Chris Christie Supported By Only 15 Percent of Voters — The Lowest Popularity Rate in History

Chris_Christie_April_2015_(cropped)New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is close to reaching a statistical zero for support.  According to a new poll, Christie is supported by only 15 percent of voters.  Given the error rate of standard polls, Christie is rapidly reducing his support to his immediate family.  This is the lowest approval rating “for any governor in any state surveyed by Quinnipiac University in more than 20 years.”

This includes a now 81 percent disapproval rating.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Eighty-one percent disapproval.

There are likely a combination of influences. The first was Christie avoiding criminal charges for Bridgegate while two top aides were convicted.  Many felt that Christie got a free ride while his aides were forced to answer for the underlying crimes.  The second is likely Christie’s support for President Trump.

Whatever the cause, Christie now has the distinction of being the first governor with close to universal disapproval from the voters.

49 thoughts on “Chris Christie Supported By Only 15 Percent of Voters — The Lowest Popularity Rate in History

  1. NJ seems to love them when they put them in and then despise them as they leave. I think NJ folks are very “what has he done for me lately?”

  2. I can’t see why with such a winning personality, his approval rating is not MUCH higher. It should be at least 16.5%

    As for those commenting on his finances, if I’m not mistaken, he is already wealthy.

  3. @Vince Jankoski, June 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM

    “Free speech will never die as long as this blog is active. You gotta love it. No matter how ignorant, insipid, dumb, fatheaded, bigoted, stupid, divisive, beef-headed, doltish, idiotic, duncical, numbskulled, pinheaded, asinine, imbecilic, or uninformed is the comment, it is allowed and no one asks that it be removed.”

    The quasi-laissez-faire moderation policy here is quite principled in terms of supporting freedom of speech, but I know of a few occasions when commenters who were getting nastily personal were admonished by a moderator to cut it out or take it elsewhere, and they did.

    @Jay S, June 16, 2017 at 11:13 AM

    “You’re right. People just call each other names.”

    That’s a glittering generalization that leaves out of account the many comments here that address the validity of other comments, rather than the personal characteristics of the commenters.

    Those who do resort to name-calling are simply calling attention to their lack of confidence in their positions on the issues in question, which they’d otherwise articulate, but thanks to marvels of modern technology such as the scroll and delete keys, may be easily ignored.

  4. People in NJ constantly vote Crooks, Numbskulls, and various annoying characters to the Governorship. After 20-30 years of this, you have to believe the problem is with the voters and not the Politicians.

    • Are you referring to former NJ Gov. Jon Corzine & Goldman Sachs CEO? It’s party time with NJEA teachers union boss.

      • “Are you referring to former NJ Gov. Jon Corzine & Goldman Sachs CEO?”

        Yeah, Corzine and the guy who fell in love with an Israeli beach-boy or whatever the hell he was. Not to mention liar Florio, and the incredibly annoying Christie Todd Whitman.

        • Although NJ has miles to go before it can match Illinois, In Illinois you’re surprised when the Governor only serves 2-5 in the state pen.

        • Rcocean, NJ Gov. is confusing, but I’ll fix it.

          It was NJ Gov. Jim McGreevy who had the hots for Israeli boy friend.
          Then NJ Gov. Jon Corzine got the hots for NJEA union boss.

    • You have a supply-side and a demand-side problem. The political class has it’s own recruitment paths and social dynamics. If your political order is working well, you have a process of natural selection which sets certain boundary conditions. That gets more difficult when the sort of people who go into politics are buffoons grungy ba*****s to begin with. The situation in Massachusetts 15 years back suggest that the non-negotiables many voters harbor are twee and frivolous (and not applied to Democrats because the press protects Democrats).

      If you want two examples of newspapers in politicians’ pockets consider the cases of Corey Booker and Richard Lugar. For 35 years, Lugar was casting ballots from a home precinct where he did not live – he’d sold his house there in 1977. He could not vote for himself in the 2012 Republican primary because his registration was invalid and this was public knowledge at the instigation of his opponent. How is it that no reporter in Indianapolis ever looked in the local Polk directory or tried to call him at home? Booker has the same problem. His home address is unknown to the public. He was using as a voting address an empty house in Newark where security personnel loitered all day.

      • The problem with NJ Senator Cory Booker. Is he Gay? He dates women & has an appetite for white boys. It’s kind of weird.

        Cory Booker has it both ways in an artful manner that suits his rapid rise in the political establishment, though the point he’s making is entirely new: He’s at once flirtatiously in touch with his feminine side in a manner that is seen by those who see the world in stereotypes as “gay” or less than “guy-ish,” and straight.

  5. Whatever the cause, Christie now has the distinction of being the first governor with close to universal disapproval from the voters.

    The implication of the Quinnipiac statement is that Gov. Florio’s approval ratings were lower. Gov. Jane “Not To” Swift of Massachusetts had single-digit approval ratings. It’s a reasonable inference she and Christie have such ratings for the following reasons: (1) they’re Republicans and the media does not cover for them and (2) they did irritating things that were unimportant in terms of the landscape of public policy but which impinged on the daily life of ordinary people or could be compared readily to features of their daily life. In Christie’s case, his subordinates engineered a traffic jam. In Swift’s case it was two or three things which were harmless. (1) She brought her young children to work on occasion where state employees (i.e. patronage workers) were given the task of keeping an eye on them, (2) she took a few trips in a state helicopter for personal reasons, and (3) she commuted to and from her home in western Massachusetts in an RV fitted out with an office. Single-digit approval ratings aren’t necessarily an indication of a perspicacious electorate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s