State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/15/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

What was it Dectective Frank Drebin said in the first Naked Gun movie as he was attempting to disperse the crowd gawking at an exploding fireworks factory?

Nothing to see here, folks.

Now, today's Public Policy Polling survey of the New Jersey gubernatorial race was certainly interesting in some aspects (It wasn't as status quo-maintaining as the Monmouth poll a day ago.), but it was not an earth-shattering revelation of Corzine's late season comeback either. Honestly, the most interesting part of both this race and the race in Virginia is that Democrats are either seemingly tired after 2008 or complacent. What else explains how a state that President Obama won by 15 points last November suddenly has a 2009 (likely) electorate that favors Obama by only two points? Democrats just aren't opting into either of these races in the numbers that they did only a year ago. And though Chris Christie is the one gaining from that situation, Jon Corzine has been continually stuck in the upper 30s (in FHQ's averaging) throughout, stymied of late by the slow growth behind independent candidate, Chris Daggett's run.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	Sept. 11-14, 2009	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	35	44	13	7

What's more is that PPP compared 2005 support for Corzine against his current position and found that he has only managed to win over 62% of those that supported him just four short years ago. You won't win many (re)elections that way. Christie is even pulling in one in five of the those 2005 Corzine supporters.

Despite those rather dismal numbers underlying the toplines, the race is still within ten points (barely) and largely unchanged by the addition of this poll. But if you're after a competitive election (And what self-respecting political junkie isn't?), then Corzine will need to have moved full time into the low to mid-40s by the end of the month and be trending even further upward by then.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
"Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk"?

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/14/09)

Vote for Arizona

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/14/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

I'm taking a rather surly approach with this update because the narrative in the New Jersey gubernatorial race (that Corzine isn't living up to the typical Democratic electoral comeback in the Garden state) is really getting tiresome. I don't say that as a Corzine fan [FHQ is indifferent.], but rather as someone who is irritable when the same tired and false story of this trend is rolled out. Yes, recently in New Jersey politics there has been a series of elections in which the Republican did better than expected in early polling only to see that position fade down the stretch of the campaign. Mostly when this idea comes up, commentators will bring up the polling in the state from the 2004 presidential election when Bush ran consistently within (less than) 10 points of Kerry. Chris Cillizza (The Fix) at The Washington Post dusted this argument off today and carted it out for all to see and even added the Senate elections in 2000, 2002 and 2006 and the gubernatorial election from four years ago as evidence of this "trend" of Republican surge and decline.

Look, FHQ can't throw stones while living in a glass house. We've certainly done a fair amount of talking about Corzine's cushion among the electorate in a Democratic-leaning state, but we have also tried to caution that for any comeback to take place, the governor is absolutely going to have to emerge from the upper 30s rut he has been stuck in the entire year. [The real danger for Corzine now appears to be the independent candidacy of Chris Daggett, who will reportedly pull in 15% in tomorrow's Public Policy Polling release from New Jersey.] It cannot simply be a matter of Christie's support dropping off.

That said, of the elections Cillizza mentioned as evidence, the 2006 Senate race between Menendez and Kean fits the bill (and I'll have to track down the polling from the 2000 and 2002 races), but the gubernatorial race in 2005 does not. It may have been closer than expected, but at no point during the post-primary period (early June onward) was Republican nominee, Doug Forrester, ahead of the Garden state senator-turned-candidate for governor. In fact, as I have continually pointed out, gubernatorial races in New Jersey have failed to perform to the rubric of this phenomenon in every election stretching back to 1977 when Democrat Brendan Byrne became the last Democrat to pull off the comeback.

Here are the facts of the race currently:
1) Corzine is stuck in a range between about 38% and 42% in recent polling (...meaning FHQ probably has him slightly undervalued in our averaging). This has not changed since 2009 began.

2) Christie has slipped from a summer peak above the 50% mark, but has seemingly settled in to the 44-47% area of late.

3) The new poll out of Monmouth this morning did nothing to change the underlying dynamic of the race.

4) Corzine can come back but the incumbent will have to increase his stock some and continue to hope that Chris Daggett's support goes the way of so many other early fall third party supporters in other electoral arenas (ie: to one of the two major party candidates).

And none of those points is in any way consistent with the September Surge tag that is appended to all of Corzine's Twitter updates within the last few days.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Monmouth/Gannett [pdf]	Sept. 8-10, 2009	+/- 4.3%	531 likely voters	39	47	5	7

Again, the Monmouth poll was nothing new. Both candidates fit into the same ranges, but Corzine did lead among the wider, registered voter sample that was surveyed. That means zilch unless Corzine can close the so-called enthusiasm gap (which PPP is set to talk about some more with its release tomorrow) and turn those registered voters who prefer him into actual voters that can help reelect him. That may or may not be a tall order, but with the well-worn upper 30s rut the governor continues to find himself in (see below), it appears that it is.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Vote for Arizona

"You Lie!"

