{"id":40802245341,"date":"2020-01-22T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245341"},"modified":"2020-01-22T09:44:03","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T14:44:03","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_012220","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_012220\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats Want a National Primary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nThere has not been a lot of change in the outlook for 2020 over the past month.\nPresident Donald Trump\u2019s reelection prospects remain underwater, while Joe\nBiden holds onto a slim lead in what remains a persistently crowded field for\nthe Democratic nomination. The latest national Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong>\nalso finds that most Democratic voters feel Iowa and New Hampshire have too\nmuch influence over the nominating process and would rather see a single\nnational primary. They also say that candidate gender is not a consideration in\nwho would be the best choice to take on Trump \u2013 despite the continuing media\nstorm over a conversation between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the\nsubject. Among nine presidential candidates asked about in the poll, Andrew Yang\nis the only one with a net positive rating among all voters nationwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over 4\nin 10 (41%) registered voters feel that Trump should be reelected, while a\nmajority (57%) say it is time to have someone new in the Oval Office. These\nnumbers have not moved much over the past few months (43% reelect and 54%\nsomeone new in December and 42%-55% in November). The current results are also\nsimilar to late September when news about the president\u2019s Ukraine call broke\n(39%-57%) and August when the House impeachment inquiry was just getting\nstarted (39%-57%).  Trump currently has a personal rating of 43% favorable and 55%\nunfavorable among registered voters \u2013 which includes 35% with a very favorable<\/em> opinion and 51% with a very unfavorable<\/em> opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats\nand Democratic-leaning voters continue to be divided over who they want to face\nTrump in 2020. The top contenders include Biden (30%, from 26% in December),\nSanders (23%, from 21%), and Warren (14%, from 17%). The next tier consists of\nMike Bloomberg (9%, from 5% in December), Pete Buttigieg (6%, from 8%), and Amy\nKlobuchar (5%, from 4%). Yang is at 3% (identical to 3% in December), while\nnone of the other five candidates included in the poll tops 1%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWith the\nexception of Bloomberg\u2019s entry, this race looks pretty much like it did six\nmonths ago. But that stability masks the potential for sizable swings once the\nfirst contests are held. Iowa and New Hampshire will play a major role in\nshaping national voter preferences,\u201d said Patrick\nMurray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When asked about the party nomination calendar, Democratic voters express a desire for changing the current system of selecting their party\u2019s nominee. From a list of four options, a clear majority of party voters (58%) say they would rather have a single national primary where every state would hold its contest on the same day. Just 11% would keep the calendar the way it is now, with Iowa and New Hampshire going first, followed by Nevada, South Carolina and then the Super Tuesday states. Another 15% would like to modify the current system by letting a few other states hold their contests on the same days as Iowa and New Hampshire and 10% would rather see grouped state primaries.  Even among voters who live in the early states that will vote through Super Tuesday, most would rather switch to a national primary (54%) rather than keep the current calendar as it is (14%) or even go with either of the other two modifications presented in the poll (14% other states join Iowa and New Hampshire and 11% grouped primaries).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority of Democrats (56%) nationally say that voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on who wins the party nominations for president. Only 25% say these early states have the right amount of influence, while another 8% say they do not have enough influence. A key concern for Democrats is that the process does not give all types of voters in the party the same level of input on the outcome. Overall, 62% say that the current primary calendar gives some types of voters more influence than others, while just 26% say that all blocs of voters in the Democratic Party \u2013 including those with different political views as well as those from different racial and ethnic backgrounds \u2013 have an equal voice in the party\u2019s presidential nomination process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic\nvoters seem less concerned about the vetting effect of the current nomination\ncalendar. Just 26% feel having Iowa and New Hampshire go first makes it less\nlikely that the party will nominate the best candidate for president, while 12%\nsay the current process is actually more likely to produce the best nominee.\nHalf (50%) say that having these two states go first makes little difference in\nthe likelihood that Democrats will nominate the best candidate for president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMost Democratic voters would like to see an overhaul of the primary calendar.  This view appears to be more out of a sense of fairness to the party\u2019s diverse electorate than concerns they might have about the ability of Iowa and New Hampshire voters to properly vet the field,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic voters in the first two 2020 states have a different attitude on some, but not all, of these questions. According to separate Monmouth polls conducted earlier this month, just 16% of likely Iowa<\/a> caucusgoers and 20% of likely New Hampshire<\/a> primary voters feel their states have too much influence on the nomination process, compared with 56% of Democrats nationwide who feel this way.  Fewer than 4 in 10 of these first-in-the-nation voters agree that the current calendar gives all types of Democrats an equal voice in the nomination (37% Iowa and 38% New Hampshire), which is still higher than party opinion nationwide (26%). On the other hand, most voters in these two states agree with their fellow Democrats that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first makes little difference in the likelihood that the party will nominate the best candidate for president (52% Iowa, 63% New Hampshire, and 50% national), although more national Democrats say the current calendar is less likely<\/em> to produce the best possible nominee (26%, versus 9% in both Iowa and New Hampshire).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOCRATIC VOTER VIEWS OF THE PARTY NOMINATION CALENDAR <\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>

