New Jersey and Virginia are similar states in many respects. Both are wealthy and suburban. Both live in the shadow of large cities -- New York, of course, in New Jersey's case, and Washington in Virginia's. Each has its "white ethnic" population -- the conservative-leaning Scots-Irish lineage that dots rural Virginia, and the working-class-Democrat Italian and Portuguese-American families that populate New Jersey (herein lies the difference between the two states electorally). Both have their share of minorities, who may or may not turn out in midterm elections.
But the outcome of the gubernatorial contests in the two states yesterday was very different -- even though both were won by Republicans.
In New Jersey, you had an extremely unpopular incumbent -- Jon Corzine -- who had never particularly clicked as a governor, and who's approval ratings crossed into the red in February, 2008. In Virginia, you had an open seat race to replace an outgoing, and in fact fairly popular Democratic governor.
In New Jersey, you had an electorate that gave Barack Obama a 57 percent approval rating -- the identical fraction to the 57 percent that elected Obama last November. In Virginia, Obama's approval rating was 47 percent, a significant drop from the 53 percent of the vote that he earned.
In New Jersey, it was Jon Corzine who tried to nationalize the race, making sure that everyone knew that Chris Christie was a Republican. And insofar as this went, it worked: voters who said their main issue was health care went for Corzine 78-19 (!), according to exit polls, and he won voters focused on the economy and jobs 58-36. Christie won because he focused on two local issues that are very important to New Jerseyans -- corruption and property taxes, and won overwhelmingly among voters who keyed in on these issues. In Virginia, meanwhile, it was Bob McDonnell who won the economy voters -- 57-42, and the candidates split the vote among those most concerned about health care.
In New Jersey, 27 percent of the electorate was nonwhite, exactly identical to the proportion from a year earlier. In Virginia, the percentage of nonwhite voters dropped from 30 percent to 22.
In Virginia, the Republicans swept the downballot races, and are projected to have made a net gain of five seats in the House of Delegates. In New Jersey, Democrats are only expected to lose one seat in the state's legislature.
Most obviously of all, in New Jersey you had a candidate losing by 4 points, while in Virginia you had one losing by 18. In New Jersey, you do have to pick and choose an explanation for Corzine's defeat -- and the evidence points overwhelmingly toward local factors. In Virginia, it would be irresponsible not to pick all-of-the-above: absolutely, Deeds was a poor candidate and McDonnell a good one; absolutely, Democrats had huge turnout problems; absolutely, Virginia has a tendency to be counter-cyclical in its gubernatorial elections. But absolutely also, national issues played a role, and damaged the Democrats.
Ironically, though, because the outcome in Virginia was not close and the one in New Jersey was, it's the latter race that has received more attention. And many of the explanations that actually do apply to Virginia -- where Creigh Deeds got clobbered -- have been superimposed onto the Garden State, with no basis in the evidence. I live in Brooklyn and watch sports every Sunday and saw every freakin' one of Chris Christie's commercials a dozen times over, the only redeeming facet of which was that there were moderately less putrid than Corzine's. Not once did Christie mention Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the Democrats' health care plan or the stimulus package -- and a good thing he didn't, since this wasn't what New Jerseyans were concerned about.
If you're a Chief-of-Staff for a conservative Democrat in Congress, you have two relevant data points to look at from Tuesday: Virginia, which is undoubtedly a little scary, and NY-23, which ought to be rather relieving. Certainly, there were a whole host of local factors and unusual contingencies on the ground in NY-23. But it also spoke to the limitations of conservative populism (CP) as an electoral instrument. (You can call the CP's 'teabaggers' if you want, but my term is both more neutral and more descriptive.) There's not really any evidence that the CP movement is yet anything more than an isolated and regional one. It will almost certainly have some implications in the South -- and if I were a Democratic Congressman there, I'd be very nervous. But only 18 of the 52 Blue Dogs in fact come from the South, and if I were a conservative Democrat in California, or South Dakota, or Michigan, I'd be feeling rather relieved.
11.04.2009
New Jersey ≠ Virginia
@ 12:28 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
97 comments
Good analysis, so when are you working on your first campaign?
Ok, evidence that NJ was a problem with Corzine instead of Obama (most of it is from this website, thanks Nate!):
1) Corzine had a 37% approval rating going into the election. Nobody has been able to find even a single instance of a sitting Governor winning reelection with an approval rating that low
2) Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption).
3) Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent (the same % Obama won NJ by)
4) 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine
5) the Democrats look like they'll lose just one seat in the state legislature in Trenton
6) Corzine went super-negative, including ads attacking his opponent's weight
7) Chris Cristie's ads mostly didn't even mention that he was a Republican, and most of his ads used the Democrat's blue background
8) the exit polls had 60 percent saying that Barack Obama played no role in their gubernatorial vote, 19 percent saying that their vote was one in support of the President, and 20 percent saying that their vote was in opposition to President Obama.
9) The Dems did ok in some other areas, such as going 2/2 in Congressional elections (although they had a bad night in VA)
10) Corzine's poll numbers didn’t change off of their trend when Obama stumped for him – not better, not worse. So it was about Corzine, not about Obama.
11) Gubernatorial races are extremely poor yardsticks for other elections, with almost zero correlation
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/gubernatorial-races-poor-yardstick.html
12) NJ has gone for a Governor in the party opposite of the President’s party for decades, including when Reagan and Clinton were very popular and including 2 months after 9/11 when Bush had 90% approval ratings.
I think the NY-23 opinion is not quite correct. If one were to combine conservative populism with the support of the state and national Republican Party in a given race, the result would differ from one in which the candidate were an unknown, unqualified and unfunded outsider. Palin etc. are aiming for the former, not the latter, to prevail nationally. They didn't need to win; NY-23 was a show of strength that succeeded when Dede S. pulled out of the race.
Unless Nate is claiming that official GOP support would make no difference to the movement's support, there's plenty of justification for Democratic Party moderates to be worried about populist GOP opponents, if not populist insurgents.
The lesson for the Democratic leadership last night is simple - acting like Republicans is not going to get you anywhere.
The Republicans are moving to the right, and the Democrats have stupidly chosen to follow them. Isn't one party marching off the cliff enough?
