2 more polls by Rasmussen and Rutgers: Christie by 30 and 32
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:36:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections
  2023 & Odd Year Gubernatorial Election Polls (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  2 more polls by Rasmussen and Rutgers: Christie by 30 and 32
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2 more polls by Rasmussen and Rutgers: Christie by 30 and 32  (Read 1158 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2013, 08:52:57 AM »

Rasmussen:

58-28 Christie

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2013/new_jersey/election_2013_new_jersey_governor

Rutgers-Eagleton:

59-27 Christie

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~redlawsk//EP/Tables2013/GovElectionJune2013.pdf
Logged
ajc0918
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,860
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2013, 09:16:38 AM »

Not really surprising
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2013, 09:45:41 AM »
« Edited: June 15, 2013, 09:47:31 AM by BluegrassBlueVote »

It's ironic that winning an extraordinary amount of Democratic support in his re-election bid would probably hurt him in the Republican primary. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he has to go down as one of the most successful blue-state GOP governors in recent history.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2013, 10:49:46 AM »

It's ironic that winning an extraordinary amount of Democratic support in his re-election bid would probably hurt him in the Republican primary. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he has to go down as one of the most successful blue-state GOP governors in recent history.

The GOP's last four nominees were all known for receiving substantial cross-party support in their most recent election campaigns.  Like everyone, Republican voters like a winner.  They less tolerance for pandering to one's opponents, but considering that the aforementioned Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney all did just that, it's not really that big a deal.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2013, 11:33:14 AM »

It's ironic that winning an extraordinary amount of Democratic support in his re-election bid would probably hurt him in the Republican primary. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he has to go down as one of the most successful blue-state GOP governors in recent history.

The GOP's last four nominees were all known for receiving substantial cross-party support in their most recent election campaigns.  Like everyone, Republican voters like a winner.  They less tolerance for pandering to one's opponents, but considering that the aforementioned Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney all did just that, it's not really that big a deal.

None of those guys had even a tenth of the RINO reputation that Christie has been labeled with. Come on.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2013, 02:13:56 PM »

It's ironic that winning an extraordinary amount of Democratic support in his re-election bid would probably hurt him in the Republican primary. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he has to go down as one of the most successful blue-state GOP governors in recent history.

The GOP's last four nominees were all known for receiving substantial cross-party support in their most recent election campaigns.  Like everyone, Republican voters like a winner.  They less tolerance for pandering to one's opponents, but considering that the aforementioned Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney all did just that, it's not really that big a deal.

None of those guys had even a tenth of the RINO reputation that Christie has been labeled with. Come on.

McCain most certainly did (perhaps more so) and Dole to a lesser extent as well.  The main GOP base objection to Christie, which is not even necessarily unfair, is that by doing photo-ops with Obama days before the election he sabotaged Romney's campaign for his own political benefit.  His second-biggest problem, more easily corrected, is that a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that he's pro-choice, since he's a Northeastern moderate.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2013, 06:37:54 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2013, 06:41:47 PM by BluegrassBlueVote »

No, McCain was absolutely not viewed as much of a RINO in June 2005 as Christie is today. It's not even close. McCain was lucky that the Tea Party wasn't organized in its current format yet, and he had become much of a partisan/Bush ally post-911.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2013, 07:15:24 PM »

McCain was most widely known for McCain-Feingold and delaying the passage of Bush's tax cuts for months and forcing them to be toned down before voting against them.  Christie up until 7 months ago was the conservative hero who took on the teacher's unions and won and whom the party was frantically trying to draft for 2012.  His troubles are entirely due to the Obama back-slap.  McCain was far more negatively viewed by Republicans and his reputation as the neocon's neocon didn't help him with the base until 2007 when Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani declined to endorse the "surge" while he did.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2013, 11:00:18 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2013, 11:01:52 PM by BluegrassBlueVote »

McCain was most widely known for McCain-Feingold and delaying the passage of Bush's tax cuts for months and forcing them to be toned down before voting against them.  Christie up until 7 months ago was the conservative hero who took on the teacher's unions and won and whom the party was frantically trying to draft for 2012.  His troubles are entirely due to the Obama back-slap.  McCain was far more negatively viewed by Republicans and his reputation as the neocon's neocon didn't help him with the base until 2007 when Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani declined to endorse the "surge" while he did.

What are you trying to argue here? That the Republican base is unreasonable? You don't have to sell me on that.

And McCain wasn't being publicly reprimanded by the base at every turn possible like Christie is. Was he being denied an invite to CPAC festivities like Christie? Unlike Christie, McCain was actually painted as the big front-runner at this point in the 2008 cycle until immigration reform began to sap his fundraising. Hell, McCain was certainly never the least popular candidate among GOP voters like Christie is polling right now (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163082/paul-ryan-favorite-republicans.aspx).
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2013, 11:18:28 PM »

Actually, McCain was either not invited to or skipped CPAC every year until 2008, where he was almost booed off the stage.  He also was tied with Mitt Romney for least popular Republican among Republicans as of August 2007, after which his numbers began to climb (fitting the "surge" thesis): http://www.gallup.com/poll/28363/Public-Rates-Giuliani-Most-Favorably-Eight-Presidential-Hopefuls.aspx
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2013, 11:50:40 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2013, 12:05:04 AM by BluegrassBlueVote »

Find me some 2005 numbers that fit your argument (and are comparable to Christie's current footing). Being momentarily tied-for-last in a four-man field is a heck of a lot different than Christie's predicament. That was when the race was well under way and McCain's campaign was being written off as dead after his staff imploded.

I'm not saying that McCain didn't have his share of troubles with the base, it's just nothing like what Christie is dealing with right out of the gate. The Hug was a nuke that can't be underestimated.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2013, 01:59:04 AM »

McCain's problems with the base from 2000-2003 or so were actually far more significant than Christie's current problems, in large part because they were both substantive and symbolic, whereas with Christie it's more symbolic.  Read Jonathan Chait's 2000 column "This Man is Not a Republican":

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/man-not-republican#

By 2002, he was cosponsoring virtually the entire Democratic domestic agenda in the Senate, and people were urging him to run for president in 2004.....as a Democrat:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/04/come_home_mccain.html

In 2004 though, McCain appeared to make a decision that he could still be president, and the best means by which to reach the White House was via the GOP nomination, so he began a program of systematically un-mavericking himself.  Christie may very well do the same after he wins reelection by an enormous margin.  We'll see.  Obviously, that's a bit later in the cycle than what McCain did, so it may or may not work.
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2013, 07:49:38 AM »

But I can find op-eds of people swearing off Marco Rubio now, and I'm talking about the events gearing up for his 2008 run as the initial front-runner, not his insurgent 2000 campaign when Chait's was written. I want to see poll data that backs up the claims of McCain's glaring unpopularity with the base at this cycle like Christie is currently dealing with -- as the least favorable candidate in a wide open field almost two-and-a-half years away from the first primaries. The environment now is much more harrowing now for such mavericks.
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 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.