2016 Presidential Primary Poll

[Renew Deal]

18 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Biden
	1 (6%)
	Booker
	0 (0%)
	Brown
	1 (6%)
	Clinton
	4 (22%)
	Cuomo
	0 (0%)
	Gillibrand
	0 (0%)
	Deval Patrick
	1 (6%)
	Warren
	10 (56%)
	Other
	1 (6%)
	Not Sure
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JoePhilly]

1. If election was held today, Clinton.

[Renew Deal]

2. First 17 votes...

All for women...

[1-Old-Man]

3. Anyone but Clinton

[Nye Bevan]

10. OK then. Rahm Emanuel. You did say "anyone".

(my stock response to "anyone but Clinton&quot .

[onehandle]

4. Clinton and Rubio are exactly the same. Clinton and Rubio are exactly the same.

Clinton and Rubio are exactly the same.

Nader 2016!

[Wilms]

6. That Warren is currently out-polling Clinton 3:1

seems a poor reason to regurgitate a specious argument.

Though perhaps I've missed the point you're making.

[onehandle]

7. I voted for Warren, but Nader has already started the chant...

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader said Monday progressives in the Democratic Party must challenge Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination in 2016, saying she’s lost her progressive cred.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ralph-nader-hillary-clinton-2016-94871.html

[Historic NY]

9. F--K NADER.

[Wilms]

16. Thanks for that link.

He's suggesting Warren or Brown. And he stated reasonably why he's disinterested in Clinton.

Warren and Brown are not the same as Clinton and Rubio.

[LWolf]

5. Pass.

It's too early to throw my support behind anyone.

Looking at the limited list in the poll, the only one I can conceive of supporting would be Warren, but I'm open to as many leftist, non-neoliberals who have the courage to run.

[WI_DEM]

8. Of course Warren is not running in 2016

at least that is my prediction. Also, if Hillary ran, I do believe that fellow New Yorker Warren would support her as most of the NY delegation would.

[Agschmid]

20. Warren is in MA.

Gillebrand is the woman from NY.

[Renew Deal]

24. I don't think she'll run either

And if she runs, I don't think she will win.

[HappyMe]

11. I'm not sure.

Right now, there isn't anyone that has actually said that they are running.

[Agschmid]

21. Thank god... I like the break...

Plus I'm a Politics 2013 host and it is nice and slow right now... Phew!

[HappyMe]

25. If we don't get it together for 2014,

2016 won't mean squat.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Most likely scenario for the next 2 Democratic presidents: Clinton, then Booker (nt)

[Mc Mike]

13. Boxer, Waters, Warren, Brown

[NightWatcher]

14. Aww this is the cute part where we fall in love with someone who'll never run

Since that's the case I'm throwing in for Spider-Man. I will however vote for whomever gets the nom in 3 years. (Clinton)

[SheilaT]

15. Too early. Too early. Too early.

By the way, have I mentioned that its far too early to be polling like this?

It would be quite educational to go back and look at similar posts/polls here on DU back in 2001 and 2005. You'll find that there was this touching groundswell in 2001 for Al Gore. Lots of DUers were quite enthusiastic about him. We all knew that the election had been stolen from him and despite his repeated assertions he wouldn't be running again, a lot of posters didn't believe it and were convinced that he'd not only run again but that he'd get the nomination.

In 2005? It was Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. Clearly there was no other possible alternative. None. No Democratic existed who could conceivably be a viable candidate for President three years down the road. Except to a small group who still yearned for Gore.

While it's nice to rally around the eventual candidate, the key word is eventual.

So give it a rest. Let's make it through the election next year and then start worrying about two years after that.

[Segami]

17. ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Whoever the powers that be decided we need to vote for

Sorry, I am that cynical. Elections are a convenient fiction.

[Marr]

19. I'm done voting for DLC trojan donkeys.

I don't care if she's the nominee-- I won't vote for Clinton, period.

[sabrina 1]

22. Same here. But they will never allow a Progressive to get anywhere close to the WH race.

Finally figured that out in the last few years. So, rather than wasting time, energy and money on something we already tried, over and over again, I will focus on Congress, getting real Progressives into Congress, as many as possible.

[Marr]

28. That's where I am as well.

I agree the presidency is a rigged game in which we're offered two essentially identical, Wall Street-approved candidates to choose from. I'll never forget how Clinton and Obama were universally pronounced the only two "viable candidates" on the Democratic side before a single primary vote had been held, and indeed that line was still being repeated after a few primaries had been held, and Clinton was coming in third overall.

I'm focussing on State and city level races myself. If the Democrats offer up Clinton, as I expect they will, then they'd just better hope that people like me are as irrelevant as they like to claim.

[hfojvt]

23. why the hell is BOOKER even on this poll?

Why not Mark Dayton?

A mere mayor and one year Senator is somehow possible but a guy who served a full term as Senator and has now been Governor for two years is not?

Ouch though, he has been divorced twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dayton

For that matter, why not Martin O'Malley? Just because he was on Hollywood Squares for so long? (or was that Martin O'Mulley? I keep getting those two confused.)

[Renew Deal]

26. I looked for a list of names

I was going to leave Booker off, but thought it would be worth a shot.

[Life Long Dem]

27. It's not even 2014 yet.

[Rowdyboy]

29. Considering how accurate DU polls have been in the past, I'm VERY optimistic for Secretary Clinton..

[fredamae]

30. IF We are all Still

Allowed to Vote in 2014/2016-What has congress actually Done so far besides "talk"? A "fix the voting rights act" Could have Already been passed (remember how fast they gutted the STOCK Act and Restored FAA Funding back from the sequester cuts?)and if Anyone thinks "oh well-it doesn't affect Me"? It will after the Next round of Voter Suppression--they do it in increments (done) and they always start with those who have No Voice (done)--

Anyway-as usual the powers at be-have Already chosen For us who we want! We simply haven't been told yet, who we have to support. It doesn't and won't matter who we want. period.

[hrmjustin]

31. Hillary for me. If Hillary does not run Warren is a good choice.

I doubt Warren will run.

[Vogon_Glory]

32. I Think That Hillary Has Good Name Recognition

I think that Hillary Clinton has good name recognition and would draw a LOT of Democratic votes as well as a lot of Democratic-leaning independents.

I know a lot of wingers hate her. However, some weird things have been happening to them since the Halcyon days of Rush What's-his-name trashing Bill. A lot of the old haters have had to make appointments with the grim reaper. We also had eight years of Dubya, which played out very well among right-wing red-state voters but which didn't do so well with the rest of us.

Whichever wing-nut runs against Hillary or whichever Democratic nominee that makes it through the primaries, the wing-nuts are going to have unenviable track records concerning what their pet politicians and their policies have done to us.

[NewThinkingChance40]

33. Given the Choices

Warren would be the choice for me on that list. However, it would be nice to see any candidate that has not been on the ticket before. For both sides. I am so tired of seeing Clintons and Bushes, would much rather have a couple fresh faces who actually care about the issues, rather than a rich old white guy versus an extremely liberal guy. A more moderate democrat would be a good change, just hope they can help the people, instead of just lining Washingtons pocketbook.