{"id":40802238408,"date":"2019-04-23T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802238408"},"modified":"2019-06-05T15:39:57","modified_gmt":"2019-06-05T19:39:57","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_042319","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_042319\/","title":{"rendered":"Dem 2020 Diversity Not a Priority"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nDiversity may be the byword for the 2020 field of Democrats, but it does not\nappear to be a priority in choosing a challenger to Trump according to the Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong>.  Most Democratic\nvoters say race and gender are not factors in determining who should be the\nparty\u2019s presidential nominee.  There have\nbeen some shifts in the current beauty contest \u2013 with a noted surge by a small\ncity mayor \u2013 but the front-runner spot has held steady as former Vice President\nJoe Biden reportedly is set to jump into the race this week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Race and gender do not seem to be important factors for Democratic voters when considering who the party should choose to run against Trump. Fully 87% say the race of the nominee does not matter. Just 5% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a person of color, which is offset by 6% who say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a white candidate. Similarly, 77% say the gender of the nominee does not matter. Just 7% say it would be better for Democrats to nominate a woman, while slightly more (12%) say it would actually be better for the party to nominate a man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is the most diverse field of presidential candidates in history, but that doesn\u2019t seem to be a major consideration for Democratic voters at this early stage of the campaign. It\u2019s probably a large reason why a couple of old white guys are leading the pack right now,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among a field of 24 announced and potential contenders, Biden currently has the support of 27% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, which is similar to his 28% support in March and 29% in January.  Support for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is currently at 20%, which is down slightly from 25% in March, but still higher than his 16% support in January.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf Biden does enter the race this week, he starts off with a fairly stable amount of good will from Democrats.  We might even expect to see a small bump after his announcement, but the bigger question will be what happens when those voters start taking a closer look at him on the campaign trail. It\u2019s a long way to Iowa and a lot can happen,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

