PPP: Obama Leads 2012 Field by 15-30 Points in New Jersey

[MadBadger]

Barack Obama would easily win New Jersey again if he had to stand for reelection today, even if Republicans put forth Chris Christie as their candidate. Obama leads Christie by a 17 point margin in a hypothetical contest, the same amount Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich trail by. Mitt Romney does the best of the leading Republican contenders in the state, trailing Obama by 15, and Sarah Palin has one of her worst performances in any state we've polled to date, lagging the President by a whooping 30 points.

Christie still has decent approval numbers for a Republican in a blue state, with 48% of voters happy with the job he's doing to 45% who express disapproval. Republicans are pretty unanimous in their support for his performance, independents give him a positive 55/39 spread, and even 23% of Democrats give him good marks which is not a bad amount of crossover support in this political climate. His popularity with Democrats and independents does not, however, extend to support in a possible Presidential bid. Only 7% of Democrats are actually willing to vote for him over Obama and with independents he just breaks even with Obama at 42%. That's quite a contrast to the enormous margin he won them by against Jon Corzine in 2009.

None of the other Republicans are competitive with Obama either. Part of that is a function of New Jersey voters generally being happy with the job the President's doing- 51% of them approve of his job performance to 43% disapproving. It's obviously a strongly blue leaning state to begin with and beyond that there are more GOP voters- 12% who approve of Obama than there are Democrats- 9%- who disapprove. Obama continues to lack popularity with independents in the state but his good numbers with Democrats outweigh that.

Beyond Obama's popularity though the current crop of top Republicans simply has very little appeal to voters in New Jersey. Mitt Romney with a 35/41 favorability and Mike Huckabee at 32/41 have marginally bad numbers. Newt Gingrich at 29/49 and Sarah Palin at 27/65 have exceptionally poor ones. Most telling, none of the GOP hopefuls wins greater than 9% of the Democratic vote against Obama- it is simply not possible for a Republican to win a state as dark blue as New Jersey without more support across party lines than that.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-would-dominate-christie-others-in.html

[Arkana]

1. Hahahaha.

So much for "Carter Redux."

Barring a cataclysm, the GOP's propensity for nominating "the next guy in line" will all but ensure Obama's reelection.

[27inCali]

2. put this together with his numbers in the mid-west,

VA, FL, CO, NV, NM

Republicans will be fighting for these states, not any traditional blue states.

[stevenleser]

17. I'm much more concerned about Ohio right now.

It has been a while since I looked but it was not looking good for Obama in Ohio. He has to be competitive in Ohio otherwise the resources the 'pugs would use there will be reallocated to Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina.

[jenmito]

3. Wow-I rec'ed this and it's still at 0?

Who would unrec this?

[MadBadger]

4. Haters gonna hate

[jenmito]

5. That's for sure. n/t

[impik]

7. Who wouldn't? This is not a pro-Democrat site anymore. It's just not

[LeftyAndProud60]

6. LOL. He lead Christie in NJ. OUCH NT

[bluestateguy]

8. We need to cool it with the polls

The election is over.

[MadBadger]

9. Pathetic that people actually unrecced this from 5 recs

[AtomicKitten]

10. Sweet.

k&r

[Hutzpa]

11. These are way too early numbers to get excited

Clinton was leading Obama by 50 points too....

Just sayin'

[karynnj]

12. Not the same thing

Obama is now a sitting President and thus a known factor and he is being tested against Republicans. Primaries are far more volatile as a very significant number of people are not in play at all. The differences between primary candidates are small and there is more shifting.


Four years ago when Hillary and Obama both announced, she was about 20 points ahead (scroll to Jan/Feb 2007) - but over 2007, that preference diminished as people saw more of Obama.

[Hutzpa]

13. My point is

I do not want us to get complacent.

[karynnj]

14. I agree 100% - not to mention if NJ was up for grabs, we are in major trouble

If these results were PA - where they would be even more impressive, I would still agree with you that we can't be complacent.

[trayNTP]

16. The media created the Obama movement of 2008, and the 2010 Tea Party movement.

Stay tuned to see what movement they create in 2012, and bet your money on that one.

[karynnj]

21. I agree that they pushed both - but disagree that they can completely control anything

The fact is that by the end of 2006, it was 100% clear that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would almost certainly win the Presidency. In 2006, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all had media support. Hillary was, if anything, given the most and the most overwhelmingly positive coverage. It could very easily have played out differently and ended with our first woman President.

I think there were points where coverage shifted - I think the Edwards campaign got worse coverage after the campaign had Elizabeth attack Hillary comparing "her decisions" which made her happy to "Hillary's decisions" - with the implications about her marriage and JRE's strident calls for Congress to do things he knew they wouldn't and couldn't (like taking away health care until it passed.) John Edwards was no longer the "sunny" candidate they loved in 2004. He lost favor in the MSM, but gained in left magazines.

