Mediaboss Marketing

With the Iowa caucuses less than one week away, the 2020 Democratic primary is beginning to come into focus six new polls paint a vivid picture of whos in good shape before the first contest.

Nationally, former Vice President Joe Biden has been the frontrunner since before he announced his candidacy last April, and the latest national polls show him still topping the field, with a January Fox News poll finding he has 26 percent support, and a January ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 28 percent support.

But both polls found this lead to be threatened by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has remained in second place in national polling averages since last November.

For much of late 2019, RealClearPolitics polling average showed Biden and Sanders separated by about 10 percentage points, but the former vice presidents lead has begun to narrow. Fox News latest poll puts Sanders directly below Biden at 23 percent support within that surveys 3 percentage point margin of error. Similarly, the ABC poll finds Sanders enjoying 24 percent support, again making Bidens lead within the polls 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

These polls give good insight into how voters outside the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are thinking about the candidates right now, but those opinions may change dramatically after the results of the first contests, particularly if the margins are stark in the final results.

Biden and Sanderss strong national showings dont mean they will win the nomination. At this point in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead on Sanders in polling averages, but only narrowly won Iowa and was defeated by the senator in Vermont. And President Trump, who had a nearly 15 percentage point lead on Sen. Ted Cruz, narrowly lost Iowa to the senator.

So while these national polls are somewhat instructive, it is important to remember that before Biden and Sanders can worry about Super Tuesday states, they and all their fellow candidates have to first make it out of Iowa.

In Iowa, the latest polls reveal momentum for Sanders, but also suggest the race is still very open, with Biden, Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg forming a clear top tier, one that Sen. Amy Klobuchar could be poised to join.

Three of the four latest Iowa polls have Sanders as the caucuses frontrunner: An Emerson College poll puts his support at 30 percent; a New York Times/Siena College poll places him at 25 percent, and a CBS News/YouGov poll puts him at 26 percent. Biden leads in the fourth poll, from Suffolk University/USA Today, with 25.4 percent.

Biden is second in two of the polls led by Sanders (21 percent in Emerson College, and 25 percent in the CBS survey); Buttigieg is second in the Times poll, with 18 percent support. The CBS and Suffolk polls put the former mayor in third place; the Emerson poll in fourth. Warren is fourth in every poll, except for the Emerson survey, in which she is essentially tied with Buttigieg.

That tie is a telling one, as are most of the gaps between the candidates. Take the New York Times/Siena college poll for example, which has a margin of error of 3.9.

When that margin of error is taken into account, the frontrunner becomes less clear. Sanderss 25 percent support could be more like 21.1 percent support, and if thats the case, it could make Biden or Buttigieg the true frontrunner, and leave Klobuchar who was found to have 8 percent support ending the caucuses with backing that is more like 11.9 percent.

This isnt to say that Sienas pollsters or any others who have recently released results are wrong, but that the race is still very close.

Adding to the uncertainty are three things: the fact that many respondents told pollsters their choices arent set in stone, that second choices can be as (or more) important as first choices in Iowa, and that three key candidates Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar havent been able to campaign recently.

Emersons pollsters found 38 percent of Iowa Democrats and independents arent yet sure how theyll caucus, a number large enough that could make or break someones campaign. Suffolks survey found similar results, with 45 percent saying they have a candidate they favor, but that they could still change their minds; and 13 percent said that, with days to go before the caucuses, they still arent even leaning toward one person in particular.

The good news for Sanders and Warren is that their supporters seem to be relatively locked in: Suffolk found about 60 percent of their current supporters said they are sure to caucus for them. About half 53 percent of Bidens supporters said they are committed to him. Buttigieg had a 48 percent commitment rate, and Klobuchar, 42 percent. The other polls showed similar results, with Warren and Sanders supporters being the most steadfast.

Iowas system of assessing candidate viability makes Iowans second choices of great importance essentially, Iowans who caucus for any candidate who does not receive at least 15 percent support in a given district are asked to caucus for their second choice.

Warren was the top second choice in the New York Times poll; Biden in the CBS survey. But its important to look at where that second choice support is coming from for instance, many of the polls found that Sanders supporters overwhelmingly said Warren is their second choice. But given recent polls, it seems unlikely that Sanders will fail to clear the 15 percent mark, meaning his caucusgoers will not be required to throw their support elsewhere.

Instead, the backers of candidates like entrepreneur Andrew Yang (whose support polled between 1 and 5 percent in these most recent surveys), or even Klobuchar, could make all the difference.

The New York Times and Emerson surveys found that most Klobuchar backers like Biden as a second choice which makes sense, given both occupy a moderate lane in the race. Emerson found 39 percent of Klobuchar supporters have Biden as their second choice; the New York Times put that number at 55 percent.

As is the case with the candidates in general, however, it isnt clear how set in stone these second choices really are. Suffolks pollsters asked likely caucusgoers who said they dont support any of that surveys top five candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar who they would support if they had to choose from one of those five. And 75 percent said they had no idea.

They have less than a week to figure it out. And theyll have to do so without the benefit of direct interactions with the candidates all the sitting senators currently running are taking part in the Senate impeachment trial. Some candidates have expressed concern that the fact they cant do any last-minute campaigning will hurt them Sanders, for instance has told reporters, I would rather be in Iowa today. ... Id rather be in New Hampshire and Nevada and so forth.

But Suffolks work found the senators might not have anything to worry about: 88 percent of likely caucusgoers said the senators not being on the ground wont affect how they caucus; only 5.2 percent said, I expect candidates to be in Iowa to earn my vote.

All this means that no one candidate at least among those in the top tier has a clear overall advantage against the others in Iowa. Any one of them could win. Or a number of them could win, with one taking home the most delegates, another taking the popular vote, and a third dominating headlines for doing far better than expected. But for whoever does come out on top, Iowa will only be step one: A close race means every early contest matters in developing an electability narrative, and New Hampshires primary is up next.

Polls show Sanders as the current strongest candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he seems to be closing in on Biden nationally. But Biden isnt exactly polling poorly in either of those first two states, and he has habitually topped polls in South Carolina, where voters will go to the polls at the end of February.

Warren has fallen from her perch atop the polls, but is a popular second choice and she is racking up endorsements, like the coveted Des Moines Register endorsement she received Saturday. Buttigieg has also seen his support shrink from its late 2019 heights, but he is holding on particularly in New Hampshire. And Klobuchar is making late gains in both Iowa and New Hampshire, now nearly cracking double digits in poll averages in each state.

Yang is also seeing something of a late rise not enough to break into the top tier, but one that will put him back on the Democratic debate stage ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is eschewing the early states in the hopes of raking in a massive delegate haul on Super Tuesday, is showing signs his strategy may be working: The latest national polls had favorable results, pushing the relative newcomer to the race up to a polling average of 8 percent.

All of this is to say, as primary season gets underway, that the race could still shake out in a number of unexpected ways.

Original post:
Iowa caucuses: Whos leading the polls ahead of the first Democratic primary contest - Vox.com

Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera said Democrats allegations against President Trump in the impeachment trial are probably true but dont amount to a crime.

I believe that everything the Democrats allege is probably true. Everything they allege. I concede everything that the Democrats allege, except the hunting of the ambassador, Rivera told Mediaite in an interview published Tuesday.

I believe that the whole effort to get Ukraine to investigate Biden was seedy. None of it was criminal. If there was a crime, they would have spelled it out. I firmly believe no crime, no conviction in the impeachment trial, he added.

Still, Rivera, who has known Trump for decades, echoed the presidents attacks on impeachment, referring to it as a witch hunt.

I didnt vote for him last time, and I may not vote for [him] this time. But Ill be damned if Im going to let the Democrats get away with what I consider to be a very lame and hypocritical and partisan witch hunt, he said.

I totally agree with him that he is being and has been from the first second of his tenure hounded and harangued and harassed and hunted by the hypocritical Democrats who all assume high ground that they dont deserve because they had it out for him since the second he won the election, Rivera continued.

The House impeached Trump in December, alleging he abused his power when he sought to press Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.