Having one party on the extreme right and one party on the center-right doesn't give voters enough of a choice. The Democratic leadership now has a decision to make - they can return to being the inclusive, center-left party they once were, or they can lose big in 2010 to the party that at least understands message discipline and how to motivate their base.
Conservative populism misses the astro-turf aspect of the 'movement.' That's not all of the movement but it is a part and mis-information is a part as well.
What the deep right had demonstrated to them was that if they stab the Republican regulars in the back, they cannot expect unthinking loyalty -- as they might call it -- in response. The saner Republicans also got a good look at the size of the deep right tent.
Edward Gaffney said...
there's plenty of justification for Democratic Party moderates to be worried about populist GOP opponents, if not populist insurgents.
=================================
What do GOP populist stand for?
Corzine/Christie is a replay of Whitman/Florio in '93. In a nutshell, it was a case of a fiscally responsible Democrat trying to actually govern according to the principles espoused by Republicans and being thoroughly punished by the Republicans for doing so. The result? At least four more years of feckless borrow-and-spend governance, followed by a Democratic governor who will attempt to restore fiscal discipline and be punished by it.
I hope Christie surprises me and turns out to be the skilled negotiator he promises to be. Too bad that nothing he revealed in the campaign or as prosecutor has shown him to be anything but a hyper-ambitious toadie who will do anything, and I mean anything, to please the folks he thinks will further his career.
Imagine Richard Nixon and Bobby Baccalieri rolled into one. You've just imagined Chris Christie.
"If one were to combine conservative populism with the support of the state and national Republican Party in a given race, the result would differ from one in which the candidate were an unknown, unqualified and unfunded outsider."
I suppose if you're a teabagger you have to believe that everybody is just waiting for a REAL conservative to show up! Except that even in Red districts like NY23 they clearly were not.
If Hoffman were the Republican candidate he would have either lost narrowly or possibly even lost bigger because Independents switched to Owens in rejection of Hoffman's right wing views.
In NO INSTANCE would it help to have a hard-right wing candidate instead of a moderate Republican.
This race is a microcosm of the decline of the Republican party into permanent minority status. Teabaggers just can't wrap their heads around the fact that outside the South their views are simply rejected by the majority.
And if Republicans want to win elections they have to reject their own right-wing: just as McDonnell did in running AWAY from the teabaggers and refusing all offers of support from Sarah Palin.
Somehow though, you never see this obvious story in the national media where everything is a "repudiation of President Obama" who appears to have been a nullity in either election.
For Mr Gaffney:
"Palin etc. are aiming for the former, not the latter, to prevail nationally. They didn't need to win; NY-23 was a show of strength that succeeded when Dede S. pulled out of the race."
That's like cutting your head off to save your leg.
Nate, your analysis is pretty good, but there are two obvious flaws in it:
1) Approval rating ≠ vote share. They can be roughly analogous at times, but a president needn't have an approval rating above 50% to win a majority, whereas a president with majority approval almost never loses a race. Therefore, you can actually say that Obama is in *better* shape in NJ than he was a year ago. In Virginia, he still has a 47% approval rating, which would give him somewhat better than 50% chance of winning there if the same voters like him just as much in 2012.
In short, the approval ratings don't really show a drop-off in Obama's strength.
2) Issue analysis is limited here, because voters tend to make a choice first and justify it later. Because Christie made his campaign about local issues, that's what people who voted for him report that they voted about; because Corzine made his campaign about national issues, that's what his voters said motivated their choice. Either way, what it boils down to is that Corzine was very unpopular, so relatively few voters wanted to support him.
And if Republicans want to win elections they have to reject their own right-wing: just as McDonnell did in running AWAY from the teabaggers and refusing all offers of support from Sarah Palin.
... and his own thesis. *shrug*
Mr. Gaffney: Your analysis is correct and, in fact, describes what the Conservative Party has done for many years in NY State, which is to drag a moderate Repub. down to defeat so as to force other Repubs. to move to the right in order to keep it from happening to them, too. The only difference in this race is that it got national attention as the teabaggers, Palin, et al, piled on.
It's a losing strategy, NOW. The country has moved to the left over the past five years, since it became obvious that a conservative running the country (Bush) was a bad deal for most Americans. Three Congresses ago, the NY delegation was 19-10; now it's 27-2.
But it wasn't a losing strategy in the 1980s and much of the 1990s, when the conservative Kool-Aid was not yet revealed as poisonous. The hope of the teabag movement is to hope that the nation will have a collective bout of amnesia and forget that it was Bush, not Obama, whose watch the disasters took place on. Since this is their only serious strategy, they really had little to lose in NY-23 either way.
CP ™ ?
Nate,
You seem to assume that Blue Dogs vote the way they do out of fear of CP voters rather than out of center-right ideological commitment.
The common portrait of "centrist" Dems as would-be progressives who happen to come from purple-to-red districts seems to me fundamentally wrong.
The supposed fear of swing voters back home is an excuse given to the Democratic base, not the actual engine of Blue Dog behavior.
... and his own thesis. *shrug*
Still haven't heard it explained how a 20+ year old thesis is indicative, in any way, of how effective any person would govern TODAY...
Then again, when people use the logic of someone like Dwight, who literally has shit for brains, I guess you don't need to explain...your snarky, "intellectual" liberalness should do. Right?
*shrug*
::rollseyes::
I agree that CP's need to find candidates who actually live in the district and know the local issues ; )
When Bush had 90% approval ratings in 2001 and Mark Warner won the Governorship, was it a referendum on Bush?
Here's an interview with Larry Sabato from back then. Interesting if you can draw any parallels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01/metro/metro_sabato110501.htm
"Both live in the shadow of large cities -- New York, of course, in New Jersey's case"
EXCUSE ME!!!! You know, there's another "large city" which shadows over New Jersey.
And our team isn't out of the Series yet.
That is all.
In New Jersey, Jon Corzine's percentage of the vote decreased compared to the last gubernatorial election far more than Christie's share of the vote increased compared to the share of the previous Republican nominee. And this wasn't only true for the state as a whole, but in every county For better or worse, New Jerseyans wanted Corzine out of office, and they really didn't care all that much who would replace him.
