If the “resistance libs” are the wing of the party who thing nothing is actually wrong with the democratic brand, nothing was actually wrong with Biden and it’s he who was wronged, not the democratic voters who were lied to about his cognitive decline and robbed of a chance to select our nominee in 2024, and that the only reason we got Trump 2.0 AND PUSHED OUR COUNTRY TO THE BRINK of complete distraction was because “everyone is being mean to the old guy and the black women and they need a scoldin” then left and center in the party need to have a cease fire for two years unite against them because the far left and the blue dogs have far more in common with each other than whatever the hell that wing is.
Both the left and the abundance would love a cease fire between them - the problem is the terms. The left would want the “compromise” candidate to be AOC, while the abundance dems would want someone like Buttigieg. The result is not really a compromise at all, just an argument about what the compromise should be.
I am on the record as saying I would prefer either of AOC OR Buttigieg to Newsom, since I think the democrats have a communication problem more than a policy problem, but I’m in the minority. Most AOC fans won’t want Buttigieg, and vice versa.
So what was actually wrong with Biden? That he was old? Nate has an irrational hate of Biden which does not really align with the public opinion. Biden is considered a pretty middle of the road president by the scholars.
Yes, he was old, and his cognitive decline was serious enough to make him unfit to be the leader of the country. A fact that everyone eventually faced, even if he did somewhat bitterly. Holding on to power for your own personal sake too long at the expense of a nation is a damning thing. Like a parent who refuses to give up driving and crashes their car, except in this case the car is an entire country. He was a fairly good president, not epic but he did as good as we could have expected given the shit sandwich he had on his hands, but he gets to be judged by the ultimate consequences of his actions, and the ultimate consequences of his actions include Donald Trump. But honestly I don’t have any ill will towards him, anymore than I would a parent or grandparent who had early onset dementia. This isn’t really about Biden, it’s about the totality of how the end of his presidency was handled by the establishment, and the utter failure of leadership at every step of the game, including the refusal to give their voters a chance to decide. Had the democratic base actually voted to nominate Kamala Harris, I think she would have won, as flawed as a candidate as she is. But voters don’t like being “daddy knows best” by the octengarian ruling class.
“Better than Trump” means nothing. Whatever he has, it was clear to everyone who was willing to look objectively that he was not fit to be president. What alienated voters the most wasn’t that, it was the gaslighting - like this comment. Telling voters to ignore what’s in front of their eyes because you don’t think it’s fair is the quickest way to lose elections. You clearly represent the wing of the Democratic Party who doesn’t care about winning elections
One thing I could think about was how badly he handled the border crisis and that alone alienated many immigrants.
I didn't like Biden that much because he promised to "heal the difference" but ended up embracing the progressive wing of the party. Bad timing pushing a lot of those ideas when normal folks increasingly struggled with their personal finances
Regarding Biden and his legacy, I can’t speak for Newsom because I can’t read his mind, but I think the main reason why some people people refuse to forget Biden and move on is because they genuinely believe what they say about him.
I happen to be one of those people. If I was a politician and you asked me who I consider the best president of the 21st century, I’d say Biden. Not as some sort of political move to appease someone, but because that’s what I actually believe.
Generally, I think it's too early to look to who the Democratic party will nominate for 2028. It's like asking people now what they want for Xmas dinner. The focus is more now, more on the midterms, more on affordability. Or like asking a 20 year old if they want to have kids if and when they get married. The question AND the answer is premature.
Secondly, I think there is a failure to recognize how large the percentage is of independents (aka "unaffiliated" voters). I think independents are largely "undecided" so they are the key population in the key 10-15 states that have the potential to determine the midterms and the 2028 elections.
So the polling doesn't focus on the data that is relevant.
BTW, I don't think Kamala has a prayer nor does Buttigieg in 2028. I think the future is foggy!
"The question AND the answer is premature." I think this is a very thoughtful point. It's like asking kids what they want to be when they grow up --- just to laugh at their inappropriate and unlikely choices, I suppose. Not a nice thing to do, to ask questions that can't possibly be answered sensibly at the time.
The future is always foggy, always dependent on the wild and free present. Nate Silver doesn't think Trump's people can do a Three-peat, but he does caveat that with the possibility that Trump could get more popular (even than he is now, which I think Nate underestimates). A lot of people have started saying the Dems need a Trump (because winning is the thing) ----- a populist, like Bernie, but maybe not a socialist. Newsom, no populist, could drop from sight entirely, like Jeb Bush.
"Reversion to the mean" -- one of my favorite mathy concepts. [:-) My father taught it to me forever ago and I find it continually useful in life. Taleb wrote about that and so did Kahneman. (Re: Newsom's decline in polls.)
