{"id":40802245224,"date":"2020-01-09T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-09T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245224"},"modified":"2020-05-08T12:11:42","modified_gmt":"2020-05-08T16:11:42","slug":"monmouthpoll_nh_010920","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_nh_010920\/","title":{"rendered":"Four-Way Fight in Dem Primary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nSupport for former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie\nSanders has grown while backing for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and\nformer Vice President Joe Biden has declined in New Hampshire. This makes the\nlatest Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> of the Granite State primary\neffectively a four-way race right now. The poll also finds that primary voters\nare divided on whether the current nomination calendar gives all types of\nDemocrats an equal voice in the process. In fact, a plurality would be willing\nto share their \u201cfirst-in-the-nation\u201d status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among\nregistered New Hampshire Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are likely to\nparticipate in the February 2020 Democratic primary, 20% currently support\nButtigieg, 19% back Biden, 18% back Sanders, and 15% back Warren. Others\nregistering support include Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (6%), Hawaii Rep.\nTulsi Gabbard (4%), former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer (4%), entrepreneur\nAndrew Yang (3%), Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (2%), and New Jersey Sen. Cory\nBooker (1%). Three other candidates included in the poll (former Massachusetts\nGov. Deval Patrick, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, author Marianne\nWilliamson) earn less than 1%. Another 7% of likely primary voters remain\nundecided and do not lean toward any candidate choice at this time.  [Note:\nMike Bloomberg will not appear on the New Hampshire ballot and is not included\nin this poll.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared to\nMonmouth\u2019s last New Hampshire poll in September, Buttigieg\u2019s support has grown\nby 10 points (from 10%) and Sanders\u2019 support has increased by 6 points (from\n12%). Warren\u2019s support has dropped by 12 points (from 27%) and Biden\u2019s has\ndecreased by 6 points (from 25%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe race\nremains fairly wide-open. To the extent that New Hampshire voters could take\nsome cues from Iowa, it\u2019s also worth keeping an eye on lower polling candidates\nlike Klobuchar if any of the leading contenders stumble in the earlier Iowa contest,\u201d\nsaid Patrick Murray, director of the\nindependent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Self-described\nliberals divide their preference among Sanders (26%), Warren (24%), Buttigieg\n(16%), and Biden (16%). Self-described moderates and conservatives are split\nbetween Buttigieg (25%) and Biden (22%). \nSanders gets 10% and Warren gets 7% support among non-liberals, placing\nthem at about the same level as Klobuchar (9%), Gabbard (7%), and Steyer (6%)\nwith this bloc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among\nvoters under the age of 50, Sanders leads (26%), followed by Buttigieg (17%),\nWarren (16%) and Biden (15%).  Among\nvoters age 65 and over, the battle is between Biden (27%) and Buttigieg (20%),\nwith double-digit backing for Warren (16%) and Sanders (14%) as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the\nrace still in flux, Monmouth analysts ran a variety of different likely voter\nmodels in addition to the benchmark results reported in this release. A model\nthat increases the share of lower propensity voters shows Biden, Buttigieg, and\nSanders each with 19% support, Warren with 15%, Klobuchar and Gabbard with 5%\neach, and Steyer and Yang with 4% each. A model that gives more weight to\ntraditional primary voters shows Buttigieg with 23% support, Biden with 20%,\nSanders with 16%, Warren with 15%, Klobuchar with 7%, and Gabbard with 4%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth poll also asked New Hampshire voters who they would back\nif the nomination race came down to just a few candidates by the time of the\nstate\u2019s February 11th<\/sup> primary. \nNo single candidate emerges as a presumptive front-runner in a scenario\ninvolving just the four candidates who lead in the poll right now. Biden\u2019s vote\nshare grows by 5 points to 24%, Buttigieg increases 3 points to 23%, Sanders\nincreases 3 points to 21%, and Warren increases 3 points to 18%.  Another 5% \u2013 half of whom are Gabbard\nsupporters \u2013 say they will not vote for any of these candidates in a four-way\nrace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere appears to be no natural heir if the field winnows before New\nHampshire. Supporters of lower polling candidates tend to disperse fairly\nevenly among the top contenders,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD<\/strong>
NEW HAMPSHIRE PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong>
