The Close NJ Race

I have no proof for this, but my guess would be that more traditionally gop/conservative voters are more reliable voters. They typically have trust in the system, and therefore are going to vote to uphold their ideals. Liberal voters I think tend to be more skeptical. They want change, but the system makes it difficult to achieve that goal of change, so they become demoralized and don't see any point in voting because they don't see how it would help them.

Because conservatives walk the walk of representative democracy day in and day out, whereas liberals simply like to talk the talk unless the given race has some hollywood glam points.

I voted via absentee ballot last week. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Ken Kaplan, who obviously does not have a snowball's chance of capturing more than one or two percent of the vote. I considered voting for the Independent candidate, Chris Daggett, but Daggett just seemed too wishy washy on the medical marijuana question, which should be a slam dunk for anyone with a shred of compassion or common sense.

My prediction is that Republican Chris Christie will eake out a slim victory, but it all depends on voter turnout. A large turnout tomorrow will play in Corzine's favor. But baring that, I think Christie will prevail.

Because conservatives walk the walk of representative democracy day in and day out, whereas liberals simply like to talk the talk unless the given race has some hollywood glam points.

Actually, the Republican response to the NJ race has been to demand that the Independent candidate drop out of the race.

Not exactly the best way for Republicans to demonstrate their support for representative democracy.

I agree with that.

Liberals prefer Hollywood glam points of the Susan Sarandon variety. While Conservatives prefer Hollywood glam points of the Carrie Prejean variety. Equally worthless. Equally pointless. And equally empty for the future of "getting things done".

I prefer Optimus Prime as a political leader. That dude tears up a city to get things done!

I don't understand your logic here. Then why don't more people come out to vote for them? Doesn't a low turnout mean that fewer people are voting, and wouldn't that mean in turn that fewer potential voters want to vote for the Republican candidate? I mean, it seems to me that if a candidate wins an election with a low turnout of voters, that's a poor example of representative democracy. Or am I missing something?

Is the Independent candidate a conservative?

Voting patterns and history, across many elections, all areas of the country, in local, state and national elections, have all shown time and time again that low turnout strongly favors the Republican party, high turn out the Democratic party.

There are many theories as to why this is, but most observers agree it is simply that as a whole, Republicans see voting as a civic duty to perform, and Democrats see voting as a way to make a statement.

So, low turnout usually equates to less strong emotions in the electorate, so less people 'making a statement', and that therefore favors Republicans..

There are of course obvious times this has not been true; but this is the general rule.

AR, thank you. That's the first explanation I've seen that makes some sense.

Is the Independent candidate a conservative?

No, I'd call him more of a moderate. But he's former Republican, so Republicans have just assumed that he was siphoning off more votes from Christie (the Republican) than Corzine (the Democrat). The irony, of course, is that recent polls have shown that Christie is actually taking away more votes away from Corzine than Christie, so the "Don't Waste Your Vote on Daggett!" campaign being waged by Republicans is actually poorly founded.

Personally, I believe that Corzine has been a horrible governor, and I will not be the least bit upset if and when he leaves. But if I hear one more Republican whining about a third party candidate "stealing their votes", I swear I'm going to explode. I mean . . . literally. It won't be pretty, so don't tempt me.

LOL, nic. But seriously, that's why I asked if he was a conservative. I didn't know, but I figured if the GOP was trying to get him to leave the race, it must be because the split vote would harm them, not the Democrats.

Well, I doubt you're going to be able to relate to this, but my ideological beliefs do not always align with my political affiliations. The former is personal and the latter has more to do with business and my more public personna. In a similar, but more lighthearted vein, my comments here at TMV more often reflect the environment established by the editors as opposed to my core beliefs.
With that as a backdrop, my comment above (and throughout this forum) is not intended as a defense of the the R party but moreso the population of non-liberal, self-sufficient people who first and formost need to rid themsleves of the burden of another Cozine term. Christie may not be preferable to the 3rd party candidate, but, like it or not, more electable. Your vote and my vote are cast for different reasons.

