Memo: Final Super Tuesday Polling
Authors: Sean McElwee, Executive Director of Data for Progress, Jason Ganz, CTO of Data for Progress
Topline Results
California (crosstabs)
Sanders - 32
Biden - 25
Bloomberg - 17
Warren - 16
Buttigieg - 5
Klobuchar - 3
Gabbard - 1
Texas (crosstabs)
Biden - 30
Sanders - 28
Bloomberg - 20
Warren - 15
Buttigieg - 4
Klobuchar - 3
Gabbard - 1
North Carolina (crosstabs)
Biden - 36
Sanders - 27
Bloomberg - 18
Warren - 14
Buttigieg - 3
Klobuchar - 2
Gabbard - 1
Virginia (crosstabs)
Biden - 39
Sanders - 24
Bloomberg - 18
Warren - 17
Gabbard - 1
Massachusetts (crosstabs)
Warren - 28
Sanders - 26
Biden - 26
Bloomberg - 15
Buttigieg - 2
Gabbard - 2
Klobuchar - 1
Colorado (crosstabs)
Sanders - 32
Warren - 21
Biden - 18
Bloomberg - 16
Buttigieg - 8
Klobuchar - 3
Gabbard - 2
Tennessee (crosstabs)
Biden - 34
Sanders - 27
Bloomberg - 20
Warren - 15
Klobuchar - 2
Buttigieg - 2
Gabbard - 1
Minnesota (crosstabs)
Sanders - 32
Biden - 27
Warren - 21
Bloomberg - 16
Klobuchar - 2
Gabbard - 1
Alabama (crosstabs)
Biden - 47
Sanders - 22
Bloomberg - 18
Warren - 12
Gabbard - 2
Arkansas (crosstabs)
Biden - 36
Sanders - 23
Bloomberg - 22
Warren - 15
Buttigieg - 2
Klobuchar - 1
Gabbard - 1
Oklahoma (crosstabs)
Biden - 35
Sanders - 28
Bloomberg - 19
Warren - 16
Gabbard - 2
Maine (crosstabs)
Sanders - 34
Biden - 25
Warren - 20
Bloomberg - 18
Buttigieg - 1
Gabbard - 1
Klobuchar - 1
Utah (crosstabs)
Sanders - 29
Biden - 23
Warren - 19
Bloomberg - 17
Buttigieg - 7
Klobuchar - 3
Gabbard - 2
Vermont (crosstabs)
Sanders - 57
Biden - 16
Warren - 16
Bloomberg - 8
Gabbard - 2
Buttigieg - 1
The three days between South Carolina and Super Tuesday have been perhaps the most eventful of the race. Billionaire Tom Steyer, Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar each dropped out of the race, with the latter two throwing their support behind Joe Biden. These new polls show the state of the race before Super Tuesday. A tighter race with only two candidates poised for delegates nearly everywhere.
Methodology
Note - vote totals for candidates that have dropped out represent estimated early vote shares. Those who have not voted have had their vote imputed from second choice.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 650.2118 likely MN voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 . Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 3.84.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 622 likely UT voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 .Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 3.9.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 516 likely CA voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 .Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 4.3.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 464 likely CO voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 .Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 4.2.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 385 likely ME voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 .Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 4.9.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 334 likely NC voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020 .Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 5.3.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 327 likely VA voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 5.4.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 301 likely MA voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 5.6.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 300 likely AR voters from 02/27/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web and web panel, with 97% from text to web and 3% from panel data. The margin of error is +/- 5.6.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 300 likely TX voters from 02/27/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web and web panel, with 70% from text to web and 30% from panel data. The margin of error is +/- 5.7.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 300 likely OK voters from 02/27/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web and web panel, with 95% from text to web and 5% from panel data. The margin of error is +/- 5.5.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 237 likely AL voters from 02/27/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web and web panel, with 70% from text to web and 30% from panel data. The margin of error is +/- 6.4.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 236 likely VT voters from 02/27/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web and web panel, with 97% from text to web and 3% from panel data. The margin of error is +/- 6.9.
Data for Progress conducted a poll of 368 likely TN voters from 02/28/2020 to 03/02/2020. Likely voters were identified from the voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. The survey was conducted via text-to-web. The margin of error is +/- 5.1.
