{"id":40802243963,"date":"2019-09-24T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-09-24T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802243963"},"modified":"2019-09-24T12:00:26","modified_gmt":"2019-09-24T16:00:26","slug":"monmouthpoll_nh_092419","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_nh_092419\/","title":{"rendered":"Dem Primary in Flux"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has joined former Vice President Joe Biden\nat the front of the pack in New Hampshire, according to the latest Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong>.  She has taken\nsupport from both Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders since Monmouth\u2019s first\npoll of the state\u2019s Democratic contest this past spring. The poll also finds\nthat most primary voters say they prioritize electability over issue alignment,\nbut seem to feel they are not actually forced to make that choice when it comes\ndown to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among\nregistered New Hampshire Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are likely to\nparticipate in the February 2020 Democratic primary, 27% currently support\nWarren and 25% support Biden. The only other candidates in double digits are\nSanders at 12% and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 10%.  Others with measurable support are California\nSen. Kamala Harris (3%), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%), Hawaii Rep. Tulsi\nGabbard (2%), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2%), former hedge fund manager Tom\nSteyer (2%), and entrepreneur Andrew Yang (2%). \nThe remaining 10 candidates included in the poll earn 1% or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared to\nMonmouth\u2019s prior New Hampshire poll, which was in May, Warren\u2019s support has\ngrown by 19 points (from 8%) while Biden\u2019s has dropped by 11 points (from 36%).\nOther candidates who have slipped somewhat are Sanders (down 6 from 18%) and\nHarris (down 3 from 6%).  Buttigieg\u2019s\nsupport is about the same as it was four months ago (up one from 9%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWarren\ncontinues to look stronger with every new poll. She seems to be picking up\nsupport across the spectrum with gains coming at the expense of both Biden and\nSanders,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of\nthe independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warren has\nimproved her standing among self-described liberals by 28 points since May (now\nat 39%), while Sanders has dropped by 13 points (16% now) and Biden has dropped\nby 7 points (16% now). Warren has also increased her share among moderates and\nconservatives by 11 points (now at 18%), while Biden has declined by 15 points\n(30% now) and Sanders is off by just one point (9% now).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is\nimportant to keep in mind that the race is still very much in flux. Monmouth\nanalysts ran a variety of different likely voter models in addition to the\nbenchmark reported in this release. A model that increases the share of lower\npropensity voters shows Biden with 27% support, Warren with 25%, Sanders with\n14% and Buttigieg with 9%. A model that gives more weight to traditional\nprimary voters shows Warren with 29% support, Biden with 24%, Buttigieg with\n11%, and Sanders with 10%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most New Hampshire Democratic primary voters (61%) say if they had to\nchoose they would select a candidate who they don\u2019t agree with on most issues\nbut would be stronger against President Donald Trump in the general election.\nOn the other hand, 27% say if they had to choose they would support a candidate\nthey agree with on the issues even if that person would have a hard time\nbeating Trump.  These results are in line\nwith Monmouth\u2019s prior poll (68% stronger candidate versus 25% candidate agree\nwith on issues).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019ve traveled throughout New Hampshire and Iowa talking to voters who\nsay they prioritize electability. I started to suspect they weren\u2019t defining\nthat term the same as pundits and decided to ask some follow-up questions.\nThese results suggest that many voters believe they have found a candidate who\nis the holy grail of issue alignment and electability, so they aren\u2019t forced to\nmake a calculated decision between the two factors,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, 69% of likely voters say the candidate they back right now is\nthe one they agree with the most on the issues. Just 10% say they tend to agree\nwith another candidate more than the one they are currently backing.  By comparison, 52% feel they are backing the\nmost electable Democrat, while 18% say that another candidate in the field\nwould actually be stronger against Trump. \nInterestingly, these results are almost identical among those who\nactually claim that they would prioritize electability over issues if they had\nto choose.  Among voters who say they\nwould back the stronger candidate against Trump, 55% report that their current\nchoice is indeed the strongest candidate, but another 18% say they are backing\nsomeone they feel is not necessarily the strongest general election candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve seen a higher preference for so-called \u2018electability\u2019 in the\npolls this year, but it\u2019s not clear that Democratic voters are really willing\nto make that choice when the rubber hits the road. Some voters do not appear to\nbe the best judges of their own willingness to prioritize electability over\nissue alignment,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About half of all likely voters (47%) say their current candidate\nchoice is the one they agree with the most and who also has the best chance against\nTrump.  Among this group of voters, 35%\nback Biden and 34% back Warren, while another 15% support Sanders and 5%\nsupport Buttigieg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nalso asked voters to rate 12 candidates who are likely to take the debate stage\nnext month. Warren holds the most positive rating at net +55 points (74%\nfavorable and 19% unfavorable), which is up from her +39 rating in May\n(63%-24%). Biden now holds a net +42 rating (66%-24%), down from +65 in May\n(80%-15%). Sanders gets a +35 rating (63%-28%), which is down from +54\n(73%-19%).  Buttigieg earns a +50 rating\n(62%-12%), which is similar to his +47 net rating in May (54%-7%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cButtigieg could be the stalking horse here.  His star seemed to dim a bit over the summer,\nbut these poll results suggest he could have some strength in New Hampshire,\u201d\nsaid Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other candidate ratings include Harris at +31 (54% favorable and 23%\nunfavorable), Booker at +31 (49%-18%), Klobuchar at +22 (41%-19%), and former\nTexas Rep. Beto O\u2019Rourke at +14 (40%-26%). These candidates have seen their net\nratings drop by 11 to 19 points since May. The rest of the field includes\nGabbard holding a steady +10 net rating (32%-22%) with higher name recognition,\nnewcomer Steyer clocking in at +10 (32%-22%), and Yang improving to a +5 rating\n(31%-26%) with significantly higher name recognition since May. Former\ncabinet secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro has seen his\nnet rating drop to a net negative -7 points (26%-33%), compared to a positive\n+17 rating in May (30%-13%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the issue of health care, 10% of New Hampshire Democrats say this\nis the single most important concern for them in choosing a Democratic\ncandidate to support. Another 68% say it is one of several very important\nissues in their primary vote, 17% say it is just somewhat important, and 4% say\nit is not important. When asked about their preferred approach to health\ninsurance reform, a majority (56%) would like to have a public option in\naddition to private insurance, 23% want to replace private insurance with a\nsingle public plan like \u201cMedicare for All,\u201d 10% would like to see any reforms\nlimited to better regulation of costs, and 8% prefer no changes to the current\nsystem. Among voters who want a single payer plan, 40% back Warren, 24% back\nSanders, 17% back Biden, and 2% back Buttigieg. \nAmong those who prefer a public option, 27% back Biden, 25% back Warren,\n14% back Buttigieg, and 7% back Sanders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll also finds that 22% of likely Democratic primary voters\nreport having seen at least one of the presidential candidates in person this\nyear. The most frequent sightings are Warren (10%), Buttigieg (9%), Sanders\n(8%), and Biden (7%). Other contenders who have been spotted in the Granite\nState include Klobuchar (6%), O\u2019Rourke (5%), Booker (5%), Harris (4%), Yang\n(4%), Castro (3%), Gabbard (3%), Steyer (3%), and Marianne Williamson (3%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from September 17 to 21, 2019 with 401 New Hampshire voters who are likely to vote in the\nDemocratic presidential primary in February 2020, out of 664\nregistered voters that were contacted for the poll. The\nquestion results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.9 percentage\npoints. The poll was\nconducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/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 the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]?\u00a0 [If UNDECIDED:<\/em> If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND: (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\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 Tim Ryan\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bill de Blasio*\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wayne Messam\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

