{"id":40802243880,"date":"2019-09-17T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802243880"},"modified":"2021-05-12T13:54:32","modified_gmt":"2021-05-12T17:54:32","slug":"monmouthpoll_nj_091719","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_nj_091719\/","title":{"rendered":"Governor\u2019s Rating Static"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West Long\nBranch, NJ<\/em> \u2013 Not much has changed in New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy\u2019s\nratings since the Monmouth University Poll<\/em><\/strong> last checked at the beginning of the\nyear.  He earns a split decision on his\njob performance and is seen as being more concerned with his own political\nfuture rather than running the state. Public opinion tends to be more negative\nthan positive about the impact of Murphy\u2019s agenda on property tax payers and\nthe middle class.  The governor gets\nmixed reviews on his handling of the Newark water crisis, although most Garden\nState residents don\u2019t have an opinion or are unaware of the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently,\n41% of New Jerseyans approve of the job Murphy is doing as governor and 38%\ndisapprove. These results are statistically similar to the 43% approve and 40%\ndisapprove rating he earned in February 2019. \nIn April 2018, shortly after he took office, his approval rating was\nsimilar at 44%, while his disapproval rating was lower at 28%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murphy\u2019s rating continues to be less positive than his two immediate predecessors at approximately the same point in their terms.  An August 2011<\/a> Monmouth poll gave then-Gov. Chris Christie a 48% approve to 42% disapprove rating and one taken in October 2011<\/a> gave the Republican an even better 54% approve and 38% disapprove rating.  Christie\u2019s predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, received a 46% approve and 32% disapprove rating in September 2007<\/a>.  Murphy\u2019s standing at this point is about the same as former Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey, who received a 38% approve and 40% disapprove rating in a September 2003 Eagleton poll.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over\n1-in-5 New Jerseyans (21%) have no opinion of how Murphy is doing 20 months\ninto his term, which is similar to his two Democratic predecessors (Corzine 22%\nand McGreevey 22%) but higher than for Christie at the same point (9%).  Murphy currently earns a positive 71% approve\nand 11% disapprove rating among Democrats, but gets a negative 28% approve and\n49% disapprove rating among independents, and a 16% approve and 67% disapprove\nrating among Republicans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMurphy\u2019s\napproval rating has been stuck at a nearly even split this year.  Recent events, such as the Newark water\ncrisis, have not helped cast him in the best light.  But the bigger issue seems to be that he is\nsimply flying under the radar for most New Jerseyans,\u201d said Patrick Murray,\ndirector of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The governor gets more negative than positive reviews for his handling of the recent drinking water crisis in Newark, but most of the state registers no opinion. Just 10% approve of Murphy\u2019s handling of the lead contamination issue in the state\u2019s largest city while 28% disapprove. However, 41% have no opinion of how he has handled this problem and 21% have not heard anything about this issue. Even among his fellow Democrats statewide, Murphy\u2019s actions earn a net negative assessment (18% approve and 27% disapprove, with 37% having no opinion). Among New Jerseyans who have heard a lot about the Newark crisis \u2013 a group that represents just under half of all state residents \u2013 Murphy gets a decidedly more negative 19% approve and 41% disapprove rating for his handling of the problem, with 41% having no opinion.  Among residents of the state\u2019s urban core counties of Essex and Hudson \u2013 those who live closest to Newark and are the most aware of the problem \u2013 Murphy\u2019s handling of the matter earns a 12% approve and 44% disapprove rating with just 29% offering no opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe fact that this crisis happened in the part of New Jersey where Murphy\u2019s strongest partisan base lives has not helped the governor\u2019s overall standing,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over\n1-in-10 New Jerseyans (12%) say Murphy has achieved major accomplishments so\nfar and 42% say he has minor accomplishments. Another 36% say he has no real\naccomplishments and 10% offer no opinion. \nDemocrats (21% major and 55% minor) are more likely than either\nindependents (8% major and 39% minor) or Republicans (4% major and 28% minor)\nto say that the governor has some accomplishments in his term.  This view is similar to how McGreevey was\nseen at the same point in his term (11% major, 45% minor, 32% none, 12% no\nopinion in September 2003) and how Corzine was seen toward the end of his term\n(13% major, 49% minor, 34% none, 4% no opinion in July 2009).  Murphy\u2019s immediate predecessor, Christie, was\nseen as having accomplished more major agenda items at this point in his term\n(24% major, 40% minor, 34% none, 3% no opinion in August 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt this point in his term, Christie had made a big splash with pension reform and his approval ratings were clearly on the rise. Murphy does not have anything similarly flashy that has made New Jerseyans sit up and take notice. However, Christie may be the exception rather than the rule for New Jersey governors,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Jerseyans tend to feel that Murphy is more concerned with his own political future (49%) than he is with governing the state (33%).  