NJ- Rasmussen: Obama Slightly Favored

[HST1948]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_jersey/election_2012_new_jersey_presidential_election

Obama 49% Christie 44%
Obama 49% Romney 43%

500 Likely Voters

[Heimdal]

Wow. I expected Obama to be in better shape in New Jersey.

[phk]

Seems awfully close. Republican preferences must be much "harder" in NJ than elsewhere.

[krazen1211]

Nah. NJ has been a 54-44 state for a decade now. I expect it to be moving a point or two right compared to this though; 53-46 looks about right.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think NJ is pretty polarized, so I assume we'll see something along the same lines we've seen in the past 2 elections. I think 2000 was an exception to the rule.

[krazen1211]

I think NJ is pretty polarized, so I assume we'll see something along the same lines we've seen in the past 2 elections. I think 2000 was an exception to the rule.

It is. The difference is Ocean County and the R areas are growing while Essex County is shrinking.

Christie will be the first Republican to cross 50% statewide in a long time.

[The Mikado]

Come on, GOP, you can win NJ.  You just know it.  Put a lot of money into it.  Go for it.

(As none other than Keystone Phil once said, NJ is the ultimate Republican fool's gold.  I don't even know what the Democratic equivalent would be...Georgia?)

[Eraserhead]

I'm thinking PPP and Rasmussen polls should both be taken with a grain of salt.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Yeah, this seems a little bit off.  I think we should we for a little more before we agree that this can be a tossup.

[Zarn]

Yeah, this seems a little bit off.  I think we should we for a little more before we agree that this can be a tossup.

No, this is on par. The GOP usually does better further away from the election. But then people go, "Well I think the Dem is terrible, but Chris Mathews told me the Republicans are evil, mass kitten killers. Also Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen like this Democrat."

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Yeah, this seems a little bit off.  I think we should we for a little more before we agree that this can be a tossup.

No, this is on par. The GOP usually does better further away from the election. But then people go, "Well I think the Dem is terrible, but Chris Mathews told me the Republicans are evil, mass kitten killers. Also Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen like this Democrat."

Yes, that's exactly how people think.

[TheGlobalizer]

No, this is on par. The GOP usually does better further away from the election. But then people go, "Well I think the Dem is terrible, but Chris Mathews told me the Republicans are evil, mass kitten killers. Also Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen like this Democrat."

Haha, nice.

I don't think the GOP should waste much time in NJ.  They really don't need it to win the election, and the NYC ad market cost is prohibitive.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think NJ is pretty polarized, so I assume we'll see something along the same lines we've seen in the past 2 elections. I think 2000 was an exception to the rule.

It is. The difference is Ocean County and the R areas are growing while Essex County is shrinking.

Christie will be the first Republican to cross 50% statewide in a long time.

It could very well be trending R slightly compared to the nation, but I still think the GOP ceiling there is 47% or so in a presidential election, around what Bush got in 2004.

[Zarn]

I think NJ is pretty polarized, so I assume we'll see something along the same lines we've seen in the past 2 elections. I think 2000 was an exception to the rule.

It is. The difference is Ocean County and the R areas are growing while Essex County is shrinking.

Christie will be the first Republican to cross 50% statewide in a long time.

It could very well be trending R slightly compared to the nation, but I still think the GOP ceiling there is 47% or so in a presidential election, around what Bush got in 2004.

It's been trending right compared to the nation for a while. The ceiling is likely to be a point or two higher now.

This is assuming neither candidate is blown away.

[Rowan]

2000: 15.33 points more Democratic than nation

2004: 9.14 points more Democratic than nation

2008: 8.26 points more Democratic than nation


So since 2000 there has been a bit more movement right compared to the nation.

[krazen1211]

2000: 15.33 points more Democratic than nation

2004: 9.14 points more Democratic than nation

2008: 8.26 points more Democratic than nation


So since 2000 there has been a bit more movement right compared to the nation.

