NJ: Eagleton-Rutgers: New Jersy = Not competetive
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 10:48:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  NJ: Eagleton-Rutgers: New Jersy = Not competetive
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: NJ: Eagleton-Rutgers: New Jersy = Not competetive  (Read 980 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,181
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2012, 02:02:21 AM »

New Poll: New Jersey President by Eagleton-Rutgers on 2012-02-21

Summary: D: 56%, R: 31%, U: 10%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2012, 04:28:38 PM »

I actually think Obama would be the first Democrat to hit 60% here since LBJ if Santorum got the nod. 
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2012, 04:47:39 PM »

Romney underperforming McCain with voters over $100k. So much for a theory Nate Silver had a while ago.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2012, 08:42:56 PM »

Ignore this. Eagleton-Rutgers is a horrendous outfit.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2012, 09:04:49 PM »

Ignore this. Eagleton-Rutgers is a horrendous outfit.
Nate Silver grades them with a Pollster-Introduced Error of 1.76 -- comparable to PPP (1.69) and Rasmussen (1.74)
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2012, 02:06:59 PM »

I don't understand why people think Romney would have even a remote shot at New Jersey.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2012, 02:31:36 PM »

I don't understand why people think Romney would have even a remote shot at New Jersey.

Because the savior of conservatism won here by 4% against a horrible incumbent governor during a Republican year!
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2012, 09:21:11 AM »

I don't understand why people think Romney would have even a remote shot at New Jersey.

Because the savior of conservatism won here by 4% against a horrible incumbent governor during a Republican year!

But Romney sucks, and he was governor of Massachusetts. Is there anyone in NJ that even likes Massachusetts?
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2012, 09:32:15 AM »

I don't understand why people think Romney would have even a remote shot at New Jersey.

Because the savior of conservatism won here by 4% against a horrible incumbent governor during a Republican year!

But Romney sucks, and he was governor of Massachusetts. Is there anyone in NJ that even likes Massachusetts?

My mom does, but she's a transplant from Massachusetts. I should point out that most people in Massachusetts don't like Romney very much either, except the twenty-odd per cent of the state that is Republican.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.223 seconds with 15 queries.