This is the second article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today we're looking at New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District, stretching from the Philadelphia suburbs in the west, across the undeveloped Pine Barrens (the country's first National Reserve) to the Jersey Shore. In 2008, longtime state Senator John Adler was elected to his first term in Congress, winning the seat vacated by retiring 12-term Republican Congressman Jim Saxton. In November, Adler will be challenged by Republican Jon Runyan, a former offensive lineman for the Philadelphia Eagles.
A number of current and former New Jersey Republican Congressmen have been environmental champions - including Jim Saxton - but Runyan seems unlikely to follow in their footsteps. Despite playing for one of the greenest teams in professional sports, Runyan has been taking anti-environmental stands on the campaign trail. He has voiced support for drilling off of New Jersey's shore, echoing Sarah Palin's "all-of-the-above" approach to energy policy. He has been repeating the right-wing Heritage Foundation's fuzzy math about the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Runyan claims that ACES will cost "$1,870 for a family of four," when in truth, according to the nonpartisan, unbiased experts at the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost "about $175 per household."
Rep. Adler, on the other hand, has a long history as an environmental champion. In the New Jersey Senate, he sponsored the state's Clean Cars Act and co-sponsored its landmark Global Warming Response Act.
In his first year in Congress, Adler received an impressive 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which means he voted the right way at nearly every opportunity. Most notably, Adler voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) calling it "historic legislation" that will "spur the development of new sources of energy while confronting the threat of carbon pollution." He added, ACES "will lower energy costs and create new jobs for New Jersey families and small businesses....This bill will make America safer. It is time that we stop sending money to Middle Eastern countries that fund terrorist activities. Furthermore, by preserving God's earth, our children and grandchildren can continue to fish, enjoy the outdoors and breathe clean air."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
So, someone sent me a way too long video that they received which was of the "you eeevil soshulist Demmocrats better watch it cuz we are coming to git ya" variety, and I decided that it was way too easy to come up with a powerful rebuttal.
That being said, I put this little video together to remind everyone just how things were back when Republicans ruled Congress (and the White House). And that this is precisely what they will do if they regain power.
Welcome to Blue Jersey, Assemblywoman Wagner. - promoted by Rosi
He's done it again. On what should be a wonderful day for education in New Jersey with the passage of a federal education aid bill, Bergen County has been sold out once again by Congressman Scott Garrett. Instead of joining colleagues like Senator Frank Lautenberg, he voted against a bill that will save 3,900 teaching jobs in our state. For any other member of Congress, this would be seen as a shocking betrayal of our children and hardworking school teachers. But for Congressman Garrett, it's just another day at the office.
It should come as no surprise that Congressman Garrett has voted against health care reform, financial regulatory reform and the entire recent Democratic legislative agenda. After all, nearly all Washington Republicans voted in lock-step against these bills. But did you know that Congressman Garrett voted against health care funding for 9/11 first responders? Or that he was one of only 11 members of Congress to vote against aid for Hurricane Katrina victims? He voted against funding the prosecution of hate crimes, against stopping offshore drilling, against mandating child safety locks on handguns and against preventing oil companies from price gauging. And now, he has added another vote to this sordid list - voting against saving 3,900 teaching jobs in New Jersey.
The federal aid contained in this bill could not have come at a better time for New Jersey's teachers and students. Governor Chris Christie's budget cut $820 million in education funding, and a recent survey by the New Jersey School Boards Association showed that 80% of schools would have gone into the new year with fewer teachers, before the passage of this bill. Numerous studies have shown that overcrowded classrooms hurt educational development. That's exactly where we were heading before this crucial vote.
Besides the case for our children, there's also another important reason to support this bill - unemployment. Congressman Garrett, Governor Christie and the Republican Party want us to think public employees like teachers, police officers and firefighters are not real people with real jobs that provide real service to our community. Of course, we know that is far from the truth. With unemployment still hovering near 10%, needlessly firing 161,000 teachers nationally, 3,900 in New Jersey, would have been a catastrophe. Now, instead of filing for unemployment, these men and women will return to the classroom and educate our children, while continuing to pay their mortgages and purchase goods and services, helping the economy remain on a path toward recovery.
