybe. Guy has some interesting ideas but he’s not realistically going anywhere.
Join the crowd. Right now, every Democratic candidate stands a better chance of losing the primary than winning it.
On the flip side, at least according to current polling (everyone old enough to remember Dukakis’ 17 point lead in the summer of ’88 cringes), every plausible Democratic nominee is ahead of Trump.
“every plausible Democratic nominee is ahead of Trump”
True in the national polls but not in the swing states, where it really matters. (See the front page nytimes article).
Booman (is it out of style to call you that?) does say, in passing, that “Biden’s advantage is that his appeal is strongest among the swingiest voters.” But you’re right, clearskies, that was the Times’s main point — and I have to admit, it thoroughly ruined my day. I don’t know why this, in all its ins and outs, wasn’t given more emphasis here. The Times also said that polls of this kind, one year out from the election, are rarely wrong. Of course, they were totally wrong in 2016,weren’t they? I do think Trump is a phenomenon never before encountered. But that leaves us … where?
Nevertheless, the conundrum B. points to is absolutely a conundrum. And it’s not a new one. It seems that in most Dem presidential elections of the last decades, the “safe” candidate loses — with Hillary the latest example. And yes, I think it’s because younger people and minorities aren’t motivated. Obama was the candidate few thought could win — and he won handily. The thing is, elections are really complicated and pundits love easy generalizations and are quick to grab onto them. And I suspect polls are missing important factors.
They (State specific polls, especially Michigan) were wrong in 2016 but that’s why Nate added his special sauce to correct for it. I also noticed Michigan as an outlier in their impeachment inquiry poll, finding support weakest there compared to other neighboring states. The toplines are most important, but I think we can conclude women candidates are going to face significant hurdles and a 1-2 point handicap.
Very sobering article.
Biden’s numbers against Trump look good, but as you say in this post — and I’ve been arguing for over a year — you simply cannot nominate a candidate so thoroughly rejected by my generation and think you’ll be safe. Sanders is a gamble on this front too because older voters don’t like him, and they vote in substantially higher numbers than sub-45’s.
The most important numbers in this survey are Trump’s toplines: 39-41 no matter who he faces, including hated Hillary Clinton. Biden might have some special sauce, but at best it’s worth 1-2 points. Bernie Sanders would be weaker in the suburbs, but I’ve seen no evidence it would be substantial enough to matter. In both US polling and international elections, having farther left candidates at the top hasn’t stopped well educated, upper middle class people who live in the inner ring of the suburbs from shifting left. I think sexism is a much bigger danger than ideology. I do think Warren is potentially weaker than Bernie and Biden because of this, but ultimately all that matters is what Trump’s approval rating is in November.
For winning the primary, Warren currently is in the best position because she has broad support from all areas, older and younger voters included. Best balance imo, which is why I’m supporting her.
I think so too. Kerry was supposedly the safe choice against Bush. Hillary too. Safe choices don’t generate enough enthusiasm. This election is different and I think any of our candidates would have a chance. But my preference is Warren for a variety of reasons.
I try to keep my biases out of my analysis but it’s not always possible. I think we will know who is stronger when the voting actually happens. Not necessarily for who will win the primary by default then be considered “electable”, but I think we can get a general idea based on what their base of support consists of. There’s also evidence Dem primary voters are getting more liberal than their general election supporters, but they line up pretty well:
Kerry was the best choice in 2004. He outperformed the fundamentals in the election. What other Dem candidate would have done that? Dean? Don’t make me laugh.
I don’t personally believe Kerry wanted the job. He folded after those ads against him came out.,
“ I think any of our candidates……..” I’d think about that and then think some more. There needs to be a reason for people to vote and any pundit or elite person doesn’t have a clue what that is.
My points exactly (above). And I also prefer Warren. She’s doing extremely well in the primary race, but once you get out of that bubble, not so much. Although the one ray of hope revealed by the Times is that a lot of Biden Dems said they could imagine switching if they knew more about her. But remember, it comes down to the swing states.
With the Sienna/NYT numbers coming out, I feel vindicated and also defeated. Biden does have some sauce. It’s worth 1-2 points. Bernie is stronger than Warren because of sexism, and ideology isn’t particularly important. Some bleak shit right there. But racist whites want their racism.
Silver lining: toplines don’t get anywhere near 100%, and Trump’s numbers match his approval, suggesting he requires high third party vote in order to win.
Whoever the nominee is, I hope that everyone has the good sense to stifle their gripes and get to the dirty business of compromise, because that is how representative government works.
If Biden were energetic enough to really fight, I’d have no problem supporting him. In any case, perhaps sentiment against Trump is so strong that a soggy noodle would end up winning. But I have my doubts. Warren’s healthcare issues have me nervous about her, but she is at least getting out there, being present, and fighting.
A few months ago, I believed that Biden was the safe choice. I looked at those polls showing him beating Trump “like a drum” and had visions of winning an electoral college landslide with Ohio and North Carolina.
After watching all the debates, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion. I won’t speculate on why, but Biden has come across to me as weak, meandering, and almost befuddled. This is already bad, and I don’t expect it to get better. If it gets worse (which it could easily do), it could be disastrous. And even if he does win, I don’t see him as providing much energy in the executive, which we will need in the years ahead.
