Q Poll: Biden Leads Favorability

[twenty02]

American voters give former Vice President Joseph Biden a 53 - 33 percent favorability rating, topping President Donald Trump's negative 40 - 56 percent favorability rating and besting a list of possible 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has the highest unfavorable score on the list, a negative 32 - 61 percent favorability, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University National Poll finds. ​

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2591

 

[wiede]

American voters give former Vice President Joseph Biden a 53 - 33 percent favorability rating, topping President Donald Trump's negative 40 - 56 percent favorability rating and besting a list of possible 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has the highest unfavorable score on the list, a negative 32 - 61 percent favorability, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University National Poll finds. ​

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2591

Biden-Beto would walk away with the election. I think if Joe wants it, he could have it. He’d certainly have Obama’s unqualified support.

 

[twenty02]

Biden-Beto would walk away with the election. I think if Joe wants it, he could have it. He’d certainly have Obama’s unqualified support.

Seems pretty clear that he's definitely running. Should have last time, and he would have won.

What's funny (sad) is that Hillary's negatives are basically the same as they were back during the 2016 coronation (primary). Equally as putrids as Trumps. She may have been the only Democrat that could have lost to him.

 

[Circlejoe]

Biden/Klobuchar or Biden/Harris.

 

[wiede]

Seems pretty clear that he's definitely running. Should have last time, and he would have won.

What's funny (sad) is that Hillary's negatives are basically the same as they were back during the 2016 coronation (primary). Equally as putrids as Trumps. She may have been the only Democrat that could have lost to him.

Agree. On both points.

It’s too bad he was dealing with his son passing the last time around. He would’ve taken the nomination. He’s someone the entire party would rally around. I could him see him being the best at mending the relationships with our allies. Plus, the dude knows policy, and what’s going on within the rest of the world.

He can be a gaffe machine- but at least he’s real. It certainly didn’t seem to hurt W much.

The dem primary is going to be wild. Which, in my mind, is good. Competition makes everyone better.

I really hope that Hillary stays away. That window has closed. She’s like the old boxer that never quite got to the top, got a title bout and lost it, and refuses to quit. All she’s doing by sticking around us doing more damage. I’d hope she values the country more than herself.

 

[hoot1]

With Dems and Pubs being so completely polarized on all the polling questions you have to look at where the Independants stand to find out how the issues might affect an election.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I believe I could bring myself to vote for Biden, vs a wasted 3rd party vote, or outright abstaining. I think it's the Dem's election to lose...which they certainly could by nominating someone too left of center (Sanders-type) or just plain objectionable (see 2016).

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Biden-Beto would walk away with the election. I think if Joe wants it, he could have it. He’d certainly have Obama’s unqualified support.

You have to admit, this is a sad state of affairs in our country these days. Don't get me wrong, I think Biden is decent and isn't someone I would get annoyed with as President. However, he'll be turning 80 halfway through.

So we would have a battle of two geriatrics (one that is already crazy and one that is likely to start losing his sharpness) set to lead our increasingly complex and technology-driven country.

 

[NPT]

Biden-Beto would walk away with the election. I think if Joe wants it, he could have it. He’d certainly have Obama’s unqualified support.

I never guess.... Hillary was gonna walk away with the last one according to all the experts.

 

[NPT]

Who, besides Biden on this list, do each of you like? I don't follow politicians a lot until I see who's running so I don't have an opinion on most. I do think Biden is a decent man.

 

[wiede]

Who, besides Biden on this list, do each of you like? I don't follow politicians a lot until I see who's running so I don't have an opinion on most. I do think Biden is a decent man.

Biden is the only one I feel like I know well, and have an idea of what his policies would be.

Of the rest, I’m inclined to like Beto, Brown & Harris. But I don’t know enough about them yet. Beto I’m more familiar with because of the recent senate race in TX, but I still don’t know enough to say I’d support him 100%. I like Bernie- I just don’t think some of his policies are realistic.

Don’t know much of anything about the rest.

There’s two longshot names missing that I’m inclined to like. Buttigieg & Hickenlooper. Both centrists, in more conservative areas (Buttigieg more than Hickenlooper). From what I’ve seen of them, I like them. Re: Buttigieg, to be a gay dem mayor in town like South Bend, he’s doing something right. And, the few clips I’ve seen of him, he’s very impressive as a speaker.

If somehow Trump is the nominee again, I’d vote literally almost anyone over him. We don’t need more of his toxicity. And if Hillary somehow got the nomination, I’d only support her against Trump.

If Trump isn’t the nominee, I’m wide open. I’d consider everyone running, no matter what party they belonged to at the time (including an independent).

Back at ya. If Trump isn’t the nominee, who you prefer be the pub nominee?

 

[Circlejoe]

Who, besides Biden on this list, do each of you like? I don't follow politicians a lot until I see who's running so I don't have an opinion on most. I do think Biden is a decent man.

Klobuchar is terrific. I like Booker as well and Harris seems like a strong candidate.

 

[Cortez88]

I struggle to think of any candidate either party could put up that I wouldn’t vote for over Trump. I say this with zero hyperbole.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Klobuchar is terrific. I like Booker as well and Harris seems like a strong candidate.

Klobuchar is a good Senator. Too soft spoken and too moderate to win a Dem primary.

Booker and Harris act like they've learned how to be a Senator through watching political dramas. They're empty spaces...

 

[Ladoga]

I never guess.... Hillary was gonna walk away with the last one according to all the experts.

At 7:30pm on Election night 2016, the geniuses at 538 with the MSM hanging on and repeating as true their every word, predicted by 71% that Hillary Clinton would be elected President. Several states polling places were closed at that time and nearly all others would follow within 3-4 hours. Counting was underway. Yet the experts missed it by a margin large enough to turn the outcome.

Now we should believe even one word of their predictions for 2020??? No. They have zero valid to say. ZERO - on either side of the divide. Predictions and guesses (aren't they the same in national polling?) are totally ludicrous this early if their no good after the polls have closed. Or maybe we listen to the wrong predictions.

 

[Fro]

Who, besides Biden on this list, do each of you like? I don't follow politicians a lot until I see who's running so I don't have an opinion on most. I do think Biden is a decent man.

Beto. I like Biden but I think this is the peak of his popularity and it'd go down when he runs because he makes a lot of gaffes. I like what I've heard of Harris & Klobuchar but haven't really formed a full opinion on them yet.

Garcetti has a good background but hasn't done much in LA. Bullock I need to look into more.

 

[twenty02]

At 7:30pm on Election night 2016, the geniuses at 538 with the MSM hanging on and repeating as true their every word, predicted by 71% that Hillary Clinton would be elected President. Several states polling places were closed at that time and nearly all others would follow within 3-4 hours. Counting was underway. Yet the experts missed it by a margin large enough to turn the outcome.

Now we should believe even one word of their predictions for 2020??? No. They have zero valid to say. ZERO - on either side of the divide. Predictions and guesses (aren't they the same in national polling?) are totally ludicrous this early if their no good after the polls have closed. Or maybe we listen to the wrong predictions.

Derp....71% means that Trump had a 29% chance....or a roughly 3 out of 10 shot. Are you really this challenged with basic math?

Favorable/unfavorable numbers (and undecideds) are important bench marks. People rarely move from unfavorable back to favorable on someone. It's why the alarm regarding Hillary's 60% unfavorable rating throughout 2016 should have been much louder.

Her only hope lay in the fact that Trump had numbers just as bad....but even that wasn't enough.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Seems pretty clear that he's definitely running. Should have last time, and he would have won.

What's funny (sad) is that Hillary's negatives are basically the same as they were back during the 2016 coronation (primary). Equally as putrids as Trumps. She may have been the only Democrat that could have lost to him.

Agree. On both points.

