Campaign 2020 - "Poll: Warren, Biden top picks among New Hampshire Dems"

[S.E. TN Liberal]

"...Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) edges Sen. Bernie Sanders in a Suffolk University poll asking New Hampshire Democrats to pick their favorite of seven possible candidates.

When Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who represents neighboring Massachusetts, is added to the list, she comes out on top with 26 percent, compared to 20 percent for Biden and 13 percent for Sanders.

Without Warren, Biden gets 30 percent support followed by Sanders with 25 percent...."...

More;

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/385852-poll-warren-biden-lead-2020-dem-race-in-new-hampshire

[NCTraveler]

1. Highly confident Warren isn't running.

She is the only one of the three mentioned in the body of the op I would be willing to vote for in a primary.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

2. I don't think she will either, but,...

...I would believe she will be offered a Cabinet job in a Democratic administration.

I think a bunch that are planning to run will wind up in the administration. There are plenty of great choices to fill positions.

[NCTraveler]

4. We need to be careful removing people like Warren.

Republicans can win statewide elections in Mass.

Not disagreeing with you. We just need to be mindful of moving chairs around.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

5. That is certainly a concern for a Democratic president.

We can not afford to risk losing Senate seats, even for someone as excellent as Elizabeth Warren to get a Cabinet position.

[karynnj]

7. For Senate, it happened just once -- with Scott Brown

If you rule out taking a MA Senator for the cabinet, what state could you confidently take a Senator from? Note that even Vermont has a Republican Governor and NY has in the recent past had a Republican Governor.

Yet a cabinet with no former legislators will not have as a strong a liaison with the Congress.

[NCTraveler]

8. "Yet a cabinet with no former legislators will not have as a strong a liaison with the Congress."

I made no case to which your argument has standing.

"For Senate, it happened just once -- with Scott Brown"

What seat was that?

[S.E. TN Liberal]

11. That was Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts that Scott Brown won. Warren took it back.

[NCTraveler]

12. +1 nt

[karynnj]

15. Obviously - in context MA! Give me some credit for knowing what you were referencing

However, it was the ONLY time since Tsongus won his seat in 1978 that either MA seat was held by a Republican. Then Brown held that seat from January 2010 to January 2012 - two years. So in 40 years times 2 seats, MA has had a Republican hold one for two years.

Other than Hawaii, no state has more consistently sent Democrats to Congress. (Hawaii had a Republican Senator who retired in 1977 -- the year before the interval I chose. )

So, are you saying we can only take people in Congress from Hawaii? Certainly Massachusetts has a higher likelihood of electing a Democrat than NC or most other states.

[NCTraveler]

16. "So, are you saying we can only take people in Congress from Hawaii? "

I never said such a thing. I don't waste time arguing against strawmen or strange questions that flow from that very same and severely flawed argument.

[karynnj]

18. What is strange is YOUR response -- my comments directly related to your

first post here (4) which I responded to suggesting the danger of taking a Massachusetts Senator. There was no strawman here - the only conjecture was yours - that a MA Senator could be replaced by a Republican. I noted, Scott Brown, but I also noted that MA was one of the safer seats.

Do you really think that putting Warren in a Democratic cabinet would entail more risk than taking Senators from other states?

[NCTraveler]

19. Each one of your replies has been a strawman.

You have spoken for me, in the form of questions, multiple times.

Not worth the time. You see absolutes where non exist.

I'm not going to sit here and answer to things not said. Not sure what you are doing. Very strange from the start. The need to see everything as absolute when reading is something I have never understood.

Example:

So you are saying we need to bring Senators from as many states as possible into the next administration? <-Severely flawed debate tactic.

[karynnj]

20. Read Post 4 that purports to be from you

I simply challenged that MA was uniguely or more likely to lead to a lost seat than any other state - in each and every post.

I know that I do not see things as "absolutes" and am far more capable of seeing nuances than you ever will be.

YOUR made up example question is completely bizarre and unrelated to anything I said. Making things up, as you did, is a pretty flawed debate tactic.

[NCTraveler]

22. Yep. That's from me.

"and am far more capable of seeing nuances than you ever will be. "

That is up for debate. Then again, most self-proclamations are.

"I simply challenged that MA was uniguely or more likely to lead to a lost seat than any other state "

I think that is a conversation you should have. Might be worthy of an op.

