Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 17, 2019, 01:23:14 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  NJ-Kean Uni/Rasmussen: Clinton leads Christie by 5
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: NJ-Kean Uni/Rasmussen: Clinton leads Christie by 5  (Read 1312 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,340
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:27:30 pm »

New Jersey Survey of 1000 Likely Voters
Conducted September 19, 2013 By Pulse Opinion Research

In thinking about the 2016 presidential election, suppose you had a choice between Republican Chris Christie and Democrat Hillary Clinton. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Chris Christie or Democrat Hillary Clinton?

43% Chris Christie
48% Hillary Clinton
5% Some other candidate
4% Not sure

http://chpp.kean.edu/poll/new-jersey-survey-1000-likely-voters-0
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2013, 02:35:42 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,442
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2013, 03:08:08 pm »

Christie would probably lose by a bit more than Bush did in '04.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2013, 03:42:08 pm »

Imagine this poll done in Arkansas 24 years ago- just for fun

Arkansas Survey of 1000 Likely Voters
Conducted September 19, 1989 By Pulse Opinion Research

In thinking about the 1992 presidential election, suppose you had a choice between Republican George Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican George Bush or Democrat Bill Clinton?

43% Bill Clinton
48% George Bush
5% Some other candidate
4% Not sure

No way the election will be that close. It's still three years away. Clinton will have to move to the left to win the Democratic primary and that won't go over well in conservative Arkansas. Bush wins but Clinton probably keeps it at about 8-9 points.

Besides, President Bush is enjoying a great economy and soaring popularity. What could possibly go wrong??
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,755
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.87, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2013, 10:38:07 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.

Logged
Invisible Obama
DrScholl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,498
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2013, 10:43:38 pm »

Once again, the election results will have to speak loudly as they did last year. Mitt Romney was supposed to deliver his "home state" of Michigan last year, which didn't happen, same with Ryan in Wisconsin and to a lesser extent, Romney was supposed to do well enough in Massachusetts for Scott Brown to survive. None of that happened. At some point, there has to be a realization that Republicans aren't winning blue states just because they live in them.
Logged
Representative Joe Mad
Joe Mad
Full Member
***
Posts: 191


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2013, 12:04:07 am »

I think that New Jersey will be out of Christie's reach, yes, unless something big happens.  Same token though, I think that a lot of states Clinton seems to be doing very well in now will trend Republican as we near the election, go through the primaries and face the general campaign.  Assuming these two will even be the nominees (which as ignorant as I am regarding the future I do feel is a real possibility).
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2013, 11:47:56 am »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.



I never actually thought Clinton would win KY/TN/AR/WV/LA like any of the other people, so the point is irrelevant, but if I wanted to defend that I could say "what primary?" as in, who would Clinton really face?

I just do not think Christie can beat Hillary in New Jersey. The Bush/Clinton/Arkansas comparison is pretty bad.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,621
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2013, 11:55:06 am »

Christie would probably lose by a bit more than Bush did in '04.

eh, Bush ran at what, -5 vs national in NJ?  Christie could run at 0 to -3 or so.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,725
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2013, 12:04:16 pm »

Once again, the election results will have to speak loudly as they did last year. Mitt Romney was supposed to deliver his "home state" of Michigan last year, which didn't happen, same with Ryan in Wisconsin and to a lesser extent, Romney was supposed to do well enough in Massachusetts for Scott Brown to survive. None of that happened. At some point, there has to be a realization that Republicans aren't winning blue states just because they live in them.

Romney had no connection to Michigan other than his father, who most people not been alive or old enough to remember.
By 2012 Romney was an ex-governor of an extremely blue state going on six years. Many people no longer thought of him as Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, but Mitt Romney the Republican.

Christie on the other hand will be the incumbent governor of a fairly blue state, with most likely decent favorables.

Two totally different scenarios.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,737
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2013, 01:09:10 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.

When Dennis Kucinich ran for president in 2004 and 2008, he was pretty much ignored and never polled more than 1%. He didn't drag anyone to the left. Compare to fringe figures on the right like Bachmann, Cain, etc. who ended up dragging Romney to the right because they were once leading him in the polls.

A good example on the left would've been if Kucinich's presence forced every Dem candidate to commit to ending the Iraq War on their first day in office and then prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes. Obviously didn't even come close to happening.
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2013, 01:34:55 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.

When Dennis Kucinich ran for president in 2004 and 2008, he was pretty much ignored and never polled more than 1%. He didn't drag anyone to the left. Compare to fringe figures on the right like Bachmann, Cain, etc. who ended up dragging Romney to the right because they were once leading him in the polls.

