I've taken enough shots here at how the new health insurance exchanges don't start until years from now that I felt I should post on these benefits. Frank Pallone gave us a similar list last year. The main points are the temporary high-risk pool until the exchanges go into effect, thereby helping those who can't get insurance now, and a number of insurance reforms that protect people who already have insurance. Also, relief on the "Donut Hole" for seniors in the Medicare drug plans. In summary, there are significant benefits that John Adler should vote for even though major portions of the reform are not implemented immediately.
Nowadays with computers it's much easier to compute district boundaries and consider different systems, even gerrymanders. Over at Swing State Project, user possumtracker1991made his own "theoretical, improbable majority-minority districts, including a gerrymandered New Jersey district that includes Trenton, Camden, Vineland, and Atantic City to be only 39% white. Here's his map:
Obviously this map is for fun -- it's not going to happen -- and there's not enough people south of the district, so the southern district (with me in it!) would have to extend along the Atlantic City beach to get to Ocean County. Such districts actually help Republicans since they pack so many Democrats together.
The point, though, is that he did this using Dave's Redistricting App which you can run as a web app once you install Silverlight 2.0 for Windows or Mac. It's pretty amazing, you can assign each district in the state to 12 or 13 Congressional districts, and it has best estimates of the 2010 population, although it's doesn't seem to have partisan voting info for our state. A more likely New Jersey map was made by Swing State User andgarden.
Today, we're one month away from the April 12th Filing Deadline for Petitions to run for County Committee seats, which are up for election in many counties across the state this year - my own Passaic County included. And anyone spending time here on Blue Jersey railing about corruption, or a need for more progressive elected officials, or an end to the old-boys-network of politics should really put down the mouse, get out of the house, and run for county committee.
You can do it alone, with the goal of adding your voice to the process. Or you can do it together with others in your town, with the goal of re-energizing your local democratic party. Either way, it really is as easy as 1 - 2 - 3:
1- Pick up a petition at your municipal clerk's office, along with a list of voters in your electoral district;
2- Get a few signatures from your neighbors ahead of the April 12 filing deadline; and
3- Go meet some neighbors between now and the June 8 primary, and ask them to support your effort to build the Democratic party.
That really is all it takes (with a few exceptions) to go from complaining outsider to engaged insider within the Democratic Party. It is the single most important first step you can take to strengthen the party. And in the many places where the county committee slots are currently vacant (your municipal clerk can tell you when you pick up the petition if your seat is vacant), it could not be easier. In fact, you'll be greeted with open arms by party leaders for doing your civic duty.
What few dare suggest, however, is the value of running for county committee even where there is not a vacancy. This situation is more difficult, to be sure, as the open arms mentioned above will, um, maybe not be so open at first. I can tell you first-hand as part of a team of democrats in Hawthorne who are running for county committee this year (one local paper calls us "the faction"), some people won't be happy about it. And some will falsely accuse you of "dividing" the party.
But, guess what? A funny thing happened in our historically republican borough when word got out that a rival county committee slate was running this year. Suddenly, democratic county committee members - many of whom had been unseen during past election cycles, and hadn't done any organizing in years - are now going door-to-door, making phone calls, and pulling out all the stops to hold their seats in June. So, instead of "dividing" anything, our team is multiplying the democratic organizing in Hawthorne like we've never seen before.
An energized, stronger party ready to unite for the fall elections. That's the consequence of engaging with your local party - and it's totally worth a few bruised egos. You will spur your fellow democrats to start organizing like we should be doing all along. And, you'll be responsible for re-energizing the party at a time when democrats need all the energy they can get.
I'll start by saying that anyone who uses the sentence that "MSNBC is the only counterpart to FOX and the right wing noise machine" has their head completely up their ass. Two hours per day (Olbermann and Maddow) do not make up for the countless hours of "fair and balanced programming" that Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or much of the daytime programming comprises - certainly, this is a mixed bag at best and nothing near the ridiculously and blatantly skewed programming on FOX - or even worse, the "supposedly neutral" but SO NOT neutral CNN.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks back, Chris Matthews had two Congressmen on Hardball to discuss health care reform and how the issue could be moved forward in a bipartisan manner. The Republican Congressman appearing was New Jersey's own Scott Garrett. At the end of the segment, Chris heaped effusive praise on Garrett, calling him his type of Northeastern Republican, which I guess means the most radically rightwing kind. He even invoked the word "moderate" to describe Garrett (at which mention Garrett visibly cringed).
