Obama and Christie: A Study in Contrasts

This post originally appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

Wednesday night was certainly an interesting one for political observers in New Jersey. The evening began with the Garden State’s new chief executive, Chris Christie, appearing on New Jersey 101.5 to talk about what he would do in his first year. An hour later, President Barack Obama took to the national airwaves to explain what happened in his first year and how the second will be different.

Both addresses acknowledged what is unquestionably the major underlying failure of government today. As President Obama stated in his State of the Union, “We face more than a deficit of dollars. We face a deficit of trust.” However, the two chief executives demonstrated different approaches to regaining the trust necessary to get us back on the right track.

Governor Christie appeared aggressive and direct in his responses to constituent questions. While he may have been short on details, he was crystal-clear on style. Speaking about some minor cost-cutting measures, he advised listeners that these cuts alone would not close the budget gap, but he showed that he understood the importance of such actions when he said, “I believe that symbolism is important. It says we ‘get it.’”

President Obama’s speech also included statements intended to convey that he “gets it.” For example: “We all hated the bank bailout.” And: “Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.” He even tried to recast his health reform proposal as primarily a middle class measure. It was a decent speech, but way too long. (And the length only reinforced the sense that he is not focused on key concerns).

One major difference between the president’s and the governor’s broadcasts was the tone. Middle class voters want to know that their elected leaders truly appreciate the problems they face. Christie demonstrated that, while Obama fell short. When the president came to office, there was a sense that his cool demeanor would be an asset in Washington’s overheated partisan environment. His tone is now perceived as an unwillingness to engage in the heat of battle.

Admittedly, the president showed more passion in this speech than in any other past effort. It just wasn’t enough. Sure, he took to task members of both parties in Congress, the Supreme Court, and certain special interests. But if you watched him carefully, he almost seemed uncomfortable uttering those words.

Talking about the financial reform bill, Obama remarked that “The lobbyists are trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight.” While it was an admonishment, you couldn’t exactly call it confrontational. Any claims to moral outrage were further undermined when he said, “I’m not interested in punishing banks.”

Well, guess what. The public feels that somebody needs to be punished – or at least appear to be punished. If things are going downhill, there has to be some enemy who is impeding progress.

Here in New Jersey, Governor Christie has been more than willing to identify an enemy of the public good. It’s public employee unions. As one of his first acts in office, he placed these unions under pay-to-play campaign restrictions. He also realizes that he has to cast the enemy carefully, saying, “No one should believe that the views of the teacher’s union are monolithic among teachers.”

Governor Christie also speaks like a man who is not willing to take guff from the legislature. His executive order to keep casinos open in the event of a government shutdown was seen as a shot across the bow for budget negotiations. He has the power of a line-item veto, and every indication is that he will use it. Some in the legislature may view Christie’s approach as paternalistic and condescending. But since a good chunk of New Jersey thinks their legislature is petty, the approach may be justified in the eyes of the public.

By the same token, the reactions of members of Congress to the State of the Union address was viewed by many as adolescent. In this case, though, Barack Obama is viewed as the parent whose threats are not taken seriously. It’s a perception he must change.

Obama has threatened to veto the financial reform bill if it is watered down by lobbyists. Here is one thing he can do to win back the public’s trust. First, clearly – and shrewdly – delineate what reforms are absolutely essential. Second, execute the veto if any are missing from the final bill.

The problem with Obama’s attempt to use his first State of the Union speech to reboot his presidency is that after a year in office, he is now judged by his actions, not by his promises. Obama may be able to claim some accomplishments, but not on his signature issue. The problem for Obama is that he drew the line in the sand on health care, and then he retreated from that line numerous times.

When you fumble on a defining issue, you lose the benefit of the doubt on other proposals. And you certainly don’t get a do-over. Are you taking notes, Governor Christie?

The wave of middle-class voter discontent that carried Obama to the White House in 2008 has now become a tsunami of frustration. It has resulted in Republican takeovers of the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and the once-unthinkable U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts. Voters in these states sent a simple message: “You promised that government would become more responsive to the middle class. Not only have you not delivered on that promise, but you haven’t even been trying.”

The public knows that government dysfunction is caused by a failure at all levels, but it’s the guy at the top who must take the blame. A willingness to throw some elbows to ensure that government gets back on course will determine whether both Barack Obama and Chris Christie, as well as the nation and the state, succeed.

New Governor Compares with John Adams

This post originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Courier-Post.

One of the Christmas presents my daughter received was a bedtime book called “Good Night, New Jersey.” As she unwrapped it, the gift’s giver, my sister, [reflecting on the downhill trend of the state over the past few decades] remarked, “Soon, we’ll all be saying good night to New Jersey.” My sister is not alone. Polls indicate that the vast majority of New Jerseyans believe their elected representatives are more concerned with their own interests than the public’s. To say that the typical Garden State resident is cynical is an understatement.

This is the atmosphere under which Chris Christie took the reins of power last week – a time when trust in government is at a modern-day low. The public is skeptical that anything will change and yet change is exactly what they demand of their new governor.

Change is the word of the day, but the public is not necessarily concerned about specific policy directions or guiding ideologies. More importantly, voters are looking for a change in government responsiveness to the needs of the middle class. With Wall Street bailouts from Washington and special interest giveaways from Trenton, many New Jerseyans wonder why no one in government seems to be looking out for them.

The public is angry and they want someone who can give voice to that anger. The Garden State’s new governor appeared to understand this political reality when he noted that state voters “didn't pick me because they were looking for a subtle approach.”

As I made my way to the state capitol on Tuesday to see Christie sworn in as the state’s 55th Governor, I thought back to my youth, when we would hop the Speedline to Philly for a trip to Independence Hall. In those days, you could walk right into the building and go up to the desks in the Continental Congress chamber. I tended to gravitate to the seat occupied by John Adams, a man not known for taking the subtle approach.

Even with Ben Franklin’s savvy, Thomas Jefferson’s intelligence, and George Washington’s leadership, there is no doubt that the United States of America would not have come into being during that hot 1776 summer without John Adams’ pugnacity.

Adams would never win an award for congeniality, but he understood that nothing would change unless someone was willing to bang some heads together. Chris Christie seems to be cut from a similar cloth.

The question now is whether he can affect the change that voters want. The Monmouth University Polling Institute tracked a panel of voters throughout the fall campaign last year. After the election was over, we asked those voters what Chris Christie’s first task should be as governor.

The top issues named were cutting taxes (23 percent) and cutting spending (20 percent). Accomplishing both is no easy task when times are good. Achieving them during an economic downturn – especially with a legislature controlled by Democrats hostile to many of the program cuts Christie will need to make in order to balance the budget – will be near impossible. However, voters will ultimately judge Christie by his performance on these priorities.

Some people, including a good number of Garden State voters, say that desperate times call for desperate measures. That New Jersey needs someone who, like John Adams, is willing to kick up some dust and make some enemies in service of the greater good.

The tide of change has come to New Jersey. It’s important to remember that Chris Christie did not articulate any specific policy position during the campaign that could be taken as a mandate for action. He was elected to affect more fundamental change – change in how state government is perceived by the people. Chris Christie’s task is to figure out how to successfully ride the wave of change or risk being swept away by it.

"Today, Change Has Arrived… "

This post originally appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

By all accounts, Tuesday was a good day for Republicans, both in New Jersey and nationally. In New Jersey, Chris Christie took the oath of office, marking the GOP’s first position of power in Trenton since John Bennett’s tenure as Senate Co-President ended with his defeat in 2003.

In Massachusetts, Scott Brown scored an upset win in the battle for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat, thus breaking the Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority. Many observers will view this win, as well as GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey governorships last November, as a repudiation of President Obama’s first year in office. The poll data don’t support such an overgeneralization, but still it’s difficult to ignore that the GOP is a party on the rise.

Republican partisans I have spoken with appear to be positively giddy with thoughts of huge gains in state and Congressional offices this coming November. That may indeed happen. But if it does, there are some cautionary notes for New Jersey’s Republican governor that shouldn’t be ignored.

The elections in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey had a few things in common. In each, the Democratic candidate, to some degree or another, was perceived as “out of touch” with the middle class. With automaker CEOs flying private jets to Washington to cry poverty and bank executives claiming they are doing “God’s work,” the American people are more than a tad upset with the elite class and all who coddle them.

In this environment, being seen as a working class hero is a decided plus. Scott Brown portrayed himself as a truck driving, blue collar guy. And here in the Garden State, there is no question that Chris Christie is a Jersey boy through and through. But that does not necessarily mean that all “home boy” benefits naturally accrue to the Republicans. It depends on the candidate, not the party label.

The PPP Poll issued Sunday, which accurately predicted a 5 point win for Brown, found that Massachusetts voters actually held a dimmer view of Congressional Republicans (22% favorable to 63% unfavorable) than they did of the Democrats (30% favorable to 55% unfavorable), even while voting to send a Republican to the Senate for the first time since 1978.

Another common thread in these recent elections is that voters are still looking for change. The Christie campaign rode that mantra to victory in Jersey, as did Scott Brown in the Bay State. But remember, voters have been in the mood for change for nearly four years.

They voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and it looks like the tide is turning in the Republicans’ favor this year. But don’t be fooled into thinking this represents an ideological shift in the electorate that will propel the GOP to a lengthy return to power. Voters keep choosing change because they are getting a little punchy. Since they haven’t seen tangible results from the current crop of elected leaders, they will keep voting for change until they get it. If the current dynamic holds, we could potentially see frequent partisan switches in legislative and executive leadership over the next few election cycles.

Therein lies a lesson for New Jersey’s new chief executive. A change in style and rhetoric is not enough. You have to deliver results. At Tuesday night’s inaugural bash in Newark, Governor Christie’s friend, state Senator Joe Kyrillos exulted, “They said it couldn't be done. They said that in New Jersey we couldn't elect a tax-cutting, pro-growth, job-creating governor.”

Well, the jury is still out on that claim. To his credit, Governor Christie acknowledges that when New Jerseyans come up to him, the most frequent message is, “Now, do what you said you would do.” That is not a friendly piece of advice. It is a job requirement. Christie must remember that it was middle-class independent voters who put him into power.

It’s a lesson that the folks in the White House has yet to learn. Look at the drop in Barack Obama’s approval ratings over the first year of his term. GOPers say this is because the American people disagree with his domestic policy agenda. I, on the other hand, view that declining support as the result of a middle-America who feel that the President does not “have their backs.” For example, the economic stimulus package is seen as only benefitting the people who got us into this mess. The re-appointment of Ben Bernanke to head the Federal Reserve Board only underlines that point.

Furthermore, the president lost the health care reform debate not because of any particular policy item – the polls clearly show that Americans have little understanding about what is included in the proposal. Obama’s major mistake was in trying to sell the so-called the societal benefit of insuring the poor. If he had focused his message on keeping big insurance company premiums under control and not arbitrarily denying coverage to hard-working middle class Americans, he probably could have won support for the controversial “public option” months ago, let alone the entire package.

This lack of a populist touch is very much like what we saw in the administration Christie replaces here in New Jersey. From the proposing toll hikes to pay down state debt to mounting the ramparts for state unions, Jon Corzine never connected with the change that hard working middle-class families require. Based on his rhetoric so far, Chris Christie is not going to make the same mistake. But rhetoric will not be enough.

Governor Christie’s repeated refrain in his inaugural address was, “Today change has arrived.” Well, he’s got his work cut out for him. He has less than two months to unveil how he will close an $8 billion (or more) budget gap. That means there will be a lot of New Jerseyans are going to feel some pain.

Christie then has to navigate this budget through a Democratically-controlled legislature where he’s likely to meet outright hostility from the Assembly, if not the Senate as well. And he has to sell the pain to the voters who put him into office. (And this guy actually wanted the job!)

Change is coming to New Jersey one way or another. Governor Christie has the opportunity to take control of that change now or be swept away by it in four years time.

What to Watch for in Today’s NJ Senate Vote

Today, the New Jersey State Senate is scheduled to vote on what could be its most volatile piece of legislation of the session. Obviously, I’m talking about S1036 – the bill to grant children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at New Jersey’s public colleges and universities.

I bet you thought I was going to say same-sex marriage, weren’t you? Sure, that issue has been getting the lion’s share of media attention (and I’ll comment on that issue in more detail below). But in terms of a legislative vote’s potential impact in the 2011 elections, there is little question in my mind which of these issues could be more controversial in the long-term.

UPDATE: The Senate postponed the vote on S1036 to Monday 1/11. Possibly, the potential political fallout may have caught up to some legislators.

While the marriage bill debate has been hot, the fire is likely to fizzle for most voters if the bill were to pass. As I wrote last month, the majority of New Jerseyans do not have a strong opinion on this issue. Of course, that’s not to say that for a very vocal minority, this marriage issue will stay alive regardless of today’s outcome (again, more on that below).

For many more voters, though, an issue that is likely to stick in their crawl is granting any privileges to illegal immigrants. A Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll from last year bears this out. A majority of 51% considered illegal immigration to be a very serious problem in New Jersey and another 28% found the problem somewhat serious. Only 18% said it was either not too or not at all serious.

When asked whether illegal immigrants domiciled in New Jersey should be allowed to pay in-state tuition rates at public higher education institutions, only 20% said yes. When asked whether the children of those immigrants should be afforded that privilege, the affirmative vote only went up to 32%. Moreover, 22% of the public said that these children should not even be allowed to attend New Jersey’s state colleges, regardless of what they were willing to pay.

The level of public antipathy appears to be more intense for illegal immigration than it is for same-sex marriage. History suggests that attitudes towards immigrants ebb and flow with economic conditions, with public opinion growing more negative during austere times.

My own ancestors came to this country from Ireland and Italy around the turn of the prior century. I vividly remember my grandparents (the children of immigrants themselves) recounting how they were called WOPs (“without papers,” i.e. undocumented), particularly during the Great Depression. Today’s attitudes are really nothing new.

New Jersey tends to be more tolerant of cultural diversity and all that entails. [You can find other Monmouth/Gannett polls on Garden State immigration attitudes here and here.] This is probably more out of necessity than anything else, since we have the third-highest proportion of foreign born residents among all 50 states. One out of every five New Jerseyans was born in another country!

However, if the current economic conditions persist into the 2011 election cycle, we may see a vote on S1036 re-appear as a campaign issue in contested races (assuming the new legislative map that year gives us some competitive districts).

Same-Sex Marriage
Now, a few thoughts on the “less contentious” vote. Among the 39 sitting Senators, 21 were in the state legislature in 2006 and cast “Yea” votes for civil unions. If they repeated that vote on same-sex marriage, the debate would clearly be over. However, at least eight of them have publicly stated (or voted in committee) that they will not support same-sex marriage. And a handful have made no firm commitment either way.

I searched media reports from that time and could find only two comments from any of those 21 legislators. In October 2006, Tom Kean issued the following statement: “I still believe that marriage is and should be between one man and one woman and I would support an amendment to the state constitution reaffirming that definition.” Of course, he was in the throes of a U.S. Senate campaign then. He ended up voting for civil unions one month after losing that election.

On the flip side of the coin, then-Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck gave what appears to be fairly unequivocal support to same-sex unions during floor debate on December 14, 2006: “I think today is much more a matter of equal rights more than anything else. Committed, loving relationships deserve equal consideration by our laws. So today I rise in support of the foundation of our democracy, which indeed is equal consideration by all of our laws.” This was shortly before she launched her successful campaign to unseat Senator Ellen Karcher in 2007. Her rhetoric appears to have tempered somewhat since that time.

Keep an eye on all 21, though. I’ll be most interested in the rationale given by those who cast different votes on civil unions and same-sex marriage.

UPDATE: The bill failed by a vote of 14-20. Among the 21 senators who voted for civil unions in 2006, just 10 voted yes on gay marriage. Among the remainder, 8 voted no (Bateman, Beck, Girgenti, Tom Kean, Madden, Sacco, Turner, Van Drew), 2 abstained (Sarlo, Sweeney) and 1 was not present (Ciesla). Of these legislators, only Senator Girgenti made a public statement explaining his no vote.

I can understand why a person would be opposed to civil unions (and thus gay marriage). They believe that civil society has a vested interest in maintaining and recognizing the union of one man and one woman and that the union of two people of the same sex is deleterious to society.

On the other hand, I’m genuinely puzzled by the argument that gay and lesbian couples deserve all the same rights as male and female married couples, but they just can’t use that term to describe the state’s recognition of those rights. Based on testimony at last month’s committee hearing and other public comments, the root of that distinction is based on religion. In other words, the state has a vested interest in protecting a particular religious definition of the word “marriage,” although it does not have the same interest in maintaining the preservation of that religion’s view of the institution itself.

By the way, there is a very good reason for casting a yes vote for civil unions then and a no vote for gay marriage now. It’s just that I’ve yet to hear anyone use it. In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court basically punted the issue to the legislature. The court ruled that same-sex couples deserved access to marital rights, but it directed the legislature to determine how to do it.

Even if you were opposed to civil unions, one reason to have voted for it would have been to avoid making matters worse by defeating the bill and throwing the matter back to the court, who would have likely declared that same-sex couples should have access to existing marriage laws. As I said, I haven’t heard anyone use this argument to defend a difference for their vote then and now, but it's the only one I can think of based purely on rationale.

Regardless of the outcome of this legislation, I hope, for the sake of the state, that this is an end to legislative action on it for a while. If it fails, there is no chance that the incoming governor would sign it anyway. If it passes and is signed into law, I hope that opponents won’t tie up the legislature with constitutional amendments to define marriage. Our near-bankrupt state has bigger fish to fry right now.

Who Should Vote On Civil Marriage?

This post originally appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

As the New Jersey Senate prepares to vote on the “Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act,” a number of editorialists have asked for my take on public opinion about gay marriage (or marriage equality, depending on one’s point of view). The polls conducted in the past year or two have been quite clear. At a gut level, the public is divided. As a policy issue, most people don’t really care one way or the other.

All the recent polls show support for same-sex marriage in the mid to upper 40s and opposition also in the mid to upper 40s, with the remainder having no opinion. If the state legislature decided to recognize same-sex marriage, a recent Eagleton Poll suggests that most residents would live with decision, while 4-in-10 would want to see the constitution amended to overturn it. However, this question only indicates an overall preference. It does not tell us how important the issue is in the context of all other issues. In other words, is this something that would get sizable numbers of voters up in arms? And my response is, not likely.

A Monmouth University poll from February indicated that a bare majority of New Jerseyans hold “strong” opinions on the issue – and again that is fairly divided, 25% in favor to 30% opposed. And only a subset of either faction would take the outcome of this week’s vote as a call to action.

Moreover, gay marriage was merely a blip on the radar screen of voter’s concerns during this year’s race for governor – a one or two percent blip to be exact. From a purely political standpoint, social issues become election issues only when nothing else is on the table. So, on the off chance that the Christie administration is able to plug the budget gap AND reduce property taxes, then perhaps gay marriage could be an issue in 2011.

So why not just put this up to a public vote and be done with it, as many opponents of gay marriage have called for? I am a strong advocate for including the public voice in all areas of public policy. The mode of expressing that voice, though, must be appropriate to the situation.

The public should absolutely have the final say on any situation that involves state borrowing. I also think a constitutional convention – where the public gives a straight up or down vote on the outcome – is worth serious consideration in New Jersey right now.

But the founders of our country – or at least James Madison in the Federalist Papers – were fairly clear that any issue affecting the rights of a minority should be determined within a deliberative setting. And general elections almost never meet the criterion of being deliberative – as anyone who followed this year’s vacuous gubernatorial race will attest.

A public vote on gay marriage also opens up the question of what other thorny issues should be put on the ballot. How about access to abortion? In a hypothetical situation where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I’m guessing that the same people who would support a public referendum on parental notification or limits on late-term terminations would be extremely wary of placing an all-out abortion ban on New Jersey’s ballot. It’s a slippery slope.

One key question in the current debate is whether civil union couples are being denied rights they are entitled to under the current law because their civil contract is not called “marriage.” The Civil Union Review Commission certainly heard many stories of civil union partners being denied rights accorded to them under the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. Harris.

I actually met with the Commission in August 2007 to discuss a potential study on civil unions. Ideally, the research would have interviewed a sample of civil union couples and a matching sample of married couples to see if the former were systematically experiencing any roadblocks that the latter were not. For various reasons (costs, logistics), the study was never conducted.

In the end, those empirical answers are immaterial for those who argue there is no compelling reason for government to create two separate structures to recognize the same contractual relationship. This got me to thinking about why the state even bothers to recognize marriage in the first place. (My penchant for asking these types of questions is probably the reason why I receive so few cocktail party invitations.)

I suppose if one spouse goes out to work, then there’s a reason for the state to recognize that the stay-at-home spouse is contributing to the economy and therefore should be afforded rights. But can’t that end up giving more benefits or, conversely, penalizing dual-earner families and single parents? (I can sense those party invitations rolling in about now).

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but it seems that at the end of the day government recognition of marriage is based largely on social convention. In other words, a major reason why government recognizes marriage today, specifically marriage between one man and one woman, is because governments through the ages always have.

I am not sure what this means, or should mean, for the upcoming Senate vote. But I do believe that it is always a good practice to periodically examine things that exist “just because” and ask why.

Now, if we could apply the same logic to New Jersey’s state constitution, we’d really be onto something.

Electorate was out to boot incumbent

This post originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Courier-Post.

The conventional wisdom is that you just can't beat a superior bankroll. That might have proven true for the Phillies, but it certainly wasn't the case for Chris Christie.

A very disgruntled Garden State electorate came out to vote on Tuesday. In the last Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll taken before the election, only 36 percent of voters said they approved of the job Jon Corzine has done as governor. You just can't win re-election with numbers that low, even if you outspend your opponent by $20 million.

Most pre-election polls showed the race to be tight right up to the final days. So why couldn't Chris Christie seal the deal earlier against such an unpopular incumbent? Well, mainly because voters aren't thrilled with any politicians right now.

The New Jersey exit poll showed that about half of those who voted on Tuesday had a negative opinion of both Corzine and Christie, including 39 percent who felt strongly unfavorable toward the Democrat and 30 percent who felt strongly unfavorable toward the Republican. Only about 1-in-5 felt strongly favorable toward either candidate, which means that many voters cast their ballots for a candidate they weren't particularly thrilled with.

I held a focus group with undecided voters the week before the election that underlined this point. When these voters were asked which member of their family each candidate would be, Corzine was described as a rich uncle you rarely see and Christie was seen as an annoying brother-in-law. Tellingly, these voters said they really wouldn't want either guy as part of their family.

The bottom line is that voters are fed up with partisan politics in general. Christie got the job for the next four years simply because he wasn't the incumbent. His main campaign message was that New Jersey needed change. That made sense. According to the exit poll, the number one quality voters wanted in a governor was someone who could bring about change. But something was missing.

In last year's presidential race, voters chose to go with "hope and change." This year, New Jerseyans were simply desperate for change. The hope is gone. It has been replaced by frustration and insecurity.

I found it interesting that Chris Christie used the word "hope" very few times in his victory speech Tuesday night. Hopefulness was overwhelmed by an aggressive urgency, culminating in the victor's promise to turn Trenton upside down. Perhaps the time for hope is past. Perhaps we need someone who's willing to bang some heads together.

Corzine lost on Tuesday not just because of the job he has done over the past four years, although proposing a huge toll hike in order to reduce state debt didn't particularly endear him to the state. In fact, it was the single most important factor behind his negative job ratings and one of the key reasons he did so poorly among voters in Central Jersey and the Delaware Valley.

Voters ultimately rejected Corzine because he failed to adequately address 15 years of declining trust in state government and an ever-growing tax burden. It may have been that his CEO approach was not up to the job. It may be that the task itself is impossible. Regardless, voters decided they would be better off with a corruption-busting prosecutor in charge of righting the ship.

New Jerseyans may have been short on hope when they went out to vote on Tuesday. But they were certainly ready for a change.

New Jersey: Who Voted, Where and How?

Well, the pundits said that turnout would be the name of the game in New Jersey this year. The problem is we were looking at the wrong type of turnout. While we were busy focusing on core Democratic areas, the republicans upped the ante on their own turf.

Overall, Garden State turnout was down about 3 points from the last gubernatorial race. Based on my analysis of votes counts as of Wednesday, it currently stands at 45% of registered voters. When undervotes and provisional ballots are taken into account, total turnout should be about 46% - well below the 48.5% prior low mark set in 2005. If anyone still doesn’t think that New Jersey voters are fed up with their state government, just take another look at that number.

Jon Corzine’s margin went from a positive 240,000 four years ago to a negative 100,000 this year. In terms of vote percentage, he went from a +10.8% plurality to a -4.6% deficit, a swing of 15.4 points to the Republican.

The interesting thing is that both of these phenomena – lower turnout and plurality shift – did not occur across all parts of the state in quite the same way.

To make it easier to discuss, I’ve grouped New Jersey’s 21 counties into seven regions. Let’s take them one by one, in the order of what I personally saw as most interesting.

Route 1 Corridor [Mercer, Middlesex, Union]:
I previously said this is the region I would be paying the most attention to, and it certainly did not disappoint. These three counties are made up of a mix of working class ethnic groups, with some professionals scattered throughout, who are really concerned with taxes and cost of living issues. They tend to be independent-minded in their thinking, but Democratic in their voting.

Republican Christie Whitman actually won this region by 5,000 votes in 1993 but lost it by 39,000 votes to native son Jim McGreevey in 1997. That Democratic margin increased to 105,000 votes in McGreevey’s successful 2001 run, and produced a very healthy 78,000 vote plurality for Corzine in 2005. Corzine also won this region’s vote this year, but by a paltry 19,000 votes.

So did these voters switch their allegiances and go with Christie? Actually it looks like Democratic voters in this region simply did not show up. Turnout was 44.2% 41.8% in this region, down from 49.9% in 2005. Specifically, it was down 5 points in Middlesex County, 6 points in Union County and 5 an unbelievable 16 points in Mercer County.

Mercer County, the home of many state government workers (!), had an abysmal 38% turnout rate, one of the second lowest county turnout levels in the state. This is noteworthy because Mercer usually outperforms the state average. On the other hand, the 17.2 point margin Corzine got here is actually in line with his 2005 performance. So who knows what went on in Mercer? [That’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.] [Update 11/07: Mercer posted corrected vote numbers, bringing total county turnout up to 45.9%. Thanks to Mercer Dem Chair Rich McClellan for alerting me.].

In Middlesex County, though, there was a clear shift from Corzine to the Republican. The governor won this – the new bellwether county (?) – by 17.6 points in 2005. He lost it this year by 2.7 points – a 20 point swing away from Corzine. That vote share swing is the third largest county level shift, after Monmouth and Ocean.

Northern Shore [Monmouth, Ocean]:
What the heck happened in Monmouth and Ocean? Let’s take it year by year. Christie Whitman won these two counties by 34,000 in 1993 and 58,000 in 1997. The region went Democrat in 2001, giving Jim McGreevey a slight 8,000 vote edge, before returning to form in 2005 with a 37,000 vote advantage for Doug Forrester.

So, how well did the Republican candidate do here this year? Try a 134,000 vote margin! Yes, you read that correctly. That represents a 36 point margin, when 25 would have been considered extraordinary.

How did it happen? A lot of Northern Shore residents came out to vote, that’s how. Turnout was at least 50.2%, about 5 points above the state average. In 2005, it was 50.1%, just 1.6 points above the state average. While turnout dropped 3 points across the state, it actually went up in Monmouth and Ocean! I’ve heard conflicting reports about whether there was any extra GOTV effort here. While there wasn't the standard street-level operation that Dems typically use, I'm told that Ocean GOP Executive Director Rob Cresson used sophisticated micro-targeted outreach (e.g. letters, calls) to keep these voters on the boil throughout the camapign.

And I do know one thing. Voters need to have a reason to get enthused enough to come out in large numbers, and nothing riles up a voter like anger against an incumbent. The source of that ire may be found in a New York Times interview Jon Corzine gave a week before the election. In that interview, he raised the possibility of revisiting his ill-fated toll plan from January 2008. That’s the plan that single-handedly caused his job approval rating to drop from a net +3 to a -15 in just two months. The plan that I kept wondering why Christie wasn’t hammering away at. Well, Corzine did his opponent a favor by reminding these Parkway-dependent commuters why they didn’t like him in the first place.

A look back at Monmouth/Gannett polling during the time of the toll plan debate points to a real possibility that the toll plan played more heavily in this region than any other. In March 2008, 53% of the state said they were paying a lot of attention to the toll plan, but interest was highest in the Northern Shore region at 73%. Statewide, 56% of New Jerseyans opposed the plan, while 15% who supported it and 28% who had no opinion. In Monmouth and Ocean counties, a whopping 73% opposed it compared to just 13% who favored it and only 14% who had no opinion. The region with the next highest level of opposition was the Route 1 Corridor at 62%.

It’s also worth noting that when Governor Corzine went on his town hall tour to promote the plan, he probably received his worst receptions in Marlboro and Toms River. Coincidentally, Congressman Frank Pallone probably had the angriest crowd of any in the state during the health care reform town halls last summer. That was in Monmouth County. The state’s angriest voters seem to live along the Northern Shore. And I always thought ocean breezes were supposed to be soothing. At any rate, it would be fair to say that the toll hike plan was a real sore spot with Northern Shore voters.

Delaware Valley [Burlington, Camden, Gloucester]:
This was supposed to produce solid turnout for Democrats, led by the Camden County organization and organized labor. In 2005, this region produced a sizable 46,000 vote advantage for Corzine. This year, it could only muster 11,000. This area of the state was supposed to be strong, based on the Democratic Party’s tight hold on local offices here. It now seems hat hold was not all that strong. This region’s 42.3% turnout was down by 4.8 points from 2005, a slightly larger than average drop. Moreover, Corzine lost Burlington and Gloucester counties this time, after winning them both in 2005.

Burlington is not a surprise, as it has exceeded a 5% plurality for any candidate only once in the past five gubernatorial elections. Gloucester, on the other hand, has been a solid Democratic performer, with pluralities between 10.6% and 18.6% since 1993. This year, Gloucester went Republican by 3.7%, which may have had as much to do with local political issues as with the governor’s race.

The biggest disappointment, though, has to be Camden County, home of the vaunted Norcross political organization. Democrats running for governor over the previous four elections averaged a 27 point win here. Corzine could only manage a 15 point edge. This is supposed to be a well-oiled machine. Apparently, someone forgot to take it out for a lube job before the election.

Urban Core [Essex, Hudson]:
This is THE Democratic base region. In 2005, Corzine earned a 147,000 vote plurality. It was reduced to 116,00 this year. The Corzine camp was probably hoping for about 130,000 votes from here (which, by the way, would still not have been enough given what happened in other regions). Turnout was an abysmal 39.5% in these two counties. This was to be expected, though, since Urban Core turnout is usually about 6 points below the state average. But this also means that there was no “Obama 2.0” surge at work. This was not a repudiation of the president. It’s just that even a president who is wildly popular among these voters was not enough of a proxy to get them to vote for Jon Corzine.

Northeast [Bergen, Passaic]:
This has traditionally been the bellwether for New Jersey, especially Bergen County. Whoever wins the northeast, wins the election. Except this year. Jon Corzine still won both counties here even though Chris Christie won the election. But the Democrat won the Northeast by 40,830 votes less than he did in 2005. Turnout was about average – at 46.8% it was 1.4 points higher than the state average, similar to 2005 when it was 0.9 points higher. Based on the closeness of the polls and Corzine’s unpopularity, these numbers are pretty in line with expectations, especially since the Republicans were surprise victors in both county’s freeholder races.

Western Hills [Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, Warren]:
This is die-hard Republican country. Turnout was 51.5% – about 6 points higher than the state average. In 2005, it was 5 points higher. So the turnout here is not all that surprising. A small jump would be expected given how competitive this race had been. The 118,000 vote plurality racked up by Christie may look like a big gain compared to Doug Forrester’s 60,000 vote win here in 2005. However, the last time Republicans were in a competitive race for governor – 1993 and 1997 – Christie Whitman picked up an average 100,000 vote margin each time. So, this year’s result was never outside the realm of reasonable expectations.

Southern Shore [Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem]:
This region usually provides mixed results, but has been trending more Democrat as of late. Not this year. Corzine only won one county here, and ended up 6,800 votes behind Christie in this sparsely populated region.

New Jersey Turnout as percentage of Registered Voters

Region	2009	2005	Change
STATE TOTAL	45.1%	48.5%	-3.4%
Northeast	46.8%	49.4%	-2.6%
Urban Core	39.5%	42.1%	-2.6%
Rt 1 Corridor	41.8%	49.5%	-8.1%
Western Hills	51.5%	53.4%	-1.9%
Northern Shore	50.2%	50.1%	+0.1%
Delaware Valley	42.3%	47.1%	-4.8%
Southern Shore	42.9%	46.5%	-3.6%

Corzine Vote Margin

Region	2009	2005	Plurality shift	Shift in % vote share
STATE TOTAL	-99,285	239,280	-338,565	-15.4%
Northeast	13,743	54,573	-40,830	-11.5%
Urban Core	115,783	147,163	-31,380	-7.7%
Rt 1 Corridor	18,893	77,822	-58,929	-14.2%
Western Hills	-118,154	-60,000	-58,154	-16.0%
Northern Shore	-134,267	-37,638	-96,629	-25.6%
Delaware Valley	11,494	46,292	-34,798	-10.8%
Southern Shore	-6,777	11,068	-17,845	-12.4%

Note: 2009 numbers are based on unofficial returns. Final vote totals should increase overall turnout by about 1 point, which is still well below the 2005 turnout

New Jersey Exit Poll Wrap-Up

For this year's gubernatorial election, the Monmouth University Polling Institute joined with NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey newspaper group to provide some "home-grown" analysis of the New Jersey exit polls.

The exit polls were conducted by Edison Research (of Somerville, NJ) for the National Election Pool (the major TV and cable networks and the AP).

Here are links to summaries of the exit poll stories we ran Tuesday night:
Top Issues
Did a Property Tax Plan Matter?
Candidate Favorability
Candidate Qualities
Independent Voters
The Daggett Factor
The Obama Factor
The Democratic Base
Gender, Age and Race
Negative Ads

And for good measure, here's what I was looking for before the results came in:
What to Look for In the New Jersey Election

Editorial note: I have heard some questions about why education, the budget, and others issues did not come up as voters concerns in the exit poll. Especially since they made the list in pre-election polls. Well, there was a difference in how the questions were asked. Most pre-election polls, including Monmouth/Gannett, asked the issue question in open-ended fashion, i.e. “Name your top issue.” The exit poll however made voters choose from among only four: property taxes, economy & jobs, health care, and corruption.

Some have noted that corruption came up somewhat higher in the exit poll than in the pre-election polls. My personal view is that some “government spending/budget” voters chose “corruption” as the choice among the four that came closest to their own concern (i.e. “waste fraud, and abuse”). In fact, I had strongly suggested to the Exit Poll group that they should add a fifth category (“government spending”) to their list. So, we’ll have to live with the supposition that the “corruption” number in the exit poll also includes voters most concerned with government waste in general.

Congratulations and onward...

Congratulations to Governor-Elect Christie. Now for the hard part. You said New Jersey needs a good, hard shake-up. Here's hoping you can do it.

Also, kudos to Scott Rasmussen (of Ocean Grove) for the poll which most closely resembled the final election result. Oddly enough, it was taken 5 days before the election. I guess the lesson there is to quit while you're ahead :) The other so-called robo-call pollsters (PPP and Survey USA) also did a good job reflecting the margin of victory (albeit while overstating Daggett's support level by 4 to 5 points).

I'll spend Wednesday updating all the exit poll stories I posted on Tuesday night, many of which were based on preliminary results. So if you check back later, some of the numbers may have changed by a point or two.

It's been a wild election with an outcome that no one expected -- i.e. a 100,000 vote margin for the victor. I'll be examining the returns to figure out why. But my first stop will probably be a look at the astronomical Christie vote in Monmouth and Ocean counties. It appears the GOP picked up a few GOTV tricks in the past year or so.

Exit Poll: The Democratic Base

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

Polls taken during the summer showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with serious problems among his partisan base. His support among African-American and Hispanic voters was below average and union members were trending toward Chris Christie. Overall, he was significantly underperforming among voters who called themselves Democrats.

Corzine’s base seems to have come home, although it was not enough in the end. Among Democratic voters who cast ballots today, the governor picked up 86% of the vote, including 88% among African-Americans, 65% among Hispanics, 61% among union members, and 83% among political liberals.

In last year’s U.S. Senate race, Frank Lautenberg garnered 89% support among Democratic voters, including 87% among African-Americans, 82% among Hispanics, 68% among union members, and 87% among political liberals. In the 2006 U.S. Senate contest, Bob Menendez took 92% of the Democratic vote, including 82% among African-Americans, 71% among Hispanics, 63% among union members, and 87% among political liberals.

Among voters who say they also voted for Corzine in the 2005 election, the incumbent held onto only 78% of his support, while 17% of prior Corzine voters went for Republican Chris Christie.

Among those who supported GOP nominee Doug Forrester in the 2005 contest, an overwhelming 96% went with Christie, and only 3% voted for Corzine.

Among those who did not vote in the last gubernatorial election but cast a ballot today, Christie took a 50% to 39% advantage over Corzine.

Exit Poll: NJ Vote by Gender, Age and Race

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

In most states, Democrats tend to do better among women, while Republicans fare well with male voters. That hasn’t been the case in recent New Jersey elections, though. Both Barack Obama and Frank Lautenberg in 2008 and Bob Menendez in 2006 won over both men and women voters.

That Garden State gender scenario did not play out in today’s race for governor. Jon Corzine did take 50% of the female vote compared to 45% who went for Chris Christie. But Christie won the male vote by 53% to 40%.

Trends since the 2006 election also indicate that Democratic candidates in New Jersey easily win among younger and middle age adults, while Republicans tend to gain a slim advantage among senior citizen voters. In this year’s race for governor, Democrat Jon Corzine was only able to claim a decisive win among voters under age 30, where he bested Christie by a 57% to 36% margin. The 30 to 44 year old age group went for Christie by 50% to 44%. New Jersey voters age 45 to 64 were more divided, 48% for Christie to 46% for Corzine. Christie, though, was the clear winner among those age 65 and older by a sizable 55% to 40% margin.

While Corzine picked up typical Democratic margins among minority voters, Christie did particularly well among whites. Black voters went for Corzine over Christie by 88% to 9% and Hispanics did the same by 65% to 32%.

Christie won the white vote, though, by 25 points - 59% to 34%. Typically, New Jersey Democrats run about even or only a few points behind the GOP candidate among this group of voters.

Exit Poll: Candidate Qualities

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

What personal qualities do New Jersey voters want most in a governor? According to the exit poll, 39% were looking for someone who can bring about needed change, 27% preferred to vote for someone who shares their values, 12% wanted somebody honest, and 17% say experience was the most important candidate quality in their vote today.

Among voters who named change as their most sought after quality, 67% voted for Chris Christie and 7% voted for Daggett, while 26% stuck with incumbent Jon Corzine. Not surprisingly, Corzine won an overwhelming 82% of the vote among those who said experience was the quality that mattered most.

“In a race where the incumbent’s job approval rating has been anemic, many voters say they wanted a change candidate. By comparison, in last year’s presidential race, 37 percent of New Jersey voters said that change was the top quality they were searching for. Obama won that race and Christie won this one,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Exit Poll: Did a Property Tax Plan Matter?

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

Throughout the 2009 gubernatorial election, New Jersey voters have consistently said that they would like to hear the candidates talk more about property taxes. Chris Daggett briefly surged in the polls after he laid out a plan to reduce property taxes. While they may not have been satisfied with how well the candidates addressed this issue in the campaign, the exit polls asked voters who they felt has the best plan to lower this tax burden. In the end, it seemed not to matter all that much to the outcome.

About 4-in-10 (39%) voters said that none of the candidates offered a good plan. Among those who make a choice, Chris Christie is the nominal winner, with 33% saying he has the best property tax plan, compared to 22% for Jon Corzine and just 6% for Chris Daggett.


Among New Jerseyans who considered property taxes to be the most important issue consideration in their vote today, 45% felt Christie had the best plan, 14% gave the nod to Corzine, 9% said Daggett, and 32% felt none of them did.

Ironically, incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine fared well among those who felt that none of the candidates adequately addressed the state’s number one issue. Among those who felt that none of the candidates came up with a decent property tax plan, 52% decided to vote for Corzine, while 39% went for Christie.

“It seems that Christie’s decision to avoid discussing a specific property tax plan did not deliver a fatal blow to his candidacy and may have even worked to his advantage,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Exit Poll: Candidate Favorability

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

Which gubernatorial candidate did New Jersey voters like best? The exit polls indicate that none was an overwhelming darling.

Overall, Chris Christie had a 50% favorable to 48% unfavorable view. The incumbent Jon Corzine had a 45% favorable to 54% unfavorable. Chris Daggett had a 36% favorable to 52% unfavorable rating, with 12% who chose not to give him a rating in the exit poll.

“The exit polls indicate that many voters held their noses and cast ballots for candidates they didn’t particularly like, perhaps because they disliked the other candidates more,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

In fact, 43% of Christie voters specifically said that their choice was a vote against the other candidates, compared to 57% who said that it was a positive endorsement of the Republican. Among Corzine voters, though, most – 78% - said that their vote was mainly for the Democrat compared to 22% who said it was against the others.

Exit Poll: Negative Ads

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

While the election outcome was decided by a few percentage points, Jon Corzine clearly lost the contest for Miss Congeniality. Nearly 3-in-4 (73%) New Jersey voters leaving the polls said the incumbent had unfairly attacked his main opponent during the campaign. By comparison, 62% of voters said Chris Christie launched unfair attacks against his chief rival. These results take into account the fact that 52% of voters felt that both candidates launched unfair attacks. Only 11% said that neither candidate was unfair in their attacks.

“New Jersey voters have grown accustomed to negative campaigns, but this certainly ranks among the worst,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey. “It’s rare that with so much at stake for voters, the candidates avoided any real policy debate and decided to take this campaign so deep into the mud.”

Corzine voters were more likely than Christie supporters to say that their own chosen candidate was unfair in his attacks. Specifically, 78% of Corzine voters said that Christie unfairly attacked their man, but 62% also said that their candidate launched his share of unjust assaults. This is a markedly different opinion from Christie voters, nearly all of whom – 90% - said that Corzine was unfair to the Republican, but just 51% felt that their candidate also participated in the mudslinging.

Among those voters who felt that both major party candidates were unfair in their attacks, 47% eventually went for Corzine, 44% for Christie, and 8% voted for Daggett.

While tens of millions of dollars was spent on advertising - negative or otherwise - in this campaign, few voters say that such ads figured heavily into their vote. Just 23% said that the content of campaign ads was an important factor in their vote for governor, 24% said it was a minor factor, and 47% said the ads were not a factor at all in how they voted.

Among those who said campaign advertising was important to their vote choice, 50% went for Corzine, 43% chose Christie, and 5% voted for Daggett.

“While most New Jersey voters told us that they tuned out the campaign ads, there is no way of knowing exactly how much of those negative messages seeped into their consciousness and affected their votes,” said Murray.

Exit Poll: Daggett Factor

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

What was Chris Daggett’s impact on the election today? According to the New Jersey exit poll, he didn’t seem to develop a broad appeal with any particular constituency. Among independent voters, he garnered just 9% of the vote, and fared somewhat worse among partisan voters. His support was fairly similar among both men and women, all age groups, and across all regions of the state.

The independent candidate’s bigger impact may be in where his support would have gone if he had not run for governor. If their candidate’s name was not on the ballot, 34% of Daggett supporters said they would have voted for Democrat Jon Corzine, while just 22% would have voted for Republican Chris Christie. The remaining 43% claimed they would have stayed home if Daggett was not in the race.

“Daggett’s presence in this campaign gave disgruntled voters another option, but few took it. Most pre-election polls showed him in the double digits. It turns out he didn’t perform nearly as well and had little impact on the eventual outcome,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Exit Poll: Obama Factor

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

President Barack Obama made three campaign trips to the Garden State to stump for Governor Corzine. So did he have any impact on the vote? Well, he probably didn’t change many New Jerseyans’ vote choice, according to the exit poll.

While 19% of voters say that one of the reasons for their gubernatorial vote was to express support for Obama, a similar 19% said that opposition to Obama was among the reasons they made their vote choice. Another 60% said that Obama was not a factor in their choice for governor.

Among those who said the president did not figure into their vote choice, 48% went for Chris Christie, 44% went for Jon Corzine, and 8% voted for Chris Daggett.

The President earns a 57% approve to 42% disapprove job performance rating. Among those who approve of how Obama has been handling his job, 73% supported Democrat Corzine and 19% voted for Republican Christie. Among those who disapprove of the president’s job performance, 89% supported Christie and just 7% cast their vote for Corzine.

“Barack Obama’s biggest impact on the New Jersey race may not be captured in the exit poll. Apparently he did not get enough die-hard Democrats out to vote who didn’t want to support Jon Corzine,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Exit Poll: Independent Voters

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

Independent voters are said to be the lynchpin to electoral success in the Garden State. This is especially true for a Republican fighting a significant Democratic advantage in party registration, who needs a nearly 2 to 1 margin to overcome that partisan split. So, how well did Chris Christie do among independent voters in the race for New Jersey governor today?

The GOP nominee claimed 60% of the independent vote, outpacing Democrat Jon Corzine at 30% and independent Chris Daggett at 9%. These vote shares were nearly identical for both women and men independents.

The top issues for independent voters in their vote choice today were the economy and jobs (31%), property taxes (29%), corruption (27%), and health care (13%).

“That fact that independent voters rated corruption as such an important issue in their vote today indicates that they are really upset with the current political system,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Exit Poll: Top Issues

The following analysis of the National Election Pool/Edison Research exit poll was provided for NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey Newspapers:

The early exit poll results indicate that financial concerns weighed most heavily on voters’ minds as they went to the polls today.

Leading the list of issues in vote for governor today was the economy and jobs at 32% and property taxes at 26%. They were followed by corruption at 20% and healthcare at 17%. But voters’ top issue depended on who they supported today. Among Christie voters, 38% named property taxes and 29% focused on corruption. But among Corzine voters, the economy and jobs was the number one concern of 44%, followed by health care at 30%.

“One of the reasons why property taxes is polling lower now than pre-election polls is that the pre-election polls asked what issues the voters most wanted to hear about. The exit poll asked which issue factored most in your vote. Since the two main contenders avoided this issue like the plague, many voters had to search for another issue on which to base their decision,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and exit polling analyst for NJN News and Gannett New Jersey.

Among those who named property taxes as their top issue, 67% voted for Chris Christie, 25% voted for Jon Corzine, and 8% voted for Chris Daggett. The Republican did similarly well among corruption voters.

It’s a different story, though, for voters who were most concerned with the economy and jobs. This group went decidedly for Jon Corzine by 58% to 36% for Chris Christie and 5% for Chris Daggett. Corzine also took the overwhelming majority of health care voters.

Editorial note: I have heard some questions about why education, the budget, and others issues did not come up as voters concerns in the exit poll. Especially since they made the list in pre-election polls. Well, there was a difference in how the questions were asked. Most pre-election polls, including Monmouth/Gannett, asked the issue question in open-ended fashion, i.e. “Name your top issue.” The exit poll however made voters choose from among only four: property taxes, economy & jobs, health care, and corruption.

Some have noted that corruption came up somewhat higher in the exit poll than in the pre-election polls. My personal view is that some “government spending/budget” voters chose “corruption” as the choice among the four that came closest to their own concern (i.e. “waste fraud, and abuse”). In fact, I had strongly suggested to the Exit Poll group that they should add a fifth category (“government spending”) to their list. So, we’ll have to live with the supposition that the “corruption” number in the exit poll also includes voters most concerned with government waste in general.

What to Look for in the New Jersey Election

The race for New Jersey governor has been one of the most volatile I have witnessed. Where some observers see momentum, I see unpredictability. Here’s my breakdown of the key factors in the race.

Undecided Voters
In an incumbent election, the undecided vote will break for the challenger, or so the theory goes. The question in this race is which challenger. A focus group I conducted with undecided voters last week indicates that their willingness to vote for Chris Daggett rests upon his viability.

One participant even said that he would look at the polls on Monday and if Daggett was polling in the 20s, he would vote for him. Well, if he saw the latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll today, he probably will decide to go with Christie.

There are certainly enough voters still undecided in the final days - between 6 and 8 percent - to determine the outcome.

Who’s Got the Big Mo?
Here are the comparisons for each candidate’s share of the vote among seven polling organizations who issued at least three polls between the beginning of October and today:
Monmouth/Gannett:
Christie – 43, 39, 43, 41 (variance=4); Corzine – 40, 39, 42, 43 (variance=4); Daggett – 8, 14, 8, 8 (variance=6)
Quinnipiac:
Christie – 43, 41, 38, 42 (variance=5); Corzine – 39, 40, 43, 40 (variance=4); Daggett – 12, 14, 13, 12 (variance=2)
FDU/Public Mind:
Christie – 43, 43, 41 (variance=2); Corzine – 44, 44, 43 (variance=1); Daggett – 4, 6, 8 (variance=4)
Survey USA:
Christie – 40, 41, 43, 45 (variance=5); Corzine – 39, 39, 43, 42 (variance=4); Daggett – 18, 19, 11, 10 (variance=9)
Rasmussen:
Christie – 47, 45, 41, 46, 46 (variance=6); Corzine – 44, 41, 39, 43, 43 (variance=5); Daggett – 6, 9, 11, 7, 8 (variance=5)
Democracy Corps:
Christie – 38, 39, 38, 36 (variance=3); Corzine – 41, 42, 43, 41 (variance=2); Daggett – 14, 13, 12, 14 (variance=2)
PPP:
Christie – 40, 42, 47 (variance=7); Corzine – 39, 38, 41 (variance=3); Daggett – 13, 13, 11 (variance=2)

For those who claim any candidate has momentum, these apples-to-apples results indicate there is no clear trend. If you look at the differences between each of these organization’s initial October results and their final numbers you find that Christie’s vote share actually went down among 5 pollsters and up for 2; Corzine’s vote share went up for 4, down for 2, and stayed the same for one; and Daggett’s vote share went up for 2, down for 3, and stayed the same for 4.

There seems to be more churning in this electorate than momentum (as I discussed here). That is, some voters seem to be moving from one position to another almost daily, but never in the same direction. It’s kind of like a game of three dimensional chess.

Vote by Mail
Another wild card in this race is the state’s new vote by mail option. It didn’t matter much in last year’s presidential race when Obama won the state by 15 points. It could matter in a tight race like this one.

According to our last poll, about 6% of New Jersey voters have already cast their ballot by mail, similar to the percentage of mail ballots received in last year’s presidential race. Among these early voters, Jon Corzine looks to have the decided advantage. A majority of 53% of mail voters say they voted for the incumbent, compared to just 31% for Christie, 11% for Daggett and 5% for other candidates.

Assuming turnout will be about 48% of all registered voters, we should count on about 150,000 mail ballots in the final total. Assuming the vote share we found in our poll holds up (these results had a +/-8% margin of error), that could mean a 30,000 vote plurality for Corzine on the mail ballots alone.

It’s All About County Level Turnout
By now, we all know that President Obama’s repeated trips to New Jersey have not been to sway undecided voters. They have been made to buck up a Democratic base that is not too keen on the incumbent governor. Given his admitted admiration for Ronald Reagan’s political skills, I’m almost surprised that Obama did not refer to himself as the Gipper in his Garden State stump speeches. His message to core Democrats is that regardless of what you think of the governor, it’s going to hurt the president’s agenda if Corzine loses. So go to the polls, close your eyes and pretend the ballot says Barack Obama rather than Jon Corzine.

And here’s why that is important. In 2005, Jon Corzine beat Doug Forrester with a 239,000 vote plurality, and just three counties – Essex, Hudson, and Camden – accounted for 75% (or 179,000 votes) of the Democrat’s winning margin. When Jim Florio narrowly lost his re-election bid to Christie Whitman in 1993, he only mustered a 105,000 vote plurality from those three counties. [That’s just in case you were wondering why Obama’s two stops yesterday were in Camden and Newark].

Bergen County is considered critical for Chris Christie. No Republican has won statewide without taking New Jersey’s most populous county. Whitman averaged a 23,000 vote plurality here in her two runs for governor. But the Democratic nominee has taken it by about 50,000 votes in the last two gubernatorial races. Corzine was taking no chances when he chose Bergen’s Loretta Weinberg as his running mate.

Even if Christie can edge Corzine in Bergen, he still needs to perform well in his base – and that means northwest Jersey (Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, Warren) and the northern shore (Monmouth, Ocean). Whitman averaged a 103,000 plurality in the northwest in her two runs, but that GOP advantage dropped to an average 53,000 votes in the last two gubernatorial elections.

The northern shore has been even less predictable. These voters gave Whitman a 34,000 plurality in her 1993 run and increased it to 58,000 for her re-election. In 2001, they actually went for Democrat Jim McGreevey by 9,000 votes, before returning to form in 2005 with a 38,000 vote plurality for Doug Forrester. The pick of Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno for lieutenant governor was made in part to shore up (pun intended) Christie’s support in this region.

Another area worth watching is the Route 1 corridor counties (Mercer, Middlesex, Union), especially Middlesex. Corzine won Middlesex by 32,000 votes in 2005. Florio only won it by 1,300 votes in 1993. Voters in this region tend to be independent minded but vote Democratic in most elections. Polling indicates that Corzine is performing nowhere near as well in this region as he did four years ago. [In the past month, both Joe Biden and Bill Clinton have held rallies in Middlesex County.] While all regions of the state have their part to play in this race, this is the one I’m keeping my eye on to tell which way the wind is blowing.

The Open Space Bond
The key unknown for this public question is whether voters pick up on the word ‘debt” buried in the ballot’s question text. (It’s in there somewhere.) Our poll found that only one-third of voters know that “bond” means “borrowing.” And when they find that out – we told them in the poll – support plummets from a bare majority of 51% down to 30%. How closely voters read the ballot may determine the outcome of this question. If defeated, it will be the first time an open space bond has gone down in New Jersey. Garden State voters have approved 12 such bond measures since 1961.

Home-Grown Exit Poll Analysis
I’ll be spending Election Day at NJN studios in Trenton. The Monmouth University Polling Institute has joined together with NJN News and the Gannett New Jersey newspaper group to provide our own analysis of the official National Election Pool exit poll conducted by Edison Research.

This year, you’ll be able to find out who voted, how they voted, and why they voted from a distinctly New Jersey point of view. I will be posting exit poll updates on this blog, so check back frequently during the night.

NJN’s live television coverage begins at 8 p.m. (I’ll also do an exit poll preview on the evening newscast). Stories about the exit poll results will also appear on Gannett New Jersey Web sites Tuesday evening and in print Wednesday (Asbury Park Press, Courier-Post, Courier News, Daily Journal, Daily Record, and Home News Tribune).