Talk Elections

2020 primary Joe Biden: 21%, Mark Cuban: 7%, Kamala Harris: 6%, Cory Booker: 4%, Don’t Know: 43%

Favorability

Bernie 47/47
Biden 53/41
Pence 44/48
Trump 44/54

https://twitter.com/GravisMarketing/status/896447760353898496

This looks like a god f***ing awful poll.

Great to see from a gold-standard polling firm.

Here are the full Dem. primary #s:

Biden 21%
Cuban 7%
Harris 6%
Booker 4%
Gillibrand 2%
Cuomo 1%
Klobuchar 1%
[ Don't Know 43% ]

All polls three years from the election are bound to be pretty trashy, honestly.

If this Generic D fellow does as well as he polls, this is the result (using a universal swing from 2016), Texas is the closest state, going D by .2%


http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/36Ey3.png

What's the other vote?

A faithless elector. I was being conservative in assuming that there would be only one faithless elector, considering there were 7 (or 8?) in 2016.

Great poll!

Ah ok

Seems like a silly assumption. 2016 was a record breaking year in terms of faithless electors. There were more faithless electors than even the civil rights era. Normally there aren't any.

Good God. It took so long before publishing a new 2020 poll while the polls for the 2016 election were very frequent in 2013.

I would believe these numbers if Cuban weren't so high...

I have a hard time seeing Texas go Democratic before Iowa and ME-02.

Bad sign for Dems that the generic D is polling at the exact % that HRC got. Suggests that Trump is losing support but that those voters are not moving to them.

Gravis should be shot into the sun.

If someone of high status or with considerable connections wanted to mount an independent Presidential bid, 2020 might be a good year.

Depends on whether you think 2016 was the start of a trend, or just an aberration.

Polling at this stage means almost nothing. That said, GRAVIS tends to be a very conservative-leaning polling organization, so seeing Generic D polling that high could be considered as a good sign.

This. Cuban at 7%? lmao

>Gravis.

Also, lol Bernie favorable number. Differs massively with every other poll.

They didn't even poll Bernie or Warren against the rest of the (potential) field.

How do you possibly not test some of the most talked about candidates? If this and that whole Montana fiasco doesn't establish gravis is a joke pollster, I don't know what will.

Actually I think Texas is more vulnerable than Iowa largely due to demographics.  It is far more urban and generally urban areas are much more likely to oppose Trump than rural.  Also Texas is a minority-majority state while Iowa is one of the few that is still over 90% white and despite Trump's low approval rating I still expect he will win the white vote in 2020 (note Lyndon Johnson is the only Democrat post WWII to win the white vote and likewise Romney won the white vote by 20 points, McCain by 12 and both still lost handidly).  I think in the future you will increasingly see it go along racial lines with the more racially mixed areas going Democrat and the whiter areas going Republican.

Nah, Generic D leading Trump by 9% is pretty remarkable. Usually polls include a decent amount of undecideds so that election results often exceed the raw polling margins. Even if you split the undecideds in this poll one third to D and two thirds to Trump/others, the Democrat is still winning by a healthy margin. However: A "generic D" national poll with a relative small sample size three years before the election is pretty meaningless. Right now, it only reflects the president's poor approval ratings. And we're still in his first year. This is the bad news for Trump, but Democrats should not take victory for granted.

Who is a Generic D?