To grasp the abject stupidity of Matthews' misplaced admiration, you have to understand who Scott Garrett is and what he stands for. As we have documented here time and time again, Garrett is arguably THE most radical right-wing member of Congress. His illustrious legislative record includes, among many other things:
Voting against aid for victims of Katrina,
Voting against extending unemployment benefits for American families,
Voting against extending the Voting Rights Act,
Voting against providing health care to poor children,
Voting against anti-price gouging legislation holding big oil accountable,
Voting against taxing bonuses for Wall Street execs (he actually argued that they "deserved" them),
Voting for every bloated Bush budget, and
Voting for every dime spent in Iraq.
Oh, and by the way Chris - He's also catering to the birthers - if not necessarily an outward one himself, having said at a public meeting that he wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. Garrett further distinguished himself following the earthquake in Haiti. His message on his Congressional web site said the he was praying for those constituents of his affected by the quake. No mention of the thousands of Haitians who were dead or injured. Garrett also opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - allowing a rapist to choose the mother of his child or a molesting father to force his daughter to bear his own grandchild. And he referred dismissively to the push to eliminate DADT as a "side issue" not worthy of his consideration. That's Chris Matthews' kind of Republican.
As Jason notes below, Garrett also recently appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show with guest host Ed Schultz. Once again he performed his one man show designed to portray himself as the sincere moderate that truly wants to work across party lines for the good of the American people. I can't blame Ed because he was filling in at the last moment. But I can blame the show's staff for not doing even a modicum of homework on their guest. Like Matthews, Schultz - someone who should know better - bought the well rehearsed charade hook, line and sinker.
By giving Garrett this kind of forum without challenging him on his record, MSNBC has aided and abetted an insidious political fraud. It is incumbent upon MSNBC to make sure this journalistic incontinence doesn't happen again. First, try to actually do some research on your guests. You know, like Rachel Maddow does so well. Second, next time you extend an invitation for Congressman Garrett to appear on one of your infotainment shows, ask him why he voted time and time again to deprive Americans of their most basic civil rights. Then ask him how we can buy into his fairy tale of working toward a bipartisan utopia when he questions the very legitimacy of our President to serve in office based on debunked crackpot theories.
Maybe then MSNBC can begin to regain some semblance of journalistic integrity.
ELEC released their summary of 2009 lobbying efforts today, which showed that total lobbyist spending was up about 1.3% last year to $56,390,613. In the same time period, the report showed a 56% drop in the in benefits lobbyists gave to state legislators Here are some other numbers of interest:
The average number of lobbyists fell 4%
The number of clients fell 5.2% marking a second year of declines.
We saw a 56% decrease in total spending on benefits to state officials. This follows on a 29% decline last year and 30% decline the year before.
Communications for lobbying firms saw 53% increase, while all other categories saw a decrease.
You can view ELEC's full annual report summaries here. Many of the benefits to state officials were meals. The increase in communications spending was driven by television advertisements during the gubernatorial campaign from NJ Progress and the Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund.
"The recent increase in communications expenses reflects the changing nature of the lobbying business. It has become more multi-dimensional since the State's original lobbying law was enacted in 1964. This is partly as a result of the growth in government,'' Brindle said.
They also mentioned the increase in grassroots efforts to help mobilize the public for or against issues. It's been said many times that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the decrease in spending on state officials would indicate they are beginning to get the message. But the report continues to sohw that private groups and organizations often have the ability to raise and spend more than individuals getting them more access and attention. This trend will be necessary to watch given the recent Citizens United decision to see whether it or subsequent rulings eventually have an impact on state lobbying efforts.
James E. Harris, President of the New Jersey Conference of the NAACP, today filed a formal ethics complaint with the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards, asking for a formal investigation of whether Senators Raymond Lesniak and Christopher Bateman have violated the Legislative Code of Ethics in simultaneously representing over 40 municipalities on affordable housing, planning, and zoning issues and pushing legislation that would substantially change those municipalities' affordable housing obligations.
