{"id":40802244611,"date":"2019-11-06T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-11-06T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802244611"},"modified":"2019-11-06T12:19:51","modified_gmt":"2019-11-06T17:19:51","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_110619","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_110619\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump 2020 Reelect Stable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nPresident Donald Trump\u2019s reelection prospects have not taken a hit since the\nHouse formally moved ahead with impeachment proceedings. The latest Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong> finds former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts\nSen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders lead national Democratic\nvoter preference to take on Trump, with the latter two rising in perceived\nelectability since the summer.  The poll\nalso finds that the vast majority of Democrats are satisfied with the field of\ncandidates currently running for the 2020 nomination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over\n4-in-10 (42%) registered voters feel that Trump should be reelected in 2020,\nwhile a majority (55%) say it is time to have someone new in the Oval\nOffice.  These results are statistically\nsimilar to Monmouth\u2019s September poll taken just after news broke about the\nUkraine call (39% reelect and 57% someone new) and from August when the House\nimpeachment inquiry was just getting started (39% reelect and 57% someone new).  While the current results are statistically\nsimilar to prior polls, this marks the first time support for Trump\u2019s\nreelection has nominally risen above 40% since Monmouth started asking this\nquestion one year ago. Prior to the current poll, support for Trump\u2019s reelection\nstayed in a narrow range of 37% to 39% while the preference for someone new\nvaried from 57% to 60%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s\nimportant not to read too much into differences within the margin of error. But\nthe fact that there is no significant change in the current results suggests\nthat the opening salvo of the House impeachment inquiry has had little impact\non the overall 2020 dynamic. Voter opinion remains baked in,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University\nPolling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump currently has a 44% favorable and 54% unfavorable personal\nrating among registered voters. This is largely unchanged from his 43%-56%\nrating in late September.  The leading\nDemocratic contenders who want to take on the president in 2020 all had a net\nadvantage over Trump in voter favorability last month, but this has now\ndiminished. Biden has a rating of 43% favorable and 50% unfavorable, which is\nmore negative than his 46%-45% rating in late September. Voters have also grown\nmore negative about Sanders, giving him a 41% favorable and 54% unfavorable\nrating, down from 42%-49%.  Warren\u2019s\ncurrent rating of 42% favorable and 44% unfavorable is similar to her 42%-40%\nrating in late September.  California\nSen. Kamala Harris gets a 27% favorable\nand 46% unfavorable rating (was 33%-42% in September) and South Bend,\nIndiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets a 27%\nfavorable and 34% unfavorable rating (was 30%-31% in September).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats\nand Democratic-leaning voters are divided over who they want to stand against\nTrump in 2020.  The top contenders remain\nBiden (23%), Warren (23%), and Sanders (20%). \nIn late September, these three stood at 25%, 28%, and 15%, respectively.\nButtigieg garners 9% (up from 5%) and Harris gets 5% (same as 5% in late\nSeptember).  New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker\nand entrepreneur Andrew Yang each get 3% and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar gets\n2%.  The remaining eight candidates\nincluded in the poll earn 1% or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is\ninteresting that these results look a lot like what was considered an outlier\npoll back in August.  But the current\nnumbers are not an outlier with other recent national polls being all over the\nplace.  This is just another reminder\nthat there is no such thing as a national primary. Most of the voters we talk\nto right now are not really anchoring their choices to an actual election\ndecision just yet,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While preferences may not be locked in, few Democratic voters (16%)\nsay they would like to see another candidate in the running for their party\u2019s\nnomination. The vast majority (74%) say they are satisfied with the current\nfield.  However, non-liberals (22%) are\nmore likely than liberals (11%) to express a desire for having other candidates\nfrom which to choose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll tested the perceived \u201celectability\u201d of eight candidates among Democratic voters. While Biden remains the candidate seen as having the best chance of beating Trump next year, both Warren and Sanders have narrowed the gap.  