IPSOS/Reuters Poll: Biden 23%, Sanders 20%, Warren 15%, Bloomberg 8%, Buttigieg 7%

TY, TT!

OP is for Democrats only. Independents get to vote in the Democratic primary all over the country.

This image may help clear things up:

[link:https://image.businessinsider.com/5ddd8776fd9db274af193fe9?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp|

1. In the blue states, you have to be a Democrat to vote in the primary (22 states).

2. In the green states, you can vote in the Democratic Primary if you are a Democrat or are unaffiliated (Independent) (11 states).

3. In the yellow states, you can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both (17 states).

I was aware that some states have open primaries, semi-open primaries, closed primaries, etc. My previous comment may have not been clear. The point was that it's important to consider independents in national polling when many states include them in the primary process.

Averages...always give the most accurate assessment

Looking at the 538 RCP averages give you a better picture.

In the end, the only polls that matter are the votes. If Biden wins big in IA, we can put down the glasses, and concentrate on trump. If he comes in 4th as per DMR/Selzer poll, it's a long way home.

538: "Iowa matters a lot". If Biden prevails, he has a 80% chance of winning outright.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287416470

I'm not in love with Warren, and would happily support Joe (very much so).

If a Democrat wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, but does not do really well in the South, he often loses in the general election. That's because in order to do really well in the South, you have to have the Black vote. When Democrats do not have a strong enough support in the South, they often lose the election.

Carter and Clinton were both Southerners who killed in the South, and they both won in the General Election. Clinton didn't win either Iowa or New Hampshire, but that did not matter--he still won the nomation because of his big support in the South. Obama wasn't from the South, but he was Black, so he killed in the South too.

Do you know the last time the Democrats won a General Election with a liberal from New England? It was JFK in 1960, and that was before the Voting Rights Act was passed. After that happened, the racist White Democratic Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Because of that, Nixon invoked his "Southern Strategy" in 1968 and the Republicans have been invoking it ever since. If the Democrats end up putting forth a nominee who is not really strong in the South, there is a good chance that that nominee will lose in the general. Fortunately, Biden is leading the polls nationwide and is very strong in the South.

In 1984, Walter Mondale won the nomination, but the only Southern state that he won in the primary was Florida. Most of the other Southern states were won by Gary Hart, with a few also being won by Jesse Jackson. Mondale got creamed in the General Election.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis only won Texas and Florida in the Primary. The other Southern states were won by Al Gore and Jesse Jackson. Dukakis lost in the General as well.

People are worrying a lot this year about exciting the youth vote when historically, exciting the black vote has been much more important. Hillary won a lot of the Southern States, but she still didn't get enough of the Black Vote--whether that was from voter suppression, or Russian dirty tricks, or whatever.

Do you know why Biden's strongest supporters are older Americans? Because a lot of us have watched all of these Presidential races, and we know what happened to folks like Michael Dukakis. The last thing we want to run is a White very Liberal guy from New England. We have been there, done that. At least Elizabeth Warren is a woman, and that could help balance things out. But a white very liberal guy from New England who is not really strong with Black support? To many of us Biden supporters, it is electoral suicide.

Go Joe go!!!

Anymore ghost stories you have ?

from the South, who won a majority of older voters, but bombed with the young, after attempting to save Copyright and Decency from the Internet, children from naughty words with the V-Chip, Walmart from carrying nasty CD's courtesy of Tipper's Parental Advisories, and everyone from Monica Lewinsky, via his 'morals campaigner' running mate.

by a biased Supreme Court.

Democrats Should Remember Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 — but Lost the Presidency With a Pre-emptive Surrender
[link:https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/democrats-should-remember-al-gore-won-florida-in-2000-but-lost-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/|

that's the point. And I must say, any electoral strategy that depends on winning FL, now trumps home base, is as bankrupt as his university. 2018 was the biggest blue wave since Watergate, but FL was .... as close as 2000. There's a state that is never there when you need them.

I did not say that being strong in the South was a guarantee of a Democrat winning. What I was saying that it is almost impossible to win without being strong in the South. I have heard many people say that Black Americans are the backbone of the Democratic Party, but I don't think that many Democrats truly understand why that is. They are because without them we have no chance of winning in the South, plus we have no chance of winning in the Rustbelt. Without them, we don't win in many of the urban centers that we need to balance out the rural areas where we tend not to win. Try to find a Democrat who won the general election who did not have very strong support in the South among Black Americans. I cannot find one from 1932 on.

I'm bullish on Texas. And that is the strongest argument, as far as I am concerned for nominating Biden.

My frustration with the perennial focus on Florida, is that the state is trending Red, via it's aging demographics, whereas, in the longer term, both AZ & TX are Blue for the taking, like CA was in the 80s.

Warren is not a effete New Englander, she is a at heart, and Oakie from a modest background made good, although that doesn't play too well in Texas either

I am talking about all of the states that used to be part of the confederacy..the states South of the Mason Dixon line and west of Texas. However, I am also aware of the importance of Texas, as well as every other state in the U.S.

