Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen New Jersey


Rasmussen Reports

New Jersey
Clinton 50, McCain 39... McCain 45, Obama 43

 

Comments
Bev:

Finally a poll which displays Obama's chief flaw: he can't deliver in the "blue" states Democrats depend on to win elections.

____________________

joshua bradshaw:

interesting does anyone have access to the cross tabs if so can you see an explanation for the difference, and does anyone know if new jersey is reliabley blue, red, or is it a toss up state.

____________________

Noah:

Obama won't lose NJ, a poll like this always pops up and gets rightwing hopes up but then they lose NJ by 10 points.

____________________

Callimaco:

I'm betting the swing are ethnic catholics.

____________________

Steve:

Click through and read:

"This is one of the few states where Clinton outperforms Obama in general election match-ups against McCain"

____________________

Steve:

Also, I suspect that many Clinton supporters polled, faced with the prospect that their candidate loses, at this moment angrily say they would vote for McCain over Obama, but in reality, in November they will vote Democrat.

Anyone who thinks NJ will go red this November hasn't been paying attention.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"Finally a poll which displays Obama's chief flaw: he can't deliver in the "blue" states Democrats depend on to win elections."

And the polls that show him performing much better than Clinton in Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, NEW YORK...

Are we to ignore those?

Don't use the exception to ignore the trend.

____________________

roy:

New Jersey, in recent years, has had a habit of flirting with the GOP in polls and then breaking Republican hearts in November. The Republicans in 2006 sand millions in a Senate race that wasn't even close.

____________________

Claudius:

C.S. Strowbridge, And what about his chief flaw that he has consistently lost to Hillary in the blue states, such as Florida, Mass., Michigan, New York, California? Democrats can't win without Florida and California, and he is no front-runner there. He's leading the Democrats to defeat in November. That trend will only accelerate as the press starts exposing his thin record. Today op ed pieces appeared in several east coast newspapers demonstrating that his Senate record and conduct showed no signs of the ability to unify across party lines. There were anonymous complaints from Senate colleagues that he was too ambitious, starting to run for the presidency the minute he landed there, to build any inter-party or intra-party coalitions. One op-ed piece stated that Governor Patrick, who ran on Obama's idential "unity" platform, has been unsuccessful in building unity and is not regarded as an effective Governor. Mass. voters overwhelmingly rejected Obama -- despite endorsements from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- due to discontent with Patrick, and because they knew that unity theme is a sham.

____________________

Anthony:

I support Clinton, but I believe that whomever the Democrats choose as their nominee will be victorious in November. It's going to take a little while to bring Democrats back together because we have two candidates that voters hold an abundance of passion toward.

____________________

Claudius:

Sorry for typo in sixth line up from bottom of my post. I meant "identical."

____________________

Bev:

Strowbridge, You forgot to point out that Obama loses miserably against McCain in Florida. The youth vote is going to give the presidency to the Republicans, just like they did in Gore's case. Thanks, kids, for going for superficial promises again, and ignoring political records and accomplishments, which more mature people have the time to examine.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"C.S. Strowbridge, And what about his chief flaw that he has consistently lost to Hillary in the blue states, such as Florida, Mass., Michigan, New York, California?"

Two point...

1.) He didn't run in Florida or Michigan, so you can't judge the results there.

2.) Obama it running better than Clinton in New York, despite what happened in the primary.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"Strowbridge, You forgot to point out that Obama loses miserably against McCain in Florida. "

And he beats him in Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and other states.

"The youth vote is going to give the presidency to the Republicans, just like they did in Gore's case. Thanks, kids, for going for superficial promises again, and ignoring political records and accomplishments, which more mature people have the time to examine."

Yeah, and you are acting really mature here. The poll numbers give Obama a decisive edge in a number of states and he looks able to win more EC votes than Clinton can.

If you want to argue that, give me some data. Don't point to two states and say, "Ah ah!" Give me a polls from the swing states, like you can find here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot

The evidence from Rasumssen is clear, Obama is more electable.

____________________

CaptainPatent:

"Strowbridge, You forgot to point out that Obama loses miserably against McCain in Florida. The youth vote is going to give the presidency to the Republicans, just like they did in Gore's case. Thanks, kids, for going for superficial promises again, and ignoring political records and accomplishments, which more mature people have the time to examine."

