{"id":40802245265,"date":"2020-01-13T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-13T18:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245265"},"modified":"2020-05-08T12:13:37","modified_gmt":"2020-05-08T16:13:37","slug":"monmouthpoll_ia_011320","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_ia_011320\/","title":{"rendered":"Dem 2020 Race Continues to Shift"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nFormer Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg,\nVermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren continue\nto top the leaderboard in Iowa, although their relative positions have shifted\nin the fourth Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers.\nMinnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has also made gains from prior polls, but remains\noutside of the top tier of contenders for now. A majority of supporters of the\ntop tier candidates indicate they are set on their choices, but a sizable\nnumber say there is at least a moderate possibility they could still change\ntheir minds.  The poll also finds that\n6-in-10 likely caucusgoers oppose switching their state\u2019s presidential\nnominating contest to a primary election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four candidates are currently vying for the top spot in next month\u2019s\nIowa caucuses \u2013 Biden (24%), Sanders (18%), Buttigieg (17%), and Warren (15%).\nCompared with Monmouth\u2019s November poll, Biden has gained 5 points (up from 19%)\nand Sanders has gained 5 points (up from 13%), while Buttigieg has lost 5\npoints (down from 22%) and Warren has declined by 3 points (down from\n18%).  Klobuchar is knocking on the door\nof the top tier with 8% support in the current poll (up from 5% in November).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the demographic shifts since November are within the poll\u2019s\nmargin of error, but there was a particularly notable swing among voters age 65\nand older away from Buttigieg (11% now, 26% in November) and toward Biden (44%\nnow, 29% in November). Klobuchar has also gained support among these older\nvoters (13% now, 5% in November).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA plurality of older voters line up behind Biden, but others in that\nage group seem to be looking for a fresher face. They appear to be split\nbetween Buttigieg and Klobuchar right now,\u201d said Patrick\nMurray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other candidates register single digit support among likely\ncaucusgoers, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (4%), former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer (4%), entrepreneur Andrew\nYang (3%), and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (2%). Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet,\nformer Maryland Rep. John Delaney, and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick\nearn less than 1% support. [Note: Former\nNew York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was not included in the poll because he has\nindicated he will not participate in the Iowa caucus process.]  <\/em>[With supporters of Booker \u2013\nwho dropped out after the poll was conducted \u2013 assigned to their second choice,\nthe race stands at Biden 25%, Sanders 18%, Buttigieg 17%, Warren 16%, and\nKlobuchar 9%.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A growing number of Iowa caucusgoers (43%) are firmly decided on their\ncandidate choice. This is up from 28% who said the same in November.  Another 13% say they are open to changing\ntheir minds but there is only a low possibility they will actually switch their\nsupport (up from 8% in November). Currently, 4 in 10 voters still say there is\nat least a moderate chance they will support a different candidate on caucus\nnight, including 11% who say this is a high possibility (down from 16% in\nNovember) and 28% who say this is a moderate possibility (down from 37%).  In November, Sanders was the only leading\ncandidate with a majority of his supporters saying their choice was basically\nset. Now he is joined by the other top tier contenders, with a majority of their\nbackers registering solid support, starting with Biden at 65% who are firm or\nhave a low possibility of switching, Sanders at 61%, Buttigieg 59%, and Warren\nat 53%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEven among the top contenders, about 4 in 10 supporters are still\nopen to changing their initial preference by caucus night. There are only three\nweeks to go, but this race is far from over,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll\nasked caucusgoers to name a candidate they have in mind as a second choice.\nWhen these are combined with initial preferences, Warren (38%), Biden (34%),\nButtigieg (32%), and Sanders (32%) are bunched together.  They are trailed by Klobuchar (18%), Steyer\n(8%), Booker (7%), Yang (7%), and Gabbard (3%) as either a first or second\nchoice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Candidates are not eligible for convention delegates unless they reach a 15% viability threshold at individual caucus sites. Only four candidates currently exhibit statewide support at this level. When likely caucusgoers are asked to choose from among these four names only, the race is very close with Biden at 28%, Buttigieg at 25%, Sanders at 24%, and Warren at 16%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Iowa Democratic Party is supposed to report multiple results on caucus night, adding an initial preference count to the delegate tally they have always released. We could potentially see a clear winner in one set of numbers and a much muddier picture in the other,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Candidate\nfavorability rating for Buttigieg has declined slightly since Monmouth\u2019s last\nIowa poll, now standing at 71% favorable and 17% unfavorable (compared with\n73%-10% in November). Biden\u2019s net rating has remained fairly steady at 66%\nfavorable and 28% unfavorable (compared with 65%-26%). However, six other\ncandidates included in the poll saw their net ratings go up. These include\nWarren at 73%-19% (from 69%-23% in November), Klobuchar at 63%-16% (from\n54%-18%), Sanders at 70%-22% (from 61%-29%), Booker at 58%-16% (from 48%-19%),\nYang at 57%-20% (from 39%-24%), and Steyer at 46%-32% (from 33%-29%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD \u2013 IOWA PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong>
