

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waves as she leaves after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, July 8, 2014. (REUTERS/Benoit Tessier)

Here is a headline that you might see in an ad from a Democratic presidential candidate running against Hillary Clinton:

This comes courtesy of CNBC, which commissioned a poll asking 500 people "with investable assets of $1 million or more" (this is one poll that, safe to say, we'd all like to be a part of) which of nine potential presidential candidates they prefer. And it has been bouncing around social media this week as we all feverishly try to imagine a scenario in which Clinton might actually not beat the motley crew of Democrats who will run against her.

How could Sen. Elizabeth Warren see this and not immediately decide to form a presidential exploratory committee, you might ask.

This poll is also far less than meets the eye.

Here are the choices offered, along with what percentage of the vote each candidate got:

First of all, yes, Clinton is No. 1. This is also not how people are going to vote for the new president. The only place where this kind of election takes place is Louisiana, and even then, there's a two-candidate runoff if nobody gets to 50 percent.

Clinton especially benefits from this format because:

1) She's more well-known than the other candidates, save Vice President Biden. The rest of the field, quite simply, aren't household names.

2) While the Democrat/Republican split is pretty even overall, Clinton is far more of a favorite on the Democratic side. Hence, she takes 72 percent of Democrats -- about like she does in primary polling -- while the Republicans all split up the vote pretty evenly -- Jeb Bush at 36 percent, Chris Christie at 19 percent, Scott Walker at 18 percent. Clinton's share of the overall total is thus inflated.

3) There are more Republicans than Democrats. Yes, it probably only makes a small difference, but there are three Democrats, one Democratic-caucusing independent/socialist senator, and five Republicans. Again, that's more people splitting up one party's vote.

President Obama was the rare Democrat to win the vote of the wealthiest Americans in 2008, winning people making more than $200,000 per year (this is not the same as millionaires, but it's the best approximation we have), 52-46. But it didn't last. In 2012, Mitt Romney won people making more than $250,000 by a 13-point margin.

Even Clinton's husband -- with a moderate/pro-business reputation -- lost the wealthiest Americans by 16 points in 1996 -- and it might have been by more if extremely wealthy Ross Perot hadn't been on the ballot.

One wonders what would happen if Romney were included in the CNBC poll or if he were matched up against Clinton one-on-one. We're guessing Clinton would no longer be the "millionaires' choice for president."