I would like to note that Obama did not campaign at all in Florida which will come later on. Perhaps I know that because as a younger member of the crew here, I had time to research... or more likely, I don't attribute age at all to the ability to research.

____________________

CaptainPatent:

"Strowbridge, You forgot to point out that Obama loses miserably against McCain in Florida. The youth vote is going to give the presidency to the Republicans, just like they did in Gore's case. Thanks, kids, for going for superficial promises again, and ignoring political records and accomplishments, which more mature people have the time to examine."

I would like to note that Obama did not campaign at all in Florida which will come later on. Perhaps I know that because as a younger member of the crew here, I had time to research... or more likely, I don't attribute age at all to the ability to research.

____________________

Bev:

Strowbridge, Two million votes cast in the Michigan and Florida primaries -- decisively rejecting Obama -- is something not to ignore. Hillary didn't campaign in those states either. Michigan voters knew that "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama. Older voters are not going to entrust the presidency to an unknown. Age is not the issue, it's the lack of a record. Thus far the blank slate has worked in Obama's favor, but it won't in the general election. And you want data? Just look at the primary results. Obama is a red state winner, and nothing more. He will never take those Republican states in a general election, Just study the trend in past presidential contests. With the Democrataic core rejecting him as a candidate in the dense, blue states, he doesn't stand a chance. McCain is looking more and more attractive to the older Democrat all the time, up against Obama, with his stammering. That's what your New Jersey poll shows. Again, thanks kids for blowing the election for the Democrats one more time.

____________________

Anon:

It will be a cold day in hell before NJ goes for McCain regardless of whether Obama is on the ticket or not.

____________________

G.G.:

C.S. and Captain P. -- please stick to teh facts. First, Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Second, it was Clinton who did not campaign there, while Obama did have more than a million dollars in tv ads there and held a press conference there (both in violation of the pledge both signed).

Now, with these facts as context, please do repost your new conjectures.

____________________

michael:

This is very interesting, and squares well with this poll from SurveyUSA (which tends to give Obama higher numbers):
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=62ab4c93-4826-4819-b270-98b429577f32&q=45622

This poll has McCain barely trailing Obama in [pause for effect] Massachusetts. Other states have shifted too - that big Florida poll had McCain up by ten, perhaps heralding an end to Florida's days as a swing state.

Why is Obama doing badly in MA and Florida, but well in other states? I would argue that McCain and Obama as candidates have taken ideology off the table as an issue, while heightening the salience of age.

Young Americans, with their poor civic educations (I've taught intro to American politics at the college level - it isn't pretty), are ready prey for the vague platitudes of an Obama candidacy. This is amplified by the fact that a lot of them don't realize that they are conservatives, since their baptism to the world of politics came during a time when the GOP was unpopular, especially among young people (and even moreso at college campuses).

Massachusetts in terms of age? Its the 12th oldest state. Florida is 6th. A necessary caveat, of course, is the Hispanic factor. Hispanic voters are resistant to Obama, and also tend to have large families (hence California is a young state).

Now some people have been saying, "but Obama has made inroads among Hispanics", because he did better in the Potomac primaries, etc. First, is this not simply reflective of his overall better performance in those states? Secondly, none of those states have substantial Hispanic populations - lets wait for Florida.

So, in other words, race is definitely on the table, and another cleavage that will be heightened in this race. That may make the south winnable for Obama, with rising black turnout, but it may also harm Obama in other places.

____________________

dvg:

I really don't think that there's much of a point in analyzing Head-to-Head's when the matchups are still hypothetical.

Personally, I think a lot of Obama's "big" leads over Clinton in these sorts of polls are Obama supporters inauthentically saying they will vote for McCain. In this poll, as in Mass, there are probably Clinton supporters doing the same.

A McCain v. Democrat poll would probably give more "accurate" results.

____________________

jan:

Michael.

the time to play the race card has long sense past.
the guy you are talking about, (Obama) won wisconsin by 17% victory margin and Virginia and Iowa and come with in 3% to Hillary in New hampshire.
we win turn minnesota and Wisconsine and IOwa blue.

people who talk about race should talk about themselves about their own racism because this election have shown that the old way of thinking just wont do

____________________

Andrew:

Funny, because the Obama leads in Virginia, NM, Maine, and NH clearly indicate that NJ is not an essential state. Clinton, on current course, will not win enough electoral votes to get the white house. Obama will. Thats clear as day, if you don't believe it fine, but Obama is going to deliver a decisive electoral college victory, and Clinton just wont get there. Even if she wins NJ.

