{"id":40802243612,"date":"2019-08-08T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-08T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802243612"},"modified":"2019-09-16T10:55:18","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T14:55:18","slug":"monmouthpoll_ia_080819","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_ia_080819\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden Holds Lead, Warren on the Chase"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nFormer Vice President Joe Biden maintains a lead in the Hawkeye State, but\nMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is hot on his heels while Vermont Sen.\nBernie Sanders has slipped down the leaderboard.  The second Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong>\nof likely 2020 Iowa Democratic caucusgoers finds the size of Biden\u2019s lead\ndepends in part on how the new virtual caucus results are reported as part of\nthe total vote share. The poll also shows that a majority of likely caucusgoers\nwant a public option rather than a \u201cMedicare for All\u201d type health care system,\nbut they are unclear on which candidates are most aligned with their views on\nthis issue.  Another overriding concern\nfor Iowa Democrats is defeating President Donald Trump in 2020.  Most voters feel that only a few contenders\nout of the 24-candidate field really have what it takes to beat the incumbent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden\ncontinues to lead the Democratic field with 28% support among voters who are\nlikely to attend the Iowa caucuses in February 2020. This is nearly identical\nto his 27% support level in April.  [Note: Biden had not yet declared his\ncandidacy at the time of Monmouth\u2019s first 2020 poll in Iowa.<\/em>]  However, Warren is now closing the gap at 19%\nsupport, up from 7% four months ago. \nSupport for Sanders has gone in the opposite direction, now at 9%\ncompared with 16% in April. California Sen. Kamala Harris clocks in at 11% (up\nfrom 7%) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has 8% (similar to his 9% in\nApril).  Other candidates who register at\nleast 2% in the poll include Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (3%), former hedge\nfund manager Tom Steyer (3%), New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (2%), and\nentrepreneur Andrew Yang (2%).  The\nremaining 15 candidates included in the poll each earn 1% or less.  Of particular note, former Texas Rep. Beto\nO\u2019Rourke, who had 6% support in April, registers less than 1% in the current\npoll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden\u2019s lead is boosted by the addition of a virtual caucus option this cycle. Among those who say they will caucus online or over the phone prior to the official February 3rd<\/sup> date, Biden holds 37% of likely caucusgoer support compared with 11% for Warren, 10% for Buttigieg, 9% for Sanders, and 8% for Harris.  Biden\u2019s strong lead in the virtual caucus is driven almost entirely by potential virtual caucusgoers who would not normally be considered likely to caucus in person.  The race is much tighter among those who say they plan to attend the traditional caucus event, with 26% supporting Biden and 20% backing Warren, followed by Harris at 12%, Sanders at 9%, and Buttigieg at 7%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe impact of the virtual option is highly uncertain. As it stands\nright now, the virtual caucus could help Joe Biden by adding to his total voter\nshare by racking up support from people who would not venture out on a cold\nFebruary night.  However, if it also\nattracts a high number of people who would otherwise caucus in person, then\ncandidates could end up wasting votes because the virtual delegate share is\ncapped,\u201d said Patrick Murray,\ndirector of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. He added,\n\u201cOn the other hand, the importance of Iowa really is about momentum more than\ndelegates. If the Iowa Democratic Party reports the initial voter preference\ncount on caucus night, it could make the front-runner look even more formidable\nif there is an overwhelming turnout in the virtual caucus.  If the party does not report these results\nright away, though, then the caucus night media coverage might focus on someone\nwho did not fare as well in total turnout but did a better job of organizing delegate\nwins at key caucus sites.\u201d [* See note at\nend on the challenge of polling the virtual caucus option.<\/em>]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Biden maintains the same level of voter support he had in April, his favorability rating has slipped a little since then.  It is still strong at 73% favorable and 19% unfavorable (compared with 78%-14% in April), but he has been overtaken by Warren who now has a 76% favorable and 14% unfavorable rating (up from 67%-20% in April).  Opinion of Sanders stands at 58% favorable and 33% unfavorable, which is a decline from his 67%-26% rating four months ago. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harris has become somewhat better known over the past few months and now has a 68% favorable and 19% unfavorable rating.  That positive to negative net rating is similar to her 61%-13% rating four months ago.  Buttigieg has also become better known and has bumped up his positive rating.  It currently stands at 68% favorable and 11% unfavorable, compared to 45%-9% in April.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among other candidates included in the poll ratings, views of O\u2019Rourke suffered the sharpest drop. He currently has a 43% favorable and 24% unfavorable rating, which is significantly more negative than his 60%-13% rating in April. Other candidates have experienced only minor shifts in their voter ratings.  