It may or may not be persuasive to most voters, but as someone else pointed out in one of these threads in the past year there is very real and substantial difference between 70 and mid-70’s( especially when considering a 4-year term ), at least on average. I’m not thrilled with Warren’s age myself, but I feel much better about her in that regard than either Biden or Sanders. It seems, anecdotally at least, that decline in the 70’s tends to be more exponential than arithmetic.
FWIW, spoken as someone who does not feel age is a problem per se, I agree with that exponential comment, especially for the most highly functioning and capable. The most highly functional hold a high function for a long time but then when they drop they drop fast. And it tends to be in the 80s more than the 70s. Also later for women then men I think. Warren’s 70 is not a worry at all. But then even Sanders age is not a major issue for me. Other things about him are …
I commented on the age difference earlier. (Of course perception may be much more important than actuarial fact. OTOH, I am worried about health lapse between now and Election Day. Sanders has already had one.)
Warren is effectively Ten years younger than Biden. With a T.
It’s Wednesday, so I’m back with this week’s Democratic averages. Polls included in this week’s average: the A-rated Monmouth carried over from last week, and new polls from Quinnipiac and IBD-TIPP; the B-rated Emerson and Ipsos, plus the weekly YouGov and Morning Consult; and the C-rated and daily updated HarrisX.
Candidate Date 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/04 9/12 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9
Biden 30.1 28.6 28.5 29.8 26.5 28.5 28.4 27.6 26.2
Warren 17.0 16.2 16.8 19.0 17.6 18.6 21.5 22.4 25.0
Sanders 17.1 15.2 16.9 16.0 17.9 16.9 16.8 16.4 15.3
Buttigieg 5.6 4.7 4.7 5.2 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.2
Harris 8.2 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.6 5.6 5.2 5.1 4.2
Yang 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.1
O'Rourke 2.6 2.7 2.1 1.4 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 1.6
Booker 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.9 1.9 2.2 1.4
Everyone else < Booker
Biden’s still ahead, contra RCP (see below), but not by much. His slow decline continues, and Warren’s rise over the past few weeks has been impressive. Everybody else is either treading water or gradually declining.
Here’s the comparison with the other averages:
Candidate Average RTF RCP Econ
Biden 26.2 26.4 25.0
Warren 25.0 26.6 24.0
Sanders 15.3 14.6 15.0
Buttigieg 5.2 5.6 6.0
Harris 4.2 4.4 5.0
Yang 3.1 2.8 4.0
O'Rourke 1.6 2.0 2.0
Booker 1.4 1.4 1.0
One interesting fact is that all three of the A-rated polls have Warren at least nominally in the lead: Monmouth has her up by 28-25 over Biden; Quinnipiac has her up by 29-26, and IBD-TIPP has her up by 27-26.
The two polls keeping Biden ahead are the C-rated HarrisX, which has Biden up by 36-17 over Warren, and B-rated Morning Consult, who must be polling the same 16,000 Dem voters every week, because they’ve had Biden at 32% +/- 1% since the last week of June, and he’s far from the only candidate whose average has held steady for months - really all of them have, except Warren and Harris. Anyhow, MC has Biden ahead of Warren 33-21.
Even if Warren isn’t actually in the lead just yet, she’s in the lead. Biden was the electable guy. Now he’s not. Game over.
But having said that, Warren can only defeat Trump if he completely fucks up. If things are the way they are right now, with low unemployment and relative peace, Trump wins. It might be a squeaker, and it might be a controversial photo finish, but he’ll win. Warren will need a recession to win.
“Game over” is very premature.
I agree she is now the front runner more than the polls would indicate alone. Now we get to see how she handles that position. That mantle she now wears has a big target on its back. Ask Biden about it. Or Clinton.
…Eh? :dubious: All RCP polls currently have Warren leading Trump.
RTFirefly, your interest in Booker makes me laugh every week. Thanks for that.
One week, Booker goes before Yang despite not having a single stat higher.
Another week, Booker shows up despite being outside the perameter you set.
This week, the actual standard is Booker himself.
Every week, I look at your numbers to see how you’re accounting for Booker. Quite amusing.
If Booker drops further, I’ll be interested to see what happens next.
It reminds me that political pundits like Nate Silver might be talking about the numbers, but sometimes bending the numbers a little to fit the narrative can be punditry license.
There’s only one person on this list besides Warren who didn’t go down from the previous week and has the highest number this week in his set of numbers since you’ve been keeping track. He must be the one “treading water”. 
I disagree with both of your paragraphs, even though they kind of almost contradict each other. Electability is not “nominatability”. The most electable candidates in the field (not just my opinion but that of David Axelrod, who is the expertiest expert there is right now) are either at the bottom of the list of candidates’ polling averages, or are not even shown because their totals are so low. George McGovern was the most popular with Democratic primary voters in 1972, but that did not make him the most electable, as the Nixon campaign‘s dirty tricksters understood quite well.
