{"id":40802245586,"date":"2020-02-11T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-11T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802245586"},"modified":"2020-02-11T10:27:45","modified_gmt":"2020-02-11T15:27:45","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_021120","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_021120\/","title":{"rendered":"Most Expect Trump Will Be Reelected; Sanders Overtakes Biden Among Dem Voters"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West\nLong Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013 As New Hampshire primary voters go to the\npolls, there already seems to be an impact from the Iowa caucus results on\npresidential preferences among Democrats nationwide. The latest Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong> finds that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have swapped\npositions at the front of the pack, marking the first time Sanders has held the\nsole lead in national party preferences since Monmouth started polling the\nDemocratic field one year ago. While Democratic challengers battle it out for\nthe chance to take on President Donald Trump, two-thirds of all registered\nvoters think the incumbent is going to be reelected, even though most Americans\ndon\u2019t think he deserves a second term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over 4 in 10 (42%) registered\nvoters feel that Trump should be reelected, while a majority (55%) say it is\ntime to have someone new in the Oval Office. These numbers did not move much as\nthe impeachment hearings and trial played out. Prior results were 41% reelect\nand 57% someone new in January, 43%-54% in December, and 42%-55% in November.\nThe current results are also similar to late September when news about the\npresident\u2019s Ukraine call broke (39%-57%) and in August when the House\nimpeachment inquiry was just getting started (39%-57%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About two-thirds of American voters believe that Trump will definitely (27%) or probably (39%) get reelected in November. Just 22% say he will probably lose to the Democrat and only 6% say he will definitely lose to the Democrat. Republicans are brimming with confidence \u2013 59% say reelection is definite and 34% probable \u2013 while Democrats are not so certain about their chances \u2013 just 11% say their nominee will definitely beat Trump and another 44% say it is probable that Trump will lose. On the other side of the coin, 38% of Democrats actually think it is more likely than not that Trump will win a second term. Just 4% of Republicans think Trump will lose to the Democrat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile most voters want to see Trump turned out of office, his steady ratings through the entire impeachment process and memories of how 2016 turned out suggest that few are willing to bet against him. And the Democratic nomination kickoff in Iowa did not exactly inspire confidence in the party\u2019s ability to find someone who can take on the president,\u201d said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, 65% of voters say they are optimistic about the 2020 presidential election, while 30% are pessimistic. The optimistic group includes 86% of Republicans but just 56% of Democrats and 56% of independents.  Back in August 2016, 55% of voters were optimistic about electing a new president and 39% were pessimistic. In that cycle, Republicans (61%) and Democrats (67%) ran about even in optimism, while independents were less positive (40%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, 39% of American voters say they feel more enthusiastic than usual about the 2020 election, 21% say they are less enthusiastic, and 40% say they feel about the same level of enthusiasm as they have in past elections. In August 2016, 21% were more enthusiastic, 46% less enthusiastic, and 31% about the same. All partisan groups feel more enthusiastic than they did four years ago, including Republicans (47% more enthusiastic now versus 32% in 2016), Democrats (36% now versus 20% in 2016), and independents (34% now versus 15% in 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEnthusiasm is up compared to 2016, but optimism has split along party lines. These conflicting findings in public opinion seem to reflect the muddled state of the race on the Democratic side right now,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> finds that Sanders has risen slightly in\nthe unofficial preference contest among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters\nnationwide. His current support level of 26% is up slightly from 23% last\nmonth. His large lead comes from the post-Iowa effect on the prior frontrunner.\nBiden has definitely suffered the consequences of his showing in the caucuses,\ndropping significantly to 16% support from 30% before Iowa. Other contenders\ninclude Elizabeth Warren holding steady at 13% (was 14% in January) and Pete\nButtigieg with a bounce to 13% (was 6%). National support for other candidates\nhas not changed much since January, including Mike Bloomberg at 11% (was 9%),\nAmy Klobuchar at 6% (was 5%), Andrew Yang at 4% (was 3%), and four other\ncandidates who earn 1% or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIowa has had a significant impact on the race, especially for Biden, whose support was always soft and based largely on the perception of electability. Sanders is on the rise, but his gains have come mainly in states that vote after Super Tuesday. There is still time for a number of candidates, including Sanders, to build or lose momentum,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic voters in states that hold nominating contests this month through Super Tuesday spread their support across a number of candidates \u2013 21% Sanders, 16% Warren, 14% Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Buttigieg, 7% Klobuchar, and 6% Yang. In states that vote after Super Tuesday, 30% back Sanders, 18% Biden, 14% Buttigieg, 11% Warren, 9% Bloomberg, 5% Klobuchar, and 3% Yang.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biden has lost backing in both the early states (down from 27% in January) and post-Super Tuesday states (down from 32%). Current support for Sanders in the early states is similar to last month (20%), but is higher now in the later states (up from 25%). Bloomberg (up from 5%), Buttigieg (up from 4%), and Yang (up from 2%) have seen small gains in their early state support since January, while there has not been a significant change for Warren (19%) and Klobuchar (9%) in the early contests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the six top polling candidates, Biden has seen his net favorability rating drop and Buttigieg has seen a small increase, while the others have not experienced any sizable change among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters. Biden\u2019s net rating of +38 points (64% favorable and 26% unfavorable) is down from +52 points in January (73%-21%). Sanders now has the field\u2019s highest net rating of +53 points (72%-19%, which is similar to his 72%-24% rating last month). He is followed by Warren at +48 points (67%-19%, similar to 66%-20% in January). Buttigieg clocks in at a +36 rating (55%-19%), which is up from +27 last month (49%-22%). Klobuchar has a +31 net rating (49%-18%, similar to 50%-18% in January) and Bloomberg has a +14 net rating (48%-34%, similar to 48%-31% last month).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2020 CANDIDATE OPINION AMONG DEMOCRATIC VOTERS <\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
\n Net favorability rating:<\/em>\n <\/td>Feb \u201920<\/em><\/td> Jan \u201920<\/em><\/td> Dec \u201919<\/em><\/td> Nov \u201919<\/em><\/td> Sep \u201919<\/em><\/td> Aug \u201919<\/em><\/td> May \u201919<\/em><\/td> Apr \u201919<\/em><\/td> Mar \u201919<\/em><\/td>\n Jan \u201919<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Bernie Sanders <\/td>\n +53\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>
Elizabeth Warren <\/td>\n +48\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>
Joe Biden <\/td>\n +38\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>
Pete Buttigieg <\/td>\n +36\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>
Amy Klobuchar <\/td>\n +31\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>
Mike Bloomberg <\/td>\n +14\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  \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  <\/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 40% favorable and 53% unfavorable among all registered\nvoters (which is down slightly from his 42%-49% rating in January).  Sanders has a rating of 42% favorable and 51%\nunfavorable (similar to 41%-52% last month) while Warren has a 37% favorable\nand 49% unfavorable rating (38%-49% in January). Buttigieg gets a nearly even\nsplit of 35% favorable and 37% unfavorable (32%-35% in January) as does\nKlobuchar at 30% favorable and 32% unfavorable (28%-32% in January). Bloomberg\nhas a 32% favorable and 51% unfavorable rating (33%-47% in January).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s net rating among all voters is similar to many of the leading\nDemocratic candidates at 44% favorable and 53% unfavorable (43%-55% in\nJanuary), but he attracts a sizably larger number of voters who have a strong\nopinion on either end of the spectrum. The president\u2019s 47% very unfavorable<\/em> rating is higher than similar sentiment for any of\nthe Democrats (40% Sanders, 37% Warren, 37% Bloomberg, 36% Biden, 24%\nButtigieg, and 16% Klobuchar). Trump\u2019s 35% very\nfavorable<\/em> rating is also higher than it is for any of his potential\nchallengers (20% Sanders, 16% Warren, 16% Biden, 13% Buttigieg, 10% Bloomberg,\nand 9% Klobuchar).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cButtigieg and Klobuchar have the best net ratings of the leading\ncontenders among all voters. That might set up either of them as a formidable\nchallenger for the incumbent, but they are also the least known candidates at\nthis point. That means their ratings are subject to greater volatility once a\ngeneral election spotlight is turned on them,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the glitches in reporting the Iowa caucus results, the Monmouth University Poll<\/em> asked\nDemocratic voters how they feel about the current nomination calendar. One in\nfour voters (26%) say that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first makes it less\nlikely that the party will nominate the best candidate for president, just 11%\nsay having those two states go first makes it more likely, and 52% say it makes\nlittle difference in the end. The results are nearly identical to when Monmouth\nasked this question last month, before the Iowa caucuses (26% less likely, 12%\nmore likely, and 50% little difference).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority of Democrats (56%) continue to prefer switching the process\nto a single national primary for choosing their nominee, which is nearly\nidentical to January\u2019s poll (58%).  The\nnumber who would like to see the states grouped into different primaries has\ngrown (19%, up from 10%). However, there has been a decline in the small number\nof Democratic voters who want to keep Iowa and New Hampshire first, either on\ntheir own (7%, down from 11%) or coupled with some additional states (11%, down\nfrom 15%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em>\nwas conducted by telephone from February 6 to 9, 2020 with 902 adults in the United States. The results in this\nrelease are based on 827 registered voters and have a +\/- 3.4\npercentage point sampling margin of error.  This release also includes results based on 357 voters\nwho identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party which have a\nmargin of error of +\/- 5.2 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

