« Driving for Votes | Main | SUSA: Kerry Nipping Bush's Heels in Arkansas »
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
New Jersey is NOT a Swing State
Posted by DavidNYCKos has a post up with some new polls for OR, WA and NJ. The first two, being legit swing states, are quite close - but surprisingly, Jersey is close as well. Put simply: This really doesn't make much sense. There's a big discussion going on in the comments about this, where DHinMI says that the sample may skew Republican (can't statisticians correct for that?) and DL reminds us that Gore carried the state by a whopping 16 percentage points (56-40). Several posters also bring up the fact that NJ voters have kicked Republicans out of every statewide office as well.
All of these things add up to the point that NJ is simply not in play. I promise. If Dubya carries the Garden State, I, DavidNYC, the ultimate New York snob, pledge to move to Jersey and do voter registration every day for a year. I've gotta put my money where my blog is, so how's that for a guarantee?
P.S. Great resource: David Wissing (at his blog The Hedgehog Report) tracks head-to-head polls for every state in the nation. BTW, I wonder if there's a way to turn that page of polls into some kind of RSS feed?
Posted at 03:44 PM in Safe States | Technorati
Comments
New Jersey is going to vote for Kerry/Democrat in the fall of 2004, don't worry. I live in New Jersey. This state has changed dramatically in my lifetime and has become much more Democratic. Bush has no chance of winning New Jersey in 2004. The people of New Jersey want a change. Kerry's winning margin in New Jersey will be higher than Al Gore's in 2000. New Jersey is a Green state and without Nader on the ballot, and with the flagging economy and the war problems in Iraq, New Jersey will vote heavily Democratic this fall.
Don't believe the polls, especially this far out. Kerry will take New Jersey. The letters in the paper are generally anti-Bush. New Jersey isn't the manufacturing state it once was. A lot more New Yorkers now live in Jersey. Jersey is a Democratic state for the forseeable future.
Posted by: Rock_nj at April 14, 2004 11:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
New Jersey a swing state? Get real! Did they not pay attention just last year when the Democrats padded their margin substantially in both houses? Look! Even when former Gov. Florio was in deep trouble, he was defeated by a moderate Repub by slimmest of margins and when that moderate Repub was reelected it was also by the slimmest of margins...get it. We have been trending Democratic and we will continue to do so!
Just take a trip here and see how unpopular Bush is!
Posted by: jay at April 15, 2004 06:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why wait? Since NY is solid blue and NJ is starting to swing, why not come down and join us kicking Bush out? NJforDemocracy would love your help!
Posted by: JerseyTom at April 16, 2004 04:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oregon a swing state?!!!!---BBWWWAAHAAAHAAAA!
Whose right wing wet dream is that?
We are solidly in the Dem camp- no Nader effct this year...
Posted by: Kendog at April 16, 2004 10:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The last University of Oregon poll showed Bush leading Kerry 47-45. We're going to have to fight for OR - it won't be a cakewalk.
Posted by: DavidNYC at April 16, 2004 11:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First of all: cool place ya have here (first-time visitor, via the Majority Report blog).
And now to my point:
I don't think we should take ANYTHING for granted in this election.
The righties are gonna play hard and dirty....and they're gonna do so from every possible direction.
And let me just keep reminding people:
Computerized voting.
Computerized voting.
Computerized voting.
We have it in MY town, and the Republicans took our last local election by a LANDSLIDE
(to be fair, we do tend to have a Repub majority in my town, but the last election was just ridiculous).
Anyway....take nothing for granted.
Nothing.
Thanks for the story, and this site. :)
Posted by: TreeHuggrrrrrrr at April 17, 2004 02:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If all Democrats would pledge to do voter registration for an entire year, maybe there'd be a turnaround in our ability to get our message out. I volunteer to take over several large mass-media headquarters and spread the good word.
Posted by: shimamoto at April 18, 2004 12:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry Leads Bush in New Jersey 51% Bush 39% in New Poll (that FDU poll last week was a fluke, Kerry will win Jersey easily).
New Jersey: Kerry 51% Bush 39%
New Jersey 2004 Presidential Ballot
Bush 39%
Kerry 51%
Other 3%
Not Sure 6%
RasmussenReports.com
April 21, 2004--In New Jersey, Senator John F. Kerry leads President George W. Bush 51% to 39%. Four years ago, Bush lost the state by sixteen points to Al Gore, 56% to 40%.
When it comes to issues of national defense and the War on Terror, Garden State voters are evenly divided as to who would do a better job--45% say Bush and another 45% say Kerry. Nationally, Bush has a significant edge on this issue.
Voters prefer Kerry on the economy by a 48% to 41% margin. Nationally, Bush has a modest edge when it comes to managing the economy.
Posted by: Rock_nj at April 21, 2004 03:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Just released on 9/11-04, "The 3Rs of George W. Bush: Reasons for Rejecting the Re-election of President George W. Bush." ISBN 1-4120-4051-5. Five dozen reasons to defeat Bush-Cheney, 110 page paperback by Trafford, order at local bookstore, $15.99. Book includes criticisms rarely addressed by the media, along with many others.
Book description available 9-16 at Trafford, or at bushbook@msn.com.
Posted by: Lewis B. Smith at September 16, 2004 07:10 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The polling in New Jersey is quite a bit closer now, after the Republican Convention bounce. Bush is within 5%. Still, I don't see Bush winning NJ at the end of the day. Jersey has swung towards the Democrats in recent elections. No reason to think things won't remain this way. Kerry, a fellow northeasterner wins NJ by 10%.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 16, 2004 09:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rock, Do you think the enormous mess and scandal created by NJ's governor has hurt the Democratic party some in your state? I wonder if there will be some fall out, and we're seeing that in addition to any sort of post RNC bounce for Bush. At any rate, I worry when I see both PA and NJ now most definitely swing states, something neither one was for most of the summer.
Posted by: Pepe at September 16, 2004 09:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think it has a lot more to do with the convention bounce than the Governor's scandal. Sure, the scandal might have turned off a few people, but they were probably leaning towards Bush anyway. I think it's just that the convention was right next door in NYC and some Jerseyans probably got sucked in by the propaganda. I think the Democratic vote is being undercounted in NJ. Kerry wins NJ by 10% and PA by 5%, just as Bush wins GA by 10% and a state like AR by 5%. The upper mid west and Florida will once again be the key states that decide this election.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 16, 2004 10:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
George W. Bush leads John Kerry in New Jersey by a 49%-45% margin, according to a Survey USA poll conducted for WABC-TV in New York and WCAU in Philadelphia. The poll was conducted September 12-14 of 781 likely voters with a 3.7% margin of error. (09/15/04)
http://www.politicsnj.com/
That's a big surprise! I still think Kerry wins NJ.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 16, 2004 10:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree. If the election were held today, I'm sure Kerry would win NJ by a pretty wide margin, this poll being an outlier. Anyway, I don't pay much attention to NJ polls, because if NJ is even close, to me that's a signal that Kerry loses in a landslide. Anyway, if I'm wrong about the national tide dominating state-specific shifts, this bodes well for Kerry, because it means that a disproportionate part of the nationwide bounce occured in NJ, which he should win anyway (as opposed to, say Ohio or Florida).
Posted by: Jason at September 16, 2004 12:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NJ is barely Kerry right now? Lord, if that's the case, how does Kerry hope to win more GOP-friendly states like MO, OH, and FL????? Granted, the election (thank God!) is not being held today, and things can change. However, this shows that Kerry's support is far from where it should be when a state like NJ is not completely and unequivocally deep in his pocket.
Posted by: Pepe at September 16, 2004 12:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The NJ poll has to be an outliner. Check out this one (as if Bush is going to win NJ and AL by similiar margins?):
Alabama: Bush 53% Kerry 42%
Survey of 416 Likely Voters
Sept 3-14, 2004
Alabama 2004
Presidential Ballot
Bush 53%
Kerry 42%
Other 3%
Not Sure 2%
RasmussenReports.com
September 15, 2004--In Alabama, President Bush leading by 11 percentage points over Senator Kerry. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Bush with 53% of the vote while Kerry has 42%.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 16, 2004 01:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The guy from OR is right "take nothing for granted" if you have a van do yourself and everyone else a favor, pick up registered Dems in your neighborhood and get them to the polls. Maybe even advertize on the side of the van "For a Free Ride to Vote Call". We can't let this Nutjob and his Chronies steal another election God only Knows what they are up to this time.
