Obama v. McCain (New Jersey)
Posted on March 2nd, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
There are plenty of caveats to make about this new Rasmussen poll from New Jersey: this early in the year Clinton is almost certainly bound to run much better than Obama in a state that borders New York, especially when so many people in New Jersey are part of New York’s media market, and despite what feels like saturation coverage to those of us who follow the campaign closely Obama remains less well-known nationally. Obama did not campaign heavily in New Jersey, acknowledging Clinton’s advantages there on February 5, so he will have made less of an impression even among the state’s Democratic primary electorate, and he will have made even less of an impression among other voters. Even so, the difference is striking: Clinton leads 50-39 in New Jersey, as you might expect in a state that has voted Democratic in the presidential election for the last four cycles, but in an Obama v. McCain race McCain leads 45-43. Relative to Clinton, Obama loses five points among men and nine points among women. He loses seven points among Democrats, pulling in just 65%, and five points among liberals. He draws only half as many Republicans (10%), he gets eight fewer points among conservatives (12%) and twelve fewer among moderates (43%). Even among his core of independents he runs four points weaker, though he does still win independents against McCain.
Now, get ready for this: the poll shows that 18-29 year olds in New Jersey back McCain over Obama 61-29 (Clinton runs ten points better). Unless there has been some massive error here, the kids in Jersey are not that excited about hope (or, arguably, they still have no idea who Obama is). Preferences by income group are revealing: Clinton runs more competitively against McCain in all groups but one, while Obama trails among lower-income groups and leads among the higher-income earners. Obama’s weakness in New Jersey is presumably closely related to his fairly high unfav rating (45%) in the state. According to Rasmussen, he receives a 50% “very unfavorable” rating from 18-29 year olds, which is the highest very unfav rating from any demographic group in this poll (only those who chose national security as their top issue view him more unfavourably at 65%). In total, Obama has a 61% unfav rating among 18-29 year olds in the state, which, as you can see, is exactly the same percentage that backed McCain. This turns an important part of what a lot of us have assumed about Obama’s core supporters on its head, at least in this part of the country: young people in New Jersey apparently really dislike him. Perhaps they endured one insipid dipdive video too many. I feel their pain.
Some of the numbers from this poll seem strange, and I want to follow up in the future when Rasmussen releases their next one to see if these patterns hold up, but as of right now it appears as if New Jersey could theoretically be in play if Obama is the nominee. Given the fundamental strengths that the Democrats have in this election, that simply shouldn’t be happening in this cycle. Something strange is going on.
Filed under: politics
10 Responses to “Obama v. McCain (New Jersey)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think these state poll results regarding how well Clinton and Obama do against McCain show how Clinton’s negative campaigning has put a dent in Obama’s sheen, and driven up his negatives. Only two weeks ago, the numbers were generally trending hugely in the other direction – Obama seemed to not only do very well against McCain, but he did much better against McCain than Clinton did. That has changed quite a bit, and it’s almost entirely do to the negative “throw anything in the room against the wall and see if it sticks” approach Clinton has taken of late.
Strangely, however, the national polls have gone in the opposite direction, with Obama getting and even increasing a national lead against Clinton. What this suggests is that Clinton’s strategy is not working very well for her against Obama, whose numbers have been climbing head to head against Clinton, but it has been weakening Obama’s lead against McCain. McCain benefits by being the odd man out.
What does this mean foir the general election? Not much, I think. Remember first that the general is eight months off. Most of this will long be forgotten by then. There will be no Democrats attacking Obama (assuming he’s the nominee), and McCain will be going head to head without being able to stand aside and watch two rival candidates fight it out. McCain will have to live by his own campaigning skills, and from what I’ve seen, he pretty much sucks as a campaigner. He won the Republican nomination only because all the others sucked even worse than he did, and had huge, fatal flaws. This won’t be the case in the general. Obama is the best campaigner we’ve seen in decades, and Hillary’s no slouch either if she somehow miraculously pulls through.
Obama will of course carry New Jersey quite comfortably in the general. Hillary’s supporters will have long since given up their disappointment, and she’ll campaign for him in any case. McCain will be hard pressed to make a case on his own against Obama, and will rely on 527’s and nasty surrogates to go negative against Obama, but that won’t be the same as staying out of the fight. Did I say McCain is a lousy campaigner? It can’t be stressed enough. It’s hard for me to imagine the country electing a guy who looks and sounds like the Crypt-keeper against a young and vibrant guy like Obama. It’s like a reversal of the 2004 election – or 1996 for that matter. Issues and record be damned, we are a nation that identifies with its leaders, and there just aren’t enough senior citizens among us to swing things McCain’s way.
I would agree with conradg that the possibility that a Republican would carry NJ hovers slightly somewhere between slim and none, but I would sharply question the assertion that McCain is a ‘lousy campaigner’ The townhalls that he does are fiesty, boisterous affairs, and he has a strange ability to get the votes of people who agree with him on absolutely nothing (he consistently won the votes of those who were against the Iraq war, per the exit polling.) It is as much of a schtick as Obama’s hope/unity, but it does work, and works very well amongst low-information centrist voters.
“Hillary’s supporters will have long since given up their disappointment, and she’ll campaign for him in any case.”
There is a certain, irreducable core of Hillary’s support (older white women) that will not be voting for Obama. Daniel linked to a NM poll not to long ago that showed McCain beating Obama amongst seniors (65+) by double digits.
Hillary will do some pro-forma events for Obama, but nothing like active support. In her heart of hearts, the Clinton’s will be rooting for Obama to fail just like they rooted for Kerry to fail.
