| The second question (the first question was about taxes, and I'm ignoring it for this analysis) asked for voter approval to issue $450 million in bonds to be dedicated for building a stem-cell research facility. It failed, by a vote of 592,961 to 675,978. The third question was asking for voter approval to issue bonds in the amount of $200 million to preserve farmland and greenspaces. It passed by a vote of 670,336 to 580,095.
There exists, in New Jersey (as in most places), a coalition of interests that can be depended upon to vote against almost all bond issuances. Truely conservative fiscal types, for example, almost always oppose bonds. Then there are the neo-libertarian types who just don't trust the government with the money (even if they think it's a good cause). But those two groups would have voted against both ballot measures.
The seven percent difference in the two questions was enough to swing the outcome. What difference is there between using funds for stem cells and using funds to buy open land? It's the third part of the Republican coalition generally known as the "Religious Right". I put the term in quotes there to indicate that I'm not talking about the organized political arm of religion - Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson types. I'm talking about the guy (or gal) who is sitting in the pew on Sunday and wondering if there is any reason to err on the side of using public funds for stem cells.
In a way, it was an issue of mobilization - which is always the case, but especially in odd-year elections with no "Title Bout". The Religious Right actually contacted people and urged them to oppose the ballot measure. I did't see a single commercial or mailer urging me to support it. Supposedly, our governor sunk $200,000 of his own money into convincing people to approve it, but it was money out the window as far as I'm concerned.
To the extent that my hypothesis is true, then the "Religious Right" in New Jersey has a core of about 100,000 voters - the rough difference in the votes between the two questions. This does not mean, of course, that all religious voters went that way or that the remaining voters aren't religious in some way. It doesn't mean anything other than there are about 100,000 people in New Jersey that will vote against stem cells but for open space.
It isn't much. But if it holds for larger turnouts, then seven percent is large enough to turn a sleeper into a close race and to turn the results of a close race. But that is true only if they are a swing constituency - and they are not. These people are not going to vote Democratic unless the Democrats surrender support of women's rights. It is a fool's errand for Democrats to try to appeal to these voters. They may or may not consider themselves "Republican", but they are "conservative". But if even 100,000 progressive faithful can be rallied in New Jersey (that didn't already vote), then we have a model for negating the influence of the Religious Right in electoral politics.
But the small size of the group goes to another contention that I've made repeatedly through the last several years. There is no way that only seven percent of the population of New Jersey is "religious". This means that there is some large number of voters who have some religious nature in their being that are not cornered away from our reach. If we use 80% as a reasonable number for people of all faiths, and 7% are on the Right, then that leaves 73% of the population who might be responsive to speaking about the religious basis of political values.
Of course, not all of the 73% would be responsive to progressive messaging for a variety of reason. Since there was absolutely no outreach among the faith communities in support of question 2, we can't know how many progressive faith folks might have turned out if they'd been asked and given a moral reason to do so.
It could also be that this 7% identified here are the "new religious right" - those religious conservatives who are Jim Wallis' target audience who will support green initiatives if asked to do so.
There are, ultimately, a thousand implications that can be taken from these numbers. But it looks like, at very least, there is some justification for calling this a fair stick of measurement. |