Lest we ever forget the fallen or dangling chads in Florida.
Posted by: Al at September 18, 2004 03:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Strange thing this lesson on Morality from from a person who associates himself with the right wing and their war on the impoverished (who would also identify with an inanimate objecti.e. Rock_NJ Not only a clever nick name but a very descriptive nomenclature),while in the same breath refering to persons of whom he knows little or nothing about as "scum". He realy takes on the tonality of the truly holy with his tollerance of others. Rave on moral right winger your babblings are in harmony with those of your murderous leaders.
When you move out of your mothers house after your 30th birthday and can't find a house or a job you may decide to use your assault weapon to to hold up a store. Be carefull who you vote for this time it may effect your future.
Posted by: Zeus at September 18, 2004 04:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
True, the Dems in New Jersey, at least the Governors, have been anything but inspiring. McGreevey totally blew a decent term, with a strong economy (strongest employment in NJ's history), and has diverted attention with rediculous/illegal deficit spending in times of prosperity, appointing a dubious person to head homeland security, having an affair with that same person.
But, that being said, this is a federal election. Whole new set of people to evaluate and whole new slate of issues. For one, if you don't like seeing $200 Billion of our federal taxdollars pissed away on wars of dubious nature, then Kerry is the one to vote for. We certainly could use a nice chunk of that $200 Billion right here in NJ to improve our state. Bush is ignoring domestic priorities, for grand plans of world domination. Bush also used half-truths and innuendo to justify this unconstitutional war against Iraq. Bush has lost my trust. He has weakened our reputation around the world. He has misused our military. Bush should be fired, and the only way that's going to happen is by pulling the lever for John Kerry.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 18, 2004 11:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The DNC has spent all of about zero time in NJ too. Neither party has spent money in NJ. Kerry is still ahead in most polls and in NJ, in reecnt years, undecideds break Democatic.
As for what wins elections, Im sure if Bush is asked about how he thinks the war on terrot can;t be won or how Iraq is a catastrophic success, he'll come up with a cogent answer. Just as he can explain why he's spent $200 B, 1000 + American lives, 10s of thousands of iraqi lives, the good will of the entire world in iraq espite finding zero WMDs, no real links to Iraq and Al Qaeda. This disasterous record of complete failure should lead to Bush being booted out of office. If not, he'll have to clean up his own mess. All his life, Daddy and his friends have doen that for him. Not any more.
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 10:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually Mr. Freeholder, Kerry was slipping hard in NJ during the first half of September. But, recently he has rebounced somewhat, and has a slight lead. I agree that NJ was never suppossed to be so close. Apparently the RNC doesn't think they can win NJ, even now, because they're not even trying.
Kerry's campaign might very well sink or swin based upon tonight's debate. One thing I remember from the 2000 debates, was Bush mocking the Democrats for misusing our miltiary on idealistic nation building missons. Well that's been a major flip/flop on Bush's part, as he was planning on invading Afghanastan and Iraq and conducting two huge nation building efforts. Efforts that haven't been going very well, especially in Iraq.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 10:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's unfortunate that NJ is as close as it is, but unless Kerry self-destructs in tonight's debate on national security, I can't see it voting for Bush in November.
Posted by: Pepe at September 30, 2004 11:10 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's what I don't get about NJ. Gore won the state in 2000 by almost 16 points, 500,000 votes (coincidentally what he won the entire nation's popular vote by). This isn't Wisconsin or New Mexico that had close popular votes. Bush is an unpopular president, I can't believe he has won the hearts and minds of huge numbers of Gore voters. So are the polls completely unreliable?
Posted by: Sue at September 30, 2004 11:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
9-11 has made solid blue in the Northeast a lot closer now than in 2000.