I also really liked this: "They’re less ideological than they are partisan, a distinction that sometimes gets lost." Nice! Yes, I'm definitely a lot more partisan than ideological. I think that's an issue that does move elections. Who are you FOR? Whose side are you on? Vote that way. Forget the nitty-gritty.
Very interesting extended analysis of people who still like Biden --- and I'm right in that like-Biden demographic, even though I'm Republican, and I always did like him. Of course I would never have voted for him!!!! What an awful thought, with all his terrible policies crippling our country. But, you know, nice old white man, seemed gentle, well-mannered and calm, always so beautifully turned out, I dismissed all the carry-on about his falling and such as just partisan enemy action, just ageism, just, just. I never accepted there WAS a problem with senility until the morning after the infamous debate, when I watched it, and oops, guess I was wrong. Even after, I liked his determination to hang in there. Strength. So I found that an interesting set of tables here.
I think Biden still benefits from the "he's not Trump" vote; that will fade with time. Hilarious that he is being portrayed as "well-mannered and calm" when his MO for the first two-thirds of his career was that of a self-regarding, thin-skinned blowhard constantly overselling his accomplishments. First in his class!
As you said, get over Biden. There's simply no virtue in continuing to dissect him. The vast majority of democrats have no such interest. And probably a near majority of registered democrats doesn't even know who Newsom is! And why no mention of Pritzker who could actually himself and his family fund a national campaign, primary and general, when cash will again be king....and all the other candidates have next to know cash...at least for now. And while I'm at it, stop talking about AOC, Harris and Buttigieg, there's not the remotest chance any of them will be the nominee.
I would appreciate it if Nate would explain his cryptic reference in footnote 1 to Newsom as the "architect" of policies that have caused people to leave California. The link provided goes to an older column by Nate about Ezra Klein appearing on Newsom's podcast to promote his book on "Abundance." That older Nate column depicts Newsom as endorsing Klein's abundance politics as an antidote to administrative red tape that has gotten in the way of implementing policy solutions, so it doesn't exactly explain the "architect" label.
I get that as governor of the state for 8 years, Newsom will have to own the state's failures whether he caused them or not, but as a Californian my perception is of Newsom generally trying to battle against administrative red tape. I agree that he should have been more successful and that California's perceived dysfunction is what will likely doom his campaign. But to call him the "architect" of environmental and zoning policies that long pre-dated him that have helped strangle housing development and the infamous high speed rail among other things requires at least a couple of proof points. Hopefully a better explanation will be forthcoming.
Wow, how the Big Dog has fallen in the estimation of the faithful. It's kind of interesting how in thrall they still are to Obama yet I can't see his policy handbook winning over a majority of Democratic voters in the hands of another candidate. Newsom is a nonstarter with 80% of Americans; he's just too oleaginous for most of the country and California is a dystopia unless your last name is Iger. Where is Governor Andy??
There’s some good analysis here - but the main point is not that certain scenarios produce mediocre candidates - it’s that all we have are mediocre candidates.
Obama is an impossible comparison for any candidate - and there is no one in the field with anything like his talent. Pundits tend to downgrade “candidate quality” as a factor, but Obama has set an absurd standard, and the ordinariness of most humans is what we are left with.
We yearn for promising replacements - Pete, Newsome, Ossoff, AOC - but they will never measure up because they do not have that combination of substance, skill and appeal that spoiled us.
The splintered polling is to be expected and is unlikely to change much as the 2028 process nears. The last 3 D nominees were incredibly poor in overall candidate quality (with strengths here and there of course), and this is the norm, for both parties.
Why are Gallego, Talarico, or Roy Cooper not mentioned more in these polls? If Talarico or Cooper win in november they should be at the top of the list
Very noteworthy posting. I am a most happy subscriber. I wish Mark Kelly were viewed more favorably. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I also think a Mark Kelly and Gretchen Whitmer ticket would be wonderful. She has been a great governor for Michigan. Probably just wishing and hoping...
Shapiro could win a general election, but will never win the primary.
After seeing how California has performed under his stewardship, with businesses leaving and losing congressional seats due to population declines, it’s almost impossible to envision how Newsome would make a coherent policy argument in the general. Maybe his good looks and pretty hair can get him through the primary, but color me skeptical that Dem primary voters are *that* shallow.
Can we all agree that Kamala has precisely zero chance of winning an open primary race?
The Democrats need an outsider. Just like the Right supported Trum they need an outsider. Or else it is no use, Rubio or Vance will be the next president.
If the “resistance libs” are the wing of the party who thing nothing is actually wrong with the democratic brand, nothing was actually wrong with Biden and it’s he who was wronged, not the democratic voters who were lied to about his cognitive decline and robbed of a chance to select our nominee in 2024, and that the only reason we got Trump 2.0 AND PUSHED OUR COUNTRY TO THE BRINK of complete distraction was because “everyone is being mean to the old guy and the black women and they need a scoldin” then left and center in the party need to have a cease fire for two years unite against them because the far left and the blue dogs have far more in common with each other than whatever the hell that wing is.
Both the left and the abundance would love a cease fire between them - the problem is the terms. The left would want the “compromise” candidate to be AOC, while the abundance dems would want someone like Buttigieg. The result is not really a compromise at all, just an argument about what the compromise should be.
I am on the record as saying I would prefer either of AOC OR Buttigieg to Newsom, since I think the democrats have a communication problem more than a policy problem, but I’m in the minority. Most AOC fans won’t want Buttigieg, and vice versa.
So what was actually wrong with Biden? That he was old? Nate has an irrational hate of Biden which does not really align with the public opinion. Biden is considered a pretty middle of the road president by the scholars.
If Biden had been a good president then Trump would not have won in '24.
Yes, he was old, and his cognitive decline was serious enough to make him unfit to be the leader of the country. A fact that everyone eventually faced, even if he did somewhat bitterly. Holding on to power for your own personal sake too long at the expense of a nation is a damning thing. Like a parent who refuses to give up driving and crashes their car, except in this case the car is an entire country. He was a fairly good president, not epic but he did as good as we could have expected given the shit sandwich he had on his hands, but he gets to be judged by the ultimate consequences of his actions, and the ultimate consequences of his actions include Donald Trump. But honestly I don’t have any ill will towards him, anymore than I would a parent or grandparent who had early onset dementia. This isn’t really about Biden, it’s about the totality of how the end of his presidency was handled by the establishment, and the utter failure of leadership at every step of the game, including the refusal to give their voters a chance to decide. Had the democratic base actually voted to nominate Kamala Harris, I think she would have won, as flawed as a candidate as she is. But voters don’t like being “daddy knows best” by the octengarian ruling class.
Biden also doesn’t have dementia. If he had age related decline it didn’t affect his governance nearly to the same extent that Trump’s does
“Better than Trump” means nothing. Whatever he has, it was clear to everyone who was willing to look objectively that he was not fit to be president. What alienated voters the most wasn’t that, it was the gaslighting - like this comment. Telling voters to ignore what’s in front of their eyes because you don’t think it’s fair is the quickest way to lose elections. You clearly represent the wing of the Democratic Party who doesn’t care about winning elections
It wasn’t obvious at all. This is what the press wanted you to believe
The parent crashing the car is Trump though. None of it would have happened if Harris won which was totally possible
Trump 2024 IS Biden’s legacy, and no one who refuses to accept that should be anywhere near the process of deciding the party’s future
One thing I could think about was how badly he handled the border crisis and that alone alienated many immigrants.
I didn't like Biden that much because he promised to "heal the difference" but ended up embracing the progressive wing of the party. Bad timing pushing a lot of those ideas when normal folks increasingly struggled with their personal finances
The economy was better than it is now though
People couldn't see the future but they did experience the crash and hyperinflation in 2022/2023.
Regarding Biden and his legacy, I can’t speak for Newsom because I can’t read his mind, but I think the main reason why some people people refuse to forget Biden and move on is because they genuinely believe what they say about him.
I happen to be one of those people. If I was a politician and you asked me who I consider the best president of the 21st century, I’d say Biden. Not as some sort of political move to appease someone, but because that’s what I actually believe.
Generally, I think it's too early to look to who the Democratic party will nominate for 2028. It's like asking people now what they want for Xmas dinner. The focus is more now, more on the midterms, more on affordability. Or like asking a 20 year old if they want to have kids if and when they get married. The question AND the answer is premature.
Secondly, I think there is a failure to recognize how large the percentage is of independents (aka "unaffiliated" voters). I think independents are largely "undecided" so they are the key population in the key 10-15 states that have the potential to determine the midterms and the 2028 elections.
So the polling doesn't focus on the data that is relevant.
BTW, I don't think Kamala has a prayer nor does Buttigieg in 2028. I think the future is foggy!
"The question AND the answer is premature." I think this is a very thoughtful point. It's like asking kids what they want to be when they grow up --- just to laugh at their inappropriate and unlikely choices, I suppose. Not a nice thing to do, to ask questions that can't possibly be answered sensibly at the time.
The future is always foggy, always dependent on the wild and free present. Nate Silver doesn't think Trump's people can do a Three-peat, but he does caveat that with the possibility that Trump could get more popular (even than he is now, which I think Nate underestimates). A lot of people have started saying the Dems need a Trump (because winning is the thing) ----- a populist, like Bernie, but maybe not a socialist. Newsom, no populist, could drop from sight entirely, like Jeb Bush.
"Reversion to the mean" -- one of my favorite mathy concepts. [:-) My father taught it to me forever ago and I find it continually useful in life. Taleb wrote about that and so did Kahneman. (Re: Newsom's decline in polls.)
I also really liked this: "They’re less ideological than they are partisan, a distinction that sometimes gets lost." Nice! Yes, I'm definitely a lot more partisan than ideological. I think that's an issue that does move elections. Who are you FOR? Whose side are you on? Vote that way. Forget the nitty-gritty.
Very interesting extended analysis of people who still like Biden --- and I'm right in that like-Biden demographic, even though I'm Republican, and I always did like him. Of course I would never have voted for him!!!! What an awful thought, with all his terrible policies crippling our country. But, you know, nice old white man, seemed gentle, well-mannered and calm, always so beautifully turned out, I dismissed all the carry-on about his falling and such as just partisan enemy action, just ageism, just, just. I never accepted there WAS a problem with senility until the morning after the infamous debate, when I watched it, and oops, guess I was wrong. Even after, I liked his determination to hang in there. Strength. So I found that an interesting set of tables here.
I think Biden still benefits from the "he's not Trump" vote; that will fade with time. Hilarious that he is being portrayed as "well-mannered and calm" when his MO for the first two-thirds of his career was that of a self-regarding, thin-skinned blowhard constantly overselling his accomplishments. First in his class!
As you said, get over Biden. There's simply no virtue in continuing to dissect him. The vast majority of democrats have no such interest. And probably a near majority of registered democrats doesn't even know who Newsom is! And why no mention of Pritzker who could actually himself and his family fund a national campaign, primary and general, when cash will again be king....and all the other candidates have next to know cash...at least for now. And while I'm at it, stop talking about AOC, Harris and Buttigieg, there's not the remotest chance any of them will be the nominee.
I would appreciate it if Nate would explain his cryptic reference in footnote 1 to Newsom as the "architect" of policies that have caused people to leave California. The link provided goes to an older column by Nate about Ezra Klein appearing on Newsom's podcast to promote his book on "Abundance." That older Nate column depicts Newsom as endorsing Klein's abundance politics as an antidote to administrative red tape that has gotten in the way of implementing policy solutions, so it doesn't exactly explain the "architect" label.
I get that as governor of the state for 8 years, Newsom will have to own the state's failures whether he caused them or not, but as a Californian my perception is of Newsom generally trying to battle against administrative red tape. I agree that he should have been more successful and that California's perceived dysfunction is what will likely doom his campaign. But to call him the "architect" of environmental and zoning policies that long pre-dated him that have helped strangle housing development and the infamous high speed rail among other things requires at least a couple of proof points. Hopefully a better explanation will be forthcoming.
Wow, how the Big Dog has fallen in the estimation of the faithful. It's kind of interesting how in thrall they still are to Obama yet I can't see his policy handbook winning over a majority of Democratic voters in the hands of another candidate. Newsom is a nonstarter with 80% of Americans; he's just too oleaginous for most of the country and California is a dystopia unless your last name is Iger. Where is Governor Andy??
How can you fail to mention Newsome’s utter vacuity and incompetence for rational governance?
Begs the question “ how insane are Democrats”?
There’s some good analysis here - but the main point is not that certain scenarios produce mediocre candidates - it’s that all we have are mediocre candidates.
Obama is an impossible comparison for any candidate - and there is no one in the field with anything like his talent. Pundits tend to downgrade “candidate quality” as a factor, but Obama has set an absurd standard, and the ordinariness of most humans is what we are left with.
We yearn for promising replacements - Pete, Newsome, Ossoff, AOC - but they will never measure up because they do not have that combination of substance, skill and appeal that spoiled us.
The splintered polling is to be expected and is unlikely to change much as the 2028 process nears. The last 3 D nominees were incredibly poor in overall candidate quality (with strengths here and there of course), and this is the norm, for both parties.
We should stop being surprised.
Why are Gallego, Talarico, or Roy Cooper not mentioned more in these polls? If Talarico or Cooper win in november they should be at the top of the list
Very noteworthy posting. I am a most happy subscriber. I wish Mark Kelly were viewed more favorably. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I also think a Mark Kelly and Gretchen Whitmer ticket would be wonderful. She has been a great governor for Michigan. Probably just wishing and hoping...
Shapiro could win a general election, but will never win the primary.
After seeing how California has performed under his stewardship, with businesses leaving and losing congressional seats due to population declines, it’s almost impossible to envision how Newsome would make a coherent policy argument in the general. Maybe his good looks and pretty hair can get him through the primary, but color me skeptical that Dem primary voters are *that* shallow.
Can we all agree that Kamala has precisely zero chance of winning an open primary race?
The Democrats need an outsider. Just like the Right supported Trum they need an outsider. Or else it is no use, Rubio or Vance will be the next president.
How about Graham Platner or Adul Al Sayed .