The complete exit polls for the 2009 elections in New Jersey and Virginia are now available. Compared to the 2006 and 2008 exit polls for those states, the percentage of the electorate under the age of 45 is most striking:
Percentage of New Jersey Electorate Under 45, 2006-2009
About two-thirds of Christie's victory margin can be accounted for by this shift in the age of the electorate. While Deeds still would have been wiped out even with the 2008 age composition of the electorate, the change there is no less striking:
Precentage of Virginia Electorate Under 45, 2006-2009
In Virginia, Democrats went from a 39-33 advantage in party ID, to a 33-37 deficit. In New Jersey, Democrats went from a 44-28 advantage, to a 41-31 advantage.
On the day before the election, I posted numbers indicating that Republicans had made a national gain of about 2-3% nationally since last year. However, that gain does not taken into account the difference in turnout from 2008 to 2009 (and 2010). On that front, Republicans seem to have gained another 3-4%, simply from turnout differential based on age.
When it comes to maintaining their 2008 majorities, the lack turnout among voters under the age of 45 threatens to cost Democrats more votes than any other factor. This isn't surprising, given that younger voters have been hit hardest by the recession, and that they tend to not turnout in off-year elections. Still, if Democrats could return the electorate to its 2008 age, they would be in excellent shape next year.
And yet, you won't hear any Villagers or Blue Dogs talk about how Democrats need to excite young voters again. Funny, that. It's almost as if they don't actually want Democrats to win next year, and aren't giving their advice in good faith.
Update 10--Christie wins: Damn it, damn it, damn it. AP calls it for Christie. Don't expect the projection to be reversed, given what I am hearing behind the scenes. It's over.
Update 9--Starting to get dire: I am feeling less and less confident here. The projections don't look great at this point.
Update 8--4 big Democratic towns left to report: From a source, there are four big Democratic towns left to report in New Jersey. Still, going to be difficult.
Update 7--Corzine will get closer: Given the areas that have yet to report, Corzine should end up with between 45-48% of the vote, per 538 on twitter. Given that the total Independent vote looks to be around 6%, 48% would win, and 47% is probably recount territory. Expect a long night.
Update 6--site update: Stripped out some of the content in the left hand columns. Open Left is loading much faster now.
Update 5--exit poll toplines show 1% race: According to Josh at TPM, the exit polls show Corzine and Christie within one point of each other. This may very well be the nail biter the polls had predicted. The early results are from Republican-leaning areas.
Update 4: Real results coming in now.
Update 3: The early results are not from any precinct. Must be early voting of some kind.
Update 2: Early exit poll data indicate that Daggett supporters may have moved hard toward Christie toward the end:
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie took 58 percent of the independent vote, according to early CNN Exit Poll data. Incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, took just 33 percent of the independent vote. Independents made up 27 percent of the voters in New Jersey race.
With Daggett only receiving 9% of the Independent vote, a late exodus of Daggett supporters to Christie may spell real trouble for Corzine. Damn it.
Update 1: On the plus side, AP says the campaign is too close to call.
Enfranchising America's least represented citizens is as simple as following the law: that's the message Project Vote and a coalition of voting rights groups sent today as they filed lawsuits against Indiana and New Mexico for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
If you sign up to join a union, you won't face coercion or intimidation from your co-workers-or employers. Despite dire warnings by corporations against the majority sign-up process, a new study shows majority sign-up (card-check) protects workers and gives them the chance they need to form a union. It's another critical point in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers across the country the choice about how to form a union and bargain for a better life.
The study, "Majority Authorizations and Union Organizing in the Public Sector: A Four-State Perspective," written by top labor policy scholars under the direction of Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois, looks at the experience of four states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Oregon) where public-sector workers have the freedom to form unions through majority sign-up. If passed, the Employee Free Choice Act would give millions of workers the option of using either majority sign-up or a National Labor Relations Board election to form a union.