NY 25% in 2000. 10% in 2004.
MD & NJ 16% in 2000. 3-5% in 2004.
PA 4% in 2000. Too close to call in 2004.
NY is very safe, MD & NJ could turn if Kerry self destructs, and Kerry must run a good campaign until Election Day to win PA.
Posted by: DFuller at September 30, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the 9/11 anniversary, the fact that the Republican convention was broadcast live in Northern NJ on networks, Guiliani's endorsement have probably tipped NJ into battleground territory. Guiliani spent a lot of time dissing NJ, when he was mayor of NYC, but his leadership after 911 has made him popular.
There are also the McGreevey scandals.
But the Democratic machine in NJ remains very strong. Republiacns in NJ tend to be centrist like Christie Whitman who was completely out of place in the Bush cabinet. Undecideds in NJ vote democratic. I predict a 6 % win for Kerry.
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 11:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
'But it's easy to watch someone else make hard decisions and then speculate on how much better you'd be, isn't it? '
Its even easier to watch someone make awful decisions (Bush on post-war Iraq), decisions that were contradicted and warned against by almost everybody, and then know you'll do better.
Look, it didn't take any great genius to forecast that post-war Iraq would be an unholy mess, that it would probably increase the threat of terror, not reduce it, that it would hurt American's image badly in the world, that Iran would almost certainly increase its influence in Southern Iraq drastically. Anyone with an ounce of experience in foreigh policy and the ME knew that the prospects of Democracy flowing out from IRaq into the Middle East was always minimal, and the idea that removing Saddam would help the peace process in Israel was even smaller. Some of us even wondered why we weren't first stabilizing Afghanistan, finding the guy who attacked us (Osama) before spending 10 times as much money and soldiers on a country that had not attacked us.
Now Iraq is a bloody mess. Someone has to clean it up. I have to particular enthuasism for Kerry, but clearly the man who orchaestrated the most serious mistake in US foreign policy since Vietnam needs to go.
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 11:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
' NJ'ers know that the Kerry campaign had something to do with this 15 November transition date....and therefore hold him partially responsible.'
Garbage. Only wingnuts hold that to be the case. I'm an NJ resident too. I've never heard that theory advanced or polled seriously. I think half of NJers believed that he should resign immediatedly, half believed he should stay. I've never heard any comments linking him to the Kerry campaign (McGreevey was always a very lukewarm Kerry supporter in any case).
In fact, from the Democratic perspective, it would have been better if McGreevey had gone immediatedly. There is no Senatorial or Gubernatorial candidate running this time -- Corzine or another popular Dem running would have bucked up Democratic turnout in whats likely to be a low turnout election (high turnout in NJ tends to favor Dems).
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 11:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't think the effect in PA is mainly 9/11. PA was pretty close last time too. if Kerry can remain ahead in RVs, he can win PA -- Rendell has an excellent GOTV machine in PA, and there is union and minority strength as well.
Posted by: Jon T at September 30, 2004 11:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm a college student in Massachusetts who will be voting absentee in New Jersey. I'd guess a few thousand others are in my situation, and Kerry should carry this group.
I grew up in a suburb of Philly--this area is quite liberal. Not so sure about North Jersey, but I agree with most of you--NJ will go blue unless the national tide shifts significantly.
Posted by: JoshR at September 30, 2004 12:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Interesting poll on Rasmussen:
83% are certain who they will vote. Of this group, 52% Bush 48% Kerry.
17% are uncertain. Of this group, 38% lean Kerry 30% lean Bush.
To get back to even, Kerry must win all the people who lean Kerry and two thirds of the completely undecided people.
Posted by: DFuller at September 30, 2004 12:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I do think more than a few high ranking Bush Adminstration people have admitted that the President was drawing up plans to invade Iraq from the day he won the election. Richard Clarke is one of them. So, I see Bush's flip/flop on nation building as a real one.
