New Jersey -- Governor
The Candidates: Governor Jon Corzine, Democrat (incumbent)
Former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, Republican
Christopher Daggett, independent
The Polls: Polling has been all over the place, with nonpartisan polling showing leads of as much as 9 points for Corzine and 6 points for Christie. The Pollster.com average now shows the race literally tied, weighing in at Christie 42.0, Corzine 42.0, and Daggett 10.1. Although Christie clearly lost ground for much of September and October, some recent polls -- notably PPP, SurveyUSA, and Quinnipaic -- show a slight rebound for him in the closing days, perhaps as a result of voters who had previously been inclined to vote for the independent Chris Daggett (whose numbers have declined) coming back home. On the other hand, Monmouth shows some slight movement to Corzine, while Democracy Corps shows no trend with Corzine still ahead.
Analysis: Let's turn to the 15 clarifiying questions that I posed earlier today and see how they apply in New Jersey. We'll assign up to 3 points to one of the candidates in each category depending on the magnitude of their potential advantage.
1. Which candidate's supporters are more enthusiastic? Although neither candidate has been particularly inspiring, Christie's supports qualify as the demonstrably more enthusiastic, as PPP gives him a substantial 60-34 lead among those who describe themselves as "very excited" to vote. Christie +3 points.
2. Which candidate is liable to have the better turnout operation? New Jersey being something of a machine state, and Corzine being an incumbent who spares few expenses when it comes to getting out his vote, this is his potential ace in the hole. Corzine +3 points.
3. Is one of the candidates a challenger to an incumbent, who might benefit from the 'incumbent rule'? The incumbent rule -- the idea that undecided voters tend to break to the challenger -- is disputed and seems to have become weaker in recent years. Nevertheless, if there were a race where it might apply, it could be this one. It may be noteworthy that Corzine has never polled above 44 percent in any individual poll; when the race tightened last month, it was more a matter of Christie losing ground than Corzine gaining it. Perhaps more tangibly, 53 percent of likely voters view Corzine unfavorably, according to Quinnipiac. That's some difficult math to overcome. Christie +3 points.
4. Do the demographics of the undecided vote, or the weakly-attached third-party vote, favor either of the candidates? What seems to have happened is that the anti-Corzine Daggett vote has held fairly steady, whereas the hey-I-actually-like-this-guy Daggett vote, which was coming mostly from Christie's column of "change" voters, has partially collapsed. Both PPP and Quinnipiac now show that a plurality of Daggett voters now have Corzine as their second choice. As I argued when Christie was the second choice of more Daggett voters, this is not necessarily hugely helpful -- Daggett's support may not collapse much further, and to the extent it does, a lot of voters may simply stay home rather than voting for one of the major-party alternatives. Still, it now seems clear that Daggett has no chance to win, and some voters who were worried about wasting their votes may switch, a dynamic that may provide a centimeter or two of help to Corzine. There also appear to be slightly more undecideds among Democrats than Republicans, which is also helpful to him. Corzine +2 points.
5. Which candidate got the more favorable coverage in the morning newspaper, or on the local evening news, on the Sunday before the election? One of Corzine's staffers was allegedly busted for possession of ecstasy (people still do ecstasy?) over the weekend, although it's not clear that he actually had anything to do with the Corzine campaign. Anyway, the local (NYC) news as I watched it yesterday focused more on Corzine's appearance with Barack Obama, while Christie and Daggett were off doing more folksy kind of stuff (Daggett talking to tailgaters at the Jets game, for instance). Let's call it a wash. Push.
6. Which candidate has the better 'elevator pitch', particularly as encapsulated by the commercials they've run in the 48 hours before the election? Both candidates are still running mostly ticky-tack, negative commercials, but Christie's show a few more flashes of positivity, and his closing argument -- Corzine is a failed governor -- is more concise and more likely to be remembered in the polling booth. Christie +2.
7. Which candidate has a headwind at their back from the national political environment, or has a message that squares better with the national political mood? Which candidate's party is liable to have the better Election Night nationwide? It appears more likely than not to be a pretty good night for Republicans nationwide, and Christie's anti-tax message -- even if voters don't particularly believe it -- is more in step with the zeitgeist. Christie +2.
