Some reflections on the Virginia and New Jersey elections

Washington Examiner ^ | NOVEMBER 6, 2013 | MICHAEL BARONE

[Qbert]

1. The Obamacare rollout fiasco and Obama's lies hurt Democrats.

You only have to look at Democrat Terry McAuliffe's narrow 48 percent to 46 percent margin in Virginia to see that. McAuliffe outspent Republican Ken Cuccinelli by a wide margin (as much as 10-to-1, some bloggers suggested) and was leading 46 percent to 37 percent in the last days of October in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls on Oct. 31. In Virginia, the state that voted closest to the national average in the last two presidential elections, McAuliffe ended up with 48 percent, 3 percentage points behind Barack Obama's 2012 percentage of the state, while Cuccinelli's 46 percent was just 1 percentage point behind Mitt Romney's showing.

Did Obamacare hurt? Well, the exit poll showed Virginia voters opposed rather than favored it by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin.

In contrast:

2. The government shutdown didn’t much hurt Republicans.

Northern Virginia was perhaps more impacted by the shutdown than any other part of the country. Yet when the exit poll asked who was more to blame, 47 percent of voters said Republicans in Congress and 46 percent said Obama. Considering that individuals almost always poll better than groups of people—particularly Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats) in Congress, this is a devastating result for Obama.

It reminds me of the story of the Teamsters Union business agent who was in the hospital and received a bouquet of flowers. The card read, “The executive board wishes you a speedy recovery by a vote of 9 to 6.” However, in this case, the margin was narrower.

3. Millennials are souring on Democrats.

The Virginia exit poll showed voters ages 18 to 29 favoring McAuliffe over Cuccinelli by a 45 percent to 40 percent margin. The Rock the Vote folks sent out an email crowing about this, but put in context, it’s a dismal result.

The 30-to-44-year-olds were much more strongly for McAuliffe (56 percent to 37 percent), providing some evidence for Guardian blogger Harry Enten's analysis showing that young people just entering the electorate are less liberal than those who did so in 2008. In comparison, the 2012 presidential exit poll showed Obama leading Romney 61 percent to 36 percent among that age group in Virginia--statistically indistinguishable from Obama's 60 percent to 37 percent margin among 18-to-29-year-olds nationally, which was down from 66 percent to 32 percent in 2008.

Moreover, in New Jersey, the exit poll showed Republican Chris Christie losing 18-to-29-year-olds to Democrat Barbara Buono by only 51 percent to 49 percent. Christie was up 13 percent among this age group compared with his 2009 showing.

Similarly, in Virginia, McAuliffe was up only 1 percent over the 2009 showing of Democrat Creigh Deeds, who lost statewide 59 percent to 41 percent. One reason is that the not-very-libertarian Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis got 15 percent of the vote among the 18-to-29-year-olds.

True, that indicates that the provocatively culturally conservative Cuccinelli did not do well with this generation. But it also suggests that McAuliffe's last-minute campaigners Hillary Clinton (born 1947), Bill Clinton (born 1946) and (the not very technologically savvy) Obama (born 1961) don't necessarily strike a resonant chord with the younger segment of Millennials (born between 1984 and 1995).

4. Hispanics and Asians didn't rush out for Democrats.

The New Jersey exit poll showed Christie carrying Hispanics 51 percent to 45 percent and losing heavily Hispanic (and historically hugely Democratic) Hudson County by only 55 percent to 44 percent. This is a great achievement that national Republicans need to study.

In addition, Christie carried both Middlesex County (58 percent to 41 percent) and Mercer County (52 percent to 46 percent), historically very (machine) Democratic counties up and down the U.S. Route 1 corridor from Trenton to Perth Amboy. Aside from California, Hawaii and Queens, this is the most heavily Asian, and particularly Indian-American, part of the United States; many recent immigrants work in New Jersey’s pharmaceuticals and high-tech firms, and others start small businesses of their own. Christie carried Middlesex County and Edison Township (with the highest Indian-born percentage in the United States) in 2009 and apparently did even better this time.

5. Private-sector unions.

A largely unreported part of Christie’s policy and political success in New Jersey has been his alliance with Democrats with private-sector union backgrounds, like state Senate President Stephen Sweeney of Gloucester County (which Christie carried 64 percent to 34 percent) and longtime political panjandrum George Norcross of Camden County (which Christie carried 55 percent to 43 percent).

They worked with him to rein in the outsized benefits and privileges of greedy and self-righteous public-sector unions in the state on the sensible theory that their hard-pressed members were paying for benefits far more lavish than they were getting themselves.

This alliance was one reason Christie did not sweep in Republican legislative majorities, even though Republican candidates received about 100,000 more votes than Democratic candidates in contests for the state Senate. But Christie seems likely to continue to have working bipartisan majorities on many issues.

[tflabo]

Blinded immigrants come here to flee their hell holes and then they vote to turn the USA into the place they fled. Simply maddening...

[Venturer]

You have a very valid point.

Indeed the Demographics are much the same as Maryland.

Where Montgomery County if Tijuana East, and Prince Georges Howard and Baltimore are Zimbabwe West.

[kabar]

While that's true, McDonnell was able to leverage strategic messaging to target audiences with a strong, albeit broad, economic message. That worked well with the hispanics, especially in NoVa -- he pulled more than 40% of their support without ever broaching the subject of immigration.

Using the McDonnell example is really comparing apples and oranges. In 2009 the Dem candidate was a poor one and he did not have a huge funding advantage like McAwful. There was no real third party challenger.

The Dem turnout in 2009 set historic lows, which I attribute to the still lingering glow of Obama's massive thumping of McCain. The Dems were complacent and thought that they did not have to invest the kind of effort needed to GOTV. In 2009 Deeds got 818,909 votes compared to McAwful's total of 1,064,016.

In 2009 McDonnell got 1,163,523 votes compared to Cuccinelli's 1,008,596. McDonnell had the benefit of a united Rep party (Bolling was not a sore loser) and an energized GOP due to Obama's emerging agenda and an economy that was still suffering big time. Cuccinelli did not have a unified party (Sore loser Bolling threatening to run as an independent and the Rep mayor of Virginia Beach endorsing McAwful). EW Jackson was a drag on the ticket and a polarizing figure that helped the Dems energize their base around social issues.

I mentioned immigration as a demographic issue, not a political issue. Immigrants vote two to one for Dems. And they have been driving population growth. Each cohort that turns 18 each year becomes more and more Dem.

Immigrants, legal and illegal, total 911,119 or 11.4 percent of the total population of Virginia up from 5% in 1990 and 8.1% in 2000. 45% of the immigrant population are citizens. Virginia has the 9th highest number of immigrants in the country—more than states like Arizona and Nevada.

The unemployment rate in VA today is well below the national average. In Fairfax County it is about 4%.

[kabar]

What Cuccinelli should’ve done was closely study Bob McDonnell’s campaign tactics and strategies from 2009.

McDonnell had endorsed Bolling as the nominee for Governor. McDonnell had his scandal that tainted him and the GOP. McDonnell worked with the Dems to get a huge tax bill passed to fund transportation angering many Reps. McDonnell was tainted goods and he really had to distance himself from Cuccinelli rather than campaigning for him.

The close election last night shows the infrastructural elements such as demographics are not insurmountable after all in Virginia. But the GOP candidate needs to hone his or her message to adjust to it. Cuccinelli failed in that regard.

Dream on. Obama won the state twice. We have two Dem senators. In 2000 Kaine actually received more votes than Obama--over 2 million. The Dems have a decided advantage in any statewide election and that advantage is growing as the demographics change. Many of the GOP delegates in the 2013 races in NoVa eked out victories by hundreds of votes. There will eventually be a time when the Dems will dominate the region in Delgates, not just the Senate.

The message is not the problem as much as the numbers of Dems grow. The GOP could adopt the Tom Davis view and become more moderate and like the Dems, but even that will not be enough to win.

[ScottinVA]

“McDonnell had endorsed Bolling as the nominee for Governor. McDonnell had his scandal that tainted him and the GOP. McDonnell worked with the Dems to get a huge tax bill passed to fund transportation angering many Reps. McDonnell was tainted goods”

You completely missed point. I was referring to McDonnell’s campaign in 2009, NOT his term as governor. That’s a different matter altogether.

[sickoflibs]

I think another 2 to 3 weeks and Cuccinelli would have won.

[what's up]

that Republicans actually gained seats in the Virginia State House and now control a 2/3rds super majority of 68 out of 100 with 2 still undecided.

Thanks. That's encouraging.

[kabar]

I understand. I was trying to compare the different circumstances between 2009 and 2013. In 2009 McDonnell was running against Kaine’s record during the Great Recession and a down economy. Cuccinelli was running uphill in 2013 for the reasons I provided. The GOPe in VA and nationally were not supporting him, And McDonnell’s scandal hurt him as well.