HarrisX: Trump -7 vs Biden, ahead of everyone else

[GeorgiaModerate]

HarrisX (for scottrasmussen.com), April 28-29, 1002 RV

Data from 538's polls page.  Their link to the actual poll doesn't work.  This is generally a favorable pollster for Trump.

Trump vs:

Biden 36/43
Sanders 38/37
Harris 39/30
Warren 39/33
O'Rourke 38/31
Booker 38/30
Inslee 37/24
Castro 38/26

...and in the "you actually polled this?" category:

Gravel 38/22
Messam 38/21
Moulton 37/22

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Confirms other polls, that Biden is likely to defeat Trump

[Annatar]

To be honest I am not impressed by how Biden is polling vs Trump if he is really supposed to be the dems best choice to take down Trump. Most of the recent polls have had him with 6-8% leads, those are pretty weak leads considering no negative campaigning has been done against him to being down his numbers. If he was leading Trump by say 20% then one could make the argument he should be chosen because he guarantees a Trump defeat, so far though he isn't really polling in a way that suggests he would be the better then any other dem at taking down Trump

[Sirius_]

To be honest I am not impressed by how Biden is polling vs Trump if he is really supposed to be the dems best choice to take down Trump. Most of the recent polls have had him with 6-8% leads, those are pretty weak leads considering no negative campaigning has been done against him to being down his numbers. If he was leading Trump by say 20% then one could make the argument he should be chosen because he guarantees a Trump defeat, so far though he isn't really polling in a way that suggests he would be the better then any other dem at taking down Trump

6-8% is not a good lead? That's right around where Obama was in 2008, I'd say that's pretty good. Democrats won with less in 2012, and a double digit lead is neither necessary nor likely.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

To be honest I am not impressed by how Biden is polling vs Trump if he is really supposed to be the dems best choice to take down Trump. Most of the recent polls have had him with 6-8% leads, those are pretty weak leads considering no negative campaigning has been done against him to being down his numbers. If he was leading Trump by say 20% then one could make the argument he should be chosen because he guarantees a Trump defeat, so far though he isn't really polling in a way that suggests he would be the better then any other dem at taking down Trump

6-8% is not a good lead? That's right around where Obama was in 2008, I'd say that's pretty good. Democrats won with less in 2012, and a double digit lead is neither necessary nor likely.

If Trump needs to shave off 2-5%, i.e. a reasonable margin of error in most polls, to be able to win, then you can't feel comfortable about this being a lock. Sure, Trump has more downside than upside, but everyone likes Democrats more when the Republicans are not actively fearmongering against them. We've seen this story before.

He is the best choice, and he is very likely to win, but this is not a comfortable margin by any means. Of course, this poll is junk and all of them are probably leading Trump in the Popular Vote right now.

[GeorgiaModerate]

To be honest I am not impressed by how Biden is polling vs Trump if he is really supposed to be the dems best choice to take down Trump. Most of the recent polls have had him with 6-8% leads, those are pretty weak leads considering no negative campaigning has been done against him to being down his numbers. If he was leading Trump by say 20% then one could make the argument he should be chosen because he guarantees a Trump defeat, so far though he isn't really polling in a way that suggests he would be the better then any other dem at taking down Trump

6-8% is not a good lead? That's right around where Obama was in 2008, I'd say that's pretty good. Democrats won with less in 2012, and a double digit lead is neither necessary nor likely.

This is also from a Trump-favorable pollster, and I'd say a 6-8% lead from them is very good for Biden.  More important is the relative lead for Biden compared to other Democrats.  In almost all polls, he has a significantly bigger lead over Trump than the other candidates do.

[Annatar]

To be honest I am not impressed by how Biden is polling vs Trump if he is really supposed to be the dems best choice to take down Trump. Most of the recent polls have had him with 6-8% leads, those are pretty weak leads considering no negative campaigning has been done against him to being down his numbers. If he was leading Trump by say 20% then one could make the argument he should be chosen because he guarantees a Trump defeat, so far though he isn't really polling in a way that suggests he would be the better then any other dem at taking down Trump

6-8% is not a good lead? That's right around where Obama was in 2008, I'd say that's pretty good. Democrats won with less in 2012, and a double digit lead is neither necessary nor likely.

This is also from a Trump-favorable pollster, and I'd say a 6-8% lead from them is very good for Biden.  More important is the relative lead for Biden compared to other Democrats.  In almost all polls, he has a significantly bigger lead over Trump than the other candidates do.

