patching...
Update: Plan your Memorial Day Weekend with Patch traffic and gas. »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

FDU: President's Approval Rating is Up in NJ

Women approve of Obama more than men.

 

The president is feeling the love in New Jersey with a 51% approval rating, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s latest PublicMind poll. Women in the state are among Obama’s biggest supporters, according to the poll.  

Read the full release here, and take our poll to tell us what you think of Obama.

The president’s approval is up in New Jersey, and the “wrong direction” number is down. According the latest poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind™, 51% of New Jersey voters say they approve of the way the president is handling his job, while 42% percent disapprove, a significant improvement from the president’s lukewarm 46%-45% approval in January.  Men, in fact, are more likely to disapprove of the president (49%) than to approve (43%), but women approve of the president by a margin of 24 points (58%-34%).

“National Republicans are a turnoff to many women voters recently,” said Peter Woolley, director of the poll. “Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh have combined to alarm, if not completely alienate, pro-choice women.”

In trial heats, Obama handily beats each of the still-standing Republican candidates for president.  Against Mitt Romney he coasts 50%-37%. Against Ron Paul he wins 52%-34%.  Against Santorum, Obama’s margin widens to 54%-33%, and against Newt Gingrich to 56%-29%.

In every case, the president’s wide margin is accounted for in women’s votes. Women give the president margins from 27 points against Romney (57-30), to 40 points over Gingrich (63-23).

Obama’s dominance is despite a majority of New Jersey voters saying the nation is headed the wrong way: Just 37% say the country is going in the “right direction,” while 53% say it’s “on the wrong track.”  The 53% is actually an eight point decline from 61% measured in January, but contrasts sharply to 51% who say the state is headed in the right direction as reported yesterday.

“The story so far in the primary season is that no Republican candidate has been able to take advantage of voters’ dissatisfaction with the direction of the country,” said Woolley. “Instead they have spent much of their time and energy trying to take advantage of each other’s weaknesses.”

A majority of voters (53%) say the long, difficult Republican primary contest will “weaken the Republican candidate who runs against President Obama in November. Just one in four (27%) say the hard fought primary will strengthen the Republican who wins the nomination."

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 800 registered voters statewide was conducted by telephone using both landlines and cell phones from Mar. 5 through Mar. 11, 2012, and has a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points.

  • Do you approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing?

    (Voting has been closed for this question)
    • Yes
        47 (22%)
    • No
        156 (76%)
    • Not sure
        2 (0%)
    Total votes: 205
  • Your vote will only count once. This is not a scientific poll. View Results Vote!
Related Topics: President Barack Obama

Marlene Hessler

2:03 pm on Wednesday, March 14, 2012

What is so sad about this item is that it fails to mention that the current administration has done so much to harm the people that work and earn to support this great country. Taxing and spending our country into an oblivion that will take generations to repay. And, it has done so to force people to buy vehicles they don't want, to use fuels they don't want. Gone is your freedom of choice to utilize most everything necessary to life. From vehicles to healthcare and much much more.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jim Tobias

11:08 am on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Details, please -- what vehicles, fuel, health insurance are you being forced to use? On the other hand, are you aware of the billion dollar subsidies you are paying to oil companies, agribusiness, and the overstuffed financial industry?

Comment_arrow

Bob English

8:13 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

FYI, taxes are lower under President Obama. Which one of your taxes increased?

Michele Tidd Pfannenstiel

5:49 pm on Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Umm, you do know taxes have gone DOWN under Obama and that government is smaller by 600,000 people, right? What vehicle were you forced to buy? I am still driving the cars we bought under Bush. What fuel do you use that you don't want? It's the same gas station I go to, the same octane and the same additives as under Bush. What freedom of choice have you lost? Please be specific.

Reply

Dean D'Ambrosi

9:54 am on Thursday, March 15, 2012

LOL we are not too bright here in NJ.... remember, we almost re-elected Florio!

Reply

Jim Tobias

11:09 am on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Dean -- we've got a more recent example of unintelligent NJ voting. Think about it.

