Gustafson Thrilled To Learn Pelosi Is Coming To Support Norcross

Pelosi visit is a near perfect illustration of the difference between Norcross and Gustafson

COLLINGSWOOD – Claire Gustafson, Republican candidate for Congress in New Jersey’s first congressional district, said she was “thrilled” to learn Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is coming to Camden County to support Congressman Donald Norcross next month.

“Nancy Pelosi coming to Camden County to support Donald Norcross is a near perfect illustration of the differences I have with Congressman Norcross,” Claire Gustafson said. “Pelosi and Norcross support sanctuary states, abortion on demand, a sham impeachment and continually attack the Second Amendment. In Congress I’ll say no to sanctuary states, no to abortion as a form of birth control, no to this impeachment nonsense and no to the assault on our Second Amendment.”

“I found it almost laughable that in

one report

it was said that, ‘Congressman Norcross is a key member of Speaker Pelosi’s leadership team and is widely recognized for his leadership on job creation.’” Gustafson added, “It was Norcross who, in February 2014 when he first ran for Congress,

proudly proclaimed

he ‘led the charge on getting the Economic Opportunity Act passed into law’ and promised it was ‘a game-changing law that will help create thousands of jobs in our region.’”

Gustafson asked, “If Congressman Norcross is such a leader on job creation where are the thousands of jobs he promised nearly six years ago?”

“Perhaps Pelosi or Norcross will explain why he now downplays his role in getting the Economic Opportunity Act passed.” Gustafson said, “I’ll be looking forward to the Congresswoman’s visit and hope we finally learn where the thousands of jobs Mr. Norcross promised are.”

Wildwood Boardwalk Taken Over by Trump Backers

By Max Pizarro | January 28, 2020, 12:51 pm | in

City Confidential

WILDWOOD – She never made it here from Philly.

If she did, she confessed, it was a long time ago, a vague memory, and now, as she came up against the boardwalk, her face very nearly registered bug-eyed disbelief at the sight of the sea.

There’s an

ocean

here.

She didn’t say it.

The body language in the knife-sawing cold off the beach told the story.

She was in Wildwood for one reason.

“Trump,” the non-swimming fiercely winterized Trumpite told InsiderNJ, as she folded into the maw of bulky red phalanxes in the vicinity of the convention center.

A helicopter circled.

A man, ramrod in blue with the sea behind him, stood at the entranceway to the Wildwoods with a sign urging all able-bodied Trump backers to register to serve in the military.

No one argued.

All up and down the boardwalk vendors behind tables laid out with wares urged the frigid Trump troops to further arm themselves for the developing circus.

continue to read

These Behaviors Make You A Scam Target

(NAPSI)—If you spend a lot of time on social media sites or looking for great online deals, you may wear a

bullseye

when it comes to scammers hunting for prey, according to groundbreaking fraud research from the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, BBB Institute for Marketplace Trust and the Stanford Center on Longevity.

A recent study found nearly half of America is likely to interact with fraudsters-but you can protect yourself.

Researchers surveyed more than 1,400 Americans and Canadians who were targeted by scammers and reported the fraud to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which tracks scams. Nearly half of those surveyed did not engage with the fraudster. However, 30 percent engaged to some degree but ultimately did not lose money, while 23 percent engaged with the fraudster or offer and lost money.

What separates victims from non-victims?

“The path to victimization begins with engagement,” said FINRA Foundation President Gerri Walsh. “Social media and website scams are flourishing. Every time you respond to a friend request from someone you don’t know or click through to an unfamiliar website, you run the risk of being exposed to a scam.”

Your chance of falling victim to a scam varies by type—for instance, online purchase scams, tech support ploys,

fake

check or sweepstakes frauds—and by the method in which you are exposed to the offer. For those exposed to a scam through social media or a website, the numbers are chilling. When exposed to a scam on social media, 91 percent engaged and 53 percent lost money. The odds of losing money to website scams were only slightly lower: 81 percent of consumers in the study who were exposed to a fraud via a website said they engaged—and 50 percent lost money.

Other factors heighten the likelihood of falling for a fraud. Consumers were more likely to be victimized if they were isolated and didn’t have anyone to discuss the offer with, according to the study. Consequently, those who engaged scammers and lost money were less likely to be married and more likely to be widowed or divorced. “Sadly, loneliness and fraud victimization seem to go hand in hand,” noted Walsh.

