NJ: Rasmussen: McCain +1 against Obama, +3 against Clinton

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: New Jersey President by Rasmussen on 2008-03-27

Summary: D: 42%, R: 45%, U: 13%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details


McCain: 46%
Obama: 45%

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Wow.  McCain up 3 in Hillary's backyward.

Obama = fail.

[Tender Branson]

Wow.  McCain up 3 in Hillary's backyward.

Obama = fail.

Rasmussen - 28 March 2006:

Kean: 43%
Menendez: 36%

Actual Result:

Menendez: 53%
Kean: 44%

3 words:

Everything is possible.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Wow.  McCain up 3 in Hillary's backyward.

Obama = fail.

Rasmussen - 28 March 2006:

Kean: 43%
Menendez: 36%

Actual Result:

Menendez: 53%
Kean: 44%

3 words:

Everything is possible.

True dat, true dat.

[agcatter]

NJ has always been the Republican's fool's gold.

I don't even look at polls out of there anymore.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Bush lead Kerry here early, Forrester lead Corzine here early, Kean lead Menendez here early. 

McCain will not come close in NJ. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

McCain will not come close in NJ. 

Oh, no, I fully expect him to "come close."

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Bush lead Kerry here early, Forrester lead Corzine here early, Kean lead Menendez here early. 

McCain will not come close in NJ. 

Just like Bush led Kerry in Massachusetts too? Those polls were never produced, by the way.

I don't remember Bush leading Kerry here, only that it got close closer to election season. I remember Bush lead one poll in September, but Kerry led them later on.

Look, I don't think McCain will win NJ in the end, but McCain is polling there better than Bush ever did in 2004.

[Gustaf]

Of the 40 polls this site lists from New Jersey in 2004 4 showed Bush and Kerry tied and 1 showed Bush ahead by 4%. None of those were Rasmussen, btw. Rasmussen's final poll showed Kerry ahead by 12% when he ended up winning by 6%. The final poll average in New Jersey in 2004 as per the site was pretty much spot on (Kerry ahead by 7%).

In the 2006 senate race the polls showed it as a close race for a long time. The last 18 polls before the election all showed Menendez ahead, however. Rasmussen's final poll was Menendez +5% while the actual result was Menendez +9%.

Still a long way to go of course.

[Person Man]

There ya go, Rassy is a bit right leaning in the early game.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

OM!G....MCCAIN WILL NEVR GET NEWJERSEY BUT OBAMA WILL BIG WIN THE KANSAS!! OMG!

[Gustaf]

There ya go, Rassy is a bit right leaning in the early game.

Prove it.

[© tweed]

There ya go, Rassy is a bit right leaning in the early game.

Prove it.

there's no way to prove that it is or is not

[Gustaf]

There ya go, Rassy is a bit right leaning in the early game.

Prove it.

there's no way to prove that it is or is not

Exactly. Which is why I wouldn't throw around such statements.

[© tweed]

what we can do is compare these numbers to Rasmussen's national daily robotrack...

this poll was conducted on 03/27; McCain led both Clinton and Obama by 10% nationally that day according to Rasmussen.

which makes NJ 9% more Obama than the national average and 7% more Clinton than the national average; not dissimilar at all to John Kerry (who lost the PV by 2.5% and won NJ by 6% in 2004 IIRC, adding up to NJ being ~8.5 more Kerry than the national average)

so nothing to see here, folks.  if McCain wins nationally by ten points - like he would have per Rasmussen had the election been held on March 27th - he may well squeak out a small win in New Jersey.  otherwise, not.

[bullmoose88]

Poll probably only has value in the sense that it shows McCain's maximum/ceiling in NJ since independents and undecideds (and those who escape polling) lean heavily democratic there.  Unless a reliable poll shows the GOP candidate over 50%, the dems should be favored.

McCain's ceiling is somewhere between say 44-47%.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Have polls taken in New Jersey ever shown George H.W. Bush beating or dead even with Bill Clinton in 1992 I wonder?   Or Bob Dole being competitive there in 1996?   Or what about George W against Gore in 2000?  Or in 2004 against Kerry?

Anyway you try to spin this, having Obama in dead heats with McCain in states that should be safe Democratic ones is not a positive sign for Democrats.   If blue states are the new battlegrounds, and the normally red states are safe for McCain, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama faces an uphill battle November.

[Alcon]

Have polls taken in New Jersey ever shown George H.W. Bush beating or dead even with Bill Clinton in 1992 I wonder?   Or Bob Dole being competitive there in 1996?   Or what about George W against Gore in 2000?  Or in 2004 against Kerry?

Anyway you try to spin this, having Obama in dead heats with McCain in states that should be safe Democratic ones is not a positive sign for Democrats.   If blue states are the new battlegrounds, and the normally red states are safe for McCain, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama faces an uphill battle November.

Two things:

1. We didn't see a remotely reputable pollster so regularly out on their lonesome in 2004 as Rasmussen is here in 2008.

2. I can't speak for pre-2004.  This early, Kerry was up.  There were two points at which Bush seemed to tie the race there up, though.  Everyone here is right about New Jersey being a golden carrot.

You seem intent on only looking at Rasmussen polls in certain states, instead of - say - Colorado.  Why is that?  Does McCain's inability to hold some traditionally GOP states mean he's in trouble too?  McCain and Obama both in trouble...sounds about right to me.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

instead of - say - Colorado.  Why is that?  Does McCain's inability to hold some traditionally GOP states mean he's in trouble too?  McCain and Obama both in trouble...sounds about right to me.

But that's the problem.  If Colorado is the only state where McCain is struggling to keep a state red, and Obama has battleground states emerging in places like MI, NJ, WI, WA, and PA--that should not be battlegrounds--then Obama has a major problem on his hands.   The Dems should be miles ahead.

And what are the latest poll numbers from CO?  It will only be a matter of time before we'll start seeing McCain with solid leads over BO there.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Have polls taken in New Jersey ever shown George H.W. Bush beating or dead even with Bill Clinton in 1992 I wonder?   Or Bob Dole being competitive there in 1996?   Or what about George W against Gore in 2000?  Or in 2004 against Kerry?

Anyway you try to spin this, having Obama in dead heats with McCain in states that should be safe Democratic ones is not a positive sign for Democrats.   If blue states are the new battlegrounds, and the normally red states are safe for McCain, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama faces an uphill battle November.

I can speak from experience that Bob Dole indeed visited the state (I actually went to a 1996 Flemington rally), and had Christie Whitman on his VP short list because New Jersey was then considered a "must win."

Unfortunately for Dole, the polls never actually showed him doing well there, and he wound up abandoning the state.

I'd guess that Poppy Bush was leading in lots of early NJ polls in 1992, but early in 1992, Bill Clinton was in third place nationally.  The deciding factor in Jersey back in '92 was Perot—he definitely ate way into Bush's margins in places like Hunterdon and Somerset.  Bush probably would have won it otherwise.

[Alcon]

instead of - say - Colorado.  Why is that?  Does McCain's inability to hold some traditionally GOP states mean he's in trouble too?  McCain and Obama both in trouble...sounds about right to me.

But that's the problem.  If Colorado is the only state where McCain is struggling to keep a state red, and Obama has battleground states emerging in places like MI, NJ, WI, WA, and PA--that should not be battlegrounds--then Obama has a major problem on his hands.   The Dems should be miles ahead.

And what are the latest poll numbers fromM CO?  It will only be a matter of time before we'll start seeing McCain with solid leads over BO there.

Before making statements like these, should you have already looked into the polls yourself?  I'd expect someone with such a solid "get" on Colorado to be familiar with polls there.

Rasmussen is getting significantly different results in a number of states.  If you trust Rasmussen more than any other pollster, Obama seems to be in trouble currently.  Otherwise, McCain seems to be in slightly more trouble than Obama does.

If you assume that Obama has no place to go but down, yeah, Obama is screwed.  And polls don't matter, so you must wasted my time.

WASTED MY TIME.

  !!!

[Eraserhead]

Bush lead Kerry here early, Forrester lead Corzine here early, Kean lead Menendez here early. 

McCain will not come close in NJ. 

Just like Bush led Kerry in Massachusetts too? Those polls were never produced, by the way.

I don't remember Bush leading Kerry here, only that it got close closer to election season. I remember Bush lead one poll in September, but Kerry led them later on.

Look, I don't think McCain will win NJ in the end, but McCain is polling there better than Bush ever did in 2004.

That is incorrect.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Bush lead Kerry here early, Forrester lead Corzine here early, Kean lead Menendez here early. 

McCain will not come close in NJ. 

Just like Bush led Kerry in Massachusetts too? Those polls were never produced, by the way.

I don't remember Bush leading Kerry here, only that it got close closer to election season. I remember Bush lead one poll in September, but Kerry led them later on.

Look, I don't think McCain will win NJ in the end, but McCain is polling there better than Bush ever did in 2004.

That is incorrect.

Why? Bush lead in one poll by 4% and tied Kerry one time. The rest of the polls showed Kerry with healthy leads, especially at this juncture. Obama has lead two polls in New Jersey, tied in one other, and McCain has led in two polls. Why is my statement incorrect? Bush never led more than one time.

[Democratic Hawk]

The telling story here is, relative to Rasmussen's previous NJ poll, is just what poor shape Clinton is in right now. To go from an 11% lead to a 3% deficit against McCain must be troubling

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Have polls taken in New Jersey ever shown George H.W. Bush beating or dead even with Bill Clinton in 1992 I wonder?   Or Bob Dole being competitive there in 1996?   Or what about George W against Gore in 2000?  Or in 2004 against Kerry?

Anyway you try to spin this, having Obama in dead heats with McCain in states that should be safe Democratic ones is not a positive sign for Democrats.   If blue states are the new battlegrounds, and the normally red states are safe for McCain, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama faces an uphill battle November.

I'm not discouraged by the fact that Obama is in a dead heat with McCain in NJ as of now

Dave