\n \n  <\/em>\n <\/td>		 Democratic\/leaning<\/em>
voters nationwide<\/em><\/td>		Likely Iowa<\/em>
caucusgoers<\/em><\/td>		 Likely New Hampshire<\/em>
primary voters<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Iowa & New Hampshire have:<\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
Too much influence<\/td>\n 56%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td> 20%<\/td><\/tr>
Right amount of influence<\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td> 63%<\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
Current calendar gives: <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
All Dem voters an equal voice<\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td> 38%<\/td><\/tr>
Some voters more influence <\/td>\n 62%\n <\/td>\n 47%\n <\/td> 47%<\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
IA\/NH produce \u201cbest candidate\u201d: <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
More likely<\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td> 21%<\/td><\/tr>
Less likely<\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td> 9%<\/td><\/tr>
Little difference<\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td>\n 52%\n <\/td> 63%<\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Candidate gender has become a hot media topic in the Democratic race for president, but it does not appear to be a concern for the party\u2019s electorate. About 3 in 4 Democrats (74%) say it does not matter whether the party nominates a man or a woman to run against Trump. The remainder are divided \u2013 13% say it would be better to nominate a man, while 8% believe it would be better to nominate a woman.  These results are nearly identical to April 2019 (77% no difference, 12% better to nominate a man, 7% better to nominate a woman).  There are virtually no gender differences in responses to this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt might make for great TV, but most Democrats seem immune to the \u2018he said, he didn\u2019t say\u2019 dust-up between Sanders and Warren. Or at least they say that gender doesn\u2019t matter,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, three candidates lead\nthe field in overall favorability. They are Biden (73%\nfavorable and 21% unfavorable, similar to 76%-20% in December), Sanders\n(72%-24%, similar to 74%-21% in December) and Warren \u2013 although her\nfavorability has dipped in the past month (66%-20% now, compared with 76%-15%\nin December). Yang\u2019s popularity has increased in the same period (53%-18%,\ncompared with 42%-17% in December). Klobuchar\u2019s rating is similar to Yang\u2019s\n(50%-18% now \u2013 she was not included in the December ratings, but her prior best\nshowing on this metric was 32%-10% in May 2019). Buttigieg\u2019s rating among his\nfellow Democrats has slipped slightly (49%-22%, compared with 53%-18% in\nDecember), while Bloomberg\u2019s rating has risen (48%-31%, compared with 40%-39%\nin December). Tom Steyer earns a 33%-27% rating (the only other time he was\nincluded on this question, in August, he had a negative 9%-25% rating).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n 2020 CANDIDATE OPINION AMONG DEMOCRATIC VOTERS <\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Net favorability rating:<\/em>\n <\/td> Jan.<\/em> \u201920<\/em><\/td> Dec<\/em> \u201919<\/em><\/td> Nov <\/em> \u201919<\/em><\/td> Sep<\/em> \u201919<\/em><\/td> Aug<\/em> \u201919<\/em><\/td> May \u201919<\/em><\/td> Apr \u201919<\/em><\/td> Mar \u201919<\/em><\/td> Jan \u201919<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe\n Biden\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +56\n <\/td>\n +57\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td>\n +57\n <\/td>\n +56\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +71\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie\n Sanders\n <\/td>\n +48\n <\/td>\n +53\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td>\n +56\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td>\n +44\n <\/td>\n +44\n <\/td>\n +53\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth\n Warren\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +61\n <\/td>\n +70\n <\/td>\n +66\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +30\n <\/td>\n +40\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n +35\n <\/td>\n +25\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +12\n <\/td>\n \u20131\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy\n Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +9\n <\/td>\n +22\n <\/td>\n +14\n <\/td>\n +13\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete\n Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +27\n <\/td>\n +35\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n +24\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +2\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike\n Bloomberg\n <\/td>\n +17\n <\/td>\n +1<\/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>\n <\/td>\n +1<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +10\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom\n Steyer\n <\/td>\n +6\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n \u201316<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