Yet you decided to go with these absolutes that have no bearing.

"Yet a cabinet with no former legislators will not have as a strong a liaison with the Congress."

I haven't seen anyone argue to the contrary.

"So, are you saying we can only take people in Congress from Hawaii?"

What? lol

You are debating yourself. "and am far more capable of seeing nuances than you ever will be." Probably the best way to go considering your self-promoted qualifications.

You did point out that the MA seat was held by a Republican for two out of the last eight years.

[emulatorloo]

29. Actually you will say anything to protect Bernie Sanders. Warren is everything Bernie is without

Bernie’s baggage of attacking Democrats and using our campaign contributions to finance the salaries of his family members or kicking back cash to enrich Jane’s “media company.”

Nor has Warren lied and attacked the Mueller investigation.

Warren has the temperament to be President, Sanders does not.

Bernie Goes Full...Trump? Blames Hillary For Russian Interference
https://thedailybanter.com/2018/02/-bernie-goes-full-trump-blames-hillary-for-russian-interference/

Bernie does a great job for his consistents in Vermont. There is an excellent argument that Bernie should stay in the Senate and do the great work he is doing there.

But he isn’t ready for prime time and never will be. Warren is ready to step on the national stage. Sanders is not.

That is reflected in this poll of New Hampshire voters.

[karynnj]

32. Your post says more about you than me

I said nothing in this thread about Bernie. I was not excited about either 2016 choice. There are many things I disagree with Sanders on and have said repeatedly I do not think he will be a strong 2020 candidate if he runs.

I have disputed attacks that I thought unwarranted on Sanders ... as I have on some attacks on Clinton I thought unfair.

I completely do not understand what set you off here.

[emulatorloo]

33. Nice attempt at deflection. Sanders will be scrutinized in 2020 whether you like it or not

He will be vetted in 2020. Both by the press and by the primary candidates. It isn’t about me.

Concern trolling about Warren’s seat won’t help Bernie. Threatening us with another Scott Brown? Seriously?

If you have something positive to say about Sanders then say it. That is the best way and the most honest way to support Bernie in 2020.

[karynnj]

35. I am NOT for Sanders for President

I have NEVER said I want him to run in 2020 or that I would support him.

Of course, if he ever became the Democratic frontrunner or even a potential winner of the nomination, he would be put under a spot light as EVERY frontrunner has.

It was NCtraveller concerned about a Republican getting Warren's seat. I argued that Brown was a fluke and MA had nearly the strongest chance in the country of a Democrat replacing a Senator who left.

I think Warren would be fantastic as a nominee or as a cabinet member.

[emulatorloo]

36. Then we agree on Warren n/t

[S.E. TN Liberal]

3. Keep in mind, this poll is from New Hampshire.

With California coming up among the early primary states, they are going to have a very large say in who gets enough delegates to win the nomination.

I think a poll from California will be closer to the final results than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada polls will be.

[StevieM]

6. Here is a link to the poll.

http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/5_2_2018_marginals.pdf

It seems like Elizabeth Warren takes a lot of votes away from Bernie Sanders and Deval Patrick.

I don't think that Warren is running. On the other hand, I am almost certain that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are running.

Right now I am planning to support Tom Steyer.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

9. StevieM, thank you for the link.

And your comments.

Is there any reason to believe Tom Steyer is actually going to run? Personally, I don't think businessmen are any better than seasoned politicians who stand up for issues I want to see turn into reality. Steyer may prove me wrong.

So far, I am doubtful Bernie will run again. He might believe he is better staying out so a younger Progressive can have a chance to win.

[StevieM]

13. I just get the feeling that Steyer wants to run. Obviously, you never know for sure until

the election rolls around.

Steyer isn't just a businessman, he is the founder of NextGen American, an organization that stands for progressive causes. And he is an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump.

I would be pretty shocked if Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden don't run.

[genxlib]

10. I propose a rule

Every poll that is presented more than six months out from an election should be accompanied by similar polls from a similar time frame in previous election cycles.

That way, it will be more obvious that these early polls are name-recognition contests and have little bearing on what actually happens.

Here is a link from June 2006 which doesn't even have Obama on the top ten.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/23245/clinton-giuliani-top-2008-presidential-nomination-polls.aspx

Worry about 2018. By the end of the year, we will know a great deal more about the political landscape.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

14. genxlib,

Polls are at least useful to stimulate discussion.

