Looking at the Mt. Arlington Results

Last year I tended to look at the power of the third party candidates to see whether or not it would be worthwhile for a third party to centralize its efforts in a single town. I thought I’d do the same thing for the 2009 results.

In Mt. Arlington, Chris Christie drew 1,130 votes for Governor while the then-incumbent Jon Corzine drew 512 votes. In total, 154 ballots were cast for third party candidates which includes 136 votes for Chris Daggett. In truth, that’s not that bad for the third parties during an election cycle that was pretty well-publicized and emotionally-charged in New Jersey. It is clear, though, that Mt. Arlington remains a strong Republican district and that whatever crossover support Corzine enjoyed in this particular district prior to the election evaporated.

In total, 1,808 ballots were cast in Mt. Arlington. Of those ballots, 1,732 were cast in person at polling stations and 76 were cast via vote by mail ballots. Again, this isn’t a bad turnout for the vote by mail contingent (myself included) and it shows that the intent of the change in election law to allow more people to use vote by mail ballots is being realized by the people. And though the percentage of the vote that came through vote by mail ballots was only 2.07%, I still think that if a third party could find a way to energize a local base, then it could enjoy some degree of success at the local level and possibly build on that success regionally, then at the state level, and then possibly at higher levels of government.

With the recent showing of Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 congressional district special election, it would appear that there is a real desire on behalf of the people to see something new from their politicians. The people want more choices than simply “R” or “D” and I still think that the building a strong base at the local level is the best way for third parties to pop up and begin providing more choice to the voters.

The major X factor in all of this are the Democratic counties in New Jersey, namely Essex, Camden, and Hudson counties. These are counties where a large portion of the population votes for the Democrats just because there is a “D” after their name on the ballot (that’s not even a joke). Unfortunately, many of our fellow citizens in these counties believe that the Democrats will help them with their struggles…even though they haven’t done a damn thing for this state in the last 20 years. But I digress.

Again, with 35% of the vote counted, Christie has a 10 point lead over Corzine.

I intend to stick around tonight and see who wins this election, though if it winds up that we have a dead heat going into the wee hours, I’m going to sleep! Stick around and let me know what you thought about this year’s election via the comments section of the blog.

There was no way that I could bring myself to vote for Jon Corzine. I don’t care that he’s a Democrat and, in fact, I’ve voted for much better Democrats than Corzine in the past. What bothers me about Corzine is that he is completely out of touch with what it means to live a real life in New Jersey. Frankly, Christie isn’t so much more grounded than Corzine, but he’s closer to understanding what you and I and our families go through on a daily basis than Corzine could ever hope to be.

I really wanted to vote for Chris Daggett this year – I really, really wanted to vote for him. In fact, on at least two different occasions since I sent in my vote-by-mail ballot, I’ve wondered if I voted for the right “Chris” in this election. In the end, though, it was a suggestion by Frank Esposito – Daggett’s running mate for Lieutenant Governor – that assured me that a vote for Christie was the right vote in this election. As I talked about in a previous entry, Esposito made it very clear that he and Daggett would support allowing illegal immigrants who had been in New Jersey since they were very young to receive in-state tuition at state colleges. Look, student loans and the completely unaffordable nature of attending college for many student is my major issue. When I hear that people who are not citizens might be getting in-state tuition…I can’t support that.

And it frustrates me that a guy like Daggett supported that position, but that’s politics.

So my vote has been cast for Chris Christie and I hope that you vote for him, too. In the event that you support someone else, that’s cool. I believe that it is more important that you go out and vote today than you vote for the person that I support. However, in case you were wondering – JerseySmarts.com endorses Chris Christie and Kim Guadagno in this year’s election.

Both Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Christie’s remarkable inability to give specific information on the details of their supposed plans to lower property taxes have left a filthy taste in the mouth of many New Jersey voters. All one needs to do is listen to any of the debates that these candidates have had over the last several weeks and you’ll be sick to your stomach.

Since I’m a glutton for punishment, I decided to listen to WBGO’s podcast of the last gubernatorial debate of this season, which occurred at their studios last Thursday. Hold on to your hats for this shocking revelation… it was more of the same! In fact, you can read a review of the debate from the mainstream media’s point of view at the New York Times website by clicking here.

The last few weeks of this year’s election cycle have been interesting as the Independent candidate Chris Daggett is gaining in the polls to the greater detriment of Christie, but now also to the detriment of Corzine. Much like what is going on in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, it appears that a third party candidate is going to spoil the New Jersey Governor’s race. Frankly, I’m glad that Daggett has decided to stay in the race and fight. New Jersey, and the entire nation, needs an alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats.