* The poll was being conducted when de\nBlasio dropped out of the race.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/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>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Agrees with but hard time beating Trump\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Do not agree with but stronger against Trump\n <\/td>\n 61%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Rejects choice \/ no need to pick\n between two\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[QUESTIONS 3 & 4 WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> When you think about the policy issues that are important to you, is the candidate you support now the one you tend to agree with the most on these issues, or is there another candidate running who you actually agree with more on these issues?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n My candidate is who I agree with the most\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Another candidate who I agree with more  \n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other candidate agree with equally\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No candidate choice in\n Q1<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> When you think only about electability rather than the issues, is the candidate you support now the one you think has the best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020, or is there another candidate running who you think would actually have a better chance of beating Trump?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n My candidate has best chance\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Another candidate has best chance  \n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other candidate has equal chance\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No candidate choice in\n Q1<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/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 <\/td>\n Favorable\n <\/td> Unfavorable <\/td> No
opinion <\/td>		 Not
heard of <\/td>		 (n)<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 80%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Vermont Senator Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 63%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 74%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Texas\n Congressman Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 45%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n California Senator Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td>\n 54<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 23<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 21<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 3<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 60%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 41<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 19<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 29<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 11<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 44%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 62<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 12<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 18<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 8<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker <\/td>\n 49<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 18<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 27<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 6<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former cabinet\n secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 26<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 33<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 34<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 7<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Entrepreneur Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 31<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 26<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 30<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 13<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 45%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 32<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 22<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 33<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\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  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hawaii Congresswoman\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 32<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 22<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 35<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n 11<\/strong>%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> How important to you is the issue of health care in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination \u2013 is it the single most important issue, one of several very important issues, a somewhat important issue, or not important to you?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Most important\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very important\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat important\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not important\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/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 (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/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>Sept.<\/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 23%<\/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 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n D.\n Keep the health insurance system basically \n as\n it is\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7A.<\/span> [If \u201cB. ALLOW PEOPLE TO OPT INTO MEDICARE OR KEEP THEIR PRIVATE COVERAGE\u201d in Q7, 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? [Percentages are based on the total sample of Democrats.]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td> Sept.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Medicare for All now\n (from Q7)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public\n option:  Eventually move to a universal\n public system like Medicare for All\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public option:  Should always be a choice to keep your\n private coverage\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Public option:  Don\u2019t know what should happen\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minor,\n none, other changes to health insurance (from Q7)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know (from Q7)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> Have you seen any of the Democratic candidates for president in person this year, or not?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Yes\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No\n <\/td>\n 78%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/strong><\/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 September 17 to 21, 2019 with\na statewide random sample of 664 New Hampshire voters drawn from a list of\nregistered voters who participated in a primary or general election in the past\ntwo election cycles. This includes 345 contacted by a live interviewer\non a landline telephone and 319 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell\nphone, in English. Results are based on 401\nvoters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in\nFebruary 2020.  Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the\nsurvey design, data weighting and analysis. Final sample is weighted for party\nregistration, age, gender, race, and education based on state voter\nregistration list information and U.S. Census information. Data collection\nsupport provided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For\nresults based on the sample of 401 likely Democratic primary voters, one can\nsay with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum\nmargin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling\nerror can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to\nsampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical\ndifficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the\nfindings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Party\n Registration<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 57% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 43% None<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported\n Party<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 52% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 48% Other, independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 12% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 18% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 95% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   5% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% 4 year\n degree<\/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":"

Many see no need to choose between electability and issue alignment<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802243964,"template":"","geography":[51],"class_list":["post-40802243963","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-new-hampshire"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243963","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":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243963\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802243996,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243963\/revisions\/40802243996"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802243964"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802243963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802243963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}