Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has just introduced his new "Partisan Propensity Index" (PPI). If you've been following elections closely, you're probably already familiar with the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) from Cook, and similar statistics from Swing State Project. Cook's idea is to look at how each Congressional District voted for President compared to the nationwide average. So, for example, the NJ5 district (Garrett's) is rated R+7, meaning it voted 7 points more Republican than nationwide, while NJ13 (Sire's) is rated D+21. You can see why Democrats had such a hard time even with a good candidate against Garrett, and why Republicans didn't seriously contest NJ13 when Menendez left it. Unlike Congressional races, where often one candidate is hardly covered in the news and has hardly any campaign budget, the two party's Presidential candidates are well known. The PVI index is widely used to identify competitive districts.
Here's Silver's idea:
Are there any systematic differences in the ways that votes tend to fall for the Congress, as opposed to the Presidency? Are certain districts better or worse for Democrats, or Republicans, than PVI alone would suggest?
It turns out that there's one other factor which is fairly useful to look at, which is socioeconomic status. Relative to how they do for the Presidency, Democrats are somewhat more likely to win races for Congress in poorer districts, and somewhat more likely to lose them in wealthier ones. Another way to put this is that a split ticket of Republican for President, Democrat for Congress is more likely to occur in a poor district, whereas a split ticket of Democrat for President, Republican for Congress is more likely to occur in a wealthy one.
Click through for the statistical analysis he uses. Silver expresses his PPI index as the chance for Democrats to win an open seat in an average election cycle, based solely on two factors: the recent Presidential Vote and the percentage of the population with incomes under $25,000/yr. Here are the results for New Jersey:
District
Name
PVI
PPI
NJ11
Frelinhguysen
R+7
2.5%
NJ5
Garrett
R+7
3.2%
NJ4
Smith
R+6
10.9%
NJ7
Lance
R+3
13.9%
NJ3
Adler
R+1
27.9%
NJ12
Holt
D+5
62.9%
NJ2
LoBiondo
D+1
66.0%
NJ6
Pallone
D+8
85.2%
NJ9
Rothman
D+9
88.8%
NJ8
Pascrell
D+10
96.6%
NJ1
Andrews
D+12
97.0%
NJ13
Sires
D+21
99.95%
NJ10
Payne
D+33
99.998%
The main lesson, if you take this ratings seriously, is that New Jersey's wealth makes the battleground Congressional districts lean Republican compared to how they vote at the Presidential level. In many states, the R+3 and even the R+7 districts have a great chance of going Democratic at the Congressional level, but here NJ5 and NJ7 are actually quite unfavorable, and should vote for the House like R+14 districts in the rest of the country. When we evaluate how our candidates did, it's worth keeping this effect in mind.
Frank LoBiondo's district is the poorest in New Jersey, and by this measure is slightly better for Democrats than Holt's district, but we are stuck with the echo of 1994. In case it's not obvious, being an incumbent matters, scandals matter, and cycles can be more or less Republican than the average cycle, and you should always remember that the most likely outcome doesn't always happen. All of our 2010 races have incumbents so the percentages definitely do not apply. Also, this is the last election in the current districts.
Nicky Petrutz is a cook at a restaurant in Philadelphia who is a conservative republican that didn't realize the deadline had passed until it was too late, then decided to run as an independent, under the banner "Defend America's Constitution".
Now, Mr. Petrutz is pretty much a non-factor considering:
-the extreme Democratic lean of the district
-him not being a Rock'Em Sock'Em Candidate
-Robert Andrews having the seat as long as he wants it.
Location: Rowan University - Wilson Hall, Glassboro, New Jersey 08028
(Wilson Hall is located off of Bowe Blvd. across from Glassboro High School)
I think it will be well attended. Yesterday I was in Mullica Hill -- close to Glassboro -- and some old man was waving a "Stop Obama Care" sign to passing motorists.
I am a foster and adoptive mom for the past eleven years now. I have seen things in the foster system that need to change before more kids die. No one will listen. I have written, called, e-mailed everyone who is in authority to make a change and no one will listen. I have written a book to get the story out, but had to publicise it myself so it is slow going. Iam at a loss as to what else can be done.
