NJ-Rutgers/Eagleton Poll: Obama+17

[Tender Branson]

56% Obama
39% Romney

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll was conducted by telephone from September 27-30, 2012 with a scientifically selected random sample of 790 New Jersey registered voters. This telephone poll included 655 landline respondents and 135 cell phone respondents, all acquired through random digit dialing. Within this sample 645 respondents were identified as likely voters by scoring responses to questions about interest in politics, in the presidential election, plans to vote, and vote history. Approximately 81 percent of registered voters were identified as likely voters by this measure. In 2008, 73 percent of registered New Jersey voters actually voted.

For Umengus:

Sample (LV):

40% D, 34% I, 26% R

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~redlawsk/EP/Tables2013/2012NJPresSep2012.pdf

[Lief]

Alright, either all these state polls are wrong or all these national polls are wrong, because Obama seems to be at or above his 2008 numbers in every state but only polling 3% ahead of Mitt Romney nationally.

[Secretary Polnut]

Alright, either all these state polls are wrong or all these national polls are wrong, because Obama seems to be at or above his 2008 numbers in every state but only polling 3% ahead of Mitt Romney nationally.

Yeah... this is starting to get really confusing...

I don't see any evidence that Obama is hemorrhaging support in red states (blue... ugh, you know what I mean), considering the polling out of the solid dem states is starting to look 2008-like, the swing state polling is a bit all over the place... but still positive for Obama... only IN and MO look weaker for Obama. But there will be some drop-offs in the Obama swing states like Iowa and New Hampshire and Colorado and Nevada.

But yes, the state polling and the national polls are telling different albeit similar stories.

[traininthedistance]

Alright, either all these state polls are wrong or all these national polls are wrong, because Obama seems to be at or above his 2008 numbers in every state but only polling 3% ahead of Mitt Romney nationally.

There are several states which have been polling better for Romney than the McCain results- or we can assume would poll better, if anyone ever bothered.  Utah, Indiana, Georgia, the Dakotas come to mind.

I don't think that Utah is enough to make up the whole discrepancy... but there are many more Utahns, and they're more enthusiastic, and more uniformly Republican... Nah.  That can't be the whole story, can it?

[TrapperHawk]

Alright, either all these state polls are wrong or all these national polls are wrong, because Obama seems to be at or above his 2008 numbers in every state but only polling 3% ahead of Mitt Romney nationally.

Well, one possibility is that the LV field for the national polls may be a bit too strict. After all, Obama's lead is higher if you look at RV instead. For example, Obama's lead in today's NBC/WSJ poll was its highest ever (+7) for RV. Though it was only +3 for LV. That could account for the discrepancy between national polls (where the race is narrow) and state (where the race looks like 2008). Not sure if this theory is even close to being accurate, but it popped in my mind.

[pa2011]

I agree LV model may be too strict. In most polls if you look at registered voters, Obama is up 6 to 9 points among Registered voters. In the end, as the election draws near, without a major change in tracjectory for Romney, Obama's lead could actually increase as more of these voters fit into LV models or more pollsters realize they were perhaps too strict.