{"id":40802244767,"date":"2019-11-12T13:30:00","date_gmt":"2019-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802244767"},"modified":"2019-11-12T13:12:48","modified_gmt":"2019-11-12T18:12:48","slug":"monmouthpoll_ia_111219","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_ia_111219\/","title":{"rendered":"Few Caucusgoers Tied to 2020 Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nSouth Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has joined former Vice President Joe Biden,\nMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at the top\nof the leaderboard in the third Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> of the 2020\nIowa Democratic caucuses. Buttigieg\u2019s gains since the summer have been across\nthe board, with increasing support coming from nearly every demographic\ngroup.  Regardless, less than one-third\nof likely caucusgoers say that they are firmly set on their choice of candidate\nand most would not be too disappointed if they had to switch their\nsupport.  The poll also finds that Mike\nBloomberg receives a chilly reception among Hawkeye State Democrats as he\nconsiders whether to make a late entry into the nomination contest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four candidates are currently vying for the top spot in Iowa\u2019s\ncaucuses \u2013 Buttigieg (22%), Biden (19%), Warren (18%), and Sanders (13%).  Compared to Monmouth\u2019s August poll, Buttigieg\nhas gained 14 points (up from 8%) and Sanders has gained 5 points (up from 8%),\nwhile Biden has lost 7 points (down from 26%), and Warren\u2019s standing has\nchanged by only 2 points (20% previously).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buttigieg has gained ground among every major demographic group since\nthe summer. His support stands at 26% among voters who describe themselves as\nmoderate or conservative, 23% among those who are somewhat liberal, and 15%\namong those who are very liberal. He is currently in the top tier for both\nwomen (24%, to 22% for Biden, and 20% for Warren), and men (20%, to 19% for\nSanders and 16% for Warren).  Looking at\nthe poll results by age, Buttigieg (26%) is nipping at Biden\u2019s heels (29%)\namong voters age 65 and older. He has a slight advantage among those age 50 to\n64 (24%, to 17% each for Biden and Warren), and is competitive among voters\nunder the age of 50 (19%, to 24% for Warren and 19% for Sanders).  Buttigieg leads among college graduates (24%,\nto 21% for Warren and 15% for Biden) and is in the top tier among those without\na college degree (21%, to 21% for Biden, 18% for Sanders, and 16% for Warren).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cButtigieg is emerging as a top pick for a wide variety of Iowa\nDemocrats. While he has made nominally bigger gains among older caucusgoers,\nyou really can\u2019t pigeonhole his support to one particular group. He is doing\nwell with voters regardless of education or ideology,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University\nPolling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other candidates register single digit support among all likely\ncaucusgoers, including Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (5%), California Sen.\nKamala Harris (3%), former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer (3%), entrepreneur\nAndrew Yang (3%), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (2%), and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi\nGabbard (2%). Another 7 candidates earn 1% or less. Support for Harris has\nslipped by 9 points since August (12%), while the remaining candidates are within\na point or two of their summer support levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Less than 3-in-10 likely caucusgoers (28%) are firmly decided on their\ncandidate choice. Most are open to the possibility of supporting a different\ncandidate on caucus night, including 16% who say there is a high possibility\nthat they could change their minds, 37% who say there is a moderate\npossibility, and 8% who say there is only a low possibility of switching\ncandidates. With so many candidates in the field some voters will probably have\nto switch allegiances if their top choice does not meet the viability threshold\nfor delegate allocation at their caucus site. Barely 3-in-10 likely caucusgoers\n(29%) say they would be very disappointed if this were to happen. Another 41%\nwould be somewhat disappointed and a sizable 20% say they would not be too\ndisappointed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIowa caucusgoers are used to changing their minds up to the last\nminute. In fact, some probably even look forward to waiting until caucus night\nto settle on a candidate. This all translates to a race that is extremely fluid\nand will probably stay that way up to February 3rd<\/sup>,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll\nasked voters to name a second choice candidate. When first and second choices\nare combined Buttigieg (37%) and Warren (35%) are the leading picks. They are\nfollowed by Biden (29%) and Sanders (25%), along with Klobuchar (14%), Harris\n(9%), Steyer (6%), Booker (4%), Yang (4%), and Gabbard (3%). Among Buttigieg voters, the top second choices are Warren (21%), Biden\n(20%), and Klobuchar (15%). Among Biden voters, the second slot goes to\nButtigieg (22%), Warren (20%), and Klobuchar (17%). Among Warren voters, it\u2019s\nSanders (33%), Buttigieg (26%), and Biden (16%). Among Sanders voters, Warren\nstands alone in second place (46%). Among voters who are currently supporting a\ncandidate not in the top tier \u2013 and thus may be more likely to realign on\ncaucus night \u2013 second choices include Buttigieg (28%), Sanders (16%), and\nWarren (15%). [Note: the maximum margin of error for these results ranges\nfrom +\/-8% to +\/-10% for each candidate group, except Sanders at +\/-14%.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll also found that Buttigieg has the best favorability rating in the field, while ratings for Biden and Warren have declined. Currently, Buttigieg gets a 73% favorable and 10% unfavorable rating from likely Iowa caucusgoers, which is similar to his 72%-9% rating in August. Warren gets a 69%-23% rating (down from 76%-14%) and Biden gets a 65%-26% rating (down from 72%-20%). Sanders has a 61% favorable and 29% unfavorable rating, which is improved somewhat from August (58%-33%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Klobuchar\nalso holds a relatively strong rating of 54% favorable and 18% unfavorable\n(similar to her 51%-18% rating in August). Ratings have dropped, though, for\nBooker (48%-19% from 58%-16% in August) and Harris (50%-25% from 72%-17% in\nAugust). Among other candidates who have qualified for the November debate\nstage, Yang earns a positive 39%-24% rating and Steyer gets a more divided\n33%-29% rating, whereas Gabbard has a negative 21%-38% rating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD \u2013 IOWA PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong>
Net Rating (favorable \u2013 unfavorable)<\/em><\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n November\n <\/td>\n August\n <\/td>\n April\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +62\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +64\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +25\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory\n Booker\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +38\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala\n Harris\n <\/td>\n +25\n <\/td>\n +55\n <\/td>\n +48\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td>\n n\/a\n <\/td>\n +6\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom\n Steyer\n <\/td>\n +4\n <\/td>\n +8\n <\/td>\n n\/a\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi\n Gabbard\n <\/td>\n \u201317\n <\/td>\n n\/a\n <\/td>\n +16\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike\n Bloomberg\n <\/td>\n \u201331\n <\/td>\n n\/a\n <\/td>\n n\/a\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