On the eve of the Presidential election, facing an historic defeat, the Republican National Committee quietly filed a motion to dissolve an existing consent decree in which they'd agreed not to engage in voter caging or other types of voter intimidation. Since 1982, the RNC has been restricted from conducting so-called "ballot-security" measures that have historically been used to deter thousands of Americans--largely low-income and minority citizens--from voting. Now, the RNC wants to be free of these restrictions. A hearing on the RNC motion is scheduled for next Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
With an estimated 23 million 18-29 year old citizens turning out to vote in the 2008 presidential election, it is easy to assume that young people today have overcome the stereotypical image of "apathetic youth." Yet, while the last few election cycles show an ever-growing interest in political engagement, young people are still underrepresented in the U.S. electorate-a problem that seems to have more to do with lack of access than lack of interest.
The 2008 presidential election was an inspiration for many citizens to take part in the American democratic process, including first-time voter and convicted felon Eric Stephen Willems of Minnesota. Unfortunately, that vote cost Willems, who was on probation, a trip back to jail, according to the Associated Press last week.
Americans appear ready to sweep a lot of Democrats into office on November 4. Not only does Barack Obama maintain a solid lead in the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, several Senate races that appeared safe Republican holds a few months ago are now considered tossups.
Polling is harder to come by in House races, but here too there is scattered evidence of a coming Democratic tsunami. Having already lost three special Congressional elections in red districts this year, House Republicans are now scrambling to defend many entrenched incumbents.
In this diary, I hope to convince you of three things:
1. Some Republicans who never saw it coming are going to be out of a job in two weeks.
On a related note,
2. Even the smartest experts cannot always predict which seats offer the best pickup opportunities.
For that reason,
3. Activists should put resources behind many under-funded challengers now, instead of going all in for a handful of Democratic candidates.
"...Too many people do not understand or exercise their voting rights, and as a result, entire segments of our population - and especially formerly incarcerated individuals - are being underrepresented at the polls on Election Day." - New Jersey Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Newark)
Reports and exits polls this entire political season have built a narrative of tremendous, even record-breaking voter participation, pushing us to believe that voter turnout in November will exceed all expectations.
Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters
Weekly Voting Rights News Update
By Erin Ferns
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law, the state-by-state battle to pass similar legislation has escalated with politicians seeking partisan gain furiously pushing laws that hinder access to the ballot. However, lawmakers seeking to dismantle barriers to electoral participation are just as committed to election integrity and protecting the voting rights of potentially millions of voters by calling out voter ID laws as "sheer political posturing." Meanwhile, positive measures to increase participation through Election Day Registration (EDR) are gaining ground in several states even as Iowa prepares to test-drive its new EDR law in the June 3 primary.
I've been trying to contact Aaron Myers of the DNCC all day to find out what's going on with the blog credentials, but surprisingly, he's not answering his phone. He did put up a diary on Dailykos in which he seemed to suggest that state parties had no role in the process. Here's what he wrote.
We didn't hand off this project to state party officials, as was rumored. The DNCC published a list of requirements, we read applications, and we looked at lots of blogs.
As it turns out, I did talk to Matt Jerzyk of the credentialed blog Rhode Island Future, and he had a conversation with state party executive director Tim Grilo about the blog credentialing process. He asked about the process of credentialing bloggers. Grilo said that the DNCC called and asked for the party's input about each blog that applied, and the Rhode Island Democratic Party was told directly that their input would be valued and would be involved in the decision-making process about who to credential. Grilo said that the party was not given veto power but he did get the strong sense that their input would be a valuable part of the credentialing process.
In broad strokes, Jerzyk outlined for me, what this means is that there was no veto power by state parties and the decision resided with the Democratic National Convention Committee, but yes, state parties had input and yes state parties could give negative information about blogs they didn't like.
Marc Ambinder picked up a letter from 21 progressive state bloggers frustrated with the selection process. I wrote about this on Sunday and Monday, pointing to the credentialing of a state party friendly blog in Michigan over one that has higher levels of influence and accomplishment but had been critical of the state party. It now appears that the blogger given credentials works for the Governor of the state, though I can't confirm that since she won't return my email (I have put the question to her in her comment thread).
The issue here is simple, and doesn't have to do with any specific bloggers given or not given credentials. State parties are clearly using blog credentials to reward bloggers they think support them best. In some cases, in most actually, they are willing to reward critics. In some states, though, particularly New Jersey and New York, it's possible that the decision cut out progressive activists because they are willing to speak out about problems within the party. Leaving progressive bloggers out of the convention is a financial and political penalty for these small businesses, many of which will now shy away from being independent and progressive out of fear of retribution.
