This past week has seen a new type of story on NJ Governor Chris Christie - one in which failure figures prominently. It goes something like this: First we learn New Jersey came in 11th in the federal Race to the Top competition for school funding. Unfortunately there were only 10 winners. That's bad enough, but then it turns out there was an error in the New Jersey application that cost us 4.2 points. We apparently only needed 3 more to come in 10th and get the $400 million prize.
Governor Christie takes to the podium, three binders in hand, which he says is the thousand page application. He rails on at faceless bureaucrats in Washington, President Obama, and others, saying it's Washington's fault we lost out, that we weren't allowed to correct a minor clerical error made by some mid level staff person. It's vintage Christie, shooting from the hip.
Then we find out that the feds videotaped the presentation, and despite the Governor's claims, NJ WAS given a chance to produce the right numbers. And it's on tape. Suddenly shooting from the hip doesn't look so good. We also find out that the original version of the application that (now former) Education Commissioner Bret Schundler worked out with the NJEA had the right information. But the Governor, in a high profile, shooting from the hip slap down of both the NJEA and Schundler, rejected the compromise and (presumably) his office redid the application and introduced the error.
So in the next shot from the hip Schundler ends up directly in the line of fire and is out as Commissioner. But he insists he did nothing wrong, and in fact told the Governor not to make the claim that the Obama administration didn't let New Jersey correct the numbers.
So here we are. A Governor who has blasted to fame as a straight talking, shoot from the hip, take no prisoners, etc., kind of guy, is caught by his own style.
Is this going to hurt him politically? Will it embolden the Democrats, who seem to cower in Christie's presence? Our recent polling might give some some insight.
In our August 2010 poll we found that Christie was viewed favorably by 46% and unfavorably by 39%. Both numbers are up from last spring, when he was viewed more negatively. But interestingly, his job performance numbers are quite negative, with only 39% rating him excellent or good, and 58% only fair or poor.
So New Jersey voters like Christie overall as a governor, but do not think he's doing that good a job. What kept his favorables positive in the face of the job performance number?
I think it is because New Jerseyans have appreciated Christie's style of leadership, with 70 percent saying the words "Strong Leader" apply either very or somewhat well to him. They also think he's smart with 76 percent saying that word applies. So he's a smart, strong leader, which in times of uncertainty people like very much. Even a majority of Democrats think these words apply to him.
But, 76 percent also say he is stubborn, and 60 percent report that "arrogant" applies to the Governor. And therein lies some risk for him in this dust up.
Will this nearly half-billion dollar screw up hurt the Governor? It is likely to if it impacts beliefs about him being a smart leader, and reinforces his stubbornness and even arrogance in people's minds. But more importantly, it is likely to because Garden Staters LOVE their local schools and their teachers. They may well not love the teacher's union, but that's a lot like hating congress but liking one's own congressman, which time and time again is the case. And here was a chance to get a lot of money for our schools. A chance that was bungled.
In all our polling on the budget, one thing comes out clearly. The cuts to school funding are not popular and many people want the funding restored. In our August poll we asked whether overall budget cuts should be reversed when times get better, or taxes cut. While we haven't published the results, we found that 41 percent want programs restored (while 53 percent want tax cuts). We then asked those who want programs restored, which should be the top priority, and school funding blew every other option away, with 51 percent. Second was restoring programs for the poor at only 16 percent. This tracks with our polling in April where there was strong desire to protect education.
So the numbers tell us that Christie's support from the public is based not so much on job performance, and definitely not on the budget (only 30 percent support the budget in our August poll) but instead on perceptions of Christie the smart strong leader, who comes across as taking on the entrenched interests. And this 400 million dollar misstep may well erode that image the longer it is talked about. If so this could be the beginning of a new perspective on the rookie Governor. Votes may well begin questioning whether it is the leadership or the stubbornness and arrogance that drives what Christie does. As a leader people respect him even if they disagree. But if his leadership results in such high profile failures, they may begin to wonder what else they should question about his approach to running New Jersey.
Governor Christie may continue to shoot from the hip, but he will need to be more careful where he's pointing when he does so.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
An Overview of NJ's Congressional Races
Today we follow up on a survey we ran way back in February, trying to get an overall feel for the upcoming Congressional races in New Jersey. There are no statewide races on the ballot this fall, so it is likely to be a low turnout election, if history is any guide. On the other hand, a surprising number of people claim to be paying at least some attention to news about the election, and we all keep reading about how certain groups are energized and others are not. So maybe we'll see more coming to the polls than usual for this off-year election.
In any case, we did a statewide survey where we split the sample into two groups. With one group we asked the standard generic Republican vs. Democrat ballot test for Congress. With the other we asked about voting for "your current congressman" versus a "challenger running against him". (YES, all of NJ's members of Congress are male.)
These aggregate results give us an overall picture, but of course do not tell us about individual districts, since we have only about 55-60 respondents per district. So we aggregate by whether the district is currently held by a Republican or a Democrat to look a little more deeply at the results.
I should note too that these statewide aggregate results do NOT include the 3rd district, where we specifically polled the Adler/Runyan race. The release on that race is available here.
Following is the release. A PDF with the release and questions and tables is available here.
NEW RUTGERS-EAGLETON POLL SHOWS DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS SAFE, BUT REPUBLICANS SAFER
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Will New Jersey voters support their incumbent congressional representatives in this fall’s contentious midterm elections?
Their answers depend on how the question is asked.
If the question is framed in terms of incumbency – will you vote for your current congressman? – voters who have made up their minds are split nearly evenly between incumbents and challengers.
But, if the question is framed purely partisan terms – will you vote for a Democrat or a Republican this fall? – voters who have made up their minds are favoring Democrats.
When registered voters statewide are asked about voting for their current member of Congress or for a challenger – without identifying either by party – they give incumbents a 30 percent to 28 percent lead, while 31 percent say they do not know how they would vote and 11 percent say they definitely would not vote. This compares a February, 2010 Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, which showed incumbents supported 32 percent to 25 percent, with 27 percent undecided and 17 percent not voting.
“We have seen tightening of the generic incumbent versus challenger results since February,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “Among those making a choice, it is now a statistical dead heat statewide, where incumbents had a seven-point margin six months ago. No question that the environment is more risky than usual for incumbents, though it still seems likely that most, if not all, New Jersey incumbents will survive.”
Half those polled were asked about voting for their “current congressman” versus a challenger; half were asked about voting for a generic Republican versus a Democrat. Among these latter voters, 38 percent said they would vote for a Democrat and 29 percent supported a Republican, with 4 percent “other,” 25 percent don’t know and 4 percent saying they will not vote. In February, 33 percent favored Democrats, 31 percent Republicans and 7 percent someone else, with 20 percent saying didn’t know and 10 percent not voting.
The poll of 751 registered New Jersey voters was conducted Aug. 5 to Aug. 8. The full sample has a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points. Vote questions were asked of random half samples, which have a margin of error of +/- 5.0 percentage points.
Democratic “incumbents” fare badly, but “Democrats” do just fine
Across all districts held by Democrats, voters support a generic Democrat over a Republican 41 percent to 28 percent. But when party is not named, voters in these same districts appear more ready to toss their incumbents, with 29 percent supporting their “current congressman” and 31 percent supporting “a challenger.” The story is the opposite for Republicans. When party is named, voters in GOP-held districts support an unnamed Democrat 34 percent to 31 percent for the Republican, a -3 margin for Republicans. In February a generic Republican led by 15 points in these same districts. But when asked about supporting their “current congressman” over a challenger, voters support the incumbent 33 percent to 23 percent, a 10 point margin, compared to 7 points in February.
Republicans are hurt when their party is named because voters are very unhappy with Republicans in Congress. While only 37 percent of voters feel favorable towards Congressional Democrats, Republicans are liked by even fewer; only 27 percent hold a “favorable” impression.
“Still when we ask voters about supporting their current congressman or voting for a challenger, Democratic districts suffer the most, reflecting that voters are unhappy and know that it is Democrats who are in charge,” said Redlawsk. “Voters in GOP districts overall are more supportive of their ‘current congressman’ than those in Democratic-held districts, when party is not named. Anti-incumbency, such as it is, is more directed at Democrats than Republicans.”
Independents leaning Republican
Independent voters are more supportive of Republicans then Democrats. When asked whether they would vote for an unnamed Democrat or Republican for Congress, independents pick the Republican 25 percent to 14 percent for the Democrat with 8 percent preferring someone else. But 46 percent of independents are undecided, and another 7 percent say they will not vote. This is a slight drop for both parties from the February Rutgers-Eagleton Poll when Republicans led Democrats 30 to 17 percent.
When asked if they would vote for their current congressman or a challenger, independents statewide support a challenger 30 percent to 22 percent, with 34 percent undecided and 15 percent saying they would not vote. Challengers have gained since February when independents were evenly split 28 to 28 percent.
“But, as indicated by the very large undecided and not voting groups, turnout by independents in off-year elections is usually much lower than partisans,” Redlawsk said. “So while Republicans and challengers generally may gain from independent voters, the gain will be limited unless turnout by these voters is much higher than usual.”
There is some evidence independents may turn out in larger than usual numbers. More independents than Democrats say they are following news about the election somewhat or very closely, 63 percent to 52 percent. Republicans are paying even more attention, with 72 percent claiming they are following election news somewhat or very closely.
