2009 New Jersey Governor's Race

[Sam Spade]

Not impressed by Corzine's primary performance.

Christie's performance is about what I expected.  Whomever the NJ machine supports, wins, as always. 

[Sam Spade]

Folks, you have to be careful about numbers in polls done right after primaries.  While it is true there will be a certain amount of consolidation around a candidate, numbers will often appear inflated for the winning candidate in a contested primary because X side's supporters get very enthused after said primary victory, not to mention hardcore party supporters generally, which means they show up more in polling.

[Sam Spade]

and there's that whole name recognition thing


Also, right after a primary, most voters have only heard the winning candidate be attacked from an ideological extreme, and not from the center.  Think conservative Democrats in Appalachia would have still backed Hillary to an extreme extent once the general election kicked off?

That is true, but the enthusiasm factor is usually more important in post-primary polls.

And also, as you correctly point out, these observations apply as well to Virginia.

[Sam Spade]

You have no idea clue about the power of presence.  If people are out campaigning for a canidate they create interest  and make people think positively about the campaign.  Its an easily noticeable social dynamic.     

I've run and managed political campaigns before.  I know how useless college labor generally is.

But do you know how useless college generally is?

[Sam Spade]

Every local newscast in New Jersey will show that thing for free at the 5, 6 and 11 o'clock broadcasts and then again on their morning show, so mission accomplished IMO.

There's a local newscast in New Jersey now?

That's right.  The only local newscast in NJ I know of is News12.  Everything else is either Philly or NYC.

[Sam Spade]

Since WWOR is now airing a UHF signal, some enterprising person bought a TV station in Ely, Nevada and has petitioned the FCC to move it to Middletown Township.  An old law requires the FCC to approve applications for at least 1 VHF commercial TV station in each state, if there's free spectrum.  New Jersey and Delaware currently don't have one, after the DTV transition, and nobody is broadcasting on channels 2-6.  The person also bought a station in Jackson, Wyoming, and has petitioned to move it to Wilimington, Delaware.  So NJ and DE may be getting new TV stations soon.

Can it get new people as well?

[Sam Spade]

This looks more like the sort of odd late rally that falls just short that apparently doomed governments sometimes manage to pull off than a sudden surge-to-victory. But we'll see.

Not an injudicious point to make.  That happened in 1993, as I recall.  We shall see.

[Sam Spade]

Star Ledger just made a major boo boo. As a sponsor of next week's guv debate, they are forbidden from making an endorsement until afterward. It's a big deal because this debate is required by state campaign finance law.

Good job, Ledger.

Wow, nobody over there considered that beforehand? Amazing.

Strangely enough, they promised in their application to sponsor the debate that they wouldn't.  It really makes no sense.

(In case anyone's wondering, the Ledger usually endorses Democrats but endorsed Forrester in 2005.)

lol - though that's kind of expected for Newark.

What happens now?

[Sam Spade]

I wonder who the NYT will use as their pollster for this one.

[Sam Spade]

Biden, Clinton, and Obama will all be in NJ in the next 2 weeks for Corzine.

The attention focused on this race and the non-attention focused on Virginia says quite a lot.  Obviously.

Really doubt Daggett gets anywhere near 18%, btw.

[Sam Spade]

This poll has some 'interesting' internals.

Anyway, another one for the average...

[Sam Spade]

Ah, confusion reigns!

The poll variations are due to the voter screens.  PPP thinks Democratic turnout will be miserable.  Quinnipiac now thinks that Democrats are going to show.  And Daggett at 13% matters here: He's much lower the Rasmussen and PPP polls.  Why does this matter?  Because Christie is the heavy second favorite of Daggett voters in the Q-poll, unlike Ras and PPP.

It's no secret: The more people who show up to vote, the better Corzine will do.  Quinnipiac is a terrific pollster, though, so I'm a bit worried.

I would not call Quinnipiac a "terrific" pollster - best of the uni pollsters is a more appropriate title, fwiw.

[Sam Spade]

Ah, confusion reigns!

The poll variations are due to the voter screens.  PPP thinks Democratic turnout will be miserable.  Quinnipiac now thinks that Democrats are going to show.  And Daggett at 13% matters here: He's much lower the Rasmussen and PPP polls.  Why does this matter?  Because Christie is the heavy second favorite of Daggett voters in the Q-poll, unlike Ras and PPP.

It's no secret: The more people who show up to vote, the better Corzine will do.  Quinnipiac is a terrific pollster, though, so I'm a bit worried.