Also, I agree the McGreevey scandal has hurt Kerry in NJ. No doubt about it. The three reasons NJ is even close at this point are: 9/11, the RNC in next-door NYC and the McGreevey scandal. But, NJ does have a strong Democratic machine, and Democrats tend to be undercounted in polls. So, don't be surprised if Kerry wins NJ with 5%+. It will be a long night for Kerry if states like NJ are showing up red on the map.
I agree with Sue, that it's very unlikely that 500,000 voters will change their minds in four years, especially after 4 years of not a particularily great Presidency. Remember, these polls don't include undecides and underpolled, both groups that tend to break for the challenger. Kerry will win NJ.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 12:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
'One thing I'd like to point out though is that we've had more troops on the ground in Afghanistan this year than we had when we knocked out the Taliban. The position the left has taken that we've somehow diverted resources from there to Iraq is uninformed at best both militarily and strategically.'
Don't tell me. Tell the CIA, which claims that top-level Arabists were shifted from Afghanistan operations to Iraq operations. There's only a finite number of top notch analyst and military resources and right now they're overcommited in Iraq. Funding was also shifted to Iraq. This is inarguable.
The fact is that Iraq did not attack, posed no threat to use, had no WMDs, no real links to Al Qaeda. Spending $200 B to invade such a country seems to be an egregious waste of resorurces at best.
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 01:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There are so many better places that the $200 billion could have been spent in the War of Terror. We need:
1) Better bomb detection at airports.
2) More inspections at our seaports.
3) A better secured southern border.
It has been three years since 9-11 and our homeland is still extremely vulnerable to attack. I do not understand why Bush started his vendetta in Iraq before he secured the homeland. The war in Iraq has turned into a big recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Plus, I doubt anyone will ever allow U.N. inspectors in their country again. They will think of what happened in Iraq. They will think: America wants to send in the inspectors to drain us of our defenses then attack us after the inspectors leave.
Posted by: DFuller at September 30, 2004 01:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DFuller, EXCELLENT POINTS regarding how to properly spend our money on security!
I find it utterly amazing that we could secure Western Europe from Eastern Europe for decades, but can't seem to even come close to securing our own equally long southern border with Mexico. It can be done.
Also, it is absurd that 3 years after 9/11/01 we still haven't secured our ports or airports with technology that is avaiable today, which could be used to make our country safer. Incredibly stupid!
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 02:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There are so many better places that the $200 billion could have been spent in the War of Terror. We need:
1) Better bomb detection at airports.
2) More inspections at our seaports.
3) A better secured southern border.
It has been three years since 9-11 and our homeland is still extremely vulnerable to attack. I do not understand why Bush started his vendetta in Iraq before he secured the homeland. The war in Iraq has turned into a big recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Plus, I doubt anyone will ever allow U.N. inspectors in their country again. They will think of what happened in Iraq. They will think: America wants to send in the inspectors to drain us of our defenses then attack us after the inspectors leave.
Bravo! This is what Kerry must CLEARLY get across in tonight's debate. He should state unequivocally that the war in Iraq was and is wrong, and get the above points across to explain what we could have been doing to protect the homeland since 9/11.
Posted by: Pepe at September 30, 2004 03:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry, not gonna allow this blog to be used to disseminate wingnut talking points. But Freeholder doesn't seem to be very good at it, as he's spamming a post that is six months old.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 30, 2004 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey, if we want lies on Iraq, look at
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702
A whole database of Bush lies. $200 billion spent, probably far more before its over (and the administration lied and told us it would be far less pre-invasion, no WMDs, no real links to Al Qaeda, our world reputation in tatters, 1000 + American soldiers dead, 140K troops tied down.
All for what ?
Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Freeholder, I ask myself one question. Why should I be concerned about a country that I'll never set foot in, namely Iraq? I live in the U.S.A, in New Jersey, we could use the money that is being spent on Iraq. That's the way I see things. My best chance to see some of our taxdollars actually spent within our own country is by supporting the Democratic candidate for President. Of course a Green or Libertarian would probably do a better job of keeping the money home where it belongs. The Republicans have become a party of extreme internationalism and militarism, apparently to uphold their business interests around the world. Why should we pay for their businsess ventures?
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 04:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment