Curious why the Democratic debate can’t be three days instead of two. Still only scheduled for June 26-27.
Well, in the last five elections Dems are 0-2 with white guys and 2-1 without, so…
And skepticism of that poll is entirely justified, despite the excellent reputation of the pollster, because it’s an extreme outlier; AFIACT there are literally NO other polls which have anyone but Biden as our strongest candidate, with Sanders a close second.
Polls ofTexas specifically do suggest that Beto might be at least tied for our best option there. But if we win Texas, we’re almost certainly going to win anyway, so I don’t think that should be given much weight.
I am…mildly intrigued. If his polling numbers take off I would at least consider supporting him over Bernie. My impression is that he isn’t even very popular in NYC, though.
In 2008, the country was so fed up with Katrina and Iraq, and McCain incompetence was so palpable (Sarah Palin??) that the D’s could have run a potted plant and won.
It was brilliant of the D’s to put this great black man into office in the “gimme” election of 2008; but it may have been a once-per-lifetime opportunity. Recall that Obama had an excellent first term but still almost lost to Romney in 2012.
I don’t think your memories of 2008 match up with reality. Until the economy collapsed in the fall, polls showed a very close race. And you can ask President Hillary about how having a palpably incompetent opponent is a guarantee of victory. Also, it wasn’t a huge landslide, but by the standards of Presidential elections, 2012 wasn’t really all that close. And and and, if we’re going by approval ratings (and/or midterm results), Obama’s first term wasn’t actually particularly “excellent”. Other than that, good post. 
Seriously, though, I was just needling Slacker. When looking at Presidential elections, which are rare events, each with their own unique circumstances, it’s easy to fall into the fallacy of small sample sizes. If my post had been meant seriously, it would be an excellent example of that fallacy.
So out of these 23 Democratic candidates, how many truly, actually, want to win the presidency, and how many are just along for the ride?
Septimus is right, and it is Thing Fish who seems to have a spotty memory, IMO. Here is RCP’s polling average:
Note that McCain’s lowest point actually came in June, well before the financial crisis hit.
Democrats had a “gimme” year, and some political scientists determined that (contrary to the annoying argument you hear from conservatives that he got some sort of pity win for being black) Obama actually did lose a couple points compared to how a standard white male Democrat would have done–but it didn’t matter because the GOP brand was in the toilet.
As Jon Stewart observed, the Democrats basically nominated “Gaydolf Titler” and got away with it because they were playing in God mode. This is obviously not the case every time. It certainly was not in 2000, 2004, or 2016. I do think it’s quite possibly the case again in 2020 (especially as the GOP seems hell-bent on driving away any remaining suburban moderates with their spasm of abortion extremism), but we shouldn’t operate under that assumption.
I don’t think it has to be a “similar state” to Texas. As Nate Silver has pointed out many times, although our system counts results from states individually, in the 21st century U.S. they are really not separate and distinct, but are rather highly correlated with each other. Beto has shown that he can get “soft Republicans” to vote for him in Texas, while still exciting Democrats. I see no reason to expect that he couldn’t do the same elsewhere in states like Ohio or Florida that are more “gettable” for Democrats.
People tend to be much more partisan in presidential elections than in local/state elections. Massachusetts has a Republican governor, Montana has a Democratic governor, etc. But on the presidential level, there’s no chance that Massachusetts would ever go red or Montana go red. And on Election Day 2020, Texans would probably be just as hardline red for the (R) candidate as they were before.
Really, dude, you think I don’t know how to read graphs? Your link shows that, indeed, McCain’s very lowest point was in June…but he recovered and was actually* leading* the race by 2 1/2 points on September 13! Being behind in the polls with seven weeks to go is hardly “God mode”. The Democrats could easily have blown that election if they’d had a weaker candidate, or if the financial house of cards had stayed up just another few weeks.
But that was a product of Obama’s relative electoral weakness. I submit that a John Kerry type nominee would not have ever trailed in the polls, and would have won by double digits. And your counterpoint conflicts with your previous argument. The house of cards had come crashing down by September 13.
As Nate Silver has noted, this dynamic applies to gubernatorial races (which were all of your examples) and increasingly less so for U.S. Senate elections. People understand that control of an important branch of the federal government hinges on the latter, whereas for governor they are free to just pick the candidate they like.