I would not call Quinnipiac a "terrific" pollster - best of the uni pollsters is a more appropriate title, fwiw.

So far as New Jersey goes, I trust Quinnipiac.

Do you trust Q above all other NJ pollsters?  I certainly wouldn't.  But are they the best of the uni pollsters that populate NJ?  Yes.  Which does say something.

The funny thing is that historically their polls have had a Republican lean, usually by about 3-5 points.  Their final 2000 poll was a particular blow-up in the Republican direction.  However, in 2008, their final poll blew up in the Democratic direction.

[Sam Spade]

PPP:

"In the time we've been polling nationally I've never seen a race where the IVR and live interviewer polls told two stories as different as the New Jersey Governor's race.

All 9 IVR polls this month have shown Chris Christie in the lead. 6 out of the 9 live interviewer polls have shown Corzine in the lead."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-jersey-polls.html

Isn't this true for everything? Live interviewer polls and automated polls are always giving opposite results.

I don't think one can make any type of correlation based on present evidence.

However, some of the trends I've been watching hint that at least "something" may be occurring there on its face.

Someone (or me) should PM The Vorlon and see what he says.

[Sam Spade]

PPP:

"In the time we've been polling nationally I've never seen a race where the IVR and live interviewer polls told two stories as different as the New Jersey Governor's race.

All 9 IVR polls this month have shown Chris Christie in the lead. 6 out of the 9 live interviewer polls have shown Corzine in the lead."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-jersey-polls.html

Isn't this true for everything? Live interviewer polls and automated polls are always giving opposite results.

I don't think one can make any type of correlation based on present evidence.

However, some of the trends I've been watching hint that at least "something" may be occurring there on its face.

Someone (or me) should PM The Vorlon and see what he says.

Oh c'mon Sam. I know inscrutable teasing hints are your thing and all, but don't leave us hanging like that. :-( 

Go on Mr. Spade and share your thoughts with the class.

No need to be sarcastic - if I really knew anything for sure, I'd say it.    Besides, teasing is one of the lost arts and a favored pastime.

The most obvious example I can point to is the distinction between IVR and live interviewer in polling of Obama for the first 6 months of the year at minimum.  The difference has narrowed quite a bit - though SurveyUSA still shows (and has shown) Obama underpolling as compared to other Adult polls.  This could be for any number of reasons.

What is important to use NJ as a test for, so long as SUSA shows similar results to PPP and Rasmussen, is to see which is more accurate vis-a-vis the actual ballot box.  Of course, the fact that nearly all NJ live interviewer polls are uni polls makes that test a tad less accurate, given the general rule on uni polls.

Which is why I'm waiting for SUSA's take.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/man-vs-machine-in-new-jersey.html

My problem is that if the "enthusiasm gap" is the key distinction between man and machine here, then why wouldn't such a gap have shown up in past usages of automated polling. 

Moreover, early this year (say before June), one would posit that it would have been liberals enthused and not conservatives, after Obama's election.  Yet this was precisely the time when the gap between IVR and live interviewers was strong in Obama's approvals.  This was the case, even if you exclude Rasmussen, with his LV model, and focus on SUSA and PPP.

Additionally, I would point out that SUSA has a very loose LV model and all of its approval polls are adults (which should naturally have a Democratic lean).  PPP's weights are Democratic-leaning (insofar as Rasmussen's are probably the opposite.

Anyway, with the final polls in NJ to be conducted this weekend (I presume), we should get a picture where we can analyze what's going on after the election.

[Sam Spade]

Daggett campaign has turned into an epic fail. It's a shame as I would've liked to have seen what their max ceiling would've been.

10 will get you 20, Daggett finishes with under 10%.

[Sam Spade]

DailyKos-Christie +1!?!?

Amazing to say the least.  They also had Obama killing McCain throughout the election but then manipulated the numbers at the end to save face.  I think they actually fudge numbers and their poll samples and internals are wack!

61% Indies, 26% DEMs, 13% Republicans.

Not going to happen.

If we reweight their numbers to a more likely 45-30-25 Democratic split, you get:

Corzine: 45%
Christie: 41%
Daggett: 12%

When the polling sample is *that* different, reweighting is basically a fruitless exercise and will probably distort a result because of the MOE of the subsamples.

Sometimes you just have to take a questionable poll for what it is or ignore it altogether.

