Before we get too far into this, I suspect these numbers would change if and when Vice President Biden actually tosses his hat in the ring. Politicians always poll better right before they actually announce they’re seeking higher office. Now, with all that being said, I’m sure there is some truth to new polling which suggests Biden is a better bet nationally against Republicans than Hillary Clinton would be.

Report from Bloomberg:

Here’s one more reason to continue speculating about whether Vice President Joe Biden will enter the presidential race: he polls better nationally against the leading three Republican candidates than Hillary Clinton, and has a higher favorability rating, too.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, if Biden was the democratic candidate, he would beat Donald Trump by eight points (48 – 40 percent), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush by six points (45 – 39) and Senator Marco Rubio by three points (44 – 41). Clinton only beats Trump by four points (45 – 41), Bush by two points (42 – 40) and Rubio by one point (44 – 43).

Eighty-three percent of Democrats view Biden favorably, compared to 76 percent and 54 percent who approve of Clinton and Vermont Senator Sanders, respectively. Among all registered voters, Biden has a 48 percent favorability rating, while Clinton came in at 39 percent and Sanders at 32 percent.

These are numbers that I’m sure both the Hillary camp and Biden camp are digesting at this point. Hillary certainly has reason for concern that her path to the nomination may be much bumpier than expected if Biden decides to join the race. Furthermore, Biden must be looking at these polls as a reason to justify giving it a shot, perhaps for what he can argue is the good of the party if he’s got the better chance.


    • Personally, I think the court should have ruled narrowly in the case, covering just those very deserving situations, but now, gay marriage is the law of the land. Period.

      I would have thought you would be upset about a public servant who refuses to do her job.

      • This does raise an interesting question, though. My first impression was that she should be fired. Then I heard that she was elected (a Democrat, by the way). So she can’t just be fired.

        Now then, as an elected official, should she decide how her department is run? As it is now, her “employees” are refusing to follow her orders, and are giving out marriage certificates.

        But when she gets out, could she fire the employees? And what would happen then? If the employees followed their boss’ orders, who else could fire them?

        This story is going to get a lot more complicated before it goes away.

        • I have repeatedly said that I think the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was a mistake. Public opinion was already going that way, and anti-gay-marriage laws would have been voted down a state at a time.

          That being said, it’s now the law of the land–unless a constitutional amendment changes the law.

          Here is an example of lazy journalism. The BBC would never have allowed Huckabee’s convoluted evasion:


          The simple yes-no question was, if you didn’t believe in interracial marriage after that court ruling, could you disobey the court ruling on it? Yes or no? A BBC reporter would have rephrased the question two or three times, and then noted that the person refused to answer the question.

          Later, he showed a clip of JFK saying if his personal values conflicted with the national interest, he would resign his office. And that is the appropriate response.

          This Kentucky clerk just saw her chance to be a “Kardashian”–internationally famous for being famous.

Comments are closed.