Net Rating (favorable \u2013 unfavorable)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
  <\/td>Jan \u201920<\/td>Sept \u201919<\/td>May \u201919<\/td><\/tr>
Bernie Sanders<\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +35\n <\/td>\n +54\n <\/td><\/tr>
Pete Buttigieg<\/td>\n +45\n <\/td>\n +50\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td><\/tr>
Elizabeth Warren<\/td>\n +37\n <\/td>\n +55\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td><\/tr>
Andrew Yang<\/td>\n +35\n <\/td>\n +5\n <\/td>\n \u20133\n <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Biden<\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +65\n <\/td><\/tr>
Amy Klobuchar<\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +22\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td><\/tr>
Cory Booker<\/td>\n +24\n <\/td>\n +31\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td><\/tr>
Tom Steyer<\/td>\n +15\n <\/td>\n +10\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Deval Patrick<\/td>\n \u20135\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em><\/em>\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 Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nalso asked voters their overall opinion of nine candidates. Sanders currently\nholds the most positive rating at 69% favorable and 23% unfavorable, which is\nup from September (63%-28%).  Yang\u2019s\nrating is much better now (53%-18%) than it was in the fall (31%-26%) while\nKlobuchar\u2019s rating has also ticked up (48%-17% from 41%-19%).  Other candidate ratings have slipped, though,\nincluding Warren (64%-27% now, from 74%-19% in September), Biden (62%-29% from\n66%-24%), and, to a lesser degree, Buttigieg (62%-17% from 62%-12%) and Booker\n(47%-23% from 49%-18%). Steyer\u2019s net rating has inched up since September\n(41%-26% from 32%-22%), while Patrick enters the race with a net negative\nrating of 27% favorable and 32% unfavorable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has\nbeen a debate over the representativeness of the early contests in the\nDemocratic nomination process. Nationally, the party includes voters with\ndifferent political views as well as diverse races and ethnicities, while the\nfirst contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have almost entirely non-Hispanic\nwhite electorates. Granite State primary voters are divided as to whether the\ncurrent calendar provides adequate representation to the entire party, with 47%\nsaying the calendar gives some types of Democratic voters more influence than\nothers in the party\u2019s presidential nominating process and 38% saying it gives\nall types of Democrats an equal voice. \nSelf-identified liberals (56%) are more likely than moderates and\nconservatives (40%) to say that the current calendar gives some types of voters\nmore influence than others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, most Granite State primary voters (63%) feel that states like Iowa and New Hampshire have the right amount of influence on who wins the presidential nomination.\u00a0 Another 20% say these states have too much influence while 11% counter that they do not have enough influence over the final outcome.\u00a0 Similarly, 63% say that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the nominating process makes little difference one way or the other in the likelihood that the Democratic Party will nominate the best candidate for president.\u00a0 However, 21% say having these states go first makes it more likely that the Democrats will nominate the best candidate while only 9% say it makes this outcome less likely.\u00a0 There are few demographic or voter group differences in this opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A plurality of Granite State primary voters (46%) would be open to the idea of one or two other states holding their presidential primaries on the same day as New Hampshire, while 31% say this would be a bad idea.  Liberals (52%) are somewhat more likely than moderates and conservative Democrats (41%) to think that having another state or two vote on the same day as New Hampshire is a good idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNew Hampshire\u2019s first-in-the-nation status has taken on a mythic quality. But when you ask voters there about it, few seem willing to back the idea that their position on the calendar necessarily leads to a better outcome overall,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from January 3 to 7, 2020 with 404 New Hampshire voters who are likely to vote in the\nDemocratic presidential primary in February 2020, out of 697\nregistered voters that were contacted for the poll. The\nquestion results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.9 percentage\npoints. The poll was\nconducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

1.<\/span> If the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]?\u00a0 [If UNDECIDED:<\/em> If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?]<\/span><\/p>\n
TREND: (with leaners)<\/em><\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Sept.
