| |
 Nov. 12, 2009
Hard to believe, isn’t it, that it’s been just over a week since the election?
But there’s no denying the shift in the political landscape since the vote. The governor-elect has already begun to dominate the news; the political debate has turned more toward tax cuts and spending, and away from gay marriage; and the state’s public employee unions have begun playing defense.
Still, there are a few highlights to consider before the book closes on the 2009 election.
One of the most telling points was the change in the makeup of the electorate. Where Democrats made up 44% of the voters in 2008; that number dropped to 41% in 2009, according to exit polls. Similarly, the number of Republicans increased from 28% in 2008 to 31% in 2009. That represents a six-point swing toward Republicans – the Democrats dropped from a 16-percentage point advantage in 2008 to a 10-point edge in 2009.
(That was one reason, by the way, that so many polls missed this election; they weighted their sample with a higher percentage of Democrats, based on the 2008 model, than actually turned out at the polls.)
Another key: While independents made up 28% of voters – the same in 2009 as 2008 – the way they voted was dramatically different. In 2008, independents voted Democrat by 51%-47%. But in 2009, independents went overwhelmingly for Chris Christie: 60% to 30% for Jon Corzine – and were a key to his margin of victory.
(There are plenty of indications, incidentally, that this Independent shift to Republicans may not be a one-time thing. Wednesday’s Gallup poll found nationwide, voters prefer Republicans in the 2010 generic ballot 48%-44% and independents prefer Republicans 52%-30%. Gallup notes that a Republican lead on the generic ballot is rare – and “has been a sign of a strong Republican showing at the polls in the coming election.”
Equally worrisome for Democrats, Public Policy Polling found that only 74% of Obama voters in New Jersey plan to vote for a Democrat for Congress next year, with 11% voting Republicans. John McCain voters will vote for a Republican for Congress 88%-3%.
If Independents continue to vote Republican in 2010, then John Adler, not to mention a number of safe congressional seats (read Frank Pallone and Rush Holt) may not be so safe after all.
In other words, blue Jersey may be looking more purple in 2010.)
But there’s little doubt that the 2009 election was defined by several key moments. In July, after the corruption arrests, there was active talk of Corzine dropping out of the race. We have all since learned that the White House was among those testing the waters for a new candidate. But few who knew the governor ever thought he would drop out. But typical of the hubris that marked his administration, he also never felt he needed to tell the voters what he would do differently – or that he had made mistakes. The governor who kept firing communications directors because he didn’t get his message out, and who, we are told, wasn’t good at taking credit for his successes, also wasn’t good at telling voters why they should vote for him.
But all that talk of how Corzine should leave is what, in all likelihood, prompted the Corzine campaign to begin its air assault against Christie in the summer; our guess is earlier than they would have otherwise liked.
But while the volume of ads did lessen Christie’s support, ultimately Corzine’s camp overreached, with their not-so-subtle attacks against Christie’s weight. The content of those ads – which went nationwide after they were written about by the New York Times – changed the conversation from the ad’s message to the unfairness of the attack – diluting their effectiveness. What also diluted those ads was Christie’s well-regarded appearance on Don Imus, where he poked fun at his weight and taunted Corzine to call him fat to his face.)
But as the polls tightened, stories were being written about Corzine mounting a comeback – which prompted a rare rebuke from analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As reporters kept writing that Corzine was closing the gap, Rothenberg wrote a column chastising reporters for missing the story -- Corzine’s poll numbers were showing no movement toward him; the change was due to movement away from Christie and toward Daggett. It was a key analysis of the campaign, and one that remained true until the end.
Another myth that was dispelled in the campaign – the vast superiority of the Democrats GOTV effort. Not only were stories about the Republican GOTV plan underreported, stories were all but nonexistent. Something tells us, though, that was by design. As GOP consultant Bill Pascoe noted in his column for CQ Politics, the Christie campaign may have engaged in a clever subterfuge, by talking about holding down the Corzine vote, while never mentioning how they were pumping up the suburban vote for their candidate.
But Christie’s numbers may have also been helped by two other moments of hubris from Corzine. The first was his inexplicable decision to muse out loud to the New York Times how he might like to revisit his disastrous toll hike plan. Perhaps he believed what his internal pollster was telling him, that he was 4 points up and would win. Perhaps it was his need to prove that he had been right all along – either way, it was a disastrous mistake the weekend before the vote. It reminded all those suburban commuters why they disliked him in the first.
The second mistake was his decision to boycott the NJ101.5 debates and the Gannett newspapers. While both had been critical of him, his decision unleashed the radio station hosts and the newspapers’ editorial pages to not only endorse his opponents, but to actively campaign for his defeat. And coincidence or not, their readers and listeners voted heavily against the governor.
But if Corzine was hurt by the media, there’s little doubt that Daggett was helped by it. He was a frequent guest on NJ101.5, and the station’s influential morning host, Jim Gearhart, publicly mused about endorsing him until the last week. Daggett’s high mark was when he unveiled his tax cut plan to rave media reviews, quickly followed by his boffo performance at the first debate, and capped by the Star-Ledger’s endorsement. His poll numbers began rising, as high as 20% in one poll – and there was talk that he could be a real contender in the race.
But then the GOP unleashed its assault, attacking Daggett’s tax plan in ads aimed at Republicans and independents. Daggett never had the money to respond. But the candidate also made critical mistakes: when Republicans began whispering that he was a stalking horse for Corzine – he didn’t refute it forcefully enough to penetrate. Instead, he spoke of how he and Corzine were the only two choices in the race, and then, more damaging, he refused to rule out joining the Corzine administration, And when word came that Democrats were paying for pro-Daggett calls to Republicans, he didn’t condemn the Democrats – instead his campaign wondered whether it was Republicans behind the calls.
But in the end, what Daggett – and the White House – couldn’t overcome was the voters desire for change, and dislike of Corzine. As Christie’s lead collapsed, and Corzine took the lead in some polls, you could almost feel the collective panic of the anti-Corzine voter who began returning home to Christie.
Only 9 percent of independents voted for Chris Daggett. Throughout the campaign, it looked like Daggett was pulling votes from Christie. But when the exit polls asked voters who they would have voted for if only Corzine and Christie were on the ballot, Christie still won, but by a smaller amount, 49% to 46%. Four percent said they wouldn’t have voted. That seems to indicate that Daggett drew slightly more votes from Corzine than Christie.
For in the end, the race was what it had been all along == a referendum on Corzine – and a rejection of his tax and spend policies. And undoubtedly, that’s what the Christie campaign knew all along. And that was the great underreported story of the campaign – it wasn’t that Christie had no specifics, which was the theme that the campaign inexplicably allowed to develop. What the media missed was that the campaign’s specifics were a difference in philosophy – and that was specific enough for the public. . No new taxes. Cut spending. Reduce property taxes. Voters didn’t need to hear how he would cut the state budget – they just wanted to know that he would.
Now, we would argue that Christie didn’t find his voice to articulate that philosophy strongly enough until shortly before the second debate – when his ads and his messages began telling the public that was “exactly” what he would do.
But for a voting public that was squeezed by higher taxes, who were offered a choice of more of the same from Corzine – or casting a vote for an independent that could result in the governor’s re-election, that was enough.
|
|