The poll finds that another potential candidate who has recently made rumblings about getting into the race is less popular than those already in the field.  Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, gets a decidedly negative 17% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating from Iowa Democrats.  He was also included in the caucus \u201chorse race\u201d question starting with interviewing on November 8. Among the 361 likely caucusgoers contacted after he was added to the poll, just one voter selected him as their top candidate choice and only 1% named him as a second pick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cReports suggest that Bloomberg will skip the February contests if he does get into the race. With dismal numbers like these, it\u2019s easy to see why. But I really cannot imagine that Democrats in the Super Tuesday states would be significantly more receptive to him than Iowa voters,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murray added, \u201cIf the race is still wide-open when actual voting begins, it is more likely that Democratic voters will turn to someone who has already been out hustling on the campaign trail. It makes more sense to pay attention to someone like Amy Klobuchar in this scenario than look for a white knight to come riding to the rescue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll also finds that 34% of likely caucusgoers say they have seen at least one of the Democratic candidates in person this year. Another 24% say they have not seen any candidates so far but plan to do so before the caucuses and 42% have no plans to see any of the candidates. Buttigieg (17%), Warren (15%), and Sanders (14%) are the most spotted candidates, with Biden (11%), Harris (11%), Klobuchar (10%), and Booker (10%) all being seen by at least 1-in-10 voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from November 7 to 11, 2019 with 451 Iowa voters who are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020, out of 966 registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters who were contacted for the poll.  The question results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.6 percentage points.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ. Please note that the trend numbers for the August poll have been rebased to exclude voters who were only willing to attend a \u201cvirtual\u201d caucus (which is no longer an option).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