____________________

Progny:

I'd like to know the reasoning behind the notion that that winning among DEMOCRATS in larger states is in any way an indication of how that state will go in a general election, i.e., Clinton wins CA in a primary, therefore she has a better chance than Obama of winning it in November.

See, I personally find it obvious that the candidate that dominates Independent voters in open primaries, and who wins among primary voters who also have nominated winning red state Democratic governors and senators is demonstratively stronger than someone who, say, wins MI when they are the only one on the ballot. But on the outside chance this argument is not totally absurd I'd like to hear it.

____________________

Andrew:

In the GE, McCain's lead over Obama is 5%.

But of course, Rasmussen seems to have a McCain biased compared to most other GE polls which always seem to find Obama with a large lead.

____________________

Phil:

I confess, I have trouble imagining an election cycle where New Jersey goes for the Republicans but Virginia goes for the Democrats.

I think the theory that Clinton supporters are right now a bit angry and throwing their support behind McCain is plausible. I doubt it's done to confuse the surveys, but I would also be surprised if those votes don't come back to the Democrats by November. I think there are a lot of ways in which Obama will fare better under GOP attacks than under Clinton's - Clinton is respected among Democrats. The Republicans aren't. And I think her attacks hurt him more among Democrats than GOP ones will.

____________________

jan:

rasmussen have Mccain out preforming both obama and Hillary in national numbers, it is the only pollster that have that consistency for Mccain (realclearpolitics.com) general match up. nationally obama in 10% ahead of Mccain in Ip-os poll (realclearpolitics) and 7% ahead in Pew poll (24 feb)
this as credible as "35 years of experience" line that HILLARY uses

____________________

DHinMI:

Read through the corpus of your work here responders. It's mostly all crap. The majority of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The moment a poll is posted, all sides take their bunker and fire blanks. Polls about a November match-up, on March 2, are almost meaningless. The poll that matters is the one conducted November 4, 2008.

____________________

DHinMI:

Read through the corpus of your work here responders. It's mostly all crap. The majority of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The moment a poll is posted, all sides take their bunker and fire blanks. Polls about a November match-up, on March 2, are almost meaningless. The poll that matters is the one conducted November 4, 2008.

____________________

Claudius:

Progny, Obama's lack of victory in populous, blue states is an indication of lack of party loyalty to him. The Democrats of those states are likely to wander. I don't think Democrats over 50 are rejecting Obama because he's black. They're rejecting him because he is unsubstantial and because his introduction of evangelical "preachiness" into politics is offensive and dangerous. Obama is purposefully blurring the distinction between church and state, something people of an older generation know leads to all sorts of trouble. Obama is also altering the identity of the Democratic party in unwanted ways with his use of "mega-church" style rallies. This may work in "red" and rural states, but metropolitan areas in the northeast and midwest can't handle it. A Colin Powell style black candidate would have no trouble with older voters. It's Obama's "preachiness" that older Democrats would find laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous. Obama will lose "blue" states in a general election. As New Jersey goes, so goes Michigan, New York, Florida, Mass., California, etc. . .

____________________

Anonymous:

Whatever you say Clintonists

____________________

Hope08:

Your post takes the cake for the most asinine today Claudius

____________________

Hope08:

New poll out!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama +9 in Texas, conducted 3/1 to 3/2

____________________

michael:

SurveyUSA had a poll in Massachusetts that had McCain behind by 2 points against Obama. I think the nomination of McCain and Obama has taken ideology off the table (while heightening other cleavages, namely race, class and age).

____________________

Makes you Wonder:

You would think that someone here would note that because both McCain and Obama appeal to independents, that a lot of "dependable" blue or red states may be considered purple in this election. Why does seems to evade most of the 101st Keyboard Kommandos? Obama vs McCain presents a unique race because both have some issues with "core" parts of their party and appeal greatly to indies. The exact opposite could be expected with a Kerry versus Gingrich campaign.

____________________

Andrew:

let's not forget, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in '04. Mccain seems like the type of candidate who would pull many Hispanics to his side, because of some of his positions on immigration, though never a majority, IMO.