Check this statement out from 2001.
"In fact, that official, Steve Schmidt, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, the two losers, Mark L. Earley in Virginia and Bret D. Schundler in New Jersey, were at fault.
”We’re glad the president did not campaign for these guys,” Mr. Schmidt said in an interview. ”No one wants to see him spend political capital on people who have run preposterously bad campaigns.”
That NYT article is interesting analysis.
The VA election seemed to be a polar opposite of the 2001 election regarding the candidates if you look through the article.
An important factor in Virginia that I don't think has been adequately covered is that the demographics of the state are changing. The old, white, rural community didn't elect Obama... the younger, multiracial, urban newcomers elected him. And there are more and more newcomers moving into north Virginia all the time.
In the longer term, as a result, I think Virginia is going to trend increasingly Democrat.
hey lib defender, see this statement from the same NYT article:
But Mr. Bloomberg's upset victory in New York, where Democrats are registered five to one over Republicans, prevented the Democrats from making a potent case that there was any national tide for their party -- and took the edge off the expected but nonetheless stinging Republican defeats in New Jersey and Virginia.
And because President Bush did not campaign in any of the races, the Democrats cannot convincingly say that their victories were a referendum on his presidency, just as in New York Republicans cannot say the results had anything to do with the White House. In New Jersey, for example, exit polls found that foremost on the minds of voters were not the attacks on Sept. 11 but their state's ailing economy and high taxes.
HELLO?
Bush DID NOT CAMOPAIGN for the two GOP losers in VA and NJ in 2001. Obama, on the other hand:
politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29116_Page2.html
The president came to the state for get-out-the-vote rallies on the Sunday before the election, where he called Corzine his “partner” in an effort to fire up the Democratic base.
“We will not lose this election if all of you are as committed as you were last year,” Obama told a heavily black crowd in Newark.
Obama also appeared in an ad for Corzine aimed at Hispanic voters and recorded robocalls for the governor.
ACCORDING to the 2001 NYT article you cite, Obama should get some blame for the losses, especially in NJ, because he heavily involved himself in the campaign, as BUSH DID NOT IN 2001
PERHAPS obama should have been focusing on creating jobs or the Afghan policy instead of wasting all these precious presidential days on useless and fruitless campaigning....but hey, obama likes to campaign and not govern, right?
Geoff, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I think some of the similarities are striking. Here's another.
“JIM LEHRER: Two other big races: The governor’s race in Virginia and in New Jersey. Read a trend there. If there is one to read.
MARK SHIELDS: I would say that….
JIM LEHRER: Democrats won both of them.
MARK SHIELDS: The Democrats had not won either of them since 1989.
JIM LEHRER: Now we’re going to get a trend here. ”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/political_wrap/july-dec01/sb_11-9.html
@Geoff
Your "proofs" are absurd.
My take away from that article was that Obama shouldn't have expended political energy on poorly run campaigns and poor candidates. "According to that article" is a ludicrous leap of logic that defies reason.
And if a Bloomberg (Ind/Rep) win at the *mayoral* level defeated the "referendum on Bush" storyline in 2001, how do you think a Dem win at the Congressional level effects the "referendum on Obama" storyline this year?
Why must everything be twisted to fit the Republican talking points with you people?
chicagocliff:
"you people"????
Bigoted much?
And you call yourselves progressives...for shame.
my point is simple - obama campaigned for VA/NJ elections, bush did not. NYT said in 2001 that you cant blame bush fro the 2001 losses because BUSH DID NOT CAMPAIGN for them.
OBAMA DID.
So, ergo, Obama MUST receive some blame, even according to the NYT, unless a double standard applies?
It's strange, but it seems as if the wingnuts here (who have gone to such great pains to distinguish themselves as "conservatives" and NOT Republicans) are now pointing to the success of Republicans in these recent elections as some kind of validation of their 'conservative' credentials.
IOW, when mainline Republicans win, it "proves" that 'conservatives' are in ascendancy.
When mainline Republicans lose, it is because they are not part of the ascendant 'conservative' movement.
Didn't we just see a week of winguts here rejoice over the defeat of the Republican in NY-23, while identifying with the Conservative Party candidate? Yes, we did.
Now the Republican candidate winning in another race is suddenly "their" guy.
The wingnuts seem to want it both ways here.
Geoff, first off. I don't think "you people" is bigoted.
Second.
Do you consider the NYT scripture? heh
@Geoff,
You're right on one point: The economy was the subtext to this election. But I would take cold comfort from that if I were a right winger.
The economy damn near went over the proverbial cliff. The stimulus package should have been passed a year earlier, or at least six months earlier. But such a move would be anathema to supply siders, so it didn't happen.
Fortunately, the best person for the job won the Presidency, and pulled in enough new Congressional Dems with him to push through the stimulus. And slowly but surely, the country is pulling away from the edge of the cliff.
By this time next year, the economy will be humming, and this election will look like what it really is - an abberation due to the predictable panic of people staring into the abyss the Republicans damn near consigned them to.
But enjoy these small victories while you can. They won't last.
Didn't Deeds also say he was against the public option/if it was opt-out he would do so?
That couldn't have helped him any either.
@ Geoff
You must have missed this, so I'll repost:
Ok, evidence that NJ was a problem with Corzine instead of Obama (most of it is from this website, thanks Nate!):
1) Corzine had a 37% approval rating going into the election. Nobody has been able to find even a single instance of a sitting Governor winning reelection with an approval rating that low
2) Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption).
3) Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent (the same % Obama won NJ by)
4) 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine
5) the Democrats look like they'll lose just one seat in the state legislature in Trenton
6) Corzine went super-negative, including ads attacking his opponent's weight
7) Chris Cristie's ads mostly didn't even mention that he was a Republican, and most of his ads used the Democrat's blue background
8) the exit polls had 60 percent saying that Barack Obama played no role in their gubernatorial vote, 19 percent saying that their vote was one in support of the President, and 20 percent saying that their vote was in opposition to President Obama.
9) The Dems did ok in some other areas, such as going 2/2 in Congressional elections (although they had a bad night in VA)
10) Corzine's poll numbers didn’t change off of their trend when Obama stumped for him – not better, not worse. So it was about Corzine, not about Obama.
11) Gubernatorial races are extremely poor yardsticks for other elections, with almost zero correlation
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/gubernatorial-races-poor-yardstick.html
12) NJ has gone for a Governor in the party opposite of the President’s party for decades, including when Reagan and Clinton were very popular and including 2 months after 9/11 when Bush had 90% approval ratings.
todd -
that ny23 district was 55% for obama in 2008. now its 49% dem - 6 point loss. had the gop run only one candidate, had the gop nominee not ENDORSED the dem, the GOP would have won. 2010 = GOP seat.
its good that the tea party douches got their comeuppance now, so they'll cause less trouble now as opposed to if they had won - they'd be insufferable.
the problem for you lefties is that the tea party douches are the new foot soldiers for the gop, just like the unions (10k deployed in nj yesterday) are for the dems - if the gop harnasses them correctly, y'all are cooked in 2010.
In the end, all the stumping in the world from the President of the United States wasn't going to stop regime change in New Jersey's highest office.
Republican Chris Christie ended Democrat Jon Corzine's four-year run in Trenton with a narrow victory on Tuesday. Independent Chris Daggett, thought of by many as the wildcard who could upset the order of things by siphoning off votes from Christie, finished well back.
With nearly all precincts reporting, Christie led Corzine 49 percent to 44 percent. The party started just after 11 p.m. in Parsippany.
d-man - all of your factoids are factual mostly and good facts to use to spin - however, obama invested his people and time in NJ and FAILED, EPICALLY, to turn the tide for his dem buddy.
That's the facts, my friend. No amount of spin can change them.
So Obama campaigning and endorsement is ineffectual, but that's irrelevant? That's your argument?
The wingnuts seem to want it both ways here.
And how is this any different than the logic of the moonbats in here?
Going into the NY-23 race, they said that an Owens win would be an overall win for the party simply because it gives them another Dem vote (and from a locale that has gone red for over 100 years). But they were ALSO saying that a Hoffman win would be a win for the Dems because it would lead to further infighting within the GOP and create friction and/or a fracture between the conservative and moderate wings of the party.
So, to my point, both sides engage in plenty of naive, my-side-is-always-in-a-win-win positiion cheerleading.
Geoff,
I posted actual evidence.
You can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that that evidence does not exist, but it doesn't mean it goes away.
then again, you could actually address the facts.
You know I gotta agree with Mule here: this election is a wash, and with only the most limited national or future implications.
Geoff: actually Obama won NY-23 with 52%, so at best it's a 3 point dropoff, but the Owens-Hoffman dynamic had very little to do with Obama.
Also, how do we know Obama didn't help Corzine? A governor with 37% approval got 44% of the vote. That difference came from somewhere. Not saying that Obama is a golden ticket in any race, but should we really expect that a presidential endorsement will automatically carry an awful candidate to victory?
You can call the CP's 'teabaggers' if you want, but my term is both more neutral and more descriptive.
Yeah, but teabagging is a common sexual practice among gay guys, so applying a "teabagger" label to the typical conservative populist is too amusing an image to ignore.
NY23 was such an odd set of circumstances, it'd be hard to imagine factors similar playing out the same way again.
It was basically an intra-party primary running parallel to the general election, the the primary reaching a conclusion just days prior to election day. (Then the added weirdness of the 'primary' loser throwning her support to the other party.)
Added in is the carpetbagger factor: so many non-locals weighing in so heavily on the 'primary' side of things. Such attention and scrutiny must carry more weight when there are so few contests. Next year, with a full slate of congressional races and incumbents protecting their seats, it will be hard to focus on any one race.
I really think that the GOP/CPs were trying to leverage the special election success the democrats had over the last few years. The races got a lot of attention, as they were usually among the highest profiles races in a limited slate. And they were deemed successful by virtue of flipping 'safe' GOP seats. And the successs garnered a lot of attention, confidence and momentum going into a presidential election year.
I don't know that this race was the right race for the GOP to use that strategy. In fact, I'd say that it was exactly the opposite. But to mimic a phrase, you teabag the special elections you have, not the special elections you might want.
Quite entertaining to notice how your justifications for results you don't like seem to always line up with your ideological leanings.
Geez, Geoff, get over it.
In the exit polls, the voters themselves said that Obama had nothing to do with their vote, by a 60% margin.
Nice try, but you are looking increasingly silly.
My take.
Corzine only won at this time if Daggett took a healthy share of the anti-Corzine vote. Everything about this race was obvious from the get-go provided nothing particularly injurious to one or more of the candidates came to light and nothing did. If the polls are to be believed, support for Daggett peaked prematurely. End of story.
Democrats nominated the wrong guy in Virginia. The Democratic nominee would have lost regardless as not all history has quite run its course in Virginia, but there is no doubt in my mind that the center of gravity has shifted in Virginia and Democrats are going to have to win statewide races by winning big in Northern Virginia for the foreseeable future.
As I noted yesterday, Bloomberg hasn't been making any noise about running for President as an Independent in 2012 so his pathetic margin of victory is of no moment.
Nationalizing congressional races continues to cost the Republicans House seats. Someday certain factions (particularly the idiotic Club for Growth) will be shunned by candidates. When? No time soon as social conservative groups and media commentators are now in on the act and the act is good for fundraising and ratings.
The result in Maine means that it'll be a much longer haul for an inevitable social transition.
Off-topic:
Geoff's a polling troll. Enjoy.
Hey, Mule.
Also, keep in mind NJ has now elected a Governor not of the President's party SIX consecutive times and VA has done so NINE consecutive times.
This has happened with popular Presidents and unpopular Presidents alike. Bush was at the height of his popularity in 2001, while Clinton was near his nadir in 1993.
These have preceded good midterms for the Pres (98, 02), awful midterms (86, 94, 06), and average midterms (78, 82, 90). (The President's party still loses a fair number of seats in the average midterm)
Their predictive value is nil.
@flwyd
But teabagging isn't just a gay practice; straight guys can do it too.
More often than not, it's just a frat boy prank. So unless there are a lot of latent homosexual fraters out there...hmm well actually that kinda makes sense.
