USAT/Suffolk Democratic Primary Poll: Most want someone entirely new

[Mr. Morden]

Very, very bad for Warren.

How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.

[Mr. Morden]

As for the poll, I find it shameful Democrats don't yet appear to have anyone new that's being seriously considered yet. I have tons of respect for all of those people polled, to varying degrees, but I agree with the majority. We need someone new.

I'm not sure what makes it "shameful", nor am I sure what counts as "being seriously considered yet", nor am I sure what counts as "new". 

Most of the potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates ultimately chose not to run, assuming that Clinton had the nomination all but locked up, so what was the point of running?  And 2012 was similarly not contested (since Obama was the incumbent Democratic president).

Thus, the 2020 Democratic primary race will be the first time in 12 years that a large field of candidates will contest the Dem. nomination.  There will probably be something like ~10-12 candidates or so, most of whom have never run for president before.  Since they've never run before, and the primaries are more than three years away, and it's too early for them to have done much in the way of visibly running for president yet, they're mostly unknown to the average voter, and so they'd show us as little more than asterisks in a poll like this.  Does that mean that they're not yet "being seriously considered"?  Why would the voters be considering them yet, if they don't know who they are?  Why is it even a problem that they're still unknown and not being considered yet, since the voting is three years away?  There's plenty of time.

[Mr. Morden]

Someone entirely new:

Flipping your hair and trying to be cute doesn't make for a good candidate.

What about surfing?



As compared to:

[Mr. Morden]

62% of Dems + Independents saying that Clinton shouldn't run again is really something, when compared to the numbers for the older Biden and Sanders.  I mean, all the polls show that while Clinton's favorability #s have dropped further since the election, she's still solidly in positive territory among Democrats alone.  So the people being polled here presumably *like* her.  They just think her running again would be a really bad idea.

[Mr. Morden]

Very, very bad for Warren.

How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.

Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.

I don't see what's bad about it.  This isn't a favorability rating, which presumably for her is pretty darn good among Democrats.  It's a "how much do you want her to run?" rating.  When there's a competitive primary, unless there's one candidate way out in front, usually no one does amazingly well on "how much do you want X to run?"

[Mr. Morden]

Very, very bad for Warren.

How is that bad for Warren?  Her "excited" number is +7 over her "shouldn't run" number, while Sanders has a nearly identical +6 differential.

Because that's her starting point, and it's already not very favorable. Under the scrunity and pressure of a campaign, that can quickly go down.

I don't see what's bad about it.  This isn't a favorability rating, which presumably for her is pretty darn good among Democrats.  It's a "how much do you want her to run?" rating.  When there's a competitive primary, unless there's one candidate way out in front, usually no one does amazingly well on "how much do you want X to run?"

It should be pointed out the poll says they want someone new but still prefer Biden over her

It’s not clear what “someone entirely new” means.  Someone not already included in the poll?  If so, then Warren isn’t one of the “someone new” options.  In any case, as I read polls like this, voters tend to want “someone new” in the abstract.  It’s like supporting “generic Democrat” or “generic Republican”.  Popular in the abstract, because it isn’t tied to any particular person.

But when you actually give them specific names, they usually go with whoever has the highest name recognition, and whoever the media has been associating with presidential politics.  Sanders has actually run for president, and Biden is the sitting VP who has run for president before, and who was the source of tons of presidential campaign speculation in 2015.  So voters view them as plausible presidential candidates.  Warren is somewhat less well known, and the presidential speculation about her has been lower profile (so far).  But obviously that’s going to change in the next couple of years, and so Warren (along with Booker, Gillibrand, and other candidates) will start being seen as plausible presidential candidates a couple of years from now, and will do “better” on a poll like this at that time.

So, bottom line, I don’t take polls like this, taken at this very early stage, terribly seriously.  The one thing that I find interesting here is the overwhelming sentiment against Clinton running.  The other numbers are about what you’d expect.