Sanders has support. Biden has support. Harris has support.

[MineralMan]

Other candidates do, too, but somewhat less support. That's how this all works. The problem is in how we measure that support, and whether it matters to our personal preferences.

Polls can be useful, but they can also be useless. If a candidate does well in some poll, it's meaningless unless we know what the poll was measuring, who participated, and what the questions were. One of the least useful polls of all is a poll that measures name recognition this early in the primary race.

Such results are utterly predictable, but are not predictive. We know who Joe Biden is. He was Vice President under Obama. We know who Bernie Sanders is, because he came in second in the 2016 primaries to Hillary Clinton. We know who Kamala Harris is because she was the first to formally announce her candidacy and got lots of press for her launch rally.

So what? Polls that show that people know candidates' names right now are meaningless. It's too early. Of course some candidates will have stronger name recognition right now.

That doesn't mean that other candidates are not working on that very thing, but have not achieved enough name recognition nationwide. That doesn't mean they won't, though.

A name recognition poll really tells us nothing about the candidates. The ones who have been prominent in the past have better name recognition numbers, and such a poll will reflect that.

People know who Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris are.

So what?

[sandensea]

1. It's good to be on the side of a party with so many great choices

As opposed to the radicalized clown car the other guys have to deal with - or worse:

[saidsimplesimon]

2. Did I miss the end of Primary season?

I see no reason to move from undecided at this point in time.

[MineralMan]

3. Nope. In fact, the beginning of the primary season

is almost a year away, so you have plenty of time. In the meantime, people are going to show you all sorts of polls and other things to try to get you on board for their favorite candidate.

[katmondoo]

4. Jay Inslee has support

[MineralMan]

6. I listed only the current three leading candidates.

Every candidate has some support.

[MontanaMama]

5. We're going to learn many things

about all the candidates running during the next year. As great as all the Dem candidates are, it may become clear that some are more well suited for the office of President than others and that is a good thing. I am undecided for the foreseeable future.

[peggysue2]

7. Name recognition will become secondary as . . .

the pre-primary and primary season moves forward. We'll be repeatedly hearing about these candidates, the well-known and lesser-known, as well as their positions and policy prescriptions. More importantly, we'll witness how they contend with ongoing criticism and accusations, the slings and arrows of every campaign season. And then, we judge who has the chops to take it to Donald Trump.

Because winning in 2020 is everything.

Btw, Barack Obama was not a household name. Until he was.

[sacto95834]

8. Obama

Yes and no. Obama was given the keynote address at the DNC in 2004 (Kerry), so the Democrats paying attention (usually the primary voters) knew who he was even if they didn't know perhaps his specifics.

His campaign caught fire in the early summer in Iowa and it allowed him to really do battle with HRC. He was an excellent speaker and generated excitement once the press focused on him. Before that HRC was the leader without a doubt. I have a good friend who wasn't really political that went to one of Obama's rallies in Iowa and he was impressed and told me Obama was the real deal. Up to then I thought HRC had it in the bag being the first woman to really contest the nomination and she had a real following (I think many became what were known as PUMAs - I know one of those as well; she cried when HRC conceded and told me she was thinking of moving).

[peggysue2]

11. The candidate who most reminds me of Barack Obama is . . .

Beto O'Rourke. They both had/have that 'Catch on Fire' quality or the 'It' factor that some people refer to. They were/are known (to Democratic political junkies) but not household names until that spark ignited their campaigns.

It's one of the reasons I'm still undecided. If Beto jumps in, it'll be really interesting to see what happens. Will he fizzle? Or will he catch the magic? And if he does catch that magic wand, how far will it take him?

Remains to be seen.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

9. Thank you MineralMan for a non-antagonastic post

I have seen this forum devolve into mud-slinging way too early when we have a whole year of campaigning left. I feel like we need to recognize that there are a lot of different factions within the party that is normal in a big tent party. We need each other more than we need to be at each other's throats.

[MineralMan]

10. You're welcome. It's so early in this that I can't see any point

to posts that are merely divisive. Right now, there are a dozen or so candidates hoping to make a splash in the primaries. Most of them are just getting started. A couple have name recognition, based on the past. The rest still have to make names for themselves.

It's almost a year until the first caucuses and primaries. We're going to hear from and see all of the potential nominees frequently between now and then. I've decided to select Joe Biden for my minimal support at the moment, but more because I know him better than most of the rest. He's certainly not a sure thing for my primary vote, which might well go to Minnesota's "favorite daughter," Amy Klobuchar, just on principle.

I don't really give Senator Sanders much chance of prevailing in this crowded race. I'm afraid he probable had his best opportunity four years ago, but failed to get the nomination. I doubt he'll get that far in 2020.

But, what the heck. It's a long, long time until we get to vote, so who knows?

[fishwax]

12. It's definitely not predictive, but I don't think it's meaningless either, at this point

Yes, people with relatively low name recognition have come from that position to win before, but there are some extenuating circumstances in play that helped them along, and of course there are many more who started out with relatively low name recognition and whose campaigns died on the vine. Name recognition at this point doesn't tell us anything about a candidate, but it isn't meaningless when it comes to the viability of a campaign, because this process demands from candidates some pretty considerable resources (financial, especially) and those with lower name recognition will likely have a tougher time securing those resources. The ones with low recognition will be working on strengthening that, and some will succeed and some will struggle. It's a crowded field, and will still probably get a little more crowded, and it's going to make for a pretty furious sprint to the hole shot. Many of these candidates likely won't make it past New Hampshire, let alone hanging on until Super Tuesday.

[MineralMan]

13. I mentioned the current front-runners.

They are that, primarily due to name recognition, with the exception of Kamala Harris, who is in that group because she was the first to announce and gave a rousing speech when she did announce.

Name recognition is always a big factor in primaries. It always will be. It gives those who have it an early leg up on the rest. It is not, however, definitive, and the one with the most name recognition may well finish far back in the pack in the end.

[Garrett78]

14. There are reasons to think some have a better chance than others, but the name recognition polls...

...are still meaningless.

For instance, we have 1 candidate who ran in 2016. The demographic data from that race carries far more weight than any name recognition polls taken nearly a year before Iowa.

[smirkymonkey]

15. I'm kind of liking Biden/Harris at this point, but I still want to wait a bit before

deciding for sure. Is Joe definitely in yet or is he still on the fence? I haven't really been paying too much attention since it's still kind of early.

[Baclava]

16. VPs are never part of the scene till around the conventions, I don't know why people keep doing this

Everybody wants to fast forward the primaries when they have barely started, lol

wait 6 months till things begin to clear, with maybe a better picture of the strength of candidates

I know, people hate that too, they want instant results these days