NJ NAACP Housing Committee Chairman Mike McNeil said: "Sens. Lesniak and Bateman have violated the public trust in intermeshing their private legal work and their service to the public as legislators. We are today asking the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards to determine the extent of the violation of public trust and to require Sens. Lesniak and Bateman to recuse themselves from further debate on the bill."
I really can't say whether or not Lesniak or Bateman have crossed the line here, but I will say that the outdated conceit that being a state legislator is only part-time work is what leads directly to conflicts of interest and even outright corruption, whether it is holding multiple elected positions or doing business with the town through a law firm. We'd be a lot better off making the members of the Assembly and Senate full time, even if it ends some romantic notions.
News this week that for purposes of the national head count, the United States Census will allow same sex couples to self-identify as married reminds me of one of the Think Equal ads that Blue Jersey produced 4 years ago. This was shortly after the NJ Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Harris, allowing the legislature to pass civil union legislation, which they did December 2006.
Civil unions were confusing, complicated and somehow not the same. Take filling out forms, which this 2006 Think Equal took on:
The Census forms - they hit the mail next week - don't recognize civil unions as such. Instead the documents offer a choice between 2 boxes: "husband" or "wife", or "unmarried partners". Your call. That new policy took effect in 2009 when the Commerce Department released a legal opinion that argued the federal government could tabulate and release same-sex marriage data under the Defense of Marriage Act. Ironic that something decent could emerge because of DOMA, eh?
In the 2000 count, officials re-coded same-sex husband or wife answers to "unmarried partners," since no state in the country recognized same-sex marriage at the time. Now, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and those hell-raisers in cow country Iowa allow gays to legally married. And Washington, D.C. where the first gay couple ties the knot today.
Dennis makes the case why same-sex couples should check the "married" box. And here's to a day when we get rid of the "other" box once and for all.
On the losing side, well, just about everything else.
When it comes to the service cuts and fare increases for NJ Transit however, this is a world of hurt for New Jerseyans on so many levels. NJ Transit recently released a "proposal" with public hearings to be held later this month, that deal with a 25% fare increase in many instances to deal with the funding cuts Christie proposed last month. On top of the fare increase - which largely hits those who commute into Manhattan for work as well as those who rely on public transportation (read: more lower and middle income people) to get to work or to get around. So while the super rich get a tax cut that can help them with their vacation home or 4th car, everyone else gets a transportation tax increase.
Further modernization of these systems in New Jersey is fundamental to providing a safe and operational infrastructure while improving the quality of life for the state's residents.
So not only does Christie screw over those who can afford it least, he does it by cutting mass transit and public transportation services, which could very well lead to more use of cars, more pollution and more stress on our already overstrained roads and bridges.
But at least Wal-Mart and the super rich will be happy.
As pointed out by our friends at Down With Tyranny, a vote was held yesterday in the House with respect to the National School Lunch Program - a program that is even more necessary now given the state of the economy:
H.Res.362. It expresses the House's support for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program and "recognizes that our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school." It passed 403-13, every Democrat and 155 Republicans, including the entire GOP congressional leadership voting in favor.
And guess who was one of the 13?
Let's look at some numbers. There are approximately 200,000 children living in Bergen, Sussex and Warren Counties. Of that, there are 12,400 children in Bergen who are on reduced or free lunch programs due to need, over 2,300 more in Sussex County and another 1,900 in Warren County. That is one out of every twelve children in these three counties who can't afford a decent meal and rely on the National School Lunch Program.
And this is too offensive for Scott Garrett to support.
Garrett is very good at explaining away his unconscionable votes with a caveat such as "I agree in principle but..." or "I would have supported this, but....". Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. Time after time and vote after morally reprehensible vote, Garrett shows where his loyalties lie. This is about struggling families. And just as his vote against clean drinking water shows, Garrett can't keep explaining away votes that show a pattern of disdain for the health and welfare of those in his district that he is supposed to represent.
What makes this worse is the fact that the BCDO is choosing to give Garrett a pass without even so much as a challenger to a man whose actions and record are nothing short of abominable.