Reply

Jon Boody

11:16 am on Thursday, March 15, 2012

I have to agree with Dean on this, and to add Corzine to the list of people who have been elected in this state, but thankfully is no longer in power. As for Michele's comment, while some taxes have come down, the huge increases in spending cannot be sustained with the current tax revenues, so unless spending can be slowed significantly, there will be no other option but to increase taxes for everyone, not just the "One Percent".

Reply

Joe

12:17 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

there must be some really dumb broads in NJ!

Reply

Joe

12:18 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

People, LAtuneberg, Toricelli, Corzine, Florio. Codey.... I mean come on there isn't a bright bulb left in that state!@

Reply

Don

3:44 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Leave it to NJ to vote Obama back in. I cannot fathom how anyone would vote to reelect him. One of the most divisive Presidents we've ever had.

Reply

Joe

4:11 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

I fled with great relief 2 years ago, don't miss it one bit

Reply

Joe G

4:27 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Maybe if the economy was allowed to flourish unbridled by a hostile administration refusing to exploit domestic energy and over regulating every industry we have then NJ women wouldn't need someone else to pay for their contraceptives. No one pays for my gym membership or expensive healthy organic food for my family. Why am I discriminated against? We should not be depending on government or we will soon be enslaved by that government.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Bob English

8:16 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Domestic oil production is up under President Obama and is the highest it has been in many years. Kind of shoots down the arguement that all we need to do is increase production even more to bring down gasoline prices which are based upon the world markets price of crude oil.

Joe

4:36 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

too late especially when you have the Jim Tobias's of the world

Reply

Joe G

4:41 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Yes, it is indeed an uphill battle. Oil companies drill and pump the oil, transport it, refine it, distribute it and sell it for pennies on the dollar while the government does nothing but meddle in the whole process then collects nearly half of each dollar in taxes to redistribute to those dependent on government handouts. Something is wrong and it's not the oil companies.

Reply

Joe

4:51 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

yes Joe G, and then it gets better, the government mandate bettr fuel mileage which reduces the amount of revenue they get for building roads and bridges which is about all they should be doing and then we see today's BIPARTISAN transportation bill! VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

Reply

Michele Tidd Pfannenstiel

5:09 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

From a friend...Once and for all, because I feel like a broken record: Tax dollars do not pay for birth control. Insurance does. If you don't want your insurance company to pay for other people's birth control, then change insurance companies and work with one that doesn't. They don't exist, because that would mean excluding the entire female market segment from your business. Furthermore, I'm thin and in good shape, I technically shouldn't have to pay for ludicrously expensive gastric bypass procedures for fat blobs who can't put the fork down. That's a lot more outrageous to me. But I don't mind: we all pay for stuff we don't like. That's how insurance works.

Now, please. If you're a man, ask yourself: "Without birth control, how many unwanted kids would I have running around?" If it's more than zero, then stop whining, for god's sake. You're a winner in this deal.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

5:13 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

So Michelle, you are advocating birth control as population control, correct? And you are wrong Medicaid is paid for by tax dollars, hence we pay for birth control for other people, your analogy for gastric bypass is agreeable if we are discussing Medicaid. Anything else is paid for by the insured through premiums!

Comment_arrow

Joe

5:14 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

and I think we already have plenty of unwanted kids around with birth control, the issue isn't birth control or insurance it's the sad state of our moral compass!

Comment_arrow

Michele Tidd Pfannenstiel

5:20 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Correct, Medicaid already pays for birth control for poor women. And I am advocating women and men be allowed to make their family planning choices with their partner, their doctor and their God. The population control effects of birth control only come with women's education and empowerment. Those are the things that actually do the most to decrease population.

That POINT is that we all pay for things we don't like via insurance premiums. What if I would rather not pay for Chantrix (or whatever the stop smoking drug is called) because I feel people should be morally capable of quitting smoking on their own. What if I felt it is a moral failing that they can not quit without a drug. YET, I still must allow my insurance dollars to subsidize their Chantrix! Outrageous! But wait, there is a public health good for every single person who doesn't smoke.

ASimon

5:18 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Michelle T. -

Please stop bombarding us with facts and rationality.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Michele Tidd Pfannenstiel

5:22 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Gah, I'm sorry, I'll stop now! I might have to pull out logic and reason though!

Comment_arrow

Steve Strickland

2:55 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Agreed. You "dumb broads" seem stuck in the old fact-based paradigm and refuse to think with your gut. Please return to being barefoot & pregnant (and in the kitchen).

Tom Maras

5:20 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Obama devotees prove donkey worship does not begin and end in the McDonkey corral!

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

5:30 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Speaking of why women may be repulsed by the GOP, how long do you think it will take for Arizona to pass a law making women wear chastity belts? ;~)

Reply

Jon Boody

5:47 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

I think one key component of the insurance debate is where to draw the line. I always saw insurance as a life preserver to some degree. That is, it's there when we really need it, the emphasis being on "need". Birth control is not a requirement for great health - although it certainly has its benefits to people and society. By the same argument that I'm hearing here, we could say that aspirin is important to our health, as is toothpaste - the dental bills could be huge if we don't brush our teeth! However, nobody is calling for insurance companies to cover these. At what point do we stop calling on society to contribute to costs for items that are not critical for our survival?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steve Strickland

3:10 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Last time I checked, aspirin and toothpaste were available over-the-counter; birth control pills are not. If they could be bought at CVS for $20, it wouldn't be an issue. Also, some women do use birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts---apparently (I'm not a woman) desirable for good health.

Joe

5:51 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Do people realize that a 65 year old women has to pay for coverage for having a baby!! The answer would have been HSA's and a catastrophic coverage for anyone exceeding a percentage of their ASSETS and INCOME paid for by taxes.

Reply

Joe

6:02 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Michelle, what don't you understand about private insurance, and what is the issue with population control, who made you GOD?

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

6:51 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Gentlemen, let’s talk about the proposed Arizona bill. It’s ridiculous on so many levels. First, most women can justify taking birth control pills for medical reasons because it regulates the cycle, reduces blood flow and most important reduces period pain (a sadistic pleasure you will never have to experience!). Second, what is birth control; many organizations believe hysterectomies are a form of birth control. Any intelligent person would say that any doctor that removes a woman’s uterus for birth control should have their license revoked.
Last but not least, if women cannot get adequate health care insurance from their employers we need to nationalize women’s health care insurance. Is the GOP really looking to nationalize women’s health care? What’s more fiscally responsible?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

9:59 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Peggy, your argument is so ridiculous I cannot even fathom an intelligent response, so here's my ridiculous one, Men have a need for sex because of the stress of not getting laid often leads to premature death, so the government should pay for prostitutes....

Joe G

7:27 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

The Arizona bill is simple, pay for your own birth control, better yet, share the cost with your partner, and no one needs to know.

Leave insurance to the free market and the cost would be reduced tremendously. More people would just pay their way for normal health services, which would be much cheaper without the armies of paper pushers to support, and insurance would be for a catastrophes only.

There is nothing in the constitution that allows federal regulation of the insurance companies. They have no business doing so.

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

8:26 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Your response is indicative of why Obama's approval rating is high among women!

Reply

Joe G

9:25 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Because women will vote away the freedom and liberty of generations to come for free stuff? An entitlement society will not last, history is clear on this. Voting for politicians who offer free stuff is a very good way to bring down a society. It will end badly but you'll get some free stuff. So that's good.

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

9:51 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

What you call "free stuff", women call health care.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe G

10:09 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Then by all means indulge yourself in your healthcare, just don't expect someone else to pay for it. People need to accept some personal responsibility. You can't expect the government to hold a gun to the insurance companies head just because you want something and will vote to get it. This is why the nation was set up as a representative republic rather than a democracy subject to the tyranny of the majority. As Joe mentioned the enumerated powers that restrict what the federal government can legally do prevents this sort of thing. It's not the contraceptives that are the issue, it's the extra-constitutional attitude of the president who feels he can dictate to us what we must be compelled to do.

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

10:58 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

Joe it is discrimination to provide full health care to men but not to women.
BTW - check your history ... Nazis rejected birth control so if anything the GOP is acting like Nazis.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe G

11:50 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012

It is immoral to put my children into $65,000 (and counting) debt to get free stuff from an illegal re-distributionist government. Keep your healthcare, if I need something I'll buy it. Nobody is rejecting birth control, you have been well brainwashed if you think that. You let the government get control of healthcare then once it decides you aren't having enough babies then they will reject birth control along with french fries, chocolate shakes and anything else they deem inappropriate for the masses. It's not fiction, it's happened before and will happen again.

