{"id":40802244492,"date":"2019-10-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-23T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802244492"},"modified":"2019-10-23T10:18:53","modified_gmt":"2019-10-23T14:18:53","slug":"monmouthpoll_sc_102319","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_sc_102319\/","title":{"rendered":"Little Change for Dem Field"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013 Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the clear front-runner among likely Democratic voters in South Carolina.  The Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> finds little has changed in overall presidential primary support, but there is evidence that black voters\u2019 preference for the front-runner varies significantly when age and education are taken into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden\ncurrently holds 33% support among South Carolina voters who are likely to vote\nin the February 2020 Democratic primary. \nThis is down slightly from his 39% support level in Monmouth\u2019s July\npoll. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (16%) and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders\n(12%) are in the second tier of candidate preferences.  Warren has improved on her 9% standing in\nJuly while Sanders was at a similar 10% then. California Sen. Kamala Harris has\n6% support, which is down from 12% in July.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other\ncandidates registering at least 2% support in the poll are former hedge fund\nmanager Tom Steyer (4%), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (3%), New Jersey Sen.\nCory Booker (2%), Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2%), and entrepreneur Andrew\nYang (2%).  The remaining nine candidates\nincluded in the poll receive 1% support or less. Another 15% of likely voters\nsay they are not yet leaning toward any candidate in this race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shifts,\nor lack thereof, in the fortunes of these candidates can be seen more plainly\nwhen both the first and second choices of voters are examined.  Biden is a top-two preference for 46% of\nPalmetto State Democrats (down slightly by 4 points from 50% in July), Warren\nis at 35% (up 16 points from 19%), Sanders is at 23% (same as 23% in July), and\nHarris is at 13% (down 15 points from 28%). \nHowever, Biden\u2019s position as either a first or second choice candidate\nhas dropped by 10 points among black voters (52% from 62% in July). Warren\u2019s\nposition as a top-two choice has improved among black voters (26% from 11% in\nJuly). Harris has declined as a top-two choice among black voters (17% from 28%\nin July), while Sanders remains about the same (25% from 23% in July).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBiden is still in a pretty good position in South Carolina, but there are some signs that he might not have a true firewall among black voters. If he does not do well in the earlier contests in February, there may be potential for current preferences to shift here,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC VOTER PREFERENCES<\/strong>
Combined first and second choice %ages<\/em><\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n TOTAL<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n WHITE<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n BLACK<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n Oct\n <\/td>\n July\n <\/td>\n Oct\n <\/td>\n July\n <\/td>\n Oct\n <\/td>\n July\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 52%\n <\/td>\n 62%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n 35%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 52%\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Biden is the top pick among black Democratic primary voters in South Carolina at 39%, with Warren (11%), Sanders (11%), Harris (8%) and the rest of the field trailing him by a wide margin.  However, a significant number of black voters (19%) remain completely undecided on their preference and there are some sizable differences by age and education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among\nwhite Democratic voters, who make up about two-fifths of the likely electorate,\nit is a tight contest between Biden (28%) and Warren (24%), with Sanders (13%)\nand Buttigieg (8%) following behind. \nJust 6% of white voters say they do not have any candidate in mind as\ntheir pick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking\nat a hypothetical nomination contest without Joe Biden in the race (by\nassigning his voters to their second choice candidate), suggests a very\nuncertain contest, with Warren at 25%, Sanders at 18%, Harris at 9%, Steyer at\n6%, and Buttigieg at 5%, with 20% undecided among all South Carolina Democratic\nvoters.  Among white voters in a\npotential scenario without Biden, 37% back Warren, 14% Sanders, and 11%\nButtigieg, with 10% undecided. Among black voters, the preferences are 20%\nSanders, 17% Warren, 13% Harris, and 7% Steyer, with 25% undecided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npoll also finds that South Carolina Democratic primary voters are not inclined\nto believe claims that Biden pressured the Ukraine government to fire its\nprosecutor in order to block an investigation of business activities involving\nBiden\u2019s son.  More than 6-in-10 feel that these claims about Biden are\nlikely to be untrue, although only 28% say that they are definitely not true while\nanother 35% say they are probably not true.  Another 12% say these claims\nare probably true and 1% say they are definitely true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\nplurality of 44% say that this controversy has had no impact on Biden\u2019s ability\nto beat President Donald Trump next year, but one-third (34%) say that it has\nactually hurt Biden. Just 4% say it has helped him.  Nearly half (48%) say\nBiden\u2019s response to the charges has been done with the right amount of force,\nbut 23% say his response has not been forceful enough and 6% say his response\nhas actually been too forceful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe issues around Biden and his son brought up in the Ukraine investigation do not seem to be having a significant impact on South Carolina Democrats right now.  But some voters do seem to be worried about where this all might lead and how Biden is handling the controversy,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority (52%) of likely Democratic primary voters say it is very important that Democrats nominate someone who supports impeaching Trump. Currently, all candidates in the field have called for Trump\u2019s impeachment. About half (49%) also say that it is very important for the party to nominate someone who will build on the legacy of former President Barack Obama. Black voters are more likely than white voters to prioritize both Trump\u2019s impeachment (57% black to 44% white) and Obama\u2019s legacy (57% black to 42% white).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> asked likely\nDemocratic primary voters to rate the 12 candidates who appeared on the debate\nstage earlier this month.  For the most\npart, these ratings remain unchanged from Monmouth\u2019s July poll.  Biden holds the most positive rating at 76%\nfavorable to 12% unfavorable.  Other\ncandidates with strong positive ratings are Warren (66% to 10%) and Sanders\n(66% to 18%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD
\n SOUTH CAROLINA PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n October<\/em>\n <\/td>\n July<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>Net rating<\/em> <\/td>Favorable \/
unfavorable <\/td>		Net rating<\/em> <\/td>Favorable \/
unfavorable <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n +64<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76\/12\n <\/td>\n +70<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 79\/9\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n +56<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66\/10\n <\/td>\n +60<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67\/7\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n +48<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66\/18\n <\/td>\n +53<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67\/14\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n +40<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51\/11\n <\/td>\n +37<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49\/12\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n +32<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51\/19\n <\/td>\n +58<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 64\/6\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +24<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 36\/12\n <\/td>\n +25<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 36\/11\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n +15<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31\/16\n <\/td>\n +4<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21\/17\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n +9<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30\/21\n <\/td>\n +14<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32\/18\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +11<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26\/15\n <\/td>\n +22<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32\/10\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n +8<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25\/17\n <\/td>\n \u20131<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13\/14\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n +2<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22\/20\n <\/td>\n +21<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31\/10\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n \u20134<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18\/22\n <\/td>\n +7<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20\/13\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Booker\nalso continues to get strong net ratings (51% favorable to 11% unfavorable),\nalthough this has not translated to electoral support in the \u201chorse race\u201d\nquestion. Harris, on the other hand, has seen her ratings drop (51% favorable\nto 19% unfavorable) since the summer. \nButtigieg (36% to 12%) and former Texas Rep. Beto O\u2019Rourke (30% to 21%)\nremain about where they were in July.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Klobuchar\n(26% favorable to 15% unfavorable) and former cabinet secretary Juli\u00e1n Castro\n(22% to 20%) have seen their ratings decline since July. Of the remaining three\ncandidates \u2013 all of whom have seen an uptick in name recognition since the\nsummer \u2013 the net ratings for Steyer (31% to 16%) and Yang (25% to 17%) have\nimproved while those for Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (18% to 22%) have worsened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall,\n70% of likely voters say the candidate they back right now is the one they\nagree with the most on the issues. Just 8% say they tend to agree with another\ncandidate more than the one they are currently backing.  By comparison, 61% feel they are backing the\nmost electable Democrat, while 13% say that another candidate in the field\nwould actually be stronger against Trump. \nIn a poll of likely New Hampshire voters conducted last month \u2013 in which\nWarren and Biden shared the lead \u2013 69% said they were backing the candidate\nthey were most aligned with and 52% said they felt their candidate choice was\nthe strongest on electability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from October 16 to 21, 2019 with 402 South Carolina voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020, out of 667 registered voters that were contacted for the poll. The question results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.9 percentage points. The poll was conducted 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:
\n (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>		\n Oct.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer \n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/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 John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tim Ryan\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\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 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/span> And who would be your second choice?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Oct.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/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 Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\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 Tim Ryan\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 Oct.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n My candidate is who I agree with the most\n <\/td>\n 70%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Another candidate who I agree with more  \n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other candidate agree with equally\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
No candidate choice in Q1<\/em> <\/td>\n 15%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/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 Oct.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n My candidate has best chance\n <\/td>\n 61%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Another candidate has best chance  \n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other candidate has equal chance\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