When asked to rate Biden on a scale from 0 (would definitely lose to Trump) to 10 (would definitely defeat Trump), 51% of Democratic voters give him an 8, 9 or 10 and just 11% score him less than 5. His average score is 7.3.  In June, 59% gave Biden a high score and 9% gave him a low score, for an average of 7.7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warren averages 7.1, which is up from a 6.4 score in June. This includes 49% who give her an electability rating of 8 to 10 (up from 32%) and 11% below 5 (down from 16%). Sanders averages 7.0, which is up from a 6.5 score in June. This includes 48% who give him an electability rating of 8 to 10 (up from 39%) and 10% below 5 (down from 17%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Electability ratings for other candidates have dropped slightly. This includes Harris with an average score of 5.5, down from 6.0 in June. Just 20% give her a score of 8 to 10 (down from 24%) and 29% rate her below 5 (up from 20%).  Buttigieg earns a 5.3 electability rating (down from 5.6), Booker gets a 5.2 rating (from 5.3), and Klobuchar has a 4.5 rating (from 4.7). Yang also has a 4.5 rating, although he was not included in the June poll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Biden\u2019s\nelectability rating has declined mainly among self-described liberals (from 7.7\nin June to 6.8 now) while it has remained stable among non-liberals (from 7.8\nto 7.7).  Warren\u2019s perceived electability\nhas grown more among non-liberals (from 6.1 to 7.0) than among liberals (from\n6.7 to 7.0). Similarly, Sanders\u2019 electability score has grown more among\nnon-liberals (from 6.1 to 6.8) than among liberals (from 6.9 to 7.2) since\nJune. Harris has seen her rating decline more among liberals (from 6.4 to 5.3)\nthan among non-liberals (from 5.7 to 5.4). Buttigieg\u2019s electability score has\ndeclined among liberals (from 5.8 to 5.3) but remained stable among\nnon-liberals (5.2 in both June and November). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On average, most voters feel that the candidate they are currently supporting has a good chance of defeating Trump. Among the eight candidates tested for perceived electability in the poll, the average score from their own supporters is 8.4, including 9.0 for Biden, 8.6 for Warren, and 8.7 for Sanders.  This perception is not much different than Monmouth\u2019s June poll, when voters gave their preferred candidate an average electability rating of 8.3, including 8.9 for Biden among his supporters, 8.1 for Warren among her supporters, and 8.0 for Sanders among his supporters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warren\ncontinues to see her ratings improve among Democrats and Democratic-leaners\nwith every new poll.  She currently earns\na 79% favorable and 9% unfavorable rating, which is up from 75%-9% in\nSeptember, 65%-13% in August and 60%-14% in May.  Ratings for Biden have also ticked up after\nhaving dropped in the last two Monmouth polls. He currently has a 76% favorable\nand 19% unfavorable rating, which is up from 72%-20% in September and 66%-25%\nin August, but similar to 74%-17% in May. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ratings\nfor Sanders have ticked down slightly after making a big jump in the last poll.\nHe currently has a 72% favorable and 25% unfavorable rating, compared with\n75%-19% in September, 64%-24% in August, and 65%-21% 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 Nov \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Sep \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Aug \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n May \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Apr \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Mar \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Jan \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n +70\n <\/td>\n +66\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 +57\n <\/td>\n +52\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 +47\n <\/td>\n +56\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 +33\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +41\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  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\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 other two candidates included in this question have also seen their ratings among Democratic voters decline since September. Harris currently has a 53% favorable and 20% unfavorable rating, which is down from 60%-18% in September, 56%-17% in August, and 58%-9% in May. Buttigieg has seen his rating fall back since getting a bump last month. He currently gets a 49% favorable and 16% unfavorable rating, compared with 53%-12% in September, 43%-14% in August, and 35%-11% in May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from October 30 to November 3, 2019 with 908 adults in the United States. The results in this\nrelease are based on 835 registered voters and have a +\/- 3.4\npercentage point sampling margin of error.  This release also includes results based on 345 voters\nwho identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party which have a\nmargin of error of +\/- 5.3 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

