Politico/Morning Consult national poll -- Biden 31, Sanders 21, Warren 15

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Joe Biden - 31%
Bernie Sanders - 21%
Elizabeth Warren - 15%
Pete Buttigieg - 9%
Michael Bloomberg - 6%
Andrew Yang - 5%
Cory Booker - 3%
Tom Steyer - 3%
Amy Klobuchar - 3%
Tulsi Gabbard - 2%
Rest - 1% or less

Conducted Dec 20-22. Non-debate qualifying.

More info on Morning Consult's website:
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

[Queen Isuelt]

Isn't morning consult a really, really bad pollster?

[Mr. Morden]

Source?

[Gone to Carolina]

Changes: (Small as always)

Biden: NC
Sanders: -1%
Warren: NC
Buttigieg: +1%
Bloomberg: -1%
Yang: +1%
Klobuchar: +1%

[Cinemark]

Isn't morning consult a really, really bad pollster?

They're okay. But their primary numbers tend to be suspiciously stable.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

WOOF. Gabbard's favorable ratings lol

[Eraserhead]

No early state numbers this time?

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Isn't morning consult a really, really bad pollster?

Anymore, the good pollsters are needles in a haystack.

Like a 100:1 ratio of junk to good pollsters

[eric82oslo]

Extremely big changes in the favorable numbers this week. For the very first time, Yang has a stronger net favorability than Pete - he was trailing him by a lot as recently as last week. Also for the very first time, Yang's unfavorable number is the lowest in the entire field, with one exception, Deval Patrick, which hardly anyone has an opinion about. Compare Gabbard's 30% and Bloomberg's 27% unfavorability to Yang's record low 13%. While most other candidates' unfavorability numbers are ever so slowly rising, Yang's unfavorability has gone down by a lot since August. Something that hardly ever happens in modern politics. Following the August debate, I think Yang's unfavorable number increased to the 18-20% range, due to many voters feeling that his Freedom Dividend giveaway was only a gimmick. Since then, his unfavorable rating has been cut by 1/3, while his favorable rating has been increasing sharply. Also this week, Sanders is viewed much more favorable than Biden, which hasn't always been the case.

Candidates ranked by net favorability:

1. Sanders +55%

2. Biden +49%
3. Warren +44%

4. Yang +34%
5. Buttigieg +33%

6. Booker +28%
7. Klobuchar +26%

8. Steyer +19%
8. Castro +19%
10. Bloomberg +17%

11. Bennet +8%
12. Patrick +4%
13. Delaney +3%

14. Williamson -5%

15. Gabbard -12%

[Pollster]

A colleague at lunch yesterday hypothesized that Morning Consult weights their data to the previous week's result - which is standard of corporate brand tracking but incredibly risky in politics. Morning Consult does both, so it's possible they're using the same methodology across the board.

If that is true (I have no evidence confirming it is), that explains the remarkable stability we have seen in their numbers. It also, however, makes small changes in their numbers (such as shifts of one or two points, that we would often write off as MOE/statistical noise in standard polling) much more significant.

Just a thought.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The polls are gonna be Biden +3-5 all the way until Iowa day. There isnt gonna be much movt, as long as more corruption charges keep coming up on Teump

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Extremely big changes in the favorable numbers this week. For the very first time, Yang has a stronger net favorability than Pete - he was trailing him by a lot as recently as last week. Also for the very first time, Yang's unfavorable number is the lowest in the entire field, with one exception, Deval Patrick, which hardly anyone has an opinion about. Compare Gabbard's 30% and Bloomberg's 27% unfavorability to Yang's record low 13%. While most other candidates' unfavorability numbers are ever so slowly rising, Yang's unfavorability has gone down by a lot since August. Something that hardly ever happens in modern politics. Following the August debate, I think Yang's unfavorable number increased to the 18-20% range, due to many voters feeling that his Freedom Dividend giveaway was only a gimmick. Since then, his unfavorable rating has been cut by 1/3, while his favorable rating has been increasing sharply. Also this week, Sanders is viewed much more favorable than Biden, which hasn't always been the case.

Candidates ranked by net favorability:

1. Sanders +55%

2. Biden +49%
3. Warren +44%

4. Yang +34%
5. Buttigieg +33%

6. Booker +28%
7. Klobuchar +26%

8. Steyer +19%
8. Castro +19%
10. Bloomberg +17%

11. Bennet +8%
12. Patrick +4%
13. Delaney +3%

14. Williamson -5%

15. Gabbard -12%

Really when you look at it Yang is views more favourably than any of these Democrats because with Yang, it’s either you like him or you don’t know him.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Extremely big changes in the favorable numbers this week. For the very first time, Yang has a stronger net favorability than Pete - he was trailing him by a lot as recently as last week. Also for the very first time, Yang's unfavorable number is the lowest in the entire field, with one exception, Deval Patrick, which hardly anyone has an opinion about. Compare Gabbard's 30% and Bloomberg's 27% unfavorability to Yang's record low 13%. While most other candidates' unfavorability numbers are ever so slowly rising, Yang's unfavorability has gone down by a lot since August. Something that hardly ever happens in modern politics. Following the August debate, I think Yang's unfavorable number increased to the 18-20% range, due to many voters feeling that his Freedom Dividend giveaway was only a gimmick. Since then, his unfavorable rating has been cut by 1/3, while his favorable rating has been increasing sharply. Also this week, Sanders is viewed much more favorable than Biden, which hasn't always been the case.