Whoops. Was going to comment again on the conspicuous absence of regular trolls post election but I see one just recently returned.
I still want to see PeteKent spin his way out of this political bag.
Jenny: GOP populists don't stand for much, that's why they are dangerous. They can be used by more experienced interests - e.g. Palin's being promoted by the Kristol tendency in 2007. Broadly speaking, it is an attempt to rehabilitate Bush Jr-era policies by blaming the consequences on Barack Obama.
Cugel: Hoffman's party was 4th on the ballot and he himself had little funding or support until GOP figures popped up to back him. I am sceptical about predictions that Republicans are heading towards a "permanent minority", particularly after their successes in the elections held, um, just yesterday.
yiannis: NY-23 is a much less costly way for the GOP right wing to assert its unhappiness with its moderate comrades than spoilering in any other election, so it kind of makes sense. Talk of its leading to "civil war" is an exaggeration - in whose interests would such a civil war be, as opposed to intermittent skirmishes?
Obama made a mistake wasting time on the Gov elections, but I don't see how "blame" makes sense.
"Blame" requires responsibility for the results, so unless you think NJ and VA would have gone blue for governor if Obama wasn't there, you can't really blame him.
A mistake is different from blame.
Obama made a mistake in wasting time, energy, and capital on lost causes.
Add in the lack of voters using the elections as a referendum on Obama, and the split of red Gov wins vs blue House wins, and really Obama isn't the thing to talk about.
---
As far as a narrative of the elections goes:
I don't see how the left or right can come away with any level of confidence about the results, or any serious conclusions either.
1) NJ goes red, but it was a local result clearly, and Obama approval rating is consistent with 2008, with Obama being the only name that gets above 50% (Tie - no lasting implications)
2) GOP ROUT IN VA! Virginia also saw a 6% drop for Obama, but the "referendum" on Obama line is somewhat limited by the voter turnout being redder in this off year election than 2008, so implications are limited and only for 2010, not 2012(+1 red team)
3) NY-23 goes blue, but was quite competitive for the "C" candidate, while CA-10 gets bluer (+1 blue team)
4) Maine voters continue to show gay marriage issues are still losers, even in blue states (+1 red team).
5) Alternatively, incremental steps on the issue in Washington squeaked to victory, showing a potential path to majority (+1 blue team).
End result is a wash.
GOP can crow about state elections as a builder for the base, while Obama's policy gets help at the national level.
shrinkers said...
Geez, Geoff, get over it.
In the exit polls, the voters themselves said that Obama had nothing to do with their vote, by a 60% margin.
Nice try, but you are looking increasingly silly.
November 4, 2009 2:15 PM
YES, 60% in NJ and 56% in VA said Obama wasnt key factor. BUT, in VA, 24/19 voted AGAINST OBAMA.
You do realize that, right?
Yes, only 44% and 39% considered the election to be a referendum on Obama in those two states so of course it was not a referendum at all.
now shut up and stop talkin shit or i swearz I will take u outside the quad and beat u up!11!! hez TEH ROXXOR and i love him so much it hurtz
uh oh dont look now lefties but Rasmussen is getting mainstreamed as authoritative by Yahoo...and why shouldnt they be, considering only RAS called Christie win! Lefty pollsters like NYT and Carville's Democracy corps = Epic fail!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20091104/pl_rasmussen/obamaanniversary20091104
Geoff:
You would expect more anti-Obama voters, based on who showed up.
A higher % of McCain backers showed up, and this covers the approval drop and gap in "referendum" votes.
So it doesn't show much, or really any, minds being changed in the state.
It shows the red team showing up and the blue team staying home.
So you might draw implications for 2010, but I doubt minorities are going to stay home in 2012 when Obama is on the ticket.
So you really can't draw implications against Obama, at best they are against Dems in 2010.
ornin - agreed re 2010 v. 2012.
obama has to fall much more to be at risk re 2012, but 2010 dems are screwed at teh moment.
Hey, loner. Good to see you.
your Hack Messiah Obama is talking abouta year ago's election instead of yesterday, right now, live.
What a douchebag.
Too much watching his own documentaries last night, not enough facing reality.
Ah but Geoff, 44% and 39% said Obama was a factor...not that they based their votes on his leadership. I can't imagine that many of those 24% who opposed Obama and voted for McDonnell would have supported a wimp like Deeds if they liked Obama.
So ultimately, yeah the Dems are losing some relative ground in Virginia, gaining some in the Northeast. It's not a good result but miles away from catastrophic.
Meanwhile NJ goes on local issues and Democratic Mayors win elections throughout the nation (including local wunderkind R.T. Rybak--maybe our next governor!).
Even former Republican Mike Bloomberg barely clawed and spent his way to victory against a minor opponent.
More and more the rational response is becoming: this election was a wash with little implication nationally
I see that Geoff continues to ignore the dozen pieces of evidence that NJ was about Corzine instead of Obama or the Democrats.
shocking
Both NJ and VA went Democratic in 2001 after years of Republican rule and while Dubya had 90% approval ratings.
Go figure.
@Geoff
Starting to sound like a broken record but I'll keep repeating this until it gets into your thick skull.
Republicks won two Guv seats last night to little surprise. Democrats got two new faces in the House of Reps. How again does that constitute a political spanking?
Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and the Hair Club for Growth all got egg on their faces.
I feel pretty good about last night.
@Geoff,
I agree that there is a groundswell of defiance that is bubbling up across the land to stand in defiance of Barack Obama. Hell, I was against him when being against him wasn't cool. But last night wasn't much of a statement against him.
@Mr. Universe,
Republicks won two Guv seats last night to little surprise. Democrats got two new faces in the House of Reps. How again does that constitute a political spanking?
The GOP winning those governorships may have been "little surprise," but they were held by Dems the previous cycle. And it's a little misleading to say that Dems got two new faces in the House, as CA-10 was already firmly in control of the Dems to start with. The biggest "win" for Dems was getting NY-23. But I still say it's a bit of a shock for a previous nobody to come from far-right field (Conservative Party as opposed to Republican) and get 45% of the vote. This seat switches back to the GOP in a year. Count on it. This "win" was offset by the Christie win in heavily blue New Jersey....you can make excuses all day about him being a weak, corrupt candidate...but what does that say for your party that the best you can do is nominate a weak and corrupt candidate. In the end, nobody got spanked. Last night was mostly a draw.
Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and the Hair Club for Growth all got egg on their faces.
I don't necessarily like any of these nuts, but c'mon, you can't be serious. You really think they're that embarrassed?! Doubtful. Admit it. Typing those words out was more to give you a mental masturbatory thrill rather than say anything grounded in reality.
Better luck next time.
@Mule
This seat switches back to the GOP in a year. Count on it.
Actually, the district is going to go away in a couple years because of the new census. It will be carved up and absorbed by the other Democratic districts around it. So, thanks to Sarah Palin and the other wingbats, this district - which the Republicans have held since 1850 - is now lost to them forever.
Last night was mostly a draw.
Actually agree on that (GASP!).
Admit it. Typing those words out was more to give you a mental masturbatory thrill rather than say anything grounded in reality.
I did get a little thrill out of typing those words because I don't think any of those folks came away with an uptick in credibility (not that they had any to begin with).
As a matter of fact, I want Sarah Paling to endorse ALL conservative/Republican candidates from now on. Talk about a political death kiss. WeeeeHoooo!
Although NY23 will be up in 2010, even if it disappears in 2012, so both Mule and shrinkers are correct to a point.
Though if Owens pulls out a win in 2010 (less than probable but not impossible), then maybe NY Dems will choose to squeeze out Chris Lee's seat out west.
And unfortunately, it is entirely possible that NY will have a Republican Governor and Senate majority in 2011/12, who will control the redistricting process.
But there's no reason to think the saga of NY-23 has to end any time soon.
And I'll admit that having an endorsement from Sarah Palin is about as much anathema as a MLB slugger has when he's linked to one of Jose Canseco's books.
@Jacob
Though if Owens pulls out a win in 2010 (less than probable but not impossible),
FWIW, Owens will have the incumbent advantage in 2010. And, hopefully, the Repubs will be dumb enough to run another rightwing nutbat against him, because they'll be convinced that's a winning strategy. Since the teabaggers thought Scozz was a librul, it's likely they'll push for the most hardcase winger they can find (maybe someone who's had the left half of his body surgically removed), not catching on to the fact that Owens already beat one of them.
So, Owens retaining the seat is not hard to imagine at all. It'll be an interesting contest, I think.
Shouldn't CP stand for Congressional Progressive, as in the Congressional Progressive Caucus? I appreciate the attempt to move away from the slightly-homophobic "teabagger" label but "CP" for tea partier may be the worst political neologism I've ever heard.
I called NY-23 wrong, so it's interesting to go back to see why. The basic structure of the race, the district, the candidates, all pointed toward an Owens win. Despite the large error bars, the polls all pointed toward a Hoffman win. Is there anything in particular that distinguishes these polls to make them more suspect?
The other well-known case in which polls were off by a lot was the NH D primary. What these two races have in common is very large changes in polling numbers in the last week before the election. It's not hard to invent rationales why dramatic polling swings at the last minute may not materialize in the actual vote, even if the polling methods are good.
We should keep an eye out for this as a possible new rule in interpreting polls, although it doesn't come up very often.
Anyway, despite all the clever reverse-logic arguments we;ve heard, I'm still very relieved that the loony didn't win.
Mule: "...but what does that say for your party that the best you can do is nominate a weak and corrupt candidate."
Ummm, well, he was the incumbant. They tend to get their party's nomination.
Was there any exit polling on the % of people self-identifying as Republican, Democrat, or independent in NJ/VA?
Mule, good analogy with Palin/Canseco. I figure neither wrote their books. I wonder if even Palin will read hers.
If she actually wrote it, it might be the most entertaining piece of political suicide ever.
I saw in a couple of blogs and commentaries today that in Virginia, the Republican base turned out and the Democratic base stayed home. As a Northern Virginian, I have to agree. Creigh Deeds did start out with a disadvantage from the start, barely eking out a victory in a 3-way primary race, with the result being that a minority of the base was enthused over him at the start. OK, that's just the reality of internal party politics. But Deeds was an uninspiring candidate with an amateurish campaign. OK, that also happens -- not every candidate is Barack Obama and not every campaign manager is David Plouffe. But Deeds was also a Blue Dog, which sold well on his home turf but not to the base anywhere else in his state. So you take an uninspiring candidate without much in the way of a plank (other than "I'm the pragmatic one, the other guy is a nut job"), who emphasizes his support for guns and his ambivalence towards gays, and try to sell that to Northern Virginian Democrats, and you're headed for trouble. In other words, I agree: Democratic candidates need to stop trying to get Republican votes, it just won't happen, unless your name is Barack Obama.
CP might not be the best acronym in the world either, since it is occasionally used as an acronym for child pornography:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/CP
Didn't Deeds also say he was against the public option/if it was opt-out he would do so?
He had some waffling statement about maybe he'd be for the opt-out. Small surprise few that voted for Obama showed up for him at the polls.
@Mule Rider
Still haven't heard it explained how a 20+ year old thesis is indicative, in any way, of how effective any person would govern TODAY...
As long as you strongly [, and credibily] renounce it as antithematic to your agenda, not much. Thus my point about running away from it. Didn't think too hard about that, did you? :)
Mr Gaffney said:
"NY-23 is a much less costly way for the GOP right wing to assert its unhappiness with its moderate comrades than spoilering in any other election, so it kind of makes sense. Talk of its leading to "civil war" is an exaggeration - in whose interests would such a civil war be, as opposed to intermittent skirmishes?"
If you believe that the ideological right will stop at NY-23 or similar medium-sized skirmishes then you haven't followed them long enough.
The anti-government agents of intolerance will not stop there.
This is precisely the divide and conquer strategy of Barack Obama and will doom republicans for a generation.
Only Gingrich -the only living republican who has actually won in congress- has recognized it and he doesn't have the clout to do anything about it.
It is a thing of beauty.
crackmonkey said...
