CNN poll: Biden 30%, Sanders 14%, O'Rourke 9%

[Yosemito]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/cnn-poll-2020-democrats-beto-orourke-rising/index.html

[Renew Deal]

1. Is that Sanders ceiling?

[Yosemito]

2. Primaries are very complicated and unpredictable

We could even end up with a nominee that’s not even among those mentioned in the polls at all.
Or what if Obama endorses Kamala Harris, or Beto O’Rourke for example?
What did Joe Biden’s family tells him not to run?
I think it’s just too early.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. President Obama will likely not endorse in the primaries, especially if Biden is running.

[NCjack]

83. Yeah, A CNN poll is not a primary result. nt

[Eric J in MN]

8. Bernie got into the 40s in 2016

... when it was two-way race, and so if this turns into a two-way race he may get into the 40s or better.

[Demsrule86]

19. I don't think so...I believe his identity comments have hurt him with Democrats.

[Cha]

36. That's not all that's

hurt him with Dems.

[Bucky]

47. Not being a Democrat is what hurts him with Democrats

If he would just join up, he'd be the leader of the pack thru 2019. I expect the voters will go with someone new. Mad respect to Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and to Hillary if she runs again, but it's time to pass the torch. We have a lot of experienced and dynamic leaders under the age of 70 ready to take on Tangerine Mussolini

[elocs]

79. "Not being a Democrat is what hurts him with Democrats" And there is the answer.

Yes, the Democratic Party is good enough for Sanders to use to run for president, just not good enough for him to join.

[Bucky]

87. I'm a bottoms up thinker. If 40%+ of Democrats backed a non-Democrat for our nomination...

I think it's a more telling indictment of the party's leadership. An independent running for our nomination is a legit move, provided he follows small-d democratic processes. It was a clean election and he lost and he supported our nominee. I got no gripes. I'm not a huge fan of all his policies, but he played by the rules (as did Clinton, by and large). But there was room for a LOT more serious voices in 2016 and it would have been a richer and more satisfying nomination fight if we'd been allowed the full range of leaders to choose from.

[elocs]

92. "he supported our nominee." It's more like Sanders damned Clinton with faint praise.

Did he ever come flat out and tell his supporters to vote for Clinton?
Imagine what the BoBs would have said had he got the nomination and lost the general election to Trump and it was found that lots of Clinton backers refused to vote for him or voted for a 3rd party. You'd still be hearing the screaming around the world.

[Bucky]

99. Your memory is faulty. Yes, he said vote for Clinton many times

There's even videos out there of him saying just that.

Here is a treasure trove of links to that

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Sanders+endorses+Clinton+2016

[Adrahil]

100. I watched him on several occasions....

where the interviewer said if he endorsed Clinton.

His answer was weaselly every time and some form of "we have to defeat Donald Trump and the only way to do that is vote for Hillary Clinton."

He's dead to me (unless he wins the nom, which will not happen).

[elocs]

103. I never claimed he never said he would not vote for her,

but he seemed less than enthusiastic about campaigning for her, hence the "faint praise". Sanders certainly did not go all out to convince his supporters that they should vote for Clinton.

No, my memory is not faulty in that regard.

[Blue_true]

61. More than that.

I think that a lot of voters that voted for him in the primary, but switched to Hillary for the General, saw how little he worked for her during the fall campaign. For me that sticks out like a sore thumb even today. If he had busted his ass for her and she still lost, he would likely be the clear front runner now. Also, not releasing his tax returns doesn't help and if he tries that this time around in the primaries, he just as well should pack up and go home.

[Hortensis]

72. This. Plus, a lot of the anti-Dem left has moved on or

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2018, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

is waiting to as soon as they have a new name to attach to, which they do not yet. As you and others say, being nationally known now is far more handicap than otherwise for Sanders. Because.

[Blue_true]

73. I just hope that he realizes when he has lost and don't stay in damaging the party nominee.

Or most likely nominee.

[Hortensis]

80. Oh, yes. I think he will whether he stays in or not.

It's his nature to strongly disagree with those who won't take his advice. But if he doesn't manage to put together a left wing populist candidacy, someone else will, and the Pubs and Putin will make sure whoever it ends up being gets lots of media hype.

