{"id":40802243720,"date":"2019-08-26T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-26T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802243720"},"modified":"2019-08-26T13:27:42","modified_gmt":"2019-08-26T17:27:42","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_082619","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_082619\/","title":{"rendered":"3-Way Lead as Dem 2020 Picture Shifts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013 Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden are currently bunched together in the national Democratic presidential preference contest. Movement in the latest Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 positive for Warren and Sanders, negative for Biden \u2013 suggests the 2020 presidential nomination process may be entering a volatile stage.  The poll results also suggest that liberal voters are starting to take a closer look at a wider range of candidates, while moderates are focusing on those with the highest name recognition.  Another key finding that could contribute to growing volatility in the race is confusion over \u201cMedicare for All.\u201d Most say support for this policy is an important factor in choosing a Democratic nominee, but voters actually prefer a public option over a single payer plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll finds a virtual three-way tie among Sanders (20%), Warren (20%), and Biden (19%) in the presidential nomination preferences of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters across the country. Compared to Monmouth\u2019s June poll, these results represent an increase in support for both Sanders (up from 14%) and Warren (up from 15%), and a significant drop for Biden (down from 32%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results for the rest of the field are fairly stable compared to two months ago. These candidates include California Sen. Kamala Harris at 8% support (identical to 8% in June), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker at 4% (2% in June), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 4% (5% in June), entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 3% (2% in June), former cabinet secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro at 2% (<1% in June), former Texas Rep. Beto O\u2019Rourke at 2% (3% in June), and author Marianne Williamson at 2% (1% in June). Support for the remaining 13 candidates included in the preference poll registered only 1% or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden has suffered an across the board decline in his support since June.  He lost ground with white Democrats (from 32% to 18%) and voters of color (from 33% to 19%), among voters without a college degree (from 35% to 18%) and college graduates (from 28% to 20%), with both men (from 38% to 24%) and women (from 29% to 16%), and among voters under 50 years old (from 21% to 6%) as well as voters aged 50 and over (from 42% to 33%).  Most of Biden\u2019s lost support in these groups shifted almost equally toward Sanders and Warren.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe main takeaway from this poll is that the Democratic race has become volatile.  Liberal voters are starting to cast about for a candidate they can identify with.  Moderate voters, who have been paying less attention, seem to be expressing doubts about Biden. But they are swinging more toward one of the left-leaning contenders with high name recognition rather than toward a lesser known candidate who might be more in line with them politically,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.  He added, \u201cIt\u2019s important to keep in mind this is just one snapshot from one poll.  But it does raise warning signs of increased churning in the Democratic nomination contest now that voters are starting to pay closer attention.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden lost support over the past two months among Democrats who call themselves moderate or conservative (from 40% to 22%) with the shift among these voters accruing to both Sanders (from 10% to 20%) and Warren (from 6% to 16%).  Biden also lost support among liberals (from 24% to 15%), but this group\u2019s backing has scattered to a variety of other candidates. Sanders has picked up a few points among liberal voters (from 17% to 21%) while Warren has held fairly steady (from 25% to 24%).  Also, Harris has not budged with this group (from 10% to 11%) and Buttigieg has slipped slightly (from 8% to 5%).  However, the aggregate support for four other candidates \u2013 namely Booker, Castro, Williamson and Yang \u2013 has gone up a total of 8 points among liberal Democrats (from 8% to 16% for the four combined).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nMonmouth poll also finds that Biden has lost his small edge in the early states\nwhere Democrats will cast ballots from February through Super Tuesday. His even\nlarger lead in the later states has vanished as well.  Biden (20%), Warren (20%), Sanders (16%), and\nHarris (12%) are all in the top tier among voters in the early states. Biden\nhas slipped by 6 points since June and Warren has gained 5 points over the same\ntime span.  Early state support for\nSanders and Harris has not changed much. \nIn the later states, Biden\u2019s support has plummeted from 38% in June to\n17% now, while both Warren (from 16% to 20%) and Sanders (from 13% to 23%) have\nmade gains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBiden\u2019s drop in support is coming disproportionately from later\nstates that have less impact on the process. But if this trend continues it\ncould spell trouble for him in the early states if it undermines his claim to\nbeing the most electable candidate.  This\ncould benefit someone like Harris, who remains competitive in the early states\nand could use a strong showing there to propel her into the top tier.  Based on the current data, though, Warren\nlooks like the candidate with the greatest momentum right now,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT by state primary schedule *<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
  <\/td>EARLY STATES<\/td>OTHER STATES<\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>Aug\u201819 <\/td>Jun\u201819<\/em><\/td>May\u201819<\/em><\/td>Aug\u201819<\/td>Jun\u201819<\/em><\/td>May\u201819<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Elizabeth Warren<\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Biden<\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Bernie Sanders<\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Kamala Harris<\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Cory Booker<\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Pete Buttigieg <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Andrew Yang<\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Juli\u00e1n Castro<\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Beto O\u2019Rourke<\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Marianne Williamson<\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
  * Early states include those scheduled to or likely to hold a <\/em>
primary\/caucus event in February 2020 or on Super Tuesday (March 3rd<\/sup>).<\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Warren has\nseen her personal ratings improve steadily over the past few months.  She currently earns a 65% favorable and 13%\nunfavorable rating, up from 60%-14% in May, the last time Monmouth tracked the\n2020 candidate ratings.  At the same,\ntime Biden has seen his ratings drop to 66% favorable and 25% unfavorable, from\n74%-17% three months ago. The ratings for Sanders have been comparatively more\nstable at 64% favorable and 24% unfavorable compared with 65%-21% in Monmouth\u2019s\nMay poll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At least 2-in-3 Democratic voters can now recognize the names of 11 candidates Monmouth has been tracking in terms of voter favorability since January.  Most have seen a small uptick in basic name recognition over the past three months of between 5 and 13 percentage points. The exceptions are Biden and Sanders on one hand, both of whom have been universally familiar to Democratic voters since the beginning of the campaign, and Williamson on the other hand, whose name recognition shot up 19 points from 48% in May to 67% in the current poll.  In Williamson\u2019s case, though, the increased notoriety has led to a rise in negative views, currently earning her a 14% favorable and 25% unfavorable rating, which is down from an evenly divided 10%-10% rating in May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other\ncandidates who have seen a downturn in their ratings are Harris at 56%\nfavorable and 17% unfavorable (from 58%-9% in May) and Minnesota Sen. Amy\nKlobuchar at 27% favorable and 18% unfavorable (from 32%-10% in May).  Those who have seen a slight improvement in\ntheir ratings are Booker at 49% favorable and 14% unfavorable (from 41%-13% in\nMay), Buttigieg at 43% favorable and 14% unfavorable (from 35%-11% in May), and\nYang at 24% favorable and 12% unfavorable (from 12%-13% in May).  Candidates who are holding relatively steady\nare Castro at 35% favorable and 13% unfavorable (from 28%-10% in May) and\nO\u2019Rourke at 39% favorable and 20% unfavorable (from 40%-19% in May).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2020 CANDIDATE OPINION AMONG DEMOCRATIC VOTERS <\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Net favorability rating:<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Aug \u201819<\/em>\n <\/td>\n May \u201819<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Apr \u201819<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Mar \u201819<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Jan \u201819<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +30\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td>\n +57\n <\/td>\n +56\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +71\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td>\n +44\n <\/td>\n +44\n <\/td>\n +53\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory\n Booker\n <\/td>\n +35\n <\/td>\n +28\n <\/td>\n +24\n <\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n +24\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +2\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n\n Castro\n <\/td>\n +22\n <\/td>\n +18\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto\n O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n +19\n <\/td>\n +21\n <\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +26<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n +12\n <\/td>\n \u20131\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +9\n <\/td>\n +22\n <\/td>\n +14\n <\/td>\n +13\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne\n Williamson\n <\/td>\n \u201311\n <\/td>\n 0\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +4\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

