Nothing is ‘typical’ about any race that trump is involved in, but yes, it’s not uncommon. This article: ‘Opinion: Why Democrats shouldn’t despair over concerning new polls about Biden’ points out that Obama faced high disapproval ratings a year before the 2012 election, though not as bad as Biden’s current ratings.
It’s just scary that trump can be polling well at all in swing states after the 4 years of chaos that was his presidency, in addition to all the legal troubles he’s been mired in since. It boggles my mind that anybody can look at the Biden Administration, by most accounts doing a good job running the country, then look at trump, an absolute trainwreck of a businessman, politician and human being, and think “let’s try trump again”.
EDIT: This is the best I could find quickly and not behind a paywall. Looks like the Constitution is largely mum on the matter.
Am I crazy, or in the recent past wasn’t it more or less common knowledge that a felon wasn’t eligible to be President of the US.? I guess it was just something “everyone knew” until people started looking to apply the underlying rules – which apparently aren’t there.
Yes. This is crucial. This is reason number 5,714 why you can’t put any stock in polls at this stage. It’s like trying to judge how good a frozen pizza is before you’ve taken it out of the box, and you’re still preheating the oven.
It’s another of those norms and traditions that no one thought needed to be codified since a dishonorable scumbag would never be allowed to rise through the ranks. Oops.
It is fairly typical for an incumbent to have low poll numbers. However, this truth should not make Democrats sanguine or complacent because:
There is nothing typical about running against someone with so much baggage and unworkable policies, but stable support
There is potential for significant damage to democracy and socioeconomic norms if Trump is re-elected.
A strategic response is required to convince those who can be convinced. This requires money, personnel, hard work and effort. It definitely is not enough for Democrats to be persuaded by their own arguments - “but look at what Trump did”. Polling suggests this argument does not currently work for many people.
Democrats need to better address the things people are concerned about including housing, inflation, etc.; and trumpet what they have done well (see article) as well as take better advantage of Republican bugbears (abortion, partisan gridlock, petty personal politics, etc.).
No one knows what will happen and so relying on a presumed conviction is premature.
If in prison, it will depend on the visitation rules. I checked, and Georgia does allow visitation on the day of the week of the 2025 inauguration, that being Saturday.
Am I serious? Not quite. I expect that swing voters would think an imprisoned president couldn’t earn his salary, and vote for the other fellow. But this is pure guesswork. No evidence whatsoever.
The Founding Fathers could not conceive in any way shape or form that a felon could be elected. So why include it in the constitution. But there appears to be about 80,000,000 people that think that would be just fine.
Democrats sometimes seem to think positive court decisions will make all the difference^. I do not know if this is true. For decades it was taken as read by government and intelligence services, and most Americans, that it was a bad thing to encourage dictators who loudly and for many decades have denounced American values and policy. Trump’s public embrace of despots is surely unprecedented, as is AFAIK his laxity with allegedly critical documents and a hundred other things that delight his fans (and can perhaps seem more amusing or entertaining than bog-standard politicians). If this results in positive polls in most important swing states, is a criticism of his business practices or tax payments really likely to elicit massive change and condemnation? You sure?
^ I’m Canadian. Perhaps about 15% of Canadians support Trump. I haven’t personally spoken to many Democrats and am making assumptions based on the news. These might be mistaken.
I miss a lot, but I can’t recall posters saying that negative verdicts, whether civil or criminal, would “elicit massive change and condemnation,” or even hurt Trump at the polls. If I understand properly, the more common view is that Trump being punished has value independent of any political effect, because laws should be consistently enforced to the greatest extent feasible. I’ve also heard that substantial punishment will deter future grifters.
I’m skeptical of all that, but this is what I gather as being the weight of progressive opinion.
This bears repeating. What good would high poll numbers for Biden be right now? The election isn’t for a year. The campaign hasn’t really even begun to wind up yet. Trump is the one who decided the next election season was going to start the day after he left office and Trump is the one who declared his candidacy super early so he could use it as an excuse against prosecution.
The only problem I see with the poll numbers right now is that they play into Trump’s narrative that the election is being stolen from him again. He’s winning, he’s winning… and then on election night he’s winning right up until he loses. Must mean cheating, right? And it pisses him off to no end whatsoever that he can’t figure out how Biden does it. In Trump’s world, winning fair and square is also cheating.
Biden was ahead of Trump in the 2019 and 2020 rolling polling averages every day, without exception. And as far as I can see, it was always by enough of a margin to make up the GOP electoral college advantage:
I am not concerned about polls letting Trump say the election was stolen. We know he says that, after a loss, even when the election confirmed the polling, as last time. I am concerned that Biden is doing worse than the last go-around, day after day, month after month, without exception. There is no historical precedent showing comeback from that.
As for this turning around due to Biden running a brilliant campaign, I hope so, and await reports from posters here concerning their undecided and persuadable friends and relatives. But even a normal presidential race is hard to influence by campaigning:
A lot of the problem is that people give too much credit or blame to presidents on economic issues. Inflation is one of those things that is often beyond anyone’s control. We had a pandemic. Demand fell though the floor. Supply fell in response. Pandemic ends- demand comes back and supply lags behind. Inflation results. This was a world wide phenomenon, nothing whatsoever to do with Biden. And of course the Fed, who believe that the ONLY cause of inflation is low interest rates, jacks up the interest rates. When all you have is a hammer, then every problem is a nail.
People get nervous about wars and blame the incumbent. But Biden wasn’t the one who made Putin feel empowered by trying to emasulate NATO, it was the former guy. It wasn’t Biden who showed that Americans don’t respect treaties by ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, it was the former guy. It wasn’t Biden who made the US look like less than an honest broker in the Middle East by moving its embassy to Israel to Jerusalem, it was the former guy. Sure, DJT “kept us safe”. Just like Chamberlain kept Europe safe by acquiescing to Hitler. Putin will not cause trouble only if he is constantly appeased, and by having a stooge in the White House he had no need for war.
I agree with all this except the bit of Fed bashing. Central banking is genuinely difficult. How it works fits a little with the famous Richard Feynman quote I recently saw in one these threads recently:
I am reliably informed by folks in Alberta that the inflation in Canada is entirely Trudeau’s fault. They probably blame him for inflation in the USA as well…
\True for those who have. Not for those who haven’t.
As in most presidential races, this one will be decided by turnout. Not by persuading the mythical “centrist” to vote this way or that.
Whichever team rallies their supporters to actually stick a ballot in the box, not just shout partisan noises into the Interwebz will be the winner. Modulo doing that in the few states and counties where it deeply, deeply matters.
Hillary famously underemphasized turnout in a few key places where that turned out to be fatal. Which states are swing(able) states is always partly a crapshoot. The past might be prologue, but it isn’t determinative. There will be surprise states in play in 2024, just as there are every 4 years.
Big Data and all the rest may reduce the fog of war, but they also hand new and untried weapons to both sides. Whose uncertain effects in inexperienced hands re-amplify that fog of war. It was ever thus.
