We're fortunate that Rutgers Professor David Redlawsk has arranged for the first independent poll of poll of the NJ3 Congressional Race, widely believed to be the most (only?) competitive one this year. Incumbent John Adler, who has positioned himself as a conservative Democrat, faces Jon Runyan, who is a famous football player but so far seems to know very little about policy. The full PDF is available here. The headline is that Representative Adler leads in the poll, although with only 421 registered voters the margin of error is an uncomfortably larger 4.8 percent.
There are other permutations of the question, but I think these are two most important. On the one hand, Adler is ahead. On the other, he is way under 50%, a sign of danger for an incumbent. In July, Adler released an internal poll where he lead by 17 (51-34) Statistically, such poll announcements favor the releaser by an extra 6-7% or so. (That is, Adler or Runyan would only release polls that happen to show unusually large/lucky leads, while our faithful Professor releases all results.) 17-7=10, so you might call the polls in good agreement with my proposed correction. Runyan has not released anything, so it now does seem likely Adler is ahead.
Other "generic" polls of New Jersey suggest that other Democratic incuments should be fine:
The approval-disapproval numbers for the sample of 801 New Jersey adults:
Obama 52-42
Lautenberg 45-31
Menendez 37-31
Own Congressman 54-28
We all know most Representatives are re-elected, but somehow I'm still surprised. 66% of the sample is "dissatisfied with the way things are currently going in Washington," yet they like their own Congressman. Perhaps there is something to be said for the way district boundaries are drawn? In any case, this suggests to me that the NJ3 race is the only one to be competitive. Most New Jersey adults (51%) think it doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, with the parties splitting the remainder equally. That's the disillusionment that the Republicans sought with their "Party of No" strategy in the Senate thanks to the super-majority rules.
A comment on Bob Menendez: He just isn't as well known. Not only his overall disapprove, but the subgroups of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have virtually identical "disapproval ratings" as Lautenberg does. His missing approval numbers are in the volunteered "Don't Know" category, at least in this poll, and at the end of the 2012 those voters who like the very same acts by Obama and Lautenberg will vote for Menendez. You may recall that other pollsters recently found Menendez at a net plus 7 (50-43, Rasmussen) and minus 5 (38-43, Quinnipiac.) But look at how pollsters can differ: Rasmussen's automated poll of "likely voters," which (I think) pushes voters for a second choice, has only 7% "don't know" but Monmouth's poll of adults, with presumably no pushing from the human operators, has 32%. Lots of people don't vote! The pollster also has numbers showing there's not much support for the recall effort.
The headline for the energy poll was the offshore oil drilling:
Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast, while 63% are opposed. This marks a turnaround from two years ago, when a majority of 56% favored this energy option compared to only 36% who opposed it.
By comparison, support for both wind and nuclear energy remains basically unchanged. Fully 8-in-10 residents support the placement of energy-generating windmills off the New Jersey coast (80% today, compared to 82% in 2008) and just under 4-in-10 support building another nuclear power plant in the state (37% today, compared to 41% in 2008).
Pollster Patrick Murray observes that the coastal counties give the same numbers as the inland ones.
As for this Salem County resident, I think the interesting number is that 58% statewide oppose a new nuclear power plant.
When asked "which of the following do you think should be the more important priority for U.S. energy policy - keeping energy prices low or protecting the environment?", 28% go for low prices and 55% for the environment. 15% volunteer "both" despite not being given it as a choice. New Jersey is not Sarah Palin country.
Patrick Murray has released the latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll (PDF), with this release focusing on Governor Chris Christie and the budget. The poll is based on 801 adults with an estimated 3.5 margin of error:
Governor Christie's job rating currently stands at 44% approve to 44% disapprove among all state residents, and 45% to 43% among registered voters. This marks a nominal, but not significant, increase from his April rating after he first announced his budget plan (41% to 44% among all adults and 42% to 44% among voters). Christie receives plaudits from 80% of Republicans (up 15 points from April), 45% of independents (down 4 points), and 23% of Democrats (up 4 points).
The state legislature gets positive job ratings from 24% of the public (up from 20% in April) and negative ratings from 49% (down from 56%).
