IA - PPP: O'Malley and Booker lead the pack (O'Malley internal poll)

[MAINEiac4434]

O'Malley's good looks are finally working.

But seriously, I lowkey wouldn't mind O'Malley being the nominee.

A kinda boring, ex-governor who looks like he's out of central casting for President might be what the country needs post-Trump.

[MAINEiac4434]

Shameful that they excluded Bernie Sanders. Why did they do that?

Because he'd be 78 years old and probably won't run.

[Jeppe]

Sanders and Warren were probably tested in the same poll, but since O'Malley got clobbered badly by both, he only authorized the numbers that showed him in a better light.

[Maxwell]

I guess that some of these people realize that they should have supported O'Malley in 2016 because Clinton lost the election and Sanders was too far left for them.

O'Malley is to the left of Sanders.

this is objectively not a good post.

[Mr. Morden]

O'Malley has in all fairness been living in Iowa since 2015, and IIRC did much better there compared to his national ratings

He might have, but we don't really know. Recall that the Iowa Caucus has a minimum a candidate must reach in order to win anything. In most caucus meetings he got less than the minimum (I think it was 15%) and was eliminated. His numbers were thus artificially deflated from his original support.

We do have one thing to go on here, which is the entrance poll.  According to that:

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/IA/Dem

3% of the Iowa caucus-goers backed O'Malley.  But then that got reduced to ~0.5% by the caucus procedure.

[Mr. Morden]

So if PPP did a "real" poll of Iowa, not for O'Malley's Super PAC, and included this same list of candidates but added Warren, what do you think the result would be?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Progressive media/Justice Democrats will see that none of these clowns get through unexposed.

[The Other Castro]

So if PPP did a "real" poll of Iowa, not for O'Malley's Super PAC, and included this same list of candidates but added Warren, what do you think the result would be?

Maybe something like:

Warren - 31%
Booker - 15%
O'Malley - 9%
Klobuchar - 7%
Gillibrand - 4%
Cuomo - 4%
Castro - 2%%
Harris - 2%
Schultz - 1%
Sandberg - 1%
Not sure - 24%

[Mr. Morden]

The New Republic’s new story:

”Will Democrats Ever Care About Martin O’Malley?”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, in this Iowa poll from Jan. 2016:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_12916.pdf

the favorability for O’Malley among Democrats was:

favorable 53%
unfavorable 18%

So that’s ~70% name recognition among Dems, which, if he still has that, is presumably higher than anyone else in this current poll (since they didn’t poll Sanders or Warren).  I’d assume that even outside of Iowa, O’Malley starts out with at least somewhat better name recognition than, say, an Amy Klobuchar or Julian Castro, simply because some folks will remember him from his 2016 race.  But I doubt it’s an advantage that would prove to be terribly durable.

[mencken]

Looks like Democrats have found their Rick Santorum?

It will be interesting to see how a multi-candidate Democratic field plays out with their proportional system. Will the 15% threshold and fear of a chaotic brokered convention make for a Duverger's Law on steroids, or might we actually see multiple strong candidates after the first few contests?

[Suburbia]

Underestimate Martin O'Malley at your own risk. He was a blank slate in 2016. In 2020, he may do better. It's an open field. It's not Warren/Sanders or bust.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

This poll will be as creditable as having Bush leading in 2016. Booker will be nowhere to be found, especially when dealing with his own primary challenge in New Jersey.

[houseonaboat]

Polls at this rate are just name ID, so it's no surprise that Booker and O'Malley would do well, though Gilibrand is kind of surprising.

[Kleine Scheiße]

MY KING IS ALIVE

[The Other Castro]

This poll will be as creditable as having Bush leading in 2016. Booker will be nowhere to be found, especially when dealing with his own primary challenge in New Jersey.

Polls are as credible as they are valid in what they are trying to measure. They are not trying to be predictive, but measuring snapshots of the levels of support at the time. It could very well have been credible polls that put Bush in the lead, just as O'Malley may credibly lead a Warren-less field in Iowa at the moment.

[Mr. Morden]

It will be interesting to see how a multi-candidate Democratic field plays out with their proportional system. Will the 15% threshold and fear of a chaotic brokered convention make for a Duverger's Law on steroids, or might we actually see multiple strong candidates after the first few contests?

I can't see anyone tactically voting in the early primaries just to avoid a brokered convention.  People will tend to vote candidates who they think have a shot at the nomination, sure, but IA, NH, etc. is way too early for any kind of "we have to prevent a brokered convention" argument to take hold.

[pbrower2a]

Sandberg? As in Ryne Sandberg, great second baseman of the near-miss Chicago Cubs of 1984?

Of course the 1984 Detroit Tigers would have been waiting for them.

[mencken]

It will be interesting to see how a multi-candidate Democratic field plays out with their proportional system. Will the 15% threshold and fear of a chaotic brokered convention make for a Duverger's Law on steroids, or might we actually see multiple strong candidates after the first few contests?

I can't see anyone tactically voting in the early primaries just to avoid a brokered convention.  People will tend to vote candidates who they think have a shot at the nomination, sure, but IA, NH, etc. is way too early for any kind of "we have to prevent a brokered convention" argument to take hold.

Obviously IA, NH, SC, etc. are too early for this dynamic to take place, but consider what happens if the 2020 Democratic primaries play out similarly to the 2008/2012/2016 Republican primaries. A field whittled down to 3-4 viable candidates worked out for the GOP since eventually they ran into primaries with winner-take-all and winner-take-most rules, but it would not necessarily work out for the Democrats under their proportional rules. Will the superdelegates simply coalesce behind the frontrunner en masse come late April to avoid a brokered convention, even if it looks like he/she may only end up with ~40% of pledged delegates?

[GlobeSoc]

Martin O'Malley is the greatest politician ever!

So... Sherrod Brown In Disguise or Martin O'Malley In Disguise??

I just think Martin is a special boy who needs to be given the best care by the American people.

[Mr. Morden]

Will the superdelegates simply coalesce behind the frontrunner en masse come late April to avoid a brokered convention, even if it looks like he/she may only end up with ~40% of pledged delegates?

Yes, it's the superdelegates moreso than the voters who'll rally around whoever's ahead in order to avoid a contested convention.  That is, assuming they can.  There are various superdelegate reform options floating around, including proposals that would bind the votes of superdelegates to the votes of the states they come from.  But the DNC really needs to think through the implications of that, because it would boost the chances of a contested convention.

[Lothal1]

Democrats are writing their own suicide note with O'Malley

[Mr. Morden]

Democrats are writing their own suicide note with O'Malley

What do you mean?  They're writing their own suicide note by nominating him or by not nominating him?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats are writing their own suicide note with O'Malley

This. The last thing they need is another standard bland politician. He got 0.5% in Iowa for a reason.

[Suburbia]

O'Malley could be a good 2020 candidate. He was a mayor and was a governor. He has the experience, and he is the boring white male, but he would do well in some Rust Belt/White Catholic areas.