Before I begin, though, I want to mention that I took these notes in an effort to compare the communication styles of the three candidates. In other words, I was looking to see if they connected with the audience, what their demeanor was like during the forum, and how they were adjusting to the changing environment as the questions rolled along.

Loretta Weinberg (Democrat)
Loretta Weinberg came off as very tired in the beginning of the debate. The impression that I got from her was that she would rather be doing anything else in the world than sitting up on that stage answering questions. Her tone wasn’t really that of a privileged person who felt that the debate was beneath her, rather it was the tone of someone who was tired and exhausted.

To Senator Weinberg’s credit, she initially appeared very knowledgeable on the various issues in this campaign. Unfortunately, though, she was the first to throw out a negative attack on the opposition (against the Republicans). In the beginning, Senator Weinberg connected very poorly with the audience that was in the theater. This changed at different points throughout the night, but the worst example of this was when she attempted to use the tried and true strawman argument of the Democrats – blaming President George W. Bush. To the audience’s credit, they booed Senator Weinberg ferociously when she attempted to make the lame connection between New Jersey’s problems and President Bush. Once or twice later in the debate, Senator Weinberg did what all Democratic politicians seeking election this year are doing – she tied her campaign to President Barack Obama. If my memory serves, she commented on how the Governor has worked with the President to bring stimulus dollars to New Jersey.

Early in the debate, Senator Weinberg was hammered by the moderator from NJ 101.5 for constantly going off topic. I also noticed that when she answered questions, Senator Weinberg had a knack for bringing up outside issues that framed her opposition in a negative light. This is what drove the moderator nuts, I think, and is what he kept getting on her case about early in the night.

Senator Weinberg showed a clear knowledge of Governor Jon Corzine’s legislative history. In fact, I think you could say that she has mastered Governor Corzine’s record and his time in politics. Many of her arguments were strong based solely on her ability to recall the Governor’s successes while in office. At times it appeared that the Senator was relying too heavily on the Governor’s record and she seemed to be blurting out talking points. However, that changed as the night went on.

For her part, Senator Weinberg did not engage in usual debate practices. She did not take notes during her opposition’s responses nor did she take notes while questions were being asked. Both of her opponents were jotting down notes furiously throughout the forum. The best comment that I heard from Senator Weinberg was her rebuttal on corruption in New Jersey when she specifically cited the Governor’s legislation banning pay-to-play. Very powerful stuff.

The worst thing that I saw Senator Weinberg do in the debate was her question to her Republican challenger about what items – specifically – she would cut in the upcoming budget. By doing this, she allowed her opposition to directly answer a question that she had, herself, sidestepped. Not a good move in terms of debate.

Overall, I’d rate Senator Weinberg a 7 to 7.5 on a 10 point scale.

Kim Guadagno (Republican)
Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno was the strongest of the three debaters. She had a very direct, confident speaking style that connected with the audience in attendance and those listening at home. While Senator Weinberg was the first to attack her opposition, Sheriff Guadagno was the first to attack a specific person (the Senator). However, Sheriff Guadagno only attacked the Senator after the Senator continued to repeat an untrue statement regarding the Republican campaign’s stance on mammograms. The audience responded very well to this early exchange (and eventually booed the Senator when she continued to bring up the issue throughout the night).

Sheriff Guadagno used a very extemporaneous style of speaking which connected well with the audience. She didn’t stick to a prepared statement on any of the topics that were discussed and the people in the theater responded well to this style. The tone of the Sheriff’s voice was passionate and inflamed at the same time.

When the topic of campaign finance laws came up, Sheriff Guadagno spoke directly to the audience – a very effective move. She followed this up a few minutes later by clarifying a question regarding illegal immigration and some piece of legislation called 287g. Sheriff Guadagno was very clear on her stance towards documented and undocumented workers, which earned her the praise of the audience.

A few moments after this show of strength, though, I believe that Sheriff Guadagno faltered a bit when she tied the Governor to a question about whether or not she would support raising the gas tax. Not a good connection for the Sheriff and something that I think most of the listeners and the audience gave no real credence.

Sheriff Guadagno appeared to be the strongest about midway through the debate when she answered a question on corruption. Her and Chris Christie’s record on busting corruption are impeccable and really something that can’t be contested logically. Sheriff Guadagno was also strong, though to a lesser degree, on her answer to shared services and the very real example that she gave with the 911 system in Monmouth County. Audiences like to hear about real examples and that was a good one.