Joe

9:11 am on Friday, March 16, 2012

My argument is this: If the Obama administration can and will argue that under the Commerce Clause, the Legislative branch has the right to mandate insurance due to its impact on the economy, the legally dos Congress have the right to DESTROY the economy, in other words, where in the Constitution did we give powers to the Federal government to take over and cripple our economy?

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

2:42 pm on Friday, March 16, 2012

I wouldn't like to see Nationalized health care for women but if we can't get it from our employers I don't see any other option. Why is the GOP promoting nationalizing women's health care?

Reply

Joe G

3:58 pm on Friday, March 16, 2012

Peggy, you keep forgetting about the option of paying for your own needs. If you have an employer then you should be able to provide your own contraception, it isn't that expensive. From what you said it should be a priority over your smart phone and cable TV.

The GOP is not promoting nationalized health care, the democrats are trying to create a strawman out of contraceptives to boost Obama's poll numbers. You're either complicit or falling for the scheme.

Obamacare will create a nationalized healthcare system, first by illegally forcing insurance companies to comply with thousands of costly new regulations, sucking the profit out of the sector until one by one they go out of business. Then, the only option will be using the government provided plan. If you think your choices are limited from private insurance, just wait for the federal plan.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

4:02 pm on Friday, March 16, 2012

Every night Obama gets o his knees,praying for the failure of his health care bill, tehn he can blame the Republicans for not allowing a single payer governmnt paid program that he wanted all the time. By this time American will beg for his plan. This man is simply Machevellian.

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

1:18 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Joe do you how much it costs to have a uteris removed? Again if employers don't cover full heath care for women than it has to be nationalized.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

1:37 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Peggy, I will ask you again, have you any idea, have you ever looked into HSA accounts? Why do believe nationalization is the answer, How about we just sterilize all you women?

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

1:45 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Sterilization is a good answer although it fiscally makes more sense to sterilize men! I don't think nationalization of health care is the best answer but if women cannot get insurance from their employers it's the only option. HSA only saves tax and does not justify making women pay for health care when full health care is given to men.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

1:53 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

ok, I can tell you are simply clueless when it comes to HSA'S. No problem. Most people are. Peggy, Birth should not be part of health care! You want a baby, you pay! HAving a baby unless there is complications does not even require a physician! And I simply do not understand you men v women health campaign here.

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

2:02 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Joe you need education on women's heath care! Please do tell me why you say I'm am clueless about my HSA. And, If you don't understand the Women's vs Men health care perhaps you need an education in the GOP platform. The GOP anti-birth control agenda means women will have to pay for the most expensive aspects of their own health care.

Reply

Joe

2:27 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

you tell me why you're clueless, not my job! Let's see> I have a Mom, 4 sisters, 2 daughters, a wife, I need an education on women's health care??? Where in the Constitution does it say that "we the people" should provide health care never mind birth control?? Let's see if you found out that birth control or "the pill" caused far more harm than it helped, should we still pay for it. Hey maybe we can pay for your weight loss program too????

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

2:30 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Summarizing if women cannot get adequate health care from our employers than government must once again step in and provide it! The GOP is forcing Nationalized health care.

Reply

Joe

2:36 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

That's not a summary, that's insanity!. Let me go out on a limb here Peggy, you a Democrat?

Reply

Joe G

2:43 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Peggy, you seem hellbent on making other people pay for your needs. That is outright theft which is immoral, inappropriate, and irresponsible. You take out insurance, group rates are cheaper so you buy into a plan at work, that pays for the big ticket items. You want condoms and birth control pills? I think Walmart can do it for $5/month and they sell condoms in bulk I'm sure. Oh wait, liberals hate Walmart, you can shop around and find it somewhere for very little. You want your organs removed? That's where the major medical would come in assuming it was a medical need and not a choice to flatten your tummy.

Good Lord the entitlement mentality is unbelievable. Please go live in Greece where you can get all the free stuff you want until the rest of Europe gets tired of paying for their lazy butts.