[Blue_true]

91. Then it is up to people that claim to be progressives and truly are not to get tricked this time.

And do stuff that is damaging to the Democratic Party, like disrupt our convention and boo speakers.

[Garrett78]

75. 2016 was tailor-made for Sanders. 2020 won't be.

[Hortensis]

81. A lot to that. O'Malley might have made a better show,

unlike Sanders a genuine left-of-Hillary doer, but of course he didn't.

[Garrett78]

82. Sanders was always *the* Clinton alternative.

And given that Clinton was victimized by 30 years of hate, Sanders was bound to get a lot of votes.

The 2020 field will be much larger, there will be fewer caucuses, etc. Sanders didn't stand a chance in 2016 and he'll have even less reason to stick around in 2020. If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he needs to exit.

[Hortensis]

84. Agree with the projection for 2020.

But not quite for the Clinton alternative. How about Elizabeth Warren? Like O'Malley, she's the real thing. She was THE one who first energized demand for bigger change and in so doing revealed hidden Democratic electorate demand for bigger, more aggressive change than any of the polls had shown. To a degree that I subsequently wondered if the pollsters were corrupt. Why hadn't they been asking the right questions? I'd always wanted more, but my fellow Dem voters polled relatively passive and uncaring. Warren was the one who revealed that was very wrong!

Only when Warren disappointed many by declining to run for president did Sanders step forward from 25+ years of congressional obscurity into the vacuum of excited demand that she created. And...apres ca le deluge.

As for Sanders not standing a chance in 2016, yes, but look what happened before his candidacy finally, belatedly ran its course. I believe we are already once again seeing the same hostile actors who promoted a spoiler candidacy in 2016 active for the same purpose.

Sanders isn't on any of the foreign relations committees, but here's Sanders (not, say, any of our Democratic senators who are, including ranking Sen. Bob Menendez) put in front of the cameras with Sen. Mike Lee by the Republican leadership. Why? In big part to deny all the attempts by Democratic senators to stop what has culminated in genocide in Yemen, and of course to portray him as a leader instead of the real things among the Democrats.

[Garrett78]

86. I was referring to 2016. Sanders was *the* Clinton alternative that year.

O'Malley was the only other semi-serious candidate and he never gained traction, in part because he couldn't distinguish himself enough from Clinton.

There are a number of potential 2020 candidates, including Warren, who threaten Bernie's ability to win the predominantly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. And then he's finished.

[Hortensis]

88. Well, I look forward to it. Warren will hurt him if she runs,

all right, and possibly vice versa. After all, he attracted some people she would not. She achieved her advances by working from within, and she would never risk throwing the nation to what is increasingly a white nationalist/authoritarian threat.

[Garrett78]

89. Anyone from New England and anyone who appeals to white millennials...

...will take a bite out of his support base. And then there's the fact that there will be fewer caucuses. Sanders has no chance.

[Hortensis]

90. :) He never did, but I don't mind your pointing out reasons.

My worry is not some charismatic radical carrying away 60 million Democratic voters Trump-style but rather a spoiler candidacy once again throwing the nation to the Republicans by just a few percent. Just look at how narrow many races have been over the past few years. Election experts expect that to continue for a while, and there is grave danger of losing everything in 2020 in spite of what the Republican Party has become.

Even because of what they have become. Authoritarian populism, nationalist populism, fascism, whatever you want to call it, is on the rise around the planet. Polls show real support here for giving up the vote and "trying" authoritarian government instead.

[Demsrule86]

95. Yes, I consider how Sec Clinton went to bat for Pres. Obama and also President Clinton did...both

in 08 and 12. I was seriously worried about Pres. Obama's chances in 12. I worked that campaign. I believe Joe Biden and Bill Clinton helped tremendously. Bill called himself the explainer in chief. He was amazing and so was Biden.

[Blue_true]

98. Bill was massive in that campaign, he worked as hard as President Obama did.

I tell you, I could not sleep that night after that first debate when President Obama let Romney be the aggressor. But then came the Veep debate a week or two later and Joe took Lyin Ryan behind the woodshed. Then President Obama found his stride in the last debates and forced Romney to say all type of stupid stuff. I actually could not watch the second debate, I was so nervous after the first one, but Romney found his binder full of women and then shot himself in the foot from then on, under relentless pressure from President Obama.

