{"id":40802245443,"date":"2020-01-29T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-29T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245443"},"modified":"2020-01-29T09:15:18","modified_gmt":"2020-01-29T14:15:18","slug":"monmouthpoll_ia_012920","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_ia_012920\/","title":{"rendered":"Dem Caucuses Could Be a Five-Way Contest"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nJoe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren continue to\njostle for the top spot in the fifth and final Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong>\nof likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers. Support for Amy Klobuchar registers in\ndouble digits and could have an impact on the leaderboard if she reaches the\nviability threshold in a number of precincts. About half of likely caucusgoers\nsay they are still open to changing their minds when they show up to caucus on\nMonday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four candidates remain in the top tier of likely caucusgoers\u2019 first\npreference \u2013 Biden (23%), Sanders (21%), Buttigieg (16%), and Warren (15%).\nKlobuchar registers 10% support, while Tom Steyer earns 4% and Andrew Yang has\n3%. Four other candidates earn 1% or less. [Note: Mike Bloomberg was not included in the poll because he is not\nparticipating in the Iowa caucus process.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes from Monmouth\u2019s poll earlier this month are not statistically\nsignificant. Two weeks ago, Biden had 24%, Sanders 18%, Buttigieg 17%, Warren\n15%, and Klobuchar 8%. In terms of trajectory over Monmouth polls conducted\nsince last summer, support for Biden has bounced around between 19% and 26%,\nSanders has grown steadily from a low of 8% in August, Buttigieg jumped from 8%\nto 22% between August and November but has fallen back from that high point,\nWarren has slipped slightly from 20% in the summer, and Klobuchar has inched up\nfrom 3% in August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCaucus electorates are the most difficult to model in polling. The\nsmartest takeaway from this, or any Iowa poll for that matter, is to be\nprepared for anything on Monday,\u201d said Patrick\nMurray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\nThere has not been a large increase in the\nnumber of voters who have settled on a candidate in the past few weeks.\nCurrently, 47% of likely Iowa caucusgoers are firmly decided on their candidate\nchoice.  That hasn\u2019t changed much from\nMonmouth\u2019s poll two weeks ago when firm support stood at 43%. Nearly half (45%)\nsay they are open to switching support on caucus night, including 13% who rate\nthis as a high possibility, 23% a moderate possibility, and 9% a low\npossibility. Firm support for the top polling candidates ranges from 47% for\nKlobuchar, 48% for Biden, and 49% for Buttigieg to 55% for Warren and 58% for\nSanders.\n\n<\/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, Biden (39%), Warren (34%),\nSanders (32%), and Buttigieg (29%) are bunched together. They are trailed by\nKlobuchar (22%), Steyer (10%), and Yang (7%) as either a first or second\nchoice. These numbers have not changed much since earlier this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key factor in how these second choices will play out, though, is determined by whose supporters will need to realign if their first choice does not reach the 15% viability threshold for convention delegates. If Klobuchar and Yang remain viable in some precincts, the race remains tight. A hypothetical six candidate field puts the race at 22% Biden, 22% Sanders, 17% Buttigieg, 16% Warren, 12% Klobuchar, and 5% Yang.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If\nviability comes down to just the top four candidates, though, the race is still\ntight but Biden appears to benefit slightly more. When likely caucusgoers are\nasked to choose from among this limited field, the race stands at 29% Biden,\n25% Sanders, 20% Buttigieg, and 19% Warren. In this scenario, about 4 in 10\nKlobuchar supporters would realign with Biden, while about 1 in 4 would go to\nButtigieg, 1 in 5 to Warren, and just a handful to Sanders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cKlobuchar\u2019s\nperformance could be a real game changer in the final delegate allocation out\nof Iowa,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Small\nshifts in who turns out to caucus can also have a large impact on the outcome.\nCaucus turnout represents only a small proportion of eligible voters and varies\nwidely from cycle to cycle. According to the Iowa Democratic Party, the 2016\ncaucuses drew just over 170,000 voters. This is lower than the record turnout\nof nearly 240,000 caucusgoers in 2008, but higher than the prior contested\ncontest (124,000 in 2004). On average, less than one-third of registered\nDemocrats (about 614,000 currently) participate in the presidential caucuses.\nThe actual turnout rate is lower since non-Democrats can also show up and\nchange their party registration at the caucus site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monmouth\u2019s\nestimate of the current state of the race assumes a caucus turnout similar to\n2008\u2019s high. This is based on the number of potential voters contacted for the\npoll who screened through as likely caucusgoers. Monmouth also examined what\nthe race could potentially look like under different turnout scenarios. An\nelectorate that includes higher numbers of traditional Democratic primary\nvoters could increase Biden\u2019s lead to as much as 6 points. On the other hand, a\ncaucus electorate that is more heavily populated by voters who do not\nparticipate in primary elections could result in a Sanders lead of about 4\npoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These\ndifferent turnout scenarios were calculated by adjusting the sample\u2019s\ncomposition based on past voting behavior according to state voter rolls. The\nonly demographic variable that ends up shifting under these propensity-based\nmodels is age (gender, race, and education remain stable). Furthermore, these\nalternate turnout scenarios have the largest impact on support for Sanders,\nvarying his vote share by as much as 5 points from Monmouth\u2019s benchmark measure\nof 21% reported in this release (range of 19-26%). None of the other\ncandidates\u2019 support levels vary by more than a couple of points under any of\nthese scenarios (ranges for Biden 22-25%, Buttigieg 15-17%, Warren 13-16%, and\nKlobuchar 9-10%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA turnout\nswing of as few of 10,000 voters could determine who \u2018wins\u2019 the caucus if it is\ndriven by a specific demographic group,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> also finds that\ncandidate favorability ratings have seen only small movements over the past two\nweeks, with one exception. Warren tops the ratings at 71% favorable and 21%\nunfavorable, followed by Buttigieg (68%-19%), Biden (68%-22%), Klobuchar (63%-18%),\nYang (60%-17%), and Sanders (61%-32%). Steyer has a 50%-28% rating. Sanders has\ndropped from his high watermark of 70% favorable and 22% unfavorable earlier\nthis month. His current rating is more in line with Iowa voter opinion last\nsummer and fall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD \u2013 IOWA PARTY VOTER OPINION<\/strong>
Net Rating (favorable \u2013 unfavorable)<\/em><\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n <\/td>\n Late
\n Jan. \u201920\n <\/td>		\n  Early
\n Jan. \u201920\n <\/td>
Nov. \u201919 <\/td>
Aug. \u201919 <\/td>
Apr. \u201919 <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n +50\n <\/td>\n +54\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +62\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n +49\n <\/td>\n +54\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +63\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n +46\n <\/td>\n +38\n <\/td>\n +39\n <\/td>\n +52\n <\/td>\n +64\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n +45\n <\/td>\n +47\n <\/td>\n +36\n <\/td>\n +33\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n +43\n <\/td>\n +37\n <\/td>\n +15\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n +6\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n +29\n <\/td>\n +48\n <\/td>\n +32\n <\/td>\n +25\n <\/td>\n +41\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n +22\n <\/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>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from January 23 to 27, 2020 with 544 Iowa voters who are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020, out of 1,345 registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters who were contacted for the poll.  The question results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.2 percentage points.  The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.  Please note that the trend numbers for the August poll were rebased to exclude voters who would only attend a \u201cvirtual\u201d caucus (which is no longer an option).<\/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>\n Late
