It's instructive to see where the race was in the Spring of 2012 - and well, exactly where it is now.
Quinnipiac 4/3-4/9 2012: Obama +9 49/40
Quinnipiac 5/9-5/14 2012: Obama +10 49/39
NJ is safe Clinton.
I question your assumption that 2012 polls are "instructive" in 2016. In 2012, the Democratic candidate was an incumbent, which significantly makes that race different from this race; and you must remember that Hurricane Sandy likely caused Obama's ultimate margin of victory over Romney in New Jersey.
Bush came within 5% of New Jersey in a tight race. Trump, who has ties to the Northeast, could feasibly get closer if he runs a great campaign (or Hillary runs a bad campaign).
You can "question" my assumption but all I did was point out that polls at the same time in 2012 showed the race as high single digits or low double digits. The same as it is now - Trump is not winning NJ.
Regarding the bolded portion -- do you know what "instructive" means? When you say that 2012 polls are "instructive" in the 2016 race, you're saying that 2012 polls should guide our analysis of 2016 polls. Therefore, you didn't just "point out" a similarity in the 2012 and 2016 polls; you tied them together.
However, as I said, the 2016 race is relevantly different from the 2012 race (e.g. no incumbent, Hurricane Sandy, Trump-factor), so the 2012 polls are not "instructive." They don't show that "Trump is not winning NJ [in November]."