The new $15 billion jobs bill needs to be just a one step of many aiming to improve employment. Democrats recognize that it is true, but it is a positive step. Seventy Senators supported the new jobs bill, because it mainly consists of tax cuts, but that does make it a broadly bipartisan bill.
House Republicans, though, went strongly against it, including every single Republican from New Jersey. Extremist Scott Garrett voted no. Self-styles moderates like Frank LoBiondo voted no. The whole bill is "fully paid for" so it does not increase the deficit (by cracking down on overseas tax havens and by stopping a tax break that would help multinational corporations send jobs overseas go into effect.) This is what they voted against:
A payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers, to create some 300,000 jobs and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees
Tax cuts to spur new investment by small businesses to help them expand and hire more workers
Extension of the Highway Trust Fund allowing for tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment
Provisions -- modeled after the Build America Bonds program - to make it easier for states to borrow for infrastructure projects, such as school construction and energy projects
Frankly, I think it is disgrace that our Republicans have not supported one idea for fighting the recession. You can't even get them to vote for a tax cut to businesses. It's truly the "Party of No" and damn the consequences.
He's the sponsor of the health care bill, and I am so against that it's not even funny. - Diane Gooch, candidate for Congress in NJ-6
I can't not take Diane Gooch's candidacy seriously. The wealthy Monmouth County GOP activist is the publisher of The Two River Times, and the Vice-Chair of the Monmouth Republican Party. And, not for nothing, Christie rocked the shore towns last year, and everybody knows it.
Frank Pallone is a big target. Knock him down - like Christie knocked down New Jersey - and you've really done something. Pallone's been in Congress for two decades, acts as Democratic Municipal Chair in his own hometown of Long Branch, and has the biggest war chest in the entire House, some $3.9 million and change.
Gooch - husband Michael is a Wall Street guy worth hundreds of millions - brings both party position and the ability to self-fund her campaign wholly if she wants to. And argue for campaign finance all you want, right now in 2010 - and particularly in expensive media market NJ - money can matter. Both those things mean Gooch doesn't have to jump through hoops other candidates, who have to spend their time raising money, have to.
Pallone, well-liked both in his District and outside it, chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on Health, which puts him right in the middle of the struggle for health care reform, upon which the Democratic Party is shredding, upon which the teaparty was born.
Pallone's also the Communications Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee. He's the message man, on health care reform, and everything else. The man can talk. So I'm trying to take Diane Gooch seriously, even after that clunky teenager quote above. I know I should. I'm trying so hard it isn't even funny.
As Hopeful notes below, a new poll by FDU shows (1) a dead heat between Senator Menendez and Tom Kean, Jr. for a race that is over two years from now, and (2) a very mixed bag on what people in NJ think about health care reform.
As Hopeful notes, 42% of New Jerseyans think that they personally will be worse off if the current health care reform bill passes, while 37% feel that they personally will be better off if the current health care reform bill passes. However, that 5% spread is reversed when the question is asked about the country as a whole, with a 45% - 40% margin indicating that the current health care bill will be better for the country. Adding to this, there is a 5% margin (40% against, 35% for, 25% don't know) when it comes to whether respondents would urge THEIR member of Congress to vote for or against ANY health care bill.
"Our United States Senators should finally listen to the majority of New Jerseyans and support a fresh approach to reforming our health insurance industry."
What's more, Kean said that the suspicious timing of his pontificating was merely "happenstance".
Now, say what you want about the current health care bill - there certainly is more than enough things to like and dislike about the bill on an individual level, but the one thing that can NOT be said is what Kean is asserting about "a fresh approach". It is either (1) is this bill good for me, (2) is this bill good for the rest of the country or (3) do you want your Congressman to vote for ANY bill. If Kean wants to be taken seriously, then he should actually say things that are accurate - especially when it comes to issues that he claims to represent "the majority of New Jerseyans" on and issues where he hopes to represent all of New Jerseyans.
When reached for comment, Adam L a/k/a clammyc noted that the timing of this post was merely "happenstance".
The attempt to recall Senator Menendez is an affront to the voters of New Jersey and has no standing in law. One day these folks are trying to disprove human evolution, the next day they are challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution. These are radical people who chose Menendez off of a list of Democrats because of the sound of his last name.