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner recently referred to teachers and police officers as "special interests" while attacking the education aid bill. Clearly, this distorted view is shared by Congressman Garrett, since he's so determined to stick it to them that he's willing to vote against saving 3,900 jobs during a recession. For a politician who labels himself a job-creator, this is nearly incomprehensible.
Despite the best efforts of Congressman Garrett, the education aid bill passed the House and the Senate and is awaiting President Obama's signature. There are many aspects of economic recovery that are out of the government's control, but providing funding to keep teachers in the classrooms and off the unemployment rolls certainly is not one of them.
There will be many more important votes in Congress soon, and it can sometimes be hard to determine what your Congressional representative stands for. But with Scott Garrett, it's easy - he stands for nothing.
We're fortunate that Rutgers Professor David Redlawsk has arranged for the first independent poll of poll of the NJ3 Congressional Race, widely believed to be the most (only?) competitive one this year. Incumbent John Adler, who has positioned himself as a conservative Democrat, faces Jon Runyan, who is a famous football player but so far seems to know very little about policy. The full PDF is available here. The headline is that Representative Adler leads in the poll, although with only 421 registered voters the margin of error is an uncomfortably larger 4.8 percent.
There are other permutations of the question, but I think these are two most important. On the one hand, Adler is ahead. On the other, he is way under 50%, a sign of danger for an incumbent. In July, Adler released an internal poll where he lead by 17 (51-34) Statistically, such poll announcements favor the releaser by an extra 6-7% or so. (That is, Adler or Runyan would only release polls that happen to show unusually large/lucky leads, while our faithful Professor releases all results.) 17-7=10, so you might call the polls in good agreement with my proposed correction. Runyan has not released anything, so it now does seem likely Adler is ahead.
Other "generic" polls of New Jersey suggest that other Democratic incuments should be fine:
(Morristown) - August 10, 2010 - Douglas Herbert condemned Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen's vote today against the 'Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.' "Instead of helping to keep 138,000 hardworking teachers in their classrooms, Frelinghuysen voted them out of a job," said Doug.
"This type of legislation should not be about partisanship," Doug continued, "this legislation is about insuring that our schools are properly staffed to care for and to educate our children." Along with other long-term Washington incumbents like John Boehner, "Frelinghuysen's vote will increase class sizes and negatively impact the quality of education our kids receive. Without the financial support that this act provides for the states, teachers across the nation will be laid off and our children will suffer for it."
Doug stated after the vote, "I would have voted for New Jersey's and the nation's children. As a father of three, I know that it is vital that we keep our education system strong. My goal in Congress will be to insure that families across my District and across this nation have access to the best public education and healthcare available. This can be done in a fiscally responsible way that does not pass the bill on to future generations."
To learn more about Doug please visit: www.douglasherbert.org
It's been a busy 100 days for us in Congress. From reining in Wall Street excesses with comprehensive financial regulation reform to protecting and creating American jobs, we are working hard to fulfill the mandate given to President Obama and Congressional Democrats back in November of 2008. But the next 100 days promise to be even busier.
In Congress, we have been fighting back against the constant obstructions of the Republican minority. Instead of coming to the table with new ideas to get the American people to work, the GOP is still more interested in scoring cheap political points. Whether it's arguing for repeal of health care reform that will help protect America's families, apologizing to BP for Democrats' efforts to hold them accountable for their actions in the Gulf, or denying a crucial extension of unemployment benefits for nearly three million American workers, it's clear that Republicans are more interested in fighting for corporate interests than the interests of the American people.
Despite this obstructionism, we have made some important progress. The most obvious example is the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The White House blog conveniently lays out ten parts of the financial regulation package you may not be aware of, such as prohibiting mortgage brokers from selling unaffordable mortgages simply to make higher commissions, providing consumers with free credit reports, and putting an end to the "too big to fail" mentality by preventing financial institutions from growing to such a point that their collapse would trigger much wider economic collapse.
The financial regulation reform package will prevent the excesses of Wall Street and big banks that led to the financial meltdown in 2008 and protect consumers from confusing and deceitful financial service products. We established an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a mission of protecting common people from excessive interest rate hikes, misleading financial products, and the leveraged risk of packaged securities that resulted in the loss of people's savings.
The approval-disapproval numbers for the sample of 801 New Jersey adults:
Obama 52-42
Lautenberg 45-31
Menendez 37-31
Own Congressman 54-28
We all know most Representatives are re-elected, but somehow I'm still surprised. 66% of the sample is "dissatisfied with the way things are currently going in Washington," yet they like their own Congressman. Perhaps there is something to be said for the way district boundaries are drawn? In any case, this suggests to me that the NJ3 race is the only one to be competitive. Most New Jersey adults (51%) think it doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, with the parties splitting the remainder equally. That's the disillusionment that the Republicans sought with their "Party of No" strategy in the Senate thanks to the super-majority rules.
A comment on Bob Menendez: He just isn't as well known. Not only his overall disapprove, but the subgroups of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have virtually identical "disapproval ratings" as Lautenberg does. His missing approval numbers are in the volunteered "Don't Know" category, at least in this poll, and at the end of the 2012 those voters who like the very same acts by Obama and Lautenberg will vote for Menendez. You may recall that other pollsters recently found Menendez at a net plus 7 (50-43, Rasmussen) and minus 5 (38-43, Quinnipiac.) But look at how pollsters can differ: Rasmussen's automated poll of "likely voters," which (I think) pushes voters for a second choice, has only 7% "don't know" but Monmouth's poll of adults, with presumably no pushing from the human operators, has 32%. Lots of people don't vote! The pollster also has numbers showing there's not much support for the recall effort.
The headline for the energy poll was the offshore oil drilling:
Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast, while 63% are opposed. This marks a turnaround from two years ago, when a majority of 56% favored this energy option compared to only 36% who opposed it.
By comparison, support for both wind and nuclear energy remains basically unchanged. Fully 8-in-10 residents support the placement of energy-generating windmills off the New Jersey coast (80% today, compared to 82% in 2008) and just under 4-in-10 support building another nuclear power plant in the state (37% today, compared to 41% in 2008).
Pollster Patrick Murray observes that the coastal counties give the same numbers as the inland ones.
As for this Salem County resident, I think the interesting number is that 58% statewide oppose a new nuclear power plant.
When asked "which of the following do you think should be the more important priority for U.S. energy policy - keeping energy prices low or protecting the environment?", 28% go for low prices and 55% for the environment. 15% volunteer "both" despite not being given it as a choice. New Jersey is not Sarah Palin country.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).
Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.
Rep. Lance actually was challenged by not one, not two, but three "Tea Party" candidates. One of Lance's opponents, David Larsen, even produced this nifty video, helpfully explaining that "Leonard Lance Loves Cap & Trade Taxes." So, did this work? Did the Tea Partiers overthrow the tyrannical, crypto-liberal Lance? Uh, no. Instead, in the end, Lance received 56% of the vote, easily moving on to November.
Meanwhile, 100 miles or so south on the Jersey Turnpike, Rep. LoBiondo faced two "Tea Party" candidates - Donna Ward and Linda Biamonte - who also attacked on the cap-and-trade issue. According to Biamonte, cap and trade "is insidious and another tax policy... a funneling of money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore through derivatives creating a carbon bubble like the housing bubble." You'd think that Republican primary voters in the year of the Tea Party would agree with this line of attack. Yet LoBiondo won with 75% of the vote.
Last but not least in New Jersey, Christopher Smith easily turned back a Tea Party challenger - Alan Bateman - by a more than 2:1 margin. Bateman had argued that "Obama knows he can count on Smith to support the United Nations' agenda to redistribute American wealth to foreign countries through international Cap & Trade agreements and other programs that threaten our sovereignty." Apparently, Republican voters in NJ-4 didn't buy that argument.
Across the country in California's 45th District, Mary Bono-Mack won 71% of the vote over Tea Party candidate Clayton Thibodeau on June 8. This, despite Thibodeau attacking Bono-Mack as "the only Republican west of the Mississippi to vote for Cap and Trade." Thibodeau also called cap and trade "frightening," claiming that government could force you to renovate your home or meet requirements before you purchase a home. Thibodeau's scare tactics on cap-and-trade clearly didn't play in CA-45.
Finally, in Washington's 8th Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert has drawn a Tea Party challenger named Ernest Huber, who writes that Cap and Trade "is widely viewed as an attempt at Soviet-style dictatorship using the environmental scam of global warming/climate change... written by the communist Apollo Alliance, which was led by the communist Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar." We'll see how this argument plays with voters in Washington's 8th Congressional District, but something tells us it's not going to go over any better than in the New Jersey or California primaries.
In sum, it appears that it's quite possible for Republicans to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation and live (politically) to tell about it. The proof is in the primaries.
Tod is a candidate for Congress in NJ-5. Promoted by Rosi Efthim
My military service best falls under the heading better late than never. I had hoped to enter the Army or Marine Corps after college but acquiesced to my parents' wishes to attend law school. It meant a great deal to them as I would be the first "professional" in our family. Upon graduating law school in 1987, I once again flirted with entering the military. Unfortunately, my father suffered a massive heart attack that summer and I opted to take care of my family. Two decades later, I would be given another chance to give something back to my country as a soldier.
In January 2007, I was commissioned into the New York Guard (the "Guard") as a 1st Lieutenant. The Guard was created during WWI in response to homeland security concerns. The prospect of German U-boats surfacing off the shores of Long Island and Brooklyn were enough to have the State of New York charter what amounted to a State Militia. The Guard allowed men and women such as me who were too old to serve in the "regular" armed forces an opportunity to participate in domestic defense initiatives.
I had initially attempted to enter the Guard in 2004, but the particular unit I was applying through made errors with my paperwork. I was frustrated, yet never gave up the dream I harbored since childhood. In 2006, I reconnected with the Guard through a fellow attorney who served as recruitment coordinator for the 7th Civil Affairs Regiment. I told my wife that I wanted to join and explained the nature of and duties inherent in the Guard. I also told her how much this meant to me. With her blessing, I entered the Guard.
My unit is a remarkable collection of men and women. Our personnel include Judges, partners at major New York law firms, attorneys from various backgrounds and non-professionals who bring myriad experiences to bear in performing their duties. We receive no compensation for our service and provide anywhere from $300,000 to $400,000 in legal services to soldiers and their families every year. We also receive training in numerous areas of homeland defense. I have received certifications in suicide bombing prevention and response along with completing nearly a dozen learning modules in emergency preparedness. I have also been trained at a very basic level in dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
This training is critical given that I and my comrades are first and foremost soldiers. The fact that I work just a few blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan brings a sense of immediacy to my service. My BDUs (battle dress uniform) often hang in my office and I have made my peace that in the event we are attacked again, I will put them on and do whatever is necessary to protect our nation and save as many lives as possible.
My tenure in the Guard has had an indelible impact on how I view not only war, but peace. When my unit travels to Fort Hamilton, Floyd Bennett Field or some other military facility to perform what we affectionately refer to as "will drills," we are confronted with a reality most Americans never witness. It is a sobering experience to sit down with a young man or woman to discuss things like the disposition of their remains or draft a health care proxy in the event they return from Iraq or Afghanistan incapable of making decisions regarding medical care. It is heart rending to make small talk with a twenty-year-old about how he wants his kid brother to get his prized hot rod if he doesn't make it back. Even more difficult is addressing issues involving children and what happens to them when mommy or daddy comes home in a flag-draped casket.
Our soldiers are not action movie characters or cartoonish fodder for our entertainment. They are flesh and blood. They are our brothers and sisters. They are our sons and daughters. They have precious dreams that they sacrificially defer in order to preserve our liberties. I often find myself looking for a quiet place amidst the frenzy of our legal services operation to bow my head, say a prayer and shed some tears at the prospect that some of these soldiers will not be coming home or that their lives will be forever changed by the hell that is war. That their families will sit down for Christmas dinners to come with an empty place setting that will never be filled. That their children will grow up never knowing their mothers or fathers. That they will leave a piece of their soul in an Iraqi desert or Afghani mountain range.
Sending servicemen and women into the line of fire is the most solemn decision any elected official will ever make. Before such a decision is made, it is incumbent upon those in power to consider exactly what they are placing at risk. I subscribe to a very simple standard for whether to commit troops to the field - would I send my own son or daughter to fight. Most politicians could not answer this question in the affirmative. Yet they wrap themselves in the flag and reflexively send other people's children across the globe to fight for causes not worthy of their own progeny's blood. I hope there is a special corner of hell carved out for these hypocrites.
My service in the Guard has, more than anything, taught me to value our troops at a very human level. I pray on this Memorial Day that I never discount who they are for the sake of political expedience.