That helps.

____________________

Jim D:

DHinMi is so correct.

Now, of course, this has been a very drawn out primary campaign and there's going to be some bitterness, and as an Obama nut I guess I'm (for right now) in the privileged position of "giving people a stern talking to," as opposed to "needing to hear the talk" myself. I'm really not better than anybody else here, just luckier.

That said:

* Please, PLEASE stop insulting Obama supporters, particularly young voters. Stop calling them dupes. It's insulting and it's wrong. I could of course ask, "who's the dumber dupe?" -- the young voter drawn to promises of change, or the older voter drawn to promises of more of the same? But let's get past that, shall we?

* The surest way to lose an election is to call the project of majority-building a "sham."

* Barack Obama is not Deval Patrick.

* Please recognize that Senator Obama does, in fact, have over a decade of legislative experience at both the state and federal level, including more "Washington insider" experience than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter had.

* Please recognize that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have unique strengths... and weaknesses.

* For those of you who doubt Senator Obama's depth and sincerity, I'd urge you to read The Audacity of Hope, and note the near-total consistency of what he wrote in 2006 with what he's saying now in 2008.

* Please recognize that this is only March, and we still have eight long months to go. Senator McCain is the Republican nominee in large part because every other Republican candidate imploded, and he was the "last man standing."

* We're going to win New Jersey... and the other 49 states too!

____________________

Cheech:

"We're going to win New Jersey... and the other 49 states too!"

OK buddy.

How's that new dimebag working out? Where can I buy some?

____________________

Ann Arbor Michigan:

Jimmy D, Just check out Rasmussen from yesterday. McCain is now perceived as the candidate best able to fix the economy!!! Even after the Republicans plunge the country into a recession, the majority thinks McCain can better fix it. Why? Because the hazy youth "movement" gave us the audacity of inane platitudes and inexperience. People don't want mob "majorities." They want principles and courage. McCain has that in spades. I've been a loyal Democrat my whole life, and have never been more sickened by any candidate than Obama. Do you think he can tar and feather Bill and Hillary as "racists," lie about her health care plan, spread misinformation about NAFTA, send out his goons to harass black supporters of Hillary with death threats, and, in the end, the Democrats can all come together? His conduct doesn't match his drivel. All Obama is is a hallow manipulator. There's no core of values; there's no bottom line to his ambition. That's what he's shown us. When you activley court "independents" and Republicans, you dilute the Democratic core values so much that the party disappears. The media created Obama and media will destroy him -- the sooner the better. I'm glad I live in a state where the Democrats were sane and substantial enough to have rejected Obama.

____________________

Jake:

Kids, You don't read someone's biography (their own account of who they are) to ascertain their character. You examine their actions. Obama has a history of avoiding controversial issues by voting "present." Or is that absent? He actively used racism to destroy his opponent and unleash in his youthful, blind followers the worst misogny I've ever witnessed. Racism and sexism are the values Obama's campaign has greased its wheels on. Has Obama done anything to discourage this mean mob he has gathered? I don't recognize this hazy, valueless mob as Democrats.

____________________

tony:

wow! so much commentary. i tend to discount november polling, so i will continue to do so. i do not believe nj has gone red since reagan, but i could be wrong. it is a pretty reliable blue state. this poll may simply reflect the fact that right now, clinton's supporters currently are for her or mccain. a pew study released last week shows that a chunk of her voters would trend to mccain if obama won -- a higher percentage than obama's. the syphoning off was greater among women and poor whites. of course, november polling is highly unreliable at this time of year. it only shows us what voters think today. THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THOSE POLLS THAT SHOW OBAMA WINNING. IT IS FAR TOO SOON TO TELL.

____________________

Phil:

Obama's autobiography -- what a reliable source -- should be entitled The Audacity of Mob Manipulation and Unbounded Ambition. Boy, people sure fell for his line.

____________________

Mike:

Bev,

You really need to grow up. Not all of us who voted for Obama are "kids" or "brainwashed". I for one am an intelligent Corporate IT Manager who banks well over $100K a year. I am well versed on the issues and am aware of each candidates flaws and advantages. You also need to consider that these "kids" are educating themselves and very involved in this race. It is angry, bitter Clinton supporters like you who have actually ruined your candidate's chance.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR