IA 2020 poll: Biden leads the field

[henster]

Joe Biden – 37%
Elizabeth Warren – 16%
Bernie Sanders – 12%
Kamala Harris – 10%
Cory Booker – 8%
Kirsten Gillibrand – 2%
Eric Holder – 2%
John Delaney – 1%
Michael Avenatti – 1%

Hishest Name ID other than Biden, Warren, Sanders:

Cory Booker: 83%
Kamala Harris: 67%
Kirsten Gillibrand: 66%
Michael Avenatti: 64%
John Delaney: 64%
Julia Castro: 58%

https://iowastartingline.com/2018/10/01/new-iowa-caucus-poll-has-opportunities-warning-signs-for-2020-dems/

[Politician]

LMAO at Delaney having 64% name recognition. I guess campaigning in every county helped him a bit.

[IceSpear]

#Bidenunder40

But really, we all know how pointless these polls are. Hillary had like 50 point leads in Iowa in 2014, lol.

[Mr. Morden]

Bullock, Garcetti, Landrieu, and Patrick were also listed as options in the poll, but each got less than 1% support.  And weirdly, they included Julian Castro on the favorability question, but don’t list him as an option for who you would caucus for for president.  Though maybe they *did* list him, but literally zero people picked him as their choice, so they didn’t include him in the table for that reason, because they don't want to embarrass him. 

#Bidenunder40

But really, we all know how pointless these polls are. Hillary had like 50 point leads in Iowa in 2014, lol.

The name recognition part of these polls is the part that interests me, since there are some candidates who never manage to get off the ground in terms of name recognition.  It's useful to see where things start out on that score, before much campaigning has happened.

[RaphaelDLG]

Kind of shocking that Warren is outpolling Sanders here.  Go Lizzie!!!

[Grassroots]

BS, this is Iowa not California.

[tosk]

yo castro has some good ID. He's not in the poll though? or he didn't even crack 1%?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Seems right, rally behind Biden.

[Comrade Funk]

Irrelevant, but fun to look at.

Great for Biden. Good for Harris. Terrible for Booker/Bernie/Gillibrand.

But again - this doesn't matter. Anyone not named Delaney/Avenatti/Holder could theoretically win on that list.

[Progressive Pessimist]

These polls mean very little, but it is neat to see Warren polling higher than Sanders and Harris polling higher than Booker.

[henster]

Delaney has been spending money on TV ads in IA since he started running and it seems to be paying off at least in people recognizing him. He still only garners 1% in support but he'll at least be better known than O'Malley atp. I'm guessing Castro's name ID is from his DNC speech in 2012, it's pretty amazing people would remember such an unremarkable speech.

[Senator Incitatus]

Delaney should strongly reconsider what he's doing if he's gotten to 64% name ID with 1% support.

[NewYorkExpress]

Delaney should strongly reconsider what he's doing if he's gotten to 64% name ID with 1% support.

Delaney should've run against Hogan this year instead. He might have won that race.

[Sestak]

Delaney should strongly reconsider what he's doing if he's gotten to 64% name ID with 1% support.

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

Please no

[Landslide Lyndon]

Kind of shocking that Warren is outpolling Sanders here.  Go Lizzie!!!

Not really. Sanders is yesterday's news by now and he no longer has Clinton as his foil.
So it's only natural for voters to consider other, fresher options.

[Mr. Morden]

They also asked for people’s second choices:

Warren 19%
Biden 18%
Sanders 15%
Booker 12%
Harris 10%
Gillibrand 4%
Holder 4%
Avenatti 2%
Delaney 2%
Landrieu 1%
Patrick 1%
Bullock 0%
Garcetti 0%

fav/unfav % among Dem. caucus-goers:
Biden 94/4% for +90%
Warren 85/6% for +79%
Sanders 84/12% for +72%
Booker 68/5% for +63%
Harris 52/3% for +49%
Holder 58/10% for +48%
Gillibrand 44/5% for +39%
Castro 29/5% for +24%
Garcetti 21/5% for +16%
Delaney 24/9% for +15%
Patrick 19/4% for +15%
Landrieu 21/8% for +13%
Avenatti 29/18% for +11%
Bullock 5/3% for +2%

[BlueSwan]

Those are very good numbers for Harris at this point where most voters will still not really know much about her.

[Mr. Morden]

The more conventional measure of name recognition is just the % who give an opinion (either favorable or unfavorable).  The people who claim to have heard of Person X yet have no opinion are (IMHO) often just lying.  They don’t want to admit that they’ve never heard of Person X.

Anyway, by this definition, the only candidates with >50% name recognition here are Biden, Sanders, Warren, Booker, Harris, and Holder (though Gillibrand and Avenatti come close).  Bullock, Patrick, Garcetti, etc. are pretty unknown.  And probably even more unknown in states other than Iowa, that haven’t gotten visits by them.

Contrast this with the crowded GOP field of four years ago, in which, according to this Selzer poll of the time, there were a whopping 13 prospective candidates with >50% name recognition (of which all but Romney and Ryan ended up running):

https://web.archive.org/web/20141208092404/http://images.businessweek.com/bloomberg/pdfs/2104-qfi-Rep-Iowa-caucus-poll-tabulated-questionnaire.pdf

And here was the Iowa support of that time:

Romney 17%
Carson 11%
Paul 10%
Huckabee 9%
Ryan 8%
Cruz 7%
Perry 7%
Christie 6%
Bush 4%
Walker 4%
Santorum 3%
etc.

11 candidates getting 3% or more, which is about double the # in this current poll.  So this current Dem. field is filled with a bunch of unknowns, as compared to four years ago, where the GOP field had a bunch of knowns.  It just reinforces my suspicion that the polling used to determine debate eligibility might end up turning on fairly random circumstances.  E.g., maybe Castro’s Latino last name will be worth 1% in the polls, and that’ll be enough to get into the debate.

[DINGO Joe]

Safe Biden

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Safe Biden

Not as safe as this one.

UNH/WMUR poll of New Hampshire:

http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2014_winter_primary012914.pdf

Dems:

Clinton 74%
Biden 10%
Cuomo 2%
Warner 1%
Gillibrand 0%
O'Malley 0%
Schweitzer 0%

GOP:

Paul 16%
Ayotte 13%
Scott Brown 11%
Christie 9%
Ryan 6%
Rubio 6%
Trump 4%
Bush 3%
Cruz 3%
Walker 2%
Perry 2%
Peter King 0%
Portman 0%

[SCNCmod]

Not sure this poll means anything... Obama was at 1 or 2% at this time if I remember correctly.

[Nyssus]

Delaney should strongly reconsider what he's doing if he's gotten to 64% name ID with 1% support.

[scutosaurus]

Is nobody else going to mention the fact that they polled Michael Bennet's favorability?

[Mr. Morden]

Delaney should strongly reconsider what he's doing if he's gotten to 64% name ID with 1% support.

Like I said, that's a bad way to measure name ID, because I suspect most people who claim to have heard the name but have no opinion of him haven't actually heard of him.  They just don't want to sound dumb for the pollster.  His real name ID among Iowa Dems is probably closer to the 33% who have a positive or negative opinion of him.