New Poll Shows Biden, Sanders, and Warren Tied At The Top Of Democratic Field
A new poll shows Joe Biden dropping significantly among national Democrats to the point where he is effectively tied with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
A new poll from Monmouth University of the national race for the Democratic nomination shows what could be a significant development in the race for the nomination:
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have surged to tie with Joe Biden atop the Democratic presidential field, according to a poll that suggests the three are solidifying their status as the top tier in the massive field.
The Monmouth University poll, released Monday, shows Sanders and Warren deadlocked among Democratic voters at 20 percent, with Biden a point behind, at 19 percent. No other candidate cracks double digits: Kamala Harris is in fourth place, at 8 percent.
Compared with the Monmouth poll in June, Sanders has ticked up 6 points, and Warren 5 points. Biden dropped 13 points, from 32 percent in June.
The poll shows Biden’s slippage coming across the Democratic electorate, rather than from a specific demographic or ideological group. He is down 14 points among white and nonwhite voters. He’s down 14 points among men, and 13 points among women. He’s down 15 points among voters younger than 50 years old, and 9 percent among voters 50 and older.
Biden also slipped 18 points among Democratic voters who described themselves as moderate or conservative, and 9 points among self-identified liberals.
“The main takeaway from this poll is that the Democratic race has become volatile,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “Liberal voters are starting to cast about for a candidate they can identify with. Moderate voters, who have been paying less attention, seem to be expressing doubts about Biden. But they are swinging more toward one of the left-leaning contenders with high name recognition rather than toward a lesser known candidate who might be more in line with them politically.”
The Monmouth poll is the first major national poll all year to show a candidate other than Biden in the lead. It differs from some surveys conducted over similar time periods. A CNN/SSRS national poll, conducted Aug. 15-18, showed Biden at 29 percent, significantly ahead of Sanders (15 percent) and Warren (14 percent).
The Monmouth poll, which was conducted Aug. 16-20, surveyed 298 Democratic voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.
Aside from the top three candidates — plus Harris in fourth place — no other candidate earns 5 percent support. Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg are at 4 percent, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang is at 3 percent. Tying for eighth place at 2 percent are Julián Castro, Beto O’Rourke and Marianne Williamson.
One of the biggest factors that this poll measures that appears to account for most of Biden’s 13 point drop can be found in the poll demographics, where support for the former Vice-President dropped from 20% in the previous Monmouth poll to 6% in the poll. The puzzling thing about the drop, though, is that it’s unclear exactly what the cause of it could be, especially given the fact that, other than the YouGov poll, all of the other recent polling seems to show Biden maintaining a strong lead over the rest of the field while Warren, Sanders, and Harris were battling it out for second place. Yes, it’s true we’ve seen a few minor gaffes from the former Vice-President in that time but none of them have been that significant nor have they received the kind of coverage in the media that would account for a drop like this. Additionally, while we have seen Warren and Sanders rising in the polls, there’s nothing from the headlines that would appear to account for what appears to be such a radical change in the state of the race. This is why we should wait to see what other polling has to say before jumping to any conclusions.
In addition to this poll, there are three other polls that have been released since the last time we looked at the national polling just about a week ago:
- The latest Economist/YouGov poll is largely consistent with the Monmouth poll in that it shows former Vice-President Biden at 22%. followed by Senator Sanders at 19%, Senator Warren at 18%, Senator Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg tied at 8%, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke at 3%, Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard tied at 2%, and all other candidates at or below 1%;
- The latest CNN poll has Biden at 29%, Sanders at 15%, Warren at 14%, Harris and Buttigieg tied at 5%, O’Rourke at 3%, Booker tied at 2% with Julian Castro and Tulsi Gabbard, and all other candidates at or under 1%; and finally,
- The latest Politico/Morning Consult poll shows Biden at 31%, Sanders at 20%, Warren at 13%, Harris at 9%, Buttigieg at 5%, O’Rourke, Booker, and Andrew Yang tied at 3%, and all other candidates at or under 1%
Harry Enten at CNN tries to put all these new polls into perspective:
So does Monmouth’s poll mark a turning point in the Democratic race for president? Or is this merely an outlier that later polls won’t back up? My inclination is to say that it’s an outlier and to pay attention to the average, though the truth is that we just don’t know.
