New Jersey: 2000, 2004 and 2008

[phk]

I have some questions on New Jersey's voting habits from 2000 to 2008.

In 2000
Gore: 56.13%   
Bush: 40.29%
Gore: +16

In 2008
Obama: 57.14%
McCain: 41.61%
Obama: +15

Now take into account the national pV was +.5 Gore in 2000 and +7 Obama in 2008 and the fact that Nader got 4% in NJ in 2000.

Was there a "permanent" 9/11 effect or did Gore just really over perform?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm pretty sure it was because of gun control.  The 'burbs loved Gore for it.  Bush underperformed horribly in Ocean and Cape May counties.  

There was a bit of 9/11 effect in Jersey, too.  Not really that much though, and Jersey was right around where it should have been in 2008. 

[ScottM]

Permanent? I don't know. But I think there are a few things to consider.

#1: In 2004, Kerry won the state 52.9 to 46.2. Not neck and neck, but more competitive than New Jersey's reputation to be sure.

#2: The state has trended Republican from both 2000 to 2004 and 2004 to 2008.

#3: They just elected a Republican governor with early approval ratings that are pretty good: 52% approve 28% disapprove (Including 38/33 among Democrats).

What all of that means, who knows? Only time will tell.

[Verily]

I'm pretty sure it was because of gun control.  The 'burbs loved Gore for it.  Bush underperformed horribly in Ocean and Cape May counties.  

There was a bit of 9/11 effect in Jersey, too.  Not really that much though, and Jersey was right around where it should have been in 2008.  

This. Gore way overperformed due to New Jersey's strong support for gun control, which was a highly salient issue in 2000. (Clinton also overperformed in 1996 for the same reason.) The result in Ocean County in 2000 is absurd in the broader perspective of New Jersey politics.

Also, the state is very polarized, so swings are likely to be smaller than in other states.

[Ebowed]

This is also found in a couple states in New England.

New Jersey
Gore +15.84
Obama +15.53

Rhode Island
Gore +29.08
Obama +27.80

Massachusetts
Gore +27.30
Obama +25.81

Naturally, Obama also beat Gore's percentage of the vote in all of these states, but likewise McCain beat Bush.  Particularly in RI and MA, where Nader managed impressive showings, Bush didn't even get a third of the vote.

All this says is that these states are very Democratic and have little or no room to "trend" further when the rest of the country is doing so.  Gore did indeed perform well in the Northeast, likely because he was seen as a natural continuation of the popular Clinton administration.  Likewise the Northeast voted strongly for Obama when he was advertised as a repudiation of Bush.

[Bo]

I guess Obama underperformed and that Hillary would have done better.

[DariusNJ]

Being from New Jersey, gun control was a part of it. We've had some pretty unpopular Democratic politicians too, I'm not sure if that may have played a role in the 2004 and 2008 results.

Also, I just think that New Jersey's Democratic-ness has been maxed out. We are a leftist, but not extremely leftist state politically. The 2000 results (Plus the fact that we kept re-electing not so great Democratic politicians ) made NJ seem more Democratic than we really were.

[DariusNJ]

I guess Obama underperformed and that Hillary would have done better.

In northern NJ, yes. In liberal areas and areas with poor African Americans, no. In southern NJ, it would be about the same.

Overall, I think the results would have been about the same if it was Hillary vs McCain.