I agree with you that Biden is doing better then the other's vs Trump, my point is simply that one of the arguments for Biden is he will beat Trump easily and the polling doesn't really show he is crushing Trump

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Remember when polls showed Hillary beating Trump by double digits?

You can't rely entirely on polls, especially this early. I personally don't see how Biden is the most electable candidate considering he excited basically no one, but we'll see I guess.

[Xing]

A poll taken right after Biden announces, a year and a half before the election... what could possibly be inaccurate about this poll?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Does anyone actually believe Trump is leading Harris by 9, O’Rourke by 7 and Warren by 6? Because that should be the joke of this poll

Harris and Beto have flatlined; however, Harris, probably is the one thar has the most to lose in this poll

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Does anyone actually believe Trump is leading Harris by 9, O’Rourke by 7 and Warren by 6? Because that should be the joke of this poll

Harris and Beto have flatlined; however, Harris, probably is the one thar has the most to lose in this poll

Literally one poll a year and a half rom the 2020 election. How does anyone have the confidence to say that?

[henster]

Harris doing the inverse of Emerson in not pushing undecideds at all.

[adrac]

25% undecideds = trash

[S019]

Early polls=bad

In March 2016, HRC was leading Trump by double digits!!, but somehow statewide polling showed a close race

[GeorgiaModerate]

Early polls=bad

In March 2016, HRC was leading Trump by double digits!!, but somehow statewide polling showed a close race

I think everyone here understands that early polls are inherently unreliable.  However, they're not devoid of value, and it's evident that many people are interested in them. 

If you truly think early polls are worthless, may I recommend that you discontinue visiting this subforum until January 2020 or so.  But if you do stay, please don't repeat "early polls are bad" for each new entry.  We get your point already.

[RFayette]

Does anyone actually believe Trump is leading Harris by 9, O’Rourke by 7 and Warren by 6? Because that should be the joke of this poll

If you look at the numbers, it's obvious they didn't push undecideds at all, making the poll lousy.

Nonetheless, Biden is the best bet to beat Trump, but I don't just base that on polling data; he also has the benefit of having served as Vice President under an extremely popular President among Democrats (thus boosting turnout) and has a unique appeal to white-working class voters compared to other candidates. 

[izixs]

Early polls=bad

In March 2016, HRC was leading Trump by double digits!!, but somehow statewide polling showed a close race

I think everyone here understands that early polls are inherently unreliable.  However, they're not devoid of value, and it's evident that many people are interested in them. 

If you truly think early polls are worthless, may I recommend that you discontinue visiting this subforum until January 2020 or so.  But if you do stay, please don't repeat "early polls are bad" for each new entry.  We get your point already.

Early polls are useful for understanding the rankings of things as they are now, which can be useful to gauge perceptions and to provide candidates/supporters some insight into where they need to either hold or shore up support. They are terrible for predicting how things will turn out next year. They are terrible for determinations of who is 'electable'. After all...

"Clinton's biggest lead is against current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump: She's ahead of him by 11 points among all voters, 52 percent to 41 percent" - Marist poll, December 7, 2015 - https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-leads-2016-match-ups-carson-rubio-run-closest-n474591

Yes we don't actually know if Sanders would have done worse or better (or if other Republicans would have actually ended up worse or better), but we can say that this data point ended up not being indicative of the final run down. And it also failed to demonstrate the technicalities of Clinton's loss. Because that would be impossible given the nature of the poll. So yes, a candidate doing well against the president now is a good thing for that candidate, now... but before any real campaigning has gone on beyond the initial setting of the field and a few town halls, before they've had a chance to either demonstrate their ability to run an effective campaign or flop, yeah, I'm not going to use this as gospel for my decision making process on a lot of fronts that others are more than happy to indulge in.

[Pericles]

Trump is within 36-39% against every candidate. Highly unlikely his actual support is that low but it seems that name recognition is by far the dominant factor. Somewhat surprised Warren is closer than Harris but given Trump is at 39% against both could be just name recognition. Maybe minorly useful in seeing which candidates Trump is at 36% against and which he is higher against, so it seems Biden is the most electable (but this has very limited utility-I highly doubt Moulton and Inslee are the second equal most electable), against everyone else only against Warren and Harris is Trump at 39%, and even then the gaps of 1% or 2% or 3% are far too small to be statistically significant (especially of course, given that IT IS VERY EARLY). Really, this poll doesn't tell us much at all.

[Person Man]

This poll is trash but a seven point loss is believable.