Clinton at that time had a net favorability 30% higher than JOE FUCKING BIDEN has currently. Obama's net favorability?
FUCKING 50% higher than Joe Bidens CURRENT NET FAVORABLY.
You are INSISTING we crash the fucking car into a brick wall.
I see, you're using "incumbent Presidents approval rating" as "the polls". For the last few Presidential cycles, incumbents generally win reelection when their approval rating is 40% or higher, and Biden's is cruising at around 39. But the trend doesn't get "locked" until the Primaries are over and the conventions start. He is by no means the least popular incumbent, and Biden still has room to improve before the election.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, I believe Biden and Blinken are both invested in finding a way out of this mess in Gaza. We gave Israel a wide berth right after Oct. 7 , but it's been months since then and everyone's patience with Netanyahu is wearing thin. Still, if a ceasefire can be negotiated that will help Biden. That is, if the opposition is about Gaza at all. The opposition in Michigan certainly is. But if Biden can figure out a way out your TikTok feed will find other ways to undermine your support of him.
This figure is from polling data I pulled a few hours ago:
If the election were tomorrow, Biden loses.
If your primary concern is beating Trump, you need a better candidate than Biden.
But it's not tomorrow, and Hillary has direct knowledge of how much elections can change between March and November.
Biden needs to improve, no doubt about it, but the answer is not to pull the eject lever. The only way Biden is leaving this race is in a hearse.
Man you sound fucking desperate. You know we don't have to have Biden as the nominee right? We can pick some one better.
Sadly, at this point, it would seem you'd need a lot more blue no matter who to take some almost unknown candidate and get them up to speed to win. I haven't seen anyone suggest a better candidate - I'm trying to even think of the last time the same party won the election when the incumbent wasn't running. Was it Bush Senior?
I think we've got two options though neither have suggested they'll run. First off, John Stewart. He would actually excite enough voters as nominee, he's shown himself as an activist in his lobbying for support for first responders and veterans. He could win, easily. People on the left know and love him. He's very popular. Sure he's a TV personality, but so was Trump, so its not like its setting some kind of new precedent.
Second option, is Shawn Fein. He showed a major W in labor organizing and he has show he can organize at national level, and manage the press in such a way as to get a desired outcome. I think he's a longer shot, but a better shot than Biden right now. He can lock in the union vote. The problem will be liberals and neo-liberals, since they are largely anti-labor. The neo-liberals aren't going to cast a vote for a union Democrat. Its a question of if liberals have their heads too far up their own asses to not vote for a labor organizer.
We have options. Its not too late to rescue this.
If I thought he'd do it, John Stewart would be amazing. I think he might be the only potential chance, but he also (for some reason) isn't interested in actually running. I'd be really surprised if people hadn't approached him before and after 2016. And heck, Regan was a movie personality!
And I'd think he'd turn the Trump playbook back on Trump. Could you imagine John Stewart debating Trump? That's appointment TV right there, and Stewart would mop the floor with Trump in 2024. He destroyed Tucker back in 04 on Crossfire, and Tucker's a way better orator and presents way smarter than Trump ever has.
Stewart is a lock for any liberal millennial, we grew up with him during Bush. He'd get the 30-40 year olds excited again like Obama did in 08.
Too bad he wouldn't run - but also there's just no way to insert him cause primaries have started.
When's the last time an incumbent didn't get their party's nomination?
For U.S. president elected and then denied the nomination, it was Franklin Pierce in 1856.
Chester A. Arthur was VP who took over when James Garfield was assassinated, and he was denied the party nomination in 1884.
NO candidate EVER has come back from the deficit showing.
Trump did.
Again, what the ACTUAL fuck are you talking about? Trump was NEVER net negative in polling.
Trump was polling ~8 points higher than Joe Biden is currently and went on to lose the election. Biden was polling 30 points higher than he is currently and barely squeaked it out.
You should post actual polls, not betting odds. I didn't say he was the favorite, but he sure as shit wasn't running on a 22 point deficit.
OK. Check out the sea of blue and then explain what the fuck you are on about.
I see a lot of polls calling it for Clinton, but well within the margin of error. Interestingly and perhaps ominously, one of the biggest criticisms of Clintons 2016 run was how she practically ignored Michigan and the rest of the rust belt. She did what everyone is currently doing now and tried to browbeat voters into voting for the Democrat you know, "because its her turn".
I'm grabbing the data for this set as well and will post a figure. I'd like to see it aligned to days out from the election to the current polling.
The polling separation between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, right now, is not even close to the margin of error. Trumps going up in the polls. Biden is going down. I'll see if I can align the two based on days out from the election.
Here is Hillary versus Trump, 2016 data:
Here is the 2024 (current polling) on top of the 2016 polling. I aligned them to days till the election. Important to keep in mind here that Trump was in a 10+ way race at the current time in polling in 2016. It was not clear what-so-ever that he would be the nominee. Biden and Trump (currently) should probably both be considered to be the de-facto nominees.
If Clinton was polling in the 30's as the de-facto nominee, what do you think her chance of winning in 2016 would have been?
This figure says it all. Insisting that we support Biden without question is handing Trump the election.
Obama did vs Romney. He was consistently down during May of 2012, and then proceeded to have a slam dunk victory.
No, the polling right fucking now matters.
NO candidate EVER has come back from the deficit showing.
Do you actually want to stop Trump or not?
Stop making shit up. (Or, stop getting your facts from Social media, as it's really the same thing as making shit up).
Here, I found some actual facts for you. This is December, not March, but still relevant.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/103351/clinton-maintains-large-lead-over-obama-nationally.aspx
Obama wasn't running on a 39% approval rating you dummy.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Thats what fucking matters. Do you want to fucking beat Trump or not? Whats your priority here? Running Biden or beating Trump? You have to pick one.