[Q1-3 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/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> Feb. <\/strong>
2020<\/strong> <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2020\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 42%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 41%\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 55%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 57%\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 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\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 (827)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em>\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

4A.<\/span> As of right now, what do you think the chances are that Donald Trump gets reelected in November \u2013 do you think he will definitely get reelected, probably get reelected, probably lose to the Democrat, or definitely lose to the Democrat?<\/span><\/p>\n
ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em><\/td>Feb.<\/strong>
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Definitely get reelected<\/td> 27%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Probably get reelected<\/td> 39%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Probably lose to the Democrat<\/td> 22%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Definitely lose to the Democrat<\/td> 6%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Depends on the Democrat<\/td> 1%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don\u2019t know<\/td> 4%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td> (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q5-7 previously released.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q8 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING DEMOCRATIC\nVOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/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>		 Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		Jan.
2020<\/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 Bernie Sanders\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%\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 Joe Biden\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%\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 Pete Buttigieg\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\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 Elizabeth Warren\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\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 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%\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 Amy Klobuchar\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\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 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\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 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 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 <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 Michael Bennet\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/strong>\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 0%\n <\/td>\n <1%\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Deval Patrick\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%\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 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\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 <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No one\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\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 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\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 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 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 John Delaney<\/em>\n <\/td>\n n\/a<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n <1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/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 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 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 n\/a<\/em><\/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 (357)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em>\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

[Q9 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING DEMOCRATIC\nVOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/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 TREND:\n <\/td> Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/td><\/tr>
\n More likely\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Less likely\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Little difference\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q10 WAS ASKED OF DEMOCRATS\/LEANING\nDEMOCRATIC VOTERS.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/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 TREND:\n <\/td> Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
2020<\/td><\/tr>
\n A. Keep the current system\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n B. Have a few other states on same days as\n IA\/NH\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n C. Create grouped primaries\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n D. Create a national primary\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) None of these\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

11.<\/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
\n TREND: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td>
Very favorable <\/td>
Somewhat favorable <\/td>
Somewhat unfavorable <\/td>
Very unfavorable <\/td>
No
opinion <\/td>		\n Not\n heard\n of\n <\/td>

(n)<\/em> <\/td><\/tr>
Former Vice President
Joe Biden <\/td>		\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/em>\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 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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>
President Donald Trump <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 47%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n    — January 2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 0%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (847)<\/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
TREND:
DEMOCRATS\/DEM LEANERS ONLY<\/em> <\/td>
Favorable<\/td>
Unfavorable<\/td>		 No
opinion<\/td>		 Not
heard of<\/td>
(n)<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Former Vice President
Joe Biden <\/td>		\n 64%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 73%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em>\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 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 72%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/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%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (334)<\/em>\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>
Massachusetts Senator
Elizabeth Warren <\/td>		\n 67%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/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>
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor
Pete Buttigieg <\/td>		\n 55%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 13%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/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>
Minnesota Senator
Amy Klobuchar <\/td>		\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 50%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/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><\/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>
Former New York Mayor
Mike Bloomberg <\/td>		\n 48%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 34%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (357)<\/em><\/strong><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   — January  2020<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 48%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (372)<\/em>\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><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[ASKED\nOF EVERYONE:<\/em>]         <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11X.<\/span> Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the 2020 presidential election? [PROBE: Is that very or somewhat (optimistic\/pessimistic)]?<\/span><\/p>\n
ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em> <\/td> Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\n Very optimistic\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat optimistic\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat pessimistic\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very pessimistic\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Neither, don\u2019t care\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

PRIOR QUESTION WORDING FOR\nREFERENCE:<\/em> Thinking\nabout the 2016 election, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about electing a\nnew president?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n COMPARISON: ALL REGISTERED\n VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td> Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Aug.
2016<\/td>		 June.
2015<\/td><\/tr>
\n Optimistic\n <\/td>\n 65%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 55%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pessimistic\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Neither\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (829)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

11Y.<\/span> Compared to past elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual, less enthusiastic, or about the same as past elections?<\/span><\/p>\n
TREND: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em><\/td> Feb.
2020<\/strong><\/td>		 Aug.
2016*<\/td>		 June.
2015*<\/td><\/tr>
\n More enthusiastic\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Less enthusiastic\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n About the same\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (827)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (829)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

     *Asked about the 2016 Presidential\nelection<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q12-21 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 February 6 to 9, 2020 with a national random sample of 902\nadults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 362 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 827 registered voters. Telephone numbers were selected through\nrandom digit dialing and landline respondents were selected with a modified\nTroldahl-Carter youngest adult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for\nall aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. The full sample\nis weighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census\ninformation (CPS 2018 supplement). Data collection support provided by\nBraun Research (field) and Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on the\nregistered voter sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable\nto sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points\n(unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for\nsub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should\nbear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting\nsurveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n REGISTERED\n VOTERS<\/em>\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 27%\n Republican<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 39% Independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 33% Democrat<\/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 26% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 39% 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 66% No degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 34% 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>
\n DEMOCRATIC VOTERS<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 38% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 62% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 29% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 36% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 56% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 20% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   7% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 63% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 37% 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Enthusiasm up from 2016, but with a partisan gap<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802245608,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802245586","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\/40802245586","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":21,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802245656,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802245586\/revisions\/40802245656"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802245608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802245586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802245586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}