Well, the way I look at politics and voting is that no state-wide election is ever going to hinge on my one vote...EVER. The combination of simple grade school math and basic statistic dictates that my one vote will NEVER change the outcome of such an election. I probably have as much a chance of winning the lottery as I do being the decisive vote in a state-wide election.

So, if I'm going to vote, it might as well be for someone whose political positions I support. Not support as in a hundred percent of the time, but a politician that I agree with more often than I don't...well, that would be nice.

So I'm not sure I entirely understand the "realist" argument on voting that dictates that it makes more sense to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance of winning (or as I call it, the "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument). I put the term "realist" in quotations, of course, because there's nothing "realist" or "realistic" about voting for a Democrat or a Republican and then believing that your vote mattered any more than my vote for Joe Independent.

Now, of course, if I were such a persuasive speaker or writer that I could presuade two thousand other people to vote exactly as I did, then yeah, I'd actually have a chance of determine the outcome of a state-wide election. And with that kind of voting power, I'd probably be more open to the "realist" argument and voting for the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, if I really had the power to persuade two thousand other people to vote exactly as I did, the last thing I'd do is have them vote for some Democrat or Republican that I could barely tolerate. I might as well have those two thousand other people vote for the principled third party candidate and double that candidate's vote total in one foul swoop.

So, in closing, I say to you casualobserver, your single vote will never matter...at least, not in state-wide election. Neither will mine. Neither will Kathy's, nor Shannon's, nor T-Steel's, nor Austin's. Even good ole' Joe...his vote will never matter either.

When we grow old and reminisce about the past, none of us will be able to brag to our grandchildren that we cast the deciding vote in an historic election. Nor will our grandchildren care that our vote caused the winning candidate to win by 64,321 votes instead of 64,320 votes.

In the end, all we really have is our principles and our honor. And maybe, if we're lucky and we have a shred of ability when it comes to writing or public speaking, we'll be able to convince a few people to understand our point of view along the way.

Here's how I state that:
There's only two things that you can do with your vote: elect a candidate, or state your principles. Last election, 4 million people wasted their presidential vote in Indiana (my state), because the president was already elected before Indiana decided who had won the state, and many of those people didn't want either candidate.

Also, it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe any politician when they speak, because they are often saying the opposite of what they'll do in office.

Okay, so here’s my question: Why is it that the more liberal candidate (usually but not always the Democratic candidate) is helped by high voter turnout, and the more conservative candidate is helped by a low turnout?

I'm not sure it's a case of liberal/conservative. In the case of New Jersey, though, the difference is the number of votes piled up in Democratic strongholds of Hudson and Essex Counties. If the Democratic machines (and they are machines in the truest sense of the word) can crank up and get enough people to vote, they can pile up vote totals that the rest of the state cannot overcome. If they are unable to do so, then Christie's chances improve considerably.

As far as Chris Daggett goes, he's fairly liberal. But New Jersey is a liberal state, and Chris Christie, the Republican, has gone as far as retreading Obama footage to make the point that he isn't conservative. All of this, of course, while he winks and nods to the conservative base to try and keep them happy (which isn't working). What Daggett has done is give disaffected Democrats someone to vote for without switching parties. As for me, I'm switching parties after the election because I'd rather fight for NJ Repubs to be more liberal than for NJ Dems to be more honest. I agree that Republicans have been whining that Daggett is stealing votes from Christie, but I think most Dems would have gone back to Corzine in the end - especially after Christie came around saying he'd cut state mandated coverage for mandatory stays for mastectomies and mammograms (then he decided he wouldn't do that...but the damage was done).

I called this race for Christie two months ago, and I'm standing by it. It's only close because Christie has run one of the most horrible campaigns in history (see above: opposition to mammograms and mandatory hospital stays for mastectomies).

Wow Thurman. We're practically neighbors!

Well, kind of.

If you're in Essex or Hudson county, we're practically neighbors, too. :-)

Dunno where you are. I've been in Jersey City for six long years...and looking for an escape.