Obama and Christie have influence
Voters’ opinions about President Obama and Gov. Christie have some bearing on how voters see the congressional races. President Obama is seen favorably by 52 percent of New Jersey votes, and unfavorably by 36 percent, compared to 56 to 31 percent in March. Meanwhile, Gov. Christie is viewed favorably by 46 percent and unfavorably by 39 percent, up from April, when his rating was 33 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable.
Support for Obama appears to have a stronger partisan influence on registered voters, than Christie. Statewide, voters who view Obama favorably say they will vote for a Democrat for Congress, 61 percent to 8 percent for a Republican, while those favorable to Christie support a Republican 55 percent to 14 percent.
In districts held by Democrats, Christie support increases the vote for a challenger over the incumbent. Voters favorable towards Christie say they will vote for a challenger, 39 percent to 20 percent, while those unfavorable towards the Governor support the incumbent, 42 percent to 24 percent, a 37 point shift away from the Democratic incumbent based on Christie favorability in Democratic districts. Obama’s influence in Republican districts is not as strong. While support for Obama also leads to support for a challenger, 28 percent to 24 percent, those unfavorable towards Obama support the Republican incumbent, 40 to 19 percent. This is a shift of only 25 points from the incumbent based on favorability towards Obama in GOP districts.
“Voters in Democratic districts are more easily moved by support for Christie than are voters in GOP-held districts by support for Obama; Republicans are just less likely to defect,” said Redlawsk.
Statewide results do not include the 3rd Congressional District, where a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released Aug. 10 shows incumbent Democrat John Adler leading Republican Jon Runyan 31 to 25 percent.
In any case, we did a statewide survey where we split the sample into two groups. With one group we asked the standard generic Republican vs. Democrat ballot test for Congress. With the other we asked about voting for "your current congressman" versus a "challenger running against him". (YES, all of NJ's members of Congress are male.)
These aggregate results give us an overall picture, but of course do not tell us about individual districts, since we have only about 55-60 respondents per district. So we aggregate by whether the district is currently held by a Republican or a Democrat to look a little more deeply at the results.
I should note too that these statewide aggregate results do NOT include the 3rd district, where we specifically polled the Adler/Runyan race. The release on that race is available here.
Following is the release. A PDF with the release and questions and tables is available here.
NEW RUTGERS-EAGLETON POLL SHOWS DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS SAFE, BUT REPUBLICANS SAFER
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Will New Jersey voters support their incumbent congressional representatives in this fall’s contentious midterm elections?
Their answers depend on how the question is asked.
If the question is framed in terms of incumbency – will you vote for your current congressman? – voters who have made up their minds are split nearly evenly between incumbents and challengers.
But, if the question is framed purely partisan terms – will you vote for a Democrat or a Republican this fall? – voters who have made up their minds are favoring Democrats.
When registered voters statewide are asked about voting for their current member of Congress or for a challenger – without identifying either by party – they give incumbents a 30 percent to 28 percent lead, while 31 percent say they do not know how they would vote and 11 percent say they definitely would not vote. This compares a February, 2010 Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, which showed incumbents supported 32 percent to 25 percent, with 27 percent undecided and 17 percent not voting.
“We have seen tightening of the generic incumbent versus challenger results since February,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “Among those making a choice, it is now a statistical dead heat statewide, where incumbents had a seven-point margin six months ago. No question that the environment is more risky than usual for incumbents, though it still seems likely that most, if not all, New Jersey incumbents will survive.”
Half those polled were asked about voting for their “current congressman” versus a challenger; half were asked about voting for a generic Republican versus a Democrat. Among these latter voters, 38 percent said they would vote for a Democrat and 29 percent supported a Republican, with 4 percent “other,” 25 percent don’t know and 4 percent saying they will not vote. In February, 33 percent favored Democrats, 31 percent Republicans and 7 percent someone else, with 20 percent saying didn’t know and 10 percent not voting.
The poll of 751 registered New Jersey voters was conducted Aug. 5 to Aug. 8. The full sample has a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points. Vote questions were asked of random half samples, which have a margin of error of +/- 5.0 percentage points.
Democratic “incumbents” fare badly, but “Democrats” do just fine
Across all districts held by Democrats, voters support a generic Democrat over a Republican 41 percent to 28 percent. But when party is not named, voters in these same districts appear more ready to toss their incumbents, with 29 percent supporting their “current congressman” and 31 percent supporting “a challenger.” The story is the opposite for Republicans. When party is named, voters in GOP-held districts support an unnamed Democrat 34 percent to 31 percent for the Republican, a -3 margin for Republicans. In February a generic Republican led by 15 points in these same districts. But when asked about supporting their “current congressman” over a challenger, voters support the incumbent 33 percent to 23 percent, a 10 point margin, compared to 7 points in February.
Republicans are hurt when their party is named because voters are very unhappy with Republicans in Congress. While only 37 percent of voters feel favorable towards Congressional Democrats, Republicans are liked by even fewer; only 27 percent hold a “favorable” impression.
“Still when we ask voters about supporting their current congressman or voting for a challenger, Democratic districts suffer the most, reflecting that voters are unhappy and know that it is Democrats who are in charge,” said Redlawsk. “Voters in GOP districts overall are more supportive of their ‘current congressman’ than those in Democratic-held districts, when party is not named. Anti-incumbency, such as it is, is more directed at Democrats than Republicans.”
Independents leaning Republican
Independent voters are more supportive of Republicans then Democrats. When asked whether they would vote for an unnamed Democrat or Republican for Congress, independents pick the Republican 25 percent to 14 percent for the Democrat with 8 percent preferring someone else. But 46 percent of independents are undecided, and another 7 percent say they will not vote. This is a slight drop for both parties from the February Rutgers-Eagleton Poll when Republicans led Democrats 30 to 17 percent.
When asked if they would vote for their current congressman or a challenger, independents statewide support a challenger 30 percent to 22 percent, with 34 percent undecided and 15 percent saying they would not vote. Challengers have gained since February when independents were evenly split 28 to 28 percent.
“But, as indicated by the very large undecided and not voting groups, turnout by independents in off-year elections is usually much lower than partisans,” Redlawsk said. “So while Republicans and challengers generally may gain from independent voters, the gain will be limited unless turnout by these voters is much higher than usual.”
There is some evidence independents may turn out in larger than usual numbers. More independents than Democrats say they are following news about the election somewhat or very closely, 63 percent to 52 percent. Republicans are paying even more attention, with 72 percent claiming they are following election news somewhat or very closely.
Obama and Christie have influence
Voters’ opinions about President Obama and Gov. Christie have some bearing on how voters see the congressional races. President Obama is seen favorably by 52 percent of New Jersey votes, and unfavorably by 36 percent, compared to 56 to 31 percent in March. Meanwhile, Gov. Christie is viewed favorably by 46 percent and unfavorably by 39 percent, up from April, when his rating was 33 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable.
Support for Obama appears to have a stronger partisan influence on registered voters, than Christie. Statewide, voters who view Obama favorably say they will vote for a Democrat for Congress, 61 percent to 8 percent for a Republican, while those favorable to Christie support a Republican 55 percent to 14 percent.
In districts held by Democrats, Christie support increases the vote for a challenger over the incumbent. Voters favorable towards Christie say they will vote for a challenger, 39 percent to 20 percent, while those unfavorable towards the Governor support the incumbent, 42 percent to 24 percent, a 37 point shift away from the Democratic incumbent based on Christie favorability in Democratic districts. Obama’s influence in Republican districts is not as strong. While support for Obama also leads to support for a challenger, 28 percent to 24 percent, those unfavorable towards Obama support the Republican incumbent, 40 to 19 percent. This is a shift of only 25 points from the incumbent based on favorability towards Obama in GOP districts.
“Voters in Democratic districts are more easily moved by support for Christie than are voters in GOP-held districts by support for Obama; Republicans are just less likely to defect,” said Redlawsk.
Statewide results do not include the 3rd Congressional District, where a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released Aug. 10 shows incumbent Democrat John Adler leading Republican Jon Runyan 31 to 25 percent.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Governor Christie continues to Fascinate
There seems little doubt that NJ Governor Chris Christie is different from any governor most New Jerseyans can remember. He is supremely self confident, willing to express what he appears to really believe, and ready to take on whomever appears tob e standing in his way. Like his policies or not, the Governor is something different in recent New Jersey politics.
And Garden State residents are not completely sure what to make of him. As the results we are releasing today (below) show, the Governor's favorability rating is net positive by 7 points, meaning more people are favorable towards him (46% of registered voters) than unfavorable (39%). While we don't publish them in today's release, this compares well to President Obama (+16, 52% to 36%), and is far better than the state legislature (18% - 44%) with a whopping -26.
But at the very same time, Christie's job performance rating in our poll is negative. Only 12% say he is doing an excellent job, and 27% say a good job. But a majority, 58% rate his performance as fair (33%) or poor (25%).
So they seem to like him as a guy, but are not overly happy with the specifics of what he is doing. This is borne out by the negative reaction to the budget, with only 30% supporting it, while 63% think more could have been done to protect programs from cuts.
We wanted to dig more deeply into these attitudes towards the Governor, so we asked how well a series of "trait words" describe Gov. Christie. There were four positive and four negative words, randomly presented. The positives were: smart, independent, strong leader, and reformer, while the negatives were stubborn, uncaring, arrogant, and bully. Some fancy statistical analysis (Factor Analysis) shows that there are two dimensions to these eight words, a positive and a negative one, and each group fits into the factor we expected. So "Stubborn" which might be a positive trait to some people, fits better with the other negative traits statistically.
You can see the release below for the details. Most interesting to me is that Democrats are very mixed - majorities see EVERY word as fitting Christie either very or somewhat well. They see both good and bad in the guy. They are willing to say he is a smart leader, but they also think he is an uncaring bully. Republicans on the other hand, see only the positives, with 85-94% of them saying the positive words describe the Governor very or somewhat well. But most reject the negative words, except for "stubborn", which 69% of Republicans say describes the Governor. Independents are a little more positive and a little less negative than Democrats, but they look more like Democrats than Republicans in their beliefs about these traits.
Overall the order of the traits thought to describe Governor Christie either very or somewhat well is: Smart (76%), Stubborn (76%), Independent (74%), strong leader (70%). Following these are Reformer (66%), Arrogant (60%), Bully (49%) and Uncaring (47%). Note that of the top four words, three are positive (and stubborn may have positive connotations). Of the last four, three are negative. Even with the job performance rating sitting in negative territory, Garden Staters are more positive than negative towards the Governor, at least given this list of descriptors.
Of course, public employee union members are somewhat more negative towards the Governor but they also see his positive traits as well, especially as a strong leader. Given the high profile battles between Governor Christie and public employee unions, especially the New Jersey Teachers’ Association, it is not surprising that members of these unions are more negative. Yet they also perhaps begrudgingly recognize that he is clearly leading and perhaps a smart politician even if he is going where they don’t want to go.
There is also a gender difference in the trait words. This reflects both partisanship, in that women are more likely to be democrats, but also suggests different takes on Christie’s style as governor. Women see him as stubborn and independent first, with many also saying "arrogant" describes him very well, while men characterize him as smart and a strong leader, though also recognize that stubborn can describe the governor as well.
Here's the actual release. Tables and Questions available here.
New Jersey Voters Think Gov. Christie is Stubborn but Independent and Smart
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J –New Jersey’s registered voters think Gov. Chris Christie is “stubborn,” but they also see him as “independent” and “smart,” according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released today. About 4 in 10 Garden Staters think these words describe Christie “very well,” while fewer than 2 in 10 say they do not describe him at all. Given a set of four positive and four negative character traits, slightly more voters say the positive traits describe Christie very well.
The telephone poll of 751 registered voters statewide was conducted Aug. 5 to 8 and has a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points.
“New Jerseyans describe the governor as a smart leader, but they are also quite willing to call him stubborn,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science. “Many who say he isn’t doing a good job, describe him in positive terms.”
Positive and negative views of Christie
Asked how strongly they agree with a random list of four positive (smart, independent, strong leader and reformer) and four negative traits (stubborn, uncaring, arrogant and bully) to describe Christie, three-quarters say stubborn “very” (42 percent) or “somewhat” well (34 percent). About the same percentage call him “very” (39 percent) or “somewhat” smart (37 percent). Seventy-four percent agree Christie is at least somewhat independent; 70 percent view him as a strong leader. Sixty-six percent call him a reformer, 60 percent arrogant, 49 percent a bully and 47 percent uncaring.
“That both the positive and negative descriptors fit is striking,” said Redlawsk, “that some of this is driven by partisanship is not. But a majority of Democrats say that all the positive traits are at least somewhat applicable, while a majority of Republicans (69 percent) agree that one negative – stubborn – applies. Republicans are very positive about the governor. Democrats see both positive and negative.”
Independents are mixed; a majority agrees that all the positive traits apply at least somewhat to Christie, as well as two negatives – stubborn (76 percent) and arrogant (59 percent).
“Stubborn can be seen both ways,” said Redlawsk. “The governor does seem to make it a virtue, but its possible coupling with arrogance in independent voters’ minds could suggest there is a thin line between a positive and negative assessment of such a trait.”
Favorability is positive, but job performance negative
According to the poll, Christie’s favorability among registered voters has returned to February’s level (46 percent), but his unfavorable rating during the same stretch has increased 13 points to 39 percent. Only 15 percent of respondents today say they don't have an opinion of Christie, down from 29 percent in February.
At the same time, though almost half the voters say they have a favorable opinion of the governor, a majority think Christie is doing only a fair or poor job. Thirty-nine percent say he is doing a good job, but 33 percent say he is doing a fair job and 25 percent rate him poor. The state budget is the issue that most strongly influences attitudes toward Christie – 63 percent of voters think more could have been done to alleviate program cuts. Only 30 percent say they support the budget as passed.
Public employee union members are more negative
Public employee union members (about 12 percent of respondents) are significantly more likely to say the negative traits describe Christie “very well.” More than half (57 percent) agree he is stubborn, while 49 percent call him arrogant, 41 percent a bully 34 percent uncaring. At the same time they are relatively likely to agree Christie is independent (41 percent) and smart (34 percent). Fewer see him as a reformer or leader (each 26 percent).
Perceptions of Christie as leader vary by employment status
Among unemployed New Jerseyans, only 27 percent call Christie a strong leader, compared to 36 percent of registered voters; 35 percent of the jobless disagree with the description. However, more than half of retired New Jerseyans think Christie a strong leader, while 15 percent disagree. The evaluation of part-time or full-time workers is more mixed: about one third from each employment category think him a strong leader. About one-quarter from each disagree.
A gender gap in perceptions
Men and women hold different perceptions of Christie and his job performance. More men – 51 percent to 42 percent – feel favorable toward Christie and his job performance; 36 percent of men compared to 31 percent of women rate his work performance as fair.
Nearly 80 percent of women agree Christie is stubborn, 75 percent call him independent and 71 percent say he is smart. He is called smart (82 percent), a strong leader (76 percent) and independent (73 percent) by men. Almost half the men, compared to one-third of the women, think the bully label does not apply to Christie. By a 10-point margin, women are more likely to say Christie is not a strong leader.
And Garden State residents are not completely sure what to make of him. As the results we are releasing today (below) show, the Governor's favorability rating is net positive by 7 points, meaning more people are favorable towards him (46% of registered voters) than unfavorable (39%). While we don't publish them in today's release, this compares well to President Obama (+16, 52% to 36%), and is far better than the state legislature (18% - 44%) with a whopping -26.
But at the very same time, Christie's job performance rating in our poll is negative. Only 12% say he is doing an excellent job, and 27% say a good job. But a majority, 58% rate his performance as fair (33%) or poor (25%).
So they seem to like him as a guy, but are not overly happy with the specifics of what he is doing. This is borne out by the negative reaction to the budget, with only 30% supporting it, while 63% think more could have been done to protect programs from cuts.
We wanted to dig more deeply into these attitudes towards the Governor, so we asked how well a series of "trait words" describe Gov. Christie. There were four positive and four negative words, randomly presented. The positives were: smart, independent, strong leader, and reformer, while the negatives were stubborn, uncaring, arrogant, and bully. Some fancy statistical analysis (Factor Analysis) shows that there are two dimensions to these eight words, a positive and a negative one, and each group fits into the factor we expected. So "Stubborn" which might be a positive trait to some people, fits better with the other negative traits statistically.
You can see the release below for the details. Most interesting to me is that Democrats are very mixed - majorities see EVERY word as fitting Christie either very or somewhat well. They see both good and bad in the guy. They are willing to say he is a smart leader, but they also think he is an uncaring bully. Republicans on the other hand, see only the positives, with 85-94% of them saying the positive words describe the Governor very or somewhat well. But most reject the negative words, except for "stubborn", which 69% of Republicans say describes the Governor. Independents are a little more positive and a little less negative than Democrats, but they look more like Democrats than Republicans in their beliefs about these traits.
Overall the order of the traits thought to describe Governor Christie either very or somewhat well is: Smart (76%), Stubborn (76%), Independent (74%), strong leader (70%). Following these are Reformer (66%), Arrogant (60%), Bully (49%) and Uncaring (47%). Note that of the top four words, three are positive (and stubborn may have positive connotations). Of the last four, three are negative. Even with the job performance rating sitting in negative territory, Garden Staters are more positive than negative towards the Governor, at least given this list of descriptors.
Of course, public employee union members are somewhat more negative towards the Governor but they also see his positive traits as well, especially as a strong leader. Given the high profile battles between Governor Christie and public employee unions, especially the New Jersey Teachers’ Association, it is not surprising that members of these unions are more negative. Yet they also perhaps begrudgingly recognize that he is clearly leading and perhaps a smart politician even if he is going where they don’t want to go.
There is also a gender difference in the trait words. This reflects both partisanship, in that women are more likely to be democrats, but also suggests different takes on Christie’s style as governor. Women see him as stubborn and independent first, with many also saying "arrogant" describes him very well, while men characterize him as smart and a strong leader, though also recognize that stubborn can describe the governor as well.
Here's the actual release. Tables and Questions available here.
New Jersey Voters Think Gov. Christie is Stubborn but Independent and Smart
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J –New Jersey’s registered voters think Gov. Chris Christie is “stubborn,” but they also see him as “independent” and “smart,” according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released today. About 4 in 10 Garden Staters think these words describe Christie “very well,” while fewer than 2 in 10 say they do not describe him at all. Given a set of four positive and four negative character traits, slightly more voters say the positive traits describe Christie very well.
The telephone poll of 751 registered voters statewide was conducted Aug. 5 to 8 and has a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points.
“New Jerseyans describe the governor as a smart leader, but they are also quite willing to call him stubborn,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science. “Many who say he isn’t doing a good job, describe him in positive terms.”
Positive and negative views of Christie
Asked how strongly they agree with a random list of four positive (smart, independent, strong leader and reformer) and four negative traits (stubborn, uncaring, arrogant and bully) to describe Christie, three-quarters say stubborn “very” (42 percent) or “somewhat” well (34 percent). About the same percentage call him “very” (39 percent) or “somewhat” smart (37 percent). Seventy-four percent agree Christie is at least somewhat independent; 70 percent view him as a strong leader. Sixty-six percent call him a reformer, 60 percent arrogant, 49 percent a bully and 47 percent uncaring.
“That both the positive and negative descriptors fit is striking,” said Redlawsk, “that some of this is driven by partisanship is not. But a majority of Democrats say that all the positive traits are at least somewhat applicable, while a majority of Republicans (69 percent) agree that one negative – stubborn – applies. Republicans are very positive about the governor. Democrats see both positive and negative.”
Independents are mixed; a majority agrees that all the positive traits apply at least somewhat to Christie, as well as two negatives – stubborn (76 percent) and arrogant (59 percent).
“Stubborn can be seen both ways,” said Redlawsk. “The governor does seem to make it a virtue, but its possible coupling with arrogance in independent voters’ minds could suggest there is a thin line between a positive and negative assessment of such a trait.”
Favorability is positive, but job performance negative
According to the poll, Christie’s favorability among registered voters has returned to February’s level (46 percent), but his unfavorable rating during the same stretch has increased 13 points to 39 percent. Only 15 percent of respondents today say they don't have an opinion of Christie, down from 29 percent in February.
At the same time, though almost half the voters say they have a favorable opinion of the governor, a majority think Christie is doing only a fair or poor job. Thirty-nine percent say he is doing a good job, but 33 percent say he is doing a fair job and 25 percent rate him poor. The state budget is the issue that most strongly influences attitudes toward Christie – 63 percent of voters think more could have been done to alleviate program cuts. Only 30 percent say they support the budget as passed.
Public employee union members are more negative
Public employee union members (about 12 percent of respondents) are significantly more likely to say the negative traits describe Christie “very well.” More than half (57 percent) agree he is stubborn, while 49 percent call him arrogant, 41 percent a bully 34 percent uncaring. At the same time they are relatively likely to agree Christie is independent (41 percent) and smart (34 percent). Fewer see him as a reformer or leader (each 26 percent).
Perceptions of Christie as leader vary by employment status
Among unemployed New Jerseyans, only 27 percent call Christie a strong leader, compared to 36 percent of registered voters; 35 percent of the jobless disagree with the description. However, more than half of retired New Jerseyans think Christie a strong leader, while 15 percent disagree. The evaluation of part-time or full-time workers is more mixed: about one third from each employment category think him a strong leader. About one-quarter from each disagree.
A gender gap in perceptions
Men and women hold different perceptions of Christie and his job performance. More men – 51 percent to 42 percent – feel favorable toward Christie and his job performance; 36 percent of men compared to 31 percent of women rate his work performance as fair.
Nearly 80 percent of women agree Christie is stubborn, 75 percent call him independent and 71 percent say he is smart. He is called smart (82 percent), a strong leader (76 percent) and independent (73 percent) by men. Almost half the men, compared to one-third of the women, think the bully label does not apply to Christie. By a 10-point margin, women are more likely to say Christie is not a strong leader.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Hot Race in CD-3. Adler leads among registered voters; Runyan among those paying attention
As promised, we are releasing our first poll of the congressional campaign season, and we are focusing on the 3rd District, and the pitched battle between incumbent John Adler and challenger Jon Runyan. Results are interesting. Among all registered voters, Adler holds a pretty strong lead, and among those who claim they are at least somewhat likely to vote, the lead jumps to 10 points. But, among those who say they are actually paying attention, Runyan is up by 1 point, an 11-point swing.
These numbers actually include an option to "not vote". If the people who choose that option are then dropped from the totals, Adler's overall lead is an additional point higher. We reported the "Not Vote" in the head-to-head because there is an interesting pattern when we include Peter DeStefano, the (maybe) self-identified Tea Party independent who Runyan says is a plant for Adler. What happens is that DeStefano takes more votes from Adler than Runyan [though we're only talking about a handful of actual people], and the number who say they will not vote drops dramatically. But DeStefano doesn't get them, they move to undecided rather than any candidate. In our poll, DeStefano, who we did NOT label as "Tea Party", gets only 4 percent of the vote.
The bottom line seems to be that this race is as competitive in August as people thought it would be. Whether it stays so depends on who is paying attention, the extent to which Runyan can minimize Adler's much larger cash-on-hand advantage, and what the political environment looks like by November 3.
Here's the press release:
ADLER HOLDS LEAD IN NEW JERSEY 3RD DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL RACE
But Runyan Catches Adler among Voters Paying the most Attention
NOTE: This release with Questions and Tables can be found here.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J – In the already heated battle for Congress in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District, incumbent Democrat John Adler holds a narrow lead over Republican challenger Jon Runyan, among all registered voters according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. With third party candidate Peter DeStefano included, Adler leads 31 percent to 25 percent, while DeStefano polls at 4 percent, and 34 percent say “don’t know”. Another 6 percent say they will not vote in the Congressional race. Without DeStefano on the ballot, Adler leads Runyan 35 percent to 28 percent, with 23 percent don’t know and 13 percent not voting.
The telephone poll of 421 registered voters living in the 3rd Congressional District was conducted August 5-8, 2010 and has a margin of error of +/-4.8 percentage points.
While Adler leads among all registered voters, Runyan pulls ahead 36 to 35 percent among voters who are paying the most attention to the campaign.
Adler Support Higher among Self-Identified Likely Voters; Small lead with Independents
Among registered voters who say they are “very” or “somewhat” likely to vote in November, Adler’s lead grows to 10 points, 40 percent to 30 percent, with 22 percent don’t know and 8 percent saying they would not vote in this race. The 10 point lead holds when DeStefano is included in the list of candidates.
Among Republican voters, 60 percent say they will vote for Runyan, while 56 percent of Democrats will support Adler. At the same time 19 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats don’t know whom they support. Among independents, Adler has a small lead, 23 to 19 percent, but 45 percent say they don’t know who they will support.
“It is hard in August to predict who will really vote in November,” said David Redlawsk, Director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and Professor of Political Science. "Thus, while a simple likely voter screen suggests that Adler does better, more people say they will vote than actually turn out.”
Runyan Stronger among those Most Paying Attention
While likely voters give Adler a lead, his advantage disappears among the 54 percent of registered voters who report following the election “very” or “somewhat” closely, Runyan outpolls Adler from this group, 36 percent to 35 percent, while DeStefano receives 4 percent; 24 percent don’t know. About 1 percent say they will not vote in this race. However, Adler has a strong lead among those following the election “Not too closely” or not at all, 24 percent to 11 percent for Runyan, and 3 percent for DeStefano, The majority of these registered voters either answer “don’t know” (49 percent) or that they will not vote (13 percent).
“While likely voters put Adler up strongly, it’s more realistic to analyze those who follow the election news,” Redlawsk said. “In a midterm election, these are the voters most likely to turn out. If that pattern holds, then the race is essentially a dead heat.”
Experience verses the Outsider
By a 22-percentage point margin, registered voters say they prefer an experienced candidate over a political outsider. Among those who favor experience, Adler is preferred to Runyan, 38 percent to 18 percent, with 4 percent choosing DeStefano. Among voters preferring an outsider, DeStefano polls 9 percent, while Runyan gets 36 percent and Adler 14 percent.
The DeStefano Effect
Respondents were given two ballot tests: the first with candidates Adler and Runyan (with “don’t know” and “will not vote” options), and a second test that included DeStefano. Among registered voters, Adler’s support was more adversely affected than Runyon’s by DeStefano, who picked up 6 percent of initial Adler voters, but only 2 percent of Runyan supporters. DeStefano also added 14 percent of those who initially said they would not vote. These effects are relatively small however, given the low level of support for DeStefano overall.
“Despite the debate over the DeStefano candidacy, our polling suggests that he is not currently much of a factor, and if anything, affects Adler slightly more,” said Redlawsk. “Interestingly, when he is included on the ballot test, the number saying they will not vote plummets, and the ‘don’t knows’ grow. This suggests that at least some voters may be open to an alternative to the two major party candidates. Even so, it seems unlikely that DeStefano’s presence on the ballot would greatly affect the dynamics of the race.”
In the Adler internal campaign poll reported in the press, DeStefano was tagged as a “Tea Party” candidate. However, given the controversy and uncertainty over his connection to the Tea Party movement, the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll simply labeled him as an “independent candidate.”
