Election results
Corzine won easily, with something like an 11-point lead. (updated)...
The results are being updated on this site.
Here's the Yahoo story. Quotes from elsewhere:
"Democrats own the unions and the unions own the democrats..." (Gateway Pundit)
"With his big bankroll and bigger name it really would have been news if Sen. John [sic] Corzine lost in the New Jersey governor race to Doug Forrester." American Mind
"At best, the Republicans had only a longshot chance in New Jersey... ex-wives don't win elections, and in the end, we should all be grateful for that..." (Captain's Quarters)
"...not surprising. But disappointing. Disappointing that the Republican candidates were somewhat lame (more than "somewhat" in New Jersey)." (National Review)
"John Weingart, associate director of the Eagleton Institute at Rutgers University, said Corzine's victory was much more emphatic than most observers expected after such a grueling campaign. 'The campaign was a pretty dismal event that was discouraging to everyone'... (Los Angeles Times)
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
We don't usually take (or get) advice from prophets, but one of our commenters predicted that there's "nothing to fear" from someone who spends his fortune to gain public office. Well, it's not Corzine we're afraid of, it's all the Dems who'll move into his wake.
We look at elections in terms of what the public is trying to say. It looks as if they're saying that they believe a guy who buys his way into power (rather than using power to extort money) is probably benign. They probably judged this by Corzine's performance as Senator, and by Bloomberg's as NYC Mayor (which actually has been quite exemplary). The public has discounted the idea of dealing with corruption by setting Dems and Republicans up as checks and balances (a time-honored American tradition). Instead, they'll set a guy who has money and power against other guys who want money and power.
Jon Corzine is New Jersey's next Governor. We congratulate him, and wish him well.
Earlier post:
• Ear to sidewalk: Turnout in Hoboken is reported as very low. This is hearsay, not a final tally by any means, but our sources are reliable. Unless folks are coming home from work and flocking to the polls here in Hoboken (and if it's going to happen it has to be NOW), it looks embarrassing for Corzine. Not a single Forrester sign out on the streets, and folks are grumbling over voter harrassment. (At least they never broke out the sound trucks.) We expect the same deal is going on in Jersey City, although we expect a better percentage will vote for Cozine there than here, his "home" city.
• Nose to newspaper: The Post ran an interesting stat today. They said 77% of those polled had heard the Joanne Corzine ad, and that 1 in 3 said it would affect their vote. Now, that could mean they objected to the ad and will vote for Corzine. But we doubt it. We think the ad was a brilliant concept, and will impact the race in Forrester's favor.
That is not the same as saying he'll win. That means he has a shot, which he didn't have a few weeks ago. Or even a week ago.
Other commentary on this race may be accessed here: The 2005 New Jersey Gubernatorial race
Categories: Local blogging, Jon+Corzine, Doug+Forrester, New+Jersey+politics, Hoboken
Labels: culture+of+corruption, New+Jersey, politics
posted by Mister Snitch! at 6:51 PM
12 Comments:
We are waiting for the numbers. The Holy Spirit gave us the election result a couple days ago.
Yeah, we know. Your contacts are better than ours. Don't rub it in.
Oh, we see that you've already predicted Corzine's election, and told us not to be concerned about it. Well, why didn't you just say so? We feel better.
THE damned liberal AP
It is amazing how these bastard get away with it.
I hear Corzine HQ is loaded with prostitutes, bags of money, and envelopes exchanging hands. It is amazing how fast the corruption begins.
Aw, you're pulling everyone's leg(s). You wanted Corzine in. We wish him well. Besides, the HQ is around the corner. There are no more hookers than usual.
NJ is a cess pool.
turnout in jc and the big uc was pretty decent. i didn't sense much urgency. i think the idea of governor forrester seemed so removed from anything that a local could imagine that it was hard to view this one as a general election. it was more like a high-profile mudslinging contest where the outcome was never in doubt, or maybe like one of those "dunk the boss" carnival attractions. you know how in hollywood action movies, harrison ford has to get the living shit kicked out of him before he triumphs? that's what election '05 reminded me of.
I think you've nailed it. After the last Hoboken election I made a mental note of how much the city had changed in terms of what kind of people live here and what they expect from life. I probably extrapolated too far in terms of what people might accept. Corzine just came across as the right "type", specially among women, that was a real departure point. Also, the state really hasn't come to a point where a Republican like Forrester can get elected, especially at a time when a Republican President is getting kicked around during a (typically) floundering second term. I actually thought it would take a miracle for the guy to win, but did think it would at least be within the polling difference (7 to 10 points).
I like the Harrison Ford analogy, too. Quite so, the public wants to see those asking for votes to run the gauntlet. Thanks, Tris.
wow, I haven't seen this much rationalizing since Delay got arrested. Thanks for the textbook example.
We're not rationalizing anything. Rationalizing is losing your job because you're too drunk all the time, and blaming it on the boss. We are trying to gauge what voters are thinking. Tris writes and performs folk songs about Jersey politics, I've done some successful campaigns. We both have an interest in breaking down and understanding what's going on in local politics.
So, is your first post on a new site always a condescending remark, or are we special?
I think it was an article from Freakonmics which basically said it doesnt really matter how much money candidates spend, or generally even what happens in the course of the campaign, that instead, the candidate who is generally percieved as the winner at the start of the election will win the election.
Something along those lines (I have the book here). They didn't say money didn't matter. They said winning candidates tend to get more money because they are perceived to be the eventual winners. In other words, they don't win because they get more money, they get more money because they win.
TOO much money was spent on the Hoboken campaign this year. It was overkill. Roberts' opponents had sufficient money to win the campaign. A bit more would have helped, but basically they did not need the amount Roberts' spent in order to win the election. Much of Roberts' advertising backfired on him. What they needed were candidates the majority wanted to vote for. In the end, Soares et al weren't trusted.
It's just more self-serving to say "We were outspent" than to say "We failed to gain the voters' trust". That's why you generally hear the former from the mouthpieces of failed campaigns. Just because they say it, doesn't mean it's true.
To his credit, Cory Booker never used lack of money as an excuse in the wake of his failed Mayoral bid. (At least not that we are aware of.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home