NJ- Rasmussen: Obama Slightly Favored

[krazen1211]

Nah. NJ has been a 54-44 state for a decade now. I expect it to be moving a point or two right compared to this though; 53-46 looks about right.

[krazen1211]

I think NJ is pretty polarized, so I assume we'll see something along the same lines we've seen in the past 2 elections. I think 2000 was an exception to the rule.

It is. The difference is Ocean County and the R areas are growing while Essex County is shrinking.

Christie will be the first Republican to cross 50% statewide in a long time.

[krazen1211]

2000: 15.33 points more Democratic than nation

2004: 9.14 points more Democratic than nation

2008: 8.26 points more Democratic than nation


So since 2000 there has been a bit more movement right compared to the nation.

Yep. Bush didn't gain much in the turnpike corridor, but he really solidified the Republican northwest, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties. Those areas stayed Republican in 2008 for the most part as McCain only lost 2-3 points there.

A 'moderate' Republican can probably perform a couple points better than W in the turnpike corridor. These are the areas that swung extremely hard against Corzine in 2009.

[krazen1211]

Pennsylvania is hardly fool's gold - it wouldn't take much to turn it over. Michigan might be more appropriate.

And Texas is hardly comparable to New Jersey.

If I understand the term correctly you want a state that is fairly close but yet so polarized that it is hard to get over to your side. Washington, Oregon and New Jersey all seem to be in this category for the GOP. For Democrats it should be close-ish Southern states and that used to be NC and VA until Obama won them. Now it might be a state like GA. Arizona used to be in this category as well, IIRC.

The difference is New Jersey has no massive liberal city to attract loads of yuppie types and outvote the rest of the state. Instead they rely on a coalition of several groups that strongly holds together, until 2009 anyway. Hispanics vote massively Democrat here.

Electorally, I guess that was true though. The Republicans had no chance at any statewide race, similar to Washington, for about a decade. But the growing parts are Monmouth and Ocean counties, which are fast becoming Republican fortresses after Gore won the former and barely lost the latter. Gloucester too has been moving R.

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

[krazen1211]

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

'94, actually, which is the longest streak of total Republican control, because Utah had a Democratic Attorney General (Jan Graham) until 2000.

I guess that's true if you count Bob Bullock, yeah, although I'm not sure Democrats want that guy.

[krazen1211]

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/trails/

Obama: 45
Romney: 39
Undecided: 16

6-7 point loss. To be expected.

[krazen1211]

Yeah, I remember him resounding quite well in my area last time around.  If he can actually get people interested in areas like mine in Jersey, he might do pretty well.  If I'm remembering correctly, there was also a fundraising map online last election that showed Romney routinely doing extremely well in places like NoVa and North Jersey.  I'd expect a bump towards him in the election relative to the rest of the country.  I'd seriously doubt he'd be able to compete when it comes towards the end though.  Same goes for the Atlanta and Denver areas, where he seemed to overperform last election.  It looked as though his best areas in the primary were Democratic trending areas of states, which could be a good thing for the GOP if he can stunt some of those trends.  But again, I don't see them actually being able to capitalize should all things get to the point of being that favorable to them (Romney being nominated and continuing his popularity in wealthy suburbs).  If the GOP were able to restake a claim in the suburbs, it could change their course a bit.

That's going a bit far. We already have a claim in the 'suburbs' as defined by places like Morris, Somerset (yeah, Obama won this barely, but thats not happening again), and Monmouth County.

Romney will do no better in Hudson than Bush did. Same with Newark; wealthier white areas in West Essex might be a different story.

The GOP  will have to win or come close in Middlesex County and dominate among whites to win the state.