With Hillary, I think the shift from the portrayal of the inevitable, well prepared, calm, well organized, experienced and wise alternative started after she gave a couple of contradicting answers on a question on a Spitzer bill that dealt with licenses and illegal immigrants. The answers were not the problem - at most it was mildly embarrassing and could have been fixed by Hillary speaking of the issue as complicated and putting out a thoughtful, well reasoned analysis of her full position - maybe backing a variant or an alternative.

Instead, she went to Wellesley and spoke of it being the guys ganging up on the girl - when this was really the normal going after the front runner. Then Bill Clinton topped that by speaking of "swiftboating" - which this absolutely was not. I think their response showed brittleness and the worst side of them. More importantly, it played against the appealing image that the campaign had of a battle hardened leader, who was calm, wise, and able to take what was thrown at her. Saying she gave 2 answers - when she did - is not anyone's idea of even being unfair.

Now, in terms of winning, the fact that Clinton's campaign assumed a SuperTuesday victory and had no plan B when Obama - under the radar - kept close to her numbers on SuperTuesday had a bigger impact than the media. The media did help Obama do that, but it wasn't a media plan. The Obama team used a Kerry endorsement that he offered a few months before to be given when they thought it would help most and then the Caroline and Ted Kennedy endorsements. Those endorsements - with the happy, jubilant speeches were newsworthy and were covered - especially the Kennedy ones. But, it was a set of good moves by the Obama team and some missteps by the Clintons that gave him the nomination. Obamamania started as he was moving up the polls. Good coverage helped, but if it could have worked inspite of the candidate - Edwards would have won the nomination in 2004.

[trayNTP]

22. Poll support corresponds with media coverage. Pew numbers showed this clearly in 2007.

During the 2008 campaign season in 2007, Pew was breaking down how much coverage the Democratic candidates were receiving, early on.

Clinton was getting significantly more, Obama 2nd highest, Edwards 3rd most, Richardson 4th most, the rest jumbled together.

If you looked at all public opinion polls at the same time, the numbers fell the same way. They were usually something like:

Clinton 47%
Obama 25%
Edwards 14%
Richardson 7%
All others 1% each.

Over time, coverage of Clinton became less about the looming Clinton landslide, and more about whether Democrats wanted to relive the past, at which time Obama began to take off more. Of course, the media had previously began following Obama's book tour. The coverage of that did more for him support-wise in creating the foundation for the "2008 movement" than his 2004 DNC speech did. Presidential campaign went the same way in terms of coverage. Obama got twice as much positive network news coverage as McCain. For cable news, it probably depended on the channel you watched. Most people still get most of their "news" from TV, so they are going to decide based on what they hear. If they hear more good about one, that's usually who they'll go with.

As for 2004, Edwards didn't get great coverage then. What he got was positive, but limiting. After he placed 2nd in Iowa, the media immediately began, that night, marginalizing him by calling him Kerry's running mate, instead of Kerry's primary challenger for the nomination. As a result, voters started seeing him as a VP instead of a President, and rushed to nominate Kerry because they were convinced they'd get Edwards on the ticket also. Kerry didn't want Edwards as a running mate, but because the media had started that night promoting Edwards as VP, Kerry was confronted by Washington Democrats and supporters who were telling him to choose Edwards, so he did. Edwards was actually the most electable of the 2004 Democrats, according to a "By the People" PBS research project that has since been removed from their web site (the PDF file with the matchup results), which showed that Edwards would have defeated Bush by at least 9 points, before 15% of undecideds made up their mind. Of course, the media knew of this study, but did not publicize it because they were too busy telling Democrats that Kerry was the most electable (he and Bush were tied at 47% in that same study).

The PBS study was not a "poll", it was a deliberative project.

[karynnj]

23. That data is interesting

However, it would be interesting to assess whether it might be the other way around. Could it be that the coverage followed the popularity.

2004 might actually show that coverage follows popularity. Kerry got almost no coverage - negative or positive - in the second half of 2003. The only coverage was on when he was likely to drop out and that he loaned himself money. The only exception was a cover article on Tour of Duty in the Atlantic.

In January 2004, Kerry did get positive coverage when he was reunited with Rassmann, the man he saved in Vietnam. This was an almost 1940's movies type moment and it got the coverage it deserved. This was not the media hyping anyone. Kerry then got coverage as the winner of Iowa, though if you go back and compare 2004 and 2008, Kerry got less coverage than Obama did. (In fact, the media spent a huge amount of its time - that typically would have gone to the winner - attacking Dean.)