“We chose not to label DeStefano as a Tea Party candidate, and this no doubt lowered his support in the poll, compared to the internal Adler campaign poll,” said Redlawsk. “However, given the level of debate over his status, even labeling him as Tea Party would most likely have had a limited effect, especially among those voters most paying attention.”
State of the Race in the 3rd District
“As a well-funded incumbent, John Adler could be expected to start off with an advantage in the election,” said David Redlawsk. “Even so, given the general sense of frustration voters are expressing, Adler’s very close win two years ago, and the competitive nature of the 3rd District, he has a fight on his hands.”
These numbers actually include an option to "not vote". If the people who choose that option are then dropped from the totals, Adler's overall lead is an additional point higher. We reported the "Not Vote" in the head-to-head because there is an interesting pattern when we include Peter DeStefano, the (maybe) self-identified Tea Party independent who Runyan says is a plant for Adler. What happens is that DeStefano takes more votes from Adler than Runyan [though we're only talking about a handful of actual people], and the number who say they will not vote drops dramatically. But DeStefano doesn't get them, they move to undecided rather than any candidate. In our poll, DeStefano, who we did NOT label as "Tea Party", gets only 4 percent of the vote.
The bottom line seems to be that this race is as competitive in August as people thought it would be. Whether it stays so depends on who is paying attention, the extent to which Runyan can minimize Adler's much larger cash-on-hand advantage, and what the political environment looks like by November 3.
Here's the press release:
ADLER HOLDS LEAD IN NEW JERSEY 3RD DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL RACE
But Runyan Catches Adler among Voters Paying the most Attention
NOTE: This release with Questions and Tables can be found here.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J – In the already heated battle for Congress in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District, incumbent Democrat John Adler holds a narrow lead over Republican challenger Jon Runyan, among all registered voters according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. With third party candidate Peter DeStefano included, Adler leads 31 percent to 25 percent, while DeStefano polls at 4 percent, and 34 percent say “don’t know”. Another 6 percent say they will not vote in the Congressional race. Without DeStefano on the ballot, Adler leads Runyan 35 percent to 28 percent, with 23 percent don’t know and 13 percent not voting.
The telephone poll of 421 registered voters living in the 3rd Congressional District was conducted August 5-8, 2010 and has a margin of error of +/-4.8 percentage points.
While Adler leads among all registered voters, Runyan pulls ahead 36 to 35 percent among voters who are paying the most attention to the campaign.
Adler Support Higher among Self-Identified Likely Voters; Small lead with Independents
Among registered voters who say they are “very” or “somewhat” likely to vote in November, Adler’s lead grows to 10 points, 40 percent to 30 percent, with 22 percent don’t know and 8 percent saying they would not vote in this race. The 10 point lead holds when DeStefano is included in the list of candidates.
Among Republican voters, 60 percent say they will vote for Runyan, while 56 percent of Democrats will support Adler. At the same time 19 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats don’t know whom they support. Among independents, Adler has a small lead, 23 to 19 percent, but 45 percent say they don’t know who they will support.
“It is hard in August to predict who will really vote in November,” said David Redlawsk, Director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and Professor of Political Science. "Thus, while a simple likely voter screen suggests that Adler does better, more people say they will vote than actually turn out.”
Runyan Stronger among those Most Paying Attention
While likely voters give Adler a lead, his advantage disappears among the 54 percent of registered voters who report following the election “very” or “somewhat” closely, Runyan outpolls Adler from this group, 36 percent to 35 percent, while DeStefano receives 4 percent; 24 percent don’t know. About 1 percent say they will not vote in this race. However, Adler has a strong lead among those following the election “Not too closely” or not at all, 24 percent to 11 percent for Runyan, and 3 percent for DeStefano, The majority of these registered voters either answer “don’t know” (49 percent) or that they will not vote (13 percent).
“While likely voters put Adler up strongly, it’s more realistic to analyze those who follow the election news,” Redlawsk said. “In a midterm election, these are the voters most likely to turn out. If that pattern holds, then the race is essentially a dead heat.”
Experience verses the Outsider
By a 22-percentage point margin, registered voters say they prefer an experienced candidate over a political outsider. Among those who favor experience, Adler is preferred to Runyan, 38 percent to 18 percent, with 4 percent choosing DeStefano. Among voters preferring an outsider, DeStefano polls 9 percent, while Runyan gets 36 percent and Adler 14 percent.
The DeStefano Effect
Respondents were given two ballot tests: the first with candidates Adler and Runyan (with “don’t know” and “will not vote” options), and a second test that included DeStefano. Among registered voters, Adler’s support was more adversely affected than Runyon’s by DeStefano, who picked up 6 percent of initial Adler voters, but only 2 percent of Runyan supporters. DeStefano also added 14 percent of those who initially said they would not vote. These effects are relatively small however, given the low level of support for DeStefano overall.
“Despite the debate over the DeStefano candidacy, our polling suggests that he is not currently much of a factor, and if anything, affects Adler slightly more,” said Redlawsk. “Interestingly, when he is included on the ballot test, the number saying they will not vote plummets, and the ‘don’t knows’ grow. This suggests that at least some voters may be open to an alternative to the two major party candidates. Even so, it seems unlikely that DeStefano’s presence on the ballot would greatly affect the dynamics of the race.”
In the Adler internal campaign poll reported in the press, DeStefano was tagged as a “Tea Party” candidate. However, given the controversy and uncertainty over his connection to the Tea Party movement, the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll simply labeled him as an “independent candidate.”
“We chose not to label DeStefano as a Tea Party candidate, and this no doubt lowered his support in the poll, compared to the internal Adler campaign poll,” said Redlawsk. “However, given the level of debate over his status, even labeling him as Tea Party would most likely have had a limited effect, especially among those voters most paying attention.”
State of the Race in the 3rd District
“As a well-funded incumbent, John Adler could be expected to start off with an advantage in the election,” said David Redlawsk. “Even so, given the general sense of frustration voters are expressing, Adler’s very close win two years ago, and the competitive nature of the 3rd District, he has a fight on his hands.”
Monday, August 9, 2010
It may be the dog days, but at least one NJ Congressional race is hot!
It has been a while since I have updated this blog, primarily because I have been traveling to research conferences and the like for much of the summer. It's also the case that most people say that political polling in August is not worth the effort.
I would usually agree, but this year it's not only the weather that has heated up. In the midst of this sweltering New Jersey summer, the 3rd Congressional District race has been even hotter. Incumbent freshman Democrat John Adler, who won the traditionally Republican seat two years ago, is fighting to hold onto it in the face of a challenge from former Philadelphia Eagles offensive lineman John Runyan. Runyan won the Republican primary, and has been racing money at a decent clip. Most observers assume the race will be a close one, given the Republican leanings of the district (Gov. Christie won it handily) and the general negative environment for Democrats.
Adding early excitement was an Adler campaign poll, released (leaked) to the press showing the Congressman up 17 points over Runyan. What made this interesting was not the margin, but the addition of a third candidate who was not on anyone's radar. Peter DeStefano was included as a "Tea Party Independent" in the poll and according to Adler's pollster, got 12 percent when no one seemed to even know he was running. No doubt the "Tea Party" label made the difference.
The question is what is the real state of the race in these early days of August? It is a truism that November is still a long way off, but it seems worth getting a baseline to work from.
So we are doing that. Tomorrow (Tuesday) we will release a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll of the 3rd district, gauging the race as it stands right now. It is a simple poll - a head-to-head and a few other questions. What makes it potentially interesting is that we initially do not include DeStefano in the mix, and then follow up with a second ballot test including him.
We also ask if people are paying much attention - and 54% say they are paying a lot or at least some attention to news about the campaign. That seems pretty high for August, but suggests that this really will be the race to watch in New Jersey. Not to give too much away before we do the actual release, but the results among those paying attention are quite different than among the rest of the CD-3 registered voters we surveyed.
Also, we simultaneously did a statewide survey of registered voters focusing on questions about Gov. Christie, the state budget, and generic Congressional ballot tests. We will be releasing those data over the next week.
Finally, we made a very small foray into calling cell phones on the statewide survey, with about 10% of our completes coming from cell phone only households and the remaining 90% from a traditional landline RDD sample.
Stay tuned for more soon.
I would usually agree, but this year it's not only the weather that has heated up. In the midst of this sweltering New Jersey summer, the 3rd Congressional District race has been even hotter. Incumbent freshman Democrat John Adler, who won the traditionally Republican seat two years ago, is fighting to hold onto it in the face of a challenge from former Philadelphia Eagles offensive lineman John Runyan. Runyan won the Republican primary, and has been racing money at a decent clip. Most observers assume the race will be a close one, given the Republican leanings of the district (Gov. Christie won it handily) and the general negative environment for Democrats.
Adding early excitement was an Adler campaign poll, released (leaked) to the press showing the Congressman up 17 points over Runyan. What made this interesting was not the margin, but the addition of a third candidate who was not on anyone's radar. Peter DeStefano was included as a "Tea Party Independent" in the poll and according to Adler's pollster, got 12 percent when no one seemed to even know he was running. No doubt the "Tea Party" label made the difference.
The question is what is the real state of the race in these early days of August? It is a truism that November is still a long way off, but it seems worth getting a baseline to work from.
So we are doing that. Tomorrow (Tuesday) we will release a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll of the 3rd district, gauging the race as it stands right now. It is a simple poll - a head-to-head and a few other questions. What makes it potentially interesting is that we initially do not include DeStefano in the mix, and then follow up with a second ballot test including him.
We also ask if people are paying much attention - and 54% say they are paying a lot or at least some attention to news about the campaign. That seems pretty high for August, but suggests that this really will be the race to watch in New Jersey. Not to give too much away before we do the actual release, but the results among those paying attention are quite different than among the rest of the CD-3 registered voters we surveyed.
Also, we simultaneously did a statewide survey of registered voters focusing on questions about Gov. Christie, the state budget, and generic Congressional ballot tests. We will be releasing those data over the next week.
Finally, we made a very small foray into calling cell phones on the statewide survey, with about 10% of our completes coming from cell phone only households and the remaining 90% from a traditional landline RDD sample.
Stay tuned for more soon.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Not much to see, let's move along... Well not quite yet!
Well, the Tea Party surprises in the Congressional primaries were few and far between yesterday in New Jersey, suggesting as our polling has shown that the Tea Party movement in the state is 1) primarily a within-Republican Party movement, and 2) not all that strong. No Congressional incumbent lost, and Leonard Lance (R-7th) thought by some to be at risk, pulled off a handy victory over three challengers claiming the Tea Party mantle. His majority win suggests that even if there had been only one, Lance would have won. John Runyan, set to challenge incumbent John Alder (D-3rd), looked early on like the challenge by Justin Murphy would be tight (at one point about 54-46, but in the end Runyan won 60-40. In the 12th District, Scott Sipprelle had to fend off a challenge from David Corsi, which he did 54%-46%.
So the NJ Congressional race that looks like it will be the most competitive is the 3rd, where Adler now faces the presumably stronger challenger in Runyan. And given a certain amount of voter dissatisfaction with incumbents this year and the nature of the district, Adler is likely in for a real fight. But Runyan will have to actually raise a lot more money than he has so far to compete effectively with the incumbent. It may be an anti-incumbent year (though that really remains to be shown in NJ) but incumbents start with lots of advantages, even in a bad year. Remember, in 1994, when the Democrats got slaughtered by Newt Gingerich and the Republicans, 89.8% of incumbents who sought reelection won.
And Rush Hold (D-12) will face the clearly stronger Republican challenger in Sipprelle, which might well make the race interesting.
But of course that doesn't mean there was NOTHING interesting going on yesterday that. In fact, as of this writing, we do not know whether the establishment Republican Diane Gooch or Tea Party favorite Anna Little will be the nominee in the 6th District to face Democrat incumbent Frank Pallone. Little is up by about 60 votes, with 1 precinct not reported and provisional votes to count. If she should win it would be a stunning blow to the Republican establishment in the 6th District, and Pallone's re-election may have gotten a little easier. Where Gooch raised over $400,000 so far, Little has raised all of $22,000. This does not suggest she will be a fundraising powerhouse if she wins.
Why is the race so close in the 6th? Well, the turnout was abysmal. A total of about 13,500 votes were cast in the primary. (Congressional districts have 300,000 plus voters of all parties/independents). With such a tiny turnout, a small number of committed activists can make a big difference as rank and file voters stay home on primary day. And that certainly seems to be what happened here. But it doesn't suggest that the same will happen in a general election.
There is no doubt there is a dedicated element of the Republican Party that is fed up. We have seen this clearly in our polling on the Tea Party in NJ and others have seen it nationally. But I still stand by the evidence that this is a small group in New Jersey and despite what I heard pundits saying on NJN last night, it is almost entirely populated by Republicans. Our polling showed only 10% of of Democrats and 29% of Independents reporting a favorable impression of the movement. Now that the primaries are over, the action is not with the Tea Party but with NJ independent voters. They usually vote Democrat where there are Democratic incumbents and Republican where there are Republican incumbents. And our early polling last February suggested they plan to do the same this year. But will they?
The elections this fall come down to the question of which way independents will swing (if they even vote). Will Republican challengers be able to ride on the Chris Christie coattails that brought him victory by convincingly winning independents? If so, maybe a couple Democrats will get a scare (and Adler will have a real fight in any case.) If not, then the fall is likely to be mostly business as usual at the Congressional level in New Jersey.
So the NJ Congressional race that looks like it will be the most competitive is the 3rd, where Adler now faces the presumably stronger challenger in Runyan. And given a certain amount of voter dissatisfaction with incumbents this year and the nature of the district, Adler is likely in for a real fight. But Runyan will have to actually raise a lot more money than he has so far to compete effectively with the incumbent. It may be an anti-incumbent year (though that really remains to be shown in NJ) but incumbents start with lots of advantages, even in a bad year. Remember, in 1994, when the Democrats got slaughtered by Newt Gingerich and the Republicans, 89.8% of incumbents who sought reelection won.
And Rush Hold (D-12) will face the clearly stronger Republican challenger in Sipprelle, which might well make the race interesting.
But of course that doesn't mean there was NOTHING interesting going on yesterday that. In fact, as of this writing, we do not know whether the establishment Republican Diane Gooch or Tea Party favorite Anna Little will be the nominee in the 6th District to face Democrat incumbent Frank Pallone. Little is up by about 60 votes, with 1 precinct not reported and provisional votes to count. If she should win it would be a stunning blow to the Republican establishment in the 6th District, and Pallone's re-election may have gotten a little easier. Where Gooch raised over $400,000 so far, Little has raised all of $22,000. This does not suggest she will be a fundraising powerhouse if she wins.
Why is the race so close in the 6th? Well, the turnout was abysmal. A total of about 13,500 votes were cast in the primary. (Congressional districts have 300,000 plus voters of all parties/independents). With such a tiny turnout, a small number of committed activists can make a big difference as rank and file voters stay home on primary day. And that certainly seems to be what happened here. But it doesn't suggest that the same will happen in a general election.
There is no doubt there is a dedicated element of the Republican Party that is fed up. We have seen this clearly in our polling on the Tea Party in NJ and others have seen it nationally. But I still stand by the evidence that this is a small group in New Jersey and despite what I heard pundits saying on NJN last night, it is almost entirely populated by Republicans. Our polling showed only 10% of of Democrats and 29% of Independents reporting a favorable impression of the movement. Now that the primaries are over, the action is not with the Tea Party but with NJ independent voters. They usually vote Democrat where there are Democratic incumbents and Republican where there are Republican incumbents. And our early polling last February suggested they plan to do the same this year. But will they?
The elections this fall come down to the question of which way independents will swing (if they even vote). Will Republican challengers be able to ride on the Chris Christie coattails that brought him victory by convincingly winning independents? If so, maybe a couple Democrats will get a scare (and Adler will have a real fight in any case.) If not, then the fall is likely to be mostly business as usual at the Congressional level in New Jersey.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Primary Day in NJ - Will it be time to Tea Party?
It's Tuesday June 8, 2010. Primary Day in New Jersey. As we've learned from various media reports, there are many more candidates than usual throwing their hats in the ring to challenge apparently entrenched incumbents.
Around the country - if the pundits are to be believed - there is a sense of frustration, outrage, and activism that puts the old guard of both parties at risk. Look at Pennsylvania, where party-switcher Arlen Specter was knocked out by upstart (well, ok, he's a Congressman, not exactly and outsider) Joe Sestak. And there's Kentucky where libertarian and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul knocked off Mitch McConnell's favored son. And today we'll see if Blanche Lincoln, Democratic incumbent in Arkansas gets run over by the "outsider" express (actually the liberal express, which seems a bit odd in Arkansas.)
There is no question there is a sense of unease around the country. Numerous polls have picked it up and many pundits are trying to get a handle on what it means. In New Jersey last February (a lifetime ago in politics) The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll looked at support for the Tea Party movement. (see our releases here and here). What did we find? First, across all NJ voters, there was limited support for the Tea Party, with only 27% expressing a "favorable" opinion, while another 44% had no opinion. Not exactly a rousing call to arms at the time, after a year of rallies, debates, and media attention. New Jersey would not seem a hospitable state for Tea Partying.
But underneath that we also found that HALF of Republicans had a favorable impression, more than enough to put fear into non-Tea-Party establishment Republicans. And maybe more interestingly, we found that Tea Party supporters were MORE likely to also say they support the two party system, rather than seeking a third party to run against Republicans and Democrats. And Tea Partiers were really angry - about two-thirds said that Democrats made them angry (compared to 32% of other voters) and even one-third said Republicans made them angry (compared to 50% of non-Tea-Party voters).
So this plays out today in the New Jersey Congressional primaries. Politickernj.com reports that Tea Party challengers to Republican establishment candidates have not raised large amounts of money. Moreover, in one high profile case (Rep. Leonard Lance's challengers in the 7th district) the presence of multiple insurgent candidates claiming the Tea Party mantle will make it harder to overcome the incumbent's natural advantages.