It’s too bad he was dealing with his son passing the last time around. He would’ve taken the nomination. He’s someone the entire party would rally around. I could him see him being the best at mending the relationships with our allies. Plus, the dude knows policy, and what’s going on within the rest of the world.

He can be a gaffe machine- but at least he’s real. It certainly didn’t seem to hurt W much.

The dem primary is going to be wild. Which, in my mind, is good. Competition makes everyone better.

I really hope that Hillary stays away. That window has closed. She’s like the old boxer that never quite got to the top, got a title bout and lost it, and refuses to quit. All she’s doing by sticking around us doing more damage. I’d hope she values the country more than herself.

Hillary isn’t running. She has said so. A former staffer, she hadn’t spoken to in years is the source of all the rumors. How is she sticking around? What damage is she doing? What about Sanders? He’s the one out there campaigning constantly. He had his chance and was beaten by Hillary by 4 million votes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Derp....71% means that Trump had a 29% chance....or a roughly 3 out of 10 shot. Are you really this challenged with basic math?

Favorable/unfavorable numbers (and undecideds) are important bench marks. People rarely move from unfavorable back to favorable on someone. It's why the alarm regarding Hillary's 60% unfavorable rating throughout 2016 should have been much louder.

Her only hope lay in the fact that Trump had numbers just as bad....but even that wasn't enough.

How many times has this point needed repeating on this forum now? 50? 100? 1000?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How many times has this point needed repeating on this forum now? 50? 100? 1000?

It will be accepted the moment it fits a narrative they want.

 

[Circlejoe]

At 7:30pm on Election night 2016, the geniuses at 538 with the MSM hanging on and repeating as true their every word, predicted by 71% that Hillary Clinton would be elected President. Several states polling places were closed at that time and nearly all others would follow within 3-4 hours. Counting was underway. Yet the experts missed it by a margin large enough to turn the outcome.

Now we should believe even one word of their predictions for 2020??? No. They have zero valid to say. ZERO - on either side of the divide. Predictions and guesses (aren't they the same in national polling?) are totally ludicrous this early if their no good after the polls have closed. Or maybe we listen to the wrong predictions.

You need a life Ladoga.

 

[UncleMark]

Klobuchar is a good Senator. Too soft spoken and too moderate to win a Dem primary.

The more I hear from her the more I like her. Your point has merit, though. I'd think that whoever is on the ticket with Biden would be the heir apparent -- probably after one term -- and I'd be happy if Amy was the one.

 

[IUXC68]

Biden-Beto would walk away with the election. I think if Joe wants it, he could have it. He’d certainly have Obama’s unqualified support.

Obama did not support him to even become the Democrat Party's candidate in the last election, believing that Clinton was unbeatable. Too bad, in my book, because someone with good experience, a lack of baggage, and a decent personality should have been the candidate. Unfortunately, two years from now he is probably too old to be electable.

 

[Ladoga]

Derp....71% means that Trump had a 29% chance....or a roughly 3 out of 10 shot. Are you really this challenged with basic math?

Favorable/unfavorable numbers (and undecideds) are important bench marks. People rarely move from unfavorable back to favorable on someone. It's why the alarm regarding Hillary's 60% unfavorable rating throughout 2016 should have been much louder.

Her only hope lay in the fact that Trump had numbers just as bad....but even that wasn't enough.

You missed the point. Lemme hep ye here.

On election night, as returns were coming in and some states beginning to be called, the great minds were STILL predicting Clinton would win. Their estimate was a 71% chance of Clinton winning. That means that they were still predicting Clinton's election. How'd they turn out on their prediction? How, if they missed it by a mile on election night, would anyone pay any attention to any evaluation of any person's likelihood of winning in 2020?

 

[Ladoga]

Obama did not support him to even become the Democrat Party's candidate in the last election, believing that Clinton was unbeatable. Too bad, in my book, because someone with good experience, a lack of baggage, and a decent personality should have been the candidate. Unfortunately, two years from now he is probably too old to be electable.