My favorite discussion throughout the entire night regarding the charter school support from all of the candidates. Sheriff Guadagno was very smart to incorporate the financial pressure that suburban districts are feeling by having a great deal of their tax dollars flow to urban districts with no results from the traditional public schools. Charter schools, on the other hand, are generating real success by breaking the stranglehold that the unionized teachers have on the New Jersey taxpayers and their precious property tax dollars.

Overall, I thought that Sheriff Guadagno won the debate and would rate her performance an 8.5 or 9 out of 10.

Frank Esposito (Independent)
Dr. Frank Esposito spoke in general terms throughout the debate. This was a tactic that eventually began to work against him as the discussion progressed. Dr. Esposito seemed knowledgeable on a few issues, but not well-versed in all of the major issues in the campaign. Yet, I can’t help but to feel that the Independent ticket will receive some type of bump from Dr. Esposito’s performance. New Jerseyans are looking for something different and voting for someone without an R or a D after their name might be the answer this election cycle.

For much of the beginning of the debate, Dr. Esposito relied on humor and one-liners to connect with the audience, which was effective. However, that approach quickly lost its impact once the topics began to dive into specific policies towards the middle of the debate. The one area where Dr. Esposito was the strongest was the discussion on campaign finance reform. Clearly, an Independent candidate running for Lieutenant Governor in a state where big dollars rule the day has a lot to say about campaign finance reform. Again, Dr. Esposito was very strong in this portion of the forum.

The weakest part of Dr. Esposito’s performance was his outright support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I admit that I have a personal grudge on this issue as student loan debt and college affordability are my hot button issues (which no one else cares about, but they mean something to me). I thought that Dr. Esposito’s brief discussion and stance on this issue really detracted from his performance on the night.

On the other hand, Dr. Esposito was very strong and hit a common chord with the audience when he suggested that politicians busted in corruption rings should automatically forfeit their pensions. The audience loved that – but they loved hearing his comment that while the current administration passed a ban on dual office holding, they exempted themselves from the legislation at the same time. That was clearly Dr. Esposito’s home run of the night and he hit it out of the park.

Overall, I’d score Dr. Esposito with a strong 5.5 out of 10 and, on some answers, I’d give him a solid 7 out of 10.

As you can see from my meager scoring table, I thought that Sheriff Guadagno clearly won the day with both Dr. Esposito and Senator Weinberg coming in at a tie for second or at least with Dr. Esposito coming in at a very close third.

Some quick thoughts…

Frank Esposito. Dr. Esposito had the biggest opportunity to make a strong case for his and Chris Daggett’s candidacy and I don’t think he made as much of that opportunity as possible. That’s not a knock on Dr. Esposito, though, but rather an observation that New Jersey’s (and America’s) two party system is ruining our political debate. Dr. Esposito had to spend more time reminding everyone that there were bigger issues to worry about than political attacks than actually talking about his and Daggett’s platform! Sad…

Kim Guadagno. In the event that anyone wants to declare an official “winner” in the debate tonight, I think that Sheriff Guadagno is the clear choice. Between Dr. Esposito constantly having to speaking in generalities and Senator Weinberg speaking in politician speak, the Sheriff was the one who came out on top. Also, she also gave some pretty clear answers and was forceful in her responses – which New Jerseyans want to see in this election year.

Loretta Weinberg. If there was any candidate who didn’t have a “good” night tonight, I think that it was State Senator Weinberg. However, that doesn’t mean that she came off horribly. In fact, I think that Senator Weinberg did a good job doing what she knows how to do best, which is act and respond to questions like a seasoned politician. Again, there is some value in that, but I think that New Jersey voters want something different.

The Venue. I’m not sure why Leadership New Jersey and Monmouth University didn’t let more people into the Pollack Theater – there were certainly enough empty seats that could have been filled if more people were let in. The audience was out of control and while that makes for good radio listening and television viewing, it doesn’t quite help in a forum format.

The Moderators. While strong, the moderators (at times) seemed to steal the spotlight from the candidates. That’s never a good thing, but it is certainly understandable when you are dealing with a Lieutenant Governor debate.

Overall, I wasn’t jumping up and down at the end of the debate. Hearing Dr. Esposito say that he supported in-state tuition for illegals stopped any chance that he and Daggett had of getting my vote. Student loans and the cost of going to college is my issue and that’s not what I want to hear.

More on all of this tomorrow…