The wild card though is that voters don't pay much attention to primaries, as witness the latest FDU poll. But you can be sure the activists do! So the key question is (as always) about turnout. If Tea Party Republicans are more likely to turn out and to be in slash and burn anti-establishment mode, there could be some surprises tonight in New Jersey. But given the huge imbalance in campaign funds - with all of the incumbents and establishment candidates well funded, and all of the challenges far less so - even the fury of Tea Party supporters may not be enough to overcome an entrenched establishment in New Jersey.
Around the country - if the pundits are to be believed - there is a sense of frustration, outrage, and activism that puts the old guard of both parties at risk. Look at Pennsylvania, where party-switcher Arlen Specter was knocked out by upstart (well, ok, he's a Congressman, not exactly and outsider) Joe Sestak. And there's Kentucky where libertarian and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul knocked off Mitch McConnell's favored son. And today we'll see if Blanche Lincoln, Democratic incumbent in Arkansas gets run over by the "outsider" express (actually the liberal express, which seems a bit odd in Arkansas.)
There is no question there is a sense of unease around the country. Numerous polls have picked it up and many pundits are trying to get a handle on what it means. In New Jersey last February (a lifetime ago in politics) The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll looked at support for the Tea Party movement. (see our releases here and here). What did we find? First, across all NJ voters, there was limited support for the Tea Party, with only 27% expressing a "favorable" opinion, while another 44% had no opinion. Not exactly a rousing call to arms at the time, after a year of rallies, debates, and media attention. New Jersey would not seem a hospitable state for Tea Partying.
But underneath that we also found that HALF of Republicans had a favorable impression, more than enough to put fear into non-Tea-Party establishment Republicans. And maybe more interestingly, we found that Tea Party supporters were MORE likely to also say they support the two party system, rather than seeking a third party to run against Republicans and Democrats. And Tea Partiers were really angry - about two-thirds said that Democrats made them angry (compared to 32% of other voters) and even one-third said Republicans made them angry (compared to 50% of non-Tea-Party voters).
So this plays out today in the New Jersey Congressional primaries. Politickernj.com reports that Tea Party challengers to Republican establishment candidates have not raised large amounts of money. Moreover, in one high profile case (Rep. Leonard Lance's challengers in the 7th district) the presence of multiple insurgent candidates claiming the Tea Party mantle will make it harder to overcome the incumbent's natural advantages.
The wild card though is that voters don't pay much attention to primaries, as witness the latest FDU poll. But you can be sure the activists do! So the key question is (as always) about turnout. If Tea Party Republicans are more likely to turn out and to be in slash and burn anti-establishment mode, there could be some surprises tonight in New Jersey. But given the huge imbalance in campaign funds - with all of the incumbents and establishment candidates well funded, and all of the challenges far less so - even the fury of Tea Party supporters may not be enough to overcome an entrenched establishment in New Jersey.
Friday, May 28, 2010
A couple thoughts as summer is almost here
The academic year cycle is one that I have never gotten completely used to even after 11 years of doing it as a professor (and way too many years of doing it as a student!) Just as things are gearing up suddenly it is time for exams, papers, presentations, and grading. I've done all that now, and my students have gotten their grades. I taught one of my favorite classes this spring - Survey Research. Students in this class do the "book learning" on survey work, but they also actually do a survey. But not a political one. Instead they do survey work on behalf of community organizations. The class is a lot of work for them, and great fun for me.
In any case, as things wind down for the summer in the academic world (though I stay just as busy given my various research projects) politics in Trenton continues to heat up. The latest polling from Fairleigh Dickinson shows Governor Christie's support improving from where we found it two months ago after his budget speech. At the same time, his favorite whipping organization, the NJEA seems to be losing its battle. Why? Well, even though Christie comes across to many as bullying at times, voters may be happy to see some leadership - ANY leadership - coming from politicians in this day and age. And like his positions or not, Christie IS leading. I think voters are giving him credit for that, and for his willingness to take on entrenched interests. And the NJEA has done itself no favors with its approach. In a difficult economic environment, the union leadership has seemed strangely out of touch.
When we polled in late March, voters did not want to see school and teacher cuts. But then came the school budget elections and the NJEA battles. Now it appears things are different. While we are not polling right now (and won't over the early summer) I bet if we did we'd see much more support for Christie's position and less support for teachers compared to where we were right after the budget speech. The FDU poll certainly suggests this is the case.
So what's next? The legislature needs to produce a budget by the end of June, and it seems likely that the budget will be a lot more like what Christie wants than what the Democrats want. Partly this is because he can just veto whatever he doesn't like and throw it back to the legislature. But also partly because while he may seem to be blustering and bullying to some, Governor Christie's approach right now is resonating more with voters than might have been expected. This pretty much gives him the upper hand. Unless, of course, something changes in the next few weeks. But it isn't clear what that something might be.
In any case, as things wind down for the summer in the academic world (though I stay just as busy given my various research projects) politics in Trenton continues to heat up. The latest polling from Fairleigh Dickinson shows Governor Christie's support improving from where we found it two months ago after his budget speech. At the same time, his favorite whipping organization, the NJEA seems to be losing its battle. Why? Well, even though Christie comes across to many as bullying at times, voters may be happy to see some leadership - ANY leadership - coming from politicians in this day and age. And like his positions or not, Christie IS leading. I think voters are giving him credit for that, and for his willingness to take on entrenched interests. And the NJEA has done itself no favors with its approach. In a difficult economic environment, the union leadership has seemed strangely out of touch.
When we polled in late March, voters did not want to see school and teacher cuts. But then came the school budget elections and the NJEA battles. Now it appears things are different. While we are not polling right now (and won't over the early summer) I bet if we did we'd see much more support for Christie's position and less support for teachers compared to where we were right after the budget speech. The FDU poll certainly suggests this is the case.
So what's next? The legislature needs to produce a budget by the end of June, and it seems likely that the budget will be a lot more like what Christie wants than what the Democrats want. Partly this is because he can just veto whatever he doesn't like and throw it back to the legislature. But also partly because while he may seem to be blustering and bullying to some, Governor Christie's approach right now is resonating more with voters than might have been expected. This pretty much gives him the upper hand. Unless, of course, something changes in the next few weeks. But it isn't clear what that something might be.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
It's all a matter of perspective
Patrick Murray at Monmouth points out that in the latest Rutgers-Eagleton poll the numbers of those saying NJ is an excellent or good place to live at pretty low compared to historic numbers. And of course that is what the data show, so Patrick is correct. But there is more context to this than simply that number and its trend over time. As Patrick also points out, the percentage who say they take pride in the state and who say they would move out of state if they could have changed little.
But here's the context. This latest poll was asked in the middle of the the worst recession since the depression 80 years ago, and in the middle of one of the most acrimonious debates over the state budget and the future of the state in a long time. Frankly it is fascinating that the numbers look as good as they do in this context.
Of course trends can give useful information. But trends are meaningless without the context in which they operate. And our focus for this poll was on where we are right now, which seems pretty good in light of all of the "stuff" going on around the state and all of the personal challenges individuals are facing.
Not long ago, kind of buried in this Rutgers-Eagleton release we listed some questions about how worried NJ residents are about various economic issues: 36% worry a lot about credit card debt, 36% worry a lot about the availability of good housing, 62% worry a lot about health insurance coverage, and 64% worry a lot about the availability of a good job. Yet in spite of all these worries, most like it here in NJ and most take pride in the state.
So yes, the "place to live" question shows a decline over time, especially recently. But put that decline in the context of right now - and in the context that other indicators are stable - and frankly I was surprised that as many people were positive as there are. But then maybe I am too much of an optimist about things.
And I will bet that once the economy picks up and whatever changes Christie brings about have time to settle in (which could be a while, I suppose), the "good place to live" numbers will move back up.
But here's the context. This latest poll was asked in the middle of the the worst recession since the depression 80 years ago, and in the middle of one of the most acrimonious debates over the state budget and the future of the state in a long time. Frankly it is fascinating that the numbers look as good as they do in this context.
Of course trends can give useful information. But trends are meaningless without the context in which they operate. And our focus for this poll was on where we are right now, which seems pretty good in light of all of the "stuff" going on around the state and all of the personal challenges individuals are facing.
Not long ago, kind of buried in this Rutgers-Eagleton release we listed some questions about how worried NJ residents are about various economic issues: 36% worry a lot about credit card debt, 36% worry a lot about the availability of good housing, 62% worry a lot about health insurance coverage, and 64% worry a lot about the availability of a good job. Yet in spite of all these worries, most like it here in NJ and most take pride in the state.
So yes, the "place to live" question shows a decline over time, especially recently. But put that decline in the context of right now - and in the context that other indicators are stable - and frankly I was surprised that as many people were positive as there are. But then maybe I am too much of an optimist about things.
And I will bet that once the economy picks up and whatever changes Christie brings about have time to settle in (which could be a while, I suppose), the "good place to live" numbers will move back up.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Believe It or Not - Most New Jerseyans Like it Here!
Newsflash! New Jerseyans mostly like NJ! While there are certainly things to complain about - taxes in particular top the list - the latest results from the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll show that most residents of New Jersey would stay put in their neighborhood even if they could move (though 23 percent would move out of state), and a majority has at least some (or a great deal) of pride in the state. There is of course a sense among some that most people in New Jersey would leave if they could, and feel little connection to their state. Our results suggest this isn't really true. There is lots to like about living in New Jersey, though maybe ironically one of the top reasons people gave us was the state's proximity to New York City. But other top reasons include the Jersey Shore, the environment in general, and the state's diversity.