Let’s place the Monmouth poll into context of what other polls have found.If you average Monmouth’s poll with the three other high-quality national polls taken this month from CNN/SSRS, Fox News and Quinnipiac University, you get a clear Biden lead: Biden at 28%, Warren 19% and Sanders 14%..When you break it down further, you see that Monmouth did not poll at a vastly later date than others or among a different set of voters.
Monmouth conducted its poll on August 16-20 among voters who say they are Democrats and independents who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.
Interestingly enough, CNN did its own poll of the race August 15-18 among this same defined group. Unlike Monmouth, CNN put Biden up with 29% to Sanders’ 15% and Warren’s 14%.
The CNN poll looks a lot more like other polls of the race taken this month when it comes to Biden. Fox News was in the field from August 11-13 (within a week of the Monmouth and CNN polls) and showed Biden at 31%, Warren 20% and Sanders 10%. Unlike CNN and Monmouth, Fox didn’t preassign voters to the Democratic primary based on party identification. Instead, they asked all voters which primary they’d vote in.
Fox News’ poll mirrors a Quinnipiac University poll taken from August1-4. Done among the same subset of voters (Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents) as CNN and Monmouth, Quinnipiac found Biden 32%, Warren 21% and Sanders at 14%.
You’ll note that in all of these other polls, Biden’s doing at least 10 points better than he was doing in the Monmouth poll. It seems unlikely to me that Biden lost so much ground within the two-day period of CNN ending its own poll.
Still, as Enten notes there are still reasons to believe the Monmouth poll may be accurate:
First, the only real difference between Monmouth’s poll and others is that Biden is down. The Monmouth results for Sanders and Warren are within the margin of error of the other polls. Warren’s at 20% or 21% in three of these four polls listed above, and the one poll she isn’t at 20% or 21% has her within the margin of error of 20%. Sanders’ average across the four polls is 15%, and each poll result has him within the margin of error of that average.
Second, there are other polls that don’t meet CNN’s standards that show similar results to the Monmouth poll. While we don’t report on those polls for a slew of reasons, it does suggest there is a universe in which Biden isn’t doing as well as well as some other polls have found.
Third, Monmouth is a very good pollster. Maybe Biden really has lost a lot of ground or maybe he wasn’t that strong as other high-quality polls have found. After all, Warren does seem to be generating a lot of enthusiasm (see her crowd in Seattle).
All of this has resulted in some big changes in the RealClearPolitics average:
- Joe Biden — 27.2%
- Bernie Sanders — 16.7%
- Elizabeth Warren — 16.2%
- Kamala Harris — 7.5%
- Pete Buttigieg — 4.8%
- Beto O’Rourke — 2.8%
- Cory Booker — 2.5%
- Andrew Yang — 2.0%
- Julian Castro — 1.5%
- Tulsi Gabbard — 1.3%
- Amy Klobuchar — 1.2%
- All other candidates averaging at or under 1%.
The update RealClearPolitics chart also shows a shift in the race based on the new poll numbers:
Thanks to the fact that both this Monmouth poll and the YouGov poll are included in the calculation of the average, the drop in Biden’s numbers is apparent. Also apparent is what appears to be the continued fading of Kamala Harris to the point where she appears to be sinking into second-tier status just ahead of Pete Buttigieg. Beyond that, Booker and O’Rourke continue to barely hang on above 2% while the rest of the field languishes below 2%. Absent some major changes, this suggests that the race for much of the fall will be focused on a contest between Biden, Sanders, and Warren for the top three spots in the race, while Harris and Buttigieg continue to cling on to their second-tier spots. For the rest of the candidates, the numbers appear to be mostly bad news since they reflect the growing consensus that these candidates should follow the lead of the several candidates we saw drop out of the race last week. With ABC set to announce eligibility for the third debate later this week, I wouldn’t be surprised to see many of the candidates drop out of the race before or immediately after Labor Day next Monday.