2019<\/td>		May
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval Patrick\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%*\n <\/td>\n 11%*\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 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

* Includes candidates who have since\ndropped out.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/span> If the Democratic nomination came down to the following seven candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td> 21%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td> 21%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td> 20%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td> 15%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td> 7%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td> 5%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td> 2%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t vote\n <\/td> 3%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td> 8%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> And if the Democratic nomination came down to just these four candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td> 24%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td> 23%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td> 21%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td> 18%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t vote\n <\/td> 5%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td> 8%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some people who are running for president in 2020.\u00a0 Please tell me if your general impression of each is favorable or unfavorable, or if you don\u2019t really have an opinion. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Favorable\n <\/td> Unfavorable <\/td> No
opinion <\/td>		 Not
heard of<\/td>		\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 62%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 80%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Vermont Senator Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 64%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 74%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 44%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former South Bend,\n Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 62%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 62%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Entrepreneur Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 45%\n <\/td>\n (376)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n (401)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \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 Massachusetts\n Governor Deval Patrick\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — Sept. 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> Do you think voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on who wins the party nominations for president, not enough influence, or about the right amount of influence on who wins the party nominations for president?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Too much influence\n <\/td> 20%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Not enough influence\n <\/td> 11%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Right amount of influence\n <\/td> 63%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 7%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> Do you think having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the nominating process makes it more likely or less likely that the Democratic Party will nominate the best candidate for president, or do you think having those states go first makes little difference in the likelihood that Democrats will nominate the best candidate?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n More likely\n <\/td> 21%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Less likely\n <\/td> 9%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Little difference\n <\/td> 63%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 7%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> Nationally, the Democratic Party includes voters with different political views, races and ethnicities, and other characteristics. Does the current presidential primary calendar give all types of Democratic voters an equal voice in the party\u2019s presidential nomination process or does the calendar give some types of voters more influence than others?\u00a0 [If MORE INFLUENCE<\/em>:\u00a0 Is that a lot more influence or just a little more?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Gives all an equal voice\n <\/td> 38%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have a lot more influence\n <\/td> 18%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have a little more influence\n <\/td> 17%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have more influence, not sure how much\n <\/td> 12%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 15%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> Do you think it would be a good idea or bad idea to allow one or two other states to hold their presidential primary on the same day as New Hampshire?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Good idea\n <\/td> 46%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Bad idea\n <\/td> 31%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends\n <\/td> 7%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 15%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (404)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\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 January 3 to 7, 2020 with\na statewide random sample of 697 New Hampshire voters drawn from a list of\nregistered voters who participated in a primary or general election in the past\ntwo election cycles. This includes 313 contacted\nby a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 384\ncontacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 404 voters who are likely to vote\nin the Democratic presidential primary in February 2020.  Monmouth\nis responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis.\nThe full sample is weighted for party registration, age, gender, race, and\neducation based on state voter registration list information and U.S. Census\ninformation (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by Braun\nResearch (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For results based on the sample\nof likely Democratic primary voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the\nerror attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9\npercentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger\nfor sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one\nshould bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in\nconducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion\npolls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Party\n Registration<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 58% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 42% None<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported\n Party<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 50% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 50% Other, independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 14% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 33% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 95% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   5% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 46% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 54% 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 crosstabs by key demographic groups.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Granite State voters divided on whether all Dems have equal voice in nomination <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245226,"template":"","geography":[51],"class_list":["post-40802245224","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-new-hampshire"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245224","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\/40802245224\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802246420,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245224\/revisions\/40802246420"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}