NJ- Rasmussen: Obama Slightly Favored

[Gustaf]

Pennsylvania is hardly fool's gold - it wouldn't take much to turn it over. Michigan might be more appropriate.

And Texas is hardly comparable to New Jersey.

If I understand the term correctly you want a state that is fairly close but yet so polarized that it is hard to get over to your side. Washington, Oregon and New Jersey all seem to be in this category for the GOP. For Democrats it should be close-ish Southern states and that used to be NC and VA until Obama won them. Now it might be a state like GA. Arizona used to be in this category as well, IIRC.

You have to remember that Bush Sr won PA and NJ. They are comparable to VA and NC, because the GOP has not have that kind of election recently, where it would win those kind of states. The Dems had that with 2008. That said, these states are clearly not moving to the left, if anything they are moving right.

I agree that things get skewed because it's been quite a while since the last GOP landslide, whereas Obama won handily last time around - most "fool's gold" for the Democrats were won by Obama in 2008, basically.

[The Mikado]

That's pretty much what I meant.  A state where the "underdog" party has a reliable chance of comfortably placing in the, say, 44%-47% range and making a respectable showing, but cannot quite pass the finish line because the remaining 3% or so of the vote they'd need is almost impossible to get.  It looks frustratingly, tantalizingly close, but that last bit is all uphill.

I still say that NJ for GOP, GA for Dems is a pretty good set.

[Zarn]

Georgia is pretty solidly Republican, even in a sweep.

I find it hard to believe Chris Christie's state would stay Democratic in a landslide.

[Ebowed]

I think MN is the best example for the GOP since the streak is longer and the victories have been relatively smaller in recent elections.  Fool's gold is a pointless concept, though, because any smart (and well-funded) campaign will target states that could be competitive regardless of how much "electoral trends" might work against them, and it can pay off (i.e. Obama in Indiana) or not (Bush in Hawaii, not that they tried particularly hard; more recently, McCain in Pennsylvania, Obama in Georgia, Montana, Alaska).  It might be gambling, but if a campaign has limited options to win the electoral college, taking these risks is a necessity.  I got the impression Obama went after all those states because he raised more money than he knew what to do with.

[krazen1211]

Pennsylvania is hardly fool's gold - it wouldn't take much to turn it over. Michigan might be more appropriate.

And Texas is hardly comparable to New Jersey.

If I understand the term correctly you want a state that is fairly close but yet so polarized that it is hard to get over to your side. Washington, Oregon and New Jersey all seem to be in this category for the GOP. For Democrats it should be close-ish Southern states and that used to be NC and VA until Obama won them. Now it might be a state like GA. Arizona used to be in this category as well, IIRC.

The difference is New Jersey has no massive liberal city to attract loads of yuppie types and outvote the rest of the state. Instead they rely on a coalition of several groups that strongly holds together, until 2009 anyway. Hispanics vote massively Democrat here.

Electorally, I guess that was true though. The Republicans had no chance at any statewide race, similar to Washington, for about a decade. But the growing parts are Monmouth and Ocean counties, which are fast becoming Republican fortresses after Gore won the former and barely lost the latter. Gloucester too has been moving R.

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

'94, actually, which is the longest streak of total Republican control, because Utah had a Democratic Attorney General (Jan Graham) until 2000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How about Idaho?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Democratic School Superintendent until 2006.

[krazen1211]

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

'94, actually, which is the longest streak of total Republican control, because Utah had a Democratic Attorney General (Jan Graham) until 2000.

I guess that's true if you count Bob Bullock, yeah, although I'm not sure Democrats want that guy.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Texas, though, is something else. A Democrat has not won statewide in Texas since 1990 I believe. Only Utah has a longer streak.

'94, actually, which is the longest streak of total Republican control, because Utah had a Democratic Attorney General (Jan Graham) until 2000.

I guess that's true if you count Bob Bullock, yeah, although I'm not sure Democrats want that guy.

[krazen1211]

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/trails/

Obama: 45
Romney: 39
Undecided: 16

6-7 point loss. To be expected.

[Rowan]

It's a national poll, not a state poll...

[Simfan34]

I'd love for my state to actually be competitive.

[© tweed]

Romney would play well in NJ relative to whatever the national turned out to be.

[Zarn]

Romney would play well in NJ relative to whatever the national turned out to be.

No.

[fezzyfestoon]

Romney would play well in NJ relative to whatever the national turned out to be.

Yeah, I remember him resounding quite well in my area last time around.  If he can actually get people interested in areas like mine in Jersey, he might do pretty well.  If I'm remembering correctly, there was also a fundraising map online last election that showed Romney routinely doing extremely well in places like NoVa and North Jersey.  I'd expect a bump towards him in the election relative to the rest of the country.  I'd seriously doubt he'd be able to compete when it comes towards the end though.  Same goes for the Atlanta and Denver areas, where he seemed to overperform last election.  It looked as though his best areas in the primary were Democratic trending areas of states, which could be a good thing for the GOP if he can stunt some of those trends.  But again, I don't see them actually being able to capitalize should all things get to the point of being that favorable to them (Romney being nominated and continuing his popularity in wealthy suburbs).  If the GOP were able to restake a claim in the suburbs, it could change their course a bit.

[krazen1211]

Yeah, I remember him resounding quite well in my area last time around.  If he can actually get people interested in areas like mine in Jersey, he might do pretty well.  If I'm remembering correctly, there was also a fundraising map online last election that showed Romney routinely doing extremely well in places like NoVa and North Jersey.  I'd expect a bump towards him in the election relative to the rest of the country.  I'd seriously doubt he'd be able to compete when it comes towards the end though.  Same goes for the Atlanta and Denver areas, where he seemed to overperform last election.  It looked as though his best areas in the primary were Democratic trending areas of states, which could be a good thing for the GOP if he can stunt some of those trends.  But again, I don't see them actually being able to capitalize should all things get to the point of being that favorable to them (Romney being nominated and continuing his popularity in wealthy suburbs).  If the GOP were able to restake a claim in the suburbs, it could change their course a bit.

That's going a bit far. We already have a claim in the 'suburbs' as defined by places like Morris, Somerset (yeah, Obama won this barely, but thats not happening again), and Monmouth County.

Romney will do no better in Hudson than Bush did. Same with Newark; wealthier white areas in West Essex might be a different story.

The GOP  will have to win or come close in Middlesex County and dominate among whites to win the state.

[fezzyfestoon]

Morris is really the only place the Republicans have a strong handle on and that's not much in the full picture of North Jersey.  I also completely disagree about Somerset, I can't see it in the Republican column nationally barring a Romney win.  It has gone from 16.5% more Republican than the nation in 1992 to now only 1% more Republican, with consistent movement in every election between.  Everywhere in the county has been lazily moving towards the Democrats for decades now.  In order for Republicans to actually stake a claim to the North Jersey suburbs, we'd have to see a massive shift back in the inner suburbs.  They've got a weak handle on the outer ones, but no presence in the inner ones.  In 2009, almost all of North Jersey trended Democratic compared to the state as a whole, particularly Bergen.  The shore and South are what carried Christie.  That's not a good sign for Republicans in suburban North Jersey.  Bergen and Somerset are perfect examples of an increasingly uninterested suburban New Jersey towards Republicans.  If Romney can snap those areas back that he has performed well in while capitalizing on the moves Middlesex/Monmouth are making towards Republicans, then he'll look good.  Other than that, there isn't much Republicans can do to get Jersey.

[mondale84]

I think you can forget the turnpike belt going republican. Certainly not Middlesex county. And you can forget about the wealthy suburbs. A Mormon (more specifically a religious extremist...and Mormons are perceived as such, rightly or wrongly) won't play well in areas where the Starbucks:walmart ratio is so high...

[krazen1211]

Morris is really the only place the Republicans have a strong handle on and that's not much in the full picture of North Jersey.  I also completely disagree about Somerset, I can't see it in the Republican column nationally barring a Romney win.  It has gone from 16.5% more Republican than the nation in 1992 to now only 1% more Republican, with consistent movement in every election between.  Everywhere in the county has been lazily moving towards the Democrats for decades now.  In order for Republicans to actually stake a claim to the North Jersey suburbs, we'd have to see a massive shift back in the inner suburbs.  They've got a weak handle on the outer ones, but no presence in the inner ones.  In 2009, almost all of North Jersey trended Democratic compared to the state as a whole, particularly Bergen.  The shore and South are what carried Christie.  That's not a good sign for Republicans in suburban North Jersey.  Bergen and Somerset are perfect examples of an increasingly uninterested suburban New Jersey towards Republicans.  If Romney can snap those areas back that he has performed well in while capitalizing on the moves Middlesex/Monmouth are making towards Republicans, then he'll look good.  Other than that, there isn't much Republicans can do to get Jersey.

A lot of that switch in places like Somerset you are talking about occurred from 1990 to 2000, not 2000-2010. This decade, most of the suburban counties have stayed where they are, or headed right, relative to the nation. The state as a whole has a decreasing PVI since Gore got 56% here.

Monmouth (part of which is clearly in the NY metro, which is how I define North Jersey) went from 50% Gore to 45% Kerry to 47% Obama to 31% Corzine in 2009. A clear shift towards Republicans.

Middlesex went from 60% Gore to 56% Kerry to 60% Obama to 45% Corzine. Not particularly trending either way. It's astonishing that Christie won here.

Morris went from 43% Gore to 42% Kerry to 45% Obama to 31% Corzine.

Bergen went from 55% Gore to 52% Kerry to 54% Obama to 49% Corzine. Not too many swing voters here, which makes sense given the geography of the county. The GOP strongly controls the northern section.

Union went from 60% Gore to 59% Kerry to 64% Obama to 51% Corzine. Obvious problem here.

Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon have also moved right. Makes sense as these areas are dominated by whites and of course Christie was putting up 65-25 victories here. So I don't think your last statement is really quite accurate; Christie was carried by Monmouth, Ocean, and the cluster of Northwest counties, all of which we have a full grip on. These areas are Republican across the board as we hold all the legislative seats there.

[krazen1211]

I think you can forget the turnpike belt going republican. Certainly not Middlesex county. And you can forget about the wealthy suburbs. A Mormon (more specifically a religious extremist...and Mormons are perceived as such, rightly or wrongly) won't play well in areas where the Starbucks:walmart ratio is so high...

Hmm? I'm confused.....wealthy suburban white areas ARE the Republican areas.....they're where our congressional districts are, and where we've made the biggest gains since 2000.

Part of the problem is that we don't do well enough in some of the Union/Essex county wealthy areas. And Middlesex County? It just went Republican in 2009.

It's great to see places like Newark/Jersey City shrinking and places like Lakewood growing. Throwing JC into 1 legislative district is going to be fun because it creates problems with Bayonne.

[Kevin]

I could see Romney doing well in New Jersey because his true political colors would appeal to the type of suburban voters that make up a sizable chunk of the state. However, obviously at the moment I still don't think that Romney would win NJ unless there is a Republican landslide in 2012.

[fezzyfestoon]

A lot of that switch in places like Somerset you are talking about occurred from 1990 to 2000, not 2000-2010. This decade, most of the suburban counties have stayed where they are, or headed right, relative to the nation. The state as a whole has a decreasing PVI since Gore got 56% here.

Monmouth (part of which is clearly in the NY metro, which is how I define North Jersey) went from 50% Gore to 45% Kerry to 47% Obama to 31% Corzine in 2009. A clear shift towards Republicans.

Middlesex went from 60% Gore to 56% Kerry to 60% Obama to 45% Corzine. Not particularly trending either way. It's astonishing that Christie won here.

Morris went from 43% Gore to 42% Kerry to 45% Obama to 31% Corzine.

Bergen went from 55% Gore to 52% Kerry to 54% Obama to 49% Corzine. Not too many swing voters here, which makes sense given the geography of the county. The GOP strongly controls the northern section.

Union went from 60% Gore to 59% Kerry to 64% Obama to 51% Corzine. Obvious problem here.

Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon have also moved right. Makes sense as these areas are dominated by whites and of course Christie was putting up 65-25 victories here. So I don't think your last statement is really quite accurate; Christie was carried by Monmouth, Ocean, and the cluster of Northwest counties, all of which we have a full grip on. These areas are Republican across the board as we hold all the legislative seats there.

Raw percentages mean nothing when it comes to trends.  It's all about the relativity.  This is what it looked like in North Jersey with respect to the country and state over the last few national elections in terms of percent more Democratic (starting with 1992):

Middlesex 4.7%, 6.4%, 7.9%, 6.9%, 6.3%

Somerset -13.3%, -18.9%, -18.8%, -10.1%, -9.4%

Morris -21.9%, -25.4%, -27.0%, -22.5%, -23.6%

Bergen -4.1%, -4.1%, -2.2%, -2.2%, -6.1%

Urban (Essex, Union, Hudson, Passaic) 10.8%, 16.5%, 18.7%, 21.9%, 23.7%

Rural (Warren, Hunterdon, Sussex) -22.0%, -30.0%, -34.2%, -31.6%, -31.8%

And because it's significant -
Shore (Monmouth, Ocean) -9.9%, -10.8%, -14.0%, -21.8%, -26.1%

You get a much clearer picture of what the state's politics look like this way.  Middlesex isn't even at the point it used to be even though it has been moving towards Republicans in the 2000s while Bergen is marginally more Republican.  Bergen used to be the Republican stronghold in the state when it was a tossup.  To me it's pretty clear that as the inner suburbs shifted far towards the Democrats, the state became out of reach.  You can see that in the urban counties distinctly.  They are becoming less urban and more suburban, yet relative to the state they are becoming way more Democratic.  And you can see the Republican areas of the shore solidifying for the Republicans over the last two decades, the only place in the state that really did that.  That's been what keeps the state close to competitive rather than a blowout Democratic state.  The three outer counties have such a less significant population than the suburbs and the more urban counties that their increasingly Republican tendencies are muted.  When you compare only 2000 (the Democratic peak) with today, you can really see what's been going on.  It looks good at first in Middlesex and Bergen, but you can see even there that the urban areas (presumably) are holding them back.  1.6% and 3.9% more Republican in Middlesex and Bergen can't compare to 5% more Democratic in the four urban counties.  Both those counties also have high urban populations.  It's an urban state and unless those inner (urban) suburbs are flipped, no Republican is going to be able to pass 50% in New Jersey.  That's why I'm saying Romney has a chance to make it look ok for Republicans relative to the way it's looked in the past few elections.  If he can boost up the wealthier suburbs that haven't been that strong for Republicans lately, it'll be a good showing.  He's not going to win the urban areas and he's not going to get Republicans much stronger in the outer counties or the shore, but if he can get the lazy Republican areas to show their colors that's what will give him a nice percentage in Jersey.

[krazen1211]

Ah, I see where you are coming from now, although I quibble about your terminology. I have several family and friends who live in places like Marlboro and commute to NYC daily; I would not consider them part of the 'shore'. Incidentally in Monmouth the Shore towns are the only Democratic ones, and Ocean pretty much has no Democrats at all.

I agree with your conclusion, though. The big problem is that the inner suburban towns (Millburn, Verona, Westfield) don't vote GOP strongly enough, or at all. I would add, though, that there are plenty of outer suburban wealthy towns that do (NJ-11 is one of the wealthiest districts in the nation), so it looks to be more geography than wealth.

Somerset, though, is not an inner suburb at all. It better fits the profile of the counties surrounding it (Hunterdon and Middlesex), and to the extent that it has moved Dem a bit, I expect some course correction. We saw that in 2009 there.

Bush went from 40 to 46% between 2000 and 2004 here; it was one of his biggest gains overall. I don't know if the GOP is truly capped out on the Shore, as you put it (Corzine did absolutely awful here in 2009), but more importantly, the Shore is bigger and the 4 urban counties smaller than they were in 2004. I would not be surprised to see Romney beat that 46% handily if he is the nominee.

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

Romney will also do better than McCain in places like Hoboken and Downtown Jersey City (with their substantial Wall Street population). Not necessarily wins but he could shift a few thousand votes over.

The two biggest problems for the GOP since 1992 have been Passaic and Union. Often overlooked because of the "Big Three" in politics (Bergen, Essex and Hudson), these counties have clearly moved hard toward the Democrats. Passaic has had major demographic changes as well as constant infighting between two GOP factions. They managed to win four county offices in 2009 but it may be a fluke. Union has not Republican Freeholders in 15 years, though the rogue Democrats in Elizabeth and Linden sometimes back the GOP. Still, the conversion of Union Township from leans R to solid, plus the softening R vote in western Union, and the erosion of an often substantial GOP Presidential vote in Elizabeth has hurt statewide.

The problem is that there are some conservative-leaning areas in these urban counties but they are in heavily Democratic congressional and legislative districts. Two clear examples are Belleville and Bayonne, both of which shifted heavily from Gore  2000 to Bush 2004 and in Bayonne's case swung less to Obama than the rest of the country. Both towns could potentially go Republican narrowly, but there is no GOP anchor to lead them. The state Party should try to elect Republican school boards, councils and Mayors in towns like these since winning state and federal seats is near impossible in these areas.