A fresh Suffolk University poll (rated B+ by FiveThirtyEight), finds, rather incongruently, that Democratic and independent voters prefer "someone entirely new" to run against Trump, although 53 percent "said they would be excited" if Joe Biden led the ticket.
"He has the common touch," said a Pennsylvania Democrat, who added, in USA Today's words, that "Democrats might need to nominate an older white male to defeat President Trump for re-election."
Which is why another poll accordingly finds that if the election were held today, Biden would beat Trump 42-36 percent. Beto O'Rourke would lose to Trump by 7 points (37-30); Bernie Sanders would essentially tie, 38-37 percent.
"Progressive strategist" Ruy Teixeira offered the conventional wisdom, but spurious reasoning, that "It's really early to be polling on this" — as in, too early to be polling on this. Such orthodox thinking never fails to astonish me.
First, in a granddaddy of tautologies, if it's too early to be polling on Democratic contenders, pollsters wouldn't be hired to poll the subject. Second, even somewhat unseasonable polling provides a knowable baseline of contenders' support, without which, determining who's advancing and who's stagnating (or sinking) would be unachievable.
Most important in defeating the stale conception of early-polling-as-premature polling, though, is that these surveys supply us not only a spontaneous "gut check" among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters' preferences, they also suggest the money — of the big sort — to follow. This then reinforces top-tier status — unless, of course, one is confronting a base as volatile as it is unhinged; e.g., the GOP base. God forbid.
Absent the early Suffolk poll and others like it, we could only assume that Joe Biden is the Democratic frontrunner. But we needn't assume that, since the polling bears it out.
As Tocqueville noted, Americans love a winner (though I still love George McGovern). And if Mr. Biden can sustain his internal frontrunner status as well as his lead over Trump, then just about everybody will love Mr. Biden. I know I do.
***
Update:
A commenter raised the question, "After the 2016 presidential election, are we still reading polls?"
To which the answer is another question. Why wouldn't we?
2016 presidential polling is being misremembered. Most polls were spot on, relating a 2- or 3-percent victory for Hillary. Her winning edge, however, was within the margin of error. Where most analysts (including me) went wrong was in neglecting the undecided percentage, which, roughly, was 5 — and that broke for Trump. The voting choice of undecideds was also unpredictable, yet the polling itself was correct.
So as you read criticisms of 2016 polling, just remember — the polls read the voting public accurately. It was the readers of polls who concluded wrongly. That was human error which, after the thrashings of our misreadings, won't be repeated in 2020.