Net Rating (favorable \u2013 unfavorable)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
<\/td>Jan. \u201920<\/td>Nov. \u201919<\/td>Aug. \u201919<\/td>Apr. \u201919<\/td><\/tr>
Pete Buttigieg<\/td>\n +54\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td><\/tr>
Elizabeth Warren<\/td>\n +54\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +62\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td><\/tr>
Bernie Sanders<\/td>\n +48\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +25\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
Amy Klobuchar<\/td>\n +47\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
Cory Booker<\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n +42\n <\/td>\n +38\n <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Biden<\/td>\n +38\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +64\n <\/td><\/tr>
Andrew Yang<\/td>\n +37\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td> n\/a <\/em> <\/td>\n +6\n <\/td><\/tr>
Tom Steyer<\/td>\n +14\n <\/td>\n +4\n <\/td>\n +8\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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Health care remains the top concern for Iowa caucusgoers in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination. Currently, 45% name this as one of the most important issues in their vote, which is down slightly from 56% in August.  Other important issues include beating Donald Trump at 18% (15% in August) and climate change at 18% (18% in August). Foreign policy related concerns are also in the second level of issue importance at 16%, which is up from 6% in August.  On the other hand, immigration has fallen off the radar as a key issue (4%, down from 14% in August).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRecent events in the Middle East seem to have resulted in an uptick in foreign policy concerns among Democratic caucusgoers. It\u2019s still a small number, but it could be helping Biden on the margins,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has been a debate over the representativeness of the early contests in the Democratic nomination process. Nationally, the party includes voters with different political views as well as diverse races and ethnicities, while the first contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have almost entirely non-Hispanic white electorates. Hawkeye State caucusgoers are somewhat divided as to whether the current calendar provides adequate representation to the entire party, with 47% saying the calendar gives some types of Democratic voters more influence than others in the party\u2019s presidential nominating process and 37% saying it gives all types of Democrats an equal voice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, most Hawkeye State caucusgoers (68%) feel that states like Iowa and New Hampshire have the right amount of influence on who wins the party\u2019s presidential nomination.\u00a0 Another 16% say these states have too much influence while 9% counter that they do not have enough influence over the final outcome.\u00a0 Similarly, 52% 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, 31% 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 Just over half of Hawkeye State caucusgoers (51%) would be open to the idea of one or two other states holding their presidential contests on the same day as Iowa, while 31% say this would be a bad idea.\u00a0 Monmouth asked these same questions in a poll of New Hampshire<\/a> Democratic primary voters released last week and got very similar results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most Iowa Democratic caucusgoers oppose switching to a primary system. A majority of 58% say that the state should continue to hold caucuses for the presidential nomination and just 30% support moving to a primary election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDespite concerns that in-person caucuses do not allow for broad voter participation and the absence of a virtual caucus process to address that, Iowa Democrats are loyal to their unique system for selecting presidential nominees,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from January\n9 to 12, 2020 with 405 Iowa voters who are\nlikely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020,\nout of 1,033 registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters who were\ncontacted for the poll.  The question\nresults in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.9 percentage\npoints.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling\nInstitute in West Long Branch, NJ.  Please note that\nthe trend numbers for the August poll were rebased to exclude voters who would\nonly attend a \u201cvirtual\u201d caucus (which is no longer an option).<\/em><\/em><\/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> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Nov.
2019<\/td>		 Aug.
2019**<\/td>		 April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\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 <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval\n Patrick\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\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 5%*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%*<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

