Jump to content
The Political Lounge

New Suffolk Poll Doesn't Look Good


vcczar

New Suffolk Poll Doesn't Look Good  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. What would be in the best interest for Democrats if Biden truly has a 38% approval and Harris has a 28% approval and both hold through midterms, leading to a Red Wave? [Check all that apply]

    • Biden should resign and see what Harris can do
    • Biden should have Harris resign and see if that helps.
    • Biden should have Harris resign, then pick Buttigieg or a Democrat with over 50% favorability as a VP, then Biden should resign to make the new VP the new president.
    • Biden and Harris should ignore the polls and battle through with their reelection plans, even if it seems likely they'll be challenged by their own party.
    • Biden and Harris should maintain their jobs, but Biden should decline a reelection bid.
    • Biden and Harris should maintain their jobs, but both should decline running in 2024.
    • Biden and Harris should maintain their jobs, but their entire administration (Pres, VP, cabinet) should decline running in 2024.
    • Democrats should claim to be disorganized, endorse a 3rd party, and hope that doing so doesn't destroy their party in the future.
      0
  2. 2. Of these, who gives the Democrats the greatest chance of exciting the Democratic base, appealing to both progressives and moderates, and winning over enough Independents to defeat Donald Trump in 2024?

    • Pres. Joe Biden, despite the 38% approval. He has the incumbency advantage.
    • VP Kamala Harris, despite the 28% approval. There's a lot of people that still don't have an opinion on her, so she could possibly push them up into the lower 40%
    • Sec. Pete Buttigieg, even though he's been firmly part of the Biden administration.
    • Gov. Gavin Newsom, despite having been forced into a recall election.
      0
    • Fmr Gov. Andrew Cuomo, despite recent scandals that led to his resignation.
      0
    • Fmr 1st Lady Michelle Obama, despite not having held any major political office.
    • Sen. Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that he would be nearing 84 years old during his first term in office.
      0
    • Sen. Elizabeth Warren, despite the fact that she'll be 75 and is likely to energize the opposition against her similar in the way Hillary Clinton does.
    • Ms. Stacey Abrams, despite having not held any major national office, and who is likely to energize the opposition.
      0
    • Sen. Cory Booker, despite a weak showing in 2020.
    • Sen. Amy Klobuchar, despite a weak showing in 2020 and an unenergizing presence.
      0
    • Fmr Rep. Beto O'Rourke, despite a weak showing in 2020 and a likely defeat for governor in 2022.
      0
    • Mr. Andrew Yang, despite a weak showing in 2020, a defeat for NYC Major in 2021, and the fact that he abandoned the Democratic Party in 2021.
      0
    • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, despite the fact she'll be younger than 40 and would probably encourage more conservatives and independents to vote against her than Clinton did.
      0
    • Rep. Joe Kennedy IIII, despite the fact he lost a bid for the US Senate recently.
      0
    • Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, despite the fact that she's probably generate higher turnout among MAGA voters as she was a common punching bag for Trump.
      0
    • Fmr Sec. Hillary Clinton, despite being the boogeywoman of conservatives, a failed nominee in 2016, and 77 years old.
      0
    • Ms. Oprah Winfrey, despite having no political experience and being 70 years old.
      0
    • Fmr Sen. and comedian Al Franken, despite a scandal within the last ten years.
    • Politically-active musician Taylor Swift, despite being only 35 during the election and having no political experience.
  3. 3. How likely do you think the politician you select in question #2 would defeat Donald Trump in 2024?

    • The Democrat would win both the EV and PV.
    • The Democrat would win the EV but not the PV
    • The Democrat would win the PV but not the EV
    • The Democrat would lose both the EV and the PV
    • A 3rd party would win the presidency for the first time in history.
      0
    • The election would be too close to call because Biden's disapproval ratings and Trump's unfavorable ratings (and the fact he's lost once) are equally terrible baggage.


Recommended Posts

Pres Biden approval at 38% and disapproval at 59% for a net favorable of -21

VP Harris approval at 28% and disapproval at 51% for a net favorable of -23

Trump beats Biden by +4%

Generic Republicans +8 over Generic Democrats.

