Poll: Joe Biden Passes Bernie Sanders, Gains on Hillary Clinton

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

A new Monmouth University poll shows that still-not-a-candidate Joe Biden is gaining momentum, having passed (democratic) socialist Bernie Sanders and gained ground on problem emailer Hillary Clinton among voters who are registered or lean Democrat.

Of 339 respondents, 22% said they would back Veep, former Delaware Senator, son of Scranton Biden if the 2016 election were held today — up from just 12% a month ago. (FWIW, he scored 16% in this measure back in April when his nascent candidacy was extremely nascent.) While Sanders was eclipsed by Biden — granted, in a poll with a 5.3% margin of error — his support has also trended upward; his 20% support is up from 16% last month. The big “loser” here, of course, is Clinton, whose numbers ticked down from 52% to 42%.

Which means that, yes, she's still leading by quite a bit. And her favorability, while down from 82% in December is still very high at 71%. Meanwhile, Biden's favorability is peaking at 71% — nearly double his December mark of 46%. (Sanders' 41% favorability is up from 21% in December but offset by the fact that his favorability may have leveled off — and that 45% of respondents still had no opinion about him.)

While 23% of respondents say they'd be more likely to support a candidate Biden if he were to name Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, Sanders supporters (43%) are more than twice as likely than Clinton supporters (18%) to be swayed by a Warren pairing. Would that be enough to get Biden past the still-formidable Hillary? All caveats about announcement bumps — or, in this case, speculation bumps — of course apply.

Read more: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-poll-numbers

[Renew Deal]

1. What does it say for Sanders campaign that he's losing to a guy that's not even running?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

4. What's it say for the Hillary campaign that "Not Hillary" is so popular?

[Renew Deal]

13. "Not Bernie" is even more popular

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. LOL! That's why they call it "Populist",

[Renew Deal]

24. So losing is populist, but winning is unpopulist?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. You know that you don't believe that.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

9. If that guy is the popular sitting v-p, who has been making noise about running

it makes perfect sense.

[liberalmike27]

11. For the Record

I hate polls that have candidates that aren't in the race, and I don't see how one can gain momentum, when one is not in the race.

Can you imagine someone calling a race, and saying "He's coming up on the outside, he's off the track, but running along side it, he's running, he's coming, of course he didn't run the rest of the course, just the stretch..." Kind of stupid if you ask me.

And a sample of 339? PUUhhlleeezzeee.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. That would be a slow night at a Vegas buffet.

[Plucketeer]

56. Yeah! I agree with you 100%

How's come MY name hasn't shown up in one of those polls?

[thesquanderer]

17. One thing it says is that a lot more people have heard of Biden than Sanders

which makes sense, Biden being the VP.

As the OP says, 45% of respondents still had no opinion about Sanders... versus only 21% having no opinion about Biden, and 12% having no opinion about HRC.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

28. It says the poll is meaningless because he shouldn't have been an option.

He hasn't announced, and may not announce.

[Renew Deal]

42. I generally agree with that.

There probably should be a poll with him and without him.

[OhWiseOne]

46. When biden is not included Hillary goes way ahead of Sanders

so

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. Cue the Oh, really? Owl...

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. It's only "name recognition". Anyone beating BS is only cuz people know their name.

[billhicks76]

63. What Does It Say About Hillary?

Hillary and Joe serve the exact same masters. They want to throw Biden in there to derail and reforms Bernie could make with a victory. Paying people a decent wage and income equality scares the crap out of them. They see Hillary as a loser now and are worried about maintaining the status quo.

[pocoloco]

2. Joe Biden: wackadoodle now “serious candidate”

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/joe-biden-wackadoodle-now-serious-candidate/

[Lychee2]

50. Interesting column by Rappoport.

Some of those gaffes are pretty bad. That's something that bothers me about Biden. He sometimes says the strangest things.

Time Magazine has what it calls "a complete list" here:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Gotta keep an eye on this thread!

[leftofcool]

5. I see this as good news. Two fine Democrats!

[Ed Suspicious]

6. Sanders still moving on up.

"While Sanders was eclipsed by Biden — granted, in a poll with a 5.3% margin of error — his support has also trended upward; his 20% support is up from 16% last month. The big “loser” here, of course, is Clinton, whose numbers ticked down from 52% to 42%."

[Betty Karlson]

14. Not an expert on polling here, but

if Vice-President Biden were to be ruled out for the purpose of this poll, how much of the Anyone-But-Hillary vote would have gone to Sanders? In other words, is Biden's presence in the poll a bit of a spoiler effect, aiming at obfuscation of the growing sentiment against Mrs. Clinton?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

8. So "socialist" and "problem emailer" are now job titles?

I'm sure they also poll the GOP and call Trump "racist birther" or Jeb "nepotism beneficiary" to preface their names

Oh, that durn lib'rul media, always giving Democrats preferential treatment!

[DCBob]

10. Interesting.

[LynneSin]

12. Run Joe Run

[riversedge]

27. I love that pic---even

if I am not ridin with biden Nice slogan also BTW

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. What a piece of shit newspaper! "Socialist" Bernie Sanders?? Hillary "problem emailer" Clinton???