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

[Note: Q8 was rotated with Q7-Trump impeachment question, which was\nreleased yesterday.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> Looking ahead to the 2020 election for President, do you think that Donald Trump should be reelected, or do you think that it is time to have someone else in office?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  REGISTERED\n VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should be reelected\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Someone else in office\n <\/td>\n 55%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 59%\n <\/td>\n 60%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (689)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (660)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (719)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (746)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (735)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (716)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q9-10 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q11 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11.<\/span> I know the 2020 election is far away, but who would you support for the Democratic nomination for president if the candidates were the following? [INCLUDES LEANERS<\/em>] [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:
\n (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>		 Nov.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong> <\/td>		 Sept.
2019 <\/td>		 Aug.
2019 <\/td>		 June
2019 <\/td>		 May
2019 <\/td>		 April
2019 <\/td>		 March
2019 <\/td>		 Jan.
2019 <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 8%\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 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\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 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 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 <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\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 Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\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 Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\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 (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n \n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke *<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 10%\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>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\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

     * O\u2019Rourke was included in 10\/30-31\ninterviewing only.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q12 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12.<\/span> Are you satisfied with the field of candidates running for the Democratic nomination right now or would you like to see someone else running?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Satisfied with field\n <\/td>\n 74%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Would like someone\n else\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[ASKED OF EVERYONE<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.<\/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 very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very 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: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Very\n favorable\n <\/td>\n Somewhat\n favorable\n <\/td>\n Somewhat\n unfavorable\n <\/td>\n Very\n unfavorable\n <\/td>\n No
\n opinion\n <\/td>		\n Not\n heard\n of\n <\/td>\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\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 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\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 Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\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 California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\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 South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\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 President\n Donald Trump<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:
\n
\n \n DEMOCRATS\/DEM\n LEANERS ONLY<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>		 Favorable <\/td> Unfavorable <\/td>\n No\n opinion\n <\/td>\n Not\n \n heard\n of\n <\/td>\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\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 72%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 75%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 64%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/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 79%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 75%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/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 California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/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 South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/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 \n 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><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q14 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS<\/em>]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

14.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some Democrats who are running for president in 2020.\u00a0 Regardless of whether you would support them, I want to know how strong you think they would be against President Trump if they were the Democratic nominee.\u00a0 For each one, please rate them on a scale from zero to 10, where zero means they definitely would lose to Trump and 10 means they definitely would beat Trump. 5 means they have a 50\/50 chance.\u00a0 You may use any number between zero and 10. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND: DEMOCRATS\/DEM LEANERS ONLY<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Definitely\n lose to Trump <<<<<<<<<<<<\n >>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely beat Trump<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n <\/td>\n 0
\n Definitely
\n lose\n <\/td>		\n 1\n <\/td>\n 2\n <\/td>\n 3\n <\/td>\n 4\n <\/td>\n 5\n 50\/50\n chance\n <\/td>\n 6\n <\/td>\n 7\n <\/td>\n 8\n <\/td>\n 9\n <\/td>\n 10\n Definitely
\n win\n <\/td>		\n Not\n heard of\n <\/td>\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice\n President \n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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\n Senator \n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    \n — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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\n Senator \n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    \n — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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\n Senator \n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    \n — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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 \n Amy Klobuchar \n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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 Mayor\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\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
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>		\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n     — June 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/strong>\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

[Q15-26 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from October 30 to November 3, 2019 with a national random\nsample of 908 adults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 364 contacted\nby a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 544 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a cell phone. The results in\nthis poll release are based on a subsample of 835 registered voters. 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. The full sample\nis weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census\ninformation (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by\nBraun Research (field) and Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on the registered\nvoter sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to\nsampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points\n(unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for\nsub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should\nbear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting\nsurveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em>  <\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31%\n Republican<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 39% Independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 30% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 48% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 52% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 39% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 66% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 12% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 14%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   8% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 66% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\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 29% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 30% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 41% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 26% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   8% Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 10%\n Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 57% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 43% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em> <\/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":"

Warren and Sanders catch up to Biden on \u2018electability\u2019 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802244617,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802244611","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\/40802244611","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":24,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802244740,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244611\/revisions\/40802244740"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802244617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802244611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802244611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}