[redstatebluegirl]

104. Plus he will never release his tax returns.

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

No Democrat will be able to get away with that and they shouldn't.

[Blue_true]

105. The thing that infuriates me.

Is people like Jill Stein and others on the extreme left (or pseudo right) used Hillary's tax return releases and financial disclosures to pick on her in the General about stuff like stock holdings (Keystone related stocks that she most likely didn't know that she owned). I occasionally see some here on DU now mouthing that nonsense. Have we heard a peep here about the Keystone Pipeline from that set in the last year? Hell NO! They will only bring that up to damage democrats, while Trump and his henchpeople destroy the environment right before our eyes.

Kamala Harris and her husband are pretty well off, will the boo birds find some stock holdings that she may not even be aware of to make a major case against her? The guess here is that they will, but they will be perfectly ok with one person releasing nothing at all.

[redstatebluegirl]

106. Yep, I agree with all of this.

[Garrett78]

22. There'll be at least a dozen candidates, and fewer caucuses this time around.

Sanders has even less of a chance than he had in 2016, which is to say he has no chance.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Bernie lost a two-way race last time. So if this is 12 way race

...maybe that will work out better for him.

[Garrett78]

25. He was *the* Clinton alternative.

Sanders was the only option for those who had succumbed to 30 years of Hillary hate. Even then, the race was over by Super Tuesday. And, again, there may only be half as many caucuses in 2020.

He won't have a single polarizing opponent in 2020. He benefits from the fact that 2 states lacking diversity kick things off, but that won't save him. It'll be downhill after New Hampshire. He may not even win New Hampshire.

[Bucky]

48. Wrong about Sanders.

You've entirely invented the idea that Bernie was susceptible to hatred for Hillary Clinton. He ran on policy differences and did so honorably.

But I do agree that he benefited from her having scared everyone else out of the field in 2016. Democrats do bad at coronations. That's why the kids flocked to the socialist. If you want to blame anyone for the Clinton hatred, blame the kids, blame them 20-somethings.

I knew we were in trouble 3 years ago. I was dating a 20 something at the time (yeah, shame on me). And as the political season approached, I was shocked to discover that she and all of her liberal and Progressive friends had just the harshest attitudes against Hillary Clinton. They really disliked her as a corrupt insider. They knew nothing about her advocacy for social justice over the years.

And that is exactly why we need to bring in a younger, fresher, untarnished candidate. Yes, the Republicans will smear whoever we nominate. That's what they do. But it turns out that 30 years of unrelenting character assassination makes a difference in a candidate's public perceptions. We should at least make them start over from scratch

[Garrett78]

50. You've entirely invented what I said. Here, again, is what I said--this time with feeling:

Sanders was the only option for those who had succumbed to 30 years of Hillary hate.

[Bucky]

52. oops. My bad

But I had a hell of a rant there, didn't I?

[Garrett78]

58. You did, indeed.

No worries.

[Glamrock]

66. +1

[George II]

46. He will have to observe the rules of the Democratic Party.

[lapucelle]

54. And answer for his gun votes, crime bill vote, Russia sanctions vote, and F-35 advocacy. N/T

[Eric J in MN]

57. If people who don't like the 1994 Crime Bill

...choose between Joe Biden, who wrote it, and Bernie Sanders, who spoke out against it but voted for it, then voting for Bernie makes more sense.

[George II]

59. It's not going to be a choice between Biden and Sanders. Besides, that's only one issue...

...there are dozens of other issues, not the least being stricter gun controls and Russia sanctions. Sanders was against both.

In fact, as much as Sanders talks about being pro-universal health care, he voted against the bill proposed by Bill Clinton in his first term.

[Eric J in MN]

63. There was no floor vote in the US House

...on Clinton’s healthcare reform ideas in the 1990s.

Bernie has a mixed record on gun control, but he has always supported a ban on assault rifles.

Regarding sanctions, the same bill had sanctions on Russia and Iran. Bernie opposed the latter as going against the Iran nuclear deal.