CP might not be the best acronym in the world either, since it is occasionally used as an acronym for child pornography:
As the new branding for Tea Baggers? SOLD! Unless you can reverse engineer an appropriate long name for DP, CP works for me. O_o
Conservative populism eh? What is it about that term that brings to mind National Socialism?
I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.
There seems to be no notice of just how Christianist right-wing the new Virginian governor and attorney general are. I hope this will embolden the loony right to drive out such "moderates" as remain in the party and lose as they did in NY-23.
And Democrats should notice that running a very conservative candidate (Deeds) stimulated supporters of change to stay home. Deeds also ran a terrible campaign and Corzine was unpopular for trying to deal with the real world.
There are a number of similarities in the voter demographics of the NJ and VA races:
1) The voters are overwhelmingly white, over 40 years old, attended college, earn more than $50,000 and live in the suburbs or in rural areas.
2) The voters who self identified GOP went 90+% for the GOP candidate and the Indis went 2/3 for the GOP candidate campaigning as a conservative.
As I have posted before, these are the demographics of the Tea Party movement.
The idea that these races were not in large part a referendum on Obama and the Dem federal government is belied by the exit polling. 41% of VA voters and 38% of NJ voters cast ballots to either express support for or opposition to Obama. These nationalized voters split evenly in support and opposition in blue NJ, but went 24% oppose to 17% support in purple VA. That 7 point differential in opposition to Obama makes up much of McDonnell's winning margin. That differential is undoubtably far higher in the suburban and rural Blue Dog districts in VA, where McDonnell won by 3:2 to 2:1 margins.
The exit polling also belies Nate's fond wish that the looming horror show for VA Blue Dogs is not also waiting for the azure puppies outside the South. As noted above, blue coastal NJ shared almost all the same voter demographics as the purple border (not southern) state VA. What makes Nate think that Midwestern and Mountain West states filled with the same demography of voters will vote any differently from VA and NJ?
About Nate's term:
I think the term "activist right" is a better descriptor, because there surely is little "conservative" about their agenda.
The idea that these races were not in large part a referendum on Obama and the Dem federal government is belied by the exit polling. 1% of VA voters and 38% of NJ voters cast ballots to either express support for or opposition to Obama.
So, about 60% of voters in both states said that Obama had nothing to do with their decision - and yet this was a referendum on Obama. Not really, Bart.
And of those who said Obama was important to their decision - it was almost evenly split, with a 7% anti-Obama edge in one of the states. Not too impressive.
It means that, of the minority who were even thinking about Obama at the time, a few more who are opposed to Obama were even moved to vote. Not impressive at all.
It is a great mistake to extrapolate these figures to the general population, or even to the voters of the midterm election next year. It is absurd to view this as a reflection of the public's view of Obama.
"It means that, of the minority who were even thinking about Obama at the time, a few more who are opposed to Obama were even moved to vote. Not impressive at all."
But the way the media work, the meme that the elections provided a rejection of Obama's policies, and signify a total loss of faith in Obama by Americans, will get bandied around the talking head shows on cable TV and written about at length on editorial pages.
Truth no longer matters in American politics as long as myths can be created and perpetuated.
Bart DePalma said...
There are a number of similarities in the voter demographics of the NJ and VA races:
~~~~~~~~~~
???
the GOP gained a single seat, leaving Democrats with a 47-33 majority in the Assembly. ie the NJ governor's race was all about Corzine and little else, other than Christie being such a god awful candidate, he made it close.
and yet, Dems at the local level did quite well in NJ, totally unlike VA.
'nuf said!
Keep hope alive! as Christie is toast in (4) years and McDonnell is term limited ...
SHILOH
troll CHARLES is still on another thread here yapping about Gays...
I think he has it bad for someone cuz he just can't get it enough
24/7 he is posting GAY, GAY, GAY
maybe he is really Trent Lott's blogger ID... or Charlie Crist...or Larry Craig...or Lindsey Graham...
Just for the historical record the original ethnic substrate of New Jersey was also Scotch-Irish. The Presbyterian Church built Princeton University in New Jersey, a heavily rural and Scotch-Irish area, to prove that we weren't all a bunch of ignorant hicks.
As for this election I would like to suggest that the bad economy has made ALL incumbent governors an endangered species. It is the governor who takes the blame when states have to simultaneously cut services and raise taxes. Legislators can blame others but the governor sticks out like a sore thumb.
This explains the loss by the incumbent in NJ and the incumbent party in VA. It explains the sharp fall in Charlie Christ's popularity in FL and Sarah Palin's sudden resignation in AK.
It does not, as CNN and Steele would have you believe, represent the RESURGENCE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. It is an artifact of the recession.
As a Democract from Fairfax County Virginia, I am also a percinct Captain. Deeds ran a poor camaign, I did not follow the New Jersey race. Of course there are some simialirties between Virginia and New Jersey. New Jersey is more urban, Virgina has most of its urban areas near Washington DC. A Democract needs 60% of the vote in Fairfax County to win state wide, Deeds got 50%. This is a setback for Democrats as well as 1994. After that Clinton got relected. If the Republician believe they can beat Presdient Obama in 2012, it wont be easy. The Republicians will need a well spoken candiadate who does can be a Conserative but not pushing a social agenda. I beleive that is why The Republicains won in Virginia.
If the Dems enjoyed yesterday's Tea Party in VA and NJ, they are going to love the party complete with tar, feathers and rails we are planning to throw out here in the Rocky Mountain Free Zone next year.
Yea, Bart, the Dems out here in Colorado are shaking with fear over what might happen next year. Lets see, the Democrats control the state Senate and the state House. The Governor is a Democrat. There are two Dem US senators and 5 of 7 US representatives are Democrats. I'll give you some advise. You and your band of crazies should not waste your time here.
Deeds lost to McDonnell head-to-head in 2005, in a race where the top of ticket went to Democrat Kaine. Why the Va Dem party thought he'd do better this time is a heck of question. McDonnell had, as they say, "taken his measure and found him wanting."
All in all they should have nominated Terry McAuliffe...
Kris said...
Deeds lost to McDonnell head-to-head in 2005
~~~~~~~~~~
But that 2005 race for Attorney General Deeds lost by only (323) votes and McDonnell outspent him by 3 million. So Deeds should have done well all things being even, but as mentioned, he ran a god awful campaign and 2005 Bush was president and 2009 Obama is president and VA seems to like checks and balances when electing governors which is odd, 'cause governors have no vote in Washington lol.
