{"id":40802245515,"date":"2020-02-06T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-06T18:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245515"},"modified":"2020-02-06T11:48:58","modified_gmt":"2020-02-06T16:48:58","slug":"monmouthpoll_nh_020620","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_nh_020620\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanders Takes Lead, Buttigieg and Biden Vie For Second"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013\nBernie Sanders has taken the lead in New Hampshire\u2019s presidential primary,\nwhile Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden currently jockey for second place. Elizabeth\nWarren and Amy Klobuchar round out the top five in the final Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong> of the 2020 Granite State primary. The Iowa caucuses\nhave not helped narrow the field, but the outcome there could eventually have\nan impact among voters looking for the best candidate to take on President\nDonald Trump in November. Based on the poll results, this could help Buttigieg\nand hurt Biden. Sanders, on the other hand, seems to have a firm grip on voters\nwho prioritize issues over electability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among\nregistered New Hampshire Democrats and unaffiliated voters who are likely to\nparticipate in the February 2020 Democratic primary, the race currently stands\nat 24% for Sanders, 20% for Buttigieg, 17% for Biden, 13% for Warren, and 9%\nfor Klobuchar. Others registering support include Tulsi Gabbard (4%), Andrew\nYang (4%), and Tom Steyer (3%). Michael Bennet and Deval Patrick earn 1% or\nless. Another 5% of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean\ntoward any candidate choice at this time. [Note:\nMike Bloomberg will not appear on the New Hampshire ballot and is not included\nin this poll.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have\nbeen some clear trends in support since the fall. Sanders has experienced\nsteady growth (from 12% in September and 18% in January). Buttigieg is holding\nsteady from last month (20%) but up from the fall (10%). Two former polling\nleaders have seen their support slip \u2013 Biden from 25% in September and 19% in\nJanuary, and Warren from 27% in September and 15% in January. Klobuchar\u2019s\nsupport has crept up from 2% in September and 6% in January.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Sanders\ngets his strongest support from voters under 50 years old (34%), self-described\nliberals (31%), and voters without a college degree (30%).  He is also polling better among men (32%)\nthan women (17%). Buttigieg is drawing more support from women (24%) than men\n(14%) while Biden draws similar support among both men (17%) and women (16%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMany\nvoters in New Hampshire remain open to switching their support. The muddle out\nof Iowa hasn\u2019t narrowed the field, but there are some hints in the poll that\nButtigieg could be helped and Biden hurt as the caucus results start to sink\nin,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of\nthe independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only half\n(49%) of New Hampshire primary voters are firmly set on their candidate choice.\nThe poll finds that 78% of primary voters\nsay the Iowa caucus results didn\u2019t change their thinking about which candidate\nto back. Another 15% said Iowa made them take a second look at their candidate\nchoice, but only 3% report actually changing their vote intention because of\nit. About 1 in 4 (24%) say they feel more confident about their candidate\nchoice because of the Iowa results and just 8% say they are less confident.\nBiden is the only candidate with a significant number of supporters who are now\nless confident in their choice (20%). \nButtigieg is, by far, the candidate whose supporters are likely to say\nthe Iowa outcome makes them feel more confident about their choice (56%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConfidence\nis contagious and voters want to go with a winner. This race remains fluid\nbecause voters are looking for the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump.\nOne question to ask is whether Biden supporters will start to have second thoughts.\nThis might not happen until the final days, because the Iowa results were still\ntrickling in as we wrapped up the poll,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority of New Hampshire primary voters (55%) say that beating Trump is a more important factor in their vote than any policy issue they are concerned with. Another 29% say beating Trump is about as important as their top policy concern and just 15% say electability is less important than policy issues. Supporters of Biden (75%) and Klobuchar (67%) are the most likely to say that beating Trump surpasses any policy considerations, while Sanders backers (38%) are the least likely to feel this way. Supporters of Buttigieg (59%) and Warren (60%) are on par with overall voter sentiment on this factor, while backers of candidates who are not polling in the top five (40%) are more like Sanders supporters in being less likely to prioritize Trump\u2019s defeat as a more important factor in their candidate choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSanders voters hone in on his policy platform as the decisive factor in their support. Biden voters are focused almost exclusively on beating Trump. Buttigieg seems to have an appeal for both types of voters. This may help him in the final days of this contest, especially if New Hampshire Democrats perceive the field to be narrowing,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the\ncampaign still in flux, Monmouth examined the race under a number of different\nscenarios. Likely Democrats were asked how they would vote if the field was\nwinnowed down. In a race restricted to the top five polling candidates,\nhypothetical support stands at 27% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 17% Biden, 13%\nWarren, and 13% Klobuchar. Take Klobuchar out of this picture and the race\ntightens to 28% Sanders, 28% Buttigieg, 19% Biden, and 16% Warren.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monmouth\nanalysts also ran a variety of likely voter models on the full list of\ncandidates in addition to the benchmark results reported in this release. A\nmodel that increases the share of low propensity voters shows Sanders in front\nwith 25%, Buttigieg at 19%, Biden at 16%, Warren at 12%, Klobuchar at 8%, Yang\nat 5%, and Gabbard  and Steyer at 4%\neach. A model that gives more weight to traditional primary voters shows\nSanders with 22%, Buttigieg at 21%, Biden at 18%, Warren at 15%, Klobuchar at 10%,\nGabbard at 3%, and Steyer and Yang at 2% each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSanders maintains his lead in all our models. The potential for\nchange in this race seems to be as much about persuading voters to switch\nhorses as it is about absolute turnout,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nalso asked Democratic primary voters if the Trump impeachment trial impacted\ntheir candidate choice. Fully 91% say that it didn\u2019t change their thinking at\nall, while just 7% say it made them take a second look at their candidate\nchoice (although only 1% report actually changing their vote intention because\nof it).  Overall, 19% say that the\nimpeachment trial made them feel more confident in their choice and just 3%\nfeel less confident.  There are no\nsignificant differences in this opinion based on which candidate voters\nsupport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from February 3 to 5, 2020 with 503 New Hampshire voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary on February 11, 2020, out of 777 registered voters that were contacted for the poll. [Note: 130 of the 503 likely voter interviewers were conducted before the first results from the Iowa caucuses were released.]  The question results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 4.4 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