I also disagree that Trump would be favored to win against Warren. Virtually anyone can beat Trump now. But weaker candidates like Warren will be much more vulnerable to losing in 2024.
I’m not sure about this. Some citizens will come around when they see that their doctor still answers the phone, that their guns haven’t been melted down and made into Chairman Mao buttons, and that very few of their neighbors have been sent to Stalinist gulags.
What I worry about — but this would be a problem for any incumbent running in 2024 — is that the economy will be in shambles again. With interest rates already low and deficits already high, it will be hard to recover from any downturn. (Stagflation a la 1970s is a real possibility IMO.) Radical progressive measures might work, but not in time for the 2024 election.
Feel free to link to Axelrod’s argument, because it’s damned hard to rebut its absence.
[digression/rant]
In the meantime, fuck David Axelrod. “What a horrific commentary about our times that [Ellen DeGeneres] should even have to explain herself for hanging with” a freakin’ war criminal. That sort of acceptance is wonderful for reassuring Trump and all those hanging with him even still, that nobody’s going to kick them out of polite society for letting Turkey slaughter the Kurds. So fuck David Axelrod. That sort of expertise I can do without, thankyewverymuch.
[/rant]
OK, forgetting Axelrod, the notion that the most ‘electable’ candidates are down in the low single digits or not even registering, is like me saying, “if I could only get nominated, I’d be a terrific general election candidate.” Well, bullshit. If I can’t develop enough of a following to get on people’s radar in the nomination process, then if I magically got nominated, I’d be an empty suit, propped up by the fact of having the nomination. Just a pretty face for guys like Axelrod to make the centerpiece of an ad campaign. And frankly, that’s what’s true of Booker and Klobuchar and Bullock and all those others. If they can’t ignite any support now, they won’t do so as the general-election candidate either.
And we’re in a polarized era where median voters are increasingly rare. In the latest Fox News poll on impeachment, 55% are for impeaching Trump, and 43% approve of the job he’s doing. The Democrats need a candidate who can turn out voters who will vote Dem if they vote, but aren’t reliable voters. Anyone who can’t marshal support now, is unlikely to be able to mobilize those voters a year from now.
And that’s the true meaning of ‘electability’ these days. Sorry, but none of those candidates whose polling numbers are scraping up against zero - none of them are ‘electable.’
The main problem with Warren, IMHO, is that Trump has a 100% election success rate against old white women.
Small sample size! 
It truly would be interesting to see the reaction to/outcome from Warren v Trump. There are several intelligent, well-spoken candidates among the Dems, but to my ear, Warren comes across as the - um - most professorial? Some might say pedantic?
Not saying I laud every thing abut her, but I’m reminded of how some people criticized Obama for sounding too intelligent. :eek: Like that’s a BAD thing in one’s president?
The dichotomy between how Warren and Trump express themselves is about as wide as imaginable. Would be interesting to see if they could get past the cartoon stage of blustering past each other, and interesting to see which the American public votes for.
Whaaaaaaat?! :eek: 
The funny part is, I’ve never been able to summon up a lick of interest in Cory Booker.
And the two weeks before that, both Beto and Booker went before Yang, despite Yang having higher averages than both of them.
And a few weeks prior, I did the same with Beto, andexplained it at the time. Same explanation applies to Booker.
Well yeah. Seemed easier than saying, “as before, I showed Beto’s and Booker’s stats even though they were below 2.0%, because they’d been at or above 2% the previous week and I didn’t want anyone to ask if I’d just overlooked them, but I also wanted to say that no, there wasn’t anyone under 2% but above Booker.”
I was right, too.
If you look only at data that fits your pattern, it’s easy to see your pattern even if it isn’t real.
If either he or Beto or both are below 2% for a second consecutive week, they’ll drop off the list until they get back over that mark, if they ever do.
Your capacity for seeing things that aren’t there truly impresses me.
Besides, I’m not sure how showing a number you didn’t think I should show constitutes bending the numbers.
Buttigieg is down less than half a point this week (thats nothing) but basically where he was a month ago. It’s not all anti-Yang conspiracy.
Just as they had Hillary leading Trump.
If there’s a recession – and there may well be – he loses.
If there’s not a recession, he will find a way to defeat Elizabeth Warren in the EC. It’s entirely possible that the popular vote margin of victory would be even wider for Warren than it was for Clinton, but he will win if the current economic circumstances remain relatively the same.
Americans don’t want to jinx the economy by changing presidents when they assume that the presidency will change hands in 4 years anyway.
If Elizabeth Warren begins to dominate the polls, the Chinese may give Trump a temporary deal, which would boost his political standing. A lot of centrist corporate America that would have voted for Biden will be cool to Warren - you’ve already seen what Mark Zuckerberg’s had to say about Warren’s candidacy.
Elizabeth Warren would be a good candidate if there turns out to be an economic crisis. But short of that, I don’t think she’s going to win over key constituencies in key states/