Observations On The Rasmussen Poll Showing Trump Crushing Biden If The Election Were Held Today

First of all, polls.

The one in question is Rasmussen, which is the among the few polling organizations that do not have a perpetual left-wing bias, and that may have a conservative political bias. It is also worth noting that the election will not be held today, or even this year. Thus it is in the category of fake news that Ethics Alarms calls “future news.”

Many doubt, with some justification, that Joe Biden will last as President until 2024. He’s 79, and before this year is out will turn 80, what my father called the threshold to “the red zone,” when anyone that ancient or older faces a not insubstantial daily risk of dropping dead with little or no warning. Dad made it to 89 before dying—unexpectedly—during a nap, but he looked and seemed a lot healthier and less on the decline than Joe these days. Comedian Bob Saget was just 65 when his time ran out last week, also without warning, and he wasn’t even in the yellow zone.

Trump is no spring chicken either. He’ll be 76 this Spring: would you want to bet the farm that he’ll make 78 sufficiently hale and hearty to run a vigorous campaign, hold chatty rallies, and insult everyone who disagrees with him daily? The life expectancy of a 78-year-old male now is less than 10 years. That’s cutting it close. I’ll keep that farm, thanks.

Oh yeah, about the poll. A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey concluded that if the election were held today, 40% of likely U.S. voters would vote for President Biden, and 46% would vote for the previous POTUS, a large advantage.  10% say they would choose some other candidate in a Biden-Trump rematch, which doesn’t mean much: nobody knows who those other candidates might be, or if there will be any worthy of attention. If the also-rans are no better than the pathetic alternatives who were on the 2016 ballot, 10% is a highly inflated number.

Trump would get 81% support from GOP voters—that’s against Biden, remember: he’d get almost 100% when if he ran against, say, a piece of cheese. Biden would get 75% of Democrats, which is low for a party’s incumbent President.  With  independent voters, however, Trump would win today by a 16-point margin,  45% to Biden’s 29%.

