New 2016 Poll: Hillary 63% Warren 12% Biden 10%

[Cali_Democrat]

Vice President Joe Biden is a distant third among who voters would prefer to win a Democratic primary in 2016, behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), according to a new Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Just 9.63 percent of those surveyed said that Biden would be their first choice if the Democratic Caucus for President were held today. By contrast Clinton got 62.96 percent of those surveyed and Warren came next with 11.85 percent of those surveyed. All three Democrats have been mentioned as potential 2016 presidential candidates although Clinton and Biden have dropped bigger hints that suggest they plan to run.

The good news for Biden is that he leads among who would be the second choice preference, according to the poll. Among those surveyed, 36.97 percent said Biden would be their second preference while 16.81 percent said Clinton would be their second choice and 15.29 percent said Warren would be their second choice.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-joe-biden-hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren

Poll: http://www.suffolk.edu/news/31466.php#.U0WVvVfWpK4

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. DU 2016 Poll: Warren 98%; Biden 1%; Hillary .00000010%.

[closeupready]

8. Okay. Twist our arms. Okay, Warren, it is!

[Lil Missy]

13. DU does not represent reality. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. It never has. Remember, Dennis Kucinich used to win DU polls by 1000's of points.

[TheNutcracker]

29. Yes, and John Kerry was at 6%.....even in Iowa!

Before he fired Jim Jordan and retooled to the Real Deal ....

[JI7]

32. Kerry had more than 6 percent before dropping to that point . the 6 percent was the low point

and it was around the time he was being treated for prostate cancer.

Kucinich never had high numbers even though some think kucinich was actually leading .

[m-lekktor]

34. DU people are more informed political junkies

there are many low information liberal types that don't hang out on political discussion boards 24/7 out there.

[JI7]

35. no, many on DU are conspiracy theorists , they aren't really that informed

[Number23]

36. + a number too freaking high to even try to count

[JI7]

2. most democrats don't even know who WArren is

but at this point before 2008 elections there were already Obama supporter groups starting up. i'm not seeing that with WArren so far. at least not on the same level.

i think there are some who claim to support WArren but they mostly use her to bash other Democrats.

the pro obama groups that started didn't really have much to do with hillary clinton and in fact most of them liked hillary. the ugliness of the election really starts later on . but for those who are serious about their candidate you are trying to BUILD support and if 63 percent of your party likes another candidate you don't bash that candidate in order to get them to support who you want.

[stevenleser]

5. "if 63 percent of your party likes another candidate you don't bash that candidate in order to get..

...them to support who you want."

While that is correct, it's too easy and tempting for people who don't know better to attack the other candidate no matter how self destructive it is in terms of the person they support. Just look at post #3.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Queen Blue Dog, Corporatist, Triangulation, ConservaDem, Third Way stooge, and BFF to Doug Coe.

[brooklynite]

9. ...but you'll vote for her in the General Election, right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. bullshit....not true....

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.


http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[pnwmom]

40. But what is worst than all that , in the subconscious minds of the Neanderthals who hate her,

is that she's an unabashed feminist, and always has been.

[hrmjustin]

4. Go Hillary!

[NCTraveler]

6. I think those are really good numbers for Warren.

She simply doesn't have the name recognition and is not a flamethrower(in the sense of a Grayson). Not everyone is like us here at du. The facts actually show we are in the minority when it comes to political watching. For Warren to get 12% at this point is impressive. She will only surge forward as time goes on. I am guessing that Obamas name wasn't even really tested in polls like these this far out from the election and he won(assumption, could be completely wrong). I would really like to have the opportunity to vote for Warren as we stand now. Maybe even someone who is on the sidelines.

[JI7]

7. Obama was known nationally because he gave the 2004 Keynote

but i do agree that Warren's numbers are still impressive in itself.

[NCTraveler]

11. Even with Obama doing the Keynote....

Pretty sure that you could ask Americans who gave the keynote that year and less than 10% would be able to tell you. I would actually wager to say it would be well under 5%. Keynotes are big to party and followers, small to everyone else. I pay attention and couldn't tell you who gave the last keynote without going to Google. I think Christie did it for the repubs. Funny how I hold onto bad memories for longer than good ones.

