From that same NY Times poll analysis:
“Biden Has Particularly Lost Favor With Young, Nonwhite Voters.”
If they can staunch that wound, it might turn out that Kamala Harris (of all people) saves the day — by just being who she is (identity-wise).
Although if Biden has “lost the Muslim” vote that means they now favor the candidate who as former president tried to exclude all Muslims worldwide from entering the country and has actively supported mass deportations ever since.
That support for trump seems … unlikely.
Debating whether Biden has lost the “Muslim/Arab” vote is useless. The vast majority of Muslims in America are not Arabs. Most are native born, and most who are immigrants or first-generation come from South Asia. And of course, Muslim of all stripes differ in their opinions on the situation in Gaza and how they prioritize the conflict vis-a-vis all the dozens of other issues that people consider when they vote.
SSDD, vol MMCMLXII:
No, it may mean they’ll vote third party or just not vote.
If there was already a plausible D replacement for Biden, we’d know who that is. The fact we don’t, not even close, is proof positive there isn’t one.
That may in fact mean Biden loses the election if trump is the R nominee. But I doubt it.
Much like right now, if trump was to drop dead of apoplexy at the defendant’s table in some courtroom, we have no friggin’ idea who the Rs would eventually nominate. It’s a cluster of midgets, and the more any of them, e.g. DeSantis, begins to stand out from the pack, the less the R primary voters like that person. Lotta crabs in buckets is all there is. Which crab comes top can’t be predicted this far out.
.
We have at least a half dozen plausible replacements. They aren’t running right now because Biden has the mainstream Democratic Party lane, in the 2024 primaries, cornered.
If Joe dropped out, the first/second tier candidates might include Harris, Buttigieg, Warren, Booker, and three or four sitting Democratic governors. These people are not going to yell and scream and tear each other apart. They would go on a couple of debate stages and those who appeared among the most articulate would rise to the top.
Remember this?
Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term
When Biden ran before, he was expected to be a one termer due to age. This raised no panic over the prospects for competitive 2024 primaries.
Harris yes would run because VP. Booker maybe. Warren is a non-starter - too old and lots of baggage. Buttigieg is more likely VP material at this point. There has been talk of Newsom and Pritzker as backups. (The NYT article on Pritzker is a gift link and is an article from March of this year.)
For those who didn’t want to read my social media link above, a poster here has presented a similar POV: Why isn't 2024 more like 1968? - #44 by Banquet_Bear
So let’s assume Joe, or any other Democratic presidential hopeful, comes out with full-throated anti-Israel, anti-genocide, pro-Palestinian (but anti-Hamas) rhetoric. And in the case of Biden who has actual executive authority unlike everybody else, he does some real world stuff to back up the yak-yak. Now what?
He gains back some fraction of the Islamic / Arab / Palestinian sympathizer vote. And he craters the Jewish vote. That is not an obviously winning strategy for any Democrat.
Yet somehow, no matter what trump says about the war, somehow that duality doesn’t operate for him? If he loudly leans one way he doesn’t alienate the folks on the other side?
How is that?
If what these various news articles really mean is that the incumbent president, regardless of party, will have a hard time winning while there’s active combat in the Middle East I’d generally agree with that proposition. Our melting pot, or salad, or mosaic, or whatever mélange term you like isn’t happy when factions with material minorities in our country are fighting elsewhere.
Except we’ve been in active combat in the Mideast since 2001 and incumbents of both parties have been re-elected during that crap.
No, it doesn’t, because unlike with Democrats, Trump’s side literally doesn’t care what he says, as long as he’s racist and liberal hating enough.
It’s not Trump’s “side’ that matters. Trump has people that would vote for him no matter what.
It’s the people who are undecided or who aren’t enthusiastic about Trump but aren’t sure about Biden. Those are who matter.
With those people, I can’t see a statistically significant number ditching Biden and going to Trump because they think Biden favors Israel too much.
Will some of them just stay home? Maybe a few. But I can’t see too many people saying that they’re so upset about a lack of support for Palestinians that they’ll sit on their hands and watch an open Islamaphobe get elected to office.
Yep, and the polls show Joe is the only candidate who can beat trump.
Harris yes. Warren is almost as old as Biden, And altho I like Mayor pete he is openly gay and cant win, not in 2024. I had to Google Sen Booker. Newsom, yes.
But none of them can beat trump. Now if Desantis was running- sure, maybe.
Not by me, and in fact no one thought he was.
Look as long as there is trump, you have two choices- Biden or trump. That’s it. Whining “but he’s too old”- does nothing but swing votes to trump- who is too old.
The same poll that puts trump ahead now failed in the Obama-Romney poll.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/05/opinions/biden-bad-poll-numbers-democrats-obeidallah/index.html
I realize this forum in general is desperate for even a scrap of oyster to make a stew from, but any poll publicized this far out is being pushed to manipulate people, either for political or pecuniary ends. They’re generated by campaigns looking to start a narrative or by news agencies trying to pick up clicks by pushing panic.Try not to forget the grains of salt for that oyster soup–we’re going to need a lot of them.
And as pointed out in another thread recently, Biden hasn’t even started campaigning yet. He has a really stressful job that is taking up his time. When they get closer to the election and he has to start devoting some of his attention to the reelection, I expect polls to change dramatically.
Especially if Donald has been convicted of something by then. (Though I have the feeling that’s unlikely; I expect if he gets convicted, it might be prior to the election but probably not before the real campaigning is going on.)
And of course once any incumbent starts campaigning, the talking heads from the other side complain about that, that any time spent campaigning is taking away from the job we’re all paying the President to do. And of course they whine about the expense of the president using AF1 to go places, all the expensive security precautions, etc.
IIRC the campaign reimburses the government’s presidential operating budget for some of that. Which fact is usually not mentioned by the oppo heads.
Before we have group panic attacks about Biden:
Abortion is an ace in the hole for Democrats and a millstone for Republicans. Watch Ohioans pass the abortion rights referendum by about 58-42 tomorrow. Those voters are not going to say “gee, I’ll vote for the guy who brags about causing the overturn of Roe.”
The Republican candidate is more than likely to be a convicted felon before the election.
Early polls are not terribly accurate. Incumbents always underpoll because people are always unhappy about something.
Supporting Israel may not play well with Muslim Americans, but what are they going to do? Flock to the guy who tried to ban Muslims from immigrating?
They could stay home in a protest vote. I’m not saying they should, but it’s possible.