Midterm Election Poll: New Jersey’s 3rd District, MacArthur vs. Kim
We polled voters in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District.
This poll was conducted from Sept. 22 to Sept. 26.
Can an architect of the Republican health law survive? We made 37092 calls, and 499 people spoke to us.
Andy Kim, the Democratic candidate, leads our poll.
Our poll is a good result for Democrats. It’s just one poll, though.
This survey was conducted by The New York Times Upshot and Siena College. Where we called:
Each dot shows one of the 37092 calls we made.
Vote choice: Dem. Rep. Don’t know Didn’t answerTo preserve privacy, exact addresses have been concealed. The locations shown here are approximate.
Explore the 2016 election in detail with this interactive map.
About the race
Andy Kim is a former White House national security official 36% favorable rating; 28% unfavorable; 36% don’t know
Based on 499 interviews
Tom MacArthur is the current representative, first elected in 2014. 28% favorable rating; 41% unfavorable; 31% don’t know
Based on 499 interviews
This swing district voted for Barack Obama both times and for Donald Trump in 2016. The seat has been mostly held by a Republican for the past two decades.
Comprising beach towns, Philadelphia suburbs, farmland and Pinelands, it has no clear regional identity, part of why Politico has called it a “carpetbagger’s paradise.”
Mr. Trump’s relative unpopularity in the district has made life harder for Mr. MacArthur, who voted in favor of the 2017 tax bill and was a key driver of the G.O.P.’s effort to repeal Obamacare.
Mr. Kim is a first-time candidate with a background in national security. A child of South Korean immigrants, he grew up in New Jersey and became a Rhodes Scholar. He earned a doctorate in international relations at Oxford and spent much of the past decade working in Washington.
Mr. MacArthur, a wealthy former insurance executive, mostly self-funded his first campaign but this time has raised more than $2 million. Mr. Kim has raised money from all over the country, topping $2 million.
Previous election results:
| 2016 President | +6 Trump |
| 2012 President | +5 Obama |
| 2016 House | +20 Rep. |
It’s generally best to look at a single poll in the context of other polls:
| Polls | Dates | Kim | MacArthur | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siena College/New York Times n = 508 lv | Oct. 21-25 | 44% | 45% | Even |
| Monmouth University 363 lv | Oct. 18-22 | 49% | 45% | Kim +4 |
| Stockton University 546 lv | Oct. 3-10 | 45% | 47% | MacArthur +1 |
| National Research, Inc. (R.) 400 lv | Oct. 2-4 | 40% | 44% | MacArthur +4 |
| DCCC Targeting Team (D.) 523 lv | Sept. 4-5 | 47% | 45% | Kim +2 |
| Monmouth University 300 lv | Aug. 7-9 | 46% | 44% | Kim +2 |
| Global Strategy Group (D.) 400 lv | June 11-21 | 42% | 42% | Even |
| Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D.) 550 lv | May 29-June 3 | 44% | 48% | MacArthur +4 |
| Public Policy Polling (D.) 669 v | Apr. 16-17 | 41% | 42% | MacArthur +1 |
| Public Policy Polling (D.) 336 v | Feb. 14-15 | 43% | 47% | MacArthur +4 |
Sign up for The Campaign Reporter
Hey, I’m Alex Burns, a politics correspondent for The Times. I’ll give you the latest reporting and intel on the midterms and take your questions from the campaign trail.
How our poll result changed
As we reach more people, our poll will become more stable and the margin of sampling error will shrink. The changes in the timeline below reflect that sampling error, not real changes in the race.
One reason we’re doing these surveys live is so you can see the uncertainty for yourself.
But sampling error is not the only type of error in a poll.
Our turnout model
There’s a big question on top of the standard margin of error in a poll: Who is going to vote? It’s a particularly challenging question this year, since special elections have shown Democrats voting in large numbers.
To estimate the likely electorate, we combine what people say about how likely they are to vote with information about how often they have voted in the past. In previous races, this approach has been more accurate than simply taking people at their word. But there are many other ways to do it.
Assumptions about who is going to vote may be particularly important in this race.
Our poll under different turnout scenarios
| Who will vote? | Est. turnout | Our poll result |
|---|---|---|
| The types of people who voted in 2014 | 193k | Kim +3 |
| Our estimate | 260k | Kim +10 |
| People whose voting history suggests they will vote, regardless of what they say | 262k | Kim +9 |
| People who say they will vote, adjusted for past levels of truthfulness | 276k | Kim +13 |
| People who say they are almost certain to vote, and no one else | 278k | Kim +21 |
| The types of people who voted in 2016 | 358k | Kim +4 |
| Every active registered voter | 489k | Kim +19 |
All estimates based on 499 interviews
Just because one candidate leads in all of these different turnout scenarios doesn’t mean much by itself. They don’t represent the full range of possible turnout scenarios, let alone the full range of possible election results.
The types of people we reached
Even if we got turnout exactly right, the margin of error wouldn’t capture all of the error in a poll. The simplest version assumes we have a perfect random sample of the voting population. We do not.
People who respond to surveys are almost always too old, too white, too educated and too politically engaged to accurately represent everyone.
