Uncle Joe up 50% - 42% against Trump in Ohio according to a Quinnipiac poll. It matches national polls and makes OH the bellweather state for this particular match-up. This is better numbers than Hillary pulled off even back in 2015 when Trump was an unknown quantity to primary voters, let alone GE voters.

If Uncle Joe manages to hold up and clinches the nomination, we could be watching a high 300s EVs victory, perhaps matching Bill Clinton's. Of course, Biden could fall victim to attack ads in the generals... or Trump's numbers deteriorate even more due to the slowing economy etc.

With that self-defeating attitude, not sure much can be done.

Unlikely. If Biden does end up being the nominee things will probably tighten up and Biden winning in the high 300 is very unlikely. Best case scenario for Biden is in the low 300s and most likely case for him is I'm the high 200s.

Lol. I don't think anybody will beat a standing President with high 300's in electoral votes.
I'm also curious, what have the polling places done to actually improve their polling capabilities? The last election pretty clearly showed they are severely flawed.

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for being concerned.

If it's just that "they said Trump was unlikely to win and he did" I'd say that being wrong on something once in statistics/polling doesn't mean your methodology is flawed. If I tell you something has a 20% chance of happening and an 80% chance of not happening is there an issue if we try it once and it happens? No, you only have one event so it happening or not does not prove or disprove a prediction that said it was unlikely. 

Trump himself got low 300s in 2016... losing the elections 48% to 46%. Average polling showed a +6 Dem advantage in 2018, lower than Biden's in the polls, and Dems would have gotten mid 300s EVs if that were a presidential election (more, on all likehood, since their House of Representatives votes have been lagged their presidential votes for what, the last three or four elections?).

@Baalzamon: Carter and Bush Sr. were ousted from the presidency with low 400s and high 300s respectively. Granted, less polarization and all of that, back then, but both also had disapproval ratings well below or at most matching Trump's during most of their presidencies. Also... the end result was well within the margin of error of most polls, and those match-ups including Stein and Johnson were specially accurate. It's just that nobody expected third-party votes to come home or Trump's strength in the Rust Belt (speculated time and time again in the elections) to materialize.

EDIT - It should not be a particularly difficult election to win as long as the Democratic Party plays their cards well like 2006 - 2008. Nominating a centrist or at least a populist would go a long way to victory, instead of supporting policies which are literally less appealing than White Nationalism to American voters (such as abolishing private healthcare, busing, reparations, UBI, all of which have ~ 25% support or so).

This is an overstatement. The last week of the 2016 election most polls showed Clinton ahead by 2-4 points with a handful showing Trump up by 1-2 points. Clinton won the popular vote by around 2 points. The polls were wrong but they were not that far off. State to state polling showed the race getting really close that last couple of days leading up to the election aswell.

"Trump himself got low 300s in 2016... losing the elections 48% to 46%. Average polling showed a +6 Dem advantage in 2018, lower than Biden's in the polls, and Dems would have gotten mid 300s EVs if that were a presidential election (more, on all likehood, since their House of Representatives votes have been lagged their presidential votes for what, the last three or four elections?)."

Trump wasnt running in 2018 and his approval among those that voted in the 2018 midterms was 47% (+1 higher than his 46% in 2016). That was during a midterm year when it's normal for the sittinggs Presidents party to have lower turnout than usual. If 2018 was a presidential election you can't really make that apples to apples comparison because in some states a Republican might have won the Governorship whiel a Democrat wins the Senate and vise versa.

" It should not be a particularly difficult election to win as long as the Democratic Party plays their cards well like 2006 - 2008. Nominating a centrist or at least a populist would go a long way to victory, instead of supporting policies which are literally less appealing than White Nationalism to American voters (such as abolishing private healthcare, busing, reparations, UBI, all of which have ~ 25% support or so)."

It's going to be hard to beat a sitting President that's raising an absurd amount of money regardless of who the candidate is. A centrist might not be the best choice because they could aliens the more progressive base. A populist would be interesting to see though. A right wing populist versus a left wing populist would lead to crazy turnout.

If the economy continues to do well, Trump will be re-elected. I don't recall a sitting president with a good economy getting bumped from office.

I don't think it's that simple. Trump can definitely still lose even with a good economy. It's still too early to since since there isn't a Democrat nominee yet.