One of the things that has to change is the way they handle supervised visitation. The state of NJ is swamped. They have so many cases per worker they can't even visit them all. So they sub contract out their supervised visitation. The problem is the companies they contract to don't have to have any trained personnel. So you end up having a dangerous mom visiting a young child or infant in a public place monitored by a college intern. No back up if something goes wrong, no plan in effect to handle dangerous situations nothing.
Here is an example of one of these we had to deal with. We had a one year old we were fostering. His mother was too dangerous for the worker to transport. She was known to carry drugs and got violent. So they set the visits for places she could walk to. This visit was set at the Newark Library in Nj. We took the child and met a twenty one year old college intern who was sent to monitor the visit. I left my cell # and the child with the intern and went outside to wait for the visit to be over. Ten minutes later my cell rang. It was the intern crying and asking me to come get the baby. She said the mom was hitting him.
Now you have to understand the area is prodominately AA and my foster son was AA and of course so was the biological mom. Iam white. Anyway I go back inside and the mom is striking the baby with a book. The intern is crying and asking me to take the baby, she is afraid to as the mom is angry and out weighs us both by about 100lbs. I try to ge the baby back and the mom tucks the baby under her arms and proceeds to run up two flights of cement steps. I follow we get to the library doors and I manage to get hold of the baby before she makes it out. Now it is tug of war with her screaming that Iam trying to abduct her baby. I manage to tumble back in with the baby just before she runs out. All the while screaming Iam his foster mom. The mom jumps in a waiting car outside and drives off. She was going to abduct him. A month later we find out she is incarcerated for trafficking.
If I hadn't been there he would have been abducted. This happens everyday. The interns are not prepared, there is no safety plan in effect and no will help me. We ended up adopting that baby he is my son now. But this system is still endangering other kids. These visits need to be with trained personnel in secure settings. Help me make a difference.
According to the Cook Report we have three districts that are ripe for the out-party, two for the Rs and one for the Ds. Every two years they put together a new analysis (find out the metrics elsewhere) of the Partisan Voting (PV) index of Congressional districts based on the last vote.
Last year the only ones that were close were NJ3 for John Adler, NJ2 for Frank Lobiondo, and NJ7 for Leonard Lance. The rest are pretty much out of reach barring a live goat or a dead boy.
Standing in front of his Haddon Heights home at 11am this morning, and surrounded by what he admitted was a hastily-assembled group of supporters, Rob Andrews announced he will give up his seat in Congress representing NJ's 1st Congressional District, and challenge Jon Corzine for his party's nomination for Governor.
From his statement:
I did not intend, or plan, to challenge my Governor in the primary process. I do so with regret, and respect. But New Jersey needs fresh stewardship, and new ideas. I have decided that I will place my name and my credentials before the people of New Jersey to serve as their new Governor. The people of New Jersey deserve to choose their governor. With respect for Governor Corzine and his public service, I will offer them that choice in this historic year of change, of challenge and of opportunity.
The news was a surprise, even for Andrews, who made headlines - and not a few enemies - with an unexpected primary challenge to Senator Frank Lautenberg, just days after promising the entire NJ Democratic delegation that he would not. The acrimonious nature of the race, including repeated references to the incumbent's age (Lautenberg was 84, Andrews 50) forced Democrats to take sides. Most sided with the eventual winner, Lautenberg, but the process may have further alienated South Jersey Democrats from their counterparts further north. It also damaged Andrews' credibility quotient, with wife Camille Andrews accused of merely keeping his seat warm for him in the event of his failure to capture the nomination from Lautenberg. When he lost, badly, to his elder, he did indeed return to that seat he swore he was done with.
Last year's race was largely seen as Andrews' test-run at a real state-wide campaign this year, but after a crushing defeat by a Senator he had made out to be, well, addled and well past his prime, the conventional wisdom was that he'd learned a lesson, and would live to fight another day.
A day perhaps come rather sooner than is convenient for Corzine. It's a bad time to be an incumbent governor with the economy - state and national - in the shape it's in. And that has been reflected in bad polling news for the Governor.
A trio of state Senators introduced Andrews to the group; Ray Lesniak, Joe Vitale and Bob Smith, who were in turn brought to the microphone by Asm John Wisniewski. Newark Democratic powerbroker Steve Adubato was there but did not speak. SJ Democratic Chairs Beach, Angelini and Perr and Norcross were also not called to the microphone. Today's announcement is seen as another sharp challenge to the balance of power by Norcross.
Barbara Buono, who endorsed Andrews last year, was not there. She is rumored to be on Corzine's shortlist for Lieutenant Governor. Democratic heavy-hitters who endorsed Andrews in '08, but were missing from this morning's announcement, included included Majority Leader Steve Sweeney, and Speaker Joe Roberts. Andrews mentioned both in his remarks, expressing deep respect, and that both had been informed late last night of his intentions.
Andrews' track record over the last year is widely seen as hubris, over-reaching and a notable failure of an ascendant South Jersey politician to capture the Senate seat in the name of the power structure in South Jersey. There was considerable resentment inside the Democratic Party, but particularly inside the Democratic Congressional delegation, with Pascrell and Pallone the most vocal.
Andrews briefly flirted last year with the possibility of leaving politics altogether and going to Goldman Sachs which, ironically, Corzine used to run. But now, the loss of support among his House colleagues - not to mention what Lautenberg may think of him - may be a factor in Andrews' choice to switch playing fields entirely, and compete with an incumbent Governor struggling with a national economy in freefall, a mountain of inherited state debt, and a likely challenger, Chris Christie, who fashions himself a heroic corruption-buster.
Before the Professor and Maryann got their due in the Gilligan's Island theme song, they were known collectively as "the rest." And that's about how some of NJ's House races, and the Senate race, must have felt this year.
With the Obama campaign sucking up so much of the oxygen (and money, and energy, and ultimately the very PA-bound volunteers themselves), most of what was left over was focused on the "hot" races in NJ-3, NJ-5, and NJ-7. Like so often in the past, if you weren't running in one of the hot races, then you found yourself with scant attention being paid to your campaign.
In the case of Senator Lautenberg, and our 7 Democratic House incumbents, no news was good news. New Jersey's voters delivered a solid double-digit win to its senior Senator, and sent the Magnificent 7 back to Washington with an average margin of victory of over 40%. But for Congressional Challengers in NJ-2, NJ-4, and NJ-11, it was a different story altogether.
We look at each of these races in more detail below the fold.
Use this handy-dandy form to post your winners in the NJ races. Winner gets $7 in monopoly money from the old set in their closest. Mine are after the jump.
Back in 1910, New Jersey faced the question of who would replace John Kean as U.S. Senator. Woodrow Wilson had just been elected governor of New Jersey, having initially been the choice of the political bosses, but having run on a reform platform that earned him the support of progressives. In those days before the 17th Amendment, the Senator would be chosen by the Democratic-controlled State Legislature.
I know the people of New Jersey do not desire Mr. James Smith, Jr., to be sent again to the Senate. If he should be he will not go their representative. The only means I have of knowing whom they do desire to represent them is the vote at the recent primaries, where 48,000 Democratic voters, a majority of the whole number who voted at the primaries, declared their preference for Mr. Martine of Union County. For me that vote is conclusive. I think it should be for every member of the Legislature.
Wilson's support was decisive and the choice of the voters became Senator.
Many people, including me, thought that it was an outrage when Rob Andrews and George Norcross decided to put Rob's wife Camille on the ballot for the NJ1 House nomination even though she said she would turn down the nomination when elected. We said it was undemocratic, went against our party's principles and disenfranchised the Democratic voters of New Jersey's first Congressional district.
We were told that we were wrong, that it was democratic because the voters knew the score and the County Committee members of NJ1 would be selecting the nominee. We had to "prevent a Civil War," according to Rob Andrews.
Rob Andrews: It's not in the interest of the Democratic Party to have some big civil war over the Congressional seat at a time when we are trying to have a unified effort in the south. And why her? I'll tell you why her. Because she gave her word that she would abide by the county committee process and she'll keep it and not fall in love with the idea that she maybe won the primary and then not get off the ballot
Apparently a primary where people get to vote for candidates who actually intend to run in the general is equivalent to a massive five year bloodbath.
Those of us who continued to protest this massive disenfranchisement were told that we were wrong and just terribly cynical.
The word among South Jersey Democrats is that Donald Norcross, the brother of one of the state's most powerful political insiders, will replace Rob Andrews in the U.S. House of Representatives. Sources say that the decision to send Norcross, the South Jersey AFL-CIO President and the Camden County Democratic Co-Chairman, to Congress appears nearly final, but that party leaders have little incentive to call a vote to ratify that choice anytime soon.
George Norcross' brother will be the nominee, and there's no need to call a vote of the County Committee members anytime soon. This is how they "abide by the county committee process"? Bypassing the County Committee?
Rob Andrews admitted back in May that his wife Camille Andrews was just a placeholder for the NJ1 Democratic nomination, and was placed there to avoid a serious primary by folks interested in running for the seat. Instead of a primary, Camille would turn down the nomination and put the nomination in the hands of the County Committeemembers from the district. The idea was to avoid a "civil war."
While working hard on Rob's Senate race, I decided to run for Congress to ensure that New Jersey's First Congressional District continues to be represented by a leader with the integrity and fortitude to honorably serve our nation in these challenging times.
Ummmm, that's not what her husband said. And the timing is a little off since Rob announced his run for Senate less than two days before Camille's primary paperwork was filed.
Then there's the fact that she has all of $15,000 cash on hand and raised just $72K in the second quarter. That is not the money a serious candidate raises.
Please, let's stop the charade and hold a the County Committee meeting to select the nominee. If it's Camille, fine. But there are too many facts being stretched here, and it's time to end this sad period in our party's history and get on with the general election.
OK, now that FEC reports are out it's time to check out how we are doing in Republican held and open seats. Essentially the six seats with incumbent Democrats are pretty much safe, so these are the places where we might be playing.
The middle column shows where we are doing better than the Republican. You expect that Dems would do well in NJ1 (see notes below about what a joke NJ1 is), but we are winning the money game in NJ3 and NJ7 as well -- overwhelmingly.
Cand.
2Q$
CoH
Adv
Cand.
2Q$
CoH
Andrews (NJ1)
$72,240
$15,611
Glading (NJ1)
TBA
TBA
Kurkowski (NJ2)
$172,772
$89,773
LoBiondo (NJ2)
$205,422
$1,491,954
Adler (NJ3)
$738,683
$1,463,747
Myers (NJ3)
$241,762
$155,406
Zeitz (NJ4)
$114,053
$124,535
Smith (NJ4)
$143,300
$503,944
Shulman (NJ5)
$234,249
$258,381
Garret (NJ5)
$293,963
$649,003
Stender (NJ7)
$494,265
$1,100,000
Lance (NJ7)
$191,107
$80,792
Wyka (NJ11)
$11,112
$15,540
Hot Rod (NJ11)
$121,330
$717,893
One source of mystery is Dale Glading, who is running in NJ1 against the alleged candidate Camille Andrews (whose fundraising once again demonstrates she is not a real candidate).
A search for Glading, Republican, NJ, House on FEC.gov produces no results for contributions or disbursements of any kind. No July Quarterly report has been filed, but at the least as of primary day Glading had raised no money.
That means, as near as I can tell, there are no real candidates running in NJ1. Sheesh.
Update: This is updated to include the pre-primary filing numbers. The CoH numbers were accurate last night, but after the comments it was updated to include the whole quarter.
Back when Rob Andrews was challenging Frank Lautenberg to debates every week the campaign regularly suggested Lautenberg was unDemocratic and undemocratic for not accepting debates.
At the time I noted that the debate demands were a normal tactic for a challenger, and that ducking debates was the norm for the frontrunner. I dismissed the outrage as manufactured and suggested that Lautenberg would accept debates (he did) and that this was really a non-issue.
In response folks continued to slam Lautenberg for being anti-progressive, and my own progressive cred was even questioned.
Long shot Republican candidate Dale Glading issued a debate challenge to Camille Andrews on June 5th, asking her to respond by Friday, June 13th. But as of yesterday, Glading still hadn't received a reply from Andrews. ...
"It is disappointing to the citizens of our district that Camille Andrews has chosen not to follow in her husband's footsteps in desiring to publicly debate the issues affecting the people of New Jersey," said Glading. "Camille Andrews is hiding from the voters of the 1st District, choosing to spend her time instead in the smoke-filled back rooms of the party machine."
At least Lautenberg's campaign responded by saying, "Rob needs to lighten up. There'll be debates but on our terms, not his." We don't even get that much from Camille Andrews' camp.
Andrews campaign manager Benjamin Parvey did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Why? Because Camille Andrews is not actually a candidate for Congress, and everyone knows it. Her candidacy is a joke, a sick joke, on the voters of new Jersey's first district.
Look, I'm thrilled that Dana Redd is likely to be the next Representative from NJ1. She'll be a great Congresswoman and add some gender and racial balance to our state delegation.
But the flim-flam scam Rob Andrews, George Norcross and their team pulled on the voters of NJ1 still stinks to high heaven and it gets worse each day it's allowed to stand. The way they are handling it now shows that the Rob Andrews campaigns' outrage over debates was as false as Camille Andrews' candidacy.
It's now time to get it over with, immediately. Camille Andrews needs to reject the nomination given to her by the voters, and the County Committee members in NJ1 need to select their nominee.
It'll still stink, but at least with Dana Redd in there it will accomplish something good.
Watching the campaign of Rob Andrews for the United States Senate has been difficult. Congressman Andrews is an intelligent and thoughtful official who has a keen interest in public policy. By most accounts, he was next in line to run for the Senate when Senator Lautenberg retires in 2014 or for Governor if Governor Corzine decides not to run for re-election in 2009. However, it appears that his impatience and the threat that possibly one of his colleagues might run in 2009 or 2014 encouraged him to get involved this time around. He could have orchestrated a positive issue-based campaign, thereby creating an aura of inevitability for a future run. Or he could have chosen the path he did follow: a harshly negative campaign in which a major loss means political oblivion. Or does it?
So now that Camile Andrews has won the terribly nail-biting election for the Democratic nomination she will not accept, the time has come to speculate over who the party power-brokers will pick to get the seat.
Camile Andrews says she will not accept the nomination she just won, but hasn't given an indication of whether she will see the party support for the nomination she resigned. I know, weird.
Others mentioned by Andrews in his heartfelt but strange defense of this strange arrangement include:
Assemblywoman Dana Redd, and African American woman and former Camden Councilwoman. She's also Vice Chair of the State Dems. It'd be nice to have two women (Go Linda Stender! Beat Lance!) represent NJ in the House after such a long, stupid drought.
Senator Steve Sweeney, a major power in South Jersey and business agent and treasurer for Ironworkers Local 399. He pissed off a lot of progressives when he called for union givebacks to balance the state budget using anti-worker language and arguments that sounded strange coming from a union leader's mouth;
Assemblyman John Burzichelli, one of many Assembly Deputy Speakers and a member of the budget committee;
and Lou Capelli, a Camden County Freeholder I know next to nothing about.
Are there others in the wings? Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad and John Caramanna just lost to Camille Andrews yesterday, and are not likely to get any support even if they do throw their hats in the ring.
For the next couple weeks this is one of the few things that we'll have to argue over. Put names and arguments over who is most likely to get the nod, and also who should get the nod.
In a hard fought primary that included massive spending, hard retail politics and bosses twisting arms we are comfortable with the trends to report that Andrews has won the election.
That's right, with 32 percent reporting Blue Jersey is officially calling the race for Andrews.
You've no doubt taken Huntsu's Senate Primary Poll already. But what about the other races playing out in tomorrow's supposed-to-be-irrelevant June Primary? Here's a place to share your thoughts, comments and predictions about some of those other primaries happening tomorrow.
Congressional Primaries
Contested Democratic primaries in the 1st, 5th and 11th Congressional Districts, plus Republican primaries in the 3rd and 7th promise to provide more primary-night intrigue than I can lately remember.