1.<\/span> If the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]?\u00a0 [If UNDECIDED:<\/em> If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND: (with leaners)<\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Jan.
2020<\/td>		Sept.
2019<\/td>		May
2019<\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tulsi Gabbard\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Andrew Yang\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Tom Steyer\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td>\n 0%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval Patrick\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n <1%\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 8%*\n <\/td>\n 13%*\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 7%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n       (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td> (404)<\/em><\/td> (401)<\/em><\/td> (376)<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

2.<\/span> Are you firmly decided on your candidate choice or are you open to the possibility of voting for a different candidate on primary day?\u00a0 [If OPEN<\/em>: <\/strong>Would you rate the possibility of supporting a different candidate as high, moderate, or low?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Firmly decided <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Open to different candidate \u2026 <\/td> high possibility<\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
moderate possibility<\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
low possibility<\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don’t know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No\n first choice (from Q1)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> If the Democratic nomination came down to the following five candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Pete Buttigieg<\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Biden<\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Elizabeth Warren<\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Amy Klobuchar<\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t vote<\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Undecided <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> And if the Democratic nomination came down to just these four candidates by the New Hampshire primary, who would you vote for? [NAMES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Jan.
2020<\/td><\/tr>
Pete Buttigieg<\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td><\/tr>
Bernie Sanders<\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Biden<\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td><\/tr>
Elizabeth Warren<\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) None of these\/won\u2019t vote<\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Undecided<\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (503)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (404)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> When thinking about who you are supporting in the Democratic primary, how much of a factor is beating Donald Trump next November \u2013 is it more important than any policy issue you are concerned with, about as important as your top policy concern, or less important than your top policy concern?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
More important<\/td>\n 55%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
About as important<\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Less important<\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don’t know<\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[NOTE:\nQUESTION 6 ONLY ASKED ON 2\/4 AND 2\/5; n=373, m.o.e= +\/-5.1%<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> Did the results of the Iowa caucuses make you take a second look at any of the candidates, or did this not really change your thinking about the primary? [If TOOK A SECOND LOOK<\/em>: Did you actually change who you would support, move from undecided to a candidate, or did it not change your choice in the end?]<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Took a second look, and\u2026<\/td> changed support<\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
moved from undecided<\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
did not change choice<\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Not really change thinking <\/td>\n 78%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don’t know<\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (373)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[NOTE:\nQUESTION 7 ONLY ASKED ON 2\/4 AND 2\/5; n=373, m.o.e= +\/-5.1%<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> Did the results of the Iowa caucuses help you feel more confident or less confident about the candidate you are supporting, or did the Iowa results have no impact either way?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
More confident<\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Less confident<\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
No impact<\/td>\n 62%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don’t know<\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (373)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> Did the impeachment trial of Donald Trump make you take a second look at any of the candidates, or did this not really change your thinking about the primary? [If TOOK A SECOND LOOK:<\/em> <\/em><\/strong>Did you actually change who you would support, move from undecided to a candidate, or did it not change your choice in the end?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Took a second look, and\u2026<\/td> changed support<\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
moved from undecided<\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
did not change choice<\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Not really change thinking <\/td>\n 91%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don’t know <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/span> Did the Trump impeachment trial help you feel more confident or less confident about the candidate you are supporting, or did the impeachment trial have no impact either way?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
More confident<\/td> 19%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Less confident<\/td> 3%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
No impact<\/td> 77%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don’t know<\/td> 1%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (503)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\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 February 3 to 5, 2020 with\na statewide random sample of 777 New Hampshire voters drawn from a list of\nregistered voters who participated in a primary or general election in the past\ntwo election cycles, or have registered to vote since 2018. This\nincludes 377 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a landline telephone and 400 contacted\nby a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Results are based on 503 voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic\npresidential primary on February 11, 2020.  Monmouth is responsible\nfor all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample\nis weighted for party registration, age, gender, race, and education based on\nstate voter registration list information 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\nprimary voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to\nsampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.4 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
DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Party\n Registration<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% None<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported\n Party<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 54% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 46% Other, independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 46% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 54% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 20% 35-49<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 38% 50-64<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 25% 65+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 94% White,\n non-Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   6% Other race, Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 46% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 54% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

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

Beating Trump is most important factor; uncertain impact from Iowa results <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245517,"template":"","geography":[51],"class_list":["post-40802245515","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-new-hampshire"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245515","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":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245515\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802245533,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245515\/revisions\/40802245533"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}