The pollster is rated a B+, according to FiveThirtyEight

This could be something of an outlier as the polling generally isn't this low. It also predates the legislative success the other day. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said this in 2016, and I think the same goes today. I think Al Franken is the perfect antidote to Trump. He's a comedian with political experience and a rather fierce intelligence. Just imagine him tearing Trump to shreds at a debate in the most comical ways possible. If anyone can make Trump look stupid to his own supporters, it's Franken. You may remember me pushing for Franken before the scandal sunk him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle Obama, if she was interested in politics, would blow everyone away. I'm not one that's trying to push her into it, but her presence, skill, oratory is all there. She would be a perfect candidate if she was interested. However, it's been shown time and time again that she's not. I don't really think anyone comes close to what she could do at the top of the ticket in terms of just general positives for the ticket. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Michelle Obama, if she was interested in politics, would blow everyone away. I'm not one that's trying to push her into it, but her presence, skill, oratory is all there. She would be a perfect candidate if she was interested. However, it's been shown time and time again that she's not. I don't really think anyone comes close to what she could do at the top of the ticket in terms of just general positives for the ticket. 

Yeah, I was caught between her, Oprah, Al Franken, and Taylor Swift as the best options. I kind of went with Franken because he's the only celebrity with experience and the only one that's routinely funny. I think he can outgrow his scandal. I feel like the campaign would get to Michelle Obama and Taylor Swift. I think Oprah is my 2nd choice. It was almost a toss up between her and Franken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I was caught between her, Oprah, Al Franken, and Taylor Swift as the best options. I kind of went with Franken because he's the only celebrity with experience and the only one that's routinely funny. I think he can outgrow his scandal. I feel like the campaign would get to Michelle Obama and Taylor Swift. I think Oprah is my 2nd choice. It was almost a toss up between her and Franken.

I get that. I'm generally one who is very anti-newcomers and really likes experience. I think Swift and Oprah would flop. They just don't know how to run campaigns, not their fault. Michelle, on the other hand, has experience. I get being First Lady is not the same as an elected position, but I would put it slightly below senator or near that level in terms of what level of experience. (That being President/VP - Cabinet - Governors - Senators as a ladder) It's clear that she would have been pretty dialed into what is happening politically through her husband. Franken would probably do fine but I'm not sure he would be able to step out of the shadow of the scandal, particularly with the media and the fact he resigned his seat over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hestia said:

the fact he resigned his seat over it.

I think this shows he accepted that he was irresponsible. I think he could address it right away and then it wouldn't come out again unless there are other cases that emerge. 

One rationale for Swift, Winfrey, Obama, and Franken is that I think if Biden were this unpopular that Democrats have to throw a hail mary. Suren, all but Franken may be inexperienced, but I feel that doesn't hurt as much against Trump who is experienced in the wrong ways. I think Trump would also lose the battle of celebrity with all four of these people. I think Swift loses out because she's got almost zero executive experience. Oprah is a MUCH more successful business person than Trump ever was and would be a stronger candidate on paper than Trump was in 2016. She's also tough and has greater media prowess than Trump. She's be tougher than you think, I think. Michelle Obama might be seen by some as a Barack 3rd term, which is both a pro and a con for voters, depending on who they are. Trump could probably attack Obama easier than he could attack Winfrey or Swift. I think attacks on Swift would just come off as mean. I think Trump would be afraid to attack Franken, who would just turn it back around in a humorous way. Trump couldn't attack Franken on the scandal since Trump's own versions are probably worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I think this shows he accepted that he was irresponsible. I think he could address it right away and then it wouldn't come out again unless there are other cases that emerge. 

 

He was irresponsible and decided to resign his seat, admitting that it was a resign-able offense. Why run for a higher office if you believe that it was worth resigning over? I don't think that's wise politically. 