Good numbers for Warren and it is nice to see.

For fun, this is still one of my favorite convention moments.

[JI7]

12. no, Obama's got a lot of attention, it's why is he President today

i agree that they don't always get the same response. but Obama's got more attention because it was so good.

people may not know of the speech as being the "keynote speech" but that speech is probably one of the most famous speeches in the history of this country.

[TheNutcracker]

30. Yes, lots of attention. $More$ than John Kerry got at HIS 2004 convention in Boston

That is where/when they introduced Obama to the democratic party. On stage in Boston, 2004.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Thank you. I was gonna say the same thing. Obama hit the "international" scene in '04.

[Demo_Chris]

37. That, and the mega corps decided he would do as directed. nt

[frazzled]

19. In 2006 (late) Clinton was polling only 38-39% versus Obama's 17%

So there was never this big of a spread: more like 20 to 30 points over the next candidate, but not 50 points ahead. I can't find comparable polls for this early before the primaries (e.g., spring of two years before), but did find two from later in 2006 (November and December):

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who has recently said he is considering a bid for his party's presidential nomination, now trails only Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on list of potential Democratic candidates in 2008, according to a new CNN poll released Wednesday.
...

Clinton's share of the Democratic voters has fallen from 38 percent in September to 28 percent -- still enough to make her the front-runner. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/poll.2008/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

This one, from a few months ago, mentions her current standing in WaPo/ABC to where she was in 2006:

Clinton stands at an eye-popping 73 percent in a hypothetical 2016 primary race with Biden, the sitting vice president, who is the only other candidate in double digits at 12 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has signed a letter along with a handful of other Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, is at 8 percent. And that's it.

That lead is almost three times as large as the one Clinton enjoyed in Post-ABC polling in December 2006, the first time we asked the 2008 Democratic presidential primary ballot question. At that time, Clinton took 39 percent to 17 percent for then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 12 percent for 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards and 10 percent for former Vice President Al Gore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/30/hillary-clinton-is-the-biggest-frontrunner-for-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-ever-yes-ever/

This could all change in a flash, of course. But it is a commanding lead.

[joshcryer]

39. Importantly, the country was looking for a truly new path.

And that path included representing another aspect of our politics. There had been 43 Presidents, all white males, no representation in the woman, Hispanic, or African-American population whatsoever. Clinton was personally angry at Obama because she knew he'd pose a challenge even though the polls gave her a lead. I posted an OP here that got flame to hell and back because I predicted, even with her commanding lead, she'd lose.

It wasn't that the junior senator was a truly commanding personality, it was that he had what Clinton did not; the truly genuine truth that he was new on the scene. No dynasties, no long term political aspirations for power, relatively poor upbringing, truly unique.

Clinton is something different. She's been quite literally fighting her entire life to be a civil servant. She's quite possibly the most qualified candidate in modern history, if ever. Obama saw an opportunity and took it, Clinton just fights her battles when she can.

[NCTraveler]

44. Great information. Thank you.

I agree that is a serious commanding lead. I also think Obama had some name recognition due to his opposition to Iraq. Some of Warrens stances haven't been as noteworthy as that. Well, some have been pretty noteworthy, just not as publicly consumable as war. I think with her current situation, she is polling fine. I think she will find that just announcing will give her a 10 or so point jump. Yes, I pulled that number out of my backside. With her polling where she is, she has the ability to paint her own canvas. Hillarys painting is complete for the most part. It will be interesting if Warren gets in and I would be one of her biggest supporters.

Thank you for your generous post.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. No Hillary.

Just more of the same over and over and over again.

[hobbit709]

14. And none of that does a goddamn thing for us this fall.

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Ugh. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

17. Looks like the "Hillary is a corporate stooge" brigade have their work cut out (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Doesn't it though?

Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

[Logical]

33. No, Hillary will mess it up on her own! nt

[The River]

20. Any Dem Would Be Better

than any republican....