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/10/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/10/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

As the calendar has turned from August to September, there is some evidence that the Garden state race for governor is tightening. And it isn't so much that Jon Corzine is gaining on Republican Chris Christie so much as it is a case of the Christie campaign showing some signs that the recent flurry of negative attention is bring the former US attorney back to earth. In fact, the Rasmussen data reflect a rather inflated sense of the race on both sides by including the firm's infamous "leaners" (undecideds or third party supporters who tip their hands in Rasmussen's view as to who of the two major party candidates they lean toward). Now, there's nothing wrong with the leaners per se -- Rasmussen made a similar switch down the stretch in the presidential race a year ago -- but during the summer the inclusion of the leaners really serves to inflate the amount of support each candidate has. Once fall dawns, though, their inclusion makes a bit more sense.

But how much of a difference are we talking about? The switch from leaners to no leaners has on average meant a four point gain for Christie and a 3.3 point bump for Corzine. No, that doesn't change the spread that much but it has for the entire summer kept Christie at or around the 50% mark in these polls. And on top of that Rasmussen mentioned in the poll write up that the eight point spread in the reported poll dropped to four in the "without leaners" version of the survey. And for all intents and purposes, that means that Christie likely would have had more of a drop in that transition than would have Christie. The effect is that Christie, in that version, likely would have dropped below the 45% mark. And that would be the first time since January that the Republican has had that small a share of support in a Rasmussen survey.

What does that mean? Well, Corzine still isn't making any jump in any of these polls, but as Mark Blumenthal at Pollster mentioned last week, the incumbent hasn't moved that much all year. All the movement has been on the Christie side. He rose and peaked in the summer and has been tracking downward of late. And what that really means is that, despite the fact that Corzine's numbers haven't budged all year, the Democrat is now more likely to pull off the Democratic comeback that has been typical of recent Senate and presidential races but has not really manifest itself in a gubernatorial race since Brendan Byrne mounted a charge in the 1977 race.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Rasmussen	Sept. 9, 2009	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	38	46	6	10
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Sept. 8-9, 2009	+/- 4%	615 likely voters	38	41	10	10

But Rasmussen wasn't the only polling outfit to release a survey today. [It was the most noteworthy, but not the only one.] Democracy Corp/GQR also found a tight race. But the three point spread is the same as it was a few weeks ago, though both candidates have dropped three points each since that point. All that essentially does is raise the specter of Chris Daggett in the race. If both candidates are regressing, then the independent is on the rise because the undecided total is not increasing at this late date. However, these are just two polls with Daggett crossing over into double digit support. It could be an anomaly or it could be a trend, but one thing seems to be sure: the independent with the great web ad is negatively affecting Corzine more so than Christie (or has to this point).

So how do these polls affect FHQ's graduated weighted average? Christie continues to drop closer to the 46% mark while Corzine is still camping out in the 37-38% range. That isn't significant change, but it is the state of the race in early September.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
FHQ Reading Room (9/10/09): Redistricting

It's Never too Early for a 2012 (Value Voters) Straw Poll

New Members on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/1/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

What effect have the negative charges levied against Chris Christie had in the New Jersey governors race? If you look at the polls that were released a today (yesterday technically), you'd be hard-pressed to conclude anything other than "not much". The fact of the matter is that Republican Christie continues to be in good shape. More often than not recently, the former US attorney has been in themid- to upper 40s in the polls (not a bad spot to be in a three person race) while incumbent, Jon Corzine has remained in the upper 30s to lower 40s range. That wasn't any different in the two polls released most recently.

2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Quinnipiac	Aug. 25-30, 2009	+/- 2.4%	1612 likely voters	37	47	9	6
Fairleigh Dickinson [pdf]	Aug. 24-30, 2009	+/- 4%	715 likely voters	42	47	1	6

Christie was steady in both at 47% support while Corzine hit both ends of the spectrum in his range; upper 30s in the Quinnipiac poll, lower 40s in the Fairleigh Dickinson poll. The net effect is essentially nil in FHQ's graduated weighted averaging in the race. And for the status quo trajectory to be altered in any noticeable way, there is going to have to be a fundamental and distinct change in the polling. As you can see in the figure below, despite recent fluctuations in polling (for Christie specifically), whether above or below the average, that average has basically flatlined. So despite the fact that there has been something of an accumulation of negative news coming out about Chris Christie, it doesn't seem to be flagging his support in polling. Corzine just appears to be an unpopular incumbent.

The one interesting thing in these two polls is that Corzine and independent, Chris Daggett, appear to be locked in a zero sum game (And yes, this could simply be coincidental.). As Daggett's support rises, Corzine's goes down. This trend has not made itself clear in any of the previous polling in the race, but it is worth noting that Christie's numbers and those in the undecided column are the exact same in both polls. The fluctuation is between Corzine and Daggett.

[Click to Enlarge]

My gut is that ultimately this is a two horse race and that most people will decide between Christie and Corzine. That implies that the 9% support Daggett is garnering in the Quinnipiac poll is a bit high. However, it isn't clear that those folks (those aligned with Daggett in that poll) would move in whole or in part toward Corzine. For the incumbent to win, though, he'll have to count on swaying both a majority of those Daggett "supporters" (and there are some supporters without quotes out there as well) and undecideds. For New Jersey (and national) Democrats trumpeting the "those Democrats will come home in November" trend (something that in gubernatorial races is not that clear), that is the hope. But the hour is getting late, Corzine is still stuck below 42% and those playing hard-to-get are sticking to their guns. Corzine has some room to grow as both these polls show him below 75% with Democrats, but like the Virginia race (though not nearly to the extent), independents are leaning toward the Republican candidate. On average (in these two polls), Christie is about 20 points up. Corzine will have to raise the bar among Democrats and close that gap among independents to have a chance.