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

One rationale for Swift, Winfrey, Obama, and Franken is that I think if Biden were this unpopular that Democrats have to throw a hail mary. Suren, all but Franken may be inexperienced, but I feel that doesn't hurt as much against Trump who is experienced in the wrong ways. I think Trump would also lose the battle of celebrity with all four of these people. I think Swift loses out because she's got almost zero executive experience. Oprah is a MUCH more successful business person than Trump ever was and would be a stronger candidate on paper than Trump was in 2016. She's also tough and has greater media prowess than Trump. She's be tougher than you think, I think. Michelle Obama might be seen by some as a Barack 3rd term, which is both a pro and a con for voters, depending on who they are. Trump could probably attack Obama easier than he could attack Winfrey or Swift. I think attacks on Swift would just come off as mean. I think Trump would be afraid to attack Franken, who would just turn it back around in a humorous way. Trump couldn't attack Franken on the scandal since Trump's own versions are probably worse. 

Obama's popularity is by FAR the highest of the 21st century Presidents. I think that would be a major asset for her. She could also define herself politically fairly easily, since she hasn't really done that to date. Besides the fact that people generally like her. I don't think any really in the Democratic coalition would have a problem with Michelle Obama, and I don't see independents put off by her. I could see Democratic women angered by a Franken nomination in a way that no Democratic coalition would be with Michelle - besides the fact she would super-charge African-American turnout, which is sorely needed. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the potential candidates listed, Michelle Obama would be an absolutely fantastic nominee, but it's incredibly unlikely that she'll ever seek political office. Of the other options, I'd say, maybe Oprah, or Buttigieg are the two strongest nominees. I think either of them with a more experienced politician would be strong ticket. Let's assume Oprah is the nominee, I think she'd be wise to pick someone from a flyover state to counter the 'Hollywood Elite' label that's she going to be stuck with over the course of the campaign. In his prime Brian Schweitzer would have been perfect, but I think he'd be too far removed from his governorship to be effective. Maybe Laura Kelley, or John Hickenlooper? Both western politicians with governing experience, though of the two I think Hickenlooper is the stronger pick, since he's younger, and more moderate than Kelley, not to mention he'd also have legislative experience. Oprah/Hickenlooper 2024?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Yang would be the best candidates from the above options.

I would have thought this the case if he hadn't have greatly underperformed in the NYC mayoral race when he had been the frontrunner, and if he hadn't left the party. Would help with some independents, but that's about it. Some registered Democrats might not come out. Probably depends who the VP is. Maybe Yang/Abrams. 

45 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I think Hickenlooper is the stronger pick

He had almost zero magnetism in the 2020 race. He's inoffensive, which is definitely better for VP. However, I think selecting him for the top of the ticket is like selecting Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry for the top of the ticket. It isn't really inspiring, especially if Democrats might need to take a risk in 2024 if Biden's approval is still low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He had almost zero magnetism in the 2020 race. He's inoffensive, which is definitely better for VP. However, I think selecting him for the top of the ticket is like selecting Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry for the top of the ticket. It isn't really inspiring, especially if Democrats might need to take a risk in 2024 if Biden's approval is still low. 

Inspiration is something I neglected to think of in my original post. The first two woman ticket in history would probably be plenty inspiring, but I have to wonder if it wouldn't be a bridge too far for some swing-state Americans in 2024. Even if it's a fraction of a percent, that could be enough to swing an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should ignore the polls.  Way too freaking early, and we shouldn't govern based on polling anyway.  For example, the majority of Americans polled as being against interracial marriage as recently as 1996, even though it had been legal for decades prior to that.  I think it only just passed 90% approval in 2020, even though as many as 20% of all new marriages in the US are interracial.

Biden, Harris, and the rest should do their jobs to the very best of their ability, and then run on the merits of their accomplishments.

That has historically been the winning formula for Presidents seeking a second term.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle Obama would be the best candidate for the Democrats, but...

"There are three things that won't run for President: Death, taxes, and Michelle." - Barack Obama

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

we shouldn't govern based on polling anyway.

This is such a truth and nothin but the truth statement and we need more of this in our leaders. 

