2009 New Jersey Governor's Race

[ajc0918]

Yeah I'm thinkinghoping Christie is going to win this one.

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats can thank Obama for this. 

[The Mikado]

Democrats can thank Obama for this. 

OK, stop.  You might...repeat, might...have an argument about Virginia.  But this one...Corzine has brought this on himself, and was horridly unpopular during the Bush Administration as well.  The only hope he has of winning is that the public sees his opponent as more extremely flawed than he is.  Obama is definitely not responsible for Corzine's decline, Corzine is.

[East Coast Republican]

Let's see what you guys think now.

Quinnipiac says Corzine is leading Christie by 5%

43-38-13.  Christie leads independents by 15%. 

Why are all the polls all over the place??

[Eraserhead]

Wow. I gotta say, this race is really exciting. The Q poll is a shocker. I thought Christie would have been up a few points for sure.

[Eraserhead]

Here is the poll by the way: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1389&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0

[East Coast Republican]

This is going to seem REALLY partisan of me but do the crosstabs of this poll look a little messed up to you guys?  Christie increases from 9 to 15 on Indie vote, loses 3 on R I think Corzine gained on D but still...why such a wild swing if Christie went up on the indie vote?  Similar crosstabs to these gave Christie a 1% lead last week.

If someone has good theories Im open to listening to them.

[Badger]

This is going to seem REALLY partisan of me but do the crosstabs of this poll look a little messed up to you guys?  Christie increases from 9 to 15 on Indie vote, loses 3 on R I think Corzine gained on D but still...why such a wild swing if Christie went up on the indie vote?  Similar crosstabs to these gave Christie a 1% lead last week.

If someone has good theories Im open to listening to them.

Not sure. Tough to tell without the crosstabs including the raw numbers. From the "Trustworthy and honest" scores being Corzine's highest and Christie's lowest thus far (and the first time all year their numbers have been positive and negative, respectively), it could just be Corzine--like the seasoned pol he is--is simply peaking at just the right time. Though one can't rule out MoE or sampling error here either.

One side note on the subject of the effectiveness of campaign ads. The percentage of voters who found each candidate's ads to be more informative than annoying is just over double the percentage who said the ads made them more likely to vote for that candidate. While a few of those folks may've meant the ads were "informative" in that they revealed the candidate running them to be an untrustworthy SOB, and others may've been partisans who were already strongly backing a candidate but liked their guy's ad anywat, it appears more likely the ads may've had a subtle effect on a substantial number of voters who claimed the ads made no difference.

[Mechaman]

Democrats can thank Obama for this. 

OK, stop.  You might...repeat, might...have an argument about Virginia.  But this one...Corzine has brought this on himself, and was horridly unpopular during the Bush Administration as well.  The only hope he has of winning is that the public sees his opponent as more extremely flawed than he is.  Obama is definitely not responsible for Corzine's decline, Corzine is.

Dude, I don't think he's arguing that Obama is responsible of Corzine's decline, I think he's arguing that Obama is responsible for taking Corzine from a no chance in hell candidate to a might possibly win this candidate. If he's arguing that, then I agree.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Rowan]

I don't think it has anything to do with likely voter screens. Quinnipiac is the only one that doesn't show Corzine struggling with the base. The PPP poll has Corzine at only 67% among Democrats. Rasmussen had him at 70% before leaners.

[Rowan]

[See UPDATE: Now Quinnipiac says the sample splits 40 percent Democratic, 25 percent Republican, 29 percent Independent]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNlNjU4NmY1MjU4Y2Q5ZTdjOWFjY2UxMzVhYTFhZWY=

[fezzyfestoon]

Judging based on the support each candidate is getting from each party, I'm inclined to think this is going to incredibly close.  Christie's locked up Republican support obviously, but Corzine's support with Democrats and Christie's with Independents make for some conflicting expectations.  What I mean is that if Christie has strong support from Independents, I'm inclined to believe he'll be able to win off their support judging by their past late support of the Democrats.  On the other hand there's a huge gap in the usually fiercely partisan Democratic Party, which makes me believe they'll begrudgingly come home to Corzine on election day, giving him a surge.  If Christie takes the Independents by the amount he's been leading he should win, but if the Democrats show up for Corzine, he should win.  That confuses me.  Does it make sense to you guys?

[Rowan]

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

[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.

[Holmes]

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.

[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.

[Tender Branson]

SUSA probably out with a new poll today, R2000 in the coming days.

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Thanks Sam, and FWIW I wasn't being sarcastic. Snarky maybe, but certainly not sarcastic. ;-)

[Tender Branson]

Democracy Corps out with a new poll:

Corzine: 43%
Christie: 38%
Daggett: 12%

When Daggett voters are pushed to choose one of the two major party candidates, Corzine’s lead holds steady at 5 points, 47 to 42 percent.

These results are based on a Democracy Corps survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner from October 27-28, 2009 among 604 likely voters in New Jersey. The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percent.

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2009/10/corzine-leads-christie-by-five-points-in-new-jersey/

[East Coast Republican]

More trash from Democracy Corps