Other observations that flow from this data…

  • 53% of voters under 40 have a favorable impression of Biden. That’s depressing: what exactly do they favor? The sparkling energy? The deft rhetoric? The impressive results of his policies? His delivery on his pledge to unite the nation? The number indicates that younger voters are not paying attention, and are so biased that facts cannot alter their magical thinking.
  • Older voters have a favorable view of Trump, and not just as compared to Biden. This has to indicate their tendency to ignore the news media, most of which has been joining Democrats and the “resistance” in representing Trump as a demon who crawled up from Hell to destroy democracy, who never did anything praiseworthy as President and who must be stopped no matter what basic principles of ethics are stomped in the process, for the greater good.
  • Overall, 51% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of  Trump, signalling mass distrust of the news media. The number also indicates mass muddled values, because this is not an admirable human being. It is fortunate that so many have learned the right lessons regarding our broken journalism from the past five years (and earlier), but a disaster that we have no reliable sources of information. That really does imperil a democracy, and a lot more than Trump does or can, even if he were as evil as the relentless narrative has it.
  • If the election were held today, according to Rasmussen, Trump would beat Biden by an 11-point margin among voters without a college education. This doesn’t show that smart people support Biden and the uneducated support Trump; it shows that the current ideological indoctrination system that our higher education has become “works” just the way the Left planned it.  Yet even college-educated voters would split 45% for Trump and 42% for Biden.
  • Highlighting the fantasy quality of the poll are the results that most of those polled, including those who would vote for Biden over Trump, don’t see Joe serving  a second term. A sitting President who wanted to run again hasn’t been denied the opportunity since Chester A. Arthur, and he wasn’t elected in the first place. Before him, the previous dumped President was Rutherford B. Hayes, but he wasn’t really elected either (that election was rigged), and his name wasn’t even placed into nomination at the 1880 Republican convention. Yet it is easy to see Biden finding himself in a similar position to President Lyndon Johnson, who dropped out of the race when the metaphorical writing on the wall became impossible to ignore: the fight for the 1968 Democratic nomination was going to be ugly and bloody, LBJ was unpopular, and likely to lose. Things could change, but the depth of Biden’s peril was illustrated vividly yesterday when pundits started talking about Hillary Clinton as a desirable alternative to Joe. Yikes. Where’s Gene McCarthy when you need him?
  • The poll also tells us that while social media banning a former President was undemocratic and a breach of the principle of free speech (which progressives do not like or properly respect any more) it helped Trump. If there were ever an example of the old saying, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder,” Trump is it. When he was tweeting every day (or every minute), Trump constantly reminded the world what a meataxe-reasoning jerk he was, if occasionally a deliberately funny one, and me of how ill-suited he is to be the leader of any nation with aspirations of creating an ethical culture. Silenced to some extent, it has been easier to view him favorably in the rear view mirror, especially in comparison to Biden (and Harris). But like the  gag  with the T-Rex chasing the Jeep in “Jurassic Park” when we see the terrifying creature’s reflection in the mirror that reads “Objects are larger than they appear,” Trump is more of a problem than that faulty mirror reveals.
  • He reminded us of that yesterday, when Trump was briefly interviewed by NPR and before he cut it short prematurely. He made typically obnoxious and simplistic assertions in the junior high school-level rhetoric we have come to know and…well, know. Referring to South Dakota’s Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican, who had just stated that Biden won a “fair” election and the Trump was wrong to deny it, the Trump-Rex  called Rounds  a “jerk,” “weak,” “ineffective,” a RINO, and “crazy or just stupid,” leaving his argument in ad hominem territory without making any substantive rebuttals at all. Then he moved on to Mitch McConnell, whom he once again called a “loser.” He managed to avoid the topic of Rosie O’Donnell.
    NPR then had all the ammunition it needed to post a nasty attack on Trump with its usual  biased flair, further confusing the issue of the 2020 election. Yes, there is no question that Biden won, and for Trump to keep denying that is irresponsible and, frankly, stupid. The election was also “free and fair,” in that both candidates and their parties faced the same rules and conditions on election day. However, one cannot legitimately say Trump (or anyone else) is “lying” when they opine that the election was “stolen.” There is definitely not sufficient or convincing evidence that Trump would have won had he received fair coverage from the news media, had it not buried alarming revelations and allegations relating to Biden, and had it not cheered on a contrived impeachment and unconscionable investigation. However, it is not unreasonable to believe that without these factors, Trump would have won. The election certainly would have been closer. Similarly, there is a distinction between the election being “free and fair” and it being trustworthy. No election allowing widespread use of mail-in ballots can be trustworthy—that’s too “free.” This is why so many people doubt the 2020 results and have valid reasons to do so.  If Donald Trump were capable of clear speech (or thought), he could have helped clarify this crucial point. But he isn’t capable, and every time he opens his mouth, he proves it, allowing NPR and its allies to distort the issues.

12 thoughts on “Observations On The Rasmussen Poll Showing Trump Crushing Biden If The Election Were Held Today

  1. “53% of voters under 40 have a favorable impression of Biden. That’s depressing: what exactly do they favor? The sparkling energy? The deft rhetoric? The impressive results of his policies? His delivery on his pledge to unite the nation? The number indicates that younger voters are not paying attention, and are so biased that facts cannot alter their magical thinking.”

    What do they favor? The fact that he’s not Trump and the letter next to his name. It’s really that simple. A lot of the young voters would vote for a ham sandwich over Trump.

    • Having conversations with our teenager and other younger people about politics reveals to me that, at least in their cohorts, the general notion about why they support democrats is just that they’ve always heard that Republicans are racist, hate poor people and don’t like “thinking differently”.

      When pressed about how they know this, it almost always boils down to teachers, pop culture, and media.

      So no, the young people are not “thoughtfully” supporting Biden. They support some vision they think opposes “racism, harming the poor and close mindedness”.

      The Leftwing cabal that has quietly conquered the means of propaganda since the cold war began has won.

    • “What do they favor? The fact that he’s not Trump and the letter next to his name. It’s really that simple.”

      I don’t think that’s limited to age either. I speak with family on the West Coast and I can hear them repeating CNN talking points. And they don’t watch CNN! Trump Bad is so permeated throughout their atmosphere that they accept it unquestioningly.

      If I ask a question they quickly get angry because they have no facts. That went back to the Obama administration when I pointed out his incompetence and constantly moving red line. But, but, Republicans are evil. It becomes impossible to have a rational conversation. Disagree with me, but have facts to support “your” view.

  2. “Overall, 51% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Trump, signalling mass distrust of the news media. The number also indicates mass muddled values, because this is not an admirable human being. It is fortunate that so many have learned the right lessons regarding our broken journalism from the past five years (and earlier), but a disaster that we have no reliable sources of information.”

    I disagree that this is a case of muddled values for most of the 51%. First, when given questions like this, the nature of the question, answer, and situation is going to cause a certain amount to bump their opinion of Trump up a little. Nuance is not really favored in polls.

    However, I think the biggest part of viewing Trump positively is cognitive dissonance, which thanks to Ethics Alarms, I am recognizing more and more in my life. I recently got a good idea from someone I can’t stand and it took a Herculean effort to accept that suggestion on its own merits, and it’s got a lot of merits.

    If I am trying to get quick answers from my brain, Trump gets a positive spin because of the news media. If I have a moment to think, to analyze, to use my ethics alarms, Trump falls pretty low due to his extreme flaws. It truly is the media’s fault, I think, that Trump, a very flawed man, is viewed so positively. If Maddow and Blow hate him so much, he must be a saint, right?

  3. “[P]undits started talking about Hillary Clinton as a desirable alternative to Joe.”

    I think that should read “A long-time Clintonista, Doug Schoen and a Dem local NYC politician started talking about Hillary Clinton as a desirable alternative to Joe in a piece obviously paid for by the Clintons.” The Clintons and their fellow travelers and enablers are like cockroaches. They are extremely difficult to kill. What editor would publish a Clinton paid for trial balloon as an “opinion piece?” By the way, the piece defaults to the tired absurdity that HRC is the most experienced woman in the world. Where were these guys in 2016? Weren’t they paying attention? And they also said Hillary won the popular vote! Next, they’ll say she also has a victory speech that’s already been written! Take that, Donald J. Trump!

    • Here’s more on the NYC pol/co-author of the pablum: “Stein was Manhattan borough president from 1978 through 1985, and then was City Council president from 1986 through 1993. He also pleaded guilty to his involvement in a Ponzi scheme involving Ken Starr and was sentenced to 500 hours of community service.” Just your standard issue Clintonista.

  4. One thing for certain is that when presidential polls plummet, the risk to lives and livelihoods of people and families in easy-to-air-strike 3rd world nations increases dramatically.

      • I’m even more cynical than that. I don’t want to go into details of why Russia and China are delaying on both of their territorial interests. Perhaps a gamble? Americans traditionally rally around a President in war. Both Russia and China demonstrably want Democrat administrations – we know Biden from Obama’s “wait until I’m reelected” administration friendliness with Russians and that the CCP basically owns the Biden family.

        If it looks like the DNC is going to get shellacked in 2022 (presuming they don’t get the election fixing legislation they’re angling for to never lose an election again), then Russia and China could time an attack on Ukraine or the Baltics and Taiwan at the right time for Biden to “respond” strongly enough to rally electoral support for his congressional cohorts. But not strongly enough to actually blunt their interests before the election, then post 2022, a boosted DNC can quietly “resolve” a Russia and China situation without any real stopping of them.

        That’s cynical.

  5. Hillary is only a year younger than Trump.

    When did our country decide that being a Social Security recipient for a decade was a requirement for our national leaders? Are we just going to skip over the boomers?

    At least Kamala Harris, while she is one of the least qualified VPs in generations, still has a ways to go before she signs up for Medicare.

    Let’s put it another way. When Ron Desantis was born, Joe Biden was already old enough to be President. From Biden to Desantis is just a skoch under two full generations.

    I could go on, but you get my drift.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.