It's far too early to talk about single terms but Christie has not expanded beyond his election day numbers, and he can't count on another three-way race against Jon Corzine. On the other hand, I'd bet he'd do a bit better if only "likely 2010 voters" or "actual 2009 voters" were counted.
The public was asked to give letter grades in various areas, and Christie does well on "controlling costs and cutting waste" and "ethics and honesty." He does notably worse on "property tax relief" and quite poorly on "improving schools." I don't think those views are too surprising, except that I'd say most here at BJ don't expect that ethics number to hold up for four years.
Monmouth also polled on the budget and found most people can "live with it." Majorities think the budget will "hurt" the "middle class," the "poor," and "property tax payers." Certainly that's a sign of weakness for the future. Click the link above to see more budget numbers.
This is the same poll that was used for a release on the public's view of the property tax cap deal. If you've forgetten, the deal was favored 48-31, and the governor's original proposal actually polled better, though you need to read the release to see the caveats.
We have new New Jersey polls from Quinnipiac and Rasmussen. Between the two, Chris Christie does about the same as before, and I'd say so far he is holding onto the people that elected him.
Rasmussen has Governor Christie at a solid 51% approval with 45% disapproval. Quinnipiac has him at 44-43%. Right or wrong, Rasmussen is consistently about six points more Republican than other pollsters, so the better Rasmussen number is just what we should expect. Quinnipiac notes especially strong support (56%-29%) in the "Shore" region.
The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen's polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.
Quinnipiac has Senator Bob Menendez at 43% approval to 38% approval, "his highest disapproval ever." On the other hand, Rasmussen surprisingly finds Menendez's approval at 50%(!) and disapproval at 43%. Of course, Rasmussen buries the number in a release touting NJ likely voters as split 39-39 on recalling him. Combining the two Menendez seems to be where he usually is.
President Obama is at 50-46 according to Quinnipiac. These state polls don't give us data on Adler, the guy actually in a 2010 battle, and unfortunately, I don't see a generic Congressional ballot either. I recommend this post by Tom Jensen on the likelihood of Democrats staying home.
On issues, Rasmussen finds strong support for salary freezes at schools and capping property taxes. Quinnipiac finds the same thing with a slightly different question, even though they also find strong liking for teachers. On the other hand, Quiniipiac found an overwhelming majority (72%) are worried about state aid cuts increasing their property taxes. Furthermore, 61% say Christie should have signed the millionaires tax, which oddly enough Rasmussen didn't ask about. A similar number oppose increasing their own property taxes to avoid cuts to schools.
Quinnipiac asked about the Supreme Court and Judge Wallace in various ways: More people disapprove of Christie's actions than approve, but many don't know about the issue.
President Obama continues to slip. Governor Christie's approval is the same as their previous poll but the disapprove has gone up by 10%. Both are being hurt by the economy but in my opinion aren't in bad shape.
Direction of the country:
Right 34%
Wrong 52%
Direction of New Jersey
Right 35%
Wrong 55%
Those numbers are almost identical overall but check out the partisan breakdowns: 74% of Democrats but only 30% of Republicans say New Jersey is on the wrong track. Meanwhile, 83% of Republicans say the country is on the wrong track and only 28% of Democrats do. It's a good warning about taking those numbers too seriously.
Basically all budget cuts asked got strong majority support as a "good idea:" "Not letting public employees save up more than two years of vacation time" (74%-23%), "By law, limit salary increases for public employees to a maximum of two and a half percent a year?" (60%-33%), "Raise the retirement age for public employees to 65 from 62." (61%-33%), "Ask school teachers not to take a pay increase for the coming year" (64%-31%) and "Move school elections from April to November" (53%-18%).
On the other hand, "Taking everything into account, do you think the budget Gov. Christie has proposed is good for New Jersey or bad for New Jersey?"
Good: 41%
Bad: 37%
Unsure: 22%
Christie could be getting more support, I think, if he didn't come off as a bullying jerk, but this poll is certainly not going to scare him off his course.