So maybe they just want to send a message to the president's party, don't get too comfortable w/your majority, as a recent hypothetical poll also showed Tim Kaine losing to McDonnell by 8 pts.
Bart DePalma said...
If the Dems enjoyed yesterday's Tea Party in VA and NJ, they are going to love the party complete with tar, feathers and rails
~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, be sure and have someone take a picture of you after you've been tarred and feathered! ;) It should be a classic for all to enjoy! :)
take care
The Tea Party folks may be populist, but they ain't conservative. A true conservative would not support the federal intrusion that is the Defense of Marriage Act. A true conservative would not support the federal government's prosecuting of medical marijuana users.
Conservatives are supposed to be for less government intrusion.
The Tea Party folks are all for using the federal government to mess with those they don't care for.
That's not conservative.
[15:36] sigaev11: Hello,
I am taking part in the competition and I need to invite as many people as i can
Please go to this link and register
It wont take you more than 5 minutes
http://vk.com/reg5608395
Give full information
This is not a virus and your computer will not suffer
If you have any problems contact me sigaevpetr@gmail.com
Thank you
If I win, they will get me a phone, so could you please sign up and if it is not difficult ask some friends to do the same
This is a website about polls so why don't we let the polls and pollster performance inform our debate on who is ascendant. The pollster by far most successful this election was Rasmussen though he underestimated the Republican by 4% in VA and 1% in PA. Clearly his likely voter model and polling methods work- just as they did almost perfectly in 08.
So let's look at what his polls say about things. Over the last week Obama's approval ratings nation wide have averaged 47% approval,52%disapproval. Republicans are now trusted on all ten major issue categories, some reflecting hefty margins. The generic Congressional poll shows a 4% advantage for the GOP. Only 33% believe the stimulus helped and almost no one expects a tax cut. And people are on to his ideology with 74% seeing him as liberal. Only 42% favor the Obama/Pelosi health plan. I could go on but you get the picture. And remember these are "likely voter" polls using methods that put Gallup to shame.
Let me observe what I generally read in the comments on this web site- most of you are afflicted with the typical left wing condescension but don't understand most of the people in this country. The 09 point is not that McDonnell won, it is that he won in a massive landslide of historical proportions in a state whose demographics have become more favorable to liberals and he won focusing on smaller government and lower taxes. Liberal efforts to use social issues as a wedge failed miserably.
Bottom line: 2010 will be a bloodbath unless things start trending the other way.
Good analysis Ur-
The Dems made gains in 06/08 by running a bunch of moderates against fiscally wayward Repubs. Predictably, the ultra lib Dems took this as some warped message that the country wanted FDR socialism again and now they are staring at a major beatdown in 2010. Rasmussen had Repubs -7 in that generic last fall....thats a big shift!
The problem with that, Brian and Ur, is that the Dems haven't really moved to the left so much as the Republican accusations of "socialism, etc" have stuck with what must be a very gullible general public. If the Dems pursued the same agenda as Dick Cheney or Glenn Beck, Republicans would still call it socialism.
I don't know what the answer is to defeating this insanity, but it is NOT moving even farther to the right.
Nice take.
Two very different states. NJ is a traditionally Democratic voting state. This was a mild surprise, but Virginia's situation certainly was not.
In point of fact, though, VA and NJ had nothing to do with Obama, and only an idiot would think otherwise.
Imagine it. Your state is having an election for Governor. Would you be thinking, "How will this affect Obama's agenda?" or will you be thinking, "What is that candidate going to do for my schools, for clearing the snow in the winter, for our state parks?" Would you be thinking, "Afghanistan!" or "Geez that guy looks corrupt, whereas the other one looks okay."
VA and NJ had nothing whatever to do with Obama.
I live in NJ, I am a Democrat and I voted for Daggett. I don't think Nate takes into account the Daggett factor. At about 2 weeks before the election Daggett was polling about 15 percent of the vote. I think many people hated both Corzine and Christie so they thought of voting for Daggett. As the election got closer many of these voters could see Daggett losing his momentum, plus he didn't have enough money to get ads on TV, and they either didn't vote because they hated both guys or they picked Christie because they hated Corzine more. In fact, right before the election Corzine pulled ahead in some of the polls. When Daggett supporters saw Daggett had no shot and Corzine might win, they bit the bullet and voted for Christie. A stronger showing by Daggett in the last two weeks could have cost Christie the election.
And in NJ this was more about local issues than Dem v Rep. Christie ran from the Republican party in every ad, and Corzine kept trying to link Christie to Bush and the Republican party but it wasn't enough to make people forget that Corzine was a bad governor.
urtrainer wrote:
"Clearly his likely voter model and polling methods work- just as they did almost perfectly in 08."
Using a likely voter model worked in these two elections because it was used very close to the election.
Using a likely voter model, as Rasmussen is now and has been since January, a year away from an election is ridiculous, though. Even stupider is using a likely voter model to extrapolate results for a national election three years away, as you seem willing to do.
Why is it ridiculous? Because too many things can change in a year. The candidate one voter is wild about may be primaried out the running, and that voter may not turn out. Another candidate may be caught in a scandal three months before the election and lose support. So using that voter's preference now is meaningless.
Using registered voters at this point in the cycle is appropriate, however. CNN's very current poll on the generic ballot uses registered voters, and does not show what Rasmussen is positing.
Yes,
New York is good news but Virginia is a swing state so not so bad news. As, I have said before, BO, has to get policy right. If the economy comes right he will be O.K.. Healthcare is a huge issue and I am not sure if this should have been a Second term issue not a First term issue?The economy is coming right and so then is America! No need to worry the Democrat aka socialist(I use the G.O.P. terminology) will win?
Virginia is wealthy and suburban? That describes Northern Virginia only, that is, suburban Washington, DC.
Outside NoVa, there is a mix of medium-size cities (like Norfolk. Richmond and Roanoke), small cities (like Lynchburg and Charlottesville), towns and rural areas. Income levels and cost of living differ.
Post a Comment