Yep. Bush didn't gain much in the turnpike corridor, but he really solidified the Republican northwest, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties. Those areas stayed Republican in 2008 for the most part as McCain only lost 2-3 points there.

A 'moderate' Republican can probably perform a couple points better than W in the turnpike corridor. These are the areas that swung extremely hard against Corzine in 2009.

[Poundingtherock]

Rasmussen just confirmed how much of a Republican water-carrier he is as a "pollster."

This poll is a total joke.  Outside of the Rasmussen fantasy land, Obama is absolutely taking Christie's overweight lunch in New Jersey.

Why would anyone other than a Republican water-carrier believe Rasmussen over SurveyUSA?

[pbrower2a]

2000: 15.33 points more Democratic than nation

2004: 9.14 points more Democratic than nation

2008: 8.26 points more Democratic than nation


So since 2000 there has been a bit more movement right compared to the nation.

That means, of course, that other states have been becoming more more Democratic relative to New Jersey. Think of Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada.

[Yelnoc]

Come on, GOP, you can win NJ.  You just know it.  Put a lot of money into it.  Go for it.

(As none other than Keystone Phil once said, NJ is the ultimate Republican fool's gold.  I don't even know what the Democratic equivalent would be...Georgia?)

The Atlanta metro area makes Georgia quite tangible, assuming the Democrats could win over suburban voters.  I would say Texas is a more apt comparison, considering the large Hispanic population and presence of "liberal" cities like Austin.

[King]

Come on, GOP, you can win NJ.  You just know it.  Put a lot of money into it.  Go for it.

(As none other than Keystone Phil once said, NJ is the ultimate Republican fool's gold.  I don't even know what the Democratic equivalent would be...Georgia?)

Until Obama broke through in 2008, it always was North Carolina.  Hell, even Jesse Helms always looked near defeat there.

I think it's Georgia's turn, though.

[redcommander]

This is a little off topic, but what happened to Keystone Phil? I haven't seen him post recently.

[King]

This is a little off topic, but what happened to Keystone Phil? I haven't seen him post recently.

He shows up on occasion to talk sports in off topic.

[HST1948]

Come on, GOP, you can win NJ.  You just know it.  Put a lot of money into it.  Go for it.

(As none other than Keystone Phil once said, NJ is the ultimate Republican fool's gold.  I don't even know what the Democratic equivalent would be...Georgia?)

I always thought Pennsylvania was the ultimate Republican fool's gold.  Either way, I think that a Democrat winning Georgia would be comparable to a Republican winning Pennsylvania. On the same note, I think a Republican winning New Jersey would be like a Democrat winning Texas or South Carolina. 

[Gustaf]

Pennsylvania is hardly fool's gold - it wouldn't take much to turn it over. Michigan might be more appropriate.

And Texas is hardly comparable to New Jersey.

If I understand the term correctly you want a state that is fairly close but yet so polarized that it is hard to get over to your side. Washington, Oregon and New Jersey all seem to be in this category for the GOP. For Democrats it should be close-ish Southern states and that used to be NC and VA until Obama won them. Now it might be a state like GA. Arizona used to be in this category as well, IIRC.

[Zarn]

Pennsylvania is hardly fool's gold - it wouldn't take much to turn it over. Michigan might be more appropriate.

And Texas is hardly comparable to New Jersey.

If I understand the term correctly you want a state that is fairly close but yet so polarized that it is hard to get over to your side. Washington, Oregon and New Jersey all seem to be in this category for the GOP. For Democrats it should be close-ish Southern states and that used to be NC and VA until Obama won them. Now it might be a state like GA. Arizona used to be in this category as well, IIRC.

You have to remember that Bush Sr won PA and NJ. They are comparable to VA and NC, because the GOP has not have that kind of election recently, where it would win those kind of states. The Dems had that with 2008. That said, these states are clearly not moving to the left, if anything they are moving right.