...even with the cushion Democrats enjoy in Garden state registration.



Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/1/09)

2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Clarus Research Group): Obama vs. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney

Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

[They haven't in the polls with few exceptions.]

As we get ready to usher in the fall campaign once Labor Day passes next week, both gubernatorial races this year are at something of a crossroads. In both cases, the Democrat is trailing and in both cases, the Republican has been faced with some negative news recently. In New Jersey, Chris Christie is weathering the storm of links to the Bush administration as well as a series of personal issues. [Well, that makes it sound like a drug problem or something of that ilk. Speeding tickets and loans to subordinates aren't drug problems, but they don't come free of any negatives.] Further south, in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell is being haunted by his own words from twenty years ago, in the form of a Regent University master's thesis.

My first reaction to the McDonnell news was that if Democrats wanted to use the thesis effectively, they would have to be selective with it and not bombard people on the chance that it could trigger a backlash. After all, the Virginia electorate that has been picked up in polls since the June primary has tilted to the Republican end of the spectrum. This news isn't necessarily going to change their minds; it might energize them further. The power of this story, though, is in its narrative capacity. Democrats and the Deeds campaign have been pushing the "this isn't the real McDonnell" card since the spring, but they now have something to hang that on and refer back to ad infinitum. Anytime McDonnell says something that in anyway links back to the thesis, Democrats will pull it into the "that's all part of his blueprint" narrative. And while there is the chance that that also risks a backlash, it is a gamble that could also play well with apathetic Democrats and independents, who have to this point remained on the sidelines in this race*. But to say that that isn't a tightrope act for Democrats and Deeds is a mistake. The degree to which Deeds can find that balance between effectively playing this (and making trouble for McDonnell) or seeming desperate will determine the direction of this race down the home stretch.

[That said, I still want an answer to Jonathan Martin's tweet yesterday (I'm paraphrasing): If the thesis is so damaging, how did oppo researchers miss it in the 2005 attorney general race or any other office McDonnell has run for?]

In New Jersey, the narrative has progressed to its second step (beyond the Bush connection). Instead of the debate being on moderate/not moderate turf, as in Virginia, this one seems to revolve around Christie's judgment (the bent of the news does lately, anyway). So, while Christie maintains a lead in the polls, you can certainly see that the stories have shifted in this race from "throw the bum out"/anti-incumbent stories to "does Christie have the requisite judgment to be governor?" stories. And that isn't a good change in the prevailing winds for the challenger.

Does that mean trouble for the Republicans currently leading the polls in both states? Possibly, but it could end up costing the Democrats if their actions are perceived as desperate. The latter is more likely in Virginia simply because of the underlying partisan composition of New Jersey. Corzine just simply has a cushion (even while trailing) that Deeds does not in Virginia.

A couple of other caveats:

1) Timing. Is this too early for a closing narrative to emerge? If either becomes established, will it be stale by time the waning days of October roll around? The press may be looking for something new by then.

2) Decision-making: I need to check on this in the gubernatorial context, but it is true that in presidential races, most likely voters have made up their minds by around Labor Day. James Campbell would also contend (and has shown) that the polling around that time of the race is also the best indicator of the November election results. I'll have to check on both, but I thought I'd throw both ideas out there. Obviously the presidential race is a bit more high-profile, which hypothetically would mean that voters may wait a little longer in a gubernatorial race.

In any event, these items merit tracking over the next few weeks.

*The Public Policy Polling survey due out of Virginia purportedly shows heightened interest from Democrats versus a month ago (and this poll was in the field before the thesis news broke for the most part). However, McDonnell still has a 2:1 advantage among independents (again, pre-thesis).


Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

Nevermind: Democratic Change Commission Meeting Postponed

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Rasmussen today released a new poll in the New Jersey governors race, and the numbers were good for both candidates; depending on what numbers you were looking at. For our purposes here at FHQ, we have a rule of examining the numbers that come out of Rasmussen without the "with leaners" tag. This is something we have been doing since last summer in the presidential race. All the firm is attempting to do is to fit some of the undecideds and "other" candidate folks into the Corzine or Christie camps. Here, then, are the numbers without those leaners:

New Jersey Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Aug. 25-26, 2009	+/- 4%	608 likely voters	41	43	7	8
Rasmussen	Aug. 25, 2009	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	37	46	--	11

And if you look at our previous averages for this race, this particular poll nicely echoes the status quo. From that view, that's good news for Chris Christie. Of course, since the last Rasmussen poll, Corzine has held steady while Christie has dropped four points from 50% to 46%. And when the leaners are included in the totals the margin shrinks to just eight points, 50%-42%. That would appear to be good news for Corzine. And the picture is even rosier when the earlier August leaners results are compared. On August 4, Christie's lead was 13 points, 52%-39%.

Update: Of course, none of that was as good as the GQR/Democracy Corps poll that came out later in the day. Both candidates gained since the firm's poll two weeks ago, but Jon Corzine gained more, jumping six points from 35% to 41%. Meanwhile Chris Christie had half as large a jump, moving from 40% to 43%. [Though, if you look at the toplines in the link provide above, you'll see that Christie's numbers, when broken down between Christie supporters and those leaning toward the Republican, sum to 44, not 43. It is a minor quibble, I suppose, but considering the graduated weighted average has been stubborn in this race, the half point difference between running it with the 43 versus the 44 is something to take note of.] However, the net effect on the weighted average was minimal. Once the full weight was removed from the Rasmussen poll and put on the Democracy Corps poll (It was the poll most recently in the field.), the race remained stuck on 46-37 in favor of Christie.

It is troubling that the weighted average isn't as responsive in this instance given the recently polling evidence showing a tightening race. Most of that is attributable to the overall amount of polling data that had the race there in the first place. It will just take much more to pull Christie down and Corzine closer in the race in terms of the average. This weekend I'll run another regression on the polls including these and double check where that projection is. With polling likely to increase in the coming weeks as the race nears its conclusion, we will likely have ample opportunity to see such a trend continue. As for now, it appears that there is at least some tangential evidence showing the Bush link/corruption charges are affecting Christie. The Republican has been tweeting for Corzine to return to the real issues (here, here and here). [The middle link makes me think of the escaped convict from Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Now you're really going to follow those links.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

All Quiet on the Democratic Change Commission Front

About that New Jersey Governor's Poll

About that New Jersey Governors Poll

There is a new poll out in the gubernatorial race in New Jersey, which at first glance looks like good news for Jon Corzine. Taken in conjunction with the poll out last week from Democracy Corps/Global Research Group, the new Neighborhood Research poll makes it seem as if Chris Christie's campaign is wilting in the late summer sun. Let's compare the numbers.

New Jersey Gubernatorial Polls (Late August 2009)
Poll	Date	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Neighborhood Research	Aug. 12-21, 2009	37	35	6	--
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Aug. 11-12, 2009	35	40	10	15

Looks pretty similar, right?

It does, but those Neighborhood numbers are among likely voters. The 319 likely voter sample is pared down even further to include undefined "definite" voters . [Christie led among that group 39-36 over Corzine with Chris Daggett pulling in 6%.] I don't know what a definite voter is, but I do know that 319 is definitely pushing the lower end of the acceptable bounds for a statewide sample and that anything lower than that is questionable from a representativeness standpoint.

Add to that the fact that Neighborhood Research is run by conservative strategist and former-Lonegan campaign manager, Rick Shaftan and the intrigue rises. Now, Steve Lonegan was Chris Christie's main opponent in the Republican gubernatorial primary earlier this year. Look, I'm not saying this poll is anything but legitimate, but that is two strikes against it; one on statistical grounds and the other falls in the "guilt by association" category. And I don't think either one is helping the other.

So, please excuse FHQ if we're a touch hesitant about including this poll in our average for the New Jersey gubernatorial race.


Recent Posts:
A Closer Look at the Aftermath of the 2010 Census

New Jersey and Virginia: A Diagnostic Comparison of the State of the Race(s)

Don't Forget Your Change Commission Reform Suggestions: Deadline Today

New Jersey and Virginia: A Diagnostic Comparison of the State of the Race(s)

Part of the reason FHQ wanted to examine the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races this year was not the races themselves as much as what they represent: an opportunity to test and try out a few things in terms of how we process new polling information as it comes in. To this point, though, we have essentially leaned on the graduated weighted averaging formula used to a fair amount of success in the presidential race last year. There's nothing wrong with that formula. It was far more simplistic than some of the alternatives out there and only missed North Carolina and Indiana in the electoral college categorization (Even then, North Carolina was essentially a tie in the average. But I digress...). The governors races in New Jersey and Virginia, then, are being utilized with an eye toward 2012 and the electoral college.

First of all, one feature that would have been nice last year (for every state or at the very least the swing states) is a graph similar to the ones FHQ has appended to each New Jersey and Virginia polling update. As I said recently, though, the lines on those charts seem to be floating in space without some baseline for comparison (the actual raw polling data, for instance). But that got me to thinking: The graduated weighted average is constructed to give the most recent poll the most weight, but also to incorporate past polling data in a way that guards against a shock to the system; an anomaly. And all that really is is a poor man's regression line. My question then was, How does the graduated weighted average stack up against a simple regression projection based on the polling data we have at our disposal? Sure, I could take an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach and add seemingly relevant variables to my heart's delight, but let's see how a simple bivariate regression as a start. Remember, Virginia and New Jersey are test cases for the 2012 electoral college model.

So all I did was regress the time in the campaign so far (measured as the number of days in the campaign*) on each candidate's share of support in the polls conducted over that period. All that basically does is provide us with a trendline based on the hypothesis that over time there will be some changes to a candidate's level of support. Yes, that is ambiguous, so let me be a bit more specific. Most clearly, we can hypothesize that over time, the undecided share will decrease and in this particular instance, that the Republican share will increase. Indeed, in both cases, the time component explained a surprising amount of the variation in the undecided share across polls as well as both Chris Christie's and Bob McDonnell's support (between 30 and 50%).

But the two Democratic models performed far worse. In both cases, less than 10% of the changes in Deeds' and Corzine's shares were accounted for in the time series. Why? Well, in neither case is there much change to speak of. There's more change in the Deeds case than for Corzine, but not by much.

Fine, what does any of this mean and what does it leave us with graphically? Good questions. I'll take the second one first and then use the two figures below to illustrate the former. Graphically, as you can see below it leaves us with a bit of a mess. Nine separate lines are a lot to take in. However, there is a wealth of information in these two figures. The most volatile lines are the raw polling datum (referred to there as actual) while the smoother two lines around with they hover (and are based upon) are the graduated weighted average (average) and the regression projection (predicted).

The raw data are nice, but let's focus on the other two lines, as this post is supposed to be about comparing two different projections of the state of each of these races.

[Click to Enlarge]

In the New Jersey example, we see that the graduated weighted average and the regression line track each other almost exactly in the case of Jon Corzine. Again, there isn't too terribly much change, relatively speaking, in the Corzine numbers and that keeps the lines closer together. Where there is more volatility, there is more divergence between the two measures. This is most clear among the undecideds. The graduated weighted average projects the level of voters yet to be had by either campaign at a consistently higher level in New Jersey since June than does the regression measure of the same concept. The same sort of phenomenon can be seen in Chris Christie's numbers. However, in this case the graduated weighted average comes in below where the regression finds the Republican candidate's support across these polls. And on the whole, the difference between the two measures appears to be growing over time. If the regression prediction is the more reliable measure (and that is an arguable point given the simplicity of the model), then the graduated weighted average is losing predictive power over time in regards to Chris Christie's share of support in this race. That isn't really the best trajectory to be on if you are attempting to use polling information as a means of forecasting the results of an election.

But New Jersey is just one case. How do things look further south in the Old Dominion?

[Click to Enlarge]

Things are a bit more muddled in the Virginia example and that is largely attributable to the differences across the two races.

First of all, there are far fewer polls that have been conducted in the Virginia race. Still, given the window of time that is being considered in each race, each state is averaging a poll every seven or eight days. Regardless, fewer polls overall in the Virginia case translates to more volatility in the graduated weighted average.

But also, there have been different dynamics at work in both races. In New Jersey, Jon Corzine has been stuck in a holding pattern in the polls while Chris Christie has, on the whole, gained over time. The Virginia case is quite different. The polls showed a close race early, but over time that has yielded a seemingly comfortable McDonnell lead.

The smaller window of time in Virginia means that there is less time for past polling results to have decayed and less new polls to have outweighed them. As a consequence, the graduated weighted average is stuck to some degree; overvaluing some of those past results that were more Deeds-heavy. Well wait, what that really means is that this graduated weighted averaging methodology is bias against Republicans. It happens to be in this case. But what the average is really biased against is rapid change. And in 2009, both Republican candidates are the ones who are moving in the polls, at least as compared to their Democratic counterparts. Which brings us to the crux of the matter: The issue with the average has always been whether the past polls are over or undervalued. In this comparison, it seems as if those past polls are still being overvalued, potentially at the expense of gleaning the true state of each race.

But let's return to those Virginia results for a moment. With the above caveats in mind, we would expect the average to underperform the regression in the McDonnell model while the two lines would remain rather close to each other (while slightly overperforming) for Deeds. All that means is that the status quo from poll to poll is protected more in the case of the average than with the progression of the regression trendline.

What does this mean for the graduated weighted average? I'm not apt to scrap it just yet. This exercise is helpful in determining the usefulness of the measure in settings other than the electoral college (and even for the electoral college, truth be told). Again, FHQ even examining these races in the first place is a function of tweaking the measure with 2012 on the distant horizon. Better to do it while that is distant and not on top of us with or after the midterms next year.

As for what this means for what you'll see in subsequent iterations of these polling updates, you'll continue to see the Actual vs. Average trend and will likely see occasional (and perhaps more advanced) regression model predictions. So, be on the lookout for that.

*For New Jersey, that means the number of days since the first of the year (as Christie was the clear cut Republican frontrunner to challenge Corzine) and in Virginia, the time since the Washington Post's endorsement of Creigh Deeds in the Democratic primary race (It was at that point that Deeds was really first seen as a legitimate candidate in the race -- primary or general election.).


Recent Posts:
Don't Forget Your Change Commission Reform Suggestions: Deadline Today

2012 Presidential Race: August PPP Trial Heats In-Depth

PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney) August Edition

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/19/09)

Yeah, it has been a while -- almost a month in fact -- since the last polling update in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. I moved. What can I say? Anyway, here are the polls we've yet to incorporate:

New Jersey Gubernatorial Polls (July 31-Aug. 18)
Poll	Date	Corzine	Christie	Daggett	Undecided
Democracy Corps [pdf]	Aug. 11-12, 2009	35	40	10	15
Quinnipiac	Aug. 5-9, 2009	40	46	7	6
Daily Kos/Research 2000	Aug. 3-5, 2009	40	48	--	9
Rasmussen	Aug. 4, 2009	37	50	--	8
Monmouth/Gannett [pdf]	July 29-Aug. 2, 2009	36	50	4	8
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	July 24-27, 2009	36	50	--	14

Before I get into the specifics, let me make a note on the inclusion of one poll (Democracy Corps) and the exclusion of another (Global Strategy Group). I'll admit, I wrestled over including the Democracy Corps poll, but ultimately fell back on what I did regarding the polling outfit during the presidential campaign. I included them. Again, I'm cognizant of the fact that what were dealing with here is an organization that leans left, but I draw the line between partisan leaning and partisan aligned in these cases. FHQ would not, for instance, use the numbers from a Republican Governors Association poll, but we are in the habit of accepting the numbers from right leaning Strategic Vision. The same is true in this case. The Democracy Corps numbers are included while the New Jersey Democratic Assembly sanctioned Global Strategy Group poll is not.

And yet, despite its inclusion, the Democracy Corps poll is not putting Corzine in the lead, or even closing the gap substantially with Christie.

[Click to Enlarge]

Over nearly a month's time, then, Corzine has remained stationary while Chris Christie has dropped less than half a point. And most of the latter's drop is attributable to the most recent poll, which it is safe to say is an outlier given the state of most of the other polls. Corzine has gotten more aggressive in terms of pushing the Bush/Christie link of late and that will have to stick to some significant degree for the incumbent to pull Christie back down to earth. I will say this: If Corzine can string together a series of good polls, it will be much easier for the media to take up the "comeback" story (as something different in the race) and for the race to fall into line with "this is the Democrats coming home to Corzine" pattern we've all been primed to expect. Of course the competing storyline is that this race and the Virginia race are harbingers of a Republican resurgence at the national level. Virginia will have something to say about that, but FHQ will have more on the state of the race in the commonwealth tomorrow.

[Click to Enlarge]

The trendlines above aren't terribly exciting, so I may try and add in the actual polling fluctuations along with the FHQ average trendline to provide a more informative picture of the progress. Be on the lookout for that in the next update.


Recent Posts:
Marist 2012 Presidential Poll: Palin Lags Well Behind Obama but Holds Her Own in the GOP Primary Race

Which Republican is the Biggest Threat in 2012?

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary Poll: Romney Up Big

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/31/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Let's play some catch up on the 2009 governors races. First, New Jersey. On Tuesday, Public Policy Polling released its first batch of new numbers for the race in the Garden state since late June and not much has changed.

...for Chris Christie.

The Republican held steady around the 50% mark in both the June and July iterations of the poll, but incumbent governor, Jon Corzine, dipped from what had been his high water mark in the June poll (41%) all the way back to 36% in July. And no, PPP doesn't ask a question with independent Chris Daggett included. In other words, this is Corzine's position before Daggett is even considered.

The relevant data:

Chris Christie: 50%
Jon Corzine: 36%
Undecided: 14%

Margin of error: +/- 4.2 points
Sample: 552 registered voters
Conducted: July 24-27, 2009

A few notes:
1) PPP is seemingly the only polling outfit still using a sample of registered, and not likely, voters in this race. I don't think that Corzine would have gained all that much on Christie if likely voters had been sampled, but there could have been some differences. If anything, though, the spread in the poll likely would increased in a likely voter sample given the state of the race.

2) Another thing to eye here is that the sample size from PPP's June poll (1094 registered voters) was cut in half in this poll. Again, this isn't a killer for the poll, but it is a noticeable difference from the June poll that could explain some of the changes witnessed.

3) The 1977 Brendan Byrne comparison may be dead. The position the former Democratic governor was in 1977 was more advantageous than Corzine's now (among registered voters). With less than 100 days left in the race, it is incumbent (no pun intended) upon Corzine to mount some sort of charge. As it is now, he's headed in the wrong direction.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Last Athens Post

FOX Poll: 2012 GOP Primary--The Romney/Huckabee Dead Heat Continues

Modified Delaware Plan

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/22/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

This morning, Strategic Vision released the numbers from a survey of New Jersey. For Chris Christie, the results of the gubernatorial trial heat are another feather in the Republican's cap. But for Jon Corzine, they offer yet another ominous sign.

Christie: 53%
Corzine: 38%
Daggett (I): 5%
Undecided: 4%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points
Sample: 800 likely voters
Conducted: July 17-19, 2009

Sadly, there are no attendant crosstabs, so digging down can only go so far. However, here are a few thoughts. This is the first poll since independent candidate, Chris Daggett was added to the questioning that Christie has cleared the 50% barrier. In fact, the Republican has not topped that mark since the calendars were flipped to July. To break through, then, and hit the highest point he has had throughout all the polling conducted on this particular match up since the beginning of the year is telling for Chris Christie. Of course, the flip side of this result is that, at 4%, the undecideds are at their lowest level of any poll as well.

But those sorts of fluctuations are why FHQ applies its weighted average to the polling results. Christie did jump (over a point) in the average to extend his lead over the incumbent Democrat to nearly ten points. [And incidentally, the undecideds are sitting right around the 11% mark when averaged. Sure, but doesn't that include the data from polls where the undecideds were over 20 points back in the earlier part of the year? Yes, but the graduated weighted scheme takes care of that. For transparency's sake, however, if we look at just the polls conducted since the New Jersey primary on June 2, that number drops to about 8.5%. In other words, still above the 4% we see in this current Strategic Vision poll.] If we look at just the polling done since Christie's primary victory, the Republicans advantage grows to just 10.5 points.