[George II]

65. But he was openly against it. From his own memoir in his own words, he was clearly against it:

[Garrett78]

68. The 2 of you may be overcomplicating matters. Sanders won't win the nomination because...

...white millennials and caucuses (which there will be fewer of in 2020) can only take a candidate so far. Especially when other candidates take a big bite out of that support base.

[George II]

71. You are correct. Below is the primary schedule for 2020, through March 17, as of today.

Delegates are from 2016, they may be slightly different in 2020 due to changes in allocations. Barring any stubbornness of any candidate, we should have a very good idea of who our nominee will be by then. The big thing is California moving their primary up from June to Super Tuesday.

By March 17 Democrats will have chosen 2,244 of the 4,051 pledged delegates available, 55%

February

44 Iowa
24 New Hampshire
35 Nevada
53 South Carolina


March 3

53 Alabama
475 California
91 Massachusetts
107 North Carolina
38 Oklahoma
67 Tennessee
222 Texas
16 Vermont
95 Virginia


March 7

51 Louisiana


March 10

25 Hawaii
23 Idaho
130 Michigan
36 Mississippi
71 Missouri
143 Ohio


March 17

75 Arizona
214 Florida
156 Illinois


That's 2,244 of the 4,051 pledged delegates available, 55%

[Garrett78]

74. Yes, though it remains to be seen what impact California moving up to Super Tuesday will have.

As I indicated in this post, much will depend on how many candidates are still in the race at that point. And on who those candidates are.

Even if we start out with the largest field of candidates we've ever had, which seems likely, I think we'll probably have a good idea who our nominee will be by the close of March 17. And it won't be Sanders. I don't think it'll be Biden either.

[Blue_true]

107. I think California is going to be enormous.

California and Texas on the same day, close to 800 delegates? That is potentially a knockout punch for the candidate that get a good number of those. I agree that it won't be Bernie, Cali and Texas were not good to him last time. But Joe, we will have to wait and see.

[lapucelle]

69. BS didn't vote for Biden's Senate version.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/28/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-chuck-todd-debate-crime-bill-vote-a/

[lapucelle]

55. Earlier this week, the Middle-Aged Turk's head exploded

over a CNN analyst's ranked projections of presidential contenders.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cenk-uygur-ridicules-cnns-harry-entens-dem-prez-rankings-zero-percent-chance-booker-and-klobuchar-win/

[Garrett78]

60. Uygur is an idiot and it's sad to think he influences a portion of the electorate.

In 2016, he was still insisting - long after Super Tuesday - that Sanders would be the nominee. "Bernie math" delusion was on full display.

And he was totally dismissive of the primaries in the Deep South. But I guess winning (caucuses no less) in places like OK, NE, UT, ID, AK and WY is somehow a sign of Bernie's strength with the Democratic electorate.

[George II]

64. I guess it's time for him to solicit more money from Russia and right-wing lobbyists.

[Garrett78]

56. He'll do just what he always does. Register as a Democrat and then run.

We may like to think the new rules will keep him from running, but it would be a public relations nightmare if we did so.

However, this time around, he won't have as much justification for staying in the race, especially if he loses either or both of those first 2 contests. It won't be a 1-on-1 race like it was in 2016 after Iowa. He won't be facing off against a candidate who had been made the target of hatred for the last 3 decades. He'll potentially be facing Harris, Castro, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Brown, Murphy, Holder, Garcetti, Gillibrand, Inslee, Beto, Biden, etc. Several of those will make it tough for him to win either Iowa or New Hampshire. And others will make Super Tuesday the nail in the coffin the way it was in 2016.

[George II]

62. He's not going to get a pass on his tax returns, either. Even if the few state Democratic Parties...

....that are trying to get release of tax returns to be a qualification for primary candidacy aren't successful, the court of public opinion will not allow him to hide his tax returns again.

He will not be handled with kid gloves this time around, which may mean he doesn't become a viable candidate at all.

[Garrett78]

67. Agreed. He's already not viable. He wasn't viable in 2016 either.

The 2016 race was over on Super Tuesday. Most of his victories came via caucuses, which are a disgrace.