As for the change at the top of the race, as I said we’ll have to wait for additional polling to see if it also reflects this new reality. If it does, then we will have entered a new and potentially significant part of the race that could define the entire race from now until next June when the final primaries are held. If it isn’t, then that suggests that this poll is most likely an outlier and the race really isn’t that much different from where it has been for most of the summer. In any case, with 162 days to go until the Iowa Caucuses things appear to be getting interesting to say the least.
Update: This post was updated to add the analysis from Harry Enten.
Update 8/27/2019: The new Morning Consult poll suggests strongly that the Monmouth poll is an outlier.
It’s beginning to look like Warren, to me.
I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not, but I’m betting she would make Trump look like a fool on the debate stage…if he indeed had the balls to show up, which I doubt.
I will be voting in the Illinois Democratic primary March 17, 2020.
If these three are the top contenders I can’t say today who will get my mark.
Bernard Sanders is not even a Democrat. But then neither am I.
Elizabeth Ann Warren’s DNA episode does not instill confidence in me that she has the best of judgement.
Joseph Robinette Biden is only 5 years older than me. I can sympathize with the gaffes as I will often forget what I am thinking about from one second to the next. However I am not looking to have the nuclear code on my nightstand.
I have not spent a lot of time pondering this as I know I will vote for the Democratic Party candidate in November.
Even if it’s Bernie or Elizabeth or Joe.
If found the Net Favorability of the Monmouth poll interesting.
They measured Net Favorability on 5 separate occasions from from Jan ’19 through Aug ’19.
Following are January Net Favorables compared to the current (August).
Warren: +40 (Jan), +52 (Aug) for a 12 point gain throughout the year
Biden: +71 and +41, for a 30 point decline
Sanders: +49 and +40, for a 9 point decline
Harris: +30 and +39 for a 9 point gain
Booker: +33 and +35 for a 2 point gain
Beto: +32 and +19 for a 13 point decline
Buttigieg: +2 and +29 for a 27 point gain
Woo-hoo! So we may get rid of one protectionist loon in favor of another. But a liberal protectionist loon, so it’s all OK. They’re better than Trump, I guess, but if anyone is going to finish the job Trump started of plunging us into Great Depression 2.0, it’s Warren or Sanders.
I dunno. It might be that Warren has hit her natural cap, or we might see another surge, that will take her back to the previous trendline. I’m leaning that it will be the second, but who really knows? She was not really my pick coming into this election, but she’s growing on me.
Of the three Sanders is my least favored, due to not being a Democrat.
@Hal_10000: at least with Warren or Sanders you can present either of them with data as to why a policy is wrong and you can expect a change of mind. With Trump you never can.
Elizabeth Warren’s massive crowds are only getting bigger.
@Daryl and his brother Darryl: Stupid spin, reminds me of the sort of comment made around debates with Hillary.
You lot continue to underestimate Trump, for God’s sake four years on, the self-deception…. He is a sh*t* manager and president, but marketer and campaigner, you’re up against a natural master.
Bloody get serious.
@Lounsbury:
And how are you lot doing with BoJo?
Trump is not ten feet tall. His feet are nailed to a 42% approval rating despite a strong economy. He has ever reached 50%. Ever.
He has marketing skills, but not that are relevant to anyone outside his cult of personality. His act is old and tired. I certainly intend to take him seriously, but it’s no better to over-estimate your opponent than to underestimate him. I’ve gotten in more trouble from overestimating people’s intelligence and competence than from underestimating.
@michael reynolds: I’ve repeated this anecdote ad nauseum: After the 1960 election someone told Bobby Kennedy he was a genius, and he replied “Change 60,000 votes and I’m a bum.”
Much of the reason people ascribe all these incredible powers to Trump is simply the fact that he won unexpectedly, even though it was by the barest of margins. Just a slight shift in the vote, and nobody would be talking about him this way. Even if he had lost narrowly to Clinton instead of winning narrowly, he’d quickly have been remembered as one of the most incompetent and ridiculous candidates in history. That’s the way people process elections: whoever just makes it past that finish line is seen as the most brilliant political mastermind the world has ever seen, and anyone who just falls short (even if that person wins the popular vote) is seen as a bumbling fool. It’s really absurd, but the narratives that enter the history books are almost always post-hoc rationalizations that exaggerate the political acumen of the winners and the political ineptitude of the losers. In Trump’s case, he’s built an entire mythology around this effect. It’s an illusion, but it’s one built deeply into our political culture.
