Harvard-Harris national poll: Sanders 20% M. Obama 17% Warren 15% Clinton 10%

[Mr. Morden]

Voters will be sorely disappointed when their top four choices don't run.

I don’t think most voters think that way.  The people responding to this poll picked these names because they’re the familiar names.  The voters aren’t even thinking about 2020 yet.  It’s just that they were asked to make a choice in this poll, so they did.  Most of the candidates who will actually end up running for president are currently unknown to voters.  But once the campaign starts, the primary voters will most likely be cool with whoever it is who ends up running, and won’t be bummed that Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t in the race.

Anyway, I'm surprised that Sanders isn't higher. His age is a problem, but almost nobody mentioned it in 2016 and it's not like the other candidates are that young.

I’m not surprised Sanders isn’t higher, simply because this is in line with other polls.  The only other national 2020 primary polls to include Sanders so far are PPP and Rasmussen, and both of them also had Sanders in the 20-25% range.  The lesson is “favorability isn’t the same as support”.  Sanders’s favorability #s among Dems are sky high, but it’s not clear to me that the primary electorate has its heart set on giving him the nomination.

If Sanders runs, he wins. Only Biden could make it a tossup.

If Sanders runs he'll clear the progressive field.

Sanders is just so popular with such a high name recognition it's gonna be impossible to stop him if he runs.

I disagree with all of the above.    As I said to mvd10 above, Sanders is very popular, with high favorability ratings, but favorability isn’t the same as support to be president.  The fact that Sanders is only getting ~20-25% support in all these polls suggests that this is not a Clinton 2016-type situation, where the early polls had her 50 points ahead of everyone else, and she was able to (mostly) clear the field.  A “frontrunner” who is only polling at 20% is not going to clear the field.  I don’t see why, for example, Warren would automatically defer to Sanders, seeing as how she’s not actually that far behind him in these polls.

And not sure why Sanders having high name recognition right now is a point in his favor.  The fact that the other candidates have such low name recognition right now argues all the more for them having room to grow.  They could gain a lot of support once they actually start campaigning.  Now maybe most of them aren’t going to be very good candidates, and thus will be stuck in single digits forever.  But there’s no reason for them to rule themselves out, when they’re still unknown and their ultimate trajectories as candidates remain a question mark.

I do actually think that, in the event that Sanders decides to run, he’ll be a reasonably strong frontrunner, with a pretty strong chance to win (though not as strong as Clinton going into 2016).  But the causality doesn’t work the way some of you seem to think.  *If* Sanders is both in good health and *if* he surveys the landscape and sees a clear path to victory, then he’ll get in.  So if it looks like he’s already in a strong position, then he runs, and has a good chance of winning.  But it’s not obvious that he’ll have such a clear path.

I’m also wondering how long he (and maybe Biden) might stretch out a decision timeline.  Will it be like Biden 2016, where we’ll still be waiting in August 2019 to see if the guy’s going to get in the race?

[cvparty]

haHAHAHAH @hillary

[henster]

Life expectancy for a male in the US is 76 and Sanders will be 79 his age will be a legitimate issue it will be in the back of the mind of a lot of voters especially with a younger field. All it will take is one senior moment for his campaign to end.

[MAINEiac4434]

If Sanders runs, he wins. Only Biden could make it a tossup.

He needs to appeal to minorities first. I'm not sure he will.

And yet he campaigned alongside Martin Luther King in the 1960s to fight in favor of African Americans' civil rights and was even arrested for this. Remember that.

This is a lie. He did not "campaign alongside" Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King had no idea who the  Bernie Sanders was. Bernie Sanders was a member of CORE, like every other woke college student in the 60s, and went to the March on Washington. Like Mitch McConnell. He got arrested and paid a $25 fine, which is admirable, but other activists were being tortured in jails.

Bill Clinton once met JFK (which is closer than Bernie Sanders ever got to MLK). If I were to say "Bill Clinton worked with JFK" that would be a lie.

He was an activist. He was not a leader. It was admirable, but there is no need to embellish it, and when people do it (like you just did) it's off-putting and infuriating because it diminishes the actions of actual civil rights leaders. And white northerners embellishing his record is one of the myriad of reasons he got his ass kicked in the south.

He never "campaigned alongside" MLK. To say that he did is completely and utterly false.

AND EVEN IF HE WAS AN ACTUAL LEADER, which he wasn't, saying things like this isn't going to help him win over the African-American community. African-Americans want candidates who will talk specifically about issues their communities face, and not about how similar those issues are to issues white communities face.

He struggled MIGHTILY with African-American voters last year. And I've yet to see any indication that he's increased his popularity among them, especially when he's going to West Virginia to try to win back the WWC. I could be wrong.

[Progressive]

Why are places polling Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton? To be cute?

[MAINEiac4434]

Why are places polling Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton? To be cute?

Yeah...the former has made it abundantly clear she hates politics and the latter is done. Maybe just to fill up the poll with people who are known rather than people only policy wonks know about right now.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

So people are just happy to have a 79 year old nominee who'd be 88 years old should he make it to a 2nd term... I mean I know people like Bernie but the party needs to move past the geriatrics.

Sounds pretty ageist to me.

[houseonaboat]

So people are just happy to have a 79 year old nominee who'd be 88 years old should he make it to a 2nd term... I mean I know people like Bernie but the party needs to move past the geriatrics.

Sounds pretty ageist to me.

Doesn't make it wrong. Father Time is undefeated. Perfectly fair to ask how someone who'll be 83 by the end of his term -- which is roughly the lifespan of an American male -- is capable of doing the job of president.

And 2016 polls of the GOP field in 2013 -

Rubio 24%
Christie 15%
Ryan 14%
Jeb 13%

And for Democrats...

Hillary 59%
Biden 26%
Cuomo 12%
Warren 12%

[Devout Centrist]

Am I the only person who for a split second thought that M. Obama meant Malik Obama?

No you're not, sadly.

[Shadows]

If Sanders runs, he wins. Only Biden could make it a tossup.

He needs to appeal to minorities first. I'm not sure he will.

And yet he campaigned alongside Martin Luther King in the 1960s to fight in favor of African Americans' civil rights and was even arrested for this. Remember that.

This is a lie. He did not "campaign alongside" Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King had no idea who the  Bernie Sanders was. Bernie Sanders was a member of CORE, like every other woke college student in the 60s, and went to the March on Washington. Like Mitch McConnell. He got arrested and paid a $25 fine, which is admirable, but other activists were being tortured in jails.

Bill Clinton once met JFK (which is closer than Bernie Sanders ever got to MLK). If I were to say "Bill Clinton worked with JFK" that would be a lie.

He was an activist. He was not a leader. It was admirable, but there is no need to embellish it, and when people do it (like you just did) it's off-putting and infuriating because it diminishes the actions of actual civil rights leaders. And white northerners embellishing his record is one of the myriad of reasons he got his ass kicked in the south.

He never "campaigned alongside" MLK. To say that he did is completely and utterly false.

AND EVEN IF HE WAS AN ACTUAL LEADER, which he wasn't, saying things like this isn't going to help him win over the African-American community. African-Americans want candidates who will talk specifically about issues their communities face, and not about how similar those issues are to issues white communities face.

He struggled MIGHTILY with African-American voters last year. And I've yet to see any indication that he's increased his popularity among them, especially when he's going to West Virginia to try to win back the WWC. I could be wrong.

He was up against Hillary Clinton & any person from Warren to Cuomo would have done worse. He went to jail while was at college protesting segregation. Ofcourse if that was such a deal clincher, he would have won the nomination. And he went to Mississippi for the Nissan march, he went to Georgia for the Martin Luther King day speech at Atlanta. It is very sad that you are unhappy because he went to WV to speak to white people because obvious they don't matter. This is the same mentality which cost Dems the election & will cost again in 2020.

And he doesn't really need to win Black voters. As a matter of fact, if he retains his earlier vote of 46% pledged delegates, he will win just by the fact that more 14-17 year olds get added & old people die disproportionately more. This is not even counting all the institutional biases he had earlier including the Electability question, the Bandwagon effect where people tend to not waste their votes for a sureshot losing candidate, the debates & so on.

[Shadows]

Voters will be sorely disappointed when their top four choices don't run.

I don’t think most voters think that way.  The people responding to this poll picked these names because they’re the familiar names.  The voters aren’t even thinking about 2020 yet.  It’s just that they were asked to make a choice in this poll, so they did.  Most of the candidates who will actually end up running for president are currently unknown to voters.  But once the campaign starts, the primary voters will most likely be cool with whoever it is who ends up running, and won’t be bummed that Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t in the race.

Anyway, I'm surprised that Sanders isn't higher. His age is a problem, but almost nobody mentioned it in 2016 and it's not like the other candidates are that young.

I’m not surprised Sanders isn’t higher, simply because this is in line with other polls.  The only other national 2020 primary polls to include Sanders so far are PPP and Rasmussen, and both of them also had Sanders in the 20-25% range.  The lesson is “favorability isn’t the same as support”.  Sanders’s favorability #s among Dems are sky high, but it’s not clear to me that the primary electorate has its heart set on giving him the nomination.

If Sanders runs, he wins. Only Biden could make it a tossup.

If Sanders runs he'll clear the progressive field.

Sanders is just so popular with such a high name recognition it's gonna be impossible to stop him if he runs.

I disagree with all of the above.    As I said to mvd10 above, Sanders is very popular, with high favorability ratings, but favorability isn’t the same as support to be president.  The fact that Sanders is only getting ~20-25% support in all these polls suggests that this is not a Clinton 2016-type situation, where the early polls had her 50 points ahead of everyone else, and she was able to (mostly) clear the field.  A “frontrunner” who is only polling at 20% is not going to clear the field.  I don’t see why, for example, Warren would automatically defer to Sanders, seeing as how she’s not actually that far behind him in these polls.

And not sure why Sanders having high name recognition right now is a point in his favor.  The fact that the other candidates have such low name recognition right now argues all the more for them having room to grow.  They could gain a lot of support once they actually start campaigning.  Now maybe most of them aren’t going to be very good candidates, and thus will be stuck in single digits forever.  But there’s no reason for them to rule themselves out, when they’re still unknown and their ultimate trajectories as candidates remain a question mark.

I do actually think that, in the event that Sanders decides to run, he’ll be a reasonably strong frontrunner, with a pretty strong chance to win (though not as strong as Clinton going into 2016).  But the causality doesn’t work the way some of you seem to think.  *If* Sanders is both in good health and *if* he surveys the landscape and sees a clear path to victory, then he’ll get in.  So if it looks like he’s already in a strong position, then he runs, and has a good chance of winning.  But it’s not obvious that he’ll have such a clear path.

I’m also wondering how long he (and maybe Biden) might stretch out a decision timeline.  Will it be like Biden 2016, where we’ll still be waiting in August 2019 to see if the guy’s going to get in the race?

I agree with the last part of your post a 100%. This will be open & everyone will compete including Warren. She should stay until Super Tuesday i

Aug 2019 won't be a good idea. In 08, the debates started in April itself. I think this time you will see a debate schedule finalized in 2018 itself with debates starting latest by May-June. By April-May, I think people have to start announcing.

Realistically, just after the Mid-terms, everyone serious has to start preparation finalizing the campaign. Last time both Hillary & Bernie were teasing a run in 2016 since 2012 itself & preparing. All that "Presidential Exploratory Committee" stuff & having a campaign infrastructure will start.

[Liberalrocks]

Clinton will get more popular as time goes on and old wounds heal, along with more favourable coverage as she goes on her book circuit.

[UWS]

So people are just happy to have a 79 year old nominee who'd be 88 years old should he make it to a 2nd term... I mean I know people like Bernie but the party needs to move past the geriatrics.

Sounds pretty ageist to me.

He could reassure the people by pledging to make only one term, so he would retire at only 83 years old, not 87 years old.

By the way, even if Sanders is this old in 2020, he can still use Ronald Reagan's « youth and inexperience » argument against Donald Trump, who will not look much younger at 74 years old and is less experienced than Sanders.

[McGovernForPrez]

So people are just happy to have a 79 year old nominee who'd be 88 years old should he make it to a 2nd term... I mean I know people like Bernie but the party needs to move past the geriatrics.

Sounds pretty ageist to me.

He could reassure the people by pledging to make only one term, so he would retire at only 83 years old, not 87 years old.

By the way, even if Sanders is this old in 2020, he can still use Ronald Reagan's « youth and inexperience » argument against Donald Trump, who will not look much younger at 74 years old and is less experienced than Sanders.

The only real way Sanders will be able to dispel fear of old age is to be in good health and spirit. I believe he can do it. The man has barely taken a break and he seems to be doing fine. If he's looking strong in 2020 I think he'll be able to settle that question.

[BaldEagle1991]

I'd say Oprah will be a surprise front-runner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton will get more popular as time goes on and old wounds heal, along with more favourable coverage as she goes on her book circuit.

Just like last time where she started out polling 74% in New Hampshire?

[oraclebones]

Is anyone seriously entertaining the idea of Hillary Clinton running again in 2020? Or is this referring to Chelsea Clinton and I haven't caught on?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is anyone seriously entertaining the idea of Hillary Clinton running again in 2020? Or is this referring to Chelsea Clinton and I haven't caught on?

I'd say of course it's referring to Hillary and not Chelsea, but this poll has the WTF of Michelle Obama in second place, so who knows.

[houseonaboat]

Is anyone seriously entertaining the idea of Hillary Clinton running again in 2020? Or is this referring to Chelsea Clinton and I haven't caught on?

I'd say of course it's referring to Hillary and not Chelsea, but this poll has the WTF of Michelle Obama in second place, so who knows.

It's name ID at this point. Rubio, Christie, Paul Ryan and Jeb were the top 4 choices in a 2013 poll of the 2016 field.

[Liberalrocks]

Is anyone seriously entertaining the idea of Hillary Clinton running again in 2020? Or is this referring to Chelsea Clinton and I haven't caught on?

Hillary---YES

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Clinton will get more popular as time goes on and old wounds heal, along with more favourable coverage as she goes on her book circuit.

Hillary always seems to be more popular when she isn't running. I think nearly everyone loved her during her days as Sos (until Bengazi maybe). She doesn't need to run again.

I'd love to see Joe Biden run, but he may be too old to do it. Not a fan of Warren, I think she's a lightweight that won't win a national election. I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

[Mr. Morden]

I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

Presumably Sherrod Brown, though it's not clear to me that he's interested in running.

[Ronnie]

I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

I really don't think it would be all that difficult to rally both wings of the party in the end, considering how much the base detests Donald Trump.  Gillibrand and Franken are two senators who initially come to mind, and there are probably many more candidates who would compel most Dems to go to the polls.  It'll only take someone as lukewarm as Booker or Cuomo to turn off large segments of the base.

[MAINEiac4434]

I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

Presumably Sherrod Brown, though it's not clear to me that he's interested in running.

Liz Warren.

[houseonaboat]

I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

I really don't think it would be all that difficult to rally both wings of the party in the end, considering how much the base detests Donald Trump.  Gillibrand and Franken are two senators who initially come to mind, and there are probably many more candidates who would compel most Dems to go to the polls.  It'll only take someone as lukewarm as Booker or Cuomo to turn off large segments of the base.

It amazes me how people find Gillibrand, who legitimately caucused as a Blue Dog Dem, more progressive in any meaningful way than Booker. She voted to deregulate swaps as recently as 2010.