Another 4% say he is concerned with both equally and 15% are unsure where his focus lies.  These results are very similar to public opinion earlier this year, when 46% said Murphy was more focused on his future and 33% said he was more focused on the state.  This perception was evenly divided in April 2018, though, at 39% more concerned with his own future and 40% more concerned with governing the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll\nalso found that the governor\u2019s relationship with his own party\u2019s legislative\nleadership is seen as slightly more negative now than it was earlier this year,\nbut a majority of the public still isn\u2019t paying attention. Currently, 14% say\nMurphy has a good relationship with top Democrats in the legislature, which is\ndown from 20% in February. On the other hand, 28% say he has a bad relationship\nwith these leaders, which is up from 19% earlier this year.  Still, 53% say they have not heard anything\nabout this relationship which is similar to 54% who were unaware in\nFebruary.  Currently, the state legislature\nas a whole receives a 33% approve and 42% disapprove rating from New Jersey\nresidents, which is similar to prior results for the legislature since Murphy\ntook office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis Trenton battle continues to be mainly political insider stuff, but the impression of a toxic relationship between the state\u2019s chief executive and its legislative leadership does appear to be slowly seeping into the public,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murphy continues to get mixed reviews for how he has helped New Jerseyans across the economic spectrum. While 25% say his policies have helped the poor, a similar 21% say they have actually hurt this group and 32% say they have had no impact.  Murphy\u2019s policies have been seen as slightly more positive for wealthy residents \u2013 27% say this group has been helped and 14% say it has been hurt, with 31% saying there has been no impact.  The governor gets more negative reviews for his impact on middle class New Jerseyans \u2013 17% of the public say helped and 31% say hurt, with 36% saying no impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number who say Murphy\u2019s policies have hurt all three of these income groups has actually gone down by 7 to 8 points since February. This change has mainly been due to some Republicans shifting from the \u201churt\u201d category to \u201cno impact.\u201d  The number of state residents who say Murphy\u2019s policies have helped the poor and middle class has remained stable (down just 1 to 2 points for these groups), but the number who say he has helped wealthy residents has gone up by 5 points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese shifts are small and need to be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that Republicans have become less worried about Murphy\u2019s economic policies while Democrats feel that the wealthy are the group making gains. This runs counter to the \u2018liberal lion\u2019 image the governor is trying to foster. It could be problematic for his brand if this trend is confirmed in future polls,\u201d said Murray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll also finds that few New Jerseyans feel property tax payers have benefitted from Murphy\u2019s time as governor at 10% helped and 39% hurt, with 33% saying no impact.  Opinion is mixed for transit riders \u2013 16% say they have been helped by Murphy\u2019s policies, 18% say they have been hurt, and 29% offer no opinion. The poll also finds a split decision for the administration\u2019s impact on businesses in the state \u2013 23% helped, 26% hurt, and 26% no impact.  For each of these three groups, the percentage who say \u201chelped\u201d has gone up by 2 to 4 points while the number who say \u201churt\u201d has declined by 7 to 9 points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was conducted by telephone from September 12 to 16, 2019\nwith 713 New Jersey adults.  The question results in this release\nhave a margin of error of +\/- 3.7 percentage points.  The\npoll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long\nBranch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

QUESTIONS AND RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(* Some columns may not add to 100% due\nto rounding.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q1\nheld for future release.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.<\/span>Do you approve or disapprove of the job Phil Murphy is doing as governor?<\/span><\/p>\n

TREND: All adults<\/em> <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 44%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 38%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No\n opinion\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

TREND: Registered voters<\/em> <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 42%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No\n opinion\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (651)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (549)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (632)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span>Do you approve or disapprove of the job the state legislature is doing?<\/span><\/p>\n
TREND: All adults<\/em><\/td>Sept.