The two most recent entrants in the crowded field earn net negative ratings. Former naval officer and Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak has a negative 5% favorable and 11% unfavorable rating with 53% name recognition.  Former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who has spent heavily on advertising since getting into the race, earns a 9% favorable and 25% unfavorable rating with 70% name recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the issue of health care, 58% of party voters say it is very important to them that the Democrats nominate someone who supports \u201cMedicare for All.\u201d  Another 23% say it is somewhat important, 10% say it is not important, and 9% are unsure. However, it is not clear that Medicare for All means the same thing to all voters.  When asked specifically about what type of health insurance system they prefer, 53% of Democratic voters say they want a system that offers an opt in to Medicare while retaining the private insurance market. Just 22% say they want to move to a system where Medicare for All replaces private insurance. Another 7% prefer to keep insurance private for people under 65 but regulate the costs and 11% want to leave the system basically as it is now.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who\nprefer a public option are divided into two camps that include 18% who would\nlike to move to a universal public insurance system eventually and 33% who say\nthat there should always be the choice of private coverage.  In other words, only 4-in-10 Democrats want\nto get rid of the private insurance market when the 22% who want Medicare for\nAll now are combined with the 18% who would like to move to a universal public\nsystem at some point in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe asked the public option question in our Iowa poll earlier this month and got a lot of flak from Medicare for All advocates who claim that polls show widespread support for their idea.  It seems from these results, though, the term has a wide range of meanings among Democratic voters. Many conflate the public-only program name with a public option.  There is a lot more nuance in public opinion on this issue that could become problematic for proponents as voters become more familiar with what Medicare for All actually entails,\u201d said Murray. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from August 16 to 20, 2019 with 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release\nare based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the\nDemocratic Party, which has a +\/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin\nof error.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling\nInstitute 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

