The fear that she can’t beat the Big He is back.
Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images/Zach Gibson/Getty Images
Like a fresh visitation of a recurring nightmare, a new state-by-state New York Times/Siena poll informs us that Donald Trump’s lookin’ pretty good for reelection, particularly if Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. All the old slurs against Warren that Democrats were beginning to shrug off — she’s too left wing, she’s a girl, she’s a cold and unlikable girl, etc. — are heard once again in the voices of the white working-class swing voters we are told hold the nation’s destiny in their calloused hands.
The polling data isn’t especially positive for Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, either, but the story comes across as a big red flashing sign to Democrats that Warren is too risky in a race that’s likely to be very close no matter who the nominee is. And across the left-of-center chattering classes, angst if not panic over these numbers is spreading:
As a public service, I’m going to push back against this gloom and suggest that it is premature if not misplaced, while acknowledging what we should have already understood and internalized about Trump’s underlying strength, at least in the Electoral College:
If some people reading the Times story were astonished to hear that Trump hasn’t already lost, they must not have been paying full attention. Yes, his job approval ratings, the most reliable indicator of his 2020 prospects, has been stuck in a relatively narrow high-30s/low-40s range for nearly all of his presidency. But most of the polls documenting his unpopularity do not (as is appropriate at this early juncture in the cycle) screen for likelihood to vote, which traditionally gives an edge to Republicans. If his approval rating rises just a bit, and add in minor party voting, you could easily see Trump finishing pretty much where he did in the popular vote in 2016. And as multiple analysts have explained, the poor distribution of Democratic votes (particularly unnecessary votes in California and narrowly insufficient votes in Texas) do indeed mean that Trump can register his party’s third Electoral College “coup” (to use the abrasive term Republicans deploy for another entirely constitutional but unusual mechanism, impeachment) in the last six presidential elections.
Nothing about Trump’s path to reelection is new, and the Times/Siena survey just paints a particularly vivid road map of another very close election.
One of the ironies of Cohn’s article is that he seeks to rebut a blizzard of head-to-head general-election polls showing multiple Democrats trouncing Trump (at least nationally, but also in some of the same Rust Belt states he thinks are again leaning to the GOP) with head-to-head general-election polls providing different results. Maybe the Times-Siena methodology is simply superior to everyone else’s put together, but that is at best a rebuttable presumption. The bigger issue is that this sort of research has a spotty record of accuracy this far away from a general election. Cohn anticipates this argument:
[O]n average over the last three cycles, head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before. The stability of the president’s approval rating is a reason to think this pattern might hold again for a fourth cycle, at least for the three leading and already well-known Democrats tested in these polls.
Three cycles is not a very large sample. Here’s what Perry Bacon Jr. found with a broader lens:
In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, this same question came up, and FiveThirtyEight analyzed general election polls from 1944 to 2012 that tested the eventual nominees and were conducted in the last two months of the year before the election (so for 2012, that would be November and December of 2011). On average, these polls missed the final result by 11 percentage points.
Yes, partisan polarization probably means the ceiling and floor of support for either major party’s candidate is more limited than it was, say, in 1992. But the variable results different pollsters are finding for head-to-heads ought to create significant doubt that this one nails the results, particularly when it produces such questionable numbers as those showing Trump making significant gains among African-American and Latino voters post-2016.
Get back to us with fresh data in January when Democratic voters are actually voting, doomsayers.
Any interpretation of the Times/Siena data that projects Biden as a clear winner and Warren as a clear loser against Trump ignores margins of error and the role name ID can play in polls at this point in the cycle. Among registered voters in the battleground states these polls focus on, Biden’s margin over Warren against Trump is one point in North Carolina and three points in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Yes, it’s six points in Michigan and Florida, but given margins or error and how far out we are, that’s not a lot. In addition, anyone attributing Biden’s better performance to ideological moderation should look at Bernie Sanders’s numbers: better than Warren’s, and in Michigan, better than Biden’s. Is Bernie perceived as more “moderate” than Warren, or is it a matter of gender, or of superior familiarity?