There has been little change in ratings of the leading Democratic\ncontenders among all American voters (including Republicans and independents).\nBiden has a rating of 42% favorable and 49% unfavorable among all registered\nvoters (similar to his 43%-50% ratings in both in November and December) and\nSanders has a rating of 41% favorable and 52% unfavorable (similar to 41%-54%\nin both November and December). Warren has a rating of 38% favorable and 49%\nunfavorable (compared with 40%-50% in December and 42%-44% in November).\nButtigieg gets a 32% favorable and 35% unfavorable rating (compared with\n34%-35% in December and 27%-34% in November).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bloomberg has a 33% favorable and 47% unfavorable rating among all\nregistered voters, which is an increase in positive views since he first got\ninto the race (26%-54% in December). Klobuchar earns a 28% favorable and 32%\nunfavorable rating and Steyer has a 20% favorable and 35% unfavorable\nrating.  While Yang may be trailing the\nleaders in the Democratic horse race, he outpaces the rest of the field in one\narea. His 33% favorable and 29% unfavorable rating makes him the only candidate\nincluded in the poll who has a nominally positive net rating among all\nregistered voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt may be time for Yang to start making the electability argument,\u201d\nsaid Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from January 16 to 20, 2020 with 903 adults in the United States. The results in this\nrelease are based on 847 registered voters and have a +\/- 3.4\npercentage point sampling margin of error.  This release also includes results based on 372 voters\nwho identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party which have a\nmargin of error of +\/- 5.1 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

[Q1-4 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Note: Q5 was rotated with Q4-Trump impeachment question, which was released\nJanuary 21, 2020<\/em>.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> Looking ahead to the 2020 election for President, do you think that Donald Trump should be reelected, or do you think that it is time to have someone else in office?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should be reelected\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 42%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Someone else in office\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 55%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 59%\n <\/td>\n 60%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (689)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (660)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (719)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (746)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (735)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (716)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q6-7 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q8-12 held for future release.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q13 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13.<\/span> Who would you support for the Democratic nomination for president if the candidates were the following? [INCLUDES LEANERS<\/em>] [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>] <\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:
\n (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>		 Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Dec.
2019<\/td>		Nov.
2019<\/td>		Sept.
2019<\/td>		Aug.
2019<\/td>		June
2019<\/td>		May
2019<\/td>		April
2019<\/td>		March
2019<\/td>		Jan.
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Mike Bloomberg\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n John Delaney\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval Patrick\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n \n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cory Booker<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Juli\u00e1n Castro<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Kamala Harris<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beto O\u2019Rourke<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Marianne Williamson<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (306)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

14.<\/span> Thinking about the 2020 election, would it be better for the Democrats to nominate a woman or nominate a man to run against Trump, or doesn\u2019t this matter? [CHOICES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>Jan.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a woman\n <\/td> 8%<\/strong><\/td> 7% <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nominate a man\n <\/td> 13%<\/strong><\/td> 12%<\/td><\/tr>
\n Does not matter\n <\/td> 74%<\/strong><\/td> 77%<\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends on candidate\n <\/td> 3%<\/strong><\/td> 3%<\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 1%<\/strong><\/td> 1%<\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td> (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/td> (330)<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q15 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15.<\/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  \n <\/td>

NATIONAL<\/strong> <\/td>
IOWA<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td>		NEW<\/em>
HAMPSHIRE<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
202<\/em>0<\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Too much influence\n <\/td> 56%<\/strong><\/td> 16%<\/em><\/td> 20%<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Not enough influence\n <\/td> 8%<\/strong><\/td> 9%<\/em><\/td> 11%<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Right amount of influence\n <\/td> 25%<\/strong><\/td> 68%<\/em><\/td> 63%<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td> 11%<\/strong><\/td> 7%<\/em><\/td> 7%<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td> (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/td> (405)<\/em><\/td> (404)<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q16 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16.<\/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  \n <\/td>