Strength in the former Confederate South is a good barometer for strength of African Americans. Do I think Warren might be able to win the nomination and the G.E.? Yes, and yes. Do I think Bernie can? I think Biden and Warren both have a better chance than Bernie does. Warren brings the advantage of being a woman, which is a big plus. Bernie Sanders does not. If someone likes Sanders types programs and wants to win, I believe that Warren is the way to go. So, which matters more, the woman advantage of Warren or the Moderate advantage of Biden? I would say Biden because in head to heads with Trump Biden tends to score better. That does not mean that Warren could not beat him. I am just explaining why I lean toward Biden. It also explains why I think it is a mistake to choose Sanders over Warren, because I think she has a big advantage over him.

Much appreciated.

Thank you for *your* thoughtful and well-written posts. It is nice to chat with someone who knows a lot and cares a lot.

Makes zero sense when EW policy is closer to Bernie.

Heck they made a deal not to attack each other because their views are so close

It is practically all white. It is a caucus state.

It means, exactly, squat.

I've seen it, but it still doesn't matter. Every election is different.

We don't normally go into primaries with 4 or 5 strong candidates. Usually it's 2 strong, and a small number of others.

We have 5 strong, and at least that many others this round.

It's a big difference. Iowa will mean nothing.

A majority of superdelegates would put Biden over the top regardless.

There is something about meeting with other people that you may or may not know, but who come from your neighborhood and community that tends to make many people willing to at least listen. And there are a lot of attendees who are "soft" on their chosen candidate support.

It is quite different when it is you and the ballot box. Peer pressure, no matter how mild, can influence a lot of those who are not as committed, well informed, or just willing to listen.

Biden has the Black vote. It’s interesting how this will play out, I’m still convinced Biden will carry the nomination.

In Seattle, or Washington state rather, you have a lot of people who supported Bernie during caucuses, but Hillary won the actual votes. So preferences and polling are kind of fluid.

If your analysis were the only factors, he wouldn't even register.

Obviously biden has broad support or he wouldn't be leading.

I think Biden will win the primary fairly handily. The areas of support are kind of interesting though

Yeah, the younglings tend to be more extreme than older voters. That's always been the case in my life. In the 60's the motto was don't trust anybody over 30. Joe may have been one of the kids who said that.

So it's natural they would gravitate to the more in your face candidates with fringe ideas (not a shot, a lot of those are excellent ideas, just out there).

So Bernie has the advantage a lot of younger supporters. Joe has the advantage with older voters, poc, woman, and independents.

One is broad. The other isn't insignificant.

to me. According to one question:

If the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election were held today, and you had to choose from the list of candidates below, for whom would you vote? - NOT ASKED OF REPUBLICANS

Biden - all respondents- 15%. Dems - 21% Ind - 5% Dem RV - 23%

Sanders - all respondents - 17%. Dems - 21%. Ind - 12%. Dem RV - 20%

Warren - all respondents - 10%. Dems - 14%. Ind - 4%. Dem RV - 15%

What does Dem RV actually mean? How does Sanders have a higher percentage of every category but somehow Dem RV is lower than Biden? Even if you take out Independents under Dems both Biden and Sanders are at 21%.

Serious question. Not looking for debate. Just trying to understand. Thanks.

Many are republicans who don't identify that way.

Look, there are ~ 20-25% registered republicans, and about 25-28% registered dems. Everyone else is an indie/other. But a lot of those won't vote for a d, so it's tough to poll them. You can get people who would never vote d but don't want trump running against biden.

So the indie numbers aren't very reliable. Just cuz.......

look at the responses - it shows:

Biden - all respondents- 15%. Dems - 21% Ind - 5% Dem RV - 23%

Sanders - all respondents - 17%. Dems - 21%. Ind - 12%. Dem RV - 20%

So if they didn't ask Republicans this question (which they say they didn't) and you remove the Independents (which show 12% Sanders and 5% Biden) - the Dems show 21% for both. So what does Dem RV mean and why is Biden 23% and Sanders 20% when Sanders is equal or ahead in each category that was included in this question?

And see how many dems, indies, etc were polled. The rv number looks like just registered dems, but the dems includes indioes in the pool.

So 100 registered dems, 23 picked biden and 20 picked sanders. 57 picked someone else or nobody at all.

But the dem/indie number is still the 100 dems, plus 100 indies, so 200 total people instead of just 100.

In that case, you still had the 23 dems who picked biden, but you also had 7 indies who chose him, which resulted in 30 total voters out of 200, or 15%.

Those numbers are ficticious, but it explains the results.

Don't sweat the polls. They are a thermometer with no scale. That's why you should look at the averages of the averages.

But this shows again why Iowa won't mean anything. There are so many candidates, a winner doesn't mean much, and the spoils will be meaningless. Sure, the media wants a horserace and will seize on a 3 vote difference as a catastrophic blow to whoever is number 2. But in reality, not so much.

Just trying to understand it from their posted numbers. Not imaginary ones. But thanks for trying to explain it to me.

...

I think most people don’t look at the actual responses so it doesn’t become obvious. But it’s curious.

Look at response to immigration question. Same bizarre result in Biden’s slight lead although no category has him ahead.

Personally, polls aren’t a big deal to me but when headlines say someone is ahead I usually like to see the actual data. When viewing this data - it’s a puzzlement!

“Democrats” includes those who indicated not being registered to vote. This means Sanders did very well among that segment.