So for those of you who think the reason bridge tolls in New Jersey are only on the outbound side is charge people who want to leave, the reality is that people in New Jersey do take pride in the state and in the many things that make it a good place to live. There are problems, of course, including high property taxes, but it seems in most New Jersey residents' minds those problems are outweighed by the positives of such a diverse and interesting place.
The press release follows. Questions and tables can be found here.
NEW JERSEYANS LOVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, ARE PROUD OF STATE
While somewhat critical, residents find many good things about Garden State
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J – New Jerseyans are simultaneously very proud of their state and somewhat critical of it as a place to live, according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Only 13 percent say it is an excellent place to live, but 39 percent call it a good place to live. Fully half say they take a lot of pride in living here, and less than a quarter say they would move out of the state if they had the opportunity to do so.
The poll of 953 New Jersey adults was conducted March 31 – April 3 and has a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points.
“While New Jerseyans certainly find things to complain about, a majority still see the state as a good place to live,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “What we see is that the many good things about the state seem to outweigh frustrations for most residents.”
Best and worst of New Jersey
Asked to name the best thing about living in New Jersey, respondents gave a wide range of answers, including its proximity to New York and other major centers, the beaches and the shore, the natural environment generally and the state’s diversity. “New Jerseyans have many reasons to like their state, and no one reason really dominates,” said Redlawsk.
About the state’s negatives, taxes were named by 37 percent of respondents, far outpacing any other dislike. Other common negatives were the cost of living here, significant traffic congestion and the existence of political corruption.
“It is no surprise that taxes led the negatives,” said Redlawsk. “This reflects both the sense that taxes are high, but also the ongoing debate over the state budget, which was well underway when we did this survey.”
Lots of pride in New Jersey
Half of New Jerseyans say they take a lot of pride living in the Garden State, while only 8 percent say they don’t take any pride living here. Given the opportunity, 23 percent of respondents said they would move out of state. A large majority (63 percent) would continue to live in their neighborhoods, while another 14 percent would move within their town or elsewhere in the state.
“While some people clearly have frustrations, most would stay here even if they could leave,” Redlawsk said. “This really suggests a sense of stability, even while there are plenty of issues the state needs to address.”
Overall, New Jersey seen as a good place to live
More than half of those polled called New Jersey an excellent (13 percent) or good (39 percent) place to live. Fifteen percent say it is a poor place to live; one in three rates it fair. The 63 percent of residents who would stay in their neighborhoods even if they could move are more positive: 16 percent call the state excellent, and 48 percent good. Sixty percent of this group takes lots of pride in their state, but of the 23 percent who would leave if they could, 80 percent rate New Jersey as only a fair (48 percent) or poor (32 percent) place to live.
Contentment varies with region, party identification, income, race, and age
A closer look at attitudes towards life in New Jersey shows most strikingly that where people live has a great effect on their happiness with the state. Urban residents are more likely to rate New Jersey as an excellent place to live (21 percent) compared to suburban and exurban/northwest residents (13 percent). Ten percent of those at the shore and 8 percent near Philadelphia grade the state excellent. Conversely, 20 percent of Philadelphia area residents call the state a poor place to live, higher than in any other region.
Almost six in 10 urban residents take a lot of pride living here, but only 46 percent of those near Philadelphia feel the same. Given this, not surprisingly Philadelphia area residents are the most likely to say they would move out of state if they could (29 percent). More than two-thirds of exurban residents would remain in their neighborhoods, even if they could move.
Democrats are much happier with life in the Garden State than Republicans, despite the election of a Republican governor last fall; 60 percent of Democrats rate New Jersey as an excellent or good place to live, compared with 45 percent of GOP backers. Independents are also less likely than Democrats to assess New Jersey positively as a place to live.
Wealthier residents are somewhat more content with life in New Jersey. Of those with household incomes over $150,000, 60 percent say the Garden State is an excellent or good place to live, while 50 percent of those making less than $50,000 feel the same.
Asians and Latinos (both 20 percent) are most likely to grade the Garden State as an excellent place to live. Only 12 percent of white respondents and 10 percent of blacks do the same. Black respondents also are more likely to say they would leave the state if they could, with 30 percent ready to move, compared with 24 percent of whites and less than 10 percent of the small samples of Asians and Latinos.
The poll’s youngest and oldest respondents are most proud of New Jersey. More than half (56 percent) of 18-to-29 year olds say they feel a lot of pride in New Jersey compared with 46 percent of 30-to-49 year olds, and 45 percent of 50-to-64 year olds. Fifty-seven percent of those older than 65 said they feel a lot of pride.
So for those of you who think the reason bridge tolls in New Jersey are only on the outbound side is charge people who want to leave, the reality is that people in New Jersey do take pride in the state and in the many things that make it a good place to live. There are problems, of course, including high property taxes, but it seems in most New Jersey residents' minds those problems are outweighed by the positives of such a diverse and interesting place.
The press release follows. Questions and tables can be found here.
NEW JERSEYANS LOVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, ARE PROUD OF STATE
While somewhat critical, residents find many good things about Garden State
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J – New Jerseyans are simultaneously very proud of their state and somewhat critical of it as a place to live, according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Only 13 percent say it is an excellent place to live, but 39 percent call it a good place to live. Fully half say they take a lot of pride in living here, and less than a quarter say they would move out of the state if they had the opportunity to do so.
The poll of 953 New Jersey adults was conducted March 31 – April 3 and has a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points.
“While New Jerseyans certainly find things to complain about, a majority still see the state as a good place to live,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “What we see is that the many good things about the state seem to outweigh frustrations for most residents.”
Best and worst of New Jersey
Asked to name the best thing about living in New Jersey, respondents gave a wide range of answers, including its proximity to New York and other major centers, the beaches and the shore, the natural environment generally and the state’s diversity. “New Jerseyans have many reasons to like their state, and no one reason really dominates,” said Redlawsk.
About the state’s negatives, taxes were named by 37 percent of respondents, far outpacing any other dislike. Other common negatives were the cost of living here, significant traffic congestion and the existence of political corruption.
“It is no surprise that taxes led the negatives,” said Redlawsk. “This reflects both the sense that taxes are high, but also the ongoing debate over the state budget, which was well underway when we did this survey.”
Lots of pride in New Jersey
Half of New Jerseyans say they take a lot of pride living in the Garden State, while only 8 percent say they don’t take any pride living here. Given the opportunity, 23 percent of respondents said they would move out of state. A large majority (63 percent) would continue to live in their neighborhoods, while another 14 percent would move within their town or elsewhere in the state.
“While some people clearly have frustrations, most would stay here even if they could leave,” Redlawsk said. “This really suggests a sense of stability, even while there are plenty of issues the state needs to address.”
Overall, New Jersey seen as a good place to live
More than half of those polled called New Jersey an excellent (13 percent) or good (39 percent) place to live. Fifteen percent say it is a poor place to live; one in three rates it fair. The 63 percent of residents who would stay in their neighborhoods even if they could move are more positive: 16 percent call the state excellent, and 48 percent good. Sixty percent of this group takes lots of pride in their state, but of the 23 percent who would leave if they could, 80 percent rate New Jersey as only a fair (48 percent) or poor (32 percent) place to live.
Contentment varies with region, party identification, income, race, and age
A closer look at attitudes towards life in New Jersey shows most strikingly that where people live has a great effect on their happiness with the state. Urban residents are more likely to rate New Jersey as an excellent place to live (21 percent) compared to suburban and exurban/northwest residents (13 percent). Ten percent of those at the shore and 8 percent near Philadelphia grade the state excellent. Conversely, 20 percent of Philadelphia area residents call the state a poor place to live, higher than in any other region.
Almost six in 10 urban residents take a lot of pride living here, but only 46 percent of those near Philadelphia feel the same. Given this, not surprisingly Philadelphia area residents are the most likely to say they would move out of state if they could (29 percent). More than two-thirds of exurban residents would remain in their neighborhoods, even if they could move.
Democrats are much happier with life in the Garden State than Republicans, despite the election of a Republican governor last fall; 60 percent of Democrats rate New Jersey as an excellent or good place to live, compared with 45 percent of GOP backers. Independents are also less likely than Democrats to assess New Jersey positively as a place to live.
Wealthier residents are somewhat more content with life in New Jersey. Of those with household incomes over $150,000, 60 percent say the Garden State is an excellent or good place to live, while 50 percent of those making less than $50,000 feel the same.
Asians and Latinos (both 20 percent) are most likely to grade the Garden State as an excellent place to live. Only 12 percent of white respondents and 10 percent of blacks do the same. Black respondents also are more likely to say they would leave the state if they could, with 30 percent ready to move, compared with 24 percent of whites and less than 10 percent of the small samples of Asians and Latinos.
The poll’s youngest and oldest respondents are most proud of New Jersey. More than half (56 percent) of 18-to-29 year olds say they feel a lot of pride in New Jersey compared with 46 percent of 30-to-49 year olds, and 45 percent of 50-to-64 year olds. Fifty-seven percent of those older than 65 said they feel a lot of pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