[krazen1211]

Morris is really the only place the Republicans have a strong handle on and that's not much in the full picture of North Jersey.  I also completely disagree about Somerset, I can't see it in the Republican column nationally barring a Romney win.  It has gone from 16.5% more Republican than the nation in 1992 to now only 1% more Republican, with consistent movement in every election between.  Everywhere in the county has been lazily moving towards the Democrats for decades now.  In order for Republicans to actually stake a claim to the North Jersey suburbs, we'd have to see a massive shift back in the inner suburbs.  They've got a weak handle on the outer ones, but no presence in the inner ones.  In 2009, almost all of North Jersey trended Democratic compared to the state as a whole, particularly Bergen.  The shore and South are what carried Christie.  That's not a good sign for Republicans in suburban North Jersey.  Bergen and Somerset are perfect examples of an increasingly uninterested suburban New Jersey towards Republicans.  If Romney can snap those areas back that he has performed well in while capitalizing on the moves Middlesex/Monmouth are making towards Republicans, then he'll look good.  Other than that, there isn't much Republicans can do to get Jersey.

A lot of that switch in places like Somerset you are talking about occurred from 1990 to 2000, not 2000-2010. This decade, most of the suburban counties have stayed where they are, or headed right, relative to the nation. The state as a whole has a decreasing PVI since Gore got 56% here.

Monmouth (part of which is clearly in the NY metro, which is how I define North Jersey) went from 50% Gore to 45% Kerry to 47% Obama to 31% Corzine in 2009. A clear shift towards Republicans.

Middlesex went from 60% Gore to 56% Kerry to 60% Obama to 45% Corzine. Not particularly trending either way. It's astonishing that Christie won here.

Morris went from 43% Gore to 42% Kerry to 45% Obama to 31% Corzine.

Bergen went from 55% Gore to 52% Kerry to 54% Obama to 49% Corzine. Not too many swing voters here, which makes sense given the geography of the county. The GOP strongly controls the northern section.

Union went from 60% Gore to 59% Kerry to 64% Obama to 51% Corzine. Obvious problem here.

Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon have also moved right. Makes sense as these areas are dominated by whites and of course Christie was putting up 65-25 victories here. So I don't think your last statement is really quite accurate; Christie was carried by Monmouth, Ocean, and the cluster of Northwest counties, all of which we have a full grip on. These areas are Republican across the board as we hold all the legislative seats there.

[krazen1211]

I think you can forget the turnpike belt going republican. Certainly not Middlesex county. And you can forget about the wealthy suburbs. A Mormon (more specifically a religious extremist...and Mormons are perceived as such, rightly or wrongly) won't play well in areas where the Starbucks:walmart ratio is so high...

Hmm? I'm confused.....wealthy suburban white areas ARE the Republican areas.....they're where our congressional districts are, and where we've made the biggest gains since 2000.

Part of the problem is that we don't do well enough in some of the Union/Essex county wealthy areas. And Middlesex County? It just went Republican in 2009.

It's great to see places like Newark/Jersey City shrinking and places like Lakewood growing. Throwing JC into 1 legislative district is going to be fun because it creates problems with Bayonne.

[krazen1211]

Ah, I see where you are coming from now, although I quibble about your terminology. I have several family and friends who live in places like Marlboro and commute to NYC daily; I would not consider them part of the 'shore'. Incidentally in Monmouth the Shore towns are the only Democratic ones, and Ocean pretty much has no Democrats at all.

I agree with your conclusion, though. The big problem is that the inner suburban towns (Millburn, Verona, Westfield) don't vote GOP strongly enough, or at all. I would add, though, that there are plenty of outer suburban wealthy towns that do (NJ-11 is one of the wealthiest districts in the nation), so it looks to be more geography than wealth.

Somerset, though, is not an inner suburb at all. It better fits the profile of the counties surrounding it (Hunterdon and Middlesex), and to the extent that it has moved Dem a bit, I expect some course correction. We saw that in 2009 there.

Bush went from 40 to 46% between 2000 and 2004 here; it was one of his biggest gains overall. I don't know if the GOP is truly capped out on the Shore, as you put it (Corzine did absolutely awful here in 2009), but more importantly, the Shore is bigger and the 4 urban counties smaller than they were in 2004. I would not be surprised to see Romney beat that 46% handily if he is the nominee.

[krazen1211]

I'm excited to see what happens in New Jersey next election, I'm betting it will clear up a lot about the direction of the politics in the state.

Yep, so am I, especially with the NJEA divorce from many of the Democrats.