What we do know is that Warren’s “electability” credentials have steadily improved along with her name ID and her rise in the percentage of Democrats favoring her for president. The last national poll showing her trailing Trump was a Fox News survey in July. In August, Fox had Warren up by seven, in September by six, in early October by ten, and in late October by five. You can find a similar upward drift in her performance against the incumbent in virtually every outlet conducting regular polling.
None of this is to say that the Times/Siena numbers, or Cohn’s analysis, should be waved away. Data is data, and the best corrective for contradictions in the available data is more of it. But even if you buy the claim that Warren’s too risky a proposition at this point a year before Election Day, it’s not clear whether the problem is her ideology (and/or policy positions) or her gender or simply that she’s not sufficiently well-known. Of course she is coming across as more “left wing” now than she would in a general election; she’s not in a general-election contest at this point. It would be shameful if Democrats denied her the nomination because of her gender. Time alone will tell how well she wears on voters of all sorts — and in all sorts of states.
Should Democrats Panic About Warren’s Chances Against Trump?
Promoted links by Taboola
tears for fears
Sad Billionaire Cries Because He Feels So Misunderstood
By Sarah Jones
Why is everyone being so mean to Leon Cooperman?
Richard Spencer Broke His Contract With America
By Zak Cheney-Rice
He agreed to shroud his white nationalism in nice clothes and respectability. He seems to have inadvertently let the mask drop.
Where Did Beto Go Wrong?
By Jonathan Chait, Benjamin Hart, and Margaret Hartmann
Intelligencer staffers discuss what derailed the Texan’s once-promising campaign.
Tomorrow, America Could Get a Tiny Bit Closer to Universal Health Care
By Eric Levitz
Medicare for All isn’t on the ballot just yet. But in Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi, voters have a chance to secure “Medicaid for more.”
The withdrawal won’t be official unless Trump wins next year
Why the Democrats Will Debate at Atlanta’s Tyler Perry Studios This Month
By Ed Kilgore
The debate sponsors passed up a suburban venue for the actor and mogul’s new facility.
Should Democrats Panic About Elizabeth Warren’s Chances Against Trump?
By Ed Kilgore
A new batch of polls has the candidate faring poorly against Trump in some battleground states.
Breaking: Federal authorities arrested a 27-year-old accused white supremacist who had planned to bomb a synagogue in Colorado over the weekend.
e. jean carroll
Writer E. Jean Carroll Sues Donald Trump for Defamation
By Sarah Jones
After Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault in her latest book, the president called her a liar, which she says damaged her reputation and career.
trump tax returns
trump tax returns
We’re One Step Closer to Seeing Trump’s Tax Returns
By Benjamin Hart
An appeals court ruled that he must turn over eight years of tax records to New York investigators. The Supreme Court will likely get the final say.
the national interest
the national interest
New Poll Shows Democratic Candidates Have Been Living in a Fantasy World
By Jonathan Chait
Trump is on course to win reelection and Democrats are ceding the center to him.
Looming impeachment has hardly slowed down the Trump administration’s efforts to dig up conspiracy-linked dirt on Biden
Far from keeping their heads down, those working in common cause with the president’s and Giuliani’s campaign to get Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political opponents are moving ahead unabated, interviews in Kyiv and Washington with several of those involved reveal.
Their efforts come despite intense scrutiny from Congress, law enforcement and the media. Under oath, a parade of current and former U.S. officials have testified that Trump and his envoys leveraged a coveted White House meeting and military aid to Ukraine to pressure new President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to commit publicly to investigations into both the 2016 election and the Biden family.
In Ukraine, a group of parliamentarians are even working to stand up a new investigative commission — the Ukrainian analogue to a congressional select committee — to probe what they say was a Ukrainian government campaign to smear former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in a bid to take down Trump in 2016. They also want to investigate the Bidens.
Read this article if you want to feel a creeping sense of dread
Despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.
Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error.
Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago.
The poll showed Bernie Sanders deadlocked with the president among registered voters, but trailing among likely voters.
Maybe Democrats Should Remain on the Defensive in 2020
By Ed Kilgore
The Trump Era may call for a more proactive agenda, but the Trump campaign is all in on all the old attack lines — and Democrats need to be ready.
Another example of Trump’s attacks applying to himself
In 2006, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump traveled to Ukraine to meet with government officials about building a multimillion dollar hotel and golf course in the country. Two years later, Trump Jr. was back to meet with developers.