As to not giving similar coverage to Edwards, he lost to Kerry and was not really in contention with Kerry in NH. NH was a contest between Dean and Kerry - and Kerry won.

However, the media then had its peak Edwards coverage as the next important event was a day when 7 states were up - and they were states that if Edwards were to win the nomination he needed to be the big winner. They were Southern, southwestern, or rural. Howard Dean said when he lost NH that he was ignoring them and concentrating on the next group of states that were better for him (and for Kerry). This was the point where Edwards could have been like Clinton in 1992 - who lost Iowa and NH and then won big when Southern states were up. When Kerry won MO, ND, DE, AZ, and NM and Edwards won only SC - it was in reality a point where it was clear Edwards would not win. (The seventh state OK, was won by Clark with 30%, Edwards also had 30%, but Kerry had 27% - making it basically a wash in terms of delegates. ) Yet the CNN headline was that it was a big day for Kerry and Edwards. I think my analysis that if Edwards was not to get these states, what states could he get?

Then in WI where Kerry won and Edwards was many points behind, much of the media took Edwards' comment that things seen in the rear view mirror are closer than they seem as having some merit. At this point, Kerry had won 14 out of 16 contests. Yet the media was unwilling to say that he had the nomination locked up. They DID say he was the frontrunner - but given that he had won 14 out of 16 contests, it would have been hard NOT to do so.

At that time, The NYT had an op-ed about a week before Kerry clinched the nomination saying that we knew the Democratic nominee would be "John", but it was not clear what the last name would be. That oped went on to make the case for Edwards. This in spite of the difference in the states already won and the fact that Kerry was polling double digits ahead of Edwards in all the big states that were voting the next week - including NY, CA and MA. When Kerry's wins were as big as the polls suggested, he had almost all the delegates he needed with only half the states having voted. At that point - and only then - the media pretty much declared him the defacto nominee.

It was only then that they started their push to make Edwards the VP nominee. That campaign was shameless in that the theme in many articles was that if Kerry picked anyone else it was due to vanity and not wanting Edwards to outshine him - completely ignoring that Kerry had received well over twice the number of votes that Edwards did through SuperTuesday when both were running. Kerry reluctantly chose Edwards because everything pointed to him as the one who could help the campaign the most. In fact, had Kerry gotten the enthusiastic Edwards of the primaries willing to work cooperatively as the VP, it would have been a reasonable pick. But, that would have meant a less egocentric Edwards than the real one. Because of Kerry's unwillingness to speak of Edwards at all, my guess is that the stories of him not be willing to defend Kerry or attack Bush are just the tip of the iceberg.

As to the PBS poll quoted here so often in 2005 - 2007 - there were MANY polls that showed Kerry to be by far the stronger candidate - that in spite of the fact that frontrunners are tested and negative stuff thrown at them. Edwards was NEVER a frontrunner and he never had to withstand any of the intensity that Dean and then Kerry faced. As to the "more electable" that was always used in a weird way. Voters at exit polls were asked to choose ONE reason for voting as they did. Kerry was seen as more Presidential and more electable - both based on Kerry's strengths, not media spin. In a very troubled time, someone with Edwards very slim resume and lack of depth would have been destroyed in the general election. The fact is the election ended up turning on foreign policy and national security - issues where Kerry was FAR stronger than Edwards.

I know that Edwards people, including Elizabeth, have spun the 2004 nomination as much closer than it really was. (Elizabeth brings up the possibility of Edwards winning if Dean would have endorsed him and dropped out before Wisconsin. Dean only received about 10 percent of the vote and there is no reason to assume that all the Dean supporters would have voted in the wake of him dropping out and of those who did, there might have been many who voted for Kerry. (Through most of 2003, I was for Kerry or Dean - against all the more conservative candidates, among whom Edwards was counted - I would bet that this was not unusual and where I went to Kerry, many of my "cohort" might have gone to Dean" At any rate, it would have at most been a narrow second win for Edwards and unlikely to shift MA, CA, or NY from Kerry. )

[trayNTP]

24. The PBS study was not a "poll". It was a deliberative research project; a "study".

It was a better predictor because what it really looked at was acclimation. Showing Bush and Kerry tied at 47% suggested that between the two, Americans wouldn't give one a distinctive preference after seeing them over the course of the General Election campaign, and we'd end up with a close election. We did.

Showing Edwards at around 47% and Bush around 38%, with 15% undecideds, showed voters would have given Edwards a clear advantage after having seen both Bush and Edwards over the course of a campaign. Since undecideds tend to break for the challenger, one could expect most of those 15% to come to Edwards, which suggests he could have broken 50% against the incumbent Bush.

