How to Blow a Cool Million

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ 

Perhaps a primer on the dynamics of voter awareness is in order.  In a recent PolitickerNJ story where I was quoted, some commenters seem to think that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono’s reported million dollar ad buy was money well spent – or at the very least was something she needed to do.

I disagree.  While $1 million may sound like a lot, it will result in very little penetration among New Jersey voters.  For one, advertising on broadcast television in either the New York City or Philadelphia markets means that more than two-thirds of your audience cannot even vote for you.

More importantly, a single shot weeklong to ten day media buy – which is what $1 million will get you on broadcast TV – will not increase voter awareness when your statewide name recognition is below 30%. It takes about three weeks of repeated airings to start moving that needle.  And then you have to maintain the ad presence or your gains in awareness will evaporate once you pull your ads.

Think I’m wrong?  Then tell me what you had for dinner last Thursday night?  The same principle applies here.  Voters who do not know Senator Buono have not tuned into the campaign and will not tune in until the fall.  They are simply not paying attention yet.  That’s the reality.

Now, some say Buono had to go up with an ad because incumbent Chris Christie’s campaign already went negative on her.  [Ironically, these attacks may be doing more to raise Buono’s name recognition than anything she’s been able to do.]

The political adage is don’t let an attack go unchallenged.  However, her opening spot is not a response to the Christie attack on her as a “Corzine Democrat.”  It’s an introductory piece.

As a biographical ad, it’s actually pretty good (as is the web ad about the pronunciation of her last name).  But, as I already mentioned, a $1 million dollar broadcast buy in May will not move her poll numbers.

[Of course, one possibility is that we are being misled by the Buono camp about actual amount of the buy as a way to get some free media coverage.  If so, then kudos to them!]

Another point that has been raised to defend the ad buy is that Buono has a pot of money that must be spent on her primary race – such that it is.  This is true, but it does not have to be spent on advertising.  For example, she can spend her primary money building a GOTV infrastructure.

As we just saw in the presidential race, a coordinated micro-targeting effort can confound the polls.  Buono’s camp can be using her resources to identify Democratic and unaffiliated voters who can be motivated to turn up at the polls or to switch their support to her.  This effort can ostensibly be done for the June primary, but the real target would be the general election in November.

[UPDATE: Thanks to a party chair for emailing me on a point of law.  While New Jersey's public financing law allows you to use matching funds to buy lists, you can't use those funds to "mine" the data.  Still, in a media environment like New Jersey direct mail and radio may give you more lasting impact.  Still, I acknowledge the money has to be spent by June 4 and TV is certainly the best way to go through it quickly.  But then, we have to question whether Buono can "afford" an introductory ad, or whether she needs to attack right out of the box.  Campaign operatives do not like to mix those messages, but when you're down by 30 points is "traditional" the best approach?]

One question is whether Buono will have the kind of money she needs to increase her name recognition in the fall.  Democratic donors and operatives got spoiled by the last governor and aren’t used to having to support gubernatorial campaigns. 

Her best bet has always been to get that money from a national donor base. It is one of the reasons she has been talking about guns, marriage equality, and women‘s health care.  These issues are not on New Jersey voters’ radar screens, but they are for national Democrats.

However, very little of Buono’s campaign pot has come from donors in other states.  This is partly due to poor message framing during the free national media opportunities she has been given (mainly MSNBC).

Buono has gotten a little sharper on the stump recently, e.g. saying Christie is taking positions on issues like guns to appeal to voters in Midwestern cornfields rather than New Jersey suburbs.  But the message lacks clarity and coherence.

The problem is confounded by the fact that Buono will need to pivot to a New Jersey-based message after the primary.  While she still needs to court the national money with social issue messages, New Jersey voters are concerned about bread and butter matters.

Buono has been talking about New Jersey’s economic picture not being as rosy as Christie claims.  But she hasn’t developed a clear statement about one thing she would do to make the state more affordable.

The conventional wisdom says that laying out a specific policy can be dangerous.  But that only applies if you have a realistic shot of winning.  The goal for Buono is not to win but to lose well.  And that requires being bold.  Otherwise, she just spent $1 million to spit into the wind.  

And if you think I'm wrong, here's a challenge:  I'll provide pre and post polling services to anyone out there who wants to spend $1 million on TV adverstising to boost his or her own name recognition.  I guarantee the needle won't move for you either.

Winning Big Could Hurt Chris Christie

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ 

A big win in November is exactly what Chris Christie wants, right?  It will increase his leverage with the legislature and bolster his 2016 selling point as the one Republican who can win over Blue State voters.  A really big win, though, could lead to unintended consequences that would undercut both of those objectives.

Let’s go back to the legislative map drawn up in 2011 – the one that seemingly ensured Democrats a decade-long majority in both chambers. Of course, that assumed it would be business as usual at the top of the ticket.  A Republican could certainly win the governor’s race, but getting a vote share far north of 50% would be nearly impossible.

Well, we now have a GOP governor who is realistically flirting with a 60% vote share.  If that pans out in November, his coattails will make a lot of legislative races much closer than anyone expects, especially in the Senate.

Gov. Christie has been successful in Trenton largely by working with Senate President Steve Sweeney and his coalition of Democrats. While Christie hasn’t got everything he’s asked for – like confirmation of his Supreme Court nominees for instance – he has been able to claim victory on some key high-profile initiatives such as budget cuts and pension reform.

The bottom line is stability in legislative leadership is the best outcome for Chris Christie’s national ambitions.

If he wins big there is an outside chance that Republicans could pick up the five seats necessary to take control of the Senate.  While this outcome is still improbable, it is not the impossibility it was just six months ago.  In this scenario, Democrats in the Assembly, who have taken a back seat to the Senate when negotiating with the Governor, would likely be emboldened to hobble Christie’s second term agenda.  However, his appointments – such as the aforementioned court nominations - would sail through the Senate.  So the impact would balance out.

The more perilous outcome in the event of a Christie electoral blowout is that Republicans are able to pick off two or three key Senate incumbents, leaving Democrats with a reduced majority of 21 to 22 seats. This will be especially dangerous if those gains come from the southern portion of the state.

In 2010, Steve Sweeney knocked Dick Codey out of the Senate President’s chair.  That coup was made possible by a coalition of six South Jersey Democrats (Sweeney, Jeff Van Drew, Jim Whelan, Fred Madden, Dana Redd, and Jim Beach), two each from Essex (Teresa Ruiz and Nia Gill), Union (Ray Lesniak and Nick Scutari), and Middlesex (Bob Smith and Barbara Buono), and one each from Hudson (Brian Stack) and Bergen (Paul Sarlo).  These 14 legislators declared their intention to side with Sweeney in October 2009 which sealed Codey’s fate before the legislative elections even took place.

Of the five Senate seats targeted by the GOP this year, three are part of this coalition, all from the incumbent Senate President’s South Jersey base – including Sweeney’s own seat.  A loss of two seats (i.e. Whelan and Van Drew) would reduce that coalition.

That original coalition also included Barbara Buono who won’t be in the Senate next year – and wouldn’t support Sweeney anyway if she were.  Another member of that coalition, Nia Gill, is facing a serious primary challenge from former Obama advisor, Mark Alexander.  So Sweeney’s core band could be down to ten.

The question is whether Sweeney can hold on to at least two others – such as Loretta Weinberg, Bob Gordon, and Sandra Cunningham – in order to maintain majority support within his caucus.  Maybe, but a depleted South Jersey bloc could be like chum in the water to some of these more progressive Democrats, leading to a wholesale realignment of the caucus. 

That realignment that could be more obstructionist toward Gov. Christie’s agenda.  That could mean no key policy successes to bolster his 2016 campaign and a continued hold on major appointments.

There is another potential election outcome that could throw a wrench into Gov. Christie’s second term.  That would be if Republicans pick up one only seat, but it happens to be Sweeney’s.  That outcome is not outside the realm of possibility.  Then things would get really interesting.

Now What?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ 

The “uncertainty” of New Jersey’s Democratic gubernatorial contest is over.  I use quotes because this is pretty much where most people thought we would end up after Cory Booker declined to run.  State Senator Barbara Buono is the presumptive nominee with the public support of every major Democratic player in New Jersey.  Now what?

My unsolicited advice to Sen. Buono is to run a losing campaign. 

Before I get to that, let’s review what’s at stake for Garden State Democrats.  Last year, we saw that a 20 point Democratic victory at the top of the ticket could take out Republican incumbents at the county and local level.   A 10, or even 15, point win probably would not have had that effect.

Remember that no state Republican has broken 50% since Gov. Tom Kean’s reelection landslide in 1985 (George H.W. Bush’s 56% presidential showing in 1988 notwithstanding).  Chris Christie’s 3.5 percentage point win in 2009 is the best a Republican has performed statewide since then.  Christie Whitman won by about 1 percentage point in both of her gubernatorial runs.

Now, imagine that Chris Christie can win re-election by a similar 20 point spread.  Democratic seats in the legislature and at the county and local levels would suddenly be in jeopardy.

Democratic office holders could probably survive a 5 or even 10 point Christie win without breaking a sweat. That outcome looked probable before Superstorm Sandy hit.  Now we have a whole new ball game.

Down ballot races rely on a minimal showing at the top of the ticket.  Garden State voting patterns have certainly become more Democratic.  It is unlikely that Christie can replicate Tom Kean’s 21 county wipeout.  But Buono will still have to run a flawless campaign to get the margin within single digits.

If it ends up a 20 point victory for Christie, then down ballot Democrats could fall like dominoes.  This is coming from a guy who said the legislative map locked in Democratic control of the legislature even before Alan Rosenthal cast the deciding vote.  But I – and every other observer of state politics – never really entertained the possibility that a Democratic gubernatorial candidate could be fighting just to reach 40% of the vote.

[By the way, if you want to know how New Jersey Democrats got to this point, Steve Kornacki wrote an insightful, if a little gushy about Dick Codey, history of the party’s last 15 years.]

Some Democratic leaders have been vocally supportive of Buono., while others have been tepid.  It’s the latter group that holds the power in Trenton.  There is an outside – but very real – possibility that the Democrats could lose control of one or both chambers of the legislature.  The real irony, though, is that the Democrats could retain control, but the South Jersey bloc could lose its power within the leadership if two or three of these legislators go down to defeat. 

In the event of a Christie landslide, most of the vulnerable seats will be in South Jersey.  Not only in districts 1 and 2, but even Senate President Steve Sweeney’s seat in district 3.  His winning margin in 2011 was not overwhelming and Christie performed especially well in Gloucester County in 2009.

This means that George Norcross will direct all his resources to his own backyard.  Rather than help his party’s gubernatorial nominee, he will run a 7-district localized campaign that treats the legislature as the top of the ticket.

This is why Barbara Buono has to run to lose.  Her political future depends on it.  So here is my completely unsolicited advice.

Candidates with a chance of winning have a tendency to pull their punches.  They are afraid of offending one group of voters or another – or of hurting future political opportunities if they do lose.

This penchant towards timidity can water down a candidate’s message and brand.   In a race where voters are predisposed to go with the incumbent, this trait gets translated as a lack of leadership.

If Sen. Buono tries too hard to be seen as a viable candidate – particular in order to set herself up for a future run in 2017, for instance – she is likely to fail.  It’s not as if she’s a favorite of the party bosses now.  A 10 to 15 point loss is unlikely to improve her standing on that front.

The best way for Sen. Buono to make something of this quixotic effort is to treat it that way – to tilt at the political windmills.   

So far the Buono for Governor campaign has not set the world on fire.   There have been some missteps with the press.  For example, there was a lack of press availability after Gov. Christie’s State of the State address and scheduling an official campaign kick-off on Saturday – the day before the Super Bowl no less.

That strategy may have worked in 1993, but this is a completely different media environment.  Weekday radio and TV coverage is more valuable as is the Internet news feed that most people will see at the office but not on the weekend.  The Saturday kickoff is an old-fashioned approach to the media, which also suggests a staid approach to the campaign in general.

So, Sen. Buono, let ‘er rip.  You’ve got nothing to lose – except the election of course.  But at least it will make the campaign more interesting for those of us who have to cover it.

[Disclaimer: All advice given with tongue firmly planted in cheek.]

Chris Christie = New Jersey

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

The anatomy of a reelection strategy that Democrats will have a hard time countering.

Gov. Christie’s speech on Tuesday was one of the most unique State of the State addresses on record.  In a year when he is up for reelection, he did not feel the need to offer one single proposal as a hook on which to campaign.  His record over the past three years and his indispensability to the Sandy recovery effort are more than enough to earn him a second term.  And the opinion polls support that view.

First, let’s look at his record.  A number of observers – mainly Democrats – argue that Chris Christie needed Sandy to win reelection.  The polls don’t bear that out.  Certainly, Sandy has made his case for a second term much easier, but he was in a strong position before the storm hit.

This is no more evident than in public reaction to the biggest policy failure of his first term – the Legislature’s refusal to give him the income tax cut he campaigned on in 2009. 

The governor started 2012 with a 53% job approval rating.  In January, he proposed what was supposed to be his crowning achievement – and the main plank in his reelection campaign – a 10% income tax cut.  His subsequent job rating clocked in at 55%, even though 69% of state residents said that property taxes should be the higher priority.  Just 19% wanted the focus on income taxes. 

It was not to be.  By May, Christie was forced to endorse Senate Pres. Steve Sweeney’s property tax credit after polls showed that state taxpayers preferred a property tax credit to an income tax cut by a 2 to 1 margin.  And still, the governor’s job rating sailed north of 50%.

By June, the property tax deal fell apart when Dems used state revenue shortfalls to put the kibosh on it.  Christie even called a special legislative session in July to enact the plan, but the Democrats said they wouldn’t act on it until the state had the money to pay for it – a sentiment which 54% of Garden State residents endorsed.  And still the governor’s approval rating stood at a solid 53%.

Add to this the unprecedented defeat of not just one, but two, of his Supreme Court nominees and you would think that Gov. Christie should have been hobbled.  Instead, he wasn’t even dented.  Not even a scratch.

Let’s look at it another way.  The top two issues in the state remain jobs and property taxes, even after Hurricane Sandy.   Neither issue has had much of an impact on Gov. Christie’s public standing.

The jobs situation is fairly easy to explain.  As much as the Democrats attack Christie for the lack of a jobs stimulus package, most governors would be able to escape bearing the brunt of the blame.  Voters tend to view the state’s jobs outlook as a symptom of the national economy and mainly Washington’s responsibility.

The state’s property tax issue is another matter.  If anything lands on the governor’s doorstep, it should be this problem.  The state’s property tax is one of the main factors driving people out of the state – or at least considering whether to leave New Jersey.  When Christie took office, 71% of his constituents said they would be very upset if their property taxes didn’t go down during his term.

While the governor touts his 2% cap on property tax growth, the public is still upset that their taxes have not gone down.  When asked to grade the governor on his handling of the issue, only 30% give him an A or a B.  Another 31% say he only deserves a C and 32% saddle him with a D or an F.  And in that very same poll, he still earned a 69% overall job approval rating from New Jersey voters! 

As I stated elsewhere, by all rights this issue should be the governor’s Achille’s Heel.  But it isn’t.  When asked who is most responsible for the lack of property tax relief, 32% blame the legislature, 33% blame either their local government or school board, and just 17% blame the governor.  This also explains why it is difficult for the legislature – which has spent nearly all of the past three years with a negative job rating – to get anything to stick to Christie.

So knocking him out this November was going to be a tough proposition to begin with.  Then along came Sandy.

Gov. Christie did not need Sandy to seal his reelection prospects.  But it certainly has made it a heckuva lot easier.  For one, it is the main reason why Christie didn’t need to even consider throwing in a minor policy proposal in his State of the State address.

On Saturday Night Live, the governor quipped that the ubiquitous fleece jacket he wore during the storm’s aftermath was permanently attached to his skin.  That was no joke.  Metaphorically at least, that fleece is now his permanent campaign raiment.  There is no questioning that Gov. Christie sincerely feels the impact of Sandy on his state.  But he is also aware of its political value.

Before Sandy, Gov. Christie embodied the spirit and personality of New Jersey (whether or not we were willing to admit it).  After Sandy, he became New Jersey personified. 

The governor ended his speech Tuesday by challenging the state’s political class to “put aside destructive politics in an election year.”  Take out the word “destructive” and you have a pretty good idea of just how bold Christie’s speech was.  He is daring his opponents bring politics into this election!

The message is: defeating Chris Christie is the equivalent of defeating New Jersey.  Brilliant!

Hurricane Sandy and the Election in New Jersey

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

An unknown number of provisional ballots remain to be counted in New Jersey, but a few threads are emerging on the presidential election.  Turnout in the Garden State was down by a lot.  Currently, the number of people who casts votes in the presidential election about 500,000 less than in 2008 – about a 14% drop.

That gap will certainly shrink as provisional ballots are tallied, but it will still mark the biggest drop in turnout of all the states.  Nationwide estimates provided by Edison Research of Somerville – the firm that conducts the TV networks’ exit poll – suggest that turnout will only have dropped by about 2% nationally compared to 2008.  New Jersey’s turnout is far behind that figure.

Let’s assume that total turnout in New Jersey ends up being nearly 3.5 million.  This represents about 63% of registered voters, which would be the lowest percentage on record since 1972, when 18-year olds were given the right to vote.  But the voter rolls may not be the best base for comparison.  Registration numbers took a big jump in 2008 because of concerted registration efforts and in 1996 because of the Motor Voter law. Prior to that, fewer eligible voters were actually registered.

If we consider turnout as a percentage of the total voting age population (VAP) or of the voting eligible population (VEP), this year’s numbers hold up against past elections.  Using about 3.5 million voters as a final estimate, New Jersey turnout may wind up being 51% of VAP or 59% of VEP.  Those results either match or exceed statewide turnout in both 1996 and 2000.

Given what the state has gone through over the past two weeks, these turnout numbers don’t look all that bad.

Now let’s look at how New Jersey voted in the presidential contest.  Nationwide, Barack Obama’s winning margin was smaller than it was in 2008.  This trend was true in nearly every state.  In fact, only four states showed Obama improve on his margin from four years ago.

These four states include Alaska, where he narrowed his losing gap by 8 points, and the Gulf States of Louisiana and Mississippi, where he lost by about a point and a half less than in 2008.

And this group also includes one blue state where Obama actually increased his winning margin.  That would be New Jersey, where the president’s margin went from about 15.5 points in 2008 to 17 points this year.

It’s worth noting that polls conducted before Hurricane Sandy hit the state showed Obama with only a 12 point lead on average.  It’s also worth noting that those same polls showed U.S. Senate incumbent Bob Menendez with an average 19 point lead – which is what he actually got on Election Day.

There is no doubt that Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy had an impact on how New Jersey voted in the presidential race -- 54% of New Jersey voters told exit pollsters that Obama's response to the disaster was an important factor in their vote.  Some observers, though, put Obama's winning margin down to a lower turnout in the harder hit Republican shore towns.  This certainly happened, but Democratic urban areas were also affected.

Using the preliminary vote counts, turnout in Ocean County was down about 19% compared to 2008.  But it was also down 19% in Essex County and 17% in Hudson County.

The difference is who turned out in those counties.  Obama cut his losing margin in Ocean County from about 18.5 points in 2008 to 17.5 points in 2012.  And he improved his winning margins in Essex by 3 points and Hudson by 9 points.

In Gloucester County, an area of the state spared most of Sandy’s wrath, turnout was down by just 4%.  Obama’s winning margin there went from 12 points in 2008 to just under 11 points this year.  Based on this result, even if more voters could have made it out to vote, Obama’s statewide margin may have dropped by only a couple of points.  This is still better than how he was doing in Garden State polls prior to Sandy.

A note on national polling:

It appears that nearly all national polls performed well within their individual margins of error, but most – including Monmouth’s – had a slight Republican skew in the nominal horse race.  So all those folks who claimed that we needed to “unskew” the polls were partially right.  They just had it in the wrong direction – which they would never admit, of course.  As Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked Karl Rove, “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?”  As we now know, it’s definitely not the latter.

My first-read suggests that the pollsters who came closest to the mark – which may end up being as much as a 3 point win for Obama when all the votes are counted – employed samples with more voters who are contactable by cell phone only.  This gibes with the exit poll findings that showed an increase in the proportion of the electorate who were under the age 30 or not Caucasian (i.e. Black, Latino, and Asian).  Young voters made up 19% of the electorate – compared to 18% in 2008 – and non-white voters comprised 28% of the electorate – up from a then-record 26% in 2008.

These groups are emerging as solid Democratic voting blocs.  As recently as eight years ago, young voters and Asians, and to a lesser extent Latinos, were much more up for grabs to the GOP.  Now they are solidly Democratic – and they are reachable only by cell phone or other electronic device.

Will the Sun Shine for Mitt Romney?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Which state is the must-watch harbinger for this year’s election?  Is it Ohio, or Iowa, or even Wisconsin?  All of those states are keys to victory in one way or another.  But the make or break state this year is Florida.

This is not the same situation as the nail-biter in 2000.  It is unlikely that Florida’s 29 electoral votes will ultimately be responsible for putting either candidate over the top in this year’s Electoral College count.  Florida, though, will determine whether Mitt Romney can win.

Political pundits of the bean counter ilk have come up with a variety of Electoral College scenarios that would put Mitt Romney in the White House (a good one is here).  But it’s important to note that all of these scenarios hinge on the assumption that Romney takes Florida.

A win in Florida does not guarantee a Mitt Romney victory, but a Sunshine State loss almost certainly hands Barack Obama another term.

With little more than three weeks to go before Election Day, eight states are currently considered to be the battlegrounds based on polling and where the candidates are spending their resources.  These are New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada.  Among this group, Florida is probably the most likely to go for Romney based on recent electoral performance.

In 2008, John McCain lost Florida by less than 3 percentage points.  He lost Ohio by 4, Virginia by 6 and each of the remaining 2012 toss-up states by 9 points or more.  In 2004, George W. Bush won Florida by 5 points, second only to his 8 point margin in Virginia among these eight states.  Bush won Colorado by just under 5 points, Ohio and Nevada by about 2 points each, and Iowa by 1 point.  He narrowly lost Wisconsin and New Hampshire to John Kerry.

In other words, if Mitt Romney loses Florida, he is unlikely to have an edge in any other battleground state.  In fact, if he loses Florida, he would have to run the table in those seven other states in order to be elected.  Highly improbable.

On the other hand, if Romney does take Florida, his path to victory is a little easier than it appeared just two weeks ago.  For instance, he could sweep the five smallest states (NH, WI, IA, CO, and NV).  Or swap out Iowa and Nevada for Virginia and Romney would still win.  All without Ohio!  Based on recent polling, this is not outside the realm of possibility.

We’ll find out – hopefully – on November 6^th.  As Bette Davis once said, “Fasten your seatbelts.  It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

Veep Debate has Consequences

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ 

Joe Biden mugged, laughed and interrupted.  Paul Ryan was more composed, but perhaps a little geeky.  Both sides firmly believe their candidate won.  And that could be bad news for the Republican ticket.

There is little doubt that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate last week.  Even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters had to concede this fact.  Some – read Chris Matthews – reacted as if their team’s ace closer gave up a walk-off grand slam in the bottom of the ninth.

What caught many less partisan observers by surprise, though, is the extent to which that debate changed the election’s dynamic.  Usually, it takes an outright gaffe to move the needle on horse race numbers.  However, Mitt Romney’s solid and workmanlike performance coupled with Barack Obama’s lack of game revealed just how volatile this electorate is.

In the national Monmouth University Poll released yesterday, 9% of likely voters claim that they changed their vote intention as a result of the debate.  Taking into account this group’s current support, this accounts for up to a 4 or 5 point swing in intended vote over the past week.  That is precisely the size of the shift most poll aggregators have shown since the debate.

It’s worth noting that Pres. Obama’s poll lead peaked at 4 points the week before the debate on both the RealClearPolitics and HuffPost Pollster trackers.  It was already on a downward trend leading into the debate and stood at 3 points on October 3.  However, that downward trajectory accelerated immediately following the debate.

So why won’t the VP debate help the Romney-Ryan ticket or at least maintain the status quo for the Republicans?  Because Thursday’s face-off reinstated the highly charged partisan rhetoric that had dominated this race and was turning off those independent voters who were positively impressed by Romney in the first debate.

During the past week, voters have enjoyed a bit of a hiatus – at least on the national level if not in swing states – of the partisan flame-throwing that has characterized this campaign.  Starting with last week’s presidential debate through to Mitt Romney’s recent stump speeches, we have seen a more moderate campaign theme from the Republican side while the Democrats have been forced into a defensive posture.

The VP debate now gives both sides’ supporters permission to re-engage in the “My guy is right, your guy sucks” line of attacks that only serve to turn off voters in the middle.  These are the voters whom Romney tentatively won over last week.  But they are not fully committed to him.

If the campaign returns to 24/7 partisan bickering – as I sense it will – those voters will likely desert Romney.  They will either stick with the devil they know or choose not to vote at all.  In this scenario, the incumbent benefits.

Paul Ryan may have held his own and Joe Biden may have been off-putting.  But the end result is that we are likely back to the campaign we saw before the first presidential debate.

What Chris Christie Really Said

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ 

The reaction to Chris Christie’s speech in a nutshell?  Hard core Republicans are disappointed he didn’t call Barack Obama an “idiot” and hard core Democrats are disappointed he did not say he was “tired of dealing with the crazies” in his own party.  If you look past these unrealistic expectations, though, you will find a speech that is a throwback to loftier days of partisan battles.  Chris Christie  engaged in the kind of rhetoric that politicians should use more often.

Yes, you read that correctly!  Let me explain.

First we need to acknowledge that this speech was more about Chris Christie than anything else.  I think the Romney camp would have been happier if he delivered only the middle part of the speech, where he laid out the differences between Republican and Democratic ideas and gave a rousing call for Mitt Romney’s leadership. 

If you read between the lines, though, he laid out a clear and compelling vision of where he wants the Republican Party to position itself.  He told us what he feels the Republican Party – and by extension, American politics – should be about.

Keep in mind, I am not judging his speech on its accuracy.  Certainly, when he talked about balancing the budget with “lower taxes,” a typical New Jerseyan’s income and property tax statements may tell a different story.  Moreover, claims that his brand of “bipartisanship” is transferable are debatable. 

However, to judge his speech solely on its accuracy is an unfair test.  All political speeches bend the truth.  The question is how much confidence in our political system was evident in this speech. 

An odd question, to be sure.  But if you listen to the partisan din coming from both the left and the right, our country’s political dialogue has degenerated.  Political debate has boiled down to competing assertions that Armageddon is imminent if the other side wins.

Hard-core partisans of both stripes give lip service to the “genius” of our system of government, but their words tell a much different story.  Their fire and brimstone rhetoric reveals a deep-seated lack of faith that our republic can survive four years of being governed under a political philosophy other than their own.

It’s not that they simply disagree with the other party’s agenda – it’s that the other party’s agenda by definition, is the handiwork of Satan.  And unfortunately, when these hard core ideologues gain power, they create the kind of gridlock that proves them right.  Perhaps our system of government is in peril – not because either side is completely wrong, but because neither side is completely right and isn’t humble enough to admit it.

It’s on this measure that I judge Chris Christie’s speech a success.

The governor talked about the Republican Party being the party that is willing to talk in hard truths and hard choices.  And how Republican leadership leads to success.  He also drew clear distinctions between the two parties – about who they stand with and what they believe.  He attacked Democrats to be sure – as the party afraid to face hard truths and make tough choices; the party that believes people are not willing to make sacrifices; and the party that stands more with unions than workers.  He even got in a dig against the incumbent president being overly concerned with opinion polls.

He summed up his view of the Republican brand by saying “Our ideas are right for America and their ideas have failed America.”  He could have easily said that the Democrats’ ideas have “destroyed” America, as others in his party have.  So, it is commendable that he did not engage in, literally, destructive rhetoric.

What he avoided talking about at all is also revealing.  Earlier in the convention, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell summed up much of the day by boiling down the GOP platform to “the sanctity of life, the 2^nd amendment, and a balanced budget” – apparently in that order.

That’s why it was glaringly obvious that priorities number 1 and 2 were completely absent from Christie’s speech. He was saying regardless of what we personally believe on social issues they should not dominate our political discourse.  Christie’s ability to separate his views on social issues from his governing agenda has brought him success in New Jersey.  Of course, the question remains whether he can become a national contender without taking on those issues, but his speech indicated that he’s going to try.

In the end, hardcore partisans – those who reside in their respective echo chambers – emerged with strongly divergent views of Christie’s performance.  But I was most intrigued by the feedback I heard from some longtime Democratic voters who watched the speech.

They are not fans of Chris Christie and don’t agree with his policies here in New Jersey.  As may be expected, they didn’t think he gave a great speech.  However, the most telling commentary from these Democrats was that the speech “didn’t bother” them.  They would never vote Republican, but they weren’t fearful of the vision Christie laid out.

So, I judge Chris Christie’s speech a success because he was able to be partisan without demonizing the other side.  And that is a major step in the right direction.

Of course, we’ll have to see if this kindler, gentler Christie is still evident at his next Jersey Shore boardwalk confrontation.  For one night, though, Chris Christie gave us a glimpse of what a respectful, partisan campaign can look like.

Paul Ryan’s Impact on Undecided Voters

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Looking at it from a number of ways, it’s difficult to see how the selection of Paul Ryan as vice presidential nominee makes Mitt Romney’s path to 270 Electoral College votes any easier.

This has nothing to do with Congressman Ryan’s qualifications to be Vice President.  He’s smart, thoughtful and policy driven.  He clearly passes the primary hurdle:  Can this person step in if something happens to the President.  By that measure, Mitt Romney made a solid pick that reflects well on his decision-making ability as a potential Chief Executive – which is after all how voters really assess the meaning of the VP selection.

Moreover, Paul Ryan has the potential – albeit untested – to be good on the stump.  His personable demeanor and command of the issues should serve him well in that capacity.

The primary reason for rating this pick as a net negative is how it changes the narrative in a way that likely makes it easier for Barack Obama’s campaign to pick up voters who matter most.

As with other recent presidential contests, this race comes down to just 20% of the potential electorate in about a dozen swing states.  Most states are too “red” or “blue” to be in play. And even in the few competitive states, about 4-in-5 voters have already locked in their choice.

Many proponents of the choice point out that Paul Ryan should play well among voters in those states.  And I fully expect that polls from now through the Tampa convention will give Romney a bounce.  But it’s important to look past the ephemeral horse race numbers and examine the underlying dynamic on the issue that may now drive this race – namely, who is better positioned to use Medicare to their advantage.

While polls show that voters tend to side with Ryan on debt reduction, past history shows that national debt and federal budget deficits take a back seat to other issues for undecided voters.

Here’s my initial take on why the pick was made and why it may be a net negative.

Some say Romney needed to energize his base.  That’s baloney.  As the GOP primary exit polls indicated – supporters of Romney’s more conservative opponents would eventually get in line.  He might have some trouble with the Ron Paul crowd, but they lack an alternative in November.

By election day, antipathy toward Obama would make the GOP electorate a sure bet to turn out.  Furthermore, Romney’s stellar fundraising numbers suggest that any lack of enthusiasm his campaign is hearing from conservative activists is out of proportion to its practical impact.

Some also say a “boring” pick would have dragged down the ticket.  Wrong.  That news “story” would have lasted a week.  It would have taken a back seat by Tampa specifically because of its lack of controversy.

Some say Romney needed to take control of the narrative.  This part is true.  But the Ryan pick doesn’t do that.  And here’s where the risk lies.

Up until now the election was about jobs and the economy.  Paul Ryan charged in his first appearance as the putative nominee that Pres. Obama was able to get every item on his agenda passed in his first two years and things still didn’t get better.  The Romney campaign has not been able to focus undecided voters fully on this message.

However, rather than changing the narrative, the Ryan pick actually amplifies the trajectory of the current one.

To date, the Obama camp has nullified the Romney attacks by basically making a tacit admission that they haven’t been successful in sparking job growth, but they have tried. The underlying message is that at least they care about it, whereas Mitt Romney is, at best out of touch and at worst contemptuous of the middle class.

Mitt Romney now has to answer for the Ryan budget plan, despite his claim that he has his own plan.  And that doesn’t change the narrative, but amplifies the current one.  The Obama line now will be:  “Not only does Romney want to kill jobs, he wants to take away your safety net too.”

Those attacks can be characterized as distortions and perhaps outright lies.  But it doesn’t matter when you understand what best motivates the 20% of voters up for grabs in those swing states.  And that is fear.

These are people who, for the most part, have been able to hold on to their jobs and muddle through the economic doldrums.  But they aren’t enthused about the incumbent’s performance.

A good number of these potential voters were Obama supporters in 2008.  They won’t vote for a Republican, but were likely to sit this one out.  They are doing okay and don’t see Romney as a threat to their current well-being.  However, they are counting on Medicare coverage because they won’t have enough money to pay for private health care when they retire.  These are the sleeping dogs that the Ryan pick now threatens to waken.

Other voters in that 20% block are typical undecided voters.  They don’t pay close attention to policy and tend to vote with their gut.  It’s much easier to make someone afraid of the unknown than the known.  And that probably means that Florida, where the current polling average has the race at 1 or 2 point margin, is probably now off the table.

On the face of it, the Ryan pick should have been a boon to voters.  It took an esoteric debate about management style and potentially raises it to a dialogue about clearly different visions on government’s role in society.

Unfortunately, that conversation will be drowned out by what will probably be the nastiest presidential campaign of the media age.

Don’t Forget the Guys!

 Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

While her husband John spent the sweltering summer of 1776 pushing for a new American government, Abigail Adams famously reminded him: “Don’t forget the ladies.” That certainly seems to be a rallying cry for the current U.S. Senate race in New Jersey. 

The bottom line, as described in more detail here, is that GOP challenger Joe Kyrillos took a week in August to make a public push for the “women’s vote.”  The campaign of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez immediately pushed back, saying that Kyrillos’ legislative voting record was poor on “women’s issues.”

The partisan gender gap in voting has been well established. While the Republican nominee doesn’t expect to win New Jersey women outright, he is probably hoping to lose by a narrow margin, similar to what Chris Christie accomplished in his successful 2009 run for governor.

It’s worth taking a look at how the exit poll that year broke down the vote by gender.

2009	Christie	Corzine	Net
Women	45%	50%	-5
Men	53%	40%	+13

Christie lost the female vote by just 5 points on the strength of questioning whether Corzine’s policies benefited New Jersey families. But gubernatorial elections are not the same as campaigns for national office, where a different set of issues are at play.

So it’s also worth looking at the vote by gender for the last two U.S. Senate races, both won by Democrats

2008	Zimmer	Lautenberg	Net
Women	41%	58%	-17
Men	45%	54%	-9

2006	Kean	Menendez	Net
Women	41%	57%	-16
Men	48%	49%	-1

In each of those two races, the Republican candidate lost the vote of women by 16 to 17 points. So, how does the current race look when it comes to voting by gender?

2012 Women	Kyrillos	Menendez	Net
Quinnipiac 7/18	30%	52%	-22
Monmouth/APP 7/26	29%	43%	-14
FDU Public Mind 8/2	30%	44%	-14

According to the last three polls covering this race, Joe Kyrillos is trailing among women by anywhere from 14 to 22 points. This is much more in line with recent senate elections than it is with the most recent gubernatorial contest.

The polls also reveal another interesting dynamic of this race. Currently, Joe Kyrillos trails among men in the polls, by anywhere from 4 to 10 points.

2012 Men	Kyrillos	Menendez	Net
Quinnipiac 7/18	38%	43%	-5
Monmouth/APP 7/26	36%	40%	-4
FDU Public Mind 8/2	36%	46%	-10

Chris Christie may have lost the female vote in 2009, but he won the male vote by 13 points, accounting for his more than 3 point win that year. The two GOP Senate candidates lost the male vote – Dick Zimmer by 9 points in 2008 and Tom Kean, Jr. by 1 point in 2006.

In other words, Christie did not win in 2009 by closing the gender gap. In fact the gap was even wider than the two prior senate contests. He won men by 13 points and lost women by 5 points – an 18 point net gender gap. This compares to a net gap of 8 points in the 2008 senate race and 15 points in 2006.

If Joe Kyrillos wants to close in on Bob Menendez, does he need to do better among women or among men? The answer is both.

Random Thoughts on this Month in NJ Politics

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Voter Enthusiasm -
No one really thinks that Barack Obama is going to win New Jersey by the 15 point margin he commanded in 2008.  But his current lead among registered voters – 11 points in last week’s Quinnipiac Poll and 13 points in this week’s Monmouth University/Asbury Park Press Poll suggests he might not be far from that mark. 

Those results are among registered voters, though.  Among likely voters it will be closer.  Monmouth’s model has the lead narrowing to 8 points.  Voters who cast their ballots in any given election tend to be slightly more Republican than the total registered voter pool.  GOP voters are simply more consistent.  This difference is usually very small in presidential elections when the vast majority of registered voters show up.

It’s important to keep in mind that summer polls are still subject to the whims of an unsettled electorate.  Wide variations from poll to poll, and from registered voter samples to likely voter samples, are not unusual.  Two recent national polls using registered voter samples showed either Barack Obama up by 6 points (NBC/Wall Street Journal) or the race as a tie (Gallup).  Another poll, using a likely voter sample, showed Mitt Romney ahead by 4 points (Rasmussen, which tends to be Republican-leaning).

Where the summer polls are really useful is understanding the dynamics behind voter attitudes.  A big difference between this year and 2008 is the shifting partisan enthusiasm gap.  Four years ago, a national Gallup poll showed that 61% of Democrats reported feeling more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while only 35% of Republicans felt the same.  The voters in New Jersey mirrored that sentiment, with 66% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans feeling more enthusiastic.

That sentiment has reversed this year.  Gallup reports that 51% of Republicans are now more enthusiastic than usual, while only 39% of Democrats feel the same.   Here in New Jersey, we’ve also seen a shift, with 53% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats feeling more enthused.  While the Garden State numbers have moved, they haven’t moved as far as the national numbers.  This is why Mitt Romney will look elsewhere for a 2008 Obama state to flip into his column.

Endless Summer Tax Cut Tour -
An across-the-board tax cut was supposed to be Gov. Chris Christie’s major accomplishment in his 2013 re-election bid.  Some sort of tax cut, for which he would have received most of the credit, looked to be in the offing.  That was until negative revenue projections gave Democrats an opening to put the kibosh on it.

The governor believes that he can move recalcitrant legislators by rallying the public to his side.  The polling indicates that he should be able to shift opinion on this.  The question is by how much.

This week’s Monmouth poll found that 54% of New Jerseyans feel it is better to hold any tax cuts until revenues improve.  Just 37% say it would be better to go ahead with a cut now.  These numbers are slightly different from last week’s Quinnipiac poll, which found 49% support for the wait-and-see approach and 43% who wanted to forge ahead.

The main difference between the two polls is that Quinnipiac ‘s poll question attached these options to the Democrats and Gov. Christie, respectively.  The Monmouth poll question did not anchor these positions to any elected official.  This suggests that the governor’s support leads some residents to overcome their initial reluctance on moving ahead with a cut. 

This interpretation is supported by another Monmouth poll finding that those less tuned in to the tax cut debate are more likely to prefer the wait and see approach than those who have been keeping track of where the major players stand on the issue.

The more people hear where the governor stands, the more people he can sway to his side.  Hence, the Endless Summer Tax Cut Tour.  The question is whether Gov. Christie can break above the 43% mark set by the Quinnipiac Poll.  Stay tuned.

Judicial Pensions -
In addition to the tax cut, Democrats have handed Gov. Christie a few tough losses this year.  Topping the list is the unprecedented rejection of not just one, but two, Supreme Court nominees. 

When the Supreme Court – or at least two justices and a fill-in – decided that increasing judges’ benefits contributions is unconstitutional, I expected legislators to talk a good game but drag their heals on any real action.

I have to admit my surprise that the State Senate moved so quickly to put a constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot.  Of course, the Senate resolution had already cleared committee.  So it wasn’t a heavy lift to hold the required public hearing this week – bet you missed that – and schedule a vote next week. 

The resolution needs to be approved next week, because the Constitutions stipulates a three month timeline for public notification. Which means the amendment needs to be printed in local newspapers by August 6.

The Constitution also requires that proposed amendments “shall be printed and placed on the desks of the members of each house” at least 20 days before being voted upon.  Now, here’s where it gets interesting.

While the resolution was placed on senators’ desks on June 21^st, there has been no such action with the companion resolution in the Assembly.  Apparently, the legislature is able to move this through the Assembly using “emergency procedures” to replace the Assembly resolution with the Senate version as read.

I am fully aware that the Constitution allows the legislature to suspend requirements for 2^nd and 3^rd readings of a resolution.   But I did not realize they could also suspend other Constitutional provisions pertaining to amendments.  In other words, the legislature can deem that a “virtual reality” resolution had been placed on Assembly members’ desks.

As one observer remarked to me, “It’s the magic of Trenton.”

Update 7/30 -- The Legislature now reports that the Senate version of the concurrent resolution was in fact placed on Assembly members' desks on June 21, in accordance with Assembly rule 20:1.

New Jersey Elections: The View from June

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

If June’s Garden State polls are any indication, 2012 is shaping up a lot like 1996 – at least as far as the Presidential contest is concerned.  And maybe the U.S. Senate race, too... maybe.

The latest Eagleton-Rutgers Poll gives President Barack Obama a 55% favorable to 33% unfavorable rating from Garden State voters.  Sixteen years ago, then-incumbent Bill Clinton held a nearly identical 53% to 35% June rating in New Jersey.

The 1996 poll also gave Clinton a 46% “excellent+good” to 52% “fair+poor” rating.  We don’t have a comparable job rating question this time around.  Nowadays, polls tend to ask a straight “approve/disapprove” question.  However, Eagleton did ask New Jersey voters whether Bill Clinton deserved to be re-elected – to which 51% said yes.  A Quinnipiac Poll last month put Obama’s re-elect number at a nearly identical 52%.

What does this mean? Anything can happen, but given that incumbent elections tend to be referenda on their first terms, Obama is doing as well as Clinton on these underlying benchmark measures.

The 1996 also asked about vote intention.  I am wary of making a direct comparison to current polls because that question was the 17^th asked, after a series of questions about familiarity with the candidates.  Current polls tend to ask the vote preference question much sooner in the interview – which has a differential impact on the results.

For what it’s worth, though, the 1996 Eagleton Poll showed Clinton leading Bob Dole by 19 points (53% to 34%).  He won the state by a nearly identical 18 points that November.  Recent New Jersey polls have Obama over Mitt Romney by anywhere from 10 points (Quinnipiac, May 16) to 14 points (Eagleton, June 16).

There’s another interesting factor shared by these two elections – a U.S. Senate seat is also at stake.  The June 1996 Eagleton Poll showed Democrat Bob Torricelli leading Republican Dick Zimmer by 8 points (39% to 31%) in that contest – about half the incumbent President’s poll margin.  Torricelli eventually won that race by 10 points – again, about half the incumbent President’s winning margin.

Recent polls on this year’s New Jersey Senate race put the gap at about the same as the Presidential contest.  A Quinnipiac Poll released last month had incumbent Democrat Bob Menendez leading GOP challenger Joe Kyrillos by 10 points – the same as their Obama-Romney margin.

Of course, GOP boosters point to the 2000 anomaly, where Al Gore bested George W. Bush by 16 points in the Garden State, but had no coattails.  Jon Corzine squeaked past Bob Franks by 3 points, despite spending an astronomical $60 million on the effort.

In June 2000, both Eagleton and Quinnipiac gave Gore a narrow 4 point polling edge in New Jersey, while Corzine held a much wider lead – 10 points in the Eagleton poll and 20 points according to Quinnipiac.  Obviously, these trends flipped by Election Day.

On the other hand, 2012 may be more like 1996 than 2000 since the top-of-ticket coattails belong to an incumbent President.  There is also a difference between 2012 and 1996 that shouldn’t be overlooked.  The current race involves an incumbent Senator while the 1996 contest was for an open seat.

Sixteen years ago, only 1-in-5 voters had formed an opinion of either Senate nominee by this point in the race.  In the current cycle, that 1-in-5 number holds true for Kyrillos – 12% favorable to 8% unfavorable according to Eagleton.  As may be expected, voters are much more familiar with the sitting incumbent, giving Menendez a 33% positive to 20% negative rating in the same poll.  It is worth noting, though, that this six year officeholder is still largely unknown to 4 out of 10 of his constituents.

One factor that could make this race interesting is that the low level of familiarity means that only 26% of voters in an April Monmouth University Poll would definitively state that Menendez deserves to be re-elected.  Another 32% said he did not and 41% couldn’t make a determination either way.

That leaves a lot to ponder.  If these presidential ratings track as they did in 1996, does Obama win by 10 points in November?  And if so, does Menendez hold on to his current lead as well?  Or does the other 1996 dynamic emerge, with Menendez claiming only half the margin that the President gets – thus making it a close race with Kyrillos?

Or does Obama’s vote share start to climb and Menendez’s start to drop over the next few months, a la 2000?

These are just a few potential scenarios based on past performance.  Something to ponder this summer while you are down the shore enjoying a Windmill hot dog or Kohr’s custard.

NJ Primary Takeaway

Well, not everything turned out as I expected, but I’ll fall back on the fact that I called the winner in every raced involving someone who will actually serve in Congress next year.  (How’s that for spin?)

Turnout was a little higher than I expected.  When all the votes are counted it looks like it might be about 11%.  Specifically, GOP turnout was about 40,000 voters greater than in a typical primary, driven by the novelty of an already-decided Presidential nomination.  But it was Democratic turnout in just two Congressional Districts that put the statewide turnout figure over the 10% mark.  Approximately 110,000 Democratics voted in those two districts alone.  That's about 60-70,000 more than we would expect in a typical primary!

On the headline event of the night, I was right on the winner, Bill Pascrell, but no one – including the victor’s camp – ever dreamed of the numbers he would put up in Passaic County.  Steve Rothman’s negative campaign led to the expected low turnout in Bergen, but not in Passaic, where Pascrell’s ground game – aided by Bill Clinton’s endorsement – contributed to the stunner of the night.

In the 10^th district, the race wasn’t as close as I thought it would be – not anywhere close to where I thought it would be. Ron Rice, Jr. intended to challenge the incumbent Congressman, Donald Payne, Sr. before he died, and so had been preparing for a battle.  The Essex County machine had a point to prove against this rabble rouser and turned out monster numbers in the Oranges and elsewhere. Moreover, they were able to produce the same margins in Union County.  Rice may be a tenacious campaigner in Newark, but he go his hat handed to him, barely edging out Nia Gill for a dismal second place finish, 40 percentage points behind the winner, Donald Payne, Jr.

I also, thought that the Monmouth County GOP organizational pick in CD6 would take the nomination over 2010 upstart, Anna Little.  While Little had the Middlesex line, there seemed to be less overall enthusiasm for her grass-roots candidacy this time around.  Moreover, I thought – foolish me – that the Monmouth GOP would make sure it did not suffer a repeat of their candidate’s loss two years ago.

I guess I gave them too much credit.  In 2010, only 14,000 Republicans showed up to vote in the CD6 primary.  In the newly expanded district, that number actually dropped to less than 11,000.  Monmouth party pick, Ernesto Cullari claimed only 2,400 votes in the Monmouth portion of the district! District-wide, he got his clock cleaned, losing the nomination by 40 points.  The Monmouth County GOP has a history of anemic GOTV operations and I know there was little real enthusiasm for Cullari.

But really?! Only 2,400 votes? In some cultures, the Monmouth GOP would be compelled to light itself on fire in the village square from the shame of it all.

Alright, that’s enough ragging.  So what’s the big takeaway for New Jersey from yesterday’s primary?

Nothing.

The few competitive races hinged on settling personal scores more than articulating differing visions of government or the future of the party. 

With that behind us, it’s on to November.  And to save us all some time, I’ll just make most of my picks right now, thanks to the New Jersey redistricting commission:

President: Obama wins the state’s 14 electoral votes

US Senate: Too early to call

CD1: Andrews
CD2: LoBiondo
CD3: Too early too call
CD4: Smith
CD5: Garrett
CD6: Pallone
CD7: Lance
CD8: Sires
CD9: Pascrell
CD10: Payne
CD11: Frelinghuysen
CD12: Holt

LD4: Mosquera
LD16: Too early to call
LD26: DeCroce