Adam,
I agree that McCain gets the senior vote, since he’s in their age group. But as with Clinton, this is not exactly the deciding demographic. It’s exactly where Obama wants McCain’s appeal to lie. If he can marginalize McCain as the candidate of the eldery and infirm, it’s going to be a landslide.
He only needs Hillary’s pro-forma support to help the young and middle-aged women who supported her to feel good about Obama, and that shouldn’t be a problem.
” agree that McCain gets the senior vote, since he’s in their age group”
Except that that demographic is pretty solidly Democratic. If Obama is losing that slice of the electorate, he has a problem.
Good point. But I don’t think Obama will lose the senior vote by much, or where it will count the most.
Regarding NJ, several good points in the post and in comments why we should take these preliminary results with a huge grain of salt. And I do think that Obama will end up winning NJ handily.
But a recent Ross Douthat post I think is also relevant here. The natures of these particular candidates are such that the Red State/Blue State dichotomy of the last few cycles may well be significantly scrambled. McCain may be more competitive in some “blue” states, but Obama may end up more competitive in some “red” states.
Re the elderly, I think that that is really the one Democratic subgroup where the danger is greatest for Omaba. Maybe it’s race, maybe it’s social issues, maybe the age of the candidates, who knows, but it could make a real difference. Though McCain’s social security position could (fairly or not) help Obama there, once it becomes better known.
I am constantly amazed at how deluded Obama supporters are.
Even more suprised that in a blog this well written and logical, many of your readers think it is “ok” to post nothing more than namby pamby clap trap.
Such as “He only needs Hillary’s pro-forma support to help the young and middle-aged women who supported her to feel good about Obama, and that shouldn’t be a problem.”
Really, how would you know that?
Have you presented any evidence to support this???
And then there’s this: “Good point. But I don’t think Obama will lose the senior vote by much, or where it will count the most” again, where is the evidence to back this up?
Two interesting pieces of anecdotal evidence that suggest Obama may not be the Dem savior many of your readers may think he is.
1) My mother is a typical Dem voter, she has never voted for a Republican in her life (although she did vote for Perot in 1992). She hates the Iraq War, thinks Bush is an awful president etc….guess who she’s going to vote for if Hillary doesn’t get the nod. I’ll give you a hint, its not St. Obama!
Apparently from what she tells me, alot of her Westside Jewish gal pals in Los Angeles feel the same way.
2) I’m getting my masters of public policy here in Singapore and my classmates (I am the only American) are almost to a man, anti-Iraq and anti-Bush, the split in who they would vote for is 1/3 Obama, 1/3 McCain/ and 1/3 Hillary. But, when we polled to see who they think would win if it were McCain v. Obama then only three out of a class of 64 thought Obama would win- whereas 28 thought Hillary could beat McCain.
I wish Obama supporters stopped acting like their candidate walked on water and realized that to win an election in Ill v. Alan Keyes is really not the same as winning the presidency.
Grow up!
I’m amazed that someone ranting about the naivete of Obama supporters would use two utterly inane anecdotes to prove that Obama can’t win the general. Yeah, yo mama represents all Dem voters. Never heard the tons of similar anecdotes from elderly republicans supporting Obama? And singapore voters have a sure grasp of who will win in a US election in November? Are you out of your mind. Do you think name recognition might have something to do with it, and lack of familiarity with America?
Well, my mama is a typical Dem, and she’s voting Obama. So that cancels out your mama. And my son’s friends in France all think Obama’s going to win, so that cancels out SIngapore. Got anything brilliant to add to that analysis?
What I wish is that these nutjob anti-Obama people would stop pretending that all Obama supporters think he’s the messiah and can walk on water. It’s putrid denigrating crap, is what it is, dude. You obviously can’t think your way out of a paper bag, so cut out the condescension. I merely think, audaciously enough, that Obama can win, and that he’d make a better President than either Hillary or McCain. It’s not all that high a bar to jump over.
Oh, and regarding the “namby pampy claptrap” that Obama can get most of Hillary’s supporters? It’s common sense, dude. (I don’t run polling op, so that’s what I’m left with). Dems have been getting the female vote for several election cycles big time. Obama, even if he defeats Hillary, will have done it without going negative, and alienating Hillary supporters, and women in general. Likewise, he’s not a macho type who alienates women. He’s not advocating more wars. He’s gentle, empathetic, and positive in his manner. There are certainly women who will not vote for him, but the kinds of women who tend to vote for Hillary will also tend to vote for him. Likewise, there’s plenty of Republican women who find him appealing. McCain, on the other hand, typifies the kind of macho, war-mongering guy that many women voters are wary of. He reminds them of Bush. So I think that in general, Obama will hold onto the female vote, as Democrats have been able to do for a long time. Hillary will help some, but it doesn’t take much more than a pro-forma endorsement on her part to help that along, and it won’t matter much in any case. He’s got the goods to keep the female vote democratic.
What Obama also has is an appeal to rational-minded men, including moderates and republicans, that Kerry and Gore lacked. He’s done better with independents than McCain has when they have competed against one another in simultaneous open primaries. What isn’t much noted by the press is that the electorate in the Democratic primaries has been 57-43 female/male, and even with that disadvantage against a much more famous and popular female candidate with the party machinery behind her, he’s more than held his own, and actually won more contests, won more votes, and won more delegates. In the general election the split is 50-50, so his strong showing among males is going to only get better. I think he can do very well to narrow the traditional gap the Dems have among men.
As for the elderyly, I don’t really know, but I do know that painting McCain as the well-respected old war hero with 50 years of experience serving his country is a winning strategy for Obama. It certainly was the way to treat Dole in 96.
[...] Obama v. McCain (New Jersey) 9 conradg, conradg, ducinaltum [...] [...]