Fuck the Philadelphia Inquirer, shit rag.

[Ed Suspicious]

16. I'm pretty much used to the "Socialist" bit, but you're right -"Problem Emailer" is beyond the pale.

[cosmicone]

19. But but .....

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

What about Bernie being so powerful that all the people are just going to follow him like the pied piper. The hypothesis that inside every person is an extreme inner socialist who will come out as soon as Bernie Sanders wins and there will be a job for everyone who wants to work, a check for everyone who doesn't want to work, free health care for all, planes will all run on time and there will be no earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes or hurricanes. Rivers will flow full of chocolate milk and people will be celebrating with free beer and wine for all, dancing and singing with extreme joy. Bankers will be kind, giving away loans to people without checking income or credit scores and loan forgiveness for people who just simply can't pay. Oil companies will be giving free burgers and fries at gas stations and thankful for the privilege of serving people. Payments will be optional everywhere.

All this to be paid for with a 98% income tax on rich people who will just happily offer 99%, shamed by their inner socialist.

What happened to that?????

By the way .... this is SATIRE ... for those who didn't get it at first glance.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. Wow....is that what it sounds like over in the Hillary group?

[Bubzer]

22. Sadly, yes. They spend more time time tearing down opponents than building up Hillary

Its really negative over there. A number of Hillary supporters frequently claim Bernie supporters are terrible... but I think there's a lot of projection happening on their behalf.

[dorkzilla]

23. Fucking crazy, isn’t it?

I never read such twaddle...

Just think about these “hits” from 2008...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/05/652796/-Obama-Can-t-Win-Worst-Predictions-of-2008

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. Loved this in the comments...

[dorkzilla]

43. LOL!

Ah, Dick Morris. Gotta love the way he gets everything wrong all the time.

However, I’m told in a response below that the comparison of 2008 to today with the prognosticators is totes irrelevant because Obama was young and dynamic ipso facto....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Sounds like the product of a committee....

https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/products/hats-off-to-hillary/?utm_medium=om2016&utm_source=gs&utm_campaign=mc-shop&utm_content=76977538033&utm_term=c

[cosmicone]

38. Bernie is no Obama - another dreamer comparison

Obama is young
Obama is dashing
Obama is African American
Obama is a DEMOCRAT, not "running as a" democrat
Obama's message was of hope and change not "they can't have their cadillac until we have made the last payment on our pinto"

[dorkzilla]

41. Impressive list you got there...

You forgot:

Obama has great oral hygiene
Obama sings really well
Obama has a great looking wife


The things you infer from this list is that Bernie is old, ugly, a Jew, isn’t a “real” democrat, and a welfare queen expecting the rich to pay for everything.


Such.Utter.Twaddle.

Funny, they called us Obama supporters delusional in 2008.

[Z_California]

25. Preview of RW memes in letters to the editor

after Bernie wins the nomination. Almost alert worthy.

[Z_California]

26. Wow, just noticed the little red writing on your sig

Hypocrite much?

[frylock]

33. Twaddle like this is what's going to make the schadenfreude so fucking delicious.

[brentspeak]

39. Whatever happened to banning RWers from DU?

[rocktivity]

30. All this fuss over 339 respondents?

rocktivity

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

49. 339? What's the MOE, 20% ????

[former9thward]

61. Total poll was 1007 people.

MOE 3.5%. Standard numbers for national polling.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

62. Thanks. Got confused by 339. Not sure what that means.

[L. Coyote]

31. So 23% of respondents say they'd be more likely to support Biden/Warren ....

The future of the Democratic Party from 2016 to 2032?

[Renew Deal]

45. The "future" of the Democratic Party is is 72 years old?

Biden is 72
Warren will be 71 in 2020

[riversedge]

32. NEW** today- PPP (D) Palmetto State Poll -Clinton 54% Biden 24% Sanders 9%

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Many do seem to be "Ridin with Binid"



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251578792

PPP (D) Palmetto State Poll -Clinton 54% Biden 24% Sanders 9%
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article34403052.html

[onehandle]

51. Hillary and Joe are Democratic Giants.

That's all I got.

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Thanks for that shot of reality.

[riversedge]

67. anytime.

[EEO]

35. Prediction: Biden Won't Run. He consulted with Elizabeth Warren.

He could totally be VP again, though.

[LynneSin]

40. With these candidates we need a younger VP

I think one of the things that hurt both Gore and Kerry was their lackluster VP choices. Here were two older white males and who did they pick for their VP but another older white male. Now tell me if you are a minority why they hell would you get excited about a ticket like that? Sure Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have nothing on Joe Biden but I think we need to think young when we make our choice for the 2016 VP.

Right now the GOP has a serious issue with appealing to the African-American and Hispanic voters so you can almost guarantee that their VP choice will possibly be a choice to reach out to their voters even if it's someone who barely represents that group (ie like how Sarah Palin was to reach out to women voters - HAHAHAHA!!!).