You’re also more likely to engage and lose money if you’re feeling financial strain, or have low levels of financial literacy, the study found.

Protect Yourself

Take these steps to protect yourself from fraud:

• Ask for input from others.

Scammers try to isolate their victims. Don’t be afraid to contact a friend, or a company or organization you trust for advice. It also helps to do additional research before sending any money. One easy action: Do an Internet search to see if the website or pitch has been flagged as fraudulent or potentially fraudulent by news organizations or members of the public.

• Focus on your financial health and literacy.

Individuals under financial strain and those with lower levels of financial literacy may be more susceptible to scammers.

• Knowledge is power.

Knowing about scams and scammer tactics can be your best defense in successfully reducing the effect of scams. Keep up with the latest frauds by subscribing to consumer newsletters and seeking out information on current scams.

One-third of consumers who were targeted by a scammer, but did not engage with the offer, already knew about the specific type of scam. In addition, consumers who understood the tactics and behaviors of scammers tended not to engage with fraudsters.

To learn more about how to protect your money, visit

www.FINRA.org/LearnMore

Transgender State Workers Sue Florida Demanding Support for Sex-Change Surgeries

Tom Fitton JudicialWatch.org

Around the country, and now in Florida, “transgender” activists are demanding all of us to pay for their sex-change surgeries.

Corruption Chronicles

has the

details

CNBNews graphics

In what appears to be a growing national trend, another public enterprise is being sued for failing to pay for transgenders’ costly sex-change surgery. The plaintiffs in this latest case are two veteran state workers—both men—in Florida who allege sex discrimination because the state’s insurance policy doesn’t cover surgical procedures to help make them women. One of them, Jami Claire, is a senior biological scientist at the University of Florida (UF), the state’s premier university, which is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The other, Kathryn Lane, is an attorney in the Tallahassee public defender’s office. Both men take hormones and undergo electrolysis to make them more feminine.

Now they want taxpayers in the Sunshine State to fund expensive surgeries to alter their genitals and face. Claire, who is 62 years old, and Lane, 39, claim to have gender dysphoria that requires gender-affirming care explicitly excluded by the state’s health insurance program, which covers more than 350,000 employees and dependents. “Gender dysphoria is a serious, but treatable, medical condition,” according to the federal

complaint

filed this week is U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. “Left untreated it can lead to debilitating distress, depression, anxiety, impairment of function, substance abuse, self-surgery to alter one’s genitals, or secondary sex characteristics, self-injurious behavior and even suicide.” That makes “gender-affirming care” medically necessary, the lawsuit says, adding that singling out transgender employees for unequal treatment constitutes “unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Claire, the UF scientist, is a Navy veteran who has been living as a female for more than two decades and has a “well-established social and professional identity as a woman,” the complaint says. In 1997 he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began taking hormones and undergoing electrolysis for hair removal. His wife and children disowned him and the “financial toll of the divorce” made gender-affirming treatments unaffordable so he stopped them until a few years ago. In 2016 Claire resumed gender affirmation treatments to “live authentically as a woman,” a medical necessity, the lawsuit says, because Claire experienced constant stress, anxiety, pain and anguish as a man. In 2018 Claire paid for a breast augmentation to feminize his body. Now he wants the state to pay for the surgical removal of his testicles, but his public insurance plan denied the procedure.

Lane, the attorney, also has a “well-established social and professional identity as a woman,” according to the complaint. He began experiencing gender dysphoria since the age of five but suppressed his “female identity” for many years, causing “severe depression and anxiety.” In 2012, Lane finally embraced his female identity and began hormone and facial/body hair removal treatments. Lane also began growing out the hair on his head to “be identified more easily as a female.” In 2015 he paid for breast augmentation surgery. The lawyer wants the state insurance plan to pay for an expensive cosmetic procedure known as “facial feminization surgery” essential to treating gender dysphoria. “Facial features play an important part in being recognized as a particular gender,” the lawsuit says. “The public’s ability to recognize an individual as transgender based on their facial features places that individual at risk of violence, harassment, and discrimination.”