Unfortunately I don’t see any other good options. Warren is sharp and energetic, so that’s good, and I think she might be more effective as president than some people give her credit for. But running for President on the platform of “I’m going to take away your health insurance” strikes me as like trying to swim with a 20 pound weight tied to your leg. Maybe you can do it, but it is not easy. I like Buttigieg, but he is just too young and inexperienced for me. I think Sanders could win, but I don’t think he’ll accomplish much as President besides give good speeches. No one else really seems like they are in the running at this point.
I guess you can count me as one of the democrats who is not happy with the choices.
To me, it’s a weak field at the top. The best general election candidates, like Bennet and Bullock, are getting no traction. Also Insley before he dropped out.
As a white, straight, male in the 30-44 age range, Biden has limited appeal to me and most of the folks my age I know.
Why? He is too retro with his attitudes toward women, and has nothing to offer us. More Obamacare? Great, except we know that we can do better. Maybe not all at once, but at least get the ball rolling there. Ocare was a much needed first step, which I am very thankful for. Tepid support for a Green New Deal? No thanks, I’d like to not fry. And trying to work across the aisle? No. That’s a dead end since the current crop of Republicans don’t see us as legitimate leaders when we have power. We need someone who is willing to call that out, and ignore them until they have something constructive to contribute.
He also has failed to argue anything about student loans and the lack of good options for childcare, which are a massive burden for folks my age. We can’t make the generation that will keep our retirement accounts worth something because we can’t afford to.
I’d rather roll the dice on bold reforms with the knowledge that they will likely end up compromised, instead of starting out compromised and ending up with lip service. Biden promises more compromise, which won’t get my generation excited.
If he is the nominee, he absolutely has my vote. I’ll also work hard to get him elected. But he isn’t my first choice.
If that’s my white male privilege talking, please let me know.
One things is for sure, if Biden is the nominee, the first verbal stumble or seeming memory lapse he has, the media will begin flogging, non-stop, the narrative that he might be in the early stages of senility. You can damn well bet on that.
I have severe misgivings about Biden, yet at the same time have that little twinge of comfort at the familiarity of Biden, and the osmosis effect of the Obama years. You do a very good job laying out the conflict so many of us have. I am one of those older white guys who should be gravitating to Biden, but I have enough of a younger person’s ideological bent to want to go for some bold, fucking change.
If we don’t get some of that “ bold, fucking change” we will have another Clinton type book on whatever the fuck happened,
First, there’s no such thing as a safe choice. The Republicans will go after whoever we nominate and they all have weaknesses. I think the best choice is Warren. She’s smart and she counter-punches. She’ll drive Trump insane by getting under his skin. There are voters who will be uncomfortable with any woman. She will be held to a higher standard but I believe she can cut it. The media will portray her as dangerously liberal but a lot of voters are up for change. In a dangerous world and a particularly scary election, she’s the one with whom I feel both safest and best.
I agree and she even wants to change the game and actually help the people. Maybe she can get all those stay at homes in the Midwest to come out and vote this time rather than stay at home.
Trump looks right into the camera and lies. No shame. It’s gonna take someone with the ability to hang in there with the never ending lies and shade. I don’t see Joe as the one.
I believe without an iota of proof that we need a candidate who offers people something. No more Clinton bullshit. We need to get people to the polls. There is nothing you can offer a rich person. They already have it all maybe even the small yacht. They likely don’t want you messing with their good thing anyway. So when the elite tell me Sanders or Warren are too leftist I say bullshit. Your opinion is worth nothing. And all those candidates who line up as moderates are a fucking waste of time to me. So there I’ve said it. Remember Clinton was the great moderate and was supposed to win. And the chances of removing this asshole is slim and none.
Biden is like the Mueller Report. Warren is like Ukraine. I know which one caught my attention. I like Warren because however severe her plans may seem, she is also intelligent and experienced, and will happily negotiate to get half of what she wants if that’s what it takes. She’s done that before in the Senate. She is not a crazy lady.
Oh, neither the best nor the worst. The worst I leave to those absurd bizness/investment wzrds who have never held elective office but feel sure they should start at the very top–this is Trumpism is a more sane disguise. One needs gub’mint experience to be a high public servant.
As for the best, at some point it may dawn on progressives that unless they unite, Uncle Joe and his woeful Bidenism (“There’s a lot of good Repubs out there!”) will end up being the nominee despite the majority of the Dem primary electorate rating him second best, at best. At what point does his dual narrative of “Lotsa Good Repubs!” vs. “Losing the Soul of the Country!” come to be seen as nonsensical? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, Joe…to use the kind of bromides he so loves.
Can one really imagine (without cringing) Uncle Joe being the focus of a TV news item every single day for months on end? The torrent of gaffes, revisionisms and obvious clueless befuddlement will result in the inevitable “WTF?!” moment, and then that’s it for the democracy… and yes, the fact that Der Trumper is much worse on this score does not solve the obvious problem. We don’t need to be comparing which of the two white male dodderers (one benevolent and one evil) is more on the edge of losing it.
I believe Biden polls well because of name recognition and his association with Obama. I think he’ll be a terrible campaigner.