Rasmussen poll on best Dem. candidate: Biden 41 Sanders 20 Warren 11 Clinton 9

[Mr. Morden]

First, sorry for using the Newsmax story here rather than the Rasmussen story, but the Rasmussen story doesn’t actually tell you the full results unless you’re a subscriber.  Anyway, this is a national poll, conducted Nov. 13-14:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(results below for “likely Democratic voters”)

https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/us-poll-democratic-voters-prefer/2017/11/20/id/827229/

Biden 41%
Sanders 20%
Warren 11%
Clinton 9%
Booker 5%
McAuliffe 2%

That’s a somewhat convoluted way of asking the question.  (“best represents the party….and would make the best candidate”)  It seems like more of an electability question than a “who do you support?” question.

EDIT: The above is for Dems only.  Among all voters, the top four are:

Biden 27%
Sanders 17%
Clinton 10%
Warren 9%

...with a substantial "none of the above" contingent.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I'm Ridin' with Biden.

[President Johnson]

LOL Clinton. Why is she even polled? And not Harris?

[Mr. Morden]

LOL Clinton. Why is she even polled? And not Harris?

Oddly enough, there is a split among the crappy pollsters we've been getting for 2020, regarding which black candidate should be included.  Rasmussen only ever polls Booker, while Zogby only ever polls Harris.

[Figueira]

The good candidates other than Sanders really need to get their names out there.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The good candidates other than Sanders really need to get their names out there.

[Mr. Morden]

The good candidates other than Sanders really need to get their names out there.

What's the best way to do that though?  Ted Cruz, for example, managed to get nationwide media exposure by forcing a government shutdown.  Chris Christie did it by yelling at teachers at town hall meetings.    Should the 2020 Dems take the same tack?

[IceSpear]

Nobody needs to worry about getting their name out there in 2017. Bernie was polling at 0% at this point.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nobody needs to worry about getting their name out there in 2017. Bernie was polling at 0% at this point.

That talking point would make more sense if you didn't choose someone that ultimately lost.

[IceSpear]

Nobody needs to worry about getting their name out there in 2017. Bernie was polling at 0% at this point.

That talking point would make more sense if you didn't choose someone that ultimately lost.

The point is he went from 0% to 44%. People will discover candidates as we get closer to the election and during debates/forums. Nobody's going to care about you in 2017 unless you're already very well known like everyone in this poll. That's also why it's pointless to poll Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc. or whoever, because they're all interchangeable at this point due to low name recognition.

[Holmes]

The good candidates other than Sanders really need to get their names out there.

What's the best way to do that though?  Ted Cruz, for example, managed to get nationwide media exposure by forcing a government shutdown.  Chris Christie did it by yelling at teachers at town hall meetings.    Should the 2020 Dems take the same tack?

Yeah maybe Warren should punch a kid on TV.

[Eraserhead]

Junk poll.

[Figueira]

Nobody needs to worry about getting their name out there in 2017. Bernie was polling at 0% at this point.

That talking point would make more sense if you didn't choose someone that ultimately lost.

There isn't a prohibitive frontrunner this time around. As IceSpear knows, Clinton was always basically guaranteed to get the nomination assuming she wanted it.

And yeah, I'm not too worried about Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Harris, and Booker polling so low now. Just expressing frustration that such terrible candidates are currently polling so high.

[Tintrlvr]

Really surprised Sanders does so poorly, honestly. He's unlikely to run (just too old), but maybe the fad is truly over.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Really surprised Sanders does so poorly, honestly. He's unlikely to run (just too old), but maybe the fad is truly over.

His support was severely overstated. He got a lot of votes just because he was not Hillary Clinton.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Really surprised Sanders does so poorly, honestly. He's unlikely to run (just too old), but maybe the fad is truly over.

His support was severely overstated. He got a lot of votes just because he was not Hillary Clinton.

2016 polls showed that Biden would have taken many more votes from Hillary than Bernie if he ran.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Really surprised Sanders does so poorly, honestly. He's unlikely to run (just too old), but maybe the fad is truly over.

His support was severely overstated. He got a lot of votes just because he was not Hillary Clinton.

This. Sanders just happened to be be at the right time, in the right place and harness all the anti-Clinton vote.

I also find hilariously ironic how Bernie cultists complain about how the Democratic leadership is too old and must make way for younger leaders. It reminds me of Trumpbots who believe that a crook like Trump will "drain the swamp".   

[History505]

Pointless.

[TomC]

Really surprised Sanders does so poorly, honestly. He's unlikely to run (just too old), but maybe the fad is truly over.

His support was severely overstated. He got a lot of votes just because he was not Hillary Clinton.

[Figueira]

Don't write Sanders's obituary yet. 20% in a primary this crowded is nothing to sneeze at.

(Also it's Rasmussen. Not the best pollster.)

[Mr. Morden]

Don't write Sanders's obituary yet. 20% in a primary this crowded is nothing to sneeze at.

This is true.  But I've seen Sandersistas try to make the case that Sanders would be near unbeatable in the primary if he ran for prez again in 2020, on the basis that 1) He has overwhelmingly positive favorability #s, and 2) Even some 2016 Clinton primary voters will flock to him since they've learned their lesson about Clinton-esque establishment candidates, now that they've seen Clinton lose to Trump in 2016.

While I do think Sanders is a very strong contender to win the Dem. nomination if he runs again, him being "inevitable" isn't backed up by the (ridiculously early) polls, and I think the logic of the above two arguments is flawed: 1) Favorability is not the same as support to be president, and 2) I don't buy the idea that primary voters "learn their lessons".  Clinton herself is damaged goods now, but the 2016 Clinton primary voters aren't going to be Sanders converts now.  They'll mostly back candidates from Clinton's "wing" of the party once again in 2020.

That said, there's a good chance that the "establishment lane" will be so crowded in 2020 that Sanders or a Sanders-like candidate will be able to ride a plurality to victory.

[Figueira]

Don't write Sanders's obituary yet. 20% in a primary this crowded is nothing to sneeze at.

This is true.  But I've seen Sandersistas try to make the case that Sanders would be near unbeatable in the primary if he ran for prez again in 2020, on the basis that 1) He has overwhelmingly positive favorability #s, and 2) Even some 2016 Clinton primary voters will flock to him since they've learned their lesson about Clinton-esque establishment candidates, now that they've seen Clinton lose to Trump in 2016.

While I do think Sanders is a very strong contender to win the Dem. nomination if he runs again, him being "inevitable" isn't backed up by the (ridiculously early) polls, and I think the logic of the above two arguments is flawed: 1) Favorability is not the same as support to be president, and 2) I don't buy the idea that primary voters "learn their lessons".  Clinton herself is damaged goods now, but the 2016 Clinton primary voters aren't going to be Sanders converts now.  They'll mostly back candidates from Clinton's "wing" of the party once again in 2020.

That said, there's a good chance that the "establishment lane" will be so crowded in 2020 that Sanders or a Sanders-like candidate will be able to ride a plurality to victory.

I agree with this. It should be noted that I am not necessarily a Sanders 2020 supporter and I certainly don't think he's "inevitable."

[Sestak]

Definitely shows promise for Biden, though I expect that number to drop dramatically as other candidates get their names out there. The sanders number, on the other hand, I expect to stay about the same, so the question really is how much will Biden drop, and who'll pick up those votes (and Hillary's, because she's not running.)

Also how do we interpret Rasmussen's bias in a primary?

[junior chįmp]

Biden is too old

Sanders 2020

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Biden is too old

Sanders 2020

Lolwut