8. Does either candidate begin with a built-in lead from early or absentee voting? SurveyUSA shows Corzine with a 50-38 lead among the 14 percent who have already voted, which would translate into a 1-2 point head start for him as we head into Tuesday. It could be an early sign of Corzine's superior turnout operation -- but with that said, the sample sizes are tiny here and would be easy to overinterpret. Corzine +2.
9. Which candidate, if any, stands to benefit from upballot or downballot races? Since the governor's race heads the ticket, this is unlikely to be much of a factor, but the Democratic state legislature in Trenton is deeply unpopular and is also up for re-election; I give a very slight edge to Christie for that reason. Christie +1.
10. Which candidate stands to benefit from cellphone-only voters, who may not be included in the polls? Generally, this will be the candidate who stands to win the majority of younger and more urban voters. That's usually going to be the Democrat, although in this case, the advantage may be somewhat muted, since Corzine himself is a fair bit older than Christie and the polls show a fairly consistent distribution of the vote across age groups. Corzine +1.
11. Has the polling in previous elections in the state, or in similar elections in similar states, tended systematically to underestimate the performance of either candidate's party? There's this bit of conventional wisdom that Democrats close late in New Jersey, which actually may have happened here -- win or lose, Corzine has made this a much closer contest than it looked like it would be a month ago. There has not, however, been any particular tendency by Democrats to outperform their numbers once the final polls are in. Push.
12. Which candidate attracted more people to their campaign appearances in the state over the last two weeks of the campaign? There's not a lot of clear evidence for this either way in local media accounts, although I'll give one point to Corzine because of his appearances with Barack Obama, which turned out a crowd of approximately 20,000 between two locations yesterday. Corzine +1.
13. Which candidate got more contributions over the last six weeks of the campaign from voters within the state? Between 9/15 and 10/20 (the most recent day available in New Jersey's campaign finance database), Corzine received 436 contributions among New Jerseyans for $198,421, while Christie received 1,505 contributions for $950,043. Although voters may be less inclined to donate to Corzine because of his prodigious wealth, that's certainly a pretty big edge for Christie. Christie +3.
14. Which candidate has run the more positive, optimistic campaign, and will leave voters feeling better about themselves as they exit the polling place? Both candidates have run mostly negative campaigns, but Corzine's has been particularly relentless, whereas Christie has had a few moments of levity, particularly on the subject of his weight, which Corzine needlessly attacked. Christie +2.
15. Which candidate's party controls the state's electoral and judicial apparatus, in the event of a recount or otherwise disputed election? This is a clean sweep for the Democrats, as the control the Secretary of State's office, the majority of Supreme Court seats, as well as most of the local political apparatus. Corzine +3.
I show Christie with 16 points and Corzine with 12 -- actually, a less clear advantage than I'd expected when I went through a draft of this exercise last night. But it's enough, combined with polling that seems to be breaking ever-so-slightly in Christie's favor, for me to feel a little better about the call below.
The Odds: Obviously, anybody's race, but I'd make Christie about the 4:3 favorite. If Christie wins, it will probably be because of greater enthusiasm among his voters and a slightly more well-rounded close to his campaign. If Corzine wins, it will probably be because of his institutional and organizational advantages in getting his base to the polls.
11.02.2009
2009 Elections Preview: New Jersey Governor
@ 1:59 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments
Go Christie!!!
Saturday, I was at a sports bar. During one of the early football games (Rutgers/UConn) I saw a Christie ad. Pretty effective, and not just the tax issue.
I think Christie wins 47-44.
Don't you read your own comments? Tailwind not headwind at back.
PS What does it say about the Republicans that they are repeat offenders about using artists' intellectual property without permission as Christie did with Monty Python?
New Jersey *ALWAYS* disappoints Republicans. It is safely Democratic, even if the polls look Republican. Corzine wins, probably by 3-4%.
Nate is righ on this one. Christie +6%.
@george kennan -
When are you going to read about fair use?
Politicians can use copyrighted works at campaign rallies without permission.
Look up the fair use doctrine. Every election cycle people look ignorant when they complain about stuff like that.
Read the copyright laws.
Don't you read your own comments?
If I was a blogger, I wouldn't. :)
Politicians can use copyrighted works at campaign rallies without permission.
Look up the fair use doctrine. Every election cycle people look ignorant when they complain about stuff like that.
Read the copyright laws.
OK.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Using a song as background music for an entrance at a campaign rally is not fair use in the slightest. If John McCain wanted to comment on a song and played it before commenting to provide context, that would be fair use.
Actually, in this case, it is not governed by fair use and is illegal. The Pythons have stated that they are considering suing. Jackson Browne just got a huge settlement from the McCain campaign for the illegal use of his material.
In this case, the copyright has not ended on Monty Python's Flying Circus, and it is illegal that Christie's campaign used this material.
Sorry, but in this case, Christie's campaign screwed up royally.
New Jersey has too many rotten boroughs and places where county bosses know exactly whose palms to grease to get as many votes as are needed. Christie doesn't have a shot.
What are the chances that Democratic vote totals won't be wildly inflated in Irvington, East Orange, Elizabeth, West New York, Atlantic City, Camden, etc.?
It's easy to win when you cheat.
Corzine by four or more.
Nate, can I make a bet with you? My friends will worship my forever if I win a bet with the great Nate Silver.
another Deep Thought:
If there's going to be a headwind, it's nice to have it at your back.
So is it a coincidence that the odds are the same as the proportion of points each candidate received? It sounds like the 4:3 odds are your own educated guess, while the 15 questions exercise was just a way of roughly quantifying relative strengths rather measuring probability. Thus, while one would expect some correlation between the two, they wouldn't necessarily be exactly the same.
Re: copyright and political campaigns...
Can anybody recall when a Democrat has been sued (or threatened) over this?
Seems it's always Republicans who violate somebody's copyright and then get creamed for it.
This, to me, indicates one of two things:
1.) Republicans just aren't creative enough to supply their own campaign materials
or
2.) All the successful actors/singers/writers are liberals and don't mind if their stuff is used by one of their own but don't want it in the hands of Republicans.*
Perhaps both are true?
NOTE: I shouldn't say ALL. There is, after all, Jon Voigt.
Oh yeah... and Toby Keith.
New Jersey has too many rotten boroughs and places where county bosses know exactly whose palms to grease to get as many votes as are needed. Christie doesn't have a shot.
That would be my take. One year when I was at college in NJ (hudson county, I think, to be specific), on election day, in one of my classes the professor asked everyone if they had voted, and where. Most were NJ, but when I said I voted absentee in VA, her response was "oh, so your vote actually counted?", and naturally no one found such a comment shocking (most just laughed).
I'd be suprised if the polling based statistics weren't off on this race, given the lack of confidence in their vote being correctly counted that most NJ residents I know seem to have.
Christie will win this.
You say that Christie had, "a slightly more well-rounded close to his campaign."
Is that a "fat" shot?
Obamas job approval is now down to 46% - 52% among Ramussen's likely voters, even though the number of Dems in his model has been growing.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The reason for the facial disconnect between Rasmussen's growing number of Dems and Obama's collapsing approval rating is that only 56% of self identified conservatives also self identify as GOP.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The conservative rebellion runs across party lines despite Democracy Corps nonsensical focus group spin trying to limit it to 20% of the voters in the GOP base. Conservatives are voting for conservatives regardless of party designation.
This would appear to provide an opening for Blue Dog Dems to keep their jobs if they become born again conservatives and vote down Obamacare and Cap and Tax while offering spending and tax cut alternatives.
@filistro
Bands whose copyrighted material has been stolen by Republican politicians:
Aerosmith
Arlo Guthrie
Bobby McFerrin
Boston
Bruce Springsteen
Don Henley
Foo Fighters
Gretchen Peters
Heart
Isaac Hayes
Jackson Browne
John Mellencamp
Jon Bon Jovi
Orleans
Pretenders
Tom Petty
Van Halen
I think you're right about the GOP--they are also perhaps pathologically kleptomaniacal.
Also, despite supporting W, Toby Keith is a lifelong Democrat who endorsed Obama in 2008, so the GOPers don't even have the country scene locked down.