Amid the Senate trial, Trumps former national security adviser John Boltons forthcoming book sent shock waves through Washington. A manuscript of the book said Trump made security aid to Ukraine conditional on an investigation into Biden.

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued Monday that the president did nothing wrong.

"If the president, any president, were to have done what the Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense," he said.

See original here:
Geraldo Rivera: 'Everything the Democrats allege' about Trump 'is probably true' - Washington Examiner

Over the course of the last two years, I've traveled across the country meeting with some of the biggest donors in Democratic politics. As the leader of an organization working to win Democratic control of statehouses ahead of redistricting, it has been my job to urge our party's biggest funders to not fall into the same trap Democrats that fell into in 2010.

That year Democrats collectively sat on our hands while Republicans invested roughly $30 million into down ballot races, won control of two-thirds of state legislatures across the country, and gerrymandered themselves into dozens of congressional seats for the next decade.

Nevertheless, many of our party's biggest funders have repeatedly told me that they are singularly focused on defeating Trump this election and won't invest in other efforts. That's a major problem for the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our democracy and the future of our country.

One would think after experiencing the decade-long effects of Republican gerrymandering from the last round of redistricting, Democratic donors would be jumping at the opportunity to prevent this from happening all over again. One might even assume that the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year, effectively giving a greenlight for partisan gerrymandering, might further raise the alarm. Sadly, that's been far from the case.

But there's an important point that has been largely overlooked in this discussion: For donors on the Democratic side, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum choice between fueling efforts to defeat Trump or supporting Democratic state legislative campaigns.

That's because the data makes clear that putting a relatively small amount of money into a key selection of battleground states could ensure Democrats are not gerrymandered out of power in Congress for decades to come.

Winning Democratic majorities in just three strategic state legislatures - specifically, Texas, Florida and North Carolina - would significantly boost Democrats' long-term power nationally and provide a crucial check on GOP gerrymandering ahead of redistricting.

Based on estimates of population growth, Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to have more than 80 U.S. Congressional seats following the 2020 Census. These three states have been ground zero for some of the most extreme cases of Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression over the last decade.

For those motivated to support Democratic politicians at the national level, helping Democrats flip these state legislatures is vital to preventing further Republican gerrymandering, which could lock Democrats out of power at the Congressional level for the next decade.

Our organization, Forward Majority, has analyzed the data and landscape to identify 60 races that are prime targets across these three states. We estimate that competitive campaigns with a good chance of securing Democratic majorities would cost about $30 million dollars in total.

Donations to these efforts power campaigns, ensuring all voters in a competitive district have the chance to hear messages and learn about the Democratic challenger.

It seems with each passing day, more Democratic donors are promising to spend massive amounts of money to defeat Trump in 2020.

Just the billionaires vying for the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, have promised to spend hundreds of millions to defeat Trump and fuel their campaigns. The $30 million needed to win power in key state legislatures is well below the $47.6 million from Tom Steyer and a fraction of the nearly $160 million and counting from Michael Bloomberg in their efforts to secure the Democratic nomination.

Defeating Trump is an essential, existential fight; both the stakes and costs are extremely high. But, Trump is a symptom of the rot and corruption in our political system, not the root cause. If Democrats defeat Trump but fail to counter the voter suppression and gerrymandering that tear at the heart of fairness, representation and accountability in our democracy, we will be all the more vulnerable to the next aspirational authoritarian who rises after him.

The good news is that, by investing in winning Democratic majorities in legislatures in a handful of states, billionaire White House hopefuls can also make a far-reaching impact in politics and in the lives of thousands of Americans over the next decade for pennies on the dollar.

The reality is that if just one of them put a small fraction of those funds, $30 million, behind targeted legislative races in these three states, we would mitigate the greatest risks of voter suppression and gerrymandering that impact the balance of power nationally for the decade to come. It's time for Democratic donors to wake up - before it's too late.