South Bend,\nIndiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg currently has 8% support. He registered less than\n1% in prior Monmouth polls.  California\nSen. Kamala Harris has 8% support, off just slightly from 10% in March and 11%\nin January.  Rounding out the field of\ntop contenders are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 6% (from 8% in both\nMarch and January) and former Texas Congressman Beto O\u2019Rourke at 4% (6% in\nMarch and 7% in January).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Others who\nscore at least 1% include New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%, from 5% in March and\n4% in January), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (2%, from 1% in prior\npolls), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (1%, from 3% in March and 2% in January),\nand New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (1%, from 1% in March).  The remaining 14 names asked about in the\nsurvey receive support from less than 1% of Democratic voters at this time,\nwhich is basically unchanged from their support levels in prior national\nMonmouth polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the top contenders saw a decline of 2 to 3 points in their support since March, while Sanders actually dropped by 5 points and Biden lost only one point.  The major exception to this trend is Buttigieg, whose support shot up 8 points from basically nothing one month ago.  The other sizable shift in this poll is the number of Democrats who do not lean toward any candidate. This undecided group currently stands at 14%, up from 8% in March.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou cannot deny that Buttigieg is experiencing a real moment right now, but it\u2019s important to remember there is a lot of fluidity in this field. Voters are not only moving from candidate to candidate but also from candidate to undecided. Right now, the top tier is determined largely by who has a high national profile. This may not gel with how the contest will play out in the early states,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If, contrary to current media reports, Biden chooses not<\/em> to run, Sanders would move into the front-runner spot with 27% support (down from 32% in March), Buttigieg 11% (from less than 1%), Harris 11% (from 15%), Warren 8% (from 10%), O\u2019Rourke 6% (from 7%), Booker 3% (from 6%), Hickenlooper 2% (from 1%), and Klobuchar 2% (from 3%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden\u2019s\noverall rating among Democrats has declined following complaints from some women\nabout his interactions with them, but there are two important caveats to this\nfinding: (1) Biden remains the most popular contender in the field by far and\n(2) his closest rival has also experienced a similar drop in standing during\nthis time.  Biden\u2019s net favorability\nrating among Democratic voters stands at +56 (72% favorable and 16%\nunfavorable), which is down from +63 last month (76% favorable and 13%\nunfavorable). It is worth noting that the March results already showed a\ndecline from Biden\u2019s net +71 in January (80%-9%), well before the recent\ncontroversy emerged.  Sanders\u2019 rating now\nstands at +44 (65% favorable and 21% unfavorable), which is down from +53 in\nMarch (70%-17%) and +49 in January (68%-19%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD \u2013 PARTY\n VOTER OPINION<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Total opinion (%) <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n Net rating\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Apr \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Mar \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Jan \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n Apr \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Mar \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Jan \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 88\n <\/td> 89 <\/td>\n 89\n <\/td>\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n +56\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +71\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 86\n <\/td>\n 87\n <\/td>\n 87\n <\/td>\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n +44\n <\/td>\n +53\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 70\n <\/td>\n 68\n <\/td>\n 74\n <\/td>\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +30\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 60\n <\/td>\n 64\n <\/td>\n 59\n <\/td>\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56\n <\/td>\n 55\n <\/td>\n 55\n <\/td>\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n +24\n <\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 55\n <\/td>\n 50\n <\/td>\n 50\n <\/td>\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +26\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 41\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14\n <\/td>\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +2\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 40\n <\/td>\n 39\n <\/td>\n 31\n <\/td>\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +14\n <\/td>\n +13\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Buttigieg\u2019s\nrating has shot up since January going from a net +2 (8% favorable and 6%\nunfavorable) to a net +29 (35%-6%) in the current poll after bursting onto the\nnational scene.  Other top tier\ncandidates saw moderate shifts in their ratings.  O\u2019Rourke\u2019s current net +31 rating (43%-12%)\nis up slightly from +26 in March (38%-12%) and back to near where it was in\nJanuary at +32 (41%-9%). Booker\u2019s rating declined to +24 (40%-16%) from +31 in\nMarch (43%-12%) and +33 in January (44%-11%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warren\u2019s\ncurrent net +32 rating (51% favorable and 19% unfavorable) has held steady from\n+30 in March (49%-19%), but is still lower than her +40 rating in January\n(57%-17%).  Harris\u2019 rating has also held\nsteady at +40 (50%-10%), compared to +42 in March (53%-11%) \u2013 both of which are\nhigher than her January rating of +33 (46%-13%).  Klobuchar\u2019s rating is also unmoved at +14\n(27%-13%), compared with +13 in March (26%-13%) and +15 in January (23%-8%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\u201cNational primary polls have limited utility at this stage of the game. They give us a sense of who is breaking through the media noise, but the vast majority of the voters we poll nationally are not paying attention and in fact will never have the opportunity to winnow down the field at the ballot box. It\u2019s worth looking at these results in the context of polls from the early states, where all these candidates are better known,\u201d said Murray.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monmouth conducted a poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers earlier this month<\/a>.  Candidate familiarity \u2013 as measured by the percentage of voters who could offer an opinion \u2013 was higher for all candidates in that poll than in the current national results, including Biden (4 points higher), Sanders (7 points higher), Buttigieg (13 points higher), Harris (14 points higher), Booker (14 points higher), Warren (17 points higher), O\u2019Rourke (18 points higher), and Klobuchar (21 points higher).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanders is\nthe only one of these eight contenders who has a lower rating among likely Iowa\nvoters (net +41) than he does among all Democratic-identifiers nationally\n(+44).  Klobuchar, on the other hand, has\na significantly better rating in Iowa (+41) than she does nationally (+14).  Others who do better in Iowa than nationally\ninclude O\u2019Rourke (+47 versus +31), Warren (+47 versus +32), and Booker (+38\nversus +24); and to a lesser degree Biden (+64 versus +56), Harris (+48 versus\n+40), and Buttigieg (+36 versus +29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNational\nprominence is certainly important because it helps drive fundraising, but we\nshouldn\u2019t lose sight of candidates who might be well-positioned in key states\neven if the national media isn\u2019t showering them with attention right now,\u201d said\nMurray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from April 11 to 15, 2019 with 801 adults. Results in this release are based on 330\nregistered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party\nin the United States, which has a +\/- 5.4 percentage point sampling\nmargin of error.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

QUESTIONS\nAND RESULTS      <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(* Some columns may not add to 100% due to\nrounding.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q1-7 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q8-13 held for future release.<\/em>]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14.<\/span> I know the 2020 election is far away, but who would you support for the Democratic nomination for president if the candidates were the following? [INCLUDES LEANERS<\/em>] [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:
\n (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>		 April<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td>		 March
2019 <\/td>		 Jan.
2019 <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Hickenlooper\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de\n Blasio\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay Inslee\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Terry McAuliffe\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne Messam\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth Moulton\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Eric Swalwell\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne\n Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael\n Bennet\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim Ryan\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike\n Bloomberg<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Sherrod\n Brown<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Eric\n Holder<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

14B.<\/span> If Joe Biden does not run for president, who would be your second choice? [Results in table below reflect preferences of all Democrats after Biden supporters\u2019 second choices are reallocated.]<\/em> <\/span><\/p>\n
TREND:  

<\/td>		 April<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td>		 March
2019 <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto\n O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory\n Booker\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John\n Hickenlooper\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de Blasio\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n\n Castro\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten\n Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay\n Inslee\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Terry\n McAuliffe\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne\n Messam\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth\n Moulton\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim\n Ryan\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Eric\n Swalwell\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John\n Delaney\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi\n Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n No one\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike Bloomberg<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Sherrod Brown<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Eric Holder<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Undecided\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

15.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some people who are running or might run for president in 2020.\u00a0 Please tell me if your general impression of each is favorable or unfavorable, or if you don\u2019t really have an opinion. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Favorable\n <\/td> Unfavorable <\/td> No
opinion <\/td>		 Not
heard of <\/td>		\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    –January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 80%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Vermont Senator Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 70%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Texas\n Congressman Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 44%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 46%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[QUESTIONS 16 & 17 WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.<\/span> Would it be better for the Democrats to nominate a person of color or nominate a white candidate to run against Trump, or doesn\u2019t this matter? [CHOICES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n April
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a person of color\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a white candidate\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Does not matter\n <\/td>\n 87%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Depends on the candidate\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

17.<\/span> Would it be better for the Democrats to nominate a woman or nominate a man to run against Trump, or doesn\u2019t this matter? [CHOICES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n April
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a woman\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a man\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Does not matter\n <\/td>\n 77%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Depends on the candidate\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q18-22 and 25-31 held for future\nrelease.<\/em>]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q23-24 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODOLOGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from April 11 to 15, 2019 with a national random sample of 801\nadults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 320 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a landline telephone and 481 contacted by a live interviewer on\na cell phone. The results in this poll\nrelease are based on a subsample of 330 registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats or lean\ntoward the Democratic Party. Telephone numbers were selected through\nrandom digit dialing and landline respondents were selected with a modified\nTroldahl-Carter youngest adult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for\nall aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. Final sample is\nweighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census\ninformation. Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field)\nand Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on the Democratic voter sample,\none can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a\nmaximum margin of plus or minus 5.4 percentage points (unadjusted for sample\ndesign). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table\nbelow). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that\nquestion wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce\nerror or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n DEMOCRATIC VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 37% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 63%\n Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 39% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 58% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 20% Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   5% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 64% No degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 36% 4 year degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em> <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Click on pdf file link below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups.<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Biden stable, Bernie sags, Buttigieg surges<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802238410,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802238408","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-national"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802238408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/poll"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802238408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802241242,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802238408\/revisions\/40802241242"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802238410"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802238408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802238408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}