Uncle Joe has truck loads of baggage and a voting record in Congress. No need for anyone to raise any of that 2 years out, but if he is the Dem nominee, they'll dump it on him.

 

[twenty02]

You missed the point. Lemme hep ye here.

On election night, as returns were coming in and some states beginning to be called, the great minds were STILL predicting Clinton would win. Their estimate was a 71% chance of Clinton winning. That means that they were still predicting Clinton's election. How'd they turn out on their prediction? How, if they missed it by a mile on election night, would anyone pay any attention to any evaluation of any person's likelihood of winning in 2020?

No, you missed the point. Thanks for confirming you don't know finite math. Doesn't really surprise me.

 

[DrHoops]

I love Biden. He really does tell it like it is. A great person who I think has done enough for the American people to deserve the presidency.

Plus, The Onion's Uncle Joe stories would would run rampant for the next 4 years!

 

[Ladoga]

No, you missed the point. Thanks for confirming you don't know finite math. Doesn't really surprise me.

Nevermind. You're out of your league and unable to take any discussion other than hate.

 

[twenty02]

Nevermind. You're out of your league and unable to take any discussion other than hate.

So if the weatherman calls for a 30% chance of rain.....and it rains....is the weatherman a total fraud and we should never listen to them again?

That's your "logic"?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

So if the weatherman calls for a 30% chance of rain.....and it rains....is the weatherman a total fraud and we should never listen to them again?

That's your "logic"?

That means the weatherman was 170% wrong

 

[hoosboot]

At 7:30pm on Election night 2016, the geniuses at 538 with the MSM hanging on and repeating as true their every word, predicted by 71% that Hillary Clinton would be elected President. Several states polling places were closed at that time and nearly all others would follow within 3-4 hours. Counting was underway. Yet the experts missed it by a margin large enough to turn the outcome.

Now we should believe even one word of their predictions for 2020??? No. They have zero valid to say. ZERO - on either side of the divide. Predictions and guesses (aren't they the same in national polling?) are totally ludicrous this early if their no good after the polls have closed. Or maybe we listen to the wrong predictions.

Who was that guy who was predicting the big Romney win over President Obama in the weeks leading up to that election? He was unskewing all the polling to definitively insist that Romney was going to win big. The guy's name was Greenironbossiersomething...I'm sure he wouldn't have so little shame as to come back around here and insist his perspective on polling was what people should listen to.

 

[twenty02]

Who was that guy who was predicting the big Romney win over President Obama in the weeks leading up to that election? He was unskewing all the polling to definitively insist that Romney was going to win big. The guy's name was Greenironbossiersomething...I'm sure he wouldn't have so little shame as to come back around here and insist his perspective on polling was what people should listen to.

Ahh yes....unskewedpolls.com had a good run.

 

[Ladoga]

Who was that guy who was predicting the big Romney win over President Obama in the weeks leading up to that election? He was unskewing all the polling to definitively insist that Romney was going to win big. The guy's name was Greenironbossiersomething...I'm sure he wouldn't have so little shame as to come back around here and insist his perspective on polling was what people should listen to.

I was wrong. Now was 538 wrong at 7:30pm on election night 2016?

 

[twenty02]

I was wrong. Now was 538 wrong at 7:30pm on election night 2016?

No.

 

[hoosboot]

I was wrong. Now was 538 wrong at 7:30pm on election night 2016?

As usual, you should take another look at what was actually said as opposed to what your fevered imagination told you was being said.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As usual, you should take another look at what was actually said as opposed to what your fevered imagination told you was being said.

I am trying to decide if this analogy is right. Next year in the World Series, if a team jumps out to a 2 game to 0 lead, there will be stories that the team with 2 wins has an 80.4% chance of winning the Series. That is simply based on the fact that 80.4% of the time that scenario has happened, said team won. If the other team comes back and wins, it isn't that the number was wrong. It just means they beat the odds.