Tod Theise
Democratic Candidate for Congress
5th District - NJ
I knew Gooch didn't live in the District she's running in. Bateman lives in the 12th, too? Interesting ... - Promoted by Rosi
In New Jersey, apparently you do not need to live in a Congressional district in order to run for Congress to represent that district. Now that it is primary election season, I have been seeing a bunch of signs on the roads for challengers to incumbents (the only signs I've seen for incumbents have been in my lawn and a friend's lawn).
So in my neck of the woods I'm seeing a lot of signs for Anna Little (tea party Republican or as I like to call her Michele Bachmann 2.0) and Diane Gooch (Mrs. Hedge Fund). As I was driving down into the 4th district I saw signs for yet another tea party Republican Alan Bateman who wishes to challenge (according to his website) "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) Chris Smith.
One thing that both Diane Gooch (running in the 6th district) and Alan Bateman (running in the 4th district) have in common is that they both live in the 12th district. I've only lived in New Jersey a few years and I understand that the law is different elsewhere, but it makes sense to me that you should live in the district that you want to represent. To be fair Alan Bateman did run for Congress in his own district (unsuccessfully) but why not stick to the district you live in?
I do realize that New Jersey is very gerrymandered (especially Monmouth County), but wouldn't the best way to be in touch with a congressional district you wish to represent. Perhaps it's time to update our election laws and require a candidate to live in the district.
Now these are only primary endorsements, so it's not like the CC GOP neglected to publicize an endorsement of a Democrat over a Republican. In fact, they neglected to say the chosen candidate of the bosses in the 3rd district was passed over:
The Third District's Republican primary is getting a lot of attention because it includes former Philadelphia Eagles player Jon Runyan, who faces Tabernacle lawyer Justin Murphy.
The two match up pretty evenly in their positions, but because he seems to have a better grasp of the issues before Congress, the endorsement goes to JUSTIN MURPHY. Navy veteran Murphy came in a close third in his 2008 bid for this same nomination.
I'm sure this is just an innocent oversight and am glad I could be there to remind them of all the endorsements made by the Inquirer. I guess the Inquirer wasn't moved by Runyan's pocket constitution.
When it comes to using online technology in communicating with constituents, (Blue Jersey community member) Congressman Pallone has never been shy about trying new things.
Previously, he held a Twitter Town Hall on health care reform, where there were some very good questions and active participation.
Now, the Congressman is trying something a bit different - using Google Moderator to solicit feedback and debate policy proposals. According to the description the Congressman posted:
Going back to my time as a Long Branch City Councilman, I've always believed it was important to give my constituents a direct line to communicate their questions, concerns, and thoughts. Technology is revolutionizing how we interact, and as the Congressman for New Jersey's 6th District, I want to use these new tools to hear directly from you.
The internet opens up new opportunities to solicit input, debate policy proposals, and raise new ideas. Using the Google Moderator application and YouTube, I want to hear directly from you, and at the end of each month I'll make a web video directly answering your questions.
The issues will change from month-to-month. I might be seeking input on questions you want asked to a witness testifying in front of my Health Subcommittee. You could want updates on the financial regulation reform and what it will mean to consumers. Or what I know about the progress being made in Afghanistan. Some months I'll ask specifically about your thoughts or questions on a certain topic; other months it will be open ended.
The end game to this new idea for interaction is to create a more open, transparent dialogue. As a Congressman I serve the people, and want to hear your input. My fight against the special interests and lobbyists is an everyday battle and I want to make sure my most ardent supporters - progressives - have a vehicle to give me their opinions and thoughts.
So.....what do you think? Send the Congressman a question or comment - its just another way to communicate directly.
The zig-zag progress of health care legislation through Congress has caused any number of Americans no small amount of agita. While the suffering over minute details can be enlightening, I suppose, it also shows how few of us understand how Congress work. Even the false outrage over reconciliation - is it an evil, backdoor to introduce unfavorable legislation or just another legislative step? - has shown us that Americans really have no concept as to how their government works.
And it seems as if the people running the government don't even know how it works. Some of the objections from various Congressional people are just political positioning. But some seem to totally miss the reason for what they are doing.
That time is now, as Warren County resident Tod Theise has answered the call and announced his candidacy against Garrett. In his statement to the press, Thiese noted the following contrast between him and Garrett:
"I don't think he represents working families in the district," Theise said. "He voted against extending unemployment benefits ... he voted for every [George W.] Bush budget."