M. Joseph Goodfriend:
It's interesting, isn't it, that most political compliments in our language have a touch of "fat" to them. Good arguments are weighty, full, substantial, well-rounded and meaty.
Poor arguments on the other hand are thin, empty, skeletal, ephemeral and lacking in substance.
I guess it's all a legacy from our ancestral memory of times when famine was a Really Bad Thing.
Unfortunately given our societal fondness for fatness, being 400 pounds overweight probably gives Christie an unfair advantage. Nate should rate it at least +3.
45 possible points awarded, 28 actually awarded, and those 28 split 16-12 seems like a wash to me. Give that this point awarding is done entirely at the gut level, there's probably large uncertainty here, so a relatively close split doesn't really say anything conclusive. It's like if you flip a coin 28 times and it comes up heads 16 times and tails 12 times -- hardly an unusual result that would make you think that the coin was biased. In fact, you'd expect to see results this uneven or more so more than 57% of the time.
"Obamas job approval is now down to 46% - 52% among Ramussen's likely voters, even though the number of Dems in his model has been growing."
Perhaps you'd care to explain why for six months now Rasmussen's approval rating spread has consistently been 10+ points off from literally every other pollster?
Either they're the only ones who have any idea what's going on and literally every other pollster is way off, or Rasmussen's stretching his likely voter screen to produce the output he wants. Which one do you think is more likely?
"This would appear to provide an opening for Blue Dog Dems to keep their jobs if they become born again conservatives and vote down Obamacare and Cap and Tax while offering spending and tax cut alternatives."
Obviously, that's why Pelosi is letting 30+ of them vote against health care, just as they did against cap and trade. Of course, one's already passed the House and one's going to in a week. Sorry to disappoint you.
Corzine will win by Acorn/SEIU voter fraud. Christie could have pulled away weeks ago if he had a serious, coherent plan to reduce taxes, stop the subsidy of failing inner city schools (and their unionized teachers) by suburban tax payers, etc... Too late for that now. He's neck and neck, which means fraud will win. It is amusing, however, to read a blog like this where the likely most salient fact about the election (Dem voter fraud) is studiously ignored.
"This would appear to provide an opening for Blue Dog Dems to keep their jobs if they become born again conservatives and vote down Obamacare and Cap and Tax while offering spending and tax cut alternatives."
I think the "Democrats will win if we just act more like Republicans" canard has been played to death and thoroughly exposed as fraudulent. We have been trying it for over a decade and we only won by nominating a real Democrat who supported Democratic principles.
No matter how large a share of the electorate teabaggers like Bart make up, they won't vote for the Democrat anyway.
Hey Nate - am quite amused how much the Intrade odds have changed since you noted 2 days ago that Corzine's odds looked too high there (traded at 67). I de-risked at that point knowing what would come next. Needless to say, he's now trading at less than 50 for the first time in weeks. Good stuff.
Otto,
Please provide one instance of actual voter fraud by SEIU.
Or for that matter, one instance where the incompetent mismanagement of ACORN changed the result of an election.
On the other hand, innocent ACORN canvassers have faced threats of violence on multiple occasions due to Republicans' outrageous claims of election fraud.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015242.php
Jacob,
You're right -- for SEIU I should have said intimidation. As in physical attacks on tea-partiers this summer by purple "SEIU" t-shirt wearing thugs who made no attempt to conceal their affiliation.
Re: Acorn's highly competent voter fraud, just read current and back postings of John Fund's "On the Trail" blog at OpinionJournal.com.
Oh, and threats of violence? What about those New Black Panthers in Philly who Obama/Holder for some reason saw no reason to prosecute? The failure to prosecute guarantees it will happen again. Probably tomorrow, in fact.
Ah sorry Otto, I should clarify...
When I said "instance" I should have said actual EVIDENCE of voter fraud, or physical intimidation for that matter. Not just WSJ or Michelle Malkin-spun opinion pieces.
And yes I'm aware of the physical confrontation BETWEEN (not on) SEIU activists and teabaggers in St. Louis.