Vicky Hausman is the co-founder and co-CEO of Forward Majority, an organization focused on winning power for Democrats in state legislatures to address voter suppression and gerrymandering. Prior to Forward Majority, she was a Partner with Dalberg, where she led the firm's Americas business and Global Health Practice. Vicky started her career as a Peace Corps Volunteer, and was previously a consultant with the Boston Consulting Group.

Read the original post:
Democrats need to spend money to win state houses, not just beat Trump - INSIDER

BETTENDORF, Iowa As they streamed out of the ballroom following a Scott County fund-raising banquet Saturday night, one after the other Iowa Democrats admitted that they still had not decided whom to support just over a week before the states presidential caucuses.

But by not mentioning his name as they rattled off their short lists, they made it clear whom they would not support: Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who has taken the lead in recent polls.

Instead, every one of the 30 still-undecided Democratic activists here rattled off some combination of the same four names Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

As Mr. Sanders tightens his grip on the partys young and left-wing voters in Iowa, more traditional Democrats, the ones who happily sit through marathon banquet dinners to hear the candidates and their representatives, remain split between his four leading competitors or remain unsure altogether about whom to rally behind.

I have told my colleagues all along: Bernie Sanders can win with 27 percent of the vote here, said Representative Dave Loebsack, an Iowa Democrat supporting Mr. Buttigieg, alluding to his fellow lawmakers, many of whom are deeply uneasy about running with Mr. Sanders on top of the ticket.

The fracture among mainstream Democrats here carries profound implications for a primary that has already unsettled the party establishment and prompted late entrants into the race.

Mr. Sanders is threatening to seize control in the early states, taking narrow but clear polling leads in Iowa and New Hampshire and increasingly menacing Mr. Bidens advantage in national polls. With his mammoth online fund-raising operation, Mr. Sanders appears to be in a position of financial strength unmatched by any other candidate besides Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City.

Mr. Sanderss endurance, and his apparent rise in the earliest primary and caucus states, reflects both the loyalty of his core supporters and their conviction that Mr. Sanders would bring the same fighting resilience to the general election. But even among many liberals who admire Mr. Sanderss campaign, or some of his policy ideas, there is deep concern about the implications of nominating a candidate from the left whom President Trump is sure to portray as extreme.

I think that Bernie is just a bridge too far for the country, said Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general who is supporting Mr. Biden. Ms. Campbell said she would have no difficulty supporting Mr. Sanders in the general election, but added, I can tell you, I hear from friends and colleagues who say: Oh my God, what are we going to do if Bernie wins?

But in Iowa, Democrats who hope to avert that outcome do not appear close to settling on another candidate as an alternative to Mr. Sanders. And if more moderate voters dont coalesce behind an alternative by next weeks caucus, party traditionalists fear, Mr. Sanders could win Iowa with only a modest plurality, emboldening his leading rivals to remain in the race, and then notch another victory again a week later in New Hampshire. No Democrat in modern times has lost contested races in both Iowa and New Hampshire and claimed the nomination.

The early primary and caucus outcomes could have an outsize impact on later primaries, including the large states voting in March, some of which begin collecting mail-in and early ballots in the immediate aftermath of Iowa. If a candidate like Mr. Sanders were to seize momentum next week, it could help him build a head start in states like California and Texas.

It is a scenario that is deeply alarming to establishment-aligned Democrats, if not unfamiliar. Four years ago, convinced Donald Trump could not win the presidency, they watched with delight as he snatched the Republican nomination without winning majorities because his more traditional rivals divided the vote and refused to bow out.

The Democrats in this race have been as reluctant to target Mr. Sanders as the Republicans were to target Mr. Trump four years ago; in each case they were skeptical of his staying power and believed they had more to gain by attacking other rivals.

Even now, as Mr. Sanders takes a lead in the first two early states, his opponents have not delivered a sustained argument against his candidacy, and remain reluctant to take him on: while Mr. Buttigieg drew attention for warning in a fund-raising solicitation that a Sanders nomination would be too risky, he notably declined to amplify his rhetoric in television interviews over the weekend. The closest he has come to confronting his rival on the left is to make oblique references to the often-bitter 2016 primary between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Sanders.