      **Excludes \u201cvirtual-only\u201d caucus\nattendees from August poll.<\/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>: <\/strong>Would you rate the possibility of supporting a different candidate as high, moderate, or low?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Nov.
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Firmly decided\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, high possibility\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, moderate\n possibility\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, low possibility\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No first choice (from Q1)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\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>		 Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Nov.
2019<\/td>		 Aug.
2019**<\/td>		 April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval\n Patrick\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\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 9%*\n <\/td>\n 21%*\n <\/td>\n 26%*\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

     *\nIncludes candidates who have since dropped out.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

4.<\/span> If the only viable candidates in your caucus site were the following four people who would you caucus for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t vote\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some people who are running for president in 2020.\u00a0 Please tell me if your general impression of each is favorable or unfavorable, or if you don\u2019t really have an opinion. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\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 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/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 70%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 61%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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 73%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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 Minnesota Senator Amy\n Klobuchar \n <\/td>\n 63%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 54%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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 Former South Bend,\n Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg \n <\/td>\n 71%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 73%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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 New Jersey Senator\n Cory Booker\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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 Yang\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/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 Former hedge fund\n manager Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 46%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\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><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

6.<\/span> What are the one or two most important issues to you in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination? [LIST WAS NOT READ<\/em>] [Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Aug.
2019*<\/td>		 April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Jobs, unemployment\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bills, food, groceries\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n College tuition,\n school costs\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Health care\n <\/td>\n 45%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 56%\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Social Security,\n seniors\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Taxes\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Climate change, global\n warming\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Environment, pollution\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Opioids, drug use\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Safety, crime\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Guns,\n gun control\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Terrorism, national\n security\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Immigration\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Schools,\n education\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Civil\n rights\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Reproductive\n rights, women\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Honesty,\n integrity\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Competence,\n experience\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Income\n inequality, wages\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Infrastructure\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Foreign\n policy, world standing\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Balance\n budget\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Donald Trump, beating Trump\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Other\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (327)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (351)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

7.<\/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.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Too much influence\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not enough influence\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Right amount of influence\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/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.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n More likely\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Less likely\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Little difference\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/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? [If MORE INFLUENCE<\/em>:\u00a0 Is that a lot more influence or just a little more?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Gives all an equal voice\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have a lot more influence\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have a little more influence\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have more influence, not sure how much\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/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 or caucuses on the same day as Iowa?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Good idea\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bad idea\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

11.<\/span> Do you think Iowa should continue to hold caucuses for the presidential nomination process or should it switch to a primary?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Continue to hold caucuses\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Switch to a primary\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

12.<\/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 TREND:   \n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Nov.
2019<\/td>		Aug.
2019*<\/td><\/tr>
\n First caucus\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Republican caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Democratic caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 80%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n both caucuses in the past\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don’t Know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em><\/em>\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 University Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from January 9 to 12, 2020 with a statewide random sample of 1,033 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic and unaffiliated voters who voted in at least one of the last two state primary elections or the 2018 general election or have registered to vote since November 2018. This includes 471 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 562 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 405 voters who are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample is weighted for age, gender, race, and education based on state voter registration list and U.S. Census information (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter sample). For results based on the sample of likely Democratic caucusgoers, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce 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 19% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 21% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 28% 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 58% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 42% 4 year\n degree <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Support is firming up, but many still open to changing their support <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245266,"template":"","geography":[78],"class_list":["post-40802245265","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\/40802245265","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":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802246423,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245265\/revisions\/40802246423"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}