2005 and 2009 show very interesting results. County by county, Corzine's biggest dropoffs were in the Hunterdon > Monmouth belt. Places like Edison and Woodbridge were 60% Dem in 2005, and 45% Dem in 2009, relative to a 10% drop statewide, and places like New Brunswick barely moved at all. Ocean and Monmouth seem to have moved mostly universally township by township 12-13%.

[krazen1211]

Comparison of presidential election results to gubernatorial elections = apples to oranges. Doubly so with someone as individually unpopular as Corzine. Wait for 2012 pres results and we'll talk.

The 'unpopular' meme is overstated when it comes to NJ. Unpopularity has never prevented the Demcorats from winning 54-44 or so even after crap like the Torricelli switch.

If you want Presidential results, read the presidential results. Obama clearly underperformed Gore in the counties mentioned. NJ went from 8% more Democratic than the nation in 2000 (Gore 56%) to 6% more Democratic than the nation in 2004 (Kerry 53%) to 4% more Democratic than the nation (Obama 57%).

[krazen1211]

Democrats reliably win statewide elections in West Virginia yet have recently voted for the Republican nominee for President by big margins in the last three Presidential elections. I figure that it could go easily for a Southern moderate Democrat (Carter -- twice!, Clinton) but not for a d@mnyankee Democrat since HHH in 1968. Culture matters greatly in deciding what candidate can win what state -- and Barack Obama is a horrible match for West Virginia. The only way in which President Obama wins West Virginia in 2012 is if the Republicans nominate a weak or extremist candidate.

Quality of a candidate matters greatly, too.  A very effective Governor or Senator might successfully navigate against a landslide against his Party. Some can govern or legislate effectively while in the minority; some can't.

It's a good thing, then, that Christie is both a very effective governor and relatively popular by NJ standards.

[krazen1211]

NJ went from 8% more Democratic than the nation in 2000 (Gore 56%) to 6% more Democratic than the nation in 2004 (Kerry 53%) to 4% more Democratic than the nation (Obama 57%).

Backing up, NJ increased to 8% more Democratic than the nation in 2000 (Gore 56%) from 4.5% more Democratic in 1996 (Clinton 54%), and there from marginally more Republican than the country as a whole in 1992 (Clinton 42.95%, with Bush well overperforming.)

1992: 0
1996: D+4.5
2000: D+8
2004: D+6
2008: D+4

What I see here is that 2000 is the odd man out here, a high water mark for Dems that is uncharacteristic of NJ.

2000 was uncharacteristic, but not for the silly reasons that are cited in the posts here. They are just random musings postulated as fact to try to ignore the obvious.

The outcomes are much better explained by real fundamentals, such as of course, the fact that NJ's economy peaked in the year 2000, and not random tangents that distract from real fundamentals.

[krazen1211]

Gore overperformed in NJ because of a convergence of factors (Jewish VP candidate, gun control debate, cultural distaste for everything Texas, etc.). Everyone agrees on that. Just drop it.

Gore was thrashing Bush in NJ polling months before Lieberman was selected as the Vice President. What prophetic voters, who of course forgot that Poppy was also from Texas.....

[krazen1211]

Corzine was personally more unpopular than Lautenberg ever was. Part of the reason he was selected to replace the also personally unpopular Torch. Besides, comparison of grubenatorial results to federal election results are often a shakey comparison for any state under any circumstances.

Your point about statewide PVI is noted, but building off what Brittain said don't you think that Obama's 57%/+ 4.3 (D) PVI showing--exceeded in the last century only by LBJ and FDR in 36--is more representative of the statewide ceiling for a Democratic presidential candidate than of a GOP shift?

Both NJ Senators have tended to have average or so approval ratings in most polling for the last decade; somewhere between 35-40% approval and a slightly smaller amount disapproving. Of course they will outperform this and get ~54% on election day; Lautenberg got 56% in 2008; these aren't stud candidates like Schumer who can win just about every county in the state and the electorate isn't like that anyway.

I think you are correct though in saying that such is the ceiling for the statewide vote, at least at the time. It just happens to be quite a bit lower than the neighboring states.