Newsflash! New Jerseyans mostly like NJ! While there are certainly things to complain about - taxes in particular top the list - the latest results from the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll show that most residents of New Jersey would stay put in their neighborhood even if they could move (though 23 percent would move out of state), and a majority has at least some (or a great deal) of pride in the state. There is of course a sense among some that most people in New Jersey would leave if they could, and feel little connection to their state. Our results suggest this isn't really true. There is lots to like about living in New Jersey, though maybe ironically one of the top reasons people gave us was the state's proximity to New York City. But other top reasons include the Jersey Shore, the environment in general, and the state's diversity.
Democrats like the state better than Republicans, urban dwellers like it better than rural, and rich people like living here the best.
Then again, Rasmussen may release a poll next week saying most "likely voters" would like to move to lower tax state. You can do a lot with question wording!
Survey USA is out with a new poll that shows Governor Christie's approval rating upside down. Here's the report from ABC 7:The Governor stands at 33% approval, 63% disapproval, but he says he could care less. I don't see the poll posted on their website yet, but I'll put it up when they do. It didn't take very long for voters to get buyers remorse. Then he went on to say this:
"Almost everyone of those polls said I wasn't going to win too, well, here I am," said Governor Christie.
Actually as I remember it, Christie led nearly the whole way with the polls closing at the end. Funny, thats how Pollster.com remembers it too. Out of 86 polls taken between October 2008 and November 2009, only 19 of them ever showed Corzine leading Christie. He's said he's not good at math, but I don't think that 22% of the polls is almost ever one.
Rutgers-Eagleton recently polled 953 New Jersey Adults including 845 Registered Voters. The results were that amongst adults, 48% support the new health care law and 40%, and amongst registered voters it was 47-41. This was an improvement on their previous poll.
Now Rasmussen has released a poll of New Jersey -- not of adults, or even registered voters, but of "500 likely voters." Ramussens finds 51% support and 45% oppose repealing the law.
Why the difference? I'm looking right at the "likely voter" sample. In what election? We don't even have a statewide election this year, and November is a half a year away anyway. Perhaps the "likely voters" are for a fictional recall election, where supposedly 38% would vote to recall Menendez and 34% would vote against it.
I think it's clear that this is a propaganda piece. I'll be the first to say Rasmussen has an excellent record in predicting election in the final weeks, but right now they are plainly excluding Democrats from their samples, to advance their conservative views.
We're lucky to have poll releases today from Monmouth/Gannett (full PDF) and Rutgers Eagleton (full PDF) on New Jersey budget issues. Some of the Eagleton results were released earlier in the week. I'll mention the FDU poll which is about a month older, but still after the budget speech, and which is more favorable to Christie. In fairness, you should also keep in mind that Governor Corzine's budget proposals were not very popular either.
First, Governor Christies' approval rating is going down in all polls:
Monmouth: 22% satisfied, 32% "can live with it," 44% dissatisfied
Ealgeton: 13% "very pleased," 30% "pleased," "21% somewhat displeased," "29% very displeased"
FDU poll: 38% favorable, 39% unfavorable.
The Eagleton poll asked about what areas should be cut. If you suspect the public likes government spending and dislikes taxes you won't be surprised by their conclusions:
"Our recent poll showed that half of New Jerseyans are displeased with Governor Chris Christie's proposed budget," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "These new results give a good sense of residents' priorities in this difficult time. Laying off teachers or significantly cutting school aid are not seen as solutions. On the other hand, given today's economic challenges, people do not want to see their own costs increase either. The state is between a rock and a hard place, with clear support for a limited number of solutions, one of which is cuts to municipal government."
The public also opposes cuts to aid for the poor in the Eagleton poll, and state colleges scored nearly as well as public (K-12) schools. Here's the quote from the Monmouth release:
"The local aid reduction, particularly to schools, was always going to be the flashpoint for criticism of the plan, and the governor's clash with the NJEA only increased the heat. If part of his strategy was to win over public opinion, it hasn't been an overwhelming success," said [Monmouth pollster] Murray.
One contradiction between the two polls is that Monmouth asked about "cuts in aid to local school districts and towns" which the public denounced as unfair. Eagleton asked about schools, towns, and other possibilities separately, so it found school cuts unpopular but municipal cuts supported. On the other hand, Monmouth also picked up that more voters say they will vote against school budgets than vote for them which you might consider a little inconsistent.