Again, the most important point of all of this is how establishment media ignored this study. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC...all ignored it because they didn't want people to know it.

If this "study" had gotten the exposure it deserved, would Democrats have believed that "Kerry was the most electable"? Could this be reported while at the same time it's being catapulted that "Kerry is the most electable"? Of course not.

And that brings me back around to the fact that, no, the coverage doesn't follow the polls. The polls follow the coverage. Look at the GOP contenders now. None of those ahead in the polls right now will even sniff the GOP nomination in 2012. It's going to end up being someone like John Thune or Haley Barbour, but they aren't registering anywhere in the national polls...because they haven't yet received the type of television coverage that the 2008 has-beens have.

In this country, that's what matters most. The promotion. After Thune announces, look for him to become the GOP sensation. He'll be favorable to both the religious and the business Republicans. He's from "South Dakota", which is a non-threatening State. For Republicans, southern State Republicans tend to make people uncomfortable because of their racist histories. For Democrats, it's states like California and New York that get smeared as being "too leftist". But coming from "South Dakota", a lot of people aren't going to fear Thune, and they'll view him as a moderate. Then he's somewhere between 6'4 & 6'7, which will make him tower over all other candidates, except maybe Pawlenty. "He'd be the tallest President ever", the media will say. That'll be the bait to get people to search him. When they do, they'll like what they see. Then when they hear him speak, he'll sound so "humble" to them, and that's it.

Watch.

It's all about the coverage. The majority of people don't know squat until they see and hear about it on TV, so it can't be the other way around.

Today's media is in the business of creating reality, not reporting it.

[karynnj]

25. A "deliberate research project" - that makes it MORE subject to

question. It is then dependent on the information provided to people. (ie If I chose articles and videos for Kerry and for Edwards - I know that I could make either win - just by cherry picking. Many supposedly "neutral" summaries of candidates are in essence similar to push polls. Very few people take the time to absorb the entire biography, record and platform of each candidate.)

My background is applied math, operations research and statistics. Although I have not seen a serious paper on this project, I am skeptical because it is not possible to simulate what would happen as people learn more - some true and some lies - about the candidates. That comes from my background and it is why I always question any analysis on complex systems that can't objectively be measured.

One thing that would be needed in a study like this is to insure that there is no hint of who the testers favored. In addition, given that this was not a phone call, where it was done matters.

The fact is that the real test was the primaries - and John Kerry was picked easily over Edwards. Iowa, where all the candidates meet face to face with interested relatives is a real life "deliberate research project". Though Edwards did well, Kerry did far better. I know Edwards people say that had the election been later, they would have won - that is based on stupid math - where they assumed that the rate of growth in people selecting Edwards would continue unabated. This ignored that Kerry was also gaining people at a rapid click and he was losing very very few. The fact was that by election day, the pool of people undecided was approaching zero. Dean and Gephardt, who both lost support, were down to hard core supporters. My guess is that had the election been later, if anything Kerry would have won by more.

In addition, it was clear that he performed in at best a mediocre way as the VP nominee. Since then, people have seen a lot more of who both Kerry and Edwards are. The fact is Kerry, with a long record of accomplishments and a reputation for integrity and character, has continued demonstrating both that character and added new accomplishments. Edwards has shown his lack of integrity and character and has few real accomplishments to show for his time in public life. He was a pretty undistinguished Senate career. Neither will ever be president, but Kerry would have been worthy of the honor - not so Edwards.

In fact, here's an article from today suggesting that had Kerry picked Ed Rendell, he might well have won. http://articles.mcall.com/2011-01-13/news/mc-paul-carpenter-rendell-20110113_1_ed-rendell-big-game-gambling-casinos Reading it, I can believe that might be true - Rendell would have had Kerry's back, would have attacked Bush and, in his case, the fact that he was a real guy from the middle class, would have been more obvious.

[FormerDittoHead]

15. The pollster selling this poll could sell ice boxes to Eskimos! This poll has ZERO value. n/t

[rpannier]

19. Disagree

As I stated after your post.
It creates a narrative that says we have a winner (or a person that is leading)
If it were the same pollster and he was behind everyone you can be sure we'd hear it shouted from the airwaves of Fox, CNN, etc.

It's too early to be an indicator of what next year (or the rest of the year) will bring.
But getting it out there is of value.

[rpannier]

18. It's too early for me to really care

But, I think it's never a bad time to get positive info out.
Controlling the narrative is of extreme importance in politics and stuff like this should be put out as often as possible.
Americans love winners and portraying Obama as a winner (or at this point, leading) is good to post.

K&R

[tanyev]

20. "even if Republicans put forth Chris Christie as their candidate"

:rofl: