NJ-Rutgers/Eagleton: Hillary clobbers all Republicans

[Tender Branson]

58-35 Clinton/Christie

58-32 Clinton/Bush

60-29 Clinton/Walker

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll was conducted by telephone using live callers February 3-10, 2015 with a scientifically selected random sample of 813 New Jersey adults. The sample contains a subsample of 694 registered voters. The poll was available in Spanish for respondents who requested to do it in that language. This telephone poll included 290 landline and 523 cell phone adults, all acquired through random digit dialing.

http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rep-clinton2016-feb2015

[Suburbia]

It's early, but Christie looks like he may lose NJ if he's the nominee to any Democrat. Walker and Bush needs to compete for the Garden State, but right now, it's Safe D.

[henster]

It's early, but Christie looks like he may lose NJ if he's the nominee to any Democrat. Walker and Bush needs to compete for the Garden State, but right now, it's Safe D.

Why would they need to compete NJ? It's normally a safe D state.

[IceSpear]

It's early, but Christie looks like he may lose NJ if he's the nominee to any Democrat. Walker and Bush needs to compete for the Garden State, but right now, it's Safe D.

Why would they need to compete NJ? It's normally a safe D state.

bronz is nostalgic for the days when there were dozens of competitive states.

[hopper]

About right this poll looks. Obama won the state 57-42% over McCain in 2008 and Obama beat Romney 58-41% in NJ in 2012.

[Devils30]

Hillary is improving on Obama with whites but certainly more with northern whites than southern.

[Likely Voter]

Remember when people thought Christie could make NJ competitive?

[pbrower2a]

Hillary is improving on Obama with whites but certainly more with northern whites than southern.

What I noticed is that she is improving with whites in the big states (NY, FL, CA,...) and states that are already solidly Democratic. Not so much in the battleground states though (except for FL).

States for which I have seen polls of any kind since the November election (New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida) are not the sorts that would allow such a conclusion. All that I can say so far is that the map of a Hillary Clinton victory looks much like Obama in 2008 or 2012.

That two consecutive elections should have similar maps (1952/1956; 2000/2004; 2008/2012) isn't so surprising, since those have incumbents who win much the same constituencies in two consecutive elections. Three? Unheard-of!  Usually there is something about a different Presidential nominee that excites some voters that did not vote for the incumbent and turns off others.

I can't see Hillary Clinton losing any part of the Obama coalition of 2012 in 2016. Could she gain some? I have yet to see that. But one thing is sure; grafting a significant part of the Clinton-but not-Obama (or especially Carter-but-not Obama) coalition transforms a near-landslide into a full-blown landslide.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Hillary is improving on Obama with whites but certainly more with northern whites than southern.

What I noticed is that she is improving with whites in the big states (NY, FL, CA,...) and states that are already solidly Democratic. Not so much in the battleground states though (except for FL).

I can't see Hillary Clinton losing any part of the Obama coalition of 2012 in 2016. Could she gain some? I have yet to see that. But one thing is sure; grafting a significant part of the Clinton-but not-Obama (or especially Carter-but-not Obama) coalition transforms a near-landslide into a full-blown landslide.

What about younger voters? Hispanics? Black men? Why is she polling so badly in Colorado if she is gets full support of the Obama coalition?

Not because of losing black men or Hispanics, that's for sure. The younger voters in Colorado are Latte libs/hipsters who voted Obama because they hate neo-cons, but they prefer Ron/Rand Paul types. They don't like Hillary because she's "establishment".

[MT Treasurer]

Hillary is improving on Obama with whites but certainly more with northern whites than southern.

What I noticed is that she is improving with whites in the big states (NY, FL, CA,...) and states that are already solidly Democratic. Not so much in the battleground states though (except for FL).

I can't see Hillary Clinton losing any part of the Obama coalition of 2012 in 2016. Could she gain some? I have yet to see that. But one thing is sure; grafting a significant part of the Clinton-but not-Obama (or especially Carter-but-not Obama) coalition transforms a near-landslide into a full-blown landslide.

What about younger voters? Hispanics? Black men? Why is she polling so badly in Colorado if she is gets full support of the Obama coalition?

Not because of losing black men or Hispanics, that's for sure. The younger voters in Colorado are Latte libs/hipsters who voted Obama because they hate neo-cons, but they prefer Ron/Rand Paul types. They don't like Hillary because she's "establishment".

That's exactly my point. The Obama coalition is not necessarily a Hillary/Democratic coalition.