Category Archives: Cory Booker

A Closer Look by the ECPIP Staff … Senator Cory Booker: On the Rise to 2016?

As we gear up for our next Rutgers-Eagleton Poll – the big 200th in 44 years of polling New Jersey! – our student staff takes a closer look at some of the data from our October survey that we have not yet had a chance to fully explore.

Senator Cory Booker: On the Rise to 2016?

By Evan Covello

Evan Covello is a sophomore at Rutgers University. Evan is a research assistant with the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling and the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.

***

With only a few months to go until the primaries are underway, speculation regarding potential running mates will be heating up as the parties narrow down their fields. New Jersey’s own U.S. Senator Cory Booker, has emerged as a potential 2016 running mate for Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who currently leads the national polls for the Democratic nomination. As such, it is a good time for us to revisit Sen. Booker’s numbers – at least within his home state.

In his home state of New Jersey, 54 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Senator