A good example on the left would've been if Kucinich's presence forced every Dem candidate to commit to ending the Iraq War on their first day in office and then prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes. Obviously didn't even come close to happening.

Yes, thank you.
Logged
Fusionmunster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,490


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2013, 02:07:34 pm »

The poll shows Christie with a 66% approval rating. I think it shows that Hillary is actually incredibly strong in New Jersey, being able to beat someone that popular. I cant see Christie's anti gay marriage fight helping his numbers either.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,642
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2013, 01:23:24 pm »

President Barack Obama had to work with Governor Chris Christie to deliver the necessary aid after Hurricane Sandy. Contrast what Dubya did to Democratic pols in Louisiana.

Politicians have to give up something to do something, and a Democratic President making a Republican Governor look good for a few months so that they can prevent a Katrina-like catastrophe is a very good deal for everyone -- especially people in the Garden State.

 
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,725
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2013, 01:55:38 pm »

The poll shows Christie with a 66% approval rating. I think it shows that Hillary is actually incredibly strong in New Jersey, being able to beat someone that popular. I cant see Christie's anti gay marriage fight helping his numbers either.

Not necessarily, as New Jersey is already a D+6 PVI state, and much of Christie's support is from left-leaning Independents and Democrats, who prefer national Democrats but have a respect or even admiration for Christie. It's the same reason why I don't expect Christie to crack 60% in November-Democrats like him but they'll ultimately come home to Buono.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,755
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.87, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2013, 11:04:50 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.



I never actually thought Clinton would win KY/TN/AR/WV/LA like any of the other people, so the point is irrelevant, but if I wanted to defend that I could say "what primary?" as in, who would Clinton really face?

I just do not think Christie can beat Hillary in New Jersey. The Bush/Clinton/Arkansas comparison is pretty bad.

OK, but many people did, so I guess the point towards you was irrelevant. But really, Hillary wouldn't face anybody from the left but Christie would? And based on that you think Hillary is golden against anybody?
Logged
PolitiJunkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,128


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2013, 11:21:29 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.



I never actually thought Clinton would win KY/TN/AR/WV/LA like any of the other people, so the point is irrelevant, but if I wanted to defend that I could say "what primary?" as in, who would Clinton really face?

I just do not think Christie can beat Hillary in New Jersey. The Bush/Clinton/Arkansas comparison is pretty bad.

OK, but many people did, so I guess the point towards you was irrelevant. But really, Hillary wouldn't face anybody from the left but Christie would? And based on that you think Hillary is golden against anybody?

Don't try to make me out to be a Hillary booster...I've made it pretty clear on this forum that I am no fan of Hillary's. But Christie is going to face way more *legitimate* opposition from the right than Clinton does from the left; that's a fact, regardless of party affiliation, and anyone who denies that has their head up their rear or knows nothing about the current political landscape of the US.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,755
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.87, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2013, 11:27:25 pm »

This gap will only get bigger as Christie's post-Sandy popularity fades and Democrats "come home" to Hillary. Also, Christie will be pushed toward the right if he wants to win a Republican primary, so that will not bode well in liberal New Jersey. I think Christie will definitely keep it in single digits against Clinton, but he'd likely lose by 8 or 9 rather than 5 given that it is 2013, and the election is three years away. He could probably beat some of the weaker Democrats, or definitely at least bring it into a 3-4 point margin.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, this whole paragraph just sounds like a wishful pipe dream.

Also, you didn't even mention Hillary's primary. Did you mention she could destroy here chance at winning the "Clinton but not Obama" states by going too far left in the primary? Or do democrats never go to far left? And yes, Christie will be forced to move farther right in his primaries and his strength in New England will probably fade as well.



I never actually thought Clinton would win KY/TN/AR/WV/LA like any of the other people, so the point is irrelevant, but if I wanted to defend that I could say "what primary?" as in, who would Clinton really face?

I just do not think Christie can beat Hillary in New Jersey. The Bush/Clinton/Arkansas comparison is pretty bad.

OK, but many people did, so I guess the point towards you was irrelevant. But really, Hillary wouldn't face anybody from the left but Christie would? And based on that you think Hillary is golden against anybody?

Don't try to make me out to be a Hillary booster...I've made it pretty clear on this forum that I am no fan of Hillary's. But Christie is going to face way more *legitimate* opposition from the right than Clinton does from the left; that's a fact, regardless of party affiliation, and anyone who denies that has their head up their rear or knows nothing about the current political landscape of the US.

I'm not saying at all that your a Hillary booster of any kind, but you'd be convinced she'd win against anybody correct? But if only republicans get real opposition from their own party than that's quite a sad political landscape.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,621
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2013, 03:41:11 pm »

does Tom Kean really deserve his own university?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC