PPP: Biden and other Dems all lead Trump; Trump leads potential primary

[heatcharger]

Link.

Biden 53%
Trump 40%

Booker 47%
Trump 40%

Clinton 47%
Trump 42%

Gillibrand 42%
Trump 39%

Harris 42%
Trump 41%

M. Obama 51%
Trump 41%

Sanders 51%
Trump 40%

Warren 47%
Trump 41%

GOP primary:

Trump 61%
Someone else 27%

Trump 68%
Cruz 15%

Trump 59%
Pence 21%

Trump 68%
Kasich 18%

[The Mikado]

Link.

Biden 53%
Trump 40%

Booker 47%
Trump 40%

Clinton 47%
Trump 42%

Gillibrand 42%
Trump 39%

Harris 42%
Trump 41%

M. Obama 51%
Trump 41%

Sanders 51%
Trump 40%

Warren 47%
Trump 41%

GOP primary:

Trump 61%
Someone else 27%

Trump 68%
Cruz 15%

Trump 59%
Pence 21%

Trump 68%
Kasich 18%

You should link to an actual poll when you do this.

[heatcharger]

Fixed.

[Mr. Morden]

Compared to their last poll:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=271374.msg5795514#msg5795514

the biggest change is on Booker.  He goes from +3 over Trump to +7 over Trump in this new poll.  Sanders is the only one to go backwards, from +13 over Trump last month to +11 over Trump now.

[kyc0705]

How is it so close with Harris?

Low name recognition—20% of voters are undecided, which this early on, is code for "I don't know who that is." Most people aren't nutty political junkies like us.

[NewYorkExpress]

Why on Earth are they testing Michelle Obama? How many times does she have to say she's not interested before the pollsters get that through their thick skulls?

[Mr. Morden]

Once again, as with their past polls, the differences in electability seem to stem largely in differences in name recognition, as there’s a high %age of undecideds among 2016 Clinton voters for lesser known candidates like Harris….

Biden vs. Trump:

Clinton ’16 voters:
Biden 89%
Trump 5%
not sure 5%

Trump ’16 voters:
Trump 86%
Biden 10%
not sure 3%

But for Harris vs. Trump…

Clinton ’16 voters:
Harris 75%
Trump 5%
not sure 21%

Trump ’16 voters:
Trump 88%
Harris 5%
not sure 7%

Incidentally, Michelle Obama, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Hillary Clinton herself are the only Dem. candidates tested for whom only 3 or 4% of 2016 Clinton voters defect to Trump in these matchups.  For everyone else, it’s 5% or more.

It’s also interesting that Harris’s lack of name recognition is about on par with that of Gillibrand, with both seemingly being not as well known as Booker.  Though Gillibrand gets more undecideds among voters under 45, while Harris has more undecideds among voters over 45.

Also, here’s another fun crosstab….

What percentage of the black vote does Trump get against the following opponents?:

Trump share of the black vote vs. Booker: 7%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Harris: 7%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Sanders: 7%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Biden: 6%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Clinton: 5%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Gillibrand: 4%
Trump share of the black vote vs. Warren: 4%
Trump share of the black vote vs. M. Obama: 3%

Booker and Harris, despite being black themselves, don’t as of yet do any better than any other potential Dem. nominee at minimizing Trump’s share of the black vote.

And finally, the age crosstabs here seem a bit loopy.  Trump’s best age cohort vs. Biden, Booker, and Harris is voters under age 30.  I guess Gen Z has gone alt-right after all.    Best age cohort for all the Dems is voters between age 30 and 45.  That’s the reverse of PPP’s last poll, which had Trump doing well among those aged 30-45.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Interesting that Gillibrand is the only Dem to push Trump into the sub-40 range, despite presumed lack of name recognition. Wonder if there's any significance.

[Canis]

Interasting how Kasich has a better shot then Cruz but Not Pence

[America Needs R'hllor]

So it looks like Booker is efficiently raising his name recognition. Colour me slightly worried.

[Lord Admirale]

Booker is a stronger candidate than Kamala Harris

Still like Harris, but I prefer Booker over her.

[Young Conservative]

We all know this poll is meaningless.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Link.

Biden 53%
Trump 40%

Booker 47%
Trump 40%

Clinton 47%
Trump 42%

Gillibrand 42%
Trump 39%

Harris 42%
Trump 41%

M. Obama 51%
Trump 41%

Sanders 51%
Trump 40%

Warren 47%
Trump 41%

GOP primary:

Trump 61%
Someone else 27%

Trump 68%
Cruz 15%

Trump 59%
Pence 21%

Trump 68%
Kasich 18%

Reminds me of the polls one month before the election 2016

[America Needs R'hllor]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

[Possiblymaybe]

Interesting that Gillibrand is the only Dem to push Trump into the sub-40 range, despite presumed lack of name recognition. Wonder if there's any significance.

Definitely interesting, surprised her name recognition is so low compared to booker. She's been in the senate a lot longer than him.

[Possiblymaybe]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

She's a moderate neoliberal, not a leftist like Warren or Sanders.

Not according to her voting record. She rates in the top 3 most progressive senator on all sites that monitor ideology based on voting record.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with name recognition.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

Honestly, your hatred for Kamala is very unrealistic.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

Honestly, your hatred for Kamala is very unrealistic.

Probably a little, but I just really hate her .

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

Honestly, your hatred for Kamala is very unrealistic.

Probably a little, but I just really hate her .

You don't have to like her, but to claim that her poll numbers are low because of likability is daft. Trump's poll numbers against her are about the same against every other democrat. That means her problem is name recognition. Even with low name recognition, she is still beating him which isn't good news for the President.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Interesting how Gillibrand is the only one driving down Trump's numbers. May be that my claim that she is the most electable democrat is correct!

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

Honestly, your hatred for Kamala is very unrealistic.

Probably a little, but I just really hate her .

You don't have to like her, but to claim that her poll numbers are low because of likability is daft. Trump's poll numbers against her are about the same against every other democrat. That means her problem is name recognition. Even with low name recognition, she is still beating him which isn't good news for the President.

Somewhat true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.