And on the subject, SEIU employees have been targeted by threats of violence as well.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/labor/seiu-gets-threatening-phone-call-youre-gonna-come-up-against-the-second-amendment/
Jacob,
If you think facts cited by Greg Sargent of WhoRunsGov or Steve Benen of Washington Monthly carry more water than facts cited by John Fund of WSJ, then you live on a different planet than most Americans. I can't address the accuracy of the allegations cited by Sargent or Benen, but let's not forget -- as much as you libs hate it, the WSJ is the only major American newspaper that is *increasing* it's circulation right now.
And your use of a crude sexual reference to disparage patriotic freedom-loving Americans frankly reflects poorly on whatever else you may say.
Jacob said...
BD: "This would appear to provide an opening for Blue Dog Dems to keep their jobs if they become born again conservatives and vote down Obamacare and Cap and Tax while offering spending and tax cut alternatives."
I think the "Democrats will win if we just act more like Republicans" canard has been played to death and thoroughly exposed as fraudulent. We have been trying it for over a decade and we only won by nominating a real Democrat who supported Democratic principles.
Clinton and Obama, as well as most of the Blue Dogs, won by promising tax cuts and fiscal conservatism. No presidential candidate has won by campaigning as a liberal since LBJ and no candidate has come close to winning by campaigning on the enormous spending and borrowing increases as well as government takeovers of entire industries we have experienced under the current regime.
I do not expect the Blue Dogs to follow my advice to keep their jobs in 2010. I simply thought I would mention the opening they enjoy rather than simply cheering for a party.
@Otto
Couldn't care less about WSJ circulation numbers; it provides no backup to their outlandish editorials (Actually, I often read WSJ editorials bc of how incendiary they can be).
Ultimately, the point is that there is no concrete evidence of voter fraud or intimidation by either group.
SEIU did provide a recording of the call threatening them btw
And your unfounded attacks on patriotic freedom-loving labor activists reflects poorly on whatever line of attack you fabricate next.
@Bart
And Obama also won on universal health care, clean energy, and the promise of greater financial regulation. He may be in better shape now if he had delivered on anything other than the tax cuts, although I guess it's nice that he at least came through there.
Bart De ’Publican said…
“Obamas job approval is now down to 46% - 52% among Rasmussen’s likely voters, even though the number of Dems in his model has been growing.”
Please—when is the election for “job approval” going to be held? If there is no such election in the offing, then why does a model which supposedly conforms to “likely voters” matter when considering job approval?
Jacob,
"outlandish . . . WSJ editorials . . . incendiary."
. . . whatever, dude. Not outlandish or incendiary to me or most other Americans.
And though I don't question the patriotism of SEIU members (only liberals are allowed to question their political opponents' patriotism, right?), I strongly question whether the policies they support will result in freedom for anyone, including themselves.
Signing off now. Have to get some work done before I go home. I repeat - Corzine will win. The margin of victory will be fraudulent votes.
Cheers.
@Otto,
Question their goals then. You don't believe that people are freer
with affordable health care and representation in the workplace, while I do. That's fine. It's a matter on which reasonable people can differ.
But you're accusing them of illegal activities and providing absolutely no evidence to support it. That's a different matter, and it invalidates the crux of your argument--the preposterous notion of widespread voter fraud.
I'll admit that maybe I am a little biased against the WSJ editorial page. I haven't been able to take them seriously since their deceitful smear campaign to discredit Franken's election with disproven myths. Doesn't speak highly of their character either, though.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of question 14. Both candidates are negative about each other. Only Christie is negative about New Jersey. His campaign has made it much harder than it should have been for voters who like where they live to support him.
The polling is so bipolar, we can't really trust it. New Jersey has never had a viable independent before, so we dont know how to account for it.
Christie has lost. Either the Democrap machine will beat him or Daggett will.
I still think there MIGHT be a last minute Daggett surge when people get in the booth alone. They'll figure "Hey, what the heck."
I know I'll be pressing the Daggett button tomorrow. I hope a plurality of New Jersey will join me.
Daggett 36
Corzine 29
Christie 28
Others 7 I think there will be a lot of people expressing hate against the two parties and not realizing Daggett or not caring about him. Also, some people will confuse the other candidates with him. (See Butterfly Ballots--Buchanan
Anyone who says Go Christie! is a fool. He is just as corrupt as Corzine and will do nothing to fix New Jersey. We've already had one Christie, we dont need another.
Also, despite supporting W, Toby Keith is a lifelong Democrat who endorsed Obama in 2008,
Not really wanting to get bogged down in something as trivial as "Toby Keith's politics," but it should be noted that:
Keith considers himself "a Conservative Democrat who is sometimes embarrassed for his party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Keith#Political_Beliefs
He may have endorsed Obama last year, but he was a W supporter in teh 2004 election, thus making your statement a little misleading based on my two-minute research.
so the GOPers don't even have the country scene locked down.
No "scene" is locked down for anybody, including the country scene (see the Dixie Chicks for some of the most outspoken liberals in America). But it's still hard to make a compelling case that liberals have made very many inroads into the country-music listening subset of the population.
Haha, fair point Mule Rider.
Indeed Keith is conservative, like many Oklahoma Democrats, but the point was a response to filistro who put Keith squarely in the Republican camp. Still, you're right that his party registration and 2008 activities are not representative of his politics completely.
And I would freely admit that country music trends conservative while rock trends progressive, as South Park has shown us so eloquently.
http://allsp.com/l.php?id=e97
@Otto Mustaine said...
If you think facts cited by Greg Sargent of WhoRunsGov or Steve Benen of Washington Monthly carry more water than facts cited by John Fund of WSJ, then you live on a different planet than most Americans. I can't address the accuracy of the allegations cited by Sargent or Benen....
It's pretty funny that you wrote those two sentences right next to one another. Strike a blow for cognitive dissonance!
And your use of a crude sexual reference to disparage patriotic freedom-loving Americans frankly reflects poorly on whatever else you may say.
The Tea-partiers were using the teabag as their symbol. It's not libs' fault that they'd walked into a crude double entendre.
New Jersey might be the most corrupt state in terms of voter fraud and since the Democratic Party controls these levers now, I expect Corzine to outperform tomorrow. He is clearly the worst governor in the past 50 years in this state (and that is saying something considering that his three immediate elected predecessors were McGreevey, Whitman and Florio).
If Corzine loses, it might be because of the swine flu since there have been few doses down here in South Jersey and people who have children are 'ticked off' at this point. Burlington County will be the key county as no Republican can win the state if they can not win this very middle-of-the-rode to slightly left-leaning county.
My odds would be 55-45% in favor or Corzine winning tomorrow although Nate's numbers are correct if the election was fair.
Rasmussen's numbers sound correct because if Obama truly had a 55-56% approval rating, Deeds would have a chance in Virginia, Owens would be neck-and-neck in NY-23 and Corzine would win in a walk.
god, i hope juvanya's right.
1) NJ voter fraud in legendary. As in a thing of legend, rather than current reality. People like to joke about it, but it's essentially impossible to pull off safely, so it hasn't actually been much of a problem in about half a century. Paying for votes, OTOH, has only been passe for about a quarter of a century. The actual theft of elections is from people who receive government contracts being expected to supply campaign contributions and/or 'volunteers' as a kickback.
2) Christie's closing line on his closing ad: "We can change New Jersey. We can start by changing governors." FAIL. Most Jerseyans want to change the politics is done in the state, but actually like the place overall and resent those who don't.
If vote fraud in my state is legendary, how come I've never heard of it?
There was only one time I've seen a shady registration. Some guy was registered at a business address. However, registration =/= vote.
@NJ moderate,
Or perhaps LOCAL races dont have shit for shingles to do with Obama.
Republicans would say a Republican defeating a Democratic mayor is because the people hate Obama
Careful analysis of pre-election polls indicates that Christie's win probability is better than indicated here. I put the odds at 5:1 in favor of Christie.
For my analysis, see the Princeton Election Consortium.
The pools are spastic. They can't be trusted thisy ear with THREE candidates.
I respectfully ask random people from out of state not offer meaningless odds calculations.
I don't know whether Corzine can pull off a win or not, but if these 15 questions are actually the basis of Americans' votes, this country is dooomed.
You referred to Christie as "well rounded"
LOL
Post a Comment