You sound as ridiculous as the Never Trumpers trying to tell Democrats who they should vote for…it’s awfully funny how progressives get such grief when we don’t even know what would happen if they put their policies into effect and, on top of that, much of what they want to do wouldn’t even receive enough votes in Congress so it’s a moot point…and there is no guessing about it, both of these candidates, as well as any of the legitimate Democratic contenders, would be far better than the trash in the White House…
And who do you think would be the right candidate to beat Trump, hmm?
Well, by winning the White House, he’ll now be remembered as one of the most incompetent and ridiculous presidents in American history…
@Kylopod: James Carville said he remembered being in his early forties and he lost with every candidate he worked for and he was broke and considered a failure, then he signed on with Clinton and Clinton won and suddenly he’s a genius.
@An Interested Party:
Good point. The only thing I’d quarrel with is your “one of the” phrasing.
@michael reynolds:
It also important to note that what Trump was selling in 2016 is no longer marketable in 2020.
Trump’s pitch was he alone would solve the country’s problems – he was the builder that would put up a wall and the businessman who would negotiate deals like only a master could. Coal mines would flourish and small town industry would reignite. His base bought the snake oil and they’ve even convinced themselves that it works. But for all those who thought it was worth giving Trump a chance, what’s Trump got to sell that any of those people won’t know isn’t worth a thing?
@Teve:
Pretty much the same idea.
@Kylopod:
I’d quarrel with the “president” designation.
History is wide open into the future. Who knows what other clown might be elected who will be worse yet?
A class mate back in high school liked to say “There may be limits to human intelligence, but human stupidity knows no bounds.”
@Teve:
While it’s a good story, and much like the Bobby Kennedy one, I don’t think that’s true. Carville had at least 2 winning campaigns in PA before Clinton, Bob Casey Sr. for governor in 1986 and Harris Wofford for Senate in 1991 (after John Heinz’s death). In the Casey campaign, he coined the (entirely accurate) description of Pennsylvania (“There’s Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in between”).
Wikipedia mentions a couple of others big successes as well.
True…it takes a lot to make James Buchanan look good by comparison…
@An Interested Party:
There may have been worse presidents than Trump, but I don’t think there’s ever been one remotely as ridiculous.
@Grumpy realist:
Really? Because all the data are telling them that protectionist tariffs are bad and they’re still doing it. All the data are telling Sanders that we need nuclear power to fight global warming and he still opposes it. Watching both of them, they use data the way a drunk uses a lamp post — for support, not illumination.
Warren released a video and blog post this weekend that was stunning economic ignorance. Stunning in that I would never expect such a thing from the supposedly Smartest Candidate in America. Under the guidelines she is proposing, we would not be able to do trade with Germany, for crying out loud. You could scrub her name off it, put Trump’s on it and no one would tell the difference, other than that people would be blasting it as woefully backward in its thinking.
@Moosebreath: I heard the story 15+ years ago so I’m sure I’m misremembering the details. It’s still a good story 😀
@Hal_10000:
I was stunned by it. I am also stunned by the lack of understanding by many Dems to the reality of midwestern males, urban women or color, white women without a college degree, and men of color.
I’m going to vote for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who it is. I did in 1996 and 2000. I did in 2004. I did in 2008, 2012, and 2016. I’m about 50% in voting for winners since 1996. I will fully expect to lose if Warren is the nominee, but I will vote for her, and even donate money to her campaign.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, and I hope I’m completely wrong. But I believe Trump beats Warren and Bernie easily in the Electoral College.
Someone in another thread wondered aloud why, I think it was Mayor Pete or Warren, was having a AA enthusiasm problem when they had released a plan (about something of AA interest). Policy to the average voter functions merely as a pithy dating profile caption. It’s gets people’s attention longer but you still have to close the deal by making someone feel connected to you.