My bookmarks are a joke, my memory even worse. One reason I post at SDMB is because my own posts, e.g. this one become a memory cache for me! That links to a link where “Stephens-Davidowitz has concluded that Obama lost between 3 and 5 percentage points [net national average] of the popular vote to racism.”
The trivial alternate-every-8-years rule has miscalled only two elections in the past 70 years: 1980 and 1988. 2008 was the D’s turn. 2016 and 2020 are the R’s turn. No, it’s not a certainty and Trump is so horrid he should be thrown out of office. But, unlike 2008, this election is no “gimme” for the D’s.
That makes me wonder… if he hadn’t gotten into trouble, would the nomination be Al Franken’s to lose right now?
ETA: For a chance to see Trump have to face Franken in a debate I’d even pay the admission to the voting precinct in my neighborhood.
…what… you guys don’t have to pay??? 
I did think Franken would be a very interesting foil for Trump, before it all came crashing down. (And if you think he should not have resigned, you can apportion a fraction of the blame to me, as I was one of his constituents and used the official contact form on his Senate page, that can only be accessed if your IP address shows up within the borders of Minnesota, to urge him to step down.)
But I don’t think he’d be beating Biden right now if he were in the race. I just think that as boring as it may be, Josh Marshall is right: Democratic voters think Biden is the most electable, and as long as that remains the case he is unbeatable in the primaries.
The following information, from a Nation op-ed, is new to me but no surprise to me–although it apparently took me a few weeks longer than others to learn about it. It should be the end of any serious person’s belief that it makes any sense to nominate Bernie Sanders as Democratic standardbearer in the crucial effort to turn Donald Trump out of office. I know that this kind of candidate represents many of my friends and family better than any others running. But I’m sorry: an avatar of these kinds of old Trotskyite lefties cannot win a presidential general election.
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-electability-eric-alterman/
Yes, I have said this repeatedly “Republicans have it and similar events on tape. They also have binders full of statements made in support of the kind of socialism that Sanders backed before he became what he is today:…”. The GOP and the Kremlin actually aided Sanders campaign in order to hurt Hillary. If Sanders was the actual candidate they’d smear him so badly he might not even win his home state.
Sanders might get beaten so badly by Trump they will need dental records to identify his body.
Do we have a Ways to Improve Political Polls thread? We do need such a thread but I couldn’t find it so I’ll post a query here:
When a pollee answers “Sanders” to “Whom do you support for the Democratic nomination?” why not ask a follow-up question like “Would you change your mind if you saw hard evidence that Sanders was once a hard-core Marxist?” (Maybe show the pollee a video.)
The Putin-GOP alliance knows that Sanders would be easy to defeat in November; they have trouble suppressing their mirth at seeing Dems who don’t even realize this. Similarly, FoxNews’ respectful treatment of Buttigieg was not a lurch away from evil: they’re happy to build up any candidate who would be easy to defeat in November.
Yes, SlackerInc, the states are correlated. But that doesn’t mean that a candidate who does well in California will do well in Wyoming. Some are more correlated than others, and some, in some regards, are anti-correlated.
Just to do some of your work for you, part of O’Rourke’s performance was due to doing well with Hispanic voters. So he might also be expected to do well in other states with large Hispanic populations. But that won’t help him in states with low Hispanic populations, and a lot of states with high Hispanic populations, it won’t matter, because they’re already in the bag for one party or the other. So maybe he’d be able to flip Arizona, say? A possibility, for which the follow-up would be to examine polls of Arizona, to see how he fares there. And of course, then you also have to ask how important it is to be able to flip Arizona.
I Love Me, Vol. I, I think it’s safe to say that, if it weren’t for the groping thing, Franken would probably be at the least a strong contender right now. He was a popular Senator from a swingy Midwestern state, and a comedian is exactly the right sort of person to play off against Trump.
The nice thing about Beto is that Texas would be in play. Sure it would be likely Red, but Trump would have to spend $ and time there. And his wall is pissing off quite a few Texans.
What makes you think that O’Rourke would fare better against Trump than he did against Cruz? He could probably make it closer than any other Democrat could, but getting close in Texas is worth 0 electoral votes.