Say what you want about former BCDO Chairman Joe Ferriero, but he knew how to rack up Democratic wins in Bergen County. As for his successor, Michael Kasparian, 2009 didn't look too good but let's not give him all of the blame for the loss of two freeholder seats and a near draw between Christie and Corzine in the backyard of the very popular Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate. After all, he did have to come in on the heels of a cloud of corruption and it didn't go away (probably still hasn't). That being said, Kasparian did say that he was not going to be the same type of leader as Ferriero and would have more transparency in the BCDO. I assume he also had a goal of restoring the tarnished image of the BCDO.
Which makes the information I have been hearing that much more puzzling as well as maddening.
Now, knowing that Scott Garrett is by far one of the most out of step Congressmen, tucked safely in a district that is hand drawn for a Republican to hold on the Congressional level and the desire for the Bergen Democrats to lay as low as possible, I can understand a level of concern, given the county and statewide election results last November. But I have heard from at least four different people in four different parts of the county who have spoken to three very well known and high profile people high up in the BCDO - all of whom have indicated the chosen strategy of the BCDO (and I am paraphrasing):
We think it would be best to not run a challenger to Scott Garrett in the hopes that Republican voter turnout will be depressed and our local candidates will have a better chance of winning
Where to even begin here? How about the following reasons why this is quite possibly the absolute dumbest and worst political strategy I have seen in a good long time:
Republicans are more motivated this year than in the past 6 years. To think that they won't be coming out stronger and hope they will forget there is an election is fantasyspeak;
Having no Congressional candidate will not "free up motivated volunteers" to help with, for example, Freeholder, County Executive, County Sherriff or other lower tier races - local races where quite frankly, most people don't know or care enough to get involved;
Voter turnout in an off year (i.e., non-Presidential) is low as is - without giving the base a real reason to vote - and voting just for downticket races is hardly reason enough to get the full base out to vote - will only depress Democratic turnout further;
Sending a signal that you don't even want to field a top of the ticket candidate is a message of fear - a losing message. This will likely (1) depress the base vote further, (2) depress the motivated activists who would otherwise vote for an entire ticket, tell their friends and neighbors to do the same, volunteer and talk up the race and (3) create a backlash and resentment among those who know the damage that Scott Garrett does to the people of this district; and
Give the impression that an attempt to save their own personal political lives is more important than helping those constituents who they hope will elect (or re-elect) them to serve.
What message does it send to me - a motivated activist who has spent the better part of my four years living in New Jersey working to oust Garrett? That I should not only suck it up and let Garrett walk to a win - even if he ends up embroiled in his own horrific scandal - but I should also be a sport and team player and have all of my friends and neighbors come out and vote for downticket candidates because why?
And I know that there are hundreds of people like me - people who can get hundreds more to vote for a whole slate of Democrats. What the Bergen Democrats don't realize, just like the New Jersey Democrats who don't understand Garden State Equality's stance on not donating to the Democratic Party as a whole, is that our votes, our time and our money is earned.
By not running a Congressional candidate, the Bergen Democrats are doing none of the above - and they will only lose by a larger margin than if they had a Congressional candidate.
With state and local budgets in crisis and a new governor in office vowing to slash labor costs, public employees are undoubtedly worried about their salaries and benefits, if not their job security. Just days into his term, Governor Chris Christie's transition team released a report suggesting that public employee wage freezes would apply to teachers. Last week, the State Senate passed a package of bills that would limit pensions for new government hires and require that public employees pay at least 1.5% of their salary for health insurance premiums.
However, there is one group that looks like it will come through the crisis mostly unscathed: local police officers. Going after police officer compensation is not a politically popular move, and elected officials in both parties, especially at the state level, go to great lengths to avoid angering police unions. Even Governor Christie, who eagerly picks fights with the NJEA and generally terrorizes public employees, refuses to criticize the compensation of police officers in New Jersey. The first three items on his campaign's "fact vs. fiction" page talk about how he will protect police and firefighter pensions, how Jon Corzine won't, and how Christie will oppose any shift from defined benefit to defined contribution in police and firefighter pensions. The new governor has shown relatively little interest in reforming the binding arbitration system that League of Municipalities chairman William Dressell calls "the primary reason for the continual increase of the cost of government".