Most of us would agree the less 2020 resembles 2016 the better in all respects, Mr. Buttigieg said in a brief interview. Each of the would-be Stop Sanders candidates has built enough political strength to justify forging ahead: Mr. Biden remains the national front-runner, with unmatched support among black voters; Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Warren both have double-digit support in New Hampshire polls, and sizable war chests; Ms. Klobuchar has the thinnest operation beyond Iowa of the group, but over the weekend she earned the endorsement of New Hampshires influential Union Leader newspaper.

Should all four move forward from Iowa, with their perceived strengths and weaknesses, it could make it difficult for any of them to become a rallying point for voters uneasy about Mr. Sanders.

Complicating matters further for traditionalists, and making this race potentially even messier than Mr. Trumps primary, is the presence of Mr. Bloomberg, who is not contesting the traditional early states in February but has already poured more than $270 million in advertising into later contests and made clear to allies that he will remain in the race should Mr. Sanders come roaring into March.

Mr. Bloomberg was on Ms. Klobuchars mind as she left the dinner here Saturday. She was asked if she would remain in the race if she did not break into the top three in the caucuses, which has often been the number of viable candidates who leave the state.

Even if youre in fourth, she was asked?

You think its only going to be down to four candidates even by New Hampshire? she said before answering the question. No, its not.

Then, pointing to Mr. Bloomberg, she explained why the Democratic vote may remain splintered.

Why would I get out while hes still in? Ms. Klobuchar demanded.

With nearly 40 percent of Iowa voters indicating in a new New York Times-Siena College poll that they were still not certain about whom to support, Mr. Sanders could still suffer a reversal of fortune here.

Thats in part because of the states complex, multiphase caucusing process, which allows supporters of underdog candidates to shift to stronger contenders. If Mr. Sanders has the most enthusiastic base of support in Iowa, he may be less well positioned to expand his bloc in later rounds should moderate voters rally to one of the four other leading candidates.

And its Ms. Klobuchar whom Iowa Democrats are watching most closely. If she does not reach 15 percent in most precincts, her supporters could determine the statewide winner if they migrate mostly to one candidate.

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Mr. Bidens most prominent supporter in the state, was blunt about why Ms. Klobuchars backers should support the former vice president.

Mr. Biden has the best chance of winning the general election, he shares Ms. Klobuchars pragmatic politics and Joe is going to need a running mate, Mr. Vilsack said.

A more urgent concern for Mr. Vilsack was the prospect of Iowa producing a muddled result, a scenario thats more likely this year because the state party, for the first time, is releasing raw vote totals from the initial round of balloting as well as the final results and delegate allocations.

If I had to make one prediction, there will be a split decision and thatll have repercussions, he said. Because whoever quote-unquote wins can claim that they won, and talk about it going into New Hampshire.

So while they still hope to best Mr. Sanders in Iowa or New Hampshire, several of Mr. Sanderss rivals have begun emphasizing their strengths in states later in the calendar.

Mr. Bidens advisers and surrogates have been stressing his support among minority communities that become important starting with the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, while Ms. Warrens campaign circulated a memo last week detailing its preparations in the March primaries that will award most of the delegates that will settle the Democratic nomination.

And in a conversation with volunteers before a town hall-style meeting in Davenport on Sunday, Ms. Warren reiterated her determination to compete into March and beyond, telling supporters she already has staff in 30 states, according to a volunteer who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

We all know that this is very likely to be a long nomination process, said California Assemblyman David Chiu, who on Sunday was opening a campaign headquarters in San Francisco for Ms. Warren and said of her campaign: They are going to put up a tremendous fight here in the state.

That phase of the race is also when Mr. Bloomberg, with his vast personal fortune, could become a more urgent factor, either rising as an obstacle for Mr. Sanders or further fracturing the partys moderate wing.

In California, Mayor Robert Garcia of Long Beach, who endorsed Mr. Biden this month, said he expected the former vice president to consolidate support there once it becomes clear that theres a few candidates left.

But gathering support around just a few candidates could also be difficult in California, Mr. Garcia noted, because the states mail-in ballots would list the names of candidates who falter or withdraw over the course of February.