A former Republican, Theise became an independent in the early part of the last decade and then migrated to the Democratic Party. He said his reasons for the leaving the Republicans were the spending policies and lack of Wall Street regulation under Bush.
His criticisms of Garrett are similar.
"What I find lacking is that he gives the people on Wall Street a complete and utter pass," Theise said. "He is basically bought and sold by Wall Street."
Now, I've met Tod and spoken to him numerous times over the past few months as he has been moving towards a run at Garrett. There are a few things about this candidacy that I like personally - for starters, it will be interesting to see how a non-Bergen County challenger plays out - especially in the current climate where being associated with the BCDO isn't the best of associations right around now. Additionally, I've always thought that lowering the 60%+ of the vote that Garrett routinely gets in Warren and Sussex counties is imperative - that this race cannot be won in Bergen alone. I also like the views and approach that Tod is taking on a number of issues - but this will come out over the next few months as the campaign gets under way.
Of course, this is one of the most uphill battles in general, as Garrett has never gotten less than 55% of the vote in his 4 previous races. But you never know what can happen in an election, and there has been unprecedented focus on Garrett by a number of grassroots organizations in the District (ahem....).
Eagleton polled 886 registered voters, but the main differences is they did not push leaners, and they also gathered the results by who controlled each district by asking if they'd vote for the current Congressman or "challenger running against him." Note that this gave two (or three) sub-samples. So the results are:
In the statewide generic ballot by party, Democrats are at 33% and Republicans at 31%.
In the five Republican districts, Republicans are at 40% and Democrats at 25%.
In the eight Democratic districts, Democrats are at 41% and Republicans at 22%.
As the pollster notes, "Nearly 20 percent do not know how they will vote, and 10 percent say they do not plan to vote at all." Of course, a lot more than 10% of registered voters will skip the election.
You might think 47-39 doesn't seem much like 33-31, but going back to the FDU poll, without leaners Democrats led 39-34. I don't think it is really too different from Eagleton. I personally suspect the "with leaners" sample gives a better view, because I don't believe so many voters are really persuadable.
Anyway, I think Professor Redlawsk has a pretty good quote summing it up:
"The overall picture statewide seems to suggest that Republicans are at parity with Democrats in 2010, but this is misleading," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "While the statewide vote may be close, it is less likely to be so in most congressional districts. We did not poll at the district level, and in the 3rd district Democrat John Adler is likely to face a very difficult challenge. Still, at the aggregate level incumbents of both parties start the year with an advantage over potential general election challengers."
It would be really interesting to get a poll of Adler's NJ3 district, but in truth it's too early to be definitive.
Quick Update: President Obama has 57-37 approve-disapprove on his job, and 56-31 for "general impression." Democrats in Congress are at 35-42 and Republicans at an even worse 25-48. 52% says Obama's change is happening "too slowly."
The sample has 55% claiming they voted for Obama and 31% claiming McCain which might argue some Republicans are missing. On the other hand, maybe they are in the 6% who claim they voted for someone else (Palin?), and furthermore, the sample also claims they voted 42-31 for Christie over Corzine which is a better margin for Republicans than reality. So it's probably just difficult to get people to say they voted for the unpopular loser.
On Wednesday, February 3 the NAACP released its annual Congressional Legislative Report Card, an evaluation of the voting records of Congressional members on NAACP agenda issues. The NAACP has graded the U.S. Congress on the "bread and butter" civil rights agenda since 1914. The report card provides a non-partisan assessment of the first session of the 111th Congress, and is designed to provide NAACP members with insight into the general voting patterns of congressional representatives and state delegations.
Both Senators Lautenberg and Menendez scored 100% for an A grade. Here are our Representatives, sorted by score:
Andrews 100% A
Rothman 100% A
Payne 100% A
Pallone 96% A
Pascrell 96% A
Holt 96% A
Sires 96% A
Adler 84% B
Smith 64% D
LoBiondo 56% F
Lance 48% F
Frelinghuysen 32% F
Garrett 8% F
Obviously there's a big difference between Frank LoBiondo's 56% and Scott Garrett's astonishing 8%. The grades are probably also a good general ranking of progressives. If you are wondering, Holt missed a vote to get 96%, while the other three 96% scores are due to not voting for an alternative Congressional Black Caucus budget resolution. Adler's B is due to the same vote plus his votes against health care reform.