Governments are increasingly being forced to pay for the pricey cosmetic treatments of transgender people who claim to be stuck in the wrong body. Thousands of dollars are annually spent to give transgender jail inmates nationwide hormone treatments, laser hair removal and makeup. In Massachusetts, a convicted murderer actually

sued

the Department of Corrections to pay for sex-change surgery. Last year a federal judge forced Wisconsin taxpayers to provide sex reassignment surgery and hormonal procedures for low-income transgender residents who get free medical care from the government. In his

ruling

, the federal judge wrote that Medicaid, the publicly funded insurance that covers 65.7 million poor people, cannot deny the medical treatment needs of those suffering from “gender dysphoria.” Officials estimate it will cost up to $1.2 million annually to provide transgender Medicaid recipients in the Badger State with treatments such as “gender confirmation” surgery, including elective mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction and breast augmentation.

source JUDICIAL WATCH

NJ State Legislature Environmental Bills for Monday

The following environmental legislation will be up in the state legislature on Monday, January 27, 2020.

Senate Community and Urban Affairs

S253 (Singleton): Requires public water systems to develop lead service line inventories and replace lead service lines.

“This legislation is important because it will help reduce lead levels in New Jersey drinking water. We need to know where the lead lines are, and then we need to replace them as soon as we can. This bill calls for ten years to replace lead service lines. We should really try to make this happen quicker. It is important that this bill specifies that utilities cannot pass on more than 25% of service line replacement costs to their customers. Water companies shouldn’t be profiteering from a problem they allowed to happen. There is a crisis in New Jersey as far as lead in drinking water is concerned. This legislation is a good start, but we need legislation with a shorter time period than ten years. We need to get this done and done now,” said Jeff Tittel of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

S320 (Rice): Requires contracts for sales of residential property to address lead service lines.

“We support this legislation because we have a serious problem with lead in New Jersey, and we have been dealing with this problem for far too long. Some places in the state are at crisis level, especially in areas that are poorer and urban. It is vital to make sure that water in properties that are for sale is safe enough to drink. Our children are being poisoned by lead in the water. It is important for the public to know what’s happening when it comes to lead in our drinking water systems. We need to protect our most precious resources – our children,” said Jeff Tittel.

S647 (Greenstein): Revises asset management and related reporting requirements in “Water Quality Accountability Act.”

“The bill is important to address the state’s crumbling water infrastructure. This legislation will not only require towns to come up with a mitigation plan to fix their water problems, however it will also require DEP to come up with rules to implement the Water Quality Accountability Act. It is critical for these assessments because it allows us to learn from them, where to fix certain programs, or what new laws or policies need to be implemented,” said Tittel.

Assembly Consumer Affairs

A1459 (Moriarty): Prohibits the sale of certain children\’s products containing lead, mercury, or cadmium.

“This legislation is critical to protect the health of our children. Children are at particular risk because of common development behaviors of biting, chewing or sucking on toys and other products containing metals like cadmium. Young children are at the greatest risk of health problems related to lead exposure, including serious brain and kidney damage,” said Tittel.

Assembly Commerce and Economic Development

A2204 (McKeon): Permits developer to qualify for low-interest loan from NJEDA when building a high performance green building.

“This legislation is important because it will help make green buildings a reality in New Jersey. Allowing green building projects to quality for low-interest loans will help reduce greenhouse gases in the state. This will also help stimulate New Jersey’s economy by creating jobs and promoting new industry. Jobs will be generated to produce the green building products and in construction. Building green infrastructure, including blue and green roofs, will help reduce flooding and mitigate climate impacts,” said Jeff Tittel.

A1653 (Quijano): Encourages development of zero-emission vehicle fueling and charging infrastructure in redevelopment projects.

“This legislation will stand in the way of New Jersey moving forward with electric vehicles. This bill encourages zero-emission vehicles, which are powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The only way to get hydrogen for these fuel cells is from natural gas. Instead of ZEVs, New Jersey needs to focus on increasing our sale and use of electric vehicles. New Jersey is one of the best states to utilize EV technology because most of our energy is already carbon free,” said Tittel.

Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens

S695 (Ruiz/Cryan): Requires DEP, DOH, DCA, owners or operators of public water systems, and owners or operators of certain buildings to take certain actions to prevent and control cases of Legionnaires\’ disease.

“It is important for the Legislature to make sure our water companies, cities, and state agencies are held accountable when it comes to the water we drink. There are too many problems in New Jersey from one county to the next, whether it is PFOAs, volatile organic chemicals, cyanobacteria, or legionella, the bacteria that causes Legionnaire’s disease. For too long, New Jersey has failed to adequately protect its drinking water and is putting the public at risk. This is mainly due to DEP’s failure to enforce the Clean Water Act, “said Jeff Tittel. “We have serious water problems throughout the state when it comes to our drinking water. That is why we need to make sure that different water purveyors take actions to identify their problems and correct them,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

source NJ Sierra Club

GUEST OPINION: Trump Champions Pro-Life Cause

Bill Donohue | CNBNews Contributor

January 24, 2020

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on

President Trump\’s decision to address the March for Life crowd

Other presidents have offered their support to the pro-life cause, but only President Donald Trump has decided to participate in the March for Life. His pro-life record, coupled with his record in defense of religious liberty, makes him the most important Christian voice in the United States. No president, including President Ronald Reagan, can match his stellar achievements on these twin issues.

By contrast, we have the likes of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, both of whom have endorsed infanticide: there are no penalties for doctors who intentionally allow an innocent baby to die if he or she survives a botched abortion. However, First Prize goes to California Governor Gavin Newsom: he out-Hitlerized both men.

Earlier this month, Newsom said he wants to stop euthanizing animals. \”We want to be a no-kill state.\” Yet last year he issued a California Proclamation on Reproductive Freedom, one part of which was designed to welcome \”women to California to fully exercise their reproductive rights.\” In other words, his enthusiasm for killing the least among us is so passionate that he extended an open invitation to pregnant women across the United States to have their babies killed in his home state.

It will surprise no one to learn that Newsom is also a proponent of assisted suicide. Indeed, he likes it so much that he boasts of his role in assisting a person to commit suicide in 2002.

That person was his mother

. [At that time assisted suicide was a felony in California—he put her down in San Francisco.]

It\’s too bad Mr. \”No-Kill State\” Newsom didn\’t think of his mother the way he thinks of hamsters.

These are sick times. Kudos to President Trump for standing up for the most defenseless human beings. He looks positively angelic next to these monsters.

Republicans Blame Nadler For Holding Up A Ban On Fentanyl During Impeachment Trial

CHRIS WHITE

TECH REPORTER

Republican Oregon Rep. Greg Walden believes House Democrats’ “obsession” with impeaching President Donald Trump is distracting them from passing a temporary ban on fentanyl substances.

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler is

holding

up legislation preventing the distribution of a substance health officials say is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, Walden said in a statement Friday to the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Oregon Republican said time is of the essence on this matter.

“Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee’s partisan obsession with impeachment is preventing us from taking common-sense action to extend a critical tool for law enforcement to combat the trafficking of fentanyl-related substances,” Walden said.

He added: “The Senate has passed an extension, but the House has yet to act. The House leadership needs to put the Senate bill on the floor next week so this critical authority does not lapse.”

Nadler spokesman Daniel Schwarz told the DCNF that Nadler is aware of the legislation.

The Drug Enforcement Administration

invoked

a ban on all fentanyl analogues in February 2018, but the ban expires Feb. 6. The Justice Department is pressuring Congress to enact a law allowing the DEA to ban the substances indefinitely, the Washington Post noted in a Jan. 5 editorial

A bipartisan group of senators

passed

the “Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act” on Jan. 16. The House of Representatives, meanwhile,

voted

on Jan. 15 to send the articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate. Nadler was selected as one of the House’s impeachment managers.

“I believe we are having a hearing on it early next week (Tuesday morning), which is needed before we can vote on anything,” Schwarz said, adding, “Not sure what the complaint is.”

Walden is not the only Republican who is criticizing the New York Democrat.

“While Chairman Nadler wastes taxpayer time on a partisan impeachment sham, he is failing to do his actual job on the Judiciary Committee,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy

wrote

in a Jan. 22 tweet. “

The Senate has unanimously (!) passed a ban on fentanyl. The same legislation languishes on Nadler’s desk.”

Walden is the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which handles opioids.

(RELATED: DOE’s Los Alamos Facility Lost Track Of Enough Fentanyl To Kill More Than 1,750 People, Report Shows)

Fentanyl was

found

in more than 50% of 5,000 opioid overdose deaths in 10 states in 2016. A dose of 2

milligrams

of fentanyl can kill a previously unexposed adult, meaning the loss or misuse of 3.5 grams of the substance due to an inventory error can potentially cause 1,750 deaths, federal research shows.

U.S. officials say the

bulk

of the drug is pouring into the country through China and parts of South America. Media

reports

show Trump is considering an executive order to halt shipments of fentanyl, a move designed to apply pressure to China as the U.S. continues fighting the opioid crisis. Meanwhile, the problem continues apace.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Incumbent Congressman Jan Van Drew Endorsed by Camden County Republicans

JANUARY 23, 2020)–Camden County Republican Chairman Rich Ambrosino released the following statement announcing the Camden County Republican Committee has officially endorsed Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew for re-election.