This is a problem.
Update: Ok, apparently it's common knowledge that Cathleen Carrigan is an employee of Governor Granholm. That is absurd. Simply absurd. An employee of the most powerful politician in the state was given convention credentials over a larger progressive blog. This is just ridiculous. Granholm can get her employees credentials, she doesn't need to take them from independent progressive activists.
Update again: Carrigan is not an employee of Granholm, but is an employee of the Michigan Democratic Party. This is a distinction without a difference. I do find it frustrating that Carrigan refuses to answer my questions and then mewls on about being persecuted and misrepresented. I am perfectly willing to issue corrections and sought her response before printing anything about her employment status.
I worked in New Jersey during Jon Corzine's gubernatorial campaign in 2005, and one of the (few) joys of that campaign was seeing BlueJersey start up and grow into an incredible resource for progressives. The blog led a groundbreaking TV and internet campaign for marriage equality in the state, and Juan Melli, the proprietor, was dubbed 'Politician of the Year' by PoliticsNJ, the insider outlet in the state. Local blogs serve as activist hubs for progressives, 'grasstops' that can move message and organize influentials within a state community. Oftentimes the number of insiders is strikingly small - only about 1000 - in a state, and these blogs are the only progressive media that can influence them.
It was with pride then that the Democratic National Convention Committee announced that every state would have credentials issued for state blogs. These state blogs help Democrats get elected, stay in power, and push progressive policies. At the same time, these blogs ruffle feathers, whether it was Raising Kaine complaining about the field campaign of Tim Kaine or primary fights taking place on various state blogs. I worked at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and credentialed the first set of bloggers to attend a national political convention. I remember fighting internally for progressive blogs to get the credentials, not conservative of neutral blogs. Since it was a Democratic convention the DNCC should prioritize Democrats (the others could go through the neutral media queue). That logic holds today; the convention is a giant media, organizing, and networking event, so Democrats should get to go and gear up for the general election.
It's a bit disturbing to hear what's going on, then, with a few of the credentials. Pam's House Blend has a discussion going on about which blogs were credentialled at the Democratic National Convention. Mostly the choices were good, but four states in particular raise questions: Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Michigan.
(The magnitude of these voter registration/voter suppression battles is easily greater than that of a good many congressional races. The time to take this seriously is NOW. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters Weekly Voting Rights News Update
By Erin Ferns
Voter registration applications continue to pour into elections offices across the country at record breaking rates, contributing to unprecedented turnout over the course of the presidential primary season so far. The closely contested primaries, especially on the Democratic side, are one factor behind the surge. Another includes a spark of political interest in young people. Whatever factors are involved, the bottom line is that more Americans are engaging in the electoral process. This reality of exploding participation in American democracy should be closely considered by lawmakers when evaluating legislation that could expand or restrict access to the polls this November.
There's a primary going on in New Jersey between Rob Andrews, a conservative business oriented Democrat from South Jersey, and Frank Lautenberg, and old and liberal Senator. Andrews is frustrated that he's going nowhere, and the South Jersey machine is feeling its oats and taking on North Jersey. It's portrayed as young versus old or North versus South, but the reality is, policy-wise, it's conservative versus liberal. And Andrews knows it, which is why he's trying to portray himself as identical to Lautenberg on the issues, only younger and more vital.
In a interview, Andrews did not want to characterize his political philosophy. "People we represent don't care what label we have. They care whether we are getting the job done, and I'm in the race because people want a change, the country wants a change," he said.
Andrews said he and Lautenberg have mostly the same policy goals, but suggested he has "more energy" to meet the challenges.
Andrews is just lying. Aside from his ridiculous cheerleading on Iraq and his unapologetic support until relatively recently, there's his fealty to corporate interests.
Andrews, for example, joined GOP colleagues in supporting a fence along the Mexican border; backed legislation pushed by banks and credit card companies making it more difficult for people to erase their debts through bankruptcy; supported a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning; voted for the estate tax repeal; and opposed permanent normal trade relations with China.