The Trumps were looking to erect luxury resorts across the former Soviet republics, and Ukraine seemed like a promising location. But doing so meant navigating a landscape that had long struggled with corruption. And as part of its overtures, the Trump Organization engaged developers Dmitry Buriak and felon Felix Sater, both of whom have had business interests in Russia.
Now, a decade after his company’s efforts floundered, President Donald Trump is arguing that it’s the son of his political rival Joe Biden, not him, who wanted to benefit from what he calls a “very corrupt” Ukraine.
The White House’s stonewalling of the impeachment inquiry continues
The four administration officials whose testimony impeachment investigators had scheduled for Monday aren’t expected to appear for their depositions, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The officials are acting at the direction of the White House, the person said. The move, which follows testimony last week by two officials who were serving on the National Security Council when they were deposed, escalates the battle between House Democrats and the White House over the impeachment inquiry, which President Trump has repeatedly attacked.
It is unclear how the House will respond to the White House’s move. A federal judge has already been asked to rule on whether former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman must testify in the impeachment inquiry, after the White House instructed him not to testify.
Trump Reportedly Obsessed With Impeachment Coverage: ‘We’re Getting Killed’
By Matt Stieb
Trump is watching more TV to stay informed on his potentially impeachable actions. Outside of Fox News, he’s reportedly not liking what he’s seeing.
elections of 2019
elections of 2019
Off-Year Election Preview: Is It All About Partisanship?
By Ed Kilgore
Unpopular Republicans struggle to win governorships in red Kentucky and Mississippi, while partisan tides help Democrats in Virginia.
Trump Mostly Tweets Alone Because He Doesn’t Like Being Seen in Glasses: Report
By Matt Stieb
Rather than be seen wearing glasses, Trump dictates his tweets to an aide who sits in a “closet-sized room.”
Tasteless ‘Build the Wall’ Decor Seen at White House Kids’ Halloween Party
By Marie Lodi
Kids who attended a party at the White House were encouraged to participate in a “build the wall” mural.
Trump Has Been Booed at Another Major Sporting Event
By Chas Danner
The president heard both jeers and cheers at the UFC in New York, but they never put him up on the big screen or announced he was there.
Judge blocks Trump’s health care visa restriction
A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday put on hold a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the rule from going into effect Sunday. It’s not clear when he will rule on the merits of the case.
Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday contending the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants. The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the United States with family sponsored visas.
The Speaker’s warning
“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” [Nancy] Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.” “Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.”
Pelosi was careful not to back any one candidate in the party’s contentious presidential contest, but didn’t hold back when asked about which ideas should – and shouldn’t – form the party’s case to American voters. Or about her fears that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by courting only fellow progressives – and not the middle-of-the-road voters Democrats need to win back from Trump. …
Pelosi said Democrats must stick with pay-as-you-go rules to avoid adding to the debt, a point of contention with left-leaning figures who want to permit more deficit spending for ambitious liberal priorities.
“We cannot just keep increasing the debt,” she said.
Pelosi added that she doesn’t understand the race to the left among some candidates, because “Bernie and Elizabeth own the left, right? Is anybody going to out-left them?”
She stopped short of endorsing a tax on wealth, an idea that Warren and Sanders have embraced as a means to reduce income inequality and expand the safety net. The speaker said she wants “bipartisan” tax changes that lower the debt and fix the “dumb” Republican tax cuts of 2017.
Signs of a wealthy way out in the UK
The super-rich are preparing to immediately leave the UK if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister, fearing they will lose billions of pounds if the Labour leader does “go after” the wealthy elite with new taxes, possible capital controls and a clampdown on private schools.
Lawyers and accountants for the UK’s richest families said they had been deluged with calls from millionaire and billionaire clients asking for help and advice on moving countries, shifting their fortunes offshore and making early gifts to their children to avoid the Labour leader’s threat to tax all inheritances above £125,000.
The advisers said a Corbyn-led government was viewed as a far greater threat to the wealth and quality of life of the richest 1% than a hard Brexit. Geoffrey Todd, a partner at the law firm Boodle Hatfield, said many of his clients had already put plans in place to transfer their wealth out of the country within minutes if Corbyn is elected.