New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker\u2019s 56%-16% rating is nearly identical to his April results (54%-16%), Klobuchar\u2019s 50%-17% rating is slightly more negative than before (51%-10% in April), and former Cabinet secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro\u2019s 47%-13% rating is somewhat more positive (36%-9% in April).  Newcomer Steyer clocks in with a 34% favorable and 25% unfavorable rating. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock stands at 22% favorable and 19% unfavorable (11%-7% in April).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese\ntrends in favorability ratings underscore the reversals of fortune for some\ncandidates in Iowa. A strong field organization seems to have given Warren a\nboost. On the other hand, the fact that 6-in-10 Democrats are able to offer an\nopinion of Steyer shows that an unlimited advertising budget can come in handy\ntoo,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD \u2013 IOWA PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Total w\/ opinion<\/td><\/td>Favorable<\/td>Unfavorable<\/td>Net<\/em> rating<\/em><\/td>April net rating<\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
\n 92\n <\/td>\n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td>\n 73\n <\/td>\n 19\n <\/td>\n +54<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 91\n <\/td>\n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 58\n <\/td>\n 33\n <\/td>\n +25<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +41<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 90\n <\/td>\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n 76\n <\/td>\n 14\n <\/td>\n +62<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +47<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 87\n <\/td>\n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td>\n 68\n <\/td>\n 19\n <\/td>\n +49<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +48<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 79\n <\/td>\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 68\n <\/td>\n 11\n <\/td>\n +57<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +36<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 72\n <\/td>\n Cory\n Booker\n <\/td>\n 56\n <\/td>\n 16\n <\/td>\n +40<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +38<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 67\n <\/td>\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 50\n <\/td>\n 17\n <\/td>\n +33<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +41<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 67\n <\/td>\n Beto\n O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 43\n <\/td>\n 24\n <\/td>\n +19<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +47<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 60\n <\/td>\n Juli\u00e1n\n Castro\n <\/td>\n 47\n <\/td>\n 13\n <\/td>\n +34<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +27<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 59\n <\/td>\n Tom\n Steyer\n <\/td>\n 34\n <\/td>\n 25\n <\/td>\n +9<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 41<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Steve\n Bullock\n <\/td>\n 22\n <\/td>\n 19\n <\/td>\n +3<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +4<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

The top\nissue on Iowa Democrats\u2019 minds when choosing a presidential nominee continues\nto be health care (55%), followed by environmental concerns (18% climate change\nand 12% environment in general).  These\ntop two results are in line with voter concern levels in the April poll.  Other issues important to voters include\nbeating Trump (15%), immigration (14%), education (7%), taxes (7%), jobs (6%),\nincome inequality (6%), civil rights (6%), foreign policy (5%), and guns\n(5%).  It should be noted that gun issues\nwere tracking steadily at 3% during the first three nights of the poll, but\nshot up to 10% in interviews conducted on Sunday after the recent mass\nshootings.  Health care went from 58% to\n44% during this same time frame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the\nissue of health insurance policy, a majority (56%) of likely Iowa Democratic\ncaucusgoers say they would prefer to allow people to opt into Medicare, while\njust 21% say they want a Medicare for All type of system with no private\ninsurance. Another 13% would like to see tighter cost regulations on the\ncurrent system and 4% want to leave the current system basically as it is now.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When asked\nwhich candidates for president come closest to their own views on health care,\nBiden (28%), Warren (20%), and Sanders (20%) lead the pack. They are followed\nby Harris (9%) and Buttigieg (7%), with another 28% saying they do not know\nwhose platform is aligned with their own health coverage policy position.  Among voters who prefer a public option, 34%\nsay Biden comes close to their position on health care, followed by Warren\n(18%), Harris (13%), and Buttigieg (11%). \nAmong those who want a Medicare for All plan, 64% say Sanders is close\nto their view and 44% say Warren is close to their view.  [Results\nadd to more than 100% because voters could choose multiple candidates.<\/em>]\nAmong those who want little or no change to the current system, Biden is seen\nas most in step with their own position (44%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMany\nvoters remain confused on the single most important domestic policy issue of\nthe 2020 race. The Medicare for All crowd has their champions, but the vast\nmajority of voters who want a public option are all over the place. Last\nmonth\u2019s debates do not appear to have clarified where the candidates stand on\nhealth care,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue\npositions may be important to Iowa Democrats, but the overwhelming majority\n(72%) prefer to have a nominee who would be strong against Trump even if they\ndisagree with that candidate on most issues. If they were forced to choose,\njust 20% say they would favor a candidate who they are aligned with on the\nissues even if that person would have a hard time beating Trump.  In April, a slightly smaller 64% said they\nwanted a strong candidate against Trump compared to 24% who preferred issue\nalignment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When asked\nto assess the strength of the 24 person field, nearly two-thirds of likely Iowa\nDemocratic caucusgoers say that most of these candidates could not beat Trump\nin 2020.  Specifically, 30% say that only\none or two of the Democratic contenders have the ability to beat Trump and\nanother 35% say that more than two but less than half are up to the challenge.  Another 17% say that about half the current\nfield could beat Trump and 15% say that most or all of the 24 candidates could\nhandle the incumbent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden is\nthe main beneficiary of voters who think that the field is pretty weak against\nTrump.  Among those who feel only one or\ntwo candidates have a shot, 41% currently support Biden, compared with just 13%\nwho are for Warren, 11% for Harris, 10% for Sanders, and 5% for Buttigieg.\nVoter preferences are more mixed among those who think that more than two\ncandidates but less than half the field can win in 2020 \u2013 at 26% for Biden, 22%\nfor Warren, 14% for Harris, 10% for Sanders, and 8% for Buttigieg.  Among those who think at least half the field\nis electable, 21% prefer Warren, 20% Biden, 12% Buttigieg, 8% Sanders, and 8%\nHarris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese\nresults are just another sign that the electability factor continues to accrue\nin Joe Biden\u2019s favor. This comes despite, or more likely because of, the\nattacks he has been weathering of late,\u201d said Murray. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer than\n1-in-4 (23%) likely Democratic caucusgoers say it is very important to them\nthat the party nominates someone who supports impeaching Trump, but this is up\nfrom 16% who said the same in April. Another 22% say it is somewhat important\nto them (identical to 22% in April), while 43% say it is not an important\nconsideration in their 2020 choice of nominee (down from 51% in April). Opinion\non the importance of impeachment does not have an appreciable impact on\ncandidate choice at this point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from August 1 to 4, 2019 with 401 Iowa voters who are likely to attend the Democratic\npresidential caucuses in February 2020, out of 681 registered\nDemocrats and unaffiliated voters who were contacted for the poll.  The question results in this release have a\nmargin of error of +\/- 4.9 percentage points.  The poll was conducted by\nthe Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

* A note on polling the virtual\ncaucuses:<\/strong>  Likely\nvirtual caucusgoers include voters who would probably not attend an in-person\ncaucus as well as those who would normally be considered likely caucusgoers but\nmight opt for the virtual caucus this time. It is unclear, though, how many\nvoters will ultimately choose the virtual option. This group currently\nrepresents 20% of all \u201clikely caucusgoers\u201d in Monmouth\u2019s model.  The poll is designed to measure the initial\ncandidate preferences of all likely caucusgoers; not the delegates allocated to\ncandidates. The Iowa Democratic Party says it will report the voter preference\ntotals in 2020, whereas they only reported state delegate equivalents in the\npast. The state party has increased the total number of delegates by 10% and\ndedicated those new slots to the virtual caucuses, but it is possible that\nvirtual caucusgoers could make up more than a quarter of the total number of\ncaucus \u201cattendees\u201d based on current polling. On the other hand, they could end\nup comprising less than one-tenth of all caucus participants after voters learn\nabout the required pre-registration process and the campaigns make strategic\ndecisions on how best to maximize the split in their in-person\/virtual caucus\nsupport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

1.<\/span> If\nthe Democratic caucuses for president were today, would you support \u2013 [NAMES WERE ROTATED]?\u00a0 [If UNDECIDED: If you had to support\none of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?]<\/span><\/p>\n
TREND:   (with leaners)<\/em> <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019*\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Hickenlooper\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay Inslee\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de Blasio \n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne Messam\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth\n Moulton\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim\n Ryan\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n No one  \n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

                *\nApril poll did not include virtual caucusgoers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/span> And who would be your second choice?
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de Blasio \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Hickenlooper\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim Ryan\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay Inslee\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne\n Messam\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth\n Moulton\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some people who are running 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. <\/strong>[NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Favorable<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Unfavorable<\/strong>\n <\/td> No <\/strong>
opinion<\/strong> <\/td>		Not<\/strong>
heard of<\/strong><\/td>		\n (n)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 73%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 78%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Vermont Senator Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Texas\n Congressman Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 60%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 61%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar \n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg \n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 45%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former cabinet\n secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 34%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/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 Montana Governor Steve\n Bullock\n <\/td>\n  22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 42%\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/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><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> Which type of candidate would you prefer if you had to make a choice between: a Democrat you agree with on most issues but would have a hard time beating Donald Trump or a Democrat you do NOT agree with on most issues but would be a stronger candidate against Donald Trump? [CHOICES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td>Aug.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td>		April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Agrees with but hard time beating Trump\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Do\n not agree with but stronger against Trump\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 64%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Rejects choice \/ no need to pick between two\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> What are the one or two most important issues to you in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination? [LIST WAS NOT READ<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n

[Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted<\/em>] <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jobs, unemployment\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bills, food, groceries\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n College tuition,\n school costs\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Health care\n <\/td>\n 55%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Social Security,\n seniors\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Taxes\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Climate change, global\n warming\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Environment, pollution\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Opioids, drug use\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Safety, crime\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Guns,\n gun control\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Terrorism, national\n security\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Immigration\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Schools,\n education\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Civil\n rights\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Reproductive\n rights, women\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Honesty,\n integrity\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Competence,\n experience\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Income\n inequality, wages\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Infrastructure\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Foreign\n policy, world standing\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Balance\n budget\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Donald Trump, beating Trump\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Other\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> Which of the following comes closest to how you would like to see health care handled:\u00a0 A. get rid of all private insurance coverage in favor of having everyone on a single public plan like Medicare for All, B. allow people to either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage, C. keep health insurance private for people under age 65 but regulate the costs, or D. keep the health insurance system basically as it is?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n            \n <\/td>Aug.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n A. Get rid of all private insurance coverage\n in favor of \u2026 Medicare for All\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n B. Allow people to\n either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n C.\n Keep health insurance private for people under age 65 but regulate the costs\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n D.\n Keep the health insurance system basically as it is\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> Which Democratic candidates for president come closest to your position on health care? [LIST WAS NOT READ. MULTIPLE ANSWERS ACCEPTED.<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n

[Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted<\/em>] <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Hickenlooper\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay Inslee\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne Messam\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim\n Ryan\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth\n Moulton\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael\n Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill\n de Blasio \n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom\n Steyer\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n No one  \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> There are 24 Democrats running for president right now.\u00a0 About how many of them do you think could beat Donald Trump in November 2020 \u2013 all of them, most of them, about half of them, less than half of them, only 1 or 2 of them, or none of them?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n            \n <\/td>Aug.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n All of them\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Most of them\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n About\n half of them\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Less\n than half of them\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Only\n 1 or 2 of them\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n None\n of them\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/span> How important is it to you that the Democrats nominate someone who supports impeaching Donald Trump \u2013 very important, somewhat important, not important, or are you not sure?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td>Aug.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td>		April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Very important\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat\n important\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n important\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not sure\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/span> Will this be your first presidential caucus or have you attended the Iowa presidential caucuses in the past? [<\/strong>If ATTENDED IN PAST: <\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>Was that a Republican or a Democratic caucus, or both?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>Aug.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n First caucus\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Republican caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Democratic caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 77%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n both caucuses in the past\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don’t Know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\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 August 1 to 4, 2019 with\na statewide random sample of 681 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered\nDemocratic and unaffiliated voters who voted in at least one of the last two\nstate primary elections or the last general election or have registered to vote since November 2018. Results\nare based on 401 voters who are likely to attend the Democratic presidential\ncaucuses in February 2020, either in person or virtually. This\nincludes 176 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 225\ncontacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Monmouth is\nresponsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis.\nFinal sample is weighted for age, gender, race, and education based on state\nvoter registration list and U.S. Census information. Data collection support\nprovided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For results\nbased on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error\nattributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage\npoints (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for\nsub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should\nbear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting\nsurveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n \n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 43% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 57% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 21% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 92% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   8% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 55% No\n college degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 45%\n College graduate<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Most prefer public option over Medicare for All;
\nLess than half the 2020 field seen as likely to beat Trump<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802243613,"template":"","geography":[78],"class_list":["post-40802243612","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-iowa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243612","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":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243612\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802244501,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243612\/revisions\/40802244501"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802243613"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802243612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802243612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}