Now those are utterly meaningless. Incumbency worked so well for Trump, amirite?
I can't believe you can write that with a straight face when he's losing in national polling, losing with battleground state swing voters, and losing large chunks of critical Hispanic and Black voters.
Every single data-point is significantly-worse than Biden's 2020 performance where he won by a whole 40,000 votes in battleground states.
Compared to other democratic candidates, biden has a leg up because incumbency. This link is about the nominee, not who wins.
And trump absolutely benefited from incumbency. The whole GOP practically rebuilt itself around him.
It's irrelevant if it doesn't actually propel you past the finish-line, though, isn't it? So explain to me how incumbency and the DNC "building itself around" Biden is substantively altering the outcome of, for emphasis:
Losing large chunks of critical Hispanic & Black Voters (voters who shouldn't be in question to begin with)
Losing Battleground swing-state voters.
Losing in national polling versus Trump (where he was ahead in 2020 or at worst even)
Has aggregate approval ratings in the 30s.
I'll wait.
Next, answer this: Joe Biden is not the nominee yet either, for the convention has yet to happen. Now let's be clear: In the event Biden voluntarily steps down and either an open convention occurs or he endorses, is it really that inconceivable for you to believe overnight polling for such a candidate would skyrocket as both grassroots and establishment and MASSIVE widespread media press inundate such a person with coverage...?
So at the end of the day, we have high confidence Biden will lose in November 6th if we stay the course. If that's the case, I believe we should take the chance to put someone fresh in and who is younger. That assuages a major concern for 70% of the electorate and reinvigorates people to vote for someone new. As Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans love new shit."
Okay I didn't that because its likely off topic.
This article is about a statistic, which says (very narrowly) that Biden (is currently) polling better than other hypothetical nominees. I'm saying that this is because Biden is more well known, due to his incumbency.
This statistic does not and can not sat anything about if a different Democratic candidate would poll better or worse than Biden if they were nominated or were the presumptive nominee.
Because Biden is the president, he is in the news more, and is more recognizable, and thus more people "like" him than whoever else was listed on this study.
There is a reason incumbents are almost always the nominee. Voters are generally not well educated and the vast majority of them just know Biden.
I will agree with the longstanding precedent of incumbent-advantage; but I do not see how that shores up support here and in the now. Put it this way: Polls show incumbent advantage is doing fundamentally nothing to put Biden past the numbers he needs in order to cross the finish-line.
And But don't you think Biden's numbers -- steadily declining for months if not years, mind you -- are sort of baked in? Media saturation has taken place, and Biden in the spotlight long enough that projections would suggest nothing will fundamentally change and that these are losing numbers -- yes? So between knowing we will likely lose versus taking the gamble of garnering viral excitement from nominating a younger fresh face, the latter would be better in my view.
Look I'm sorry, but you gave zero response to the damaging statistics I mentioned except to point vaguely toward incumbency which clearly isn't helping enough with the output of those statistics. So can changing candidates do more? I think so.
And incumbency absolutely does propelled a candidate across the finish line. The vast amount of presidents in recent history are two-term presidents. Trump is an exception.
Now those are utterly meaningless. Incumbency worked so well for Trump, amirite?
I can't believe you can write that with a straight face when he's losing in national polling, losing with battleground state swing voters, and losing large chunks of critical Hispanic and Black voters.
Every single data-point is significantly-worse than Biden's 2020 performance where he won by a whole 40,000 votes in battleground states.
Compared to other democratic candidates, biden has a leg up because incumbency. This link is about the nominee, not who wins.
And trump absolutely benefited from incumbency. The whole GOP practically rebuilt itself around him.
It's irrelevant if it doesn't actually propel you past the finish-line, though, isn't it? So explain to me how incumbency and the DNC "building itself around" Biden is substantively altering the outcome of, for emphasis:
I'll wait.
Next, answer this: Joe Biden is not the nominee yet either, for the convention has yet to happen. Now let's be clear: In the event Biden voluntarily steps down and either an open convention occurs or he endorses, is it really that inconceivable for you to believe overnight polling for such a candidate would skyrocket as both grassroots and establishment and MASSIVE widespread media press inundate such a person with coverage...?
So at the end of the day, we have high confidence Biden will lose in November 6th if we stay the course. If that's the case, I believe we should take the chance to put someone fresh in and who is younger. That assuages a major concern for 70% of the electorate and reinvigorates people to vote for someone new. As Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans love new shit."
Okay I didn't that because its likely off topic.
This article is about a statistic, which says (very narrowly) that Biden (is currently) polling better than other hypothetical nominees. I'm saying that this is because Biden is more well known, due to his incumbency.
This statistic does not and can not sat anything about if a different Democratic candidate would poll better or worse than Biden if they were nominated or were the presumptive nominee.
Because Biden is the president, he is in the news more, and is more recognizable, and thus more people "like" him than whoever else was listed on this study.
There is a reason incumbents are almost always the nominee. Voters are generally not well educated and the vast majority of them just know Biden.
I will agree with the longstanding precedent of incumbent-advantage; but I do not see how that shores up support here and in the now. Put it this way: Polls show incumbent advantage is doing fundamentally nothing to put Biden past the numbers he needs in order to cross the finish-line.
And But don't you think Biden's numbers -- steadily declining for months if not years, mind you -- are sort of baked in? Media saturation has taken place, and Biden in the spotlight long enough that projections would suggest nothing will fundamentally change and that these are losing numbers -- yes? So between knowing we will likely lose versus taking the gamble of garnering viral excitement from nominating a younger fresh face, the latter would be better in my view.
Look I'm sorry, but you gave zero response to the damaging statistics I mentioned except to point vaguely toward incumbency which clearly isn't helping enough with the output of those statistics. So can changing candidates do more? I think so.
And incumbency absolutely does propelled a candidate across the finish line. The vast amount of presidents in recent history are two-term presidents. Trump is an exception.