Candidates ranked by net favorability:

1. Sanders +55%

2. Biden +49%
3. Warren +44%

4. Yang +34%
5. Buttigieg +33%

6. Booker +28%
7. Klobuchar +26%

8. Steyer +19%
8. Castro +19%
10. Bloomberg +17%

11. Bennet +8%
12. Patrick +4%
13. Delaney +3%

14. Williamson -5%

15. Gabbard -12%

Really when you look at it Yang is views more favourably than any of these Democrats because with Yang, it’s either you like him or you don’t know him.

The trolling isn't funny.

[eric82oslo]

Here's the favorable to unfavorable ratio post-debate:

1. Sanders: 3.89
2. Yang: 3.62
3. Warren: 3.32
4. Biden: 3.23

5. Buttigieg: 2.94
6. Klobuchar: 2.86
7. Booker: 2.56
8. Steyer: 2.19
9. Castro: 2.06

10. Bloomberg: 1.63
11. Bennet: 1.62
12. Patrick: 1.33
13. Delaney: 1.19

14. Williamson: 0.78
15. Gabbard: 0.6

[GeorgiaModerate]

Isn't morning consult a really, really bad pollster?

As others have said, they're OK.  FWIW, here are my opinions, as a person who compulsively follows polls, of some of the frequent pollsters (not an exhaustive list). Note that even the best pollsters will have an occasional outlier -- and conversely, even a lousy pollster will occasionally get lucky and hit the mark. 

Order of listing within each category does not imply ranking.  Also, the category boundaries are a little fuzzy; I wouldn't argue about many of these going up or down a level.

Excellent (top of the line):

ABC News/Washington Post
CBS News/NY Times
CNN/SSRS
Fox News
Marist
Monmouth
NBC News/WSJ
Selzer
Siena


Good (very sound, just not quite the top):

AP/NORC
Gallup
IBD/TIPP
LA Times
Pew Research
Quinnipiac (down from Excellent due to the D lean they've picked up recently)
Suffolk
Survey USA


Decent (sound, quite respectable):

GQR (adjust for D lean)
Ipsos
Kaiser Family Foundation
Mason-Dixon
Morning Consult
PPP
YouGov (excluding their daily snapshots, which are much worse)


Fair (better than nothing):

ARG
Change Research
Emerson
Gravis
HarrisX
Rasmussen (R lean)
Remington Research (R lean)
SurveyMonkey (almost trash)


Complete trash (they're either making it up or polling an alternate universe):

McLaughlin
Zogby

[eric82oslo]

Isn't morning consult a really, really bad pollster?

As others have said, they're OK.  FWIW, here are my opinions, as a person who compulsively follows polls, of some of the frequent pollsters (not an exhaustive list). Note that even the best pollsters will have an occasional outlier -- and conversely, even a lousy pollster will occasionally get lucky and hit the mark. 

Order of listing within each category does not imply ranking.  Also, the category boundaries are a little fuzzy; I wouldn't argue about many of these going up or down a level.

Excellent (top of the line):

ABC News/Washington Post
CBS News/NY Times
CNN/SSRS
Fox News
Marist
Monmouth
NBC News/WSJ
Selzer
Siena


Good (very sound, just not quite the top):

AP/NORC
Gallup
IBD/TIPP
LA Times
Pew Research
Quinnipiac (down from Excellent due to the D lean they've picked up recently)
Suffolk
Survey USA


Decent (sound, quite respectable):

GQR (adjust for D lean)
Ipsos
Kaiser Family Foundation
Mason-Dixon
Morning Consult
PPP
YouGov (excluding their daily snapshots, which are much worse)


Fair (better than nothing):

ARG
Change Research
Emerson
Gravis
HarrisX
Rasmussen (R lean)
Remington Research (R lean)
SurveyMonkey (almost trash)


Complete trash (they're either making it up or polling an alternate universe):

McLaughlin
Zogby

3 people actually liked his nonsense post, while a full zero people liked my extremely data-driven post. Great work Comcast/NBC/MSNBC! So proud of you guys for always delivering!

[GeorgiaModerate]

3 people actually liked his nonsense post, while a full zero people liked my extremely data-driven post. Great work Comcast/NBC/MSNBC! So proud of you guys for always delivering!

Merry Christmas, Eric.