A lot is already known about many of the people who are preparing to run for 2020. Due to the anticipated large field of Democrats running, I expect to see many more announcing before the November 2018 elections take place. There is already at least one Democrat who has announced he is in fact running.

With so many in the running, I think voters should get an early start getting to know who the candidates are. That way we can decide who we want to support and try to help our first choice become the final nominee.

Supporting some "fringe" candidate can push other candidates to support positions the better well known candidates don't currently support.

I, like many others, believe Bernie Sanders' support for the public option finally pushed Hillary Clinton to changed her stance in favor of it also.

Who knows what position some "fringe" candidate might take that turns out to change the eventual nominee's stance.

If there is something about the 2018 campaign that you feel is more deserving of your focus, feel free to post your comments about that in one of the non-existent 2018 threads. This thread is, and should remain, about 2020 candidates.

[genxlib]

17. Everything you say is true

And I don't mean to undermine your efforts. I fully support your thinking but I just prefer to wait until the battlefield clears and we have a clearer idea of the players.

In fact, I would say that such polls are contrary to your purpose because they are backwards looking. As a name-recognition exercise, it elevates the familiar and detracts from newcomers.

My preference is to see what happens in the next six-twelve months. Familiar names will falter and newcomers will rise.

No hard feelings. I just wanted to point out that early polling rarely represents the choices that will be available to us.

[mvd]

21. I like both Sanders and Warren, but..

it would be nice to have a younger progressive. Warren has done good work in the Senate, and Sanders has a wonderful message. I would happily support either one. But there's got to be a passing along of the progressive torch.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

23. As has been pointed out, name recognition has older candidates doing well in these early polls.

How do we get from older, more recognized politicians to the younger guns who are stepping up to fight for newer ideas?

For one, people simply have to do their homework to find out who is running and what they want to accomplish.

Then, we have to help those candidates get their positions known.

Once the primaries get going, a lot of new ideas are going to get buried when their advocates drop out of the campaign.

Democrats have to learn to be flexible about who the Party winds up with as the nominee. I fully understand my first, second, third and fourth choices probably are too Liberal for the majority who will coalesce behind a mofre Centrist, (i.e.; electable) candidate.

That does not mean I will avoid advocating for the candidate/s of my choice at every step of the nominating process.

Once the voters have spoken and chosen our partys' nominee, we have to support him/her.

The other option is either four more years of TraitorTrump or another republican'ts who agrees with him 99%.

[mvd]

24. I agree except that I think our nominee will be on the progressive side

I don't know about Sanders level (my preference), but possibly more than both Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Will definitely be researching all the candidates. President Obama wasn't super well known 2 years before his first election.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

25. I think President Obama is an exceptionally gifted speaker...

...maybe we will see another such gifted young speaker show in 2020.

[stevenleser]

26. Check out Pete Buttigieg. nt

[S.E. TN Liberal]

27. link.

https://www.facebook.com/mayorpeteforpresident2020/

[mvd]

34. I hope so

President Obama has intelligence and class. That would be nice to see again after the fraud we have in there now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. The ageism has got to stop... all three, Sanders, Warren, and Biden, make a great trio

of potential 2020 candidates. Of course, there are several younger Democrats whom it would be nice to also see run, to give primary voters a larger array of choices... but age, and the experience that goes along with it, is certainly not a disqualifier, nor should it even be a serious consideration, as long as the candidate has the physical energy and the mental acuity for a grueling campaign and, ultimately, for the job as our next President.

[emulatorloo]

30. You are correct

[mvd]

31. I agree with you

That's why I am not counting out any of them. I'm just saying what would be nice to see. I would support Sanders just as much if he's my choice again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. I gotcha... fair enough.

[Garrett78]

39. That physical energy and mental acuity can and often does decline rapidly. Just a fact of life.

People talk about how old Reagan was. In 2021, Biden and Sanders would be older than Reagan when Reagan *left* office.

I'd prefer a Kamala Harris/Sherrod Brown or Kamala Harris/Chris Murphy ticket.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. Yes, but there's something to be said for experience... not sayin' Kamala couldn't do a fine job...

but, there is a risk that voters might take that into consideration in the general election, or in the primary, as a negative. Course, that didn't hurt Obama against Hillary or McCain.

[Garrett78]

37. 3 New Englanders top NH poll. And water is wet.