[Sam Spade]

The general impression I'm getting from PPP's twitter tonight is a Christie lead - though how much is still questionable.

I'm getting a whole lot closer to my final predictions based on what I see in the polling.

[Sam Spade]

If Republicans win this race and all of the other races, I think we are really witnessing the collapse of the Democratic party below the Presidential level.  I think we could really see a period when Republicans hold almost everything at the local and Congressional level. 

How is this different than Warner and McGreevey winning governor's races in 2001 at the height of Bush's popularity,  foreshadowing...Republican gains in 2002?  Using these very idiosyncratic races as national barometers is quite useless.

If Democrats score an upset in the New York City Mayor race, I might agree with your arguement. 

Won't happen, though I'll be helping.  The history of NY mayors/governors who receive third terms is notoriously negative - I don't think it'll be any different this time around.

Watch the council races there though - a lot of interesting things will happen there that will impact the future.

[Sam Spade]

Here's the table that I have on NJ polling at the moment (From Christie to Corzine margins):

Pollster	Christie	Corzine	Daggett	Margin
Neighborhood Research (R)	42%	35%	8%	Christie +7%
PPP	47%	41%	11%	Christie +6%
Rasmussen	47%	44%	8%	Christie +3%
Fairleigh Dickenson	41%	39%	14%	Christie +2%
Quinnipiac	42%	40%	12%	Christie +2%
Daily Kos/R2000	42%	41%	14%	Christie +1%
Monmouth University/Gannett	43%	42%	8%	Christie +1%
SurveyUSA	43%	43%	11%	Push
Stockton/Zogby	39%	40%	14%	Corzine +1%
Rutgers/Eagleton	36%	39%	20%	Corzine +3%
New York Times	37%	40%	14%	Corzine +3%
Democracy Corps	38%	43%	12%	Corzine +5%
Suffolk University	33%	42%	7%	Corzine +9%

[Sam Spade]

Here's the table that I have on NJ polling at the moment (From Christie to Corzine margins):

Pollster	Christie	Corzine	Daggett	Margin
Neighborhood Research (R)	42%	35%	8%	Christie +7%
PPP	47%	41%	11%	Christie +6%
Rasmussen	47%	44%	8%	Christie +3%
Fairleigh Dickenson	41%	39%	14%	Christie +2%
Quinnipiac	42%	40%	12%	Christie +2%
Daily Kos/R2000	42%	41%	14%	Christie +1%
Monmouth University/Gannett	43%	42%	8%	Christie +1%
SurveyUSA	43%	43%	11%	Push
Stockton/Zogby	39%	40%	14%	Corzine +1%
Rutgers/Eagleton	36%	39%	20%	Corzine +3%
New York Times	37%	40%	14%	Corzine +3%
Democracy Corps	38%	43%	12%	Corzine +5%
Suffolk University	33%	42%	7%	Corzine +9%

If you simply average them out:

Christie: 40.769%
Corzine: 40.692%
Daggett: 11.769%

How much closer can it get?!?

True.  However, if I was a Corzine supporter, I would find worrying that all the polls that show him ahead are either older (conducted before last week), except for Zogby, or in the case of Dem Corps, well, you know...

[Sam Spade]

UPDATED TABLE

Pollster	Christie	Corzine	Daggett	Margin
Neighborhood Research (R)	42%	35%	8%	Christie +7%
PPP	47%	41%	11%	Christie +6%
Rasmussen	47%	44%	8%	Christie +3%
SurveyUSA	45%	42%	10%	Christie +3%
Quinnipiac	42%	40%	12%	Christie +2%
Daily Kos/R2000	42%	41%	14%	Christie +1%
Stockton/Zogby	39%	40%	14%	Corzine +1%
Fairleigh Dickenson	41%	43%	8%	Corzine +2%
Monmouth University/Gannett	41%	43%	8%	Corzine +2%
Rutgers/Eagleton	36%	39%	20%	Corzine +3%
New York Times	37%	40%	14%	Corzine +3%
Democracy Corps (D)	37%	41%	15%	Corzine +4%
Suffolk University	33%	42%	7%	Corzine +9%

[Sam Spade]

Interesting thing happened to me when I was going to the polls.  I asked 30-40 people who they voted for and many of them said Daggett and Christie and few said Corzine.  I think Daggett might actually take 8% + if this is happening in other areas. 

Well, it's unscientific (to say the least), but out of curiosity, where are you located?

[Sam Spade]

Gotcha.  Cool.