You guys/gals shit on Trump…but that fat orange muthfkr is a maestro at making people feel connected and bonded with him. You can’t trot out some plan and expect the same results…Trumps lifestyle and entertainment career has brought him into contact with ALOT of different types of people. Before his Presidential run does anybody doubt that you could drop Trump into any social setting with any number of demographics and he wouldn’t easily find the right angle to get some laughs going and funny stories to work the room?
Obama was the same way and so was Bill Clinton. These men spent time with people nothing like themselves and learned their mannerisms, dialects, idioms, etc to easily for connections when addressing and appealing to those people.
It’s pretty clear that non of the front runners save Biden have that ability. I don’t know their histories but that’s usually due to lack of social experience with diverse groups of people. That alone is why enthusiasm in the General will suffer.
@Jim Brown 32:
The only one in the current field that I have any real animus towards is Bernie. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to run for the Democratic Party Nomination for President without being a member of the Democratic Party.
Having said that, my belief that Warren (nor Buttegeig or Bernie or Amy or Cory or Kamala) can’t win 270 is my travels around the country and seeing first hand how Democrats in Houston, and Pompano Beach, and Atlanta, and Milwaukee, and Pontiac are very different than those in Seattle, LA, NYC, Miami, and Austin.
Some Candidates won’t win those Democrats who consider themselves Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative.
@Jim Brown 32:
Warren has the history — poor family, worked her way up the ladder, etc. I think she hasn’t shown it that much until relatively recently since women have to be professional to be respected. But since the DNA debacle, she’s been letting her Okie show, and she’s less a passionate ideologue, and more a passionate person.
Your mileage may vary
But Hillary Clinton ran as a cold fish, and nearly won. So, I don’t have the same sense of doom and gloom about Warren — she’s more personable and more comfortable than Hillary Clinton.
If she gets the nomination and loses the general, it will likely be that she is too far to the left, and people are frightened of change. A devil-you-know situation.
America may well want a boring caretaker president.
@EddieInCA:
There have been many studies on this. Those voters are by far the smallest combo in the population, far outnumbered by the reverse–socially conservative, economically populist voters. In fact the latter was a major part of where Trump’s appeal came from in 2016. The notion of a silent majority of fiscally conservative, culturally liberal voters who tilt the balance between elections is a media myth, something that media elites cling to because it fits their own ideological preferences.
@Gustopher:
Name one election where that way of thinking has led to a winning candidate.
@Moosebreath:
Both stories might be apocryphal. (The RFK one is quoted by Bob Shrum in the book Electing the President, about the 2000 race.) I don’t think it matters whether they happened or not; the point is that they are both insightful observations about the way American political culture looks back at elections.
@Hal_10000:
Bullshit.
Warren listed nine preconditions that countries must meet to qualify for a trade agreement with the US.
One of which Germany doesn’t meet.
But guess what?
* The US doesn’t meet at least two.
* There currently isn’t any comprehensive trade agreement between the US and the EU and still there’s trade between the US and EU member states (of which Germany is one).
In other words, your claim that the the US “would not be able to do trade with Germany” is wrong.
But it gets worse.
Because let’s imagine for a second that the US comes to the table with an offer to tighten its domestic labor and environmental standards. At present, these are pretty abysmal compared to the EU’s, giving US companies a significant competitive advantage.
In that case, the EU would obviously be willing to give up something in return. And Warren simply set out which thing she would ask.
But let’s think this through even further. Imagine the US and EU coming together and both demanding tighter environmental standards from third countries in exchange for market access. Even China would have to play ball.
Who knows, we might even save the planet!
This, my dude, is what global leadership looks like.
But because it’s not a “free market solution,” you think you can dismiss it by using a glib and factually incorrect talking point.
Try harder next time.
I posted an update this morning with the latest results from the weekly Politico/Morning Consult poll, which shows Biden with a 13 point lead over Sanders and Sanders with a 5 point lead over Warren. This is consistent with other polling and suggests strongly that the Monmouth poll is an outlier.
@Jim Brown 32:
I’m guessing you mean me, but this is way off from what I said. Another person in the thread said that Buttigieg had stated that he “didn’t need” AA votes. I asked what the heck they were talking about, that he is working hard to secure those votes and had released a pretty specific plan that has been pretty well received for its scope, recognition, and means of addressing systemic racism.