New Jersey's police officers are the most well-paid in the nation. The average law enforcement officer in the state earns $79,790 per year. New Jersey police officers make 64% more than the average worker, which is second only to Nevada. New Jersey teachers, a favorite punching bag for the Republican Governor, make just 26% more than the average worker, which is equal to the national average. Even after we account for the above-average number of charter and private schools in the state, New Jersey teacher pay relative to the average worker still ranks safely outside of the top 10. Unlike law enforcement officers, New Jersey teachers must have a bachelors degree, which requires four years of time out of the workforce and (often) a significant amount of money to obtain. If, as Chris Christie seems to believe, New Jersey teachers are overpaid, then New Jersey cops are egregiously overpaid.
The only way to get police salaries under control is to reform New Jersey's binding arbitration law. Binding arbitration ensures that the interests of police and firefighters, who are not allowed to strike, are protected in labor negotiations. New Jersey's binding arbitration system regularly produces results that are more than favorable to police officers. Last January, when job losses were piling up at record pace, an arbitrator awarded Closter cops 4% annual raises for four years. Police raises under the binding arbitration system have long exceeded increases the consumer price index and average earnings. Inflation-adjusted police salaries have skyrocketed ever since the binding arbitration law was passed over 30 years ago.
Most towns are hesitant to bear the legal costs associated with arbitration when they face such a high risk of losing. Furthermore, small towns are ill-equipped to take on police unions who have much more experience in arbitration than they do. Municipalities often offer their local police officers generous annual pay increases in order to avoid binding arbitration. Frustration with the process has led local and county elected officials like Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo to call for abolishing the system altogether.
Christie likes to talk about his intention to "govern like a one-termer" who is willing to take on powerful public-sector unions. He will continue to not only demand for cuts in pay and benefits to teachers and other public employees, but demonize their unions as well. But don't expect him to do anything more than voice general support for arbitration reform. Christie is afraid to do anything that might hurt his reputation as a "law and order" governor, and he's not terribly eager to annoy the police unions, either.
First, he is dumbfounded (which I can understand if you only count the first syllable in that word) by the fact that Garden State Equality - a large organization whose purpose is to push for EQUAL treatment of same sex couples when it comes to civil (not religious) marriages - is refusing to give the hard earned and raised money of its members to those legislators who do not agree with their core principles (note, this basic misunderstanding is also shared by very prominent New Jersey Democrats, so Deo is far from alone in his "bewilderment").
Then, he talks about how marriage equality "proponents" - those who are so radical as to demand equal rights for civil (not religious) marriages between same sex couples - "fail to grasp" the will of the people, citing the New Jersey Constitution in stating "All political power is inherent in the people."
"Fail to grasp".
What Deo and his fellow bigots and homophobes fail to grasp is that marriage equality is neither a political matter that his supposed example applies to, nor is something subject to the "will of the people". Marriage equality is just that - equality. A basic human and civil right that shouldn't be voted away by a majority comprised of self-loathing bigoted homophobic fools who demonize entire groups to soothe their own fears.
This isn't something that should be put on a ballot. This isn't something that should be polled to see if it is a good idea "politically". This falls under one of the most basic tenets that this country was founded on - and later expanded upon as future generations came to see that past and precedent failed to satisfy that tenet:
Equality.
From "all men are created equal" to expanding the right to vote to those who were previously and unfairly denied this right to basic civil rights.
And now this.
There should be no "will of the people" - except if it is referring to the will of the people to look at themselves for what they are - either tolerant and in favor of equal rights or bigoted and homophobic - and in favor of oppression, unequal treatment, discrimination and "separate but equal".
I wanted to bring your attention to an interesting post by Nate Silver of 538.com on The Myth of the Incumbent 50% Rule. He's prompted by the claim that incumbents get only the same percentage of the vote as they do in early polling, and therefore incumbents under 50% almost always lose. Here's his conclusion:
1) It is extremely common for an incumbent come back to win re-election while having less than 50 percent of the vote in early polls.
2) In comparison to early polls, there is no demonstrable tendency for challengers to pick up a larger share of the undecided vote than incumbents.
