USAT/Suffolk Democratic Primary Poll: Most want someone entirely new
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:08:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  USAT/Suffolk Democratic Primary Poll: Most want someone entirely new
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: USAT/Suffolk Democratic Primary Poll: Most want someone entirely new  (Read 1871 times)
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 21, 2016, 03:17:55 PM »
« edited: December 21, 2016, 03:23:48 PM by Castro »

Not a standard horse-race poll, but a "who are you excited by" poll.

"For each, please tell me whether you would be excited to see this person run, it would make no difference, or whether you would prefer that person didn’t run."

Excited/No Difference/Shouldn't Run:

Someone entirely new - 66/20/9
Joe Biden - 43/22/31
Elizabeth Warren - 34/23/27
Bernie Sanders - 44/17/38
Deval Patrick - 10/22/15
Hillary Clinton - 23/15/62


I'm not sure why they polled Deval Patrick instead of, you know, literally anyone else.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/21/democrats-running-for-president-2020/95651728/
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/12_21_2016_complete_marginals.pdf
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2016, 03:27:31 PM »

Someone entirely new:

Logged
JA
Jacobin American
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2016, 03:35:38 PM »


If you want to tear the Progressive movement apart, then yeah, go for that.

As for the poll, I find it shameful Democrats don't yet appear to have anyone new that's being seriously considered yet. I have tons of respect for all of those people polled, to varying degrees, but I agree with the majority. We need someone new.
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,422
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2016, 03:47:32 PM »

Very, very bad for Warren.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2016, 04:04:07 PM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2016, 04:06:45 PM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.


Especially since she would likely be the direct recipient of most of Bernie's support should he not run (which seems probable).
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2016, 04:18:58 PM »


Flipping your hair and trying to be cute doesn't make for a good candidate. Besides that she's not even good material for the Democratic nomination.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2016, 04:23:29 PM »

As for the poll, I find it shameful Democrats don't yet appear to have anyone new that's being seriously considered yet. I have tons of respect for all of those people polled, to varying degrees, but I agree with the majority. We need someone new.

I'm not sure what makes it "shameful", nor am I sure what counts as "being seriously considered yet", nor am I sure what counts as "new".  Tongue

Most of the potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates ultimately chose not to run, assuming that Clinton had the nomination all but locked up, so what was the point of running?  And 2012 was similarly not contested (since Obama was the incumbent Democratic president).

Thus, the 2020 Democratic primary race will be the first time in 12 years that a large field of candidates will contest the Dem. nomination.  There will probably be something like ~10-12 candidates or so, most of whom have never run for president before.  Since they've never run before, and the primaries are more than three years away, and it's too early for them to have done much in the way of visibly running for president yet, they're mostly unknown to the average voter, and so they'd show us as little more than asterisks in a poll like this.  Does that mean that they're not yet "being seriously considered"?  Why would the voters be considering them yet, if they don't know who they are?  Why is it even a problem that they're still unknown and not being considered yet, since the voting is three years away?  There's plenty of time.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2016, 04:32:06 PM »

The fact that Biden gets so many more folks excited about a run than Warren should be a wake up call.

Even Warren will be more than 70 & is not a strong candidate. I would rather she not run (if Bernie & Biden doesn't run) & let there be a new set of people!
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2016, 04:32:10 PM »


Flipping your hair and trying to be cute doesn't make for a good candidate.

What about surfing?



As compared to:


Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2016, 04:44:44 PM »

I'm not a Tulsi supporter, but attacking someone for being attractive or for being a surfer (she is from Hawaii after all where surfing is a religion, not a sport) is pathetic.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2016, 05:21:53 PM »

Oh, for God's sake, I didn't attack anyone. My point was that looks are irrelevant when it comes to elections (except maybe in Trump world). Don't get it twisted.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2016, 05:26:09 PM »

There is something deeply creepy about Tulsi Gabbard. Nor can I see her running against Trump; she hardly ever says anything negative about him, in fact I can't think of a single instance. Which is remarkable given that she's a Democrat and the year we've just been through.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2016, 05:32:01 PM »

62% of Dems + Independents saying that Clinton shouldn't run again is really something, when compared to the numbers for the older Biden and Sanders.  I mean, all the polls show that while Clinton's favorability #s have dropped further since the election, she's still solidly in positive territory among Democrats alone.  So the people being polled here presumably *like* her.  They just think her running again would be a really bad idea.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,286


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2016, 05:38:07 PM »

There is something deeply creepy about Tulsi Gabbard. Nor can I see her running against Trump; she hardly ever says anything negative about him, in fact I can't think of a single instance. Which is remarkable given that she's a Democrat and the year we've just been through.