“Over the last few days the Waterford Township and Camden County Republican Committees thoroughly screened all of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District,” said Ambrosino. “Upon completion of the candidate interviews, it was the unanimous recommendation of our county screening committee to endorse our Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew for re-election. I am honored to affirm their recommendation and award Congressman Van Drew the use of our Camden County Republican line and slogan in June’s Republican Primary. We know he will continue fighting for South Jersey and we look forward to working with him to grow the Republican Party.”

Another One Bites the Dust

Source NRA-ILA

Actually, that headline is a little misleading, as we are referring to U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) abandoning his bid to take on Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election. But when we

last reported

on the Democrat clown-car that is the field of candidates who wished to challenge Trump for POTUS, there were 19 active campaigns.

With the departure of Booker, Democrats now have “only” a dozen candidates from which to choose.

In fact, our last posting on the field proved to be quite prescient. We suggested that promoting the extreme anti-gun position of confiscating firearms from American citizens may be the new

“exit strategy”

for foundering campaigns poised to leave the race. At the time, we opined that U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) seemed to be positioning herself to drop out of the race by reiterating her support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms. She threw in the towel the following week.

Booker, like Harris, promoted the euphemistically named

“mandatory buyback”

policy, which is a more innocent sounding name for confiscation. Now that he has announced he is quitting, every Democrat candidate who had been vying to be President and has also openly advocated for confiscating firearms from American citizens has now deserted the race. Before Booker and Harris, we saw the campaigns of failed candidates

Eric Swalwell

and

Robert Francis O’Rourke

give up the ghost.

Of course, those candidates that remain are all still stridently anti-gun.

They all want to ban the future manufacture and sale of

semi-automatic firearms

like the AR-15.

They all want to set arbitrary limits on how many rounds of ammunition

a magazine can hold

They all want to prohibit the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens by imposing so-called

“universal” background checks

Virtually every proposal that has been introduced by anti-gun extremists over the last few decades has been met with support by most, if not all, of the candidates that are still in the race.

Sadly, two candidates that appear likely to stick around for a while have taken arguably equally extreme positions on another gun issue, using firearms to save lives.

The first, former Vice President Joe Biden, has a modest lead in most polls, but a commanding lead in

gaffes

. In 2017, after

Stephen Willeford used an AR-15

to bring an end to the rampage of a crazed murderer at a Texas church, Biden ignored the idea that lives were likely saved by the heroic act. Instead, when asked about the use of an AR-15 by Willeford, he stated, “Well, first all, the kind of gun being carried, he shouldn’t be carrying.”

Last December, after another Texas church attack was also stopped by an armed citizen, it was pointed out by many that

Biden had criticized the very law

that allowed law-abiding gun owners to carry firearms for self-defense into houses of worship.

After Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the NRA-supported law in September, Biden said, “It’s just absolutely irrational. It’s totally irrational.”

Granted, Biden cannot see into the future, so he had no idea that his words would come back to make him look so foolish, so quickly. Then again, some might argue that he has a long track record of past statements causing future problems.

The other Democrat candidate who has staked out a position against firearms being used by law-abiding citizens to save lives cannot use the excuse of not being able to foretell future events, as his comments were made after the fact.

Anti-gun billionaire

Mike Bloomberg spoke out against not just the Texas law

, but, presumably, against any use of a firearm by any citizen to defend themselves or others.

Although most acknowledge that Jack Wilson—the 71-year-old church congregant who brought an end to the violent attack at West Freeway Church of Christ—acted heroically, Bloomberg didn’t see things that way.

At a campaign stop in Alabama, Bloomberg commented on Wilson’s action, stating, “[I]t’s the job of law enforcement to, uh, have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

So, now that all of the Democrat candidates who openly advocated for gun confiscation have been shown the door, it appears that Biden and Bloomberg hold the most extreme anti-gun position—opposing law-abiding citizens using firearms to stop violent assaults and save lives.

Biden will be in the race for the foreseeable future due to his lead in the polls. Bloomberg, on the other hand, is polling in the single digits. But with a personal fortune that could underwrite several Presidential campaigns, and a driving desire to impose his anti-gun ideology on America, expect Bloomberg to remain in the race for at least several months.