No candidate choice in Q1<\/em> <\/td>\n 15%<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/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  \n <\/td>\n Favorable\n <\/td> Unfavorable <\/td>\n No\n opinion\n <\/td>\n Not\n heard of\n <\/td>\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 79%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 64%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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>
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 49%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 34%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 34%\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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\n hedge fund manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
— July 2019<\/em> <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 34%\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/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<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[QUESTIONS 6 & 7 WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/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  \n <\/td>Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very important\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat\n important\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n important\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not sure\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> How important is it to you that the Democrats nominate someone who will build on the legacy of Barack Obama \u2013 very important, somewhat important, not important, or are you not sure?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Very important\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat\n important\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n important\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not sure\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> How much have you heard about reports involving Joe Biden, his son, and activities in Ukraine \u2013 a lot, a little, or nothing at all?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td> Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n A lot\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A\n little\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nothing\n at all  \n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/span> There are claims that Joe Biden pressured the Ukraine government to fire its prosecutor in order to keep that prosecutor from investigating the business activities of Biden\u2019s son.\u00a0 Do you think these claims are definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely true\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably\n true\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably\n not true\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely\n not true\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not heard (from Q8)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/span> Do you think these reports about Joe Biden\u2019s involvement in Ukraine have helped or hurt his ability to defeat Donald Trump next year, or have they had no impact?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td> Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No\n impact\n <\/td>\n 44%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not heard (from Q8)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

11.<\/span> Do think Joe Biden\u2019s response to the Ukraine story has been too forceful, has not been forceful enough, or has been done with the right amount of force?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td> Oct.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n Too forceful\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n forceful enough\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Right\n amount of force\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not heard (from Q8)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (402)<\/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 Polling\nInstitute from October 16 to 21, 2019 with a\nstatewide random sample of 667 South Carolina voters drawn from a list of\nregistered voters who participated in a primary or general election in the past\ntwo election cycles (excluding those who have consistently voted in Republican\nprimaries). This includes 233 contacted by a live interviewer on a\nlandline telephone and 434 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in\nEnglish. Results are based on 402 voters who are\nlikely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020. \nMonmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting\nand analysis. The full sample is weighted for age, gender, race, education and\nparty primary vote history based on state voter registration list information\nand U.S. Census information (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support\nprovided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For results\nbased on the sample of likely Democratic primary\nvoters, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to\nsampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points\n(unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups\n(see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind\nthat question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can\nintroduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported\n Party<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 77% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 23% None\/other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 37% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 63% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 18% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 24% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 60% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   6% Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 58% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 42% 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":"

Biden maintains lead, but some potential for shifts within black electorate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802244494,"template":"","geography":[84],"class_list":["post-40802244492","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-south-carolina"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244492","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\/40802244492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802245014,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244492\/revisions\/40802245014"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802244494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802244492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802244492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}