2019<\/strong><\/td>		Feb.
2019<\/td>		April
2018<\/td><\/tr>
Approve<\/td>33%<\/strong><\/td>37%<\/td>36%<\/td><\/tr>
Disapprove<\/td>42%<\/strong><\/td>42%<\/td>39%<\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) No opinion<\/td>25%<\/strong><\/td>21%<\/td>24%<\/td><\/tr>
   (n)<\/em><\/td>(713)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>(604)<\/em><\/td>(703)<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
TREND: Registered voters<\/em><\/td>Sept.
2019<\/strong><\/td>		Feb.
2019<\/td>		April
2018<\/td>		July
2017<\/td>		May
2016<\/td>		July
2015<\/td>		May
2015<\/td>		Feb.
2015<\/td>		Sept.
2014<\/td>		June
2014<\/td>		April
2014<\/td>		Feb.
2014<\/td>		Jan.
2014<\/td><\/tr>
Approve<\/td>32%<\/strong><\/td>35%<\/td>34%<\/td>23%<\/td>29%<\/td>32%<\/td>33%<\/td>37%<\/td>35%<\/td>36%<\/td>38%<\/td>38%<\/td>47%<\/td><\/tr>
Disapprove<\/td>45%<\/strong><\/td>45%<\/td>42%<\/td>62%<\/td>53%<\/td>51%<\/td>48%<\/td>46%<\/td>46%<\/td>48%<\/td>46%<\/td>47%<\/td>35%<\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) No opinion<\/td>22%<\/strong><\/td>20%<\/td>24%<\/td>15%<\/td>19%<\/td>17%<\/td>19%<\/td>17%<\/td>19%<\/td>17%<\/td>15%<\/td>14%<\/td>18%<\/td><\/tr>
   (n)<\/em><\/td>(651)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>(549)<\/em><\/td>(632)<\/em><\/td>(758)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(703)<\/em><\/td>(453)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(441)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(712)<\/em><\/td>(680)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(717)<\/em><\/td>(690)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(690)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(470)<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
TREND: Registered voters<\/em>
continued<\/em><\/td>		Dec. 2013<\/td>Sept. 2013<\/td>April 2013<\/td>Feb. 2013<\/td>Dec. 2012<\/td>Sept. 2012<\/td>July 2012<\/td>April 2012<\/td>Feb. 2012<\/td>Oct. 2011<\/td>Aug. 2011<\/td>May 2011<\/td>Feb. 2011<\/td>July 2010<\/td>April 2010<\/td>Feb. 2010<\/td><\/tr>
Approve<\/td>44%<\/td>38%<\/td>41%<\/td>40%<\/td>43%<\/td>32%<\/td>34%<\/td>37%<\/td>34%<\/td>33%<\/td>35%<\/td>32%<\/td>29%<\/td>25%<\/td>19%<\/td>24%<\/td><\/tr>
Disapprove<\/td>38%<\/td>36%<\/td>42%<\/td>35%<\/td>34%<\/td>43%<\/td>45%<\/td>41%<\/td>42%<\/td>45%<\/td>48%<\/td>48%<\/td>45%<\/td>49%<\/td>57%<\/td>49%<\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don\u2019t know<\/td>19%<\/td>27%<\/td>17%<\/td>25%<\/td>22%<\/td>25%<\/td>21%<\/td>23%<\/td>24%<\/td>22%<\/td>17%<\/td>20%<\/td>26%<\/td>26%<\/td>24%<\/td>27%<\/td><\/tr>
(n)<\/em><\/td>(698)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(674)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(694)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>697<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>726<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>715<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>678<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>692<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(709)<\/em><\/td>(<\/em>693<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(730)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(725)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>718<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>747<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>719<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(<\/em>716<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
TREND: Registered voters <\/em>
continued<\/em><\/td>		July
2009<\/td>		Feb.