Because she's not a Democrat, liberal or progressive at all, just very good at playing one on Twitter.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2016, 06:21:53 PM »

Wow, terrible numbers for Sanders.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2016, 06:46:04 PM »

With #'s like that for Warren ready for Booker or Castro to be the nom
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2016, 07:00:20 PM »

Elizabeth Warren is seen as a smug academic who talks down about success. She is a smart woman, I agree with her on some issues, but she would face a hard time beating Trump. He rants about "success and wealth and building" would be ads used against her. Period.

Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2016, 05:24:42 PM »

There is something deeply creepy about Tulsi Gabbard. Nor can I see her running against Trump; she hardly ever says anything negative about him, in fact I can't think of a single instance. Which is remarkable given that she's a Democrat and the year we've just been through.

Trump wasn't negative against Hillary either, it was all on Obama. Then it was all Jeb! and L'il Marco and Lyin' Ted.

Nothing against Hillary until it was crunch time.

Logged
SCNCmod
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2016, 10:40:05 PM »

Regarding Tulsi Gabbard...I think being attractive & being able to surf are positive things... unfortunately she lacks many other things that would give her a realistic chance at the nomination.  Nothing against her at all... but she will appeal to noone outside of prior Bernie supporters due in no small part to a lack of charisma.

The 2020 nom will need to appeal to both (or at least motivate) Bernie & Hillary supporters... which probably makes it most likely to be someone not directly tied to either candidate.
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,422
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2016, 08:33:48 AM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.


Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2016, 09:18:55 AM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.


Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.

I don't see what's bad about it.  This isn't a favorability rating, which presumably for her is pretty darn good among Democrats.  It's a "how much do you want her to run?" rating.  When there's a competitive primary, unless there's one candidate way out in front, usually no one does amazingly well on "how much do you want X to run?"
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2016, 11:06:43 AM »
« Edited: December 23, 2016, 11:08:31 AM by Phony Moderate »

If you want to tear the Progressive movement apart, then yeah, go for that.

That might actually be required for a Dem victory in 2020.

Glad to see Warren below Biden on the 'excited?' score. No way should the Democrats nominate someone who switched to them because she thinks that they are more pro-market.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2016, 11:14:16 AM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.


Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.

I don't see what's bad about it.  This isn't a favorability rating, which presumably for her is pretty darn good among Democrats.  It's a "how much do you want her to run?" rating.  When there's a competitive primary, unless there's one candidate way out in front, usually no one does amazingly well on "how much do you want X to run?"

It should be pointed out the poll says they want someone new but still prefer Biden over her
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2016, 11:56:36 AM »


How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.


Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.

I don't see what's bad about it.  This isn't a favorability rating, which presumably for her is pretty darn good among Democrats.  It's a "how much do you want her to run?" rating.  When there's a competitive primary, unless there's one candidate way out in front, usually no one does amazingly well on "how much do you want X to run?"

It should be pointed out the poll says they want someone new but still prefer Biden over her

It’s not clear what “someone entirely new” means.  Someone not already included in the poll?  If so, then Warren isn’t one of the “someone new” options.  In any case, as I read polls like this, voters tend to want “someone new” in the abstract.  It’s like supporting “generic Democrat” or “generic Republican”.  Popular in the abstract, because it isn’t tied to any particular person.

But when you actually give them specific names, they usually go with whoever has the highest name recognition, and whoever the media has been associating with presidential politics.  Sanders has actually run for president, and Biden is the sitting VP who has run for president before, and who was the source of tons of presidential campaign speculation in 2015.  So voters view them as plausible presidential candidates.  Warren is somewhat less well known, and the presidential speculation about her has been lower profile (so far).  But obviously that’s going to change in the next couple of years, and so Warren (along with Booker, Gillibrand, and other candidates) will start being seen as plausible presidential candidates a couple of years from now, and will do “better” on a poll like this at that time.

So, bottom line, I don’t take polls like this, taken at this very early stage, terribly seriously.  The one thing that I find interesting here is the overwhelming sentiment against Clinton running.  The other numbers are about what you’d expect.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.