There are going to be a lot of candidates in California, because they are going to be on the ballot, he said. There will be some drop-off, but theyre all competitive here and thats going to continue.

Read more here:
In Iowa, the Not Sanders Democrats Find Voters Torn - The New York Times

Thanks to strong support from younger voters, 78-year-old Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for Utahs Democratic presidential primary on March 3 doubling the percentage of support from his nearest rival in a huge field. But one of every five likely voters is still undecided.

Sanders, a liberal Vermont senator, attracts support from 26.5% of Utahns who say theyll vote in the March 3 Democratic primary, according to a Salt Lake Tribune survey conducted by Suffolk University. Fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator, is No. 2 with 14.4%.

Trailing them in the top tier of candidates are two moderates: former Vice President Joe Biden with 12.1% and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with 9.9%. The poll of 132 likely Democratic primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 8.5 percentage points.

He starts with a foundation of individuals who previously supported him in the presidential contest," Magleby said, and those folks are likely to return and participate in 2020.

It looks like I got some bad information, Sanders said, looking over the first vast crowd. Somebody told me Utah was a Republican state. He has yet to visit the state this year.

Sanders generates most of his Utah support now and in 2016 from younger voters.

In the new poll, Sanders won 49% of the support from likely Democratic voters ages 18-34 and 40% of those ages 35-44 double to tripling what other candidates received from those age groups. Older age groups are far more evenly split. Warren led with those ages 45-54, Bloomberg led among those 55-64 and Biden led among those 65 and older.

For his academic research, Magleby interviewed some of Sanders 2016 managers for media and fundraising about why the senior citizen is so popular with younger voters.

Their answer is: Hes seen by young people as authentic, Magleby said. Sure, hes older. Sure his hair is a little frizzy. But what those young people like in Sanders is that hes the real Bernie. Hes authentic.

Mike Oberbrockling, 35, of Layton, is one of the people polled who plans to vote for Sanders.

After Bernie wins, he is going to do the things he says he is going to do, Oberbrockling said. He seems to be pretty upfront with everything. You watch a lot of interviews with most politicians, and they give long, drawn-out answers that arent clear. Bernie doesnt beat around the bush.

Magleby said many younger voters also seem to see Sanders as a father figure, or a grandfather figure, and Oberbrockling agrees.

Some people call him Americas dad, Oberbrockling said. And just like any dad, he wants whats best for everybody. And the cool thing about Bernie Sanders is it doesnt matter if you support him or not he still wants those better things in place for you, such as Medicare for all.

Magleby said younger voters are also part of an enthusiastic liberal wave that often appears in Democratic presidential campaigns. In contrast, he said, older voters tend to be more centrist and more interested in experience. That is shown by Gaye Anthony, 66, of Taylorsville, one of the Biden supporters among poll respondents.

At this point in our democracy with whats going on [with President Donald Trump], she said, we need [Bidens] experience and temperament to help bring our country back to an order that is more stable and more friendly, and more in keeping with our traditions and our expectations.

Magleby said the poll also shows the strength of the liberal wing in the Utah Democratic Party in a state controlled by Republicans. He notes that progressives Sanders and Warren are capturing 40% of the vote, while centrist moderates trail well behind.

This is not uncommon in one-party states, he said, where the out party is more interested in making a statement than winning an election.

Magleby added it reinforces a perception that the Utah Democratic Party is well left of the Utah mainstream, and that isnt going to help Democrats win any office in the state of Utah, where party labels are on the ballot.

Warren visited Utah last April and announced this week that she hired senior staff here to oversee a grassroots campaign.

Mary Blair, 44, of South Ogden, is one of those polled who is excited about Warrens anti-corruption message. I like that shes not taking any type of PAC money ... because I believe that big business money has to come out of politics. So Im all in on Elizabeth Warren and have been for a long time.

Other candidates in the poll who received some support include: entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 4.6% each; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, 3%; and billionaire Tom Steyer and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, 0.8% each.

Originally posted here:
Utah Democrats haven't lost their love for Bernie Sanders, who leads the pack in new poll - Salt Lake Tribune