The other part of the problem is that Clinton scored big in early returns. For example, she had 624,000+ votes in Miami-Dade. Obama had 541,440 in 2012. So it looked to the models that she was running well ahead of Obama. At that point there was not great evidence to show that Trump was running even further ahead of Romney. That's the problem with live forecasting, it is hard to know the unknown.

Plus what 538 and the NY Times did had some limitations. 538 admitted that if a Clinton popular vote fell under 3% she was in trouble. But popular vote was pretty much all they have to go on in these models (at least until other states start closing).

 

[Ladoga]

As usual, you should take another look at what was actually said as opposed to what your fevered imagination told you was being said.

Well then give them credit for doing their math right up to 7:30. OK! But their prediction was trash by midnight and had Clinton the loser. Do we get to count ourselves right if we can report the outcome after its determined? OK, then say they were right, but their candidate lost and is not President or do you varmints even accept that?

 

[wiede]

Well then give them credit for doing their math right up to 7:30. OK! But their prediction was trash by midnight and had Clinton the loser. Do we get to count ourselves right if we can report the outcome after its determined? OK, then say they were right, but their candidate lost and is not President or do you varmints even accept that?

538 has been right almost every time. Go back and look at the track record.

To say that they’re worthless because they missed a single election (barely) out of hundreds, if not thousands by now, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how all this stuff works.

That had to be the flukiest election we’ve had, at least in the past century or so on the presidential level. 77K votes combined in three midwestern states was the difference.

Also, apparently Ann Coulter thinks that Kamala Harris will be our next president.

https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-predicts-kamala-harris-will-be-next-president-1267074

 

[hoosboot]

Well then give them credit for doing their math right up to 7:30. OK! But their prediction was trash by midnight and had Clinton the loser. Do we get to count ourselves right if we can report the outcome after its determined? OK, then say they were right, but their candidate lost and is not President or do you varmints even accept that?

Varmints? That's cute in a trying way too hard to be colloquial kind of way.

Maybe your next user name could be BeverlyHillsJethroClampettCouncilDistrict!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

538 has been right almost every time. Go back and look at the track record.

To say that they’re worthless because they missed a single election (barely) out of hundreds, if not thousands by now, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how all this stuff works.

That had to be the flukiest election we’ve had, at least in the past century or so on the presidential level. 77K votes combined in three midwestern states was the difference.

Also, apparently Ann Coulter thinks that Kamala Harris will be our next president.

https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-predicts-kamala-harris-will-be-next-president-1267074

They didn't miss an election. By even granting that concession, you are inadvertently giving grounds to the raging idiots.

538 models probability distributions of potential election results. They do not predict anything. They simply describe how likely various scenarios are based on known polling and other variables. In fact, although you won't notice the raging idiots remembering any of this, 538 was very cautious leading into the 2016 election, repeatedly warning that Clinton's favorite status did not make her a shoo-in, that a Trump victory would only be a mild upset - the kind that happened once every four or five elections or so - and that the polls were close enough that Clinton's apparent lead was within one standard polling margin of error. In other words, if the polls were consistently wrong only the average amount they were over history, and this error happened to be in Trump's favor, then the race was essentially tied.

They also warned - long before the polls opened, and this particular warning turned out to be prescient - that close states with similar demographics tended to shift in groups, and that Clinton could win the popular vote and still lose the election if Trump overperformed in only a handful of important states, including states that did not have very much reliable polling. That was actually the source of their 20-25% chance of a Trump victory, and it turned out to be exactly what happened.

Someone above mentioned meteorologists, either Marvin or Twenty, I think. That was an apt analogy. When a meteorologist looks at his computer models and determines that there is an X% chance of rain, he is not predicting anything. Whether or not it actually does rain will always be either 0% or 100%. It will never be X%. But that does not make him wrong, because he is not projecting anything. He's simply informing the public how likely it is that the actual presence of rain will flip from 0% to 100%. The raging idiots do not understand this, and so they attack 538 despite not even having an entry-level understanding of what 538 actually does. Do not throw them even the tiniest of bones.