Iowa Poll: Deja Vu All Over Again.

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
88,659
53,725
becoming more and more
#1
ASHINGTON (CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden holds the pole position in the first CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll among likely 2020 Democratic caucusgoers, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke joining him as the only possible candidates in the field with double-digit support.
Iowa's caucusgoers, who get the first formal say in who the party's nominee will be, mostly say they are looking for a winner (54% want a candidate who can defeat Trump) over ideological purity (40% want one who shares their positions on major issues). Those who prioritize a winning candidate are more apt to back Biden and O'Rourke than the overall pool of likely caucusgoers (36% in that group say they favor Biden, 14% Sanders, 14% O'Rourke) while Sanders outperforms his overall number among those looking for a candidate who shares their issue positions (30% Biden, 26% Sanders, 8% O'Rourke). https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics/cnn-poll-iowa-2020-caucus/index.html
I found this a little interesting....

What Iowa Democrats seem certain about is that they don't want to see another run from Hillary Clinton. Almost three-quarters say that if she were to get in the race she would detract from it (72% say so), and her favorability rating is narrowly upside down, with 49% holding an unfavorable opinion vs. 47% who have a positive view.
this tells me that the average Iowa Democrat is.....
Never mind. I'll be nice.

But, they put Bernie in the second place slot as a front runner, even though he's not a Democrat - and couldn't even win the primary last time. Even quite possibly put Trump in the WH. Yet, they say Hillary Clinton would be a distractions, even though she won the primary and the majority vote. In fact, I wish they'd just stop offering up the false choice of Bernie Sanders. Since, again, he's not even a Democrat.

Did I mention Sanders isn't even a Democrat?

Perhaps it's time for Democrats to do something about Iowa having so much sway over the primaries. This is all the media wants to talk about. With pollsters providing them with this "false choice" narrative.

Consider this:

It might be different if say, Texas and New York held the first-in-the-nation primaries. These two states—one solidly conservative, the other generally liberal—are large, both in geographic area and population. They are diverse in ethnic makeup, industrial focus, and land usage. They are home to some very, very rich people, and some very, very poor ones. Most important of all, they contain both rural and densely urban communities, and the vastly disparate political inclinations such environments foster.

By contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire are very white. Their disparities in income and education are not reflective of the national norms. The largest cities are overgrown small towns. Simply put, they do not reflect the broader electorate. If not for their position on the calendar, they wouldn’t be the states dictating presidential nominees to the rest of the country. (In the case of Iowa, the caucus date is the result of a hotel scheduling snafu in 1972.)
Iowa and New Hampshire wield too much influence. The US needs a national primary

See.....

I was trying to find a diplomatic way of saying this. We have a very diverse field emerging. Yet, according to Iowa voters the preferred candidates don't really reflect that.

Just seems like Deja Vu all over again.

Isn't it time for new polling and to switch the way we vote in primaries up a little?
 
May 2016
3,559
882
california
#2
I don't think HRC cares what Iowa voters think about her running again but Bernie on a third party ticket could be a strong runner.
 
Jul 2014
33,704
8,704
midwest
#4
I found this a little interesting....



this tells me that the average Iowa Democrat is.....
Never mind. I'll be nice.

But, they put Bernie in the second place slot as a front runner, even though he's not a Democrat - and couldn't even win the primary last time. Even quite possibly put Trump in the WH. Yet, they say Hillary Clinton would be a distractions, even though she won the primary and the majority vote. In fact, I wish they'd just stop offering up the false choice of Bernie Sanders. Since, again, he's not even a Democrat.

Did I mention Sanders isn't even a Democrat?

Perhaps it's time for Democrats to do something about Iowa having so much sway over the primaries. This is all the media wants to talk about. With pollsters providing them with this "false choice" narrative.

Consider this:

Iowa and New Hampshire wield too much influence. The US needs a national primary

See.....

I was trying to find a diplomatic way of saying this. We have a very diverse field emerging. Yet, according to Iowa voters the preferred candidates don't really reflect that.

Just seems like Deja Vu all over again.

Isn't it time for new polling and to switch the way we vote in primaries up a little?
Yes, it is.

For one thing the states should be rotated for who has first primary.

Why should two small, white states get that privilege every time?
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
88,659
53,725
becoming more and more
#5
Elizabeth Warren threw her hat in the ring today.

Kinda, sorta.

"Launched exploratory committee".

She's running...
yep. It's around this time that we should start researching the candidates. She put herself out there first, as it were, so looks like she's up first for the public scrutiny. Notice her timing. Just when it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to start up with attacking her on her ancestry.
 
Last edited:

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
88,659
53,725
becoming more and more
#6
btw...I think this would be a good time for a new network to emerge.
Tired of CNN...MSNBC....Fox News...and cable network news in general.
 
Jul 2014
33,704
8,704
midwest
#7
yep. It's around this time that we should start researching the candidates. She put herself out there first, as it were, so looks like she's up first for the public scrutiny. Notice her timing. Just when it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to start up with attacking her on her ancestry.
She's bee scrutinized quite a bit, already.

She not exactly a new kid on the block.

Of course if she starts leading in the polls, or gets the nomination, it'll go to a completely different level.
 
Jan 2016
46,123
41,981
Colorado
#8
Yes, it is.

For one thing the states should be rotated for who has first primary.

Why should two small, white states get that privilege every time?
What we should probably do is to have eight or ten or maybe twelve REGIONAL primaries, and they could, yes, rotate, so that every region would get a turn to go first eventually. New England could form one region, for example, the Upper Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware) could form another region, etc.
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
88,659
53,725
becoming more and more
#9
should have included this in the OP maybe.
Go west, 2020 presidential candidates?

Early voting in California’s primary will overlap with the traditional early nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. That could force the sprawling field of Democrats to navigate those states as well as California’s notoriously complex landscape, where campaigning is done through paid political ads.


Strategists estimate it could cost at least $5 million for a candidate to compete in California, an amount that could be prohibitive for all but the best-funded contenders. Nascent campaigns are asking themselves if they should gamble on California.
California moves up primary, wants bigger impact 2020 vote
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
33,704
8,704
midwest
#10
What we should probably do is to have eight or ten or maybe twelve REGIONAL primaries, and they could, yes, rotate, so that every region would get a turn to go first eventually. New England could form one region, for example, the Upper Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware) could form another region, etc.
We should probably do something.

Because the system is about broke and getting worse.

Lots of states want a bigger (earlier) piece of the action, and that's understandable.

No good reason why Iowa and N.H. should always be first.