So Andrews supported the Bankruptcy Bill, a fence along the Mexican border, the Iraq war, and eliminating the estate tax. Other than that, there are no differences, he's just younger.
It is utterly disgusting that Andrews can so cavalierly dismiss real policy differences he has with Lautenberg. If he wants to back putting poor people in hock to credit card companies, he should have the guts to do it instead of lying and pretending he shares the same policy goals as Lautenberg. He doesn't, he never has, and it's reprehensible he would pretend otherwise. Obviously they know their own state quite well, but I would hope that to the extent that they can, progressives in New Jersey work to defeat Andrews.
One of the things I have found most infurriating in New Jersey is the attitude that "corruption is a necessary part of politics". I'm not claiming that West Texas is a model of purity, but I've never understood how the most widespread reaction to corruption in politics can be a shrug and the explanation is, "Well, what do you expect?"
I expect public officials, regardless of political afffiliation, to uphold the basic minimum of public trust. That means they show up for their job and at least attempt to do it to the best of their ability. It means that they put personal honor and integrity above loyalty and ambition. It means they don't rip me off during the normal course of their workday.
I had hoped that change might be around the corner when Jon Corzine became Governor of New Jersey. "Hold me accountable" he said. I understand that there is a lot on his plate - our state is in horrible fiscal condition - but I'm of a mind that nothing takes higher precedence than ensuring the honesty and integrity of our governing structures. And that means that Jon Corzine's next action should be to fire Javier Inclan.
If you've read any blogs in recent years, you've noticed the trend. Lautenberg, or McGreevey, or Corzine, or Kerry, or Menendez, polls below 50%. Republicans even get excited and spend extra money. Meanwhile, our fellow Democrats post worried comments about "What's wrong with New Jersey?," and others reply "Don't Worry, New Jersey hates all politicians." Come election day, the election isn't even close. What happened? And how could it keep happening?
The usual explanation is that New Jersey voters dislike our Democrats, but vote for them in the end since they dislike Republicans more. Obviously that has an element of truth, but why wouldn't voters tell pollsters that? Do they really make up their mind in the voting booth? There's a new theory that, as I interpret it, says all this drama in recent years may be due to pollsters.
(This was a weird fight. - promoted by Matt Stoller)
New Jersey Congressman Rob Andrews's strategy to defeat incumbent US Senator Frank Lautenberg in the Democratic primary is simple. First, he must carry carry massive pluralities in South Jersey, where he has both machine support and very high popularity. Second, he must garner endorsements, and thus favorable ballot position, from at least two of the large, Democratic-voting counties in North Jersey: Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex and Union.
When he publicly announced his intention to run for Senate yesterday, Andrews figured he had at least one of these endorsements, namely Bergen County Democratic Chairman Joe Ferriero, in the bag. But before Ferriero could announce his support for Andrews, Bergen County Congressman Steven Rothman (NJ-09) answered Ferriero's small bet on Andrews with a big raise. Rothman, who has made no secret of his own desire to eventually sit in Lautenberg's Senate seat, reportedly threatened to run for re-election to his own House seat off of the county line and alongside Lautenberg and a full slate of County Democratic Committee candidates recruited by progressive State Senator Loretta Weinberg.
Rothman's aggressive move presents Ferriero with a dilemma. Ferriero can cautiously preserve his political power and patronage machine by folding to Rothman. By giving his line to Lautenberg and Rothman, Ferriero would raise a very high hurdle in front of any challengers seeking to unseat his county committee members and freeholders. However, should Ferriero call Rothman's raise, he will provoke a nine-week civil war in the Bergen County party that he may not survive.
Needless to say, Ferriero did not follow through with an Andrews endorsement on Tuesday, and this afternoon, sources close to the Bergen boss are telling New Jersey media that Ferriero will endorse Lautenberg. As of Wednesday afternoon, none of Andrews's other promised North Jersey endorsements have panned out. While Andrews hasn't decided whether or not to challenge Lautenberg yet, Rothman's deftly timed threat has made an Andrews run a lot less likely than it was just 24 hours ago.
You can read more about this story and the New Jersey US Senate race at Blue Jersey.