1.<\/span> If\nthe Democratic caucuses for president were today, would you support \u2013 [NAMES WERE ROTATED]?\u00a0 [If UNDECIDED: If you had to support\none of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019*\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike Bloomberg**\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

     *\nExcludes \u201cvirtual-only\u201d caucus attendees from August poll.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      ** Note:\n<\/em>Bloomberg was added on\n11\/8<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/span> Are you firmly decided on your candidate choice or are you open to the possibility of supporting a different candidate on caucus night?\u00a0 [If OPEN<\/em>: Would you rate the possibility of supporting a different candidate as high, moderate, or low?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Firmly decided\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, high possibility\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, moderate\n possibility\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, low possibility\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No first choice (from Q1)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> Who would be your second choice if you had to make one?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019*\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike Bloomberg\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

     *\nExcludes \u201cvirtual-only\u201d caucus attendees from August poll.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> If you had to go with another candidate on caucus night because your first choice did not meet the viability threshold, would you feel very disappointed, somewhat disappointed, or not too disappointed?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very disappointed\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat disappointed\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not too disappointed\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No first choice (from Q1)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/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
\n \n <\/td>		\n Favorable<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Unfavorable<\/strong>\n <\/td> No<\/strong>
opinion<\/strong> <\/td>		 Not <\/strong>
heard of<\/strong> <\/td>		\n (n)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 78%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Vermont Senator Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 61%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 67%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg \n <\/td>\n 73%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 45%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n California Senator\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 61%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar \n <\/td>\n 54%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Entrepreneur Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hawaii Congresswoman\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/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>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former New York Mayor\n Mike Bloomberg**<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (361)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — August  2019*<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — April  2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/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\n\n\n

     *\nExcludes \u201cvirtual-only\u201d caucus attendees from August poll.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      ** Note:\n<\/em>Bloomberg was added on\n11\/8 (n=361, moe=5.2%)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> Have you seen any of the Democratic candidates for president in person this year, or not? [If NOT<\/em>: Do you plan to see any of them in person before the February caucuses?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Yes\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No, but plan to\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No, don\u2019t plan to\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6A.<\/span> Who have you seen in person so far? [LIST WAS NOT READ<\/em>] [Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted<\/em>]\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Sestak\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Steve Bullock\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike Bloomberg\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No answer\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> Will this be your first presidential caucus or have you attended the Iowa presidential caucuses in the past? [<\/strong>If ATTENDED IN PAST: <\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>Was that a Republican or a Democratic caucus, or both?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td> Nov.<\/strong>
2019<\/strong><\/td>		 Aug.
2019*<\/td><\/tr>
\n First caucus\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Republican caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Democratic caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 73%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 80%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n both caucuses in the past\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don’t Know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

     *\nExcludes \u201cvirtual-only\u201d caucus attendees from August poll.<\/em><\/p>\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 November 7 to 11, 2019 with\na statewide random sample of 966 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered\nDemocratic and unaffiliated voters who voted in at least one of the last two\nstate primary elections or the 2018 general election or have registered to vote since November 2018. This\nincludes 434 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 532\ncontacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 451 voters who are likely to\nattend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020. Monmouth\nis responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and\nanalysis. The full sample is weighted for age, gender, race, and education\nbased on state voter registration list and U.S. Census information (CPS 2018\nsupplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle\n(voter sample). For results based on the sample of likely Democratic\ncaucusgoers, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to\nsampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.6 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 42% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 58% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 22% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 21% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 30% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 93% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   7% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% 4 year\n degree <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Buttigieg joins a crowded pack of front-runners;
\nNo groundswell of support for Bloomberg <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802244776,"template":"","geography":[78],"class_list":["post-40802244767","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-iowa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244767","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\/40802244767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802244816,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802244767\/revisions\/40802244816"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802244776"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802244767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802244767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}