Unless, of course, the curse-of-the-most-extreme-anti-gun-positions strikes again.

We can certainly hope.

https://www.nraila.org/a

Emerson University Poll: New Jersey Generational Divide Between Biden and Sanders On Display

January 20, 2020,

A new Emerson College Poll looks to the end of the nomination process, the June 2 New Jersey primary. At this point, former Vice President Joe Biden leads the state with 28% of the vote, followed by Senator Bernie Sanders at 25%, Senator Elizabeth Warren at 15%, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 9% and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang tied for 5th at 6% each. The data was collected January 16-19, 2020, mix mode, n=388, +/-4.9%.

Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson College Polling notes that “Bloomberg’s 9% is the highest we have seen for the former New York Mayor in any state poll this year. If his late start strategy is going to work, he will need to perform well in delegate-rich states such as New Jersey at the end of the nomination season.”

In New Jersey, Biden continues to be popular with older voters, 40% of those over 50 support him. Biden continues to struggle with younger voters, taking only 9% of the vote of those between 18-29 years old. In contrast, Sanders captures the youth vote with 36% support of those under 50, but the Vermont Senator has only 7% support of those over 65. Warren is the third most popular candidate in all four age groups with a range of 12% to 22% support.

Biden leads overall with female voters at 29%, followed by Sanders at 22% with female voters, and Warren with 19%. Males break for Sanders at 28%, then Biden at 27% and Warren at 11%.

Sanders leads among Hispanic voters with 31%, followed by Warren with 28%, and Biden with 16%. Among African American voters, Biden leads with 47% of the vote, followed by Warren at 17% and Sanders at 14%. This bodes well for Biden as it mirrors his exceptionally strong African American support in South Carolina, one of the first primaries. White voters in New Jersey break toward Sanders at 27%, then Biden at 23%, and 13% prefer Warren.

About half of Democratic primary voters (48%) say they will definitely vote for the candidate they prefer now, while 52% indicate they could change their mind and vote for another candidate by June.

While the Democratic primary race appears to be split, a majority of voters (55%), indicate they expect Biden to be the nominee. Sanders is the next expected choice at 22%, and Warren is at 10%. Of those voting for Biden, 84% expect him to be the nominee, with only 4% of Biden’s voters think Sanders will be the nominee. A majority of those (57%) voting for Sanders expect him to be the nominee, followed by 35% who believe Biden will get the nomination. A plurality of Warren voters, 42%, think Biden will be the nominee.

Kimball points out that “we saw a similar pattern in New Hampshire last week of Biden supporters being more confident in their candidate than Sanders supporters, and as the primaries begin we will see whether the Biden supporters are overconfident or if the Sanders supporters have something to worry about.”

On the Republican side, President Trump dominates his Republican rivals with 93% of the vote (n=197, +/- 6.9%).

Voters were asked about the impact of their representative in Congress voting in favor of the impeachment of President Trump – if it would make them more likely, or less likely to support his or her re-election next year; or, would their congressperson’s vote on impeachment have no effect on who they would support for Congress next year.

On this question, 41% of voters said voting in favor of impeachment would make them more likely to support the congresspersons’ re-election, 34% said it would make them less likely to support reelection, and 25% said it would make no difference in their vote.

However, support for impeachment varied across the state, with strongest support in the Newark region of the eighth, ninth, and tenth congressional district, with 48% of those polled saying they would be more likely to support their congressperson and 19% less likely to support. The first congressional district around Camden supports their representative, Donald Norcorss vote for impeachment 46% to 28%, along with voters in the central regions (District 6 and 12), with 44% more likely to support their congresspersons as contrasted to 35% who are less likely to support due to the affirmative votes for impeachment.

The northern region of the fifth, seventh, and eleventh congressional districts are split with 41% less likely to support, and 40% more likely. The strongest opposition to the vote for impeachment is in the southern part of the state – in the second, third and fourth districts, where 42% are less likely to vote for a Representative who voted to impeach, and 32% are more likely to support.

Caller ID

The New Jersey Emerson College poll was conducted January 16-19, 2020 under the Supervision of Assistant Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of registered voters, n=788, with a Credibility Interval (CI) similar to a poll’s margin of error (MOE) of +/- 3.9 percentage points. The data was weighted based on 2016 voter model of party affiliation, age, race, education, gender and region. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown, ethnicity and region carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only (n= 485) and an online panel provided by MTurk (n= 303).