[Demsrule86]

96. I sincerely hope Sen. Sanders is gone long before the two person stage or we risk a disasterous

16 style general. No one who ran in 16 should run in 20.

[dubyadiprecession]

3. If Sanders thinks he's going to get Debbie Wasserman Shultz endorsement...

..he can forget it.

[NurseJackie]

4. ...

[JCanete]

12. is he looking for that? Is that some particular badge to be desired? nt

[dubyadiprecession]

14. Sanders blamed part of his defeat on Shultz...

...as she didn’t endorse him, to say the least.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Elizabeth Warren at 3 percent. NT

NT

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Let's see, it's nearly two years before the general election,

a full year before the primaries actually get under way. At this point all such polling is meaningless and the results simply indicate name recognition or wishful thinking.

I'm willing to bet that none of those top three will actually be at the top of the ballot in 2020. Not that I have any good sense of who might be, but it won't be one of those.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Four years ago

...a poll had HRC, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders, in that order.

Among the ones who ran, that is what happened in the primary.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

23. It was still an exercise in name recognition.

[Baltimike]

10. HRC isn't in that poll, and she should be. nt

[StevieM]

15. I think she has made it pretty clear that she is not running.

She would have won in 2016 in a landslide had it not been for Comey's multiple interventions into the race. He dominated that election from start to finish.

[Baltimike]

37. Obama said the same thing...and then ran.

[StevieM]

39. But they hadn't been swiftboated so badly. HRC has had a magnificent career, and I have been

her biggest fan. But she has earned a break.

I respect her desire to finally have somewhat of a break from the relentless McCarthyism that she has long been subjected to.

[KPN]

11. Meh. It's way to early. In early spring

2020 maybe polls will start being relevant. My guess: Beto will skyrocket.

[Garrett78]

20. These polls are meaningless at this juncture, but people will keep posting them.

[former9thward]

38. In early Spring 2020 the nomination will already be settled.

So I guess a poll would be relevant then....

[KPN]

42. OK. True to large extent. So mid-late winter.

[Gothmog]

13. I hope that Joe Biden runs

Link to tweet

[StevieM]

16. I think it is sad that 3 to 4 percent of Democrats are supporting Mike Bloomberg,

a man who supported Bush/Cheney for re-election.

I hope the other Democratic candidates don't let that fact go. It should absolutely be brought up.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. And he thinks we need to cut "entitlements"

Nothing like being told by a billionaire we need to “do less with more”

BLOOMBERG: Winston Churchill once said, "You can always depend on America to do the right thing after exhausting all other possibilities." We've had a democracy for 235-odd years and it works in the end, and that's what's in important. Sequestering is here. It will go on for a while. It's not going to be the end of the world as we know it. And everybody was saying, "Oh, the worst-case scenario is exactly what we're going to implement." And now they're into the real world and they'll try to find ways to do more with less, and then hopefully Congress will come together and modify sequestering to cut things back where we can afford it and not where we can't. And keep in mind, no program to reduce the deficit makes any sense whatsoever unless you address the issue of entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest payment on the debt, which you can't touch, and defense spending. Everything else is tiny compared to that.

[oberliner]

17. Three white men leading the pack

That is lamentable.

[question everything]

31. I wish we did not insist on "identity politics" and yet

a V.P. is supposed to be the "attack dog" which is why I am hesitating about Minnesota-Nice Klobuchar.

But yesterday I heard Heitkamp and McCaskill on PBS and I think that McCaskill will be a great V.P.

As we've seen, one does not need to hold office to be elected to the White House.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sens-heitkamp-and-mccaskill-on-democratic-mistakes-and-a-culture-of-failure

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I suspect the ticket will be gender and race balanced.

[helpisontheway]

18. Wish Sanders would go sit down somewhere..He ripped

the party apart in 2016. I do not want to see the psycho Sarandon and that Nina all over tv again. i would prefer a younger person as our nominee. If not, then Biden would probably be our best shot. I think he could get some of the white working class back. I also think African American turnout would be high again because of his connection to Obama (and because of what happened last time).

[cynatnite]

26. This is way too early and not to be taken seriously, IMO. n/t

[apcalc]

27. meh

[LiberalFighter]

28. I will take Beto or anyone else OVER Bernie.

[Kingofalldems]

29. Kick and rec.

[Farmer-Rick]

30. Biden?????

After Kavanaugh and what he did to Anita Hill.......

Very surprising.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Do you mean Clarence Thomas? NT

NT

[Farmer-Rick]

43. Yeah that was confusing

[sheshe2]

101. Actually they meant Biden

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/joe-biden-anita-hill-kavanaugh-833598

Biden confronts the ghost of Anita Hill

Now a front-runner in early Democratic primary polls, Biden was pilloried at the time for his handling of the 1991 confirmation hearings of then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas was accused by Hill of inappropriate sexual behavior, and Biden was criticized for failing to blunt attacks on Hill and for not calling witnesses who could have supported her.

“It certainly was not his best moment,” said former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), one of seven Democratic women who dramatically marched to the room where Senate Democrats were caucusing in 1991 in an attempt to make their case for why the vote on Thomas should be delayed as a result of Hill's accusations. “To have railroaded that through and not listened to the other three women and let his colleagues absolutely tear her apart was absolutely horrible.”

[BlueintheSTL]

32. For context, here's CNN's poll from 2006 at this time. Basically this poll is meaningles

Link to tweet

[Eric J in MN]

34. The top two in the 2006 poll

...were the top two in the 2008 primary.

[StevieM]

41. And yet the media loves to forget how strong Obama was at the start of the race.

They like to pretend that HRC had a historic lead and blew it to an unknown candidate who came out of nowhere.

[Blue_true]

70. President Obama benefitted BIG from caucuses, his people understood their power, Hillary's people

did not. There are fewer caucuses this time around, plus California just moved up to Super Tuesday. Big difference now. A guy like Biden can knock everyone else out on Super Tuesday, even if one of the others won lesser states, California alone is worth about 3 Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina total hauls. Basically, California wipes the slate clean.

[Garrett78]

77. There being fewer caucuses is big. California's impact remains to be seen.

As I wrote in this post, much will depend on how many candidates are still in the race--and who those candidates are. We may see some severe vote splitting, though I'm hoping the field will be down to 5 or fewer by Super Tuesday.

I don't know that Clinton didn't understand the impact caucuses would have. I don't think there was much she could do about the fact that they favor those who have the support of those most likely to turn out for caucuses (anti-"establishment," the most vocal, etc.). Many are unable and unwilling to take part in such a lengthy and public spectacle. It's good that more states are moving away from caucuses, and that every state will now have to accept absentee ballots. Caucuses need to go.

And starting off with Iowa (a caucus no less) and New Hampshire is something else that ought to change.

[Caliman73]

35. These organizations and cable news have WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands.

It is a fine line between reporting the story and trying to drive the story. As many other posters responded, it is too early to tell where the Democratic base is right now. Most of the people on the poll have not declared any intention to run. Many are still pondering and this kind of reporting just muddies the water.

We really need to stop treating elections like a commodity. All of these pollsters and cable news make money off of this stuff and make it into a business rather than the serious civic duty that elections actually are.

[Skidmore]

44. Is Sanders a Democrat now?

Hadn't heard that he joined yet. "Caucuses With" is not a party on the ballot.

[George II]

45. Bazinga!

[Cha]

85. Snaperoo!

[Me.]

93. Whomp Whomp

[NurseJackie]

94. ...

[Demsrule86]

97. Nope, he ran as a Democrat in Vermont and then resumed his independent status after that.

[yardwork]

49. These polls are pointless at this stage.

This is based only on name recognition, before anybody has even committed to run or begun to campaign.

[workinclasszero]

53. I agree

It's way to early.

[still_one]

51. No offense, but it is all bullshit at this point until we have actual people start announcing. Then

it becomes real

[Tipperary]

102. Yes.

This.

[INdemo]

76. So it starts

They ask 50 people and call it a poll

And now we are going to hear how the Democrat hopefuls match up to Trump..never mind the fact that Trump probably wont run..he will resign?

[Garrett78]

78. The polls themselves are meaningless at this juncture. It's all about name recognition.

But they do lead to lively discussions.