Quinnipiac Poll with / without Clinton

[wyldwolf]

[BootinUp]

1. Lets see...undecided plus all others...nope still less than 57%

[still_one]

2. Interesting since the only one running for sure is Webb. Hypothetical polls mean nothing IMHO

[elleng]

3. Interesting.

Thanks.

Biden/Warren ticket looks good to me.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Looks very good for Warren!

If the participants were the same individuals in both sets of possible responses, then there's a 14% who seem to have not studied options other than a Clinton.

That, to me, is quite sad.

[RiverLover]

6. Not enough name recognition yet. During primaries, they'll see. ~nt

[liberal_at_heart]

17. Obama wasn't supposed to have enough name recognition or experience either.

[stevenleser]

19. He had name recognition. nt

[brooklynite]

11. If only she wanted to run...

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. How do you come to that conclusion ...

without HRC, Warren sees a significant bump ... though less than Biden.

That would suggest that those polled HAVE considered other (potential) candidates beyond HRC.

But what this poll does show is that those polled are more centrist than you would prefer.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Warren places Second in both polls and hasn't even announced yet.

And Biden won't run, IMO.

Remove Clinton and Biden from the picture, who's only real claim to fame among the average low information voter, and what's left?

Now, imagine Warren getting more and more press and visibility, compared to the "already known" figures in first place.

Projecting what might happen, I see a lot of potential for Warren's numbers to eclipse both Clinton and Biden, even if both run.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. None of that supports your assertion. n/t

[LawDeeDah]

5. completely meaningless

This is what you might be saying once the campaign begins and Hillary sinks like a rock. Polls are meaningless! (unless Hillary is winning)

[Logical]

7. LOL, Hillary is that you? nt

[hrmjustin]

8. I think Hillary will win this time! i think she has the best chance to win out of all our

possible candidates.

[Logical]

40. People said the same thing in 2008! nt

[hrmjustin]

42. I am well aware of that.

But remember that a third democratic term will be hard and I think Hillary is the only one at this point that can win imo.

[LostInAnomie]

9. But... But... But... Hillary is a Third Way, DINO, ConservaDem Corporate stooge!

No way any Democrats will support her!

[hrmjustin]

10. .

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Hillary was supposed to be a shoe in last time.

The more national air time Warren and Sanders get the bigger they will become. They have something Hillary doesn't which is exactly why she didn't win last time, a message people can get excited about.

[BootinUp]

13. Neither of them will have the money to really threaten her.

Its just my opinion of course.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. Obama made a lot of money using grass roots fundraising.

You get a few million people to donate $10 to your campaign and bam you're in business.

[BootinUp]

18. Hillary had a similar profile actually

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

[liberal_at_heart]

20. My point is the arguments that money or name recognition will keep Warren or

Sanders from winning are antiquated. Social media has changed the game. Social media gives ordinary, average people a way to make sure their candidates have just as much money and name recognition as the ones getting big bucks from corporations and rich people.

[BootinUp]

26. Won't be too long for your theory to be tested.

My experience is that the kind of campaign you picture starts with a bang and dies. See Wesley Clark.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. It worked for Obama.

[BootinUp]

29. You missed the part where his donor profile

was similar to H. Clinton. In other words, he had some major big buck backers that your two dream candidates will not have.

[Nevernose]

22. I seem to remember a money-poor, no-name governor from Arkansas

Not too long ago...

[BootinUp]

23. He had at least two things going for him

He was a governor from the South and he had a real gift for reaching people.

[Nevernose]

25. Despite the criticism from the radical left

I still really like the guy, and think he was the right man for the right time. I hope that history will see through the many difficulties & occasional bad decision and remember him more kindly than DU does.

For the record, I am the aforementioned "radical left," somewhere to the left of Chairman Mao. "Radical left" is meant as accurate description, not pejorative description.

[Logical]

41. I bet you didn't know she just paid off her 2008 debt last year! Nt

[tabbycat31]

21. I don't think either could win a general election

First of all Warren does not want to run. Her candidacy is all speculation, and I'll believe it when SHE says she's running. If not she's happy as a senator and could be a good pick for Treasury for the next administration.

As much as I love Sanders, a 75 yo socialist is not going to be president. We just got our asses kicked in the midterms and it's not politically feasible to run a self-identified socialist. I don't even know if he could carry New York.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. He self identifies as a socialist democrat and is registered as an independent.

The people of this country are desperate for a populist message. Why do you think Obama's Hope and Change message was so popular? Hillary just cannot speak to the issues that the poor or even Middle class deal with every day of their life. There is a reason people are dissatisfied with both the Republican and Democratic Parties. They live in a bubble. They cash their big fat paychecks and they don't have to deal with the same problems that average Americans deal with day in and day out.

[BootinUp]

34. New Yorkers loved her for some fuckin reason.

[hrmjustin]

35. We NYers loved Hillary and thought she spoke for us just fine.

She got half the vote in 2008 so Democrats thought she could speak for us just fine.

She leads all primary polls with a majority of votes so that means a majority of Democrats think she can speak for us just fine.

[tabbycat31]

39. Do you really want to see Walter Mondale 2.0?

That's my fear if Bernie Sanders is the nominee. He'd carry a few smaller states and that's it. He would have to compete in an otherwise reliably blue state like NY (where Wall Street is a major employer). Forget about putting states like North Carolina (home to many banking corporate offices) in play.

Look I'm not old enough to remember Walter Mondale's ass kicking firsthand (I was 4 at the time). But I don't want another epic asskicking (of a Democrat) to happen in my lifetime.

[Renew Deal]

14. Interesting that Hillary supporters would go to Biden 2-1 over Warren.

I guess they are looking for an establishment candidate. I wonder how much gender is a motivating factor for the 12% going to Warren.

[tritsofme]

16. Looks good for Team Clinton! Warren isn't running, and is in fact instead urging Hillary to run

Biden's likely campaign is sure to be a sideshow, like the other times he ran for president. No one on the rest of the list is a serious contender, and their support is statistically insignificant at this point.

Hillary is no doubt the prohibitive frontrunner and favorite.

[RiverLover]

38. It doesn't sound to me like Liz is keen to endorse Hillary~

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've been pretty clear, and we showed it in Jeff Zeleny's piece, that you say you're not running for president in 2016. It seems like you've just affirmed it again. You also signed a letter -- several senators signed a letter earlier this year encouraging Hillary Clinton to run.

So is she your candidate in 2016?

WARREN: You know, all of the women -- Democratic women, I should say, of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run. And I hope she does.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You hope she does. And if she does, she is your candidate, you're going to endorse her?

WARREN: If Hillary -- Hillary is terrific.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you've said she is terrific very many times. You say that again in this book, "A Fighting Chance." But this book leaves out something of a pointed criticism from your earlier book, "The Two Income Trap."

There you praised first lady Hillary Clinton for her opposition to this bankruptcy bill pushed by the big banks, but go on to talk about how she, as New York senator, seemed she could not afford that principled position.

Senator Clinton received 140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives in a single year. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton's constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers, including a vote in favor of that awful bill.

So do you think that -- are you worried that somehow she will bow to big business, those were your words in that book, if she becomes president?

WARREN: Look, I've made it clear all the way through this book and really what I've been working on for the last 25 years, that I'm worried a lot about power in the financial services industry.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/abcs-stephanopoulos-makes-elizabeth-warren

[Ink Man]

28. Hillary

has the money. Do you think Wall Street or Hollywood will give any money to Warren or Sanders. It's over.

[Exultant Democracy]

31. Clintons numbers are higher then they where they were 8 years ago but similar ball park

Warren numbers on the other hand are amazing. She is further along then Obama was in 2006, however Obama already had a presidency run in his cross hairs and was working the Iowa New Hampshire circuit pretty hard.

[brooklynite]

37. "however Obama already had a presidency run in his cross hairs"

...whereas Warren has been empathic that she's not going to run.

[Jamaal510]

33. Interesting that

Biden actually has a higher percentage than Warren in that poll without HC. I never hear his name mentioned around here for 2016: just Bernie and Elizabeth, and occasionally O'Malley.