new jersey, 2000

[WalterMitty]

why did al gore perform so well in the nj.  it is really odd when you consider that bush actively campaigned in the state.

what happened?

[True Democrat]

That's like asking why Bush campaigned in California.

[memphis]

why did al gore perform so well in the nj.  it is really odd when you consider that bush actively campaigned in the state.

what happened?

New Jersey's population is mostly suburban Philly and suburban New York City. Anybody want to explain why northern suburbs are turning Dem. Suburbs in Bush states certainly are not.

[Alcon]

why did al gore perform so well in the nj.  it is really odd when you consider that bush actively campaigned in the state.

what happened?

New Jersey's population is mostly suburban Philly and suburban New York City. Anybody want to explain why northern suburbs are turning Dem. Suburbs in Bush states certainly are not.

New Jersey trended Republican almost exclusively this year.  Northeastern suburbs overall went toward the GOP.  So did southern suburbs.  Western suburbs trended to the Dems.

[memphis]

why did al gore perform so well in the nj.  it is really odd when you consider that bush actively campaigned in the state.

what happened?

New Jersey's population is mostly suburban Philly and suburban New York City. Anybody want to explain why northern suburbs are turning Dem. Suburbs in Bush states certainly are not.

New Jersey trended Republican almost exclusively this year.  Northeastern suburbs overall went toward the GOP.  So did southern suburbs.  Western suburbs trended to the Dems.

Longer term, Northeastern suburbs are going Dem. Even lackluster Reps like Gerald Ford did very well in NE suburbs. The same thing that is happening in New Jersey is happening in places like Montgomery and Bucks Counties, PA; Long Island and Westchester in New York. What's going on here?

[bullmoose88]

Note though, many of th NE suburbs have started to trend back to the GOP (if dave's maps are right)...but the reason the dems are doing so well right now in my area is that the GOP is soooo conservative on social issues...Economically the suburbs would vote republican...but social issues seem to matter more.

[WalterMitty]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

[TeePee4Prez]

Note though, many of th NE suburbs have started to trend back to the GOP (if dave's maps are right)...but the reason the dems are doing so well right now in my area is that the GOP is soooo conservative on social issues...Economically the suburbs would vote republican...but social issues seem to matter more.

I'm going to have to kind of agree with this.  Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware Counties are flying left.  Not the case in Bucks.  I wonder why that is?  Is it because of 9/11 or the socially conservative voters of Lower Bucks?  Is there any other reason I'm not touching on I should be.  I have decent knowledge of Bucks politics, but I'm sure you have more.  Fitzpatrick's numbers in Lower Bucks and the sliver of NE Philly scare me to death.  I know Schrader was weak, but do the numbers reflect social conservatism or Schrader's weakness as a candidate.  Allyson Schwartz won easily in neighborhoods very similar to that in PA 8.

[Smash255]

Bush got an uptick last year due to 9/11 still resonating a bit with voters.  However, that started to drop off this year & really went away after the Katrina debacle.  The northern suburban change in part can be explained by social issues.  Long Island, Westchester, suburban Jersey & suburban Philly can largely be described as being staunchly pro-choice, pro gun control, while in part may not totally embrace gay marriage, but open to it & against the FMA.  It has changed a bit on the economic front and has become pretty moderate on economic issues (Clinton  was HUGE in the suburbs here)and while their are alot of wealthy foflks in the suburbs  the vast majority is middle class, and the Dems message that tax cuts should mostly be positioned at the middle class  has resonated with the voters here.  Education is also an issue which favors the Dem surge in he subrubs.  While peole here will complain about school taxes, they are proud of the fact (and want their children in) some of the best schools in the country (Long Island, Westchester & portions of NJ are known for having a bunch of very good schools) & when push comes to shove are willing to pay more for the schooling their kids get & will tend to vote for those who will push for the funding.