That said I am sick of nepotism and quasi-dynastic family influence in government.
They become a comfortable part of the status quo.
Barbara Bush was right....."No more Bush's"
I'd say no more Clintons either, no matter how "qualified".
They really aren't that progressive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. The ultimate 3rd Way, Not as Bad, pragmatic, Woodchuck, candidate leads.

[AndreaCG]

22. I feel bad for Biden

He's been an exemplary VP and would get my vote over Hillary. I'm not a Hillary basher like too many here are, I just think Joe is terrific. Even when he sticks his foot in his mouth on occasion he's being sincere.

[Whisp]

25. Joe has much less foot in mouth disease than his competitors do

I think that is one of the greatest unfair things about Joe, that he is labeled with that when, omg, I won't list them but holy cow talk about mispeaks!

[Whisp]

23. Doesn't mean a thing. People easily forget about 2008

and how 'inevitable' she was then too. It's like deja vu groundhog day here and elsewhere. When the actual race starts for '16 and the debates reveal who stands for what and who did what when, her numbers will plummet.

I'm sure her new '16 campaign will be in much better shape than her disastrous one in '08 but it won't be enough, the chance was there and it is now gone. For running for first woman president she relied on her stupid old boy men's network way too much (this really bugs me especially when she brings up the Feminist thing so often and then lets herself be badly managed like that by hubby and Penn, and all the other idiots that screwed up so badly. She should have taken control herself - what kind of leader is she if she let others fuck it up for her while she watches it in slo mo from the sidelines?

It would be Great to have a woman president, but not one who thinks like too many male ones previous. She does not have the differential in that regard. She is far too worried about appearing weak and wrongly interprets strength (as many do) in military and sabre rattling terms, and that is dangerous - enough of that. Obama has spent his entire Presidency working diplomatically and the next Dem president should follow suit and walk down the same road, not flex stupid personal muscles and angst and payback to disloyals.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I'm probably in the minority here in that I'm not especially pro OR anti-HRC at this point.

My biggest objection to her has always been her IWR vote, but that's going on, what, 12 years now.. I am not so obtuse as to deny the inherent problems- and strengths- of her as a candidate. I believe she would likely be a formidable nominee.

That said, I agree that this time around she- and her supporters- are going to need more selling points than just "inevitability 2.0"

[Victor_c3]

41. I'm with you on the IWR vote being my biggest sticking point

but as a disabled veteran produced by that war, I'm a little less likely to forget about it with time. It's been exactly 10 years since I was in Iraq and it is alive and well in my mind.

In fact, exactly 10 years ago today I was involved in my first firefight. I woke up over 3.5 hours ago and haven't been able to go back to sleep since. For some reason I doubt Hillary Clinton has that problem. In fact, I'm sure she doesn't. She flat out stated in 2008 when pushed whether or not she was in any way sorry for her IWR vote "I have nothing to be sorry for". If she was at all sorry for her vote leading to war on Iraq and its consequences she would have said so. Even if she was truly mislead with what the IWR meant as some defenders of Hillary Clinton say was the case I'm sure she would have stated that she was sorry for the war if she had any remorse for it.

At least she's able to sleep well at night with her involvement in facilitating the war to occur. As a guy who joined the Army before September 11th naively thinking that I was going to help make the world a better place and protect our country with my military service and who never believed or supported the war in Iraq I don't get to have the luxury.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Thank you for your service.

I think it's VERY important that people like you continue to speak up about it and remind those of us who weren't there. Got nothing else to add.

[Victor_c3]

43. Thanks for that

I was a bit worried that maybe I came off as attacking you personally.

As I've gotten a little bit older I've decided that is the one thing I can impact positively with my military service. I can be open about it and work to make sure that another war like Iraq doesn't happen in my lifetime.

Again, thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. No, I hear you, and I simply don't have a good or anything remotely resembling adequate answer.

The bottom line is, you're right- and time hasn't made the Iraq war any less inexcusable.

[BeyondGeography]

26. If there's one-third of the vote lying around someone will try to pick it up

[quinnox]

31. I don't pay attention to any presidential polls until there are declared candidates

until then, these polls are kinda meaningless.

[Demo_Chris]

38. Tough to support Hillary or Biden. nt