NATIONAL<\/strong> <\/td>
IOWA<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td>		 NEW<\/em>
HAMPSHIRE<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/em><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n More likely\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Less likely\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Little difference\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 63%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q17 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]         <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

17.<\/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<\/em> MORE<\/em>: Is that a lot more influence or just a little more?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>

NATIONAL<\/strong> <\/td>
IOWA<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td>		NEW<\/em>
HAMPSHIRE<\/em>
Comparison<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td> Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/em><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n Gives all an equal voice\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have A LOT more influence\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have A LITTLE more influence\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Some have more\n influence \u2013 not sure how much\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q18 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18.<\/span> Which of the following options would you prefer for the presidential nominating process: A. keep the current system with Iowa and New Hampshire going first, followed by Nevada and South Carolina and then a bunch of states on Super Tuesday; B. have a few other states hold their contests on the same days as Iowa and New Hampshire before moving to other states; C. create grouped primaries where many states would hold their contests on the same day, with each group going on a different week; or D. create a national primary where every state would hold its nominating contest on the same day?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A. Keep the current system\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n B. Have a few other states on same days as\n IA\/NH\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n C. Create grouped primaries\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n D. Create a national primary\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

19.<\/span> I\u2019m going to read you the names of some people who are running for president in 2020.\u00a0 Please tell me if your general impression of each is very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable, or if you don\u2019t really have an opinion. If you have not heard of the person, just let me know. [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
TREND:
ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em><\/td>		 Very
favorable <\/td>		Somewhat
favorable<\/td>		 Somewhat
unfavorable<\/td>		 Very
unfavorable<\/td>		No
opinion<\/td>		Not
heard of<\/td>		 (n)<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Former Vice President
Joe Biden <\/td>		\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders <\/td>		\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Massachusetts Senator
Elizabeth Warren <\/td>		\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor
Pete Buttigieg <\/td>		\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Minnesota Senator
Amy Klobuchar <\/td>		\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Former New York Mayor
Mike Bloomberg <\/td>		\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Entrepreneur
Andrew Yang <\/td>		\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Former hedge fund manager
Tom Steyer<\/td>		\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n President\n Donald Trump<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — December 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (838)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (835)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — September\n 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,017)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
TREND:
DEMOCRATS\/DEM LEANERS ONLY<\/em> <\/td>		 Favorable<\/td> Unfavorable<\/td>\n No\n opinion\n <\/td> Not
heard of<\/td>		\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Former Vice President Joe Biden <\/td>\n 73%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 74%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 80%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders <\/td>\n 72%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 74%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 75%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 64%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n (334)\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 70%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Massachusetts Senator\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 76%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 79%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 75%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former South Bend, Indiana\n Mayor Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (345)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (434)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — March  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   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 58%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Minnesota\n Senator Amy Klobuchar <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  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   — November 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   — September 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    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em> <\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em> <\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/em> <\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em> <\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em> <\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n (330)<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/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\n New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 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   — September 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    — August 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   — 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   — April  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   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (310)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Entrepreneur\n Andrew Yang<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (384)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — November 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — September 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 36%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — May 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 42%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — April  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   — March  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   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (313)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Former\n hedge fund manager Tom Steyer <\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — December  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   — November 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   — September 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    — August 2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (298)<\/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   — April  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   — March  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2019<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td>\n —<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q20-27 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from January 16 to 20, 2020 with a national random sample of 903\nadults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 363 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a landline telephone and 540 contacted by a live interviewer on\na cell phone. The results in this poll\nrelease are based on a subsample of 847 registered voters. Telephone numbers were selected through\nrandom digit dialing and landline respondents were selected with a modified Troldahl-Carter\nyoungest adult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the\nsurvey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample is weighted for\nregion, age, education, gender and race based on US Census information (CPS\n2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research\n(field) and Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on the registered voter\nsample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling\nhas a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points (unadjusted for\nsample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table\nbelow). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that\nquestion wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce\nerror or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 28%\n Republican<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 40% Independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 32% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 48% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 52% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 26% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 38% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 65% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 13% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 15%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   8% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 67% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 33% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 37% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 63% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 32% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 22% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 15%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 7%\n Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 60% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 40% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em> <\/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":"

Little change in 2020 Dem contest, Trump reelect<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245392,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802245341","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-national"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245341","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":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245341\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802245398,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245341\/revisions\/40802245398"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}