\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong>\n <\/td>		 Early
Jan.
2020<\/td>
Nov.
2019<\/td>
Aug.
2019**<\/td>
April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\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 15%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\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 3%\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 <1%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval\n Patrick\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\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 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Other\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%*\n <\/td>\n 7%*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%*<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%*<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\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 5%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em><\/em>\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

      **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>: Would you rate the possibility of supporting a different candidate as high, moderate, or low?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td> Late
Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Early
Jan.
2020<\/td>
Nov.
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Firmly decided\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, high possibility\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, moderate\n possibility\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Open, low possibility\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No first choice (from Q1)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (451)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> Who would be your second choice if you had to make one?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:  
\n
\n \n <\/td>		 Late
Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Early
Jan.
2020<\/td>
Nov.
2019<\/td>
Aug.
2019**<\/td>
April
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\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 4%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\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 0%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval\n Patrick\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\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 3%*\n <\/td>\n 11%*\n <\/td>\n 26%*\n <\/td>\n 32%*\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one  \n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\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><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> If the only viable candidates in your caucus site were the following six people who would you caucus for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td> Late
Jan.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t caucus\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/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 TREND:  
\n
\n <\/em>\n <\/td>		\n Late
\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Early
\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t caucus\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Undecided\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/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>
Favorable<\/strong><\/td>
Unfavorable<\/strong><\/td>		No<\/strong>
opinion<\/strong><\/td>		Not<\/strong>
heard<\/strong> of<\/strong><\/td>
(n)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Former Vice President\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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 61%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 70%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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 71%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 73%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 63%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 71%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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 Entrepreneur Andrew\n Yang\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 57%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      —\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>
Former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer <\/td>\n 50%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — Early\n January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 46%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n      — November \n 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

7.<\/span> Will this be your first presidential caucus or have you attended the Iowa presidential caucuses in the past? [<\/strong>If ATTENDED IN PAST: <\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>Was that a Republican or a Democratic caucus, or both?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:   \n <\/td>\n Late
\n Jan.
\n 2020<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Early
\n Jan.
\n 2020\n <\/td>
Nov.
2019<\/td>
Aug.
2019*<\/td><\/tr>
\n First caucus\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Republican caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n Democratic caucus in past\n <\/td>\n 68%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 80%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Attended\n both caucuses in the past\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don’t Know\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (544)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (405)<\/em>\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\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from January 23 to 27, 2020 with\na statewide random sample of 1,345 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered\nDemocratic and unaffiliated voters who voted in at least one of the last two\nstate primary elections or the 2018 general election or have registered to vote since November 2018. This\nincludes 656 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 689\ncontacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 544 voters who are likely to\nattend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2020. Monmouth\nis responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and\nanalysis. The full sample is weighted for age, gender, race, and education\nbased on state voter registration list and U.S. Census information (CPS 2018\nsupplement). Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and\nAristotle (voter sample). For results based on the sample of likely Democratic\ncaucusgoers, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to\nsampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points\n(unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups\n(see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind\nthat question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can\nintroduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 42% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 58% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 19% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 21% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 32% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 28% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 91% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   9% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 57% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 43% 4 year\n degree <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Nearly half remain open to switching support on caucus night <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245448,"template":"","geography":[78],"class_list":["post-40802245443","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\/40802245443","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\/40802245443\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802245473,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245443\/revisions\/40802245473"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}