In other words I would say that the northeast suburban shift has been two fold.  A shift from being moderate to liberal on social issues, and a shift from being conservative to moderate on economic issues.  While the shift might be mostly impacted by social issues, social issues along did not impact how big the shift has been, the economic issues have also impacted the shift (especially in regards to how big the shift has been) as the overall economic view has shifted from the GOP to more middle of the road

[TeePee4Prez]

Bush got an uptick last year due to 9/11 still resonating a bit with voters.  However, that started to drop off this year & really went away after the Katrina debacle.  The northern suburban change in part can be explained by social issues.  Long Island, Westchester, suburban Jersey & suburban Philly can largely be described as being staunchly pro-choice, pro gun control, while in part may not totally embrace gay marriage, but open to it & against the FMA.  It has changed a bit on the economic front and has become pretty moderate on economic issues (Clinton  was HUGE in the suburbs here)and while their are alot of wealthy foflks in the suburbs  the vast majority is middle class, and the Dems message that tax cuts should mostly be positioned at the middle class  has resonated with the voters here.  Education is also an issue which favors the Dem surge in he subrubs.  While peole here will complain about school taxes, they are proud of the fact (and want their children in) some of the best schools in the country (Long Island, Westchester & portions of NJ are known for having a bunch of very good schools) & when push comes to shove are willing to pay more for the schooling their kids get & will tend to vote for those who will push for the funding.

In other words I would say that the northeast suburban shift has been two fold.  A shift from being moderate to liberal on social issues, and a shift from being conservative to moderate on economic issues.  While the shift might be mostly impacted by social issues, social issues along did not impact how big the shift has been, the economic issues have also impacted the shift (especially in regards to how big the shift has been) as the overall economic view has shifted from the GOP to more middle of the road

That makes a lot of sense.  Funny up until 2002 I was an Independent and said to myself either party had a shot at getting me.  I never fully realized my ideology until now.  Granted, I have a lot of 3rd Way/Moderate leanings on a few issues and it seemes the Democrats were more receptive to my way of thinking even on issues such as Affirmative Action and welfare reform.  I think most suburban voters are in the right(economically)-liberal/left-libertarian on the political compass.  Since the Democrats are accommodating to the center on economics, suburban voters are switching.

[minionofmidas]

Gun control was a major issue in 2000 that led to Bush massively underperforming in security-obsessed inner suburbia.

[bullmoose88]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

Doesn't matter...the GOP is still seen, and rightly so [I personally think], as the party you want in power for a good economy...although Clinton did do well in that regard...but he's being seen more and more as an abberation...the rest of the dems aren't what you want for the economy.

Furthermore, especially in the inner suburbs like mine, and also in the suburbs where you see the new people come from cities (like mine)...the GOP's economic stances would normally play well because the dems are too closely linked to the cities, and city finances...the GOP would win on the urban/suburban divide...in fact it still does...on the local level...taking social issues out of the equation would give the GOP back the suburbs.

As for Bucks County, and PA 8, Fitz did well down here in Lower Bucks for two reasons...1) he is from this area...my township to be exact, 2) Your candidate SUCKED flyers...you don't want to admit it, but look at it from this perspective...the dems nominated her when Greenwood was assumed to be her opponent. She was the token opposition that was sacrified (or supposed to be) to Greenwood. She wasn't going to beat Greenwood, she probably couldn't have beaten anyone save Satan himself. And Fitz was a good candidate, interms of record and experience...County Commissioner for a few terms in Bucks when life is/was good in the county. Hard to beat that. You guys are going to need an all star candidate in this district to unseat someone who now has even more name ID, and a pretty damn efficient party machine. This Murphy guy isn't going to cut it. Sorry man.

As for lower bucks...Generally democratic...my part of my township is more democratic than the whole overall, but its mainly due to the large number of well to do construction (former Philly resident) guys...who are democrats from birth...They're socially conservative and economically centrist [well to do blue collar guys]...(the rest of my township is more libertarian and thus more Republican). While Lower Bucks isn't hardcore economically conservative, its not an area where there are a ton of economic liberals either.

As for Democrats on the economy, Clinton did very well [helped by an unusual 1990s], and helped your party's reputation on the issue. He helped so much that now Bush's economic policies have raised doubt about a strong Republican issue. The problem is for you guys, as I see it, the economy is growing again, and Bush's tax cuts haven't done all the damage they were predicted to do (they may still do so)...so can you guys honestly run, now, as the party who will repeal Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? I don't think you can...and if they are allowed to sunset, the public blame for any problems associated with that, will be on the Ds heads.