One thing I enjoy reading and writing about is how government and candidates for office are using technology. A story in the NY Times says that Republicans in the House are kicking some serious Democrat donkey butt:
It may have been sort of a counterintuitive thought at one time, but it's become pretty well-established that Republicans on Capitol Hill have embraced Twitter more than Democrats.
But just how much congressional Republicans are out-Tweeting the Democrats may be a bit of a surprise. According to a new study from the public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard, House Republicans have pecked away on Twitter more than five times more frequently than their Democratic counterparts - sending out 29,162 tweets all told through Jan. 3, compared to 5,503 for Democrats.
In New Jersey, @Rep_Albio_Sires and @FrankPallone are our lone members on twitter in the House. @SenatorMenendez uses twitter from our Senate delegation, but the GOP clearly has more members utilizing the medium to communicate:
The study also found that about two-thirds of Congress' 132 active Tweeters are Republicans.
But what type of communicating they are doing offers the caveat to these numbers:
Many congressional Twitter users don't follow others or reTweet items, Mr. Senak said in an interview. "It can be more like one-way communication, which is not really what Twitter was designed for," he said. Mr. Senak, who writes a blog about the F.D.A., said curiosity about how lawmakers were discussing health care was a major reason he started the Twitter study.
If they're not utilizing the medium to create a dialogue, they're not getting the complete potential. See Cory Booker for an example of how you can harness the power of social media. But on top of that, it's troubling that our leaders aren't embracing new opportunities to interact with their consituents. I know it's hard to convey public policy in 140 characters, but if you use more words no one listens, are you better off passing up the opportunity at a captive audience? If you are on twitter, even though your member of Congress may not be, you can find and follow us @BlueJersey
The U.S. population increased by just under 1% and grew to 307 million in 2009 according to USA Today, experiencing the slowest growth rate for the past decade.
In many areas, births drove population growth, rather than the arrival of new residents. A demographer quoted in the USA Today story said this was a sign of the economy:
"People are staying put. They're just not moving,"
With all the talk of doom and gloom with people moving out of state, New Jersey saw an increase in population of 3.5% over last year giving us a population of just over 8.7 million people.
That would increase the size of each district from 647,258 in 2002 to 725,645 in 2012. Unless someone retires, New Jersey will either see an incumbent vs. incumbent general election, or an incumbent vs. incumbent primary.
That would bring us to 12 seats in Congress, down from 15 since 1982:
In 1992, when New Jersey went from 14 seats to 13, two incumbents were put in the same district. A primary was avoided when Bernard Dwyer (D-Edison) retired instead of facing Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) in the Democratic primary. New Jersey went from 15 seats to 14 in 1982, but the district represented by Millicent Fenwick (R-Bernardsville) was eliminated when she entered the race for U.S. Senator.
This doesn't mean we will definitely lose a seat, but if things continue on this course we will. There are many scenarios that could come into play if that happens. You can view the full population estimates from the Census bureau here.
The table below lists the minimum value of the assets and liabilities of Members of the House of Representatives as reported on their 2009 financial disclosure forms (covering calendar year 2008). Assets include stocks, bank accounts, rental properties and other income-producing holdings; liabilities are most frequently mortgages and other bank loans. Assets and liabilites are reported in broad ranges; this table uses the minimum of all reported ranges and subtracts liabilities from assets to produce a minimum net worth. See story for details.
Seniority is each Member's ranking in the House, as reported by the Clerk of the House.
Frelinghuysen, who belongs to a political dynasty that dates back more than two centuries, has nine times the minimum net worth of the next richest member from New Jersey, Steve Rothman (D-Englewood).
Rothman has a minimum net worth of $2.1 million, followed by Bill Pascrell (D-Parterson) with $1.85 million, Leonard Lance (R-Clinton) with $1.59 million, Rush Holt (D-Princeton) with $899,000, John Adler (D-Cherry Hill) with $702,000, Donald Payne (D-Newark) with $346,000, Frank LoBiondo (R-Vineland) at $270,000, Chris Smith (R-Hamilton) with $113,000, Albio Sires (D-West New York) with $87,000, Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) with $88,000, Scott Garrett (R-Wantage) with $80,000 and Rob Andrews (D-Haddon Heights) with $31,000.