On the Democratic side, there are some pretty strong favorites going in, though I think the results will be closer than expected in all three places. On the Republican side, I think that Kelly is going to pull it out in the 3rd, and (I hope I'm wrong) that Kate Whitman is going to steal home in the 7th.
Local Races
And, don't forget about the local races happening here, there and around, like the BCDO showdown with the Real Bergen Democrats, and even a hard-fought mayoral primary in Washington Township (yes, that Washington Township).
How do you think tomorrow will shape up down-ballot? And, tell us what other local races you have your eyes on.
I've seen quite a few people arguing about why Rob Andrews wanted his wife to run for the NJ1 Democratic nomination and then turn it down. One thing that keeps coming up is that Andrews intends to return to that seat if he loses the nomination to Frank Lautenberg.
I really don't see that as the case, and would like to put a stop to that as a line of attack if I can. Here's my reason.
Andrews needs to run a very strong campaign and turn out huge pluralities in South Jersey in order to win. He's going to lose in North Jersey, and probably by a good margin. Without a blowout win in the south he's got no chance in hell to pull this fight out.
But if there were 5 or 10 people duking it out to get the nomination in NJ1 -- Andrews strongest territory of all -- it would blunt his plurality there. At least one of those people would want to run with Lautenberg, filling out his line with a strong candidate and delivering reverse coat-tail votes up ticket. Others would not align at all.
Further, the fight would drown out Andrews in NJ1 and become a major campaign issue throughout the state in a "Look at the chaos he caused by running!" kind of way. It's a fun story because the traditional media loves to cover a fight instead of issues, and Andrews' positions and retail campaign would be drowned out in the rest of the state.
This is the same reason Andrews wants debates, so that he can get face time about his issues and Lautenberg's age. Having a "civil war" in the NJ1 vacuum he created would have totally blunted any effort to talk about why he is running or why Lautenberg is too old, and destroyed his candidacy.
The only solution at that late date was to promise all the people interested in the seat a chance after the primary to go in front of the NJ1 county committee members to win the seat in a fair, if undemocratic, fight.
And the only way to do that was to put someone on the ballot with the party line who had no interest in actually getting the nomination.
And the person he can trust the most is Camile Andrews, so she got the nod.
But now he has promised the entire state that he is running for US Senate and not for the House, and he has promised many powerful people in the district that they will have a fair shot at the seat.
Were he to take the seat at this point he would be seen as an untrustworthy turncoat and lose the support of those powerful people for any future statewide run. Anyone who knows or has even watched Andrews for a while knows that what he wants is a statewide gig, primarily Drumthwacket.
And he can't do that without the powerful Democrats of NJ1, or with the tag of someone who is so ambitious he put his wife on the ballot as a hedge against losing a nomination fight that was a long-shot to begin with.
That's why he can't take the seat back when he loses to Lautenberg: the blow to his support in NJ1 Democratic circles and the tag as an ambitious politician willing to say anything and do anything to keep power would prevent him from ever getting what he wants: statewide office.
It's pretty clear that Rob Andrews isn't fooling anyone by having his wife keep his seat warm while he attempts to dislodge Frank Lautenberg. He's obviously hedging his bets, and appears not to have a great deal of confidence in his ability to knock off Lautenberg. But his gamesmenship is so transparent that even the national media has started to notice:
During the APP debate this morning, Rob Andrews was asked about the fact that his wife is running for Congress in his district simply as a placeholder, and will step down and be replaced.
Andrews responded that it's a three step process. The first step is that the voters would choose if they "support a new process or not". That's code for undermining the usual democratic process. If voters choose to do that by voting for his wife, then step 2 is that she steps down and Democratic committee members select the real candidate, and step 3 is the general election in November.
Since the Democratic nominee will almost certainly win in November, in essence, this comes down to whether voters next Tuesday are actually voting to severely limit the pool of voters (to just Democratic committee members) who will choose their next Representative. Andrews didn't singlehandedly create this situation, but he definitely enabled it, and that's very disappointing.
