Poll: Trump beats O'Rourke, nearly ties Sanders and loses to Biden in hypothetical 2020 matchups

[DonViejo]

President Trump trails former Vice President Joe Biden in a hypothetical 2020 matchup, according to a new The Hill-HarrisX poll.

The survey finds Biden leading Trump, 42 percent to 36 percent, better than at least two other leading potential Democratic White House contenders.

The president tops Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) in their matchup, with 37 percent saying they would vote Trump, and 30 percent saying they would choose O'Rourke.

Trump nearly ties with former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the poll, with 37 percent saying they would vote for Trump, and 38 percent picking Sanders.

Progressive strategist Ruy Teixeira said in an interview that aired Monday on "What America's Thinking," that while it's too early to start polling on 2020 contenders, it does not surprise that Biden matches up well against Trump.

"It's really early to be polling on this," Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons.

more
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in

[manor321]

1. These polls are so dumb. And it's electoral college, not popular vote that matters.

[Mike Nelson]

2. These polls...

… suppose Beto, Bernie and Biden run and win the Democratic primaries. Also, that Bernie doesn't run as an Independent.

I'm thinking the Democratic nominee will be a woman...

[Hugin]

3. Eh, the hill.

[janterry]

4. These polls are so destructive

They help limit the field, before the contestants even jump into the race

[Renew Deal]

13. There is truth to this

Just look at the 2016 republican primary where they used these polls to decide who would debate

[sharedvalues]

5. Many problems. 1. Hill run by Trumpite billionaire (Finkelstein)

2. Are they polling electoral college?
3. Outcome of general election is VERY different than polling the GOP president vs a field of Dem candidates. When one Dem is nominated we can expect movement for them: President approval disapprove is a better proxy at 35-62 or so.

[doc03]

6. How in the hell could anyone lose to Trump

really? What about after Mueller and SDNY get finished with him.

[Demsrule86]

7. If we run a candidate who can be successfully attacked and painted as far left,

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2018, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

(We need moderates) we could lose. Also, already I see some supposed Sen. Sanders supporters sowing discord by attacking Beto. But are they really Sanders supporters or Russians/GOP political operatives? I don't give two fucks who the Democratic candidate is. I will vote for him/her.

[Dave Starsky]

10. Any so-called "moderate" who would discount a liberal...

In favor of the current Disaster-in-Chief is hopelessly beyond our reach, anyway. These people have no grasp of the obvious and never will.

I would, personally, vote for Abbie Freaking Hoffman over the prospect of re-electing Orange Cthulhu, and I'm as straightlaced a white boy as you will find.

[Demsrule86]

18. Republicans and independents ignore what we see and vote for bad candidates for the policy...we

should do the same. It is my opinion that if we run any candidate other than one who can appeal to moderates and even GOP types like Sherrod Brown, we lose. My future son-in -law...a person of color said we need to run a white male...I was shocked. When I pointed out that women and minorities are large constituencies in the Democratic Party. He said that we need to win period and stop Trump or (and this is key) any Republican they run INSTEAD of Trump.

[In It to Win It]

12. Either way, no matter who we choose, they will be attacked for...

being too far left or not being “left enough.”

Being too far left, I think, is giving into the GOP talking point.

Sanders supporters will attack any potential Democratic nominee whose name isn’t Bernie Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

19. This is true...but I have to wonder if these folks are really just Sanders supporters.

[Renew Deal]

11. The two people with name recognition are ahead of him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Could see Beto losin... he just needs a little more time to season.

Bernie or Biden is the better bet... we can't afford to take any chances this time.

[triron]

37. I wonder the same.

[Renew Deal]

8. No major party candidate in either party gets below 43%. And realistically 45%

Trump being in the 30’s for re-election is a massive red flag for him.

[former9thward]

15. Bill Clinton was at 38% in late 1994.

And as we know was re-elected. Obama was in the 40s in 2010 for reelect numbers.

[TexasBushwhacker]

21. He might have lost if Ross Perot hadn't been in the mix

Perot took almost 20% of the popular vote and he hurt Bush much more than Clinton. Traditionally post-Reagan red states like Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia went for Clinton because of Perot.

[Voltaire2]

23. Most of the analyses of that election

Split the Perot voters evenly. While it was an historic third party run, it had almost no effect on the outcome.