Very based.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, to be fair, while governing based on support polls for potential elections should be phased out and become less common, the U.S. Government should illicit the opinions of it's people on significant issues even outside election cycles, and take such opinions as VERY SERIOUS advice and guidance. The U.S. Federal Government has become so detached from the will of it's common people, and governs with a frightening and heavy-handed fiat when elections are not an impending issue, preferring special interest groups, think-tanks, corporate and contracting advisors, and military and shadowy intelligence leaders, for significant advice, almost always acquired behind closed doors, and is often very cavalier with spending taxpayers' money without caring about what taxpayers may want. This, and the ominous cloak of secrecy, makes the U.S. Federal Government feel far less democratic and accountable between elections - even a, "soft tyranny," when the voters don't need to be immediately pleased or placated. Changing this drastically, and bringing Washington back to the people, I feel is an essential reform for the nation in the near future.

But the American people are just overwhelmingly dumb, on average.

I know you don't use social media, but those of us who are on there see evidence of this every single day.  

There is a frankly stunning amount of stupidity out there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

But the American people are just overwhelmingly dumb, on average.

I know you don't use social media, but those of us who are on there see evidence of this every single day.  

There is a frankly stunning amount of stupidity out there.

Yeah. No kidding. Especially the voters my age who listen to Taylor Swift to tell us the "real issues." 

Then you got the backwater hillbillies who worship Trump.

While I'd never advocate the suppression of these groups. We are a Democracy.

We need greater efforts to truly inform voters and have them think for themselves. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Patine said:

That as the case may be, they - actually - you, in collective plural - are the taxpayers and the source, along with the component States, of ALL legitimacy, mandate, legality, and empowerment of the U.S. Federal Government. The U.S. Constitution does NOT allow the U.S. Federal Government to be Platonic benign philosopher kings. They are public servants, and take an oath to uphold a Constitution that includes recognizing and honouring these facts. An oath of which they have, arguably, been in violation of and, thus, arguably, have lost legitimacy as the U.S. Federal Government, Constitutionally-speaking, decades ago. Of course, this is only ARGUABLY - but there is a hypothetical case for it, frighteningly enough. The paternalistic view of the U.S. Federal Government, where educated technocrats are deferred to over the voters, and the U.S. Constitution is actually LEGALLY allowed to take a back seat in any way, shape, or form in a crisis, or to be trampled when pressing need arises, as U.S. Federal Administrations have been doing, DE FACTO, for decades, technically cannot legally be done by simple legislative acts or executive orders, but require outright Constitutional Amendments. I, myself, am a proponent of a new Constitutional Convention to make a new document to handle modern needs and challenges of government and the way people live today, don't get me wrong. But, as currently written and the case, the U.S. Constitution does not allow a lot of what the U.S. Federal Government does day in and day out. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say they've become a gallery of criminals by the high laws of their nation. A fresh new Constitutional Convention is the ONLY way out of this mess of endless high crimes of states Federal politicians have maneuvered themselves into. Do you understand what I'm saying, here?

It's not that I don't understand, it's just that you're wrong.

The Founding Fathers created the framework for the government that we have today because putting every single issue possible issue up to public vote was simply not feasible, or desireable. 

I don't really care what public opinion is regarding our foreign policy approach in Syria, if 80% of the polled respondents can't find Syria on a map.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

This statement is a BIG part of the problem and issue I'm speaking of. But I wouldn't expect a Bushist to likely understand... *sigh*

I don't understand how a new Constitutional Convention would teach the average American Geography...but I'd expect nothing less ridiculous from a person who decries the fact that Jimmy Carter isn't in a jail cell.  

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the population can't find Syria on a map, why should they be allowed to vote? Suddenly, voter suppression doesn't seem like such a bad thing after all...

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I would also like to add that they should be property owners who can read 🙋‍♂️

I'm well aware of the racist history behind that law, and therefore can't back it...

But as a former renter (and former homeless person) who has now owned a house for 8 years...yes.  When I was a renter or homeless person, I didn't care about or even notice local politics.

Now that I'm a homeowner (and a dad) I have very strong feelings about the school board, the library levy, the parks levy...

National Politics and state politics should be open to everyone as per the normal rules already in place.  But I do think there's an argument to be made that local politics should be for property owners with a primary residence in that voting district.  

Local politics just lands differently if you know you'll be dealing with the consequences of all actions 10-20 years from now, as opposed to renters who come and go with the wind.

  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...