[Q1-13 previously released.<\/em>]<\/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] [NAMES WERE ROTATED]<\/em> <\/span><\/p>\n
\n   TREND:
\n (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto\n O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de Blasio\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi\n Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kirsten\n Gillibrand\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Sestak\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom\n Steyer\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John\n Delaney\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Jay\n Inslee *\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne\n Messam\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Seth\n Moulton *\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim\n Ryan\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n \n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n No one\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Undecided\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

        * The poll was conducted\nbefore Inslee and Moulton dropped out of the race.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

15.<\/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. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n   TREND:
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Favorable\n <\/td>\n Unfavorable\n <\/td> No
opinion <\/td>		\n Not\n
\n heard of\n <\/td>		\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 74%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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 64%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n (334)\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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 65%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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 California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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>\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 Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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 South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/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>
\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 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\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  Former cabinet secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/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    — March  2019<\/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    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/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 Entrepreneur Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/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    — March  2019<\/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    — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Author Marianne\n Williamson\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — April  2019<\/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    — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January  2019<\/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  \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 Pennsylvania\n Congressman Joe Sestak \n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/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    — April  2019<\/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    — March  2019<\/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    — January  2019<\/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  \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 hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/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    — April  2019<\/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    — March  2019<\/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    — January  2019<\/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  <\/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

16.<\/span> How important is it to you that the Democrats nominate someone who supports Medicare for All \u2013 very important, somewhat important, not important, or are you not sure?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very\n important\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat important\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n important\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not sure\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

17.<\/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>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A. Get rid of all private insurance coverage\n in favor of \u2026 Medicare for All\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n B. Allow people to\n either opt into Medicare or keep their private coverage\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n C.\n Keep health insurance private for people under age 65 but regulate the costs\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n D.\n Keep the health insurance system basically as it is\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

17A.<\/span> [If \u201cB. ALLOW PEOPLE TO OPT INTO MEDICARE OR KEEP THEIR PRIVATE COVERAGE\u201d in Q17, ASK:]\u00a0 <\/em>Would you eventually like to see the nation\u2019s health care coverage move to a universal public system like Medicare for All or do you think there should always be a choice to keep your private coverage?\u00a0 [Percentages are based on the total sample of Democrats.]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Medicare for All now\n (from Q17)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public\n option:  Eventually move to a universal\n public system like Medicare for All\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public option:  Should always be a choice to keep your\n private coverage\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public option:  Don\u2019t know what should eventually happen\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minor,\n none, other changes to health insurance (from Q17)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know (from Q17)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q18-26 held for future release.<\/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 August 16 to 20, 2019 with a national random sample of 800\nadults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 314 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a landline telephone and 486 contacted by a live interviewer on\na cell phone. The results in this poll\nrelease are based on a subsample of 298 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 maximum\nmargin of plus or minus 5.7 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 38% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 62% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 38% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 53% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 18% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 20%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   9% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 59% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 41% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em> <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Sanders and Warren rise; Biden drops<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802243723,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802243720","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\/40802243720","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":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802243781,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243720\/revisions\/40802243781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802243723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802243720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802243720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}