[StevieM]

28. And it wasn't even until Election Day that you could say that much. For most of the race

every single poll showed Perot taking more votes from Clinton than from Bush.

It was the same way in 1996. Perot took more votes from Clinton than Dole throughout the race, and on Election Day it finally got to the point where he took equally from both candidates.

[former9thward]

30. Those "analyses" look at the national vote.

Not the electoral vote. Looking at it state by state, county by county, Perot took Republican and Indie votes from Bush and cost him the electoral college. Bush won 40 states in 1988 and only 18 in 1992. He lost state after state such as GA, OH where previous Republican counties switched to Clinton because of the Perot vote. The Perot vote was 13% nationally but in previous Republican states it was 20% or more. The presidential election is a state by state, county by county math problem. Not national.

[TexasBushwhacker]

33. Exactly

It's not about the Perot votes in California, because Clinton still won there. It's about Perot votes in Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, where the GOP has been kicking ass since the Reagan years. In 2000, it wasn't the Nader votes nationwide mattered. He only got 2.7% of the popular vote, but most of it came from people that are normally part of the Democrats' base. The percentage was even less in Florida, less than 2%, but it was almost 100K votes, and Gore lost by less than 600 and lost the election.

[Renew Deal]

22. That's a poll, not an election

And it was a three way race. The floor seems to be 45% for McCain in 2008. I don’t think we are the same country we were during the 1980’s elections.

[former9thward]

25. Well yes, it was a poll.

Not an election. But the entire OP is about a poll, not an election. Yes it was a three way race. But who knows what 2020 may bring? Now that we have seen what a billionaire can do in an election the barn door is open. There are quite a few billionaires out there, on various sides, who may want to take a run at it.

[ananda]

9. This is bullshit!

Any x y or z will beat I-1 !!!

[karynnj]

14. Observation - Trump is remarkably consistent in all races - at 37%

What differs with the various Democratic choices is the number not yet decided. Biden may well be the best proxy for generic Democrat because he has name recognition similar to Trump's. What is scary is that even between 2 completely well known people there is such a high uncertain group -- 22%.

The best possibility is that there are Democrats/Independents in each race chosing uncertain because they prefer the person named not be the Democratic choice. Note that uncertain against an incumbent usually breaks for the challenger - which would put at least Biden and Sanders ahead and very likely Beto.

Edited to add a poll of Trump vs "Democrat" -- here Trump is 38% - adding definitely Trump, 23, and probably Trump, 15 - close to this poll. However, here Democrat added to 52 -- and 39 were definitely and 13 probably. Link - top poll here.
http://pollingreport.com/2020.htm

[DFW]

16. My polls say the ticket of Wintergreen/Throttlebottom tops them all

Once the Supreme Court decides for corn muffins, of course.

(so much for the relevance I attach to polls taken now).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Take the poll with a grain of salt

-It's early
-It's a test of awareness
- The pollster is mediocre

[Yosemito]

20. With less than 50% name recognition, Beto down by 7 only

Excellent sign.

[stonecutter357]

26. Joe Biden 2020 !

[Turbineguy]

27. Putin will have to come up with an attactive

3rd party candidate again if he wants to keep his boy in there. Of course at the rate things are going, none of that may be necessary.

At least Putin can rely on a sizable "I don't give a fuck about my future so I don't vote" cohort.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. At this point it's all about name recognition.

Outside Texas, only politics junkies know very much about O'Rourke. Biden is very well-known and is still popular, same with Sanders (at least in some quarters). Polls this early don't tell us much except whose name is recognized.

[Hoyt]

31. It's 20 to 30+% who didn't vote for a pick that counts in the general election.

[Cha]

32. Beto's doing pretty good for not even

running as of yet.

[Greybnk48]

34. I don't believe the polls.

That just seems absurd at this point, especially after the Fall elections.

[workinclasszero]

35. The Hill leans right

I would take that poll with a grain of salt.

[0rganism]

36. all this poll says is Trump holds 37% re-election support

while Biden, Bernie, and Beto all stand a decent chance of running a strong campaign against him. the race hasn't even begun yet, so this is like local sports press going apeshit over the home team's assets before the big game -- potentially interesting to hardcore fans, but not a strong predictor of the eventual outcome.

[triron]

38. If any truth to this, something is very wrong with American voters.

Trump should be around 25% at best.