2009<\/td>		Sept.
2008<\/td>		July
2008<\/td>		April
2008<\/td>		March
2008<\/td>		Oct.
2007<\/td>		Feb.
2007<\/td><\/tr>
Approve<\/td>31%<\/td>23%<\/td>29%<\/td>27%<\/td>28%<\/td>25%<\/td>32%<\/td>34%<\/td><\/tr>
Disapprove<\/td>48%<\/td>55%<\/td>50%<\/td>47%<\/td>55%<\/td>53%<\/td>43%<\/td>42%<\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don\u2019t know<\/td>22%<\/td>22%<\/td>21%<\/td>26%<\/td>17%<\/td>22%<\/td>25%<\/td>23%<\/td><\/tr>
(n)<\/em><\/td>(792<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(721<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(709<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(889<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(720<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(719<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(688<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td>(681<\/em>)<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q4-6\nheld for future release.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span>Do you think Phil Murphy is more concerned with governing the state of New Jersey or more concerned about his own political future? [CHOICES WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Governing the state of\n NJ\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n His own political\n future\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both equally\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 15%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span>As far as you know, do Governor Murphy and the Democratic leaders in the legislature have a good or bad working relationship, or haven\u2019t you heard anything about this?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Good relationship\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Bad relationship\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not heard anything\n <\/td>\n 53%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/span>Thinking about Phil Murphy\u2019s term as governor so far, would you say that he has major accomplishments, minor accomplishments, or no real accomplishments to point to?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Major accomplishments <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
Minor accomplishments <\/td>\n 42%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
No real accomplishments <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
(VOL) Don\u2019t know <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/span>I\u2019d like to get your opinion on how Governor Murphy\u2019s policies have affected different groups of New Jerseyans. Have his policies helped, hurt, or had no impact on [READ ITEM<\/em>]? <\/span><\/p>\n

[ITEMS WERE ROTATED<\/em>]  [Note: In April 2018, poll question asked \u201chow Governor Murphy\u2019s policies will affect different groups\u2026\u201d]<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Middle class residents<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Poor\nresidents<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 25%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 32%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Wealthy\nresidents<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 31%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 27%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Property\ntax payers<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 48%\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 17%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Transit\nriders<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 16%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 18%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 35%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 34%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Businesses<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Feb.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Helped\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Hurt\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No impact\n <\/td>\n 26%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Both helped and\n hurt\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (604)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (703)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

11.<\/span>How much have you heard about the drinking water problem in the city of Newark \u2013 a lot, a little, or nothing at all? <\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A\n lot\n <\/td>\n 46%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A little\n <\/td>\n 33%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nothing at all\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

11A.<\/span>Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor Murphy has handled this problem, or do you have no opinion?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No opinion\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not heard (from Q11)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (713)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q12-41\nheld for future release.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODOLOGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from September 12 to 16, 2019 with a random sample of 713 New\nJersey adults age 18 and older, in English. This includes 359 contacted by\na live interviewer on a landline telephone and 354 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a cell phone. Telephone numbers were selected through\nrandom digit dialing and landline respondents were selected with a modified\nTroldahl-Carter youngest adult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for\nall aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. Final sample is\nweighted for region, age, education, gender and race based on US Census\ninformation. Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field)\nand Dynata (RDD sample). For results based on this sample, one can say\nwith 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum\nmargin of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points (unadjusted for sample\ndesign). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table\nbelow). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that\nquestion wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce\nerror or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 20%\n Republican<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 45% Independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 48% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 52% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 29% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 36% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 35% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 59% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 13% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 17%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 11%\n Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 64% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 36% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Click on pdf file\nlink below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mixed reviews on handling of Newark water crisis<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802243883,"template":"","geography":[30],"class_list":["post-40802243880","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-new-jersey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/poll"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243880\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802249020,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802243880\/revisions\/40802249020"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802243883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802243880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802243880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}