Edit: Oh you want Gallup? We can do Gallup
https://news.gallup.com/poll/103495/election-summary.aspx
Clinton at that time had a net favorability 30% higher than JOE FUCKING BIDEN has currently. Obama's net favorability?
FUCKING 50% higher than Joe Bidens CURRENT NET FAVORABLY.
You are INSISTING we crash the fucking car into a brick wall.
I see, you're using "incumbent Presidents approval rating" as "the polls". For the last few Presidential cycles, incumbents generally win reelection when their approval rating is 40% or higher, and Biden's is cruising at around 39. But the trend doesn't get "locked" until the Primaries are over and the conventions start. He is by no means the least popular incumbent, and Biden still has room to improve before the election.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, I believe Biden and Blinken are both invested in finding a way out of this mess in Gaza. We gave Israel a wide berth right after Oct. 7 , but it's been months since then and everyone's patience with Netanyahu is wearing thin. Still, if a ceasefire can be negotiated that will help Biden. That is, if the opposition is about Gaza at all. The opposition in Michigan certainly is. But if Biden can figure out a way out your TikTok feed will find other ways to undermine your support of him.
This figure is from polling data I pulled a few hours ago:
If the election were tomorrow, Biden loses.
If your primary concern is beating Trump, you need a better candidate than Biden.
But it's not tomorrow, and Hillary has direct knowledge of how much elections can change between March and November.
Biden needs to improve, no doubt about it, but the answer is not to pull the eject lever. The only way Biden is leaving this race is in a hearse.
Man you sound fucking desperate. You know we don't have to have Biden as the nominee right? We can pick some one better.
Sadly, at this point, it would seem you'd need a lot more blue no matter who to take some almost unknown candidate and get them up to speed to win. I haven't seen anyone suggest a better candidate - I'm trying to even think of the last time the same party won the election when the incumbent wasn't running. Was it Bush Senior?
I think we've got two options though neither have suggested they'll run. First off, John Stewart. He would actually excite enough voters as nominee, he's shown himself as an activist in his lobbying for support for first responders and veterans. He could win, easily. People on the left know and love him. He's very popular. Sure he's a TV personality, but so was Trump, so its not like its setting some kind of new precedent.
Second option, is Shawn Fein. He showed a major W in labor organizing and he has show he can organize at national level, and manage the press in such a way as to get a desired outcome. I think he's a longer shot, but a better shot than Biden right now. He can lock in the union vote. The problem will be liberals and neo-liberals, since they are largely anti-labor. The neo-liberals aren't going to cast a vote for a union Democrat. Its a question of if liberals have their heads too far up their own asses to not vote for a labor organizer.
We have options. Its not too late to rescue this.
If I thought he'd do it, John Stewart would be amazing. I think he might be the only potential chance, but he also (for some reason) isn't interested in actually running. I'd be really surprised if people hadn't approached him before and after 2016. And heck, Regan was a movie personality!
And I'd think he'd turn the Trump playbook back on Trump. Could you imagine John Stewart debating Trump? That's appointment TV right there, and Stewart would mop the floor with Trump in 2024. He destroyed Tucker back in 04 on Crossfire, and Tucker's a way better orator and presents way smarter than Trump ever has.
Stewart is a lock for any liberal millennial, we grew up with him during Bush. He'd get the 30-40 year olds excited again like Obama did in 08.
Too bad he wouldn't run - but also there's just no way to insert him cause primaries have started.
When's the last time an incumbent didn't get their party's nomination?
For U.S. president elected and then denied the nomination, it was Franklin Pierce in 1856.
Chester A. Arthur was VP who took over when James Garfield was assassinated, and he was denied the party nomination in 1884.
Trump did.
Again, what the ACTUAL fuck are you talking about? Trump was NEVER net negative in polling.
Trumps 2015 polling.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-polls-past-elections-republican-nomination
and guess what? When Trump slipped in the polling in 2020, he went on to lose the election.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2020/national/
Trump was polling ~8 points higher than Joe Biden is currently and went on to lose the election. Biden was polling 30 points higher than he is currently and barely squeaked it out.
Trump was never even close to being favourite in 2016.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but srsly.
You should post actual polls, not betting odds. I didn't say he was the favorite, but he sure as shit wasn't running on a 22 point deficit.
OK. Check out the sea of blue and then explain what the fuck you are on about.
I see a lot of polls calling it for Clinton, but well within the margin of error. Interestingly and perhaps ominously, one of the biggest criticisms of Clintons 2016 run was how she practically ignored Michigan and the rest of the rust belt. She did what everyone is currently doing now and tried to browbeat voters into voting for the Democrat you know, "because its her turn".
I'm grabbing the data for this set as well and will post a figure. I'd like to see it aligned to days out from the election to the current polling.
The polling separation between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, right now, is not even close to the margin of error. Trumps going up in the polls. Biden is going down. I'll see if I can align the two based on days out from the election.
Here is Hillary versus Trump, 2016 data:
Here is the 2024 (current polling) on top of the 2016 polling. I aligned them to days till the election. Important to keep in mind here that Trump was in a 10+ way race at the current time in polling in 2016. It was not clear what-so-ever that he would be the nominee. Biden and Trump (currently) should probably both be considered to be the de-facto nominees.
If Clinton was polling in the 30's as the de-facto nominee, what do you think her chance of winning in 2016 would have been?
This figure says it all. Insisting that we support Biden without question is handing Trump the election.
Obama did vs Romney. He was consistently down during May of 2012, and then proceeded to have a slam dunk victory.