It wasn’t a “hey why does he have an enthusiasm problem, he’s released a *plan*.” That would truly be an eye-rolling comment, but for the fact that I didn’t make it.
@EddieInCA:
So, 5 months before the first voting, you’d remove from consideration every viable candidate, except for Biden? (I’m guessing you would have included Castro, O’Rourke and Yang had you not tired of typing.) And you’d eliminate all but Biden because you’ve met some people while gadding about the country who you are convinced would rather see Trump as president for another 4 years than vote for their social interests over their fiscal interests? And you are sure they would vote this way ignoring that Trump isn’t fiscally conservative (cough, trade war, cough) while also ignoring, of course, that Klobuchar, Booker and Buttigieg are quite moderate fiscally and Warren isn’t the radical you are making her out to be?
Geez, it is way too early to be shackling yourself to a 76 year old white man.
@Scott F.:
Indeed. While living in or working on campaigns in Indianapolis, Houston, Charleston, Denver, Minneapolis, Duluth, Bismarck, Fargo, Sioux Falls, San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento, Reno, Eugene, Portland, Seattle, and Spokane, my experience with Democrats was much different than Eddie’s.
While it’s true that Democrats from rural/non-coastal states are a bit different than democrats from coastal states, 1) they aren’t all that different and 2) the difference seems to be that non-coastal Dems have a pretty open mind right now about who could garner their support, and most just want to see Trump gone, whereas in my experience blue state coastal Dems are much quicker to dismiss a candidate because of a singular issue–Biden’s too old, Buttigieg didn’t handle the police shooting well, Kamala’s a cop, Sanders isn’t actually a Dem*, etc. I would have trouble saying which candidate is the ‘top’ among rural/non-coastal dems, and it really depends on where and to whom you are talking.
That’s not to say that Eddie’s perceptions are false, or that mine are true. It’s really hard to figure out the national mood through your own experiences. Working in southeastern Indiana, I found a lot of support for Sanders in rural counties surrounding Cincinnati. But I would not be surprised at all if voters in rural counties surrounding, say, Minneapolis, don’t give a fig about Sanders. Warren hits it off with steelworks in West Virginia, fails to connect with similar people in Flint.** There doesn’t seem to be patterns of support emerging. I think this far out from Iowa, and with this many candidates in the field, it’s next to impossible to say who can and cannot win.
*Ok, that one is fair.
**Made up scenario. I have no idea how the good people of Flint feel about Warren, or any other candidate.
What Neil said.
@Jen: I believe Jim Brown is referring to me, and I did make that comment. Regardless of the existence of Buttigieg’s plan, there is videotape of him telling a group of AA women (no less) that he doesn’t need them. No matter how you slice it or how much it was misinterpreted, yada yada, that cost him a bunch of good will and support. Add that to the fact that he fired a black police chief and was away campaigning during another police shooting & its aftermath, and it doesn’t matter how many plans he has – he’s not walking the walk.
Will I vote for him, should he win the nomination? You bet. But I imagine the reason he has released a plan in the first place (he’s no Warren) is because he has problems with polling among AAs.
@EddieInCA: I’m pretty well traveled myself and would agree. Coastal echo chambers are deceiving.
@Jen: Ok, I stand corrected then.
@Blue Galangal: Mayor Pete is a thoughtful and intelligent man. Clearly doesn’t have alot of social reps with people unlike himself. It shows.
Clearly not ready for the big stage.
@Jim Brown 32:
You know what’s also deceiving? Believing being “well traveled” makes you an expert on public opinion, more qualified to describe the general public than actual studies of the public:
“The study breaks down voters into four quadrants, defined by both social and economic liberalism. But virtually everybody falls into three quadrants: socially liberal/economically liberal; socially conservative/economically conservative; and socially conservative/economically liberal. The fourth quadrant, socially liberal/economically conservative, is empty…. [T]he truth is that the underrepresented cohort in American politics is the opposite of libertarians: people with right-wing social views who support big government on the economy.”