How successful we were in reaching different kinds of voters
| Called | Inter- viewed | Success rate | Our responses | Goal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 29 | 2383 | 51 | 1 in 47 | 10% | 8% |
| 30 to 64 | 15998 | 289 | 1 in 55 | 58% | 56% |
| 65 and older | 6509 | 158 | 1 in 41 | 32% | 35% |
| Male | 10549 | 225 | 1 in 47 | 45% | 46% |
| Female | 14352 | 274 | 1 in 52 | 55% | 54% |
| White | 17714 | 365 | 1 in 49 | 73% | 73% |
| Nonwhite | 4509 | 76 | 1 in 59 | 15% | 17% |
| Cell | 17074 | 345 | 1 in 49 | 69% | — |
| Landline | 7827 | 154 | 1 in 51 | 31% | — |
Based on administrative records. Some characteristics are missing or incorrect. Many voters are called multiple times.
Pollsters compensate by giving more weight to respondents from under-represented groups.
Here, we’re weighting by age, party registration, gender, likelihood of voting, race, education and region, mainly using data from voting records files compiled by L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor.
But weighting works only if you weight by the right categories and you know what the composition of the electorate will be. In 2016, many pollsters didn’t weight by education and overestimated Hillary Clinton’s standing as a result.
Here are other common ways to weight a poll:
Our poll under different weighting schemes
| Our poll result | |
|---|---|
| Weight using census data instead of voting records, like most public polls | Kim +12 |
| Don’t weight by education, like many polls in 2016 | Kim +10 |
| Our estimate | Kim +10 |
| Don’t weight by party registration, like most public polls | Kim +10 |
All estimates based on 499 interviews
Just because one candidate leads in all of these different weighting scenarios doesn’t mean much by itself. They don’t represent the full range of possible weighting scenarios, let alone the full range of possible election results.
Undecided voters
About 12 percent of voters said that they were undecided or refused to tell us whom they would vote for.
Issues and other questions
We're asking voters about health care, and also asking whether they support Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?
| Approve | Disapp. | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 42% | 53% | 5% |
Would you prefer Republicans to retain control of the House of Representatives or would you prefer Democrats to take control?
| Reps. keep House | Dems. take House | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 40% | 52% | 8% |
Do you support or oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court?
| support | oppose | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 40% | 49% | 11% |
Do you support the creation of a national insurance program, in which every American would get insurance from a single government plan?
| Support | Oppose | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 58% | 34% | 8% |
Do you support repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare?
| Support | Oppose | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 45% | 50% | 5% |
Do you or a member of your family have a pre-existing health care condition like asthma, heart disease or diabetes?
| Yes | No | Don’t know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voters n = 499 | 45% | 53% | 2% |
Percentages are weighted to resemble likely voters.
What different types of voters said
Voters nationwide are deeply divided along demographic lines. Our poll suggests divisions too. But don’t overinterpret these tables. Results among subgroups may not be representative or reliable. Be especially careful with groups with fewer than 100 respondents, shown here in stripes.
Gender
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female n = 274 / 54% of voters | 56% | 31% | 13% |
| Male 225 / 46% | 41% | 47% | 12% |
Age
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 29 n = 47 / 9% of voters | 68% | 29% | 3% |
| 30 to 44 76 / 15% | 59% | 31% | 10% |
| 45 to 64 215 / 41% | 47% | 34% | 20% |
| 65 and older 161 / 35% | 43% | 50% | 7% |
Race
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| White n = 374 / 76% of voters | 45% | 44% | 10% |
| Nonwhite 98 / 19% | 67% | 20% | 13% |
Race and education
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonwhite n = 98 / 19% of voters | 67% | 20% | 13% |
| White, college grad 205 / 33% | 49% | 41% | 9% |
| White, not college grad 169 / 43% | 42% | 47% | 11% |
Education
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.S. Grad. or Less n = 70 / 25% of voters | 53% | 36% | 11% |
| Some College Educ. 139 / 28% | 40% | 47% | 13% |
| 4-year College Grad. 170 / 29% | 52% | 37% | 12% |
| Post-grad. 116 / 17% | 52% | 34% | 13% |
Party
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat n = 175 / 34% of voters | 89% | 4% | 7% |
| Republican 142 / 28% | 7% | 87% | 6% |
| Independent 161 / 34% | 46% | 35% | 19% |
| Another party 8 / 2% | 47% | 33% | 19% |
Party registration
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic n = 207 / 38% of voters | 84% | 6% | 10% |
| Republican 178 / 35% | 9% | 76% | 15% |
| Other 114 / 27% | 51% | 37% | 12% |
Intention of voting
| Dem. | Rep. | Und. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Almost certain n = 309 / 64% of voters | 51% | 37% | 12% |
| Very likely 146 / 29% | 50% | 42% | 8% |
| Somewhat likely 23 / 4% | 32% | 50% | 18% |
| Not very likely 6 / 1% | 25% | 11% | 64% |
| Not at all likely 12 / 1% | 28% | 40% | 32% |
Percentages are weighted to resemble likely voters; the number of respondents in each subgroup is unweighted. Undecided voters includes those who refused to answer.
Other districts where we’ve completed polls
About this poll
- Most responses shown here are delayed about 30 minutes. Some are delayed longer for technical reasons.
- The design effect of this poll is 1.18. That’s a measure of how much weighting we are doing to make our respondents resemble all voters.
- Read more about the methodology for this poll.
- Download the microdata behind this poll.
This survey was conducted by The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.
Data collection by Reconnaissance Market Research, M. Davis and Company, the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, the Survey Research Center at the University of Waterloo, the University of North Florida and the Siena College Research Institute.