Yesterday’s Monmouth Iowa poll rightly received a lot of attention due to Pete’s continued momentum in Iowa.
Also released to much lesser fanfare was the University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll so I wanted to share that data and specifically highlight how 2 dark horse candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard fared and what this data may suggest.
First, methodology and poll background:
- U of Iowa is a B/C rated pollster by 538
- Polled respondents equally from all 4 Congressional districts from 10/28-11/10, so a slightly wider time range than most polls
- 1288 registered voters (2.8% MoE), 538 possible Dem caucus goers (4.3% MoE), 465 likely Dem caucus goers (4.6% MoE)
- Random sample included 40% landlines and 60% cell phones
- 50% registered Dems, 25% registered Reps, 25% no affiliation
- Reported results are weighted by age, sex, education, party registration, and congressional district.
1st choice preference for somewhat likely or very likely caucus goers:
Warren 23.1
Sanders 18.1
Buttigieg 15.5
Biden 15.3
Don’t know/refused 12.9
Yang 3.4
Gabbard 3.1
Steyer 2.7
Harris 2.4
Klobuchar 1.3
Castro 1.2
Less than 1: Booker, Bennet, Bullock, etc
After accounting for MoE, those results generally align with conventional wisdom. Where things get far more interesting is commitment to caucus for one’s 1st choice preference among likely or very likely caucus goers:
Candidate |
strongly committed to 1st choice |
narrowed to a few candidates |
total % |
Warren |
22.4% |
30.2% |
27.2% |
Sanders |
21.6% |
20.8% |
21.1% |
Biden |
19.7% |
14% |
16.2% |
Yang |
10.9% |
0% |
4.2% |
Buttigieg |
10.2% |
17.6% |
14.7% |
Gabbard |
7.8% |
1.3% |
3.8% |
Harris |
3.1% |
1.8% |
2.3% |
steyer |
1.9% |
2.7% |
2.4% |
Klobuchar |
1.1% |
1.2% |
1.2% |
Castro |
.7% |
1.9% |
1.4% |
bennet |
.4% |
0% |
.2% |
Delaney |
.2% |
0% |
.1% |
booker |
0% |
.8% |
.5% |
O’Rourke |
0% |
.3% |
.2% |
Bullock |
0% |
.2% |
.1% |
don’t know/refused |
0% |
7.2% |
4.4% |
total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Yang and Gabbard’s performance on this metric suggests that their group of supporters are virtually locked in, which is rare given that upwards of 75% Iowans apparently have not yet firmly committed to a candidate according to many Iowa polls. A candidate is doing something right if all of their supporters are 100% behind them, and this current 6.5% bloc may play an important role in determining the ultimate caucus winner in February.
And if either Yang or Tulsi gains significantly more support over the winter, the current 4-way race can easily become a 5-way battle and really open up the primary process (I’m a Yang supporter so I’m naturally biased but this data suggests that a groundwork for breaking through is potentially there).
I am surprised that Bernie’s firm support # wasn’t a bit higher here and that Biden’s wasn’t a bit lower.
While Warren garnered the most 1st choice preferences and the most firmly committed support, she also has the most supporters who could jump ship.
Pete’s numbers reveal a similar trend, which gives credence to the interpretation that Warren and Pete are actually fighting over many of the same voters, despite running in ‘progressive’ vs ‘moderate’ lanes. If this is true, Pete’s “It’ll be down to me and Elizabeth” prediction could be a major campaign strategy miscalculation and Iowa may play an outsized role in determining which of these two has a clearer path forward and which will face a bumpier ride.
2nd choice preference data (among very likely and somewhat likely caucus goers):
Warren 23.6
Don’t know/refused 19.3
Sanders 16.1
Buttigieg 11
Harris 7.9
Biden 7.2
Klobuchar 5.8
Castro 2.4
Booker 2.1
Steyer 1.5
O’Rourke .9
Bullock .8
Yang .7
Gabbard .3
Delaney .3
Bennet .1
There is a big split between 1st choice preference for Biden and those who have him as a backup while some other candidates fare much better in the ‘being considered, rather than chosen’ metric (Harris, Klobuchar, Castro, Booker).
And the 2 candidates who have the firmest 1st choice support (Yang & Tulsi) have definitely not broken through with the wider electorate. Is it due to lack of name recognition or that the distinctness of their platform has excluded them from the consideration of many?
Lastly, as a follow-up to 1st choice preference, voters were asked whether it was their candidate’s perceived ability to beat Trump or whether it was similar policies preferences that most contributed to their decision (I’ve only highlighted what I thought was most interesting):
candidate |
beats trump |
similar policies preferences |
warren |
11.7% |
29.9% |
sanders |
16.6% |
20.1% |
buttigieg |
22.7% |
12.3% |
Biden |
27.1% |
9.6% |
yang |
0% |
5.3% |
Gabbard |
1.7% |
3.4% |
Biden and Buttigieg are leaning into heavily into electability despite potential incongruity with voter ideology, which can be a mixed bag given a candidate’s lack of overt control over media narratives regarding electability. Any subsequent rise or fall could be swift and catch either campaign off-guard.
Overall Takeaways
Biden is steady — this data doesn’t suggest he will win Iowa but his campaign appears to already be banking on finishing 2nd or 3rd, which appears very plausible and would set up the rest of their electoral strategy.
I want to see more data on Pete. But at this point in time, his top-line numbers may not be as strong as they initially appear, which makes sense for a candidate on the rise. He obviously has time and momentum on his side, but those can be fickle and turn on a dime.
Meanwhile, Warren may need to work more on making her ‘electability’ case to Iowans. While she is the front-runner in this poll, her voters are also considering other candidates to the largest degree and she has the most 2nd choice preferences for supporters of other candidates.
Overall, it feels like a lot of movement can happen for Warren between now and the caucus. I can see a path where she runs away with the state but can equally envision her falling to 4th, depending on what the next few months hold.
And I think Warren, and not Biden, will suffer the most if Pete continues his ascent and vice versa if Pete fades. 2nd or a close 3rd probably the safest bet right now but my interpretation is that her position in Iowa is far from firm.
Sanders appears to potentially be in a good spot, with a balance between those who think he can win in 2020 and those who agree with his policies. And one can make the case that he would be most likely to benefit from those firmly committed Yang and Tulsi caucus goers if/when those supporters become free agents on caucus night.
If I had to bet real dollars today, I’d go against the grain and pick Bernie to win Iowa and then lose New Hampshire due to these dynamics.
Lastly, I believe there’s a lot of positive news for Yang and Tulsi. While every poll is a single snapshot in time, the data here suggests that if somebody else is going to leap into contender status, it could be Yang or Gabbard (rather than Harris, Klobuchar, Steyer, or Booker) since they already have a small but locked in base and can solely focus on gaining new supporters.
I’m biased but if I’m choosing which one from this group of 6 will make an impactful surge in Iowa, I’d bet on Yang. This would require monumental scaling up for Yang or Tulsi’s campaigns. But a lot can happen in 3 months (Warren was around 7-8% in Iowa in the spring and Pete was 7-8% in late summer). Remember, Yang was never supposed to get this far and Tulsi’s campaign had been on life support after missing the September debate but here we are.
Agree? Disagree? Did I bungle my interpretation? I’d love to hear your thoughts on what I found to be a fascinating poll.