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

2:59 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Calm down Joes! We are talking about basic healthcare and health care discrimination based on sex. No one is looking for anything FREE! But if women cannot get healthcare insurance at work then nationalizing it is the only other option.

Reply

Joe

3:01 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

What discrimination, that buzzword is getting old. there are plenty of other options my goodness are you thick headed too?

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

3:03 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

I agree Joe discrimination is used a lot! But what do you call it when employers pay for full healtth care for men but not full heath care for women.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

3:08 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

I need concrete evidence not theory?

Joe

3:08 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Please tell me what you are talking about? What are we getting that women don't?

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

3:15 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Joe read my words: If employers do not want to pay insurance for keeping women's body parts healthy than we need nationalized insurance. NOTHING FREE

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

3:17 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

ok, Peggy i can see you're slightly unbalanced end of conversation.

Joe

3:16 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

So let's ask the million dollar question, why are birth control pills not available over the counter since they are dispensed like candy anyway?

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

3:21 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Joe obviously you don't know anything about estrogen or you wouldn't ask that question. Do you think women go to the gynecologist for fun!

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

3:31 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

We agree: Women need health care. If employers are allowed to not provide it then the government needs to provide it.

Reply

Joe G

10:31 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

Peggy, you're a democrat hack. Perhaps not even a woman. "If employers are allowed to not provide it then the government needs to provide it." Total horse crap. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. I'm with Joe on this one, have a nice life and while part of me hopes you get the communist Utopia you so desire, I wouldn't wish that on the rest of America including my family.

Reply

Joe

9:05 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Bob, u r starting to lose any credibility with that statement!

Reply

Joe

9:06 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Bob, prices of oil are up due to the commodities market, PLEASe learn something before you blog

Reply
Comment_arrow

Bob English

9:25 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

You are the one that needs to learn something. Look at the causes of oil and gasoline rising. It is not because of lack of domestic production which is the highest that it has been in years.

Your post refered to "refusing to exploit domestic energy" which is what I was reponding to. Growing demand and speculation especially from concern about a war in the Gulf are the major causes of increasing fuel prices. Note that the average price of gas in the Summer of 2008 was $4.24/gallon. Nothing like a major Recession (almost depression) to bring down the cost.

Joe

9:36 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Bob, let me school u here. The reason prices are rising is very simple. COMMODITY TRADERS! Now go do some homework, has the COST of crude gone up from the major oil producers? NO. They still are producing the same amount of oil. The actual consumption has gone down worldwide even though China is using more. What is happening here is that commodity traders see the potential for a catastrophe if Israel and Iran go to war and are basically hoarding the market which is driving prices through the roof. There are actually major players that are renting shipping containers that are sitting in the oceans until the price moves further up. In addition, you have that moron in the White House who sees oil as the enemy no the taliban This is a bubble just like a few years ago and it will pop.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Bob English

9:42 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

I agree with that, basically what I just said....I was replying to your earlier post that I did not agree with.

Joe

9:38 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

And actually Bob increased production does not mean downward prices, quite the opposite it means the world is using more and prices should be going up to reflect that market.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Bob English

9:41 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

I agree with that...I was replying to your earlier post that I did not agree with.

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

10:45 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Joe your argument about women's health care just demonstrates ignorance and bullying. Instead of talking about the topic, you personally attacked me. People wonder why children bully. It's because they see adults bully. Shame on you!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

11:18 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

peggy, go back and read your posts, then talk to me about ignorance....

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

11:20 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

An intelligent person would say something more than just name calling.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joe

11:23 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

isn't that what you just did? Are you serious? grow up, go away go read Gloria Steinham again and again and again....

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

11:30 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Summarizing our discussion: Women require health care insurance; this is not a luxury. If women cannot get health insurance through their employers they must get it from the state. The GOP is going to force us to nationalize women's health care by allowing employers the right not to provide health insurance for women.

Reply

Joe

11:42 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

peggy seriously, no one is taking you seriously anymore

Reply

Peggy Devlin Blazewicz

11:46 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012

Name calling - that's all you got! Summarizing our discussion: Women require health care insurance; this is not a luxury. If women cannot get health insurance through their employers they must get it from the state. The GOP is going to force us to nationalize women's health care by allowing employers the right not to provide health insurance for women.

Reply

Leave a comment