Christie, then, is ahead and comfortably so at that. But what about Corzine? The thing that is most troubling for the incumbent is that he is seemingly stuck in a rut. There has really been no movement in his numbers -- good or bad. The governor has settled into the 37-41% range and hasn't really budged. That tempts me to stop making comparisons between this race and the Brendan Byrne comeback victory in the 1977 gubernatorial election. At a similar point in that race Byrne, trailed his Republican opponent (Raymond Bateman) 53-36 among likely voters. Eerily similar, right? Yes, and even though there was only scant polling in that 1977 race prior to that point in July, the fact that Corzine has basically not moved all year -- other than his March swoon -- is troubling to say the least. It is still relatively early in this race (most voters may not be paying attention yet), but not as early as it once was.

Just to throw another number out there, Obama's approval in New Jersey in this poll was right at 50%.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: Two Birds, One Stone

Presidential Approval Tracker

Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/16/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

On the day President Obama is to arrive in New Jersey to appear at a Corzine rally, the incumbent Democrat continues to lag almost ten points behind Chris Christie based on a new Monmouth poll [pdf]. Jon Corzine trails his Republican counterpart by a count of 45-37 (with independent candidate, Chris Daggett, polling at about 4%), but will an Obama visit help or is Corzine too far gone? The polling has been consistent in this race recently, thus the relative stability of FHQ's graduated weighted average. However, despite all this July evidence, there is at least some hope in this poll that Cozine can mount some modicum of a comeback.

Monmouth was at least kind enough to score respondents' answer on a 7 point scale similar to that of the traditional party identification measure. And that provides us with some measure of who remains persuadable as summer inches toward fall. Among those who named a candidate and are strongly behind their choice, Christie led in this poll 29-25, leaving 46% as either undecided or weak/leaning toward one of the candidates. When and if that particular number begins to drop, keep an eye on Corzine's numbers. If the incumbent is not gaining ground then, he's in for a long autumn.

*As was the case in the Quinnipiac poll two days ago, Christie is pulling in an above average share of the minority vote. The Q poll showed him at 29% among African Americans while this Monmouth poll has the Republican just under the one-quarter mark (24%) among African Americans and Hispanic combined. On the surface that makes it look as if many of those Democrats who are undecided or for Christie at this point are minority voters. And those might be two groups among which the president could help Governor Corzine.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Romney Leads 2012 GOP Race (...and in more than just the Gallup Poll)

Revisiting Democratic Delegate Allocation (1976-2008)

On the Polling Horizon: Louisiana 2012?

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/14/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Quinnipiac has a new poll out in the New Jersey governors race, and like the recent Rasmussen poll offers some choices. Instead of a leaners/without leaners distinction, though, Quinnipiac provides us with both a two-person and three-person race perspective. Coincidentally, the two-way race with independent candidate, Chris Daggett, excluded, looks an awful lot like the "with leaners" version of the Rasmussen poll last week. [Both polls show a 53-41 advantage for Christie.] With Daggett included, Christie's and Corzine's numbers trail off a bit. Christie maintains a fairly significant advantage either way, but with Daggett in the picture, the Republican's advantage is 47-38 over the incumbent Democrat. [Daggett comes in at 8%.]

A few of notes:
1) FHQ's policy has always been to include the polls that account for third party candidates when available. The third party candidate is in the race, after all, and as such, the version with said candidate included is theoretically the more accurate depiction of reality. [Yeah, we could probably debate that logic.] We employed the same methodology in last year's electoral college updates as well.

2) That said, Daggett's share of the "vote" in this survey strikes me as a touch high. In other polls since the beginning of 2009, "someone else"/generic "other" candidate (other than Corzine or Christie) has never exceeded 6%. That's a poor comparison, but Daggett has yet to be included in any Quinnipiac poll prior to this just-released survey.

3) Just for the sake of transparency, if the numbers from the two-way race were used, the same 47.2-38.2 spread from the last New Jersey update would have been maintained (as opposed to the drop you see both above and below in the graph).

The major take-home message from this poll is that, the independent polls in this race are not showing the same things Corzine's internal polling seems to be indicating. Christie may be back under the 50% mark (a level the Republican exceeded for much of June after his primary victory), but Corzine does not seem to be breaking that 40% barrier anymore either. Just after the June 2 primary, FHQ got in its time machine and took a trip back to the two most recent instances of incumbent Democrats seeking re-election in New Jersey. Of those two instances, Corzine's current position is still closer to Byrne's (1977) than Florio's (1993) simply because Corzine, like Byrne, is trailing by double digits in July. Whether Corzine can repeat the Byrne comeback is yet to be seen. The climb is an steep one, but not an unmanageable one.

NOTE: The Quinnipiac poll also did not have a question about how firm respondents were in their current choices or the likelihood they would switch candidates between now and November. That was the one silver lining for Corzine in the Rasmussen poll last week.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
A 2012 Obama v. Palin Poll in North Carolina?

