Interesting poll on potential 2028 candidates (Vance loses his lead to Rubio, AOC ahead of Harris and Newsom)

[Polybius]

Atlas Intel Poll

Republican Primary: Rubio 45, Vance 30, DeSantis 11, Trump Jr. 0

Democratic Primary: Ocasio-Cortez 26, Buttigieg 22, Newsom 21, Harris 13, Shapiro 2

Quite surprising on both ends. I didn't think that Vance would fall to second, although Rubio is a skilled politician in his own way. And Harris in 4th place? Quite odd, she's 1st in most polls.

Here's their Generic Congressional poll results:

Democrats 55, Republicans 40

Whoa, a 15 point lead! That's far bigger than any other poll, where we are usually in the lead by like 5 points or so. 15 would be enough to win 40-60 seats!

Now, before anyone dismisses Atlas Intel, here were some of their swing state (along with Texas and the popular vote) predictions in 2024:

Trump +1 in Wisconsin
Trump +1 in Pennsylvania
Trump +2 in North Carolina
Trump +3 in Nevada
Trump +5 in Arizona
Trump +11 in Texas
Harris +5 in Viriginia
Trump +1 in Popular Vote

[mvd]

1. AOC being President would be a dream come true for me

But we have to see how the polls go from now until 2028 - and also see how she handles running, if she runs.

[RandomNumbers]

5. AOC being the Dem nominee would result in a nightmare for all of us.

Our candidates in 2016 and 2024 were extremely competent and would have been infinitely better than the crook that got elected.

But this misogynistic electorate is NOT about to elect a woman, and especially one who isn't lily-white.

And on top of that, it may not be popular here, but the Dem nominee will have to appeal to a broad swath of voters - and I don't see AOC achieving that. (We need someone who will campaign successfully to the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish we had.)

[mvd]

6. Well, it's a ways away. I'll give her a chance

I for one think we’ve tried to appeal to a broader spectrum TOO much. I think many in the party want change. Is it her time yet? Maybe not, but we’ll see.

[yellow dahlia]

10. Thank you for the reality check.

I would add that the candidate in 2028 has to have a mandate. There has to be no room for a questioning. There has to be no room for an excuse as to why the candidate didn't win.

Let me clarify. It doesn't mean a woman or a gay man can't "win" - I believe they can. BUT if there is any doubt that they may not come with a built in "excuse", the Democratic party has to play it safe. Avoid the potential for an excuse. Kamala didn't lose - BUT they were able to hide their cheating behind the "excuses". I don't believe Hilary lost either.

Run the mandate!

Chris Murphy isn't getting enough mentions. Why? Perhaps because the media isn't focusing on him. Folks need to stop being swayed by the media.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. While encouraging, it should be noted that Atlas is a highly biased RW pollster

They are a newer, smaller, relatively unknown until 2024 polling house.

This poll may be more of a way of attracting attention to Atlas.

It’s possible they are putting their thumb on the scale for Rubio, and AOC’s lead is more for entertainment in seeing the Dem consultant class collectively shit their pants.

Just saying, take these results with a huge grain of salt.

If YouGov or Pew Research starts getting similar results, that will be a real wake up call.

[BeyondGeography]

3. They were the most accurate polling organization in each of the last two presidential elections

They are attracting attention because of it IMO.

[Polybius]

4. It was called biased because certain people here didn't like their poll numbers, and laughed at them

Remember what names I was called for saying Harris could potentially lose the election? In reality, their numbers were spot-on. They were highly accurate in 2020, 2022, and 2024. I'll be watching them heavily in 2026. Here's an interesting thread on Reddit about them, right after the election in 2024.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/1gl0fq7/atlas_intel_absolutely_nailed_it/

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. IIRC, Atlas significantly and consistently over samples Republicans

Who knew in 2024 that 9 million fewer voters, mostly Dems and independents, would not show up compared to 2020?

I think they also predicted republicans would have a 40 seat majority in the house, but nobody talks about that.

From Wikipedia:

Why the "Bias" label persists:Atlas’s heavy reliance on big-data algorithms means that when their weighting models capture the "silent" or anti-establishment voter perfectly, their results look genius. However, when their models overcorrect or misfire, the raw data shows strong conservative-leaning biases that diverge significantly from consensus averages.

[Polybius]

13. "Who knew in 2024 that 9 million fewer voters"

I knew. Voter turnout in 2024 was never going to match the record levels of 2020 because that year was an exceptional case influenced by a pandemic. States significantly broadened and pushed mail-in and early voting options to minimize in-person interactions, sending ballots directly to registered voters, simplifying requirements, and extending deadlines. This encouraged millions who might have otherwise stayed home. The end result was a turnout of about 66%, the highest since 1908.

A lot of those extra voters in 2020 were first-timers or people who usually don’t vote much, motivated specifically by Covid and the relaxed voting rules. Once those temporary measures were rolled back and the health crisis subsided, the spike in convenient voting declined.

In 2024, turnout was still strong, but it didn’t reach the unusual heights of 2020. The electorate returned to normal without the extraordinary factors Covid. Not only did many of the voters from the pandemic era not come back, they weren't expected to.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. What does your crystal ball say about turnout in 2026 vs 2022? Nt

[Polybius]

16. My guess is probably better than 2022, because Trump is so hated

What I was referring to in 2020 vs. 2024 turnout wasn't magic or guessing though. Every major political pollster, commentator, and reporter knew that we were never going to match 2020s numbers in a million years. It's sad, but true.

[gulliver]

7. I really hate "polls."

Nowadays, they're nothing but name recognition registers. We really need some type of forum where legitimate contenders can debate and showcase their merits. Interview format podcasts are no substitute.

[Midwestern Democrat]

9. The Republican side looks realistic (Rubio vs Vance), but the Democratic side is just early name recognition

Of the five Democrats listed, I only see two of them - Newsom and Shapiro - being likely nominees, and I think Mark Kelly - who isn't listed - will be a top contender as well.

[yellow dahlia]

11. Agreed. My top contenders are Mark Kelly and Chris Murphy.

[fujiyamasan]

12. These numbers are kind of amusing

On the democratic side, it’s just name recognition and nothing else driving it. We won’t see anything realistic until after the midterms when it becomes clear who’s running. It’ll be a very wide and open race. I don’t think the party is as suicidal as to nominate AOC for president.

I want someone proven to have won a statewide race. That excludes a former small town mayor and a rep from one of the bluest district in the country.

Rubio overtaking Vance isn’t surprising to me imo. He’s now their golden boy. I also agree he’s more politically skilled and talented than Vance who comes off as a total creep.

[Celerity]

15. It is a massive outlier:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/president-democratic-primary-polls-2028.html