We have some great young politicians out there that would make awesome VP choices and would help secure our votes with Minority voters. We do not need an experienced VP since this time around the Presidential Candidate actually has experience (Sanders, Clinton, Biden and the others all come with experience). So we can bring in youth to round out the ticket and bring excitement. Why not put someone like Joaquin Castro or Cory Booker on the ticket as the Vice President? Both of these men are excellent politicians, great speakers and would excite the voters to give us huge voter turnout that not only would secure the 2016 Presidential race but probably help us turn the US Senate back to the Democrats. If we can get near 60% voter turnout in 2016 then the Democrats are unstoppable but if there is under 50% voter turnout we are screwed. Midterms are 35% voter turnout which is why the Republicans win all those Senate Races.

[EEO]

44. I don't disagree with much of your reasoning, but Biden cannot be charged with lack of energy.

[LynneSin]

53. True but should we alienated Minority voters?

I think we we discount them this election cycle we could see a lower voter turn out and possible risk the US Senate and possibly the White House. I also believe this hurts us at midterms because we say we are the party that represents minorities yet we have the same bland candidates running for governor and senate. No wonder the voter turnout is 35%.

[EEO]

58. It is very unlikely the Democrats will lose the White House in 2016.

Based on how extreme the Republicans are. Who would you suggest as a VP? Someone like Booker?

[GitRDun]

36. I'm sure the Biden folks will be out shortly to take down all of you non-believers!

[Attorney in Texas]

37. Sanders is an underdog because his views are more progressive than the ideological mid-point of the

Democratic Party.

That's a fact.

For such an underdog to win the nomination, Sanders needs the consolidated support of the progressive wing of the party (and he's crushing this task) plus the consolidated support from other Democrats who may be choosing a candidate for reasons beyond ideology (such as those who dislike the idea of a "dynasty," those who don't like or trust Clinton personally or don't like her style, those who don't like a candidate who has peremptorily locked in so many establishment party endorsements so early in the nomination process before the grassroots have had time to consider the candidates, etc.).

Biden cannot make inroads on Sanders' grassroots support from the progressive wing of the party who have chosen Sanders based on ideology (like me) because Biden has spent his whole very distinguished career at the ideological center of the party (he's much more hawkish than Sanders, he is much less inclined to regulate and tax business than Sanders, he is much more trusting of international trade agreements than Sanders, etc.).

Biden -- if he chooses to run -- will severely cut into Sanders' ability to gain the backing from segments of the party who will choose a candidate to support on grounds other than ideology (those voters who would prefer an alternative to Clinton but for reasons other than her ideology).

By cutting into Sanders ability to build support beyond the progressive wing of the party, a Biden candidacy would reduce Sanders from an underdog on the rise to the head of movement that is much less likely to produce a nominee.

A Biden candidacy would definitely take more votes from Clinton than from Sanders, but such a Biden candidacy would present an existential threat to Sanders' chances of winning the nomination as an underdog.

Before Clinton supporters rejoice at that prospect, consider that a Biden candidacy would not only significantly diminish Sanders' chances of winning the nomination, but a hypothetical Biden candidacy would weaken (possibly fatally weaken) Clinton's chances in the general election.

A Biden campaign could not surpass Clinton's campaign in terms of on-the-ground infrastructure, party establishment support, and fundraising networking because she has had an overwhelming head start over Biden in building those structures. At the earliest, Biden could not even make significant headway on this task until March (and only then Biden could not make much headway unless the wheels completely came off the Clinton campaign in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which is very unlikely; even if Sanders wins both states -- as I hope he does -- Clinton would have to do a lot worse than a close second in both states to cause any significant exodus).

That is also a fact.

However, a Biden candidacy would generate endless rounds of "Clinton campaign in crisis" MSM hand-wringing stories every time a fundraiser shifted to Biden or a politician withdrew from the Clinton campaign to support Biden (Biden is a well loved sitting VP so there would inevitably be a few defections but not nearly enough for Biden to win -- just enough to make Clinton look weaker).

Ultimately, Biden cannot win the nomination because Sanders has unshakable support among progressives and Clinton has an insurmountable head start in terms of locking down centrist/party establishment support and fund-raising sources. In the process of losing the primary (for the third time), Biden may kill off Sanders' underdog insurgency and fatally weaken Clinton's candidacy in the general election (which also changes Clinton's VP selection criteria and erodes Clinton's need to choose a progressive VP to unify the party if she barely beats Sanders in a Clinton-Sanders showdown), but it will still not result in a Biden nomination in any foreseeable likelihood.

[swilton]

52. Excellent summary

[Z_California]

65. This is an interesting analysis

and it makes a lot of sense. This is what I look for on DU. Thank you.

[Attorney in Texas]

66. Thanks

[blackspade]

47. More shitty polling.

Biden is not running as yet.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. Joe shoots from the hip. That can be a good thing, and very bad at the same time. It's the same...

reason Trump has shot to the head of the line. Both these guys have a tendency to say things that get people talking. I love JB, but there are so many pratfalls just waiting to happen when/if he officially announces.

[MFrohike]

59. They're not sabremetric fans up in Monmouth, I'm guessing

A poll this small seems like trying to predict final batting average on June 1.

[d_legendary1]

60. You know who else is polling good in other places?

?1440157991163

True story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-presidential-candidate-deez-nuts/