A Woefully, nay, Dreadfully Tardy Update of the 2012 Presidential Trial Heats

A 2012 Minnesota Toss Up, Too?

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/9/09)

Just over a week since the last update, there is little perceptible movement in the New Jersey governor's race. Republican Chris Christie still maintains a nearly ten point lead over incumbent, Jon Corzine, but the latest poll from Rasmussen on the race adds a twist. Yes, Rasmussen is back with the leaners/without leaners distinction the polling outfit used during the mid- to late summer last year during the presidential race (Read more here and here). The goal of the leaner distinction is to provide a glimpse into a race if some of the undecideds were categorized as for one candidate or another. In the New Jersey race, the leaners had Christie ahead 53-41, which isn't that out of line with where the polling the race has been. That places the Republican slightly higher than he has been in any other poll, but, again, it doesn't stray that far from where he's been.

With the leaners numbers excluded, Corzine hovers around that 40% mark, but Christie drops to 46%. Rasmussen calls the five point drop from its previous poll of the race an end to Christie's post-primary bounce. That may be the case, but the without leaners numbers basically mirror FHQ's graduated weighted average in the race. In other words, Christie is ahead, but Corzine is still within striking distance; especially with so many respondents in this poll either undecided or open to the idea of switching candidates between now and November.

Before I close, let me add one more note on these Rasmussen polls. FHQ's policy is to use the without leaners data in our updates, but to also mention how the averages would be affected had the leaners been "pushed" into one or the other candidate's categories. For this poll, Christie would have gained a few tenths of a percentage point and Corzine would have inched up even less (47.8-38.3).


Recent Posts:
Which is Bigger?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)

2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/1/09)

What is this? A presidential race? Another day brings another new poll in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. There's no real news here other than the fact that Chris Christie is below the 50% mark against Jon Corzine for the first time since his Republican primary victory on June 2. But I'm not reading too much into that. For one thing, Fairleigh Dickinson, if you look across the full list of polls conducted in this race since the first of the year, has been an outlier in terms of the number of undecideds that are revealed in each poll. There's no reason to doubt the FDU results, but it is clear that both Christie's numbers in this poll and the undecided proportion of the responses are different from what we've witnessed in the most recent polling of the race in the Garden state. Oddly enough, Corzine's numbers are fairly close to where they have been in other polls.

Does that mean Christie is being undervalued or that there is some evidence of the "Democrats and independents will come home to Corzine in November" hypothesis in this undecided figure? I'd have to say the former. FDU's final poll of the presidential race in New Jersey last year had Obama up 18 points with about a week to go (which wasn't too far off), but with 10% still undecided. That's a pretty substantial number of undecideds that late in any presidential race, much less 2008 (in a blue state). No other polling organization covering the New Jersey race (other than Strategic Vision) had anything approaching that high a number that late in the contest.

In other words, despite the low total in this most recent poll from Fairleigh Dickinson, Chris Christie is likely still at or above that magic 50% mark. And just for the sake of comparison, the Republican challenger's weighted average only dropped by two tenths of a point from yesterday's update.



Recent Posts:
Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?

Did Democratic Superdelegates Write Their Own Epitaph?

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/30/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (6/30/09)

Status quo.

That's all you can really say. As June closes on the New Jersey race for governor, the best you can do to sum things up is to say that Chris Christie won the month. The Republican candidate for governor led in all four post-(June 3)primary polls and cleared the 50% barrier in each of them. If Christie maintains that level of support throughout the summer, it won't matter if Corzine gains the support of all the undecideds down, the incumbent governor will still come up short in his bid for re-election. Of course, there's a long way to go and the campaign has yet to heat up (as it will in the fall). And the Democratic National Committee has entered the fray by trying to repackage the "McCain has a short fuse" narrative for New Jersey voters with Christie as the principal. That's clever, sure, and it is certainly better coming from the DNC than from Corzine at this point, but countering the "Corzine's to blame for the state of things in New Jersey" will be a tough proposition.

Long story short, though, how does the new poll from Public Policy Polling (pdf) affect FHQ's graduated weighted average for the race? As was mentioned already, Christie is still hovering over the 50% barrier in polling, but lost in that is the fact that Corzine is at his highest level of support in any head-to-head poll (against Christie) for all of 2009. It is a high water mark for Corzine, but the governor continues to trail his challenger by about ten points. In other words, Corzine is rising (ever so slightly), but that gain is coming from undecideds and not at the expense of Christie. Again, that won't be a means to an end here. Corzine won't win this race if all he's doing is securing undecideds while taking nothing away from Christie. There is no evidence to suggest that Corzine is pulling in undecideds at any great clip -- it could just be statistical noise between polls at this point. If, though (and this is a big if), Corzine were able to make substantial gains among those undecideds (something that likely will not happen until the fall), then that closing polling margin may put pressure on the "weaker" Christie supporters (I'll define that as independents for the moment.) to rethink things.

That, as I said though, is a big if. Where things stand entering July is that Christie maintains a substantial lead in a potentially anti-incumbent race and that Corzine's chances may hinge on making the race about Christie and not himself. That's easier said than done, though.


Recent Posts:
The Best Inside Account of the First Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Future Democratic Change Commission Meetings

The 2012 Presidential Candidates on Twitter (June 2009)