Gallup recently released a poll with the headline Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics. By that they mean age, education, employment and race, not political beliefs, gender, or income. (Tea Party supporters are more likely to be male and higher income.) This is pretty similar to the Rutgers-Eagleton results on the Tea Party in New Jersey, which I interpreted as two Tea Parties: an activist conservative heart and a more diverse, younger crowd that is willing to say they sympathize in polls.
White Tea Party supporters are less likely than other whites to think Latinos are "intelligent" or "trustworthy," though a majority say Latinos are "hard working." Those same white supporters are also less likely to think Blacks are any of those three (especially "hard working"), and they overwhelmingly agree "If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as Whites." They say immigrants are "likely to take jobs from people working here," that immigration "should be decreased," and even "all undocumented immigrants should be deported immediately."
Rutgers-Eagleton has started releasing its latest New Jersey poll results and the first release focuses on Chris Christie and the budget. The poll is based on responses from 953 adults, but most results are for the 809 who claim to have "heard at least something about Gov. Chris Christie's proposed budget."
First, the poll finds Christie has dropped 12 points to just 33% favorable with 37% unfavorable. Recall that the last FDU poll had him drop nine points to 43-32. Keep in mind though that "all adults" is surely a worse sample for him than "2009 actual voters" or "2010 likely votes." Check the full PDF release for subsamples, where you'll find the identified groups that like Christie are "Conservatives" (61-18) and "Income 150K+" (50-31).
Meanwhile "Democrats in Trenton" and "Republicans in Trenton" languish at 26-35 and 25-37 respectively, so I'd guess this poll won't dissuade Christie from confronting the legislature.
The budget is at 13% "very pleased", 30% "somewhat pleased," 21% "Somewhat displeased," and 29% "very displeased." The vast majority of people think the budget cuts will affect them.
The fun part is asking two different questions to half the poll sample each. Professor Redlawsk did a great job here:
[VERSION A] The Governor also proposed a constitutional amendment limiting property tax increases to two and a half percent per year. Would you support such a constitutional amendment?
[VERSION B] The Governor also proposed a constitutional amendment limiting property tax increases to two and a half percent per year. Massachusetts passed a similar law in the 1980's which some say resulted in closing fire stations, libraries, and senior centers, and cuts in school programs. Would you support such a constitutional amendment even if it had those effects?
This is why campaigns--and negative campaigns in particular-- matter. Lower taxes with no consequences [A] is supported 64-27, with every race, party, gender and income supporting it. Lower taxes with negative local consequences [B] gets just 34-57, eking out a win only with self-identified Republicans, conservatives, and the $150K+ crowd.
Today's latest FDU/Public Mind poll reveals that Governor Chris Christie's job approval rating has slipped nine points in the last month to 43% approve to 32% disapprove.
"It's a bad time to be governor of any state," said Peter Woolley, the poll's director. "You're damned if you cut the budget and damned if you raise taxes."
Sure it's a bad time to be governor. As the economy continues to contract and state revenue slumps, decades of poor budgeting decisions are coming home to roost. All we need do is ask former Governor Jon Corzine, who addressed the challenge head on by introducing back to back budgets that reduced state spending but still found himself on the receiving end of voter anger last November.
Whether Christie intends to follow through on his promise to "turn Trenton upside down" remains to be seen, but this morning's results make clear that many New Jerseyans do not ascribe to his trickledown theory of economics. 48% of respondents oppose Christie's plan to break his campaign promise and end property tax rebates while an even larger 62% are in favor of increasing taxes on the very wealthy.
This morning's news provides Democrats with an opening to highlight our own reform agenda that focuses on ending some of the gross excesses of government (e.g., bipartisan pension reform) while also opposing Republican efforts to enact fiscal policy favoring the super rich.
Democratic lawmakers are still adjusting to the reality of a Republican Governor. Yet New Jersey is still blue and the majority of state residents agree that key to our recovery will be support for the middle class. It may be a bad time to be governor, but for today at least, it's not such a bad time to be a progressive.
54% of Americans nationwide say that legal sports betting is a bad idea because it may corrupt sports, and 39% say people do it anyway, so government should allow it and tax it. But New Jerseyans split evenly, 46% for allowing sports betting and taxing it, and 47% saying no, it's a bad idea.
When the question is narrowed to allowing sports betting in Atlantic City casinos, New Jerseyans favor it strongly, 60% to 33%. That margin is similar to results a year ago.
New Jerseyans favor making sports betting legal at the state's ailing race tracks by 56%-36%, but that is down from 63%-30% a year ago.
Telephone, Internet and off-track betting parlors are all opposed by New Jerseyans.
I'm intrigued by the 10%+ of New Jerseyans who think think sports betting would be bad for the country but would like to give it a try here. It shows the importance of bringing out the -- how should I phrase this? -- self-interested side of the public when asking questions. Now if you get that shift just with a phone interview, imagine the pressure on politicians to do something they think is wrong in the abstract. It explains a lot, from legalized gambling to deregulation of Wall Street.
Eagleton polled 886 registered voters, but the main differences is they did not push leaners, and they also gathered the results by who controlled each district by asking if they'd vote for the current Congressman or "challenger running against him." Note that this gave two (or three) sub-samples. So the results are:
In the statewide generic ballot by party, Democrats are at 33% and Republicans at 31%.
In the five Republican districts, Republicans are at 40% and Democrats at 25%.
In the eight Democratic districts, Democrats are at 41% and Republicans at 22%.
As the pollster notes, "Nearly 20 percent do not know how they will vote, and 10 percent say they do not plan to vote at all." Of course, a lot more than 10% of registered voters will skip the election.
You might think 47-39 doesn't seem much like 33-31, but going back to the FDU poll, without leaners Democrats led 39-34. I don't think it is really too different from Eagleton. I personally suspect the "with leaners" sample gives a better view, because I don't believe so many voters are really persuadable.
Anyway, I think Professor Redlawsk has a pretty good quote summing it up:
"The overall picture statewide seems to suggest that Republicans are at parity with Democrats in 2010, but this is misleading," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "While the statewide vote may be close, it is less likely to be so in most congressional districts. We did not poll at the district level, and in the 3rd district Democrat John Adler is likely to face a very difficult challenge. Still, at the aggregate level incumbents of both parties start the year with an advantage over potential general election challengers."
It would be really interesting to get a poll of Adler's NJ3 district, but in truth it's too early to be definitive.
Quick Update: President Obama has 57-37 approve-disapprove on his job, and 56-31 for "general impression." Democrats in Congress are at 35-42 and Republicans at an even worse 25-48. 52% says Obama's change is happening "too slowly."
The sample has 55% claiming they voted for Obama and 31% claiming McCain which might argue some Republicans are missing. On the other hand, maybe they are in the 6% who claim they voted for someone else (Palin?), and furthermore, the sample also claims they voted 42-31 for Christie over Corzine which is a better margin for Republicans than reality. So it's probably just difficult to get people to say they voted for the unpopular loser.
First up, President Barack Obama is at a 53% job approval rating (an improvement on the sub-50 showing last time). Disapproval is at 38%, so the the net +15 matches the margin he beat McCain by in 2008. His numbers with independents are 53-33.
On the other hand, the right track/wrong track numbers for the country are at 38-52, hardly surprising with 10% unemployment, massive deficits, and victory-less wars.
Democrats lead the generic ballot for U.S. Congress 47-39 with leaners. That doesn't exactly suggest many Democratic incumbents will be swept away, though I don't doubt NJ3 is a battlefield.
If the election were held today, Senator Bob Menendez would get 38%, a (hypothetical candidate) Tom Kean Jr would get 39%, Someone else gets 6%. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but not unfamiliar either. The pollster notes that Menendez did worse with the subgroup that was asked about him closer to the questions about health care reforms.
Senator Menendez is at 29-25, favorable-unfavorable, and Senator Frank Lautenberg is at 42-29. The negative ads of 2006 have been forgotten as Kean Jr is at 28-11. Kean was at 33-32 at the end of the last campaign, so you can see that campaigns matter.
As for health care reform, the numbers are lousy but not disastrous, as you know if you follow it in national polls. 37% think they will be better off and 42% think they will be worse off if health care reform passes. On the other hand, for the "country as a whole," "better" leaads "worse" 45-40. No doubt the numbers are dragged down by strong Republican opposition, but the two sets for independents are 31-35 and 41-33. The numbers are very striking by race, because only 28% of "Whites" think they'll be better off. Overall, 35% say they'd advise their memver of Congress to vote for a health care reform bill, 40% against, and 25% don't know. That 25% is more Democrats and Independents, so they need to be won over, perhaps by the reality of the bill helping them. (Cough, cough, too bad some genius designed most of the benefits to start years from now.)
The Rutgers-Eagleton poll has a new release out on the Tea Party (full PDF). The poll is helpful in that it might help us a understand those who are sympathetic, even if it doesn't tell us much about the leadership's motives. 48% of Repunlicans and Republican-leaners, 30% of independents, and only 11% of Democrats have a favorable impression of the "Tea Party." So pollster David Redlawsk can check the political beliefs, race, class, etc. of those who are favorable. I think there are two clear-cut conclusions. The first isn't too surprising:
"We find that Republicans who favor the TEA Party movement are driven, at least in part, by an antipathy towards Obama which is simply less prevalent among Republicans who are not favorable toward the TEA Party,
In other words, the Tea Party's base is right-wingers who think Obama is a socialist, un-American, blah, blah, blah. The pollster didn't ask about Obama being a Muslim.
The more important conclusion is that there are really two groups involved:
GOP TEA Party movement supporters are clustered in the $50,000 to $100,000 income range and are somewhat older than the average New Jersey voter. They are also significantly more likely to be male, white, and to consider themselves born-again Christians. Democrats and independents favoring the TEA Party are more likely to have incomes under $50,000, are much younger, and less likely to be white males.
"There appear to be two demographic bases for the TEA Party movement," said Redlawsk. "One is a higher income, older, male, Republican, anti-Obama group. The other is a lower income, younger group who are not Republicans and who like Obama. These voters are attracted to the TEA Party because of worries about their own financial situation and feelings that something is wrong in America. With more than a quarter of New Jersey voters favorable towards the TEA Party, it is possible that the movement could have real impact on politics. The question is whether it can provide what both groups want at the same time. If the focus is on impacting the Republican Party, it may lose the 30 percent who are not Republicans. But to keep that group happy may require a focus that is much broader than Republican Party politics and an intense dislike of the Obama administration."
The first group won't possibly vote for Democrats and worrying about them is a waste of time, although I suppose the fact that 65% of Republican Tea Party supporters want government to do more for "middle class people" might mean I am wrong. The second group, though. can be reached and indeed many of them may vote for Obama in 2012. Communicating with them this year is important for Democrats. The President's otherwise admirable non-partisan, "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America" approach has let the conservatives and indeed the entire "Establishment" off the hook for the disaster they've led America into. Perhaps I should say partly off the hook. Republicans in Congress have only 25% favorable rating with 48% unfavorable. Democrats in Congress are at 35-42 and President Obama 56-31.
The Rutgers-Eagleton poll has started to roll out its newest data, and it turns out they've decided to focus on the Tea Party in New Jersey. Favorable-unfavorable for the "Tea Party" is 27-29, much worse than the national numbers. Read Professor David Redlawsk's post discussing the poll, but basically the Tea Party is mainly a Republican movement:
The upshot is that this looks much more like a branch of the Republican Party than any real attempt to form a sustainable third party movement. In fact, Tea Party supporters in New Jersey are more likely to support the current two party system than are those who do not have a favorable view of the movement. Go figure!
They are also more likely to be in the upper half of income: "While only 18 percent of voters making less than $50,000 have a favorable view, 30 percent of those making more than $50,000 do."
Redlawsk speculates that since this is a group of Republicans who are mad at the Republican establishment, they might be more of a danger in the primaries than general elections. Personally I doubt anyone in New Jersey will face a serious primary challenge, but we'll see.
Overall, 55% of New Jersey residents approve of the job President Obama is doing while 36% disapprove. This is better than the national average of 48% approve to 49% disapprove according to the Pollster.com website. The president garners approval from 83% of Democrats, 49% of independents, and just 15% of Republicans in the Garden State. Obama's job rating is down somewhat from the 59% approve to 29% disapprove numbers he received from Garden State voters in July 2009... The poll also found that Barack Obama as a person is viewed favorably by 61% of New Jerseyans and unfavorably by 26%.
Given such better scores, it seems unlikely that New Jersey will be a battleground at the Presidential level next time, though it should be noted that Obama probably does better among "adults" than 2010 or 2012 "likely voters." Republicans in Congress and Democrats score equally poorly in terms of "making the right decisions for the country's future." Still, if an incumbent can get the votes of those who have "just some" confidence in Congress he'd win overwhelmingly. New Jerseyans think the middle class (or for that matter, the poor and the wealthy) have not benefited much yet from Obama's policies so far, but Wall Street bankers have. If unemployment improves the way the stock market has those numbers will improve. That's "if."
Monmouth University is out this morning with a new poll taking a look at public opinion and how the voters feel about their new Governor. Lets take a look at where things stand with the numbers two weeks in:
Chris Christie's initial job rating is generally positive - 33% approve to 15% disapprove - although 52% withhold opinion at this early stage. By comparison, the New Jersey legislature is viewed negatively - only 26% of the public approve of the job their representatives in Trenton are doing versus 46% who disapprove. These results are fairly consistent with the legislature's low job rating over the past two years.
Those 52% of the people waiting to develop an opinion will be colored by the decisions the new administration makes. Not surprisingly, taxes still top the agenda:
The most important issue for voters during last year's gubernatorial campaign was taxes, especially property taxes. New Jerseyans continue to see this as a defining issue by which they will judge the success of a Christie administration. At the same time, they remain skeptical that taxes will actually come down. Specifically, 7-in-10 residents (71%) say they will be very upset with Governor Christie if property taxes remain high four years from now, another 18% would be somewhat upset and just 9% would not be upset by this.
However, only 4-in-10 New Jerseyans say it is likely (8% very and 34% somewhat) that the state will enact reforms to significantly lower property taxes in the next few years.
People want reform, but they have little faith they will actually get what they are seeking. On the issue of state spending:
While 51% of Garden State residents would be very upset with the governor if he doesn't reduce state spending during his term, even more - 62% - would be very upset if school funding was cut. Perhaps a positive note for the governor in this finding is that both Republicans (53%) and independents (53%) are less likely than Democrats (77%) to be troubled by potential education cuts.
So they want spending reduced but over 50% don't want what the money is spent on to go away. Pollster Patrick Murray offered this note of caution on cuts to public employees:
"It's important for Governor Christie to remember that New Jersey voters handed him a scalpel, not an axe. He needs to tread carefully where job cuts are concerned and have strong budget justifications for large numbers of layoffs. While the state unions may not be held in high regard, the public sympathizes with the average state worker who has a family to feed. If job cuts appear to be indiscriminate, it could hurt the governor in the court of public opinion," said Murray.
As you probably know, Frank Lautenberg has been push a gun control bill that aims to close the loopholes that would allow terrorists to buy guns. Terrorists or gun control? Quite a conundrum for some folks! Anyway, Lautenberg's office is jumping on a new poll of gun owners:
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), a leader in the Senate on strengthening common-sense gun safety standards, today highlighted encouraging new poll results found in a national survey taken of gun owners, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members.
"This revealing poll shows that a vast majority of responsible gun owners support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and terrorists," said Sen. Lautenberg. "For too long, the special interest gun lobby has blocked efforts to close dangerous loopholes in our gun laws. It is time to put the safety of the American people ahead of the NRA, which is clearly out of touch with its own members and must no longer be an impediment to common sense safety initiatives."
The survey of 832 gun owners conducted by Dr. Frank Luntz found an alarming inconsistency between the interest of American gun owners and the NRA's agenda in Washington.
The study found that an overwhelming 82 percent of NRA gun owners (and 86 percent of non-NRA gun-owners) support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. 69 percent of NRA gun owners (and 85 percent of non-NRA gun owners) support requiring that all gun sellers at gun shows conduct background checks for people purchasing guns. 90 percent of NRA gun owners (and 93 percent of non-NRA gun owners) agreed that the FBI should be able to access and keep information about gun purchases by terror suspects.
Info, including the data and press release, on the poll is here.