3) Incumbents almost always get a larger share of the actual vote than they do in early polls (as do challengers). They do not "get what they get in the tracking"; they almost always get more...
It is probably OK to focus on an incumbent's vote share in early polls while downplaying the challenger's number, but if you do, you need to add 6-7 percent to it to have the most accurate prediction of his likely performance in November.
Silver's data, which you can see by clicking through, shows that incumbents who poll 45% in January-June usually win -- like Frank Lautenberg in 2008, at only 45.7%, who got to 56% on election day -- and overall 19 of 30 incumbents under 50% end up winning. (Incumbents over 50% are safe.) In short, undecideds do not usually break overwhelmingly to the challengers as conventional wisdom tell us. Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com says Nate is right, and explains that the "myth" is largely based on old races. I recall, but can't find the link, that kos recently found half of incumbents polling under 50% lose and half win. Many Democratic learned this lesson in the 2004 Presidential election, where Bush won despite many polls putting him under 50%. Here in New Jersey, Menendez won despite being below 40% (though he was appointed) and Corzine lost, but did get that 7 point surge.
I can't help but wonder if this speaks to the famous New Jersey election effect -- that Democrats poll too low. Perhaps instead of looking for a Jersey explanation, it's just that Democrats here poll the way incumbents do nationwide.
Sometimes diaries here are like firecrackers that set off a crackling downpour of challenging comments. This diary definitely does - thanks, Helios. The convo started yesterday, and comments are still flying. What's your opinion? - Promoted by Rosi
As a teacher in New Jersey, I've been quite disturbed at the venom and hate-mongering that has been reported (and I would argue promoted) by the NJ press.
I responded with a letter to the editor, but I thought I'd post a longer, more detailed response here.
Kevin Manahan's "Good teachers should speak up for merit pay", is an ill-informed screed against New Jersey's teachers and our association the NJEA.
Manahan blasts the NJEA (and by extension all teachers in NJ) for not embracing the merit pay scheme hastily concocted in the state's poorly thought out "Race to the Top" funding application. While there is little to no evidence that merit pay actually works to improve student outcomes, NJEA's detractors completely ignore the hard work our union does every day to improve the quality of teaching in New Jersey by supporting strategies that have been proven to get results.
Statement, minutes ago, from Sen. Lautenberg's aide, Caley Gray:
STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
After several days of hospitalization and testing, Senator Lautenberg's doctors have diagnosed that he has a B-Cell Lymphoma of the stomach. This is a curable tumor, and will require treatment over the next few months.
The Senator is under the care of Dr. James F. Holland and Dr. Martin Goldman of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
STATEMENT FROM DR. JAMES F. HOLLAND
"We expect a full and complete recovery for Senator Lautenberg. The Senator will be treated with chemotherapy administered approximately every three weeks. We anticipate that he will receive between six and eight treatments, and in between treatments, the Senator is expected to be back at work in the Senate."
From all of us here at Blue Jersey, our best wishes for the tough gentleman that Frank Lautenberg is. One of the priveleges of living in New Jersey is being represented by a Senator with the solid voting history - and high Progressive Punch ratings - Lautenberg has. Our thoughts are with our Senator.
Gov. Christopher Christie has tapped State Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Hamilton) as the new Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, setting up a November 2010 special election for the politically competitive 14th district Senate seat.
Baroni, who distinguished himself this year as marriage equality's standout stalwart in the GOP Senate caucus, will be missed. And the 14th District just got very interesting.
New Jersey's police officers are the most well-paid in the nation. The average law enforcement officer in the state earns $79,790 per year. New Jersey police officers make 64% more than the average worker, which is second only to Nevada. New Jersey teachers, a favorite punching bag for the Republican Governor, make just 26% more than the average worker, which is equal to the national average. Even after we account for the above-average number of charter and private schools in the state, New Jersey teacher pay relative to the average worker still ranks safely outside of the top 10. Unlike law enforcement officers, New Jersey teachers must have a bachelors degree, which requires four years of time out of the workforce and (often) a significant amount of money to obtain. If, as Chris Christie seems to believe, New Jersey teachers are overpaid, then New Jersey cops are egregiously overpaid.