I also see only a few dems who can maintain the Dems image of sound economic policy, many in your party have either tried to look so liberal as to win the nomination to be credible, or simply will send the economy into the toilet. (again my own personal opinion, and hence why I'm still a Republican)...combine that with someone who has a sound fiscal record--ie mccain, even romney (despite his kookyness on social issues, his fiscal management has been respectable) will quickly make people forget about the less finer points of Bush's economic record. In short, the social issues are all thats really keeping the dems on equal footing here in a yankee suburb...people simply trust the GOP more on these issues (even though they should really thank Greenspan and Volker).

[WalterMitty]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

Doesn't matter...the GOP is still seen, and rightly so [I personally think], as the party you want in power for a good economy...although Clinton did do well in that regard...but he's being seen more and more as an abberation...the rest of the dems aren't what you want for the economy.

Furthermore, especially in the inner suburbs like mine, and also in the suburbs where you see the new people come from cities (like mine)...the GOP's economic stances would normally play well because the dems are too closely linked to the cities, and city finances...the GOP would win on the urban/suburban divide...in fact it still does...on the local level...taking social issues out of the equation would give the GOP back the suburbs.

As for Bucks County, and PA 8, Fitz did well down here in Lower Bucks for two reasons...1) he is from this area...my township to be exact, 2) Your candidate SUCKED flyers...you don't want to admit it, but look at it from this perspective...the dems nominated her when Greenwood was assumed to be her opponent. She was the token opposition that was sacrified (or supposed to be) to Greenwood. She wasn't going to beat Greenwood, she probably couldn't have beaten anyone save Satan himself. And Fitz was a good candidate, interms of record and experience...County Commissioner for a few terms in Bucks when life is/was good in the county. Hard to beat that. You guys are going to need an all star candidate in this district to unseat someone who now has even more name ID, and a pretty damn efficient party machine. This Murphy guy isn't going to cut it. Sorry man.

As for lower bucks...Generally democratic...my part of my township is more democratic than the whole overall, but its mainly due to the large number of well to do construction (former Philly resident) guys...who are democrats from birth...They're socially conservative and economically centrist [well to do blue collar guys]...(the rest of my township is more libertarian and thus more Republican). While Lower Bucks isn't hardcore economically conservative, its not an area where there are a ton of economic liberals either.

As for Democrats on the economy, Clinton did very well [helped by an unusual 1990s], and helped your party's reputation on the issue. He helped so much that now Bush's economic policies have raised doubt about a strong Republican issue. The problem is for you guys, as I see it, the economy is growing again, and Bush's tax cuts haven't done all the damage they were predicted to do (they may still do so)...so can you guys honestly run, now, as the party who will repeal Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? I don't think you can...and if they are allowed to sunset, the public blame for any problems associated with that, will be on the Ds heads.

I also see only a few dems who can maintain the Dems image of sound economic policy, many in your party have either tried to look so liberal as to win the nomination to be credible, or simply will send the economy into the toilet. (again my own personal opinion, and hence why I'm still a Republican)...combine that with someone who has a sound fiscal record--ie mccain, even romney (despite his kookyness on social issues, his fiscal management has been respectable) will quickly make people forget about the less finer points of Bush's economic record. In short, the social issues are all thats really keeping the dems on equal footing here in a yankee suburb...people simply trust the GOP more on these issues (even though they should really thank Greenspan and Volker).

bullmoose wouldnt you agree that a pro-business democrat (ie clinton) is probably better for the economy than a supply-sider republican?

[A18]

Uh, no. All Clinton really did was sign parts of the GOP agenda into law.

Do you even know what supply-side is?

[memphis]

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

[TeePee4Prez]

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

Were talking about Bucks County here.  bullmoose's analysis is on the money, I hate to say.  You have a lot of economically moderate/socially conservative union members, many of whom are farily well-off, in Lower Bucks who split their ticket for Kerry and Mike Fitzpatrick and in Central Bucks you have more affulent libertarians who love their tax cuts, yet are more socially liberal.  In as much as I absolutely loathe Mike Fitzpatrick, he does fit the lower portion of PA 8 quite well.  It seems we kinda hit the end of the line there whereas we have room to grow in Montgomery and the other counties surrounding Philly. 

[bullmoose88]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

Doesn't matter...the GOP is still seen, and rightly so [I personally think], as the party you want in power for a good economy...although Clinton did do well in that regard...but he's being seen more and more as an abberation...the rest of the dems aren't what you want for the economy.

Furthermore, especially in the inner suburbs like mine, and also in the suburbs where you see the new people come from cities (like mine)...the GOP's economic stances would normally play well because the dems are too closely linked to the cities, and city finances...the GOP would win on the urban/suburban divide...in fact it still does...on the local level...taking social issues out of the equation would give the GOP back the suburbs.

As for Bucks County, and PA 8, Fitz did well down here in Lower Bucks for two reasons...1) he is from this area...my township to be exact, 2) Your candidate SUCKED flyers...you don't want to admit it, but look at it from this perspective...the dems nominated her when Greenwood was assumed to be her opponent. She was the token opposition that was sacrified (or supposed to be) to Greenwood. She wasn't going to beat Greenwood, she probably couldn't have beaten anyone save Satan himself. And Fitz was a good candidate, interms of record and experience...County Commissioner for a few terms in Bucks when life is/was good in the county. Hard to beat that. You guys are going to need an all star candidate in this district to unseat someone who now has even more name ID, and a pretty damn efficient party machine. This Murphy guy isn't going to cut it. Sorry man.

As for lower bucks...Generally democratic...my part of my township is more democratic than the whole overall, but its mainly due to the large number of well to do construction (former Philly resident) guys...who are democrats from birth...They're socially conservative and economically centrist [well to do blue collar guys]...(the rest of my township is more libertarian and thus more Republican). While Lower Bucks isn't hardcore economically conservative, its not an area where there are a ton of economic liberals either.

As for Democrats on the economy, Clinton did very well [helped by an unusual 1990s], and helped your party's reputation on the issue. He helped so much that now Bush's economic policies have raised doubt about a strong Republican issue. The problem is for you guys, as I see it, the economy is growing again, and Bush's tax cuts haven't done all the damage they were predicted to do (they may still do so)...so can you guys honestly run, now, as the party who will repeal Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? I don't think you can...and if they are allowed to sunset, the public blame for any problems associated with that, will be on the Ds heads.

I also see only a few dems who can maintain the Dems image of sound economic policy, many in your party have either tried to look so liberal as to win the nomination to be credible, or simply will send the economy into the toilet. (again my own personal opinion, and hence why I'm still a Republican)...combine that with someone who has a sound fiscal record--ie mccain, even romney (despite his kookyness on social issues, his fiscal management has been respectable) will quickly make people forget about the less finer points of Bush's economic record. In short, the social issues are all thats really keeping the dems on equal footing here in a yankee suburb...people simply trust the GOP more on these issues (even though they should really thank Greenspan and Volker).

bullmoose wouldnt you agree that a pro-business democrat (ie clinton) is probably better for the economy than a supply-sider republican?

I think what you and Philip have said both have some merit. I'm one of those people who thinks that a president has only a small influence on the economy...Clinton and Reagan came at the right time to help the economy along (as little as they did).

Both guys have their pluses and minuses.

The economy under Clinton only improved, probably purely coincidental, once the more radical elements of the Clinton agenda (Hillarycare) failed and the voters elected a GOP congress.

Reagan...well...had some help from the Fed chairman to target inflation...but that lead to more unemployment. Reagan's 1986 Tax reform I think helped a good deal, but portions were repealed only a few years later.

I'm usually more concerned over what policy the Fed is taking rather than who sits at 1600 PA Ave.

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

The post's hysteria aside , I'm sure thats the case for many voters, but generally not the case in Yankee suburbs...which are comprised of white collar or affluent blue collar workers who have been out of the industrial (in the case of my county-steel mill) economy for decades now.

Factory Closings? Not such a big deal anymore...thats been over with up here...for a while...a crash in the housing market would be the real problem.

Finding a job? Unemployment is now what 5%? (+/- .3%?) thats pretty close to the natural rate of unemployment. (Yes I know in the 90s it was lower, but that seems to be an abberation due to technology booms coming into full power from their 1980s beginnings).

The most important part of your post is that you say recent polls. That is true, but historically, the GOP tends to lead on economic issues. Bush has tarnished that image, while Clinton helped you...but once the GOP is free from that rascal and the next person you guys nominate returns to the old democratic mantra of tax and spend (perhaps actually for the right reasons, someone's got to pay the debt down), we'll see who the people trust on the economy more.

[bullmoose88]

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

Were talking about Bucks County here.  bullmoose's analysis is on the money, I hate to say.  You have a lot of economically moderate/socially conservative union members, many of whom are farily well-off, in Lower Bucks who split their ticket for Kerry and Mike Fitzpatrick and in Central Bucks you have more affulent libertarians who love their tax cuts, yet are more socially liberal.  In as much as I absolutely loathe Mike Fitzpatrick, he does fit the lower portion of PA 8 quite well.  It seems we kinda hit the end of the line there whereas we have room to grow in Montgomery and the other counties surrounding Philly. 

I think you have a better chance at solidifying gains in Delaware County than you do in Montco...which is really a very socially liberal white collar county...of course, if you keep nominating Clinton-types...you'll win it, but I think eventually you guys will have to find a new mold of candidate, and risk that county.

[TeePee4Prez]

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

Were talking about Bucks County here.  bullmoose's analysis is on the money, I hate to say.  You have a lot of economically moderate/socially conservative union members, many of whom are farily well-off, in Lower Bucks who split their ticket for Kerry and Mike Fitzpatrick and in Central Bucks you have more affulent libertarians who love their tax cuts, yet are more socially liberal.  In as much as I absolutely loathe Mike Fitzpatrick, he does fit the lower portion of PA 8 quite well.  It seems we kinda hit the end of the line there whereas we have room to grow in Montgomery and the other counties surrounding Philly. 

I think you have a better chance at solidifying gains in Delaware County than you do in Montco...which is really a very socially liberal white collar county...of course, if you keep nominating Clinton-types...you'll win it, but I think eventually you guys will have to find a new mold of candidate, and risk that county.

I do think a Democrat in say the Bill Clinton/Pete Kostmayer or even Ellen Tauscher mold could win Bucks being economically moderate and socially liberal, but unlike the other counties were dealing with Lower Bucks which is basically a more fiscally conservative extension of NE Philly.  Don't count Patrick Murphy out so soon though, he is an excellent candidate and eons better than Schrader.  As for Montco, the minute we clear out Bruce Castor and pickup that 2nd CC seat, which is very possible, Montco will be a Democratic county. 

[12th Doctor]

While it is the case the New Jersey has been swinging Dem for the past 20 years, or so, I think that the huge margin Gore recieved there in 2000 is the exception, not the rule.  I understand the 9/11 Effect and everything, but Clinton's wins there were not nearly as impressive and Bush performed much better there this time around, better than New York and Conn.  While I think New Jersey is naturally a marginal Dem state, I doubt they are the huge Democrat state that many seem to think, esspecially in national politics.

[Smash255]

While it is the case the New Jersey has been swinging Dem for the past 20 years, or so, I think that the huge margin Gore recieved there in 2000 is the exception, not the rule.  I understand the 9/11 Effect and everything, but Clinton's wins there were not nearly as impressive and Bush performed much better there this time around, better than New York and Conn.  While I think New Jersey is naturally a marginal Dem state, I doubt they are the huge Democrat state that many seem to think, esspecially in national politics.

I disagree.  I think 9/11 did have a big impact & don't really think 2000 was an exception.  Bush's poll #'s right now are horrible in Jersey (hovering around 30% which is about the same as they are on Long Island, another area where Bush saw a big jump from his 2000 #'s.  Clinton' actually won in 96 by a larger margin than Gore's 2000 victory, though the national margin difference was larger in 2000, but the trend was going strong to the Dems & the biggest shift in the national average was actually between 92 & 96.  Below is the victory in Jersey for the winning party from 88    6.68% (the national margin is in here)

1988   13.64% win GOP (5.92% national margin GOP)
1992    2.37% win Dem (3.19% national margin GOP)
1996  17.86% win Dem (9.35% national margin Dem)
2000  15.84% win Dem (15.33% national margin Dem)
2004   6.68% win Dem  (9.14% national margin Dem)

Bush's poll #'s in Jersey tend to be 8-10 points below his national poll #'s at the moment, which would tend to mean approx a 15% or so difference in an actual race in Jersey from the national averages (convental thinking generall is lose a point in approal, lose a % of the vote, which when we talk about national average transalates to a 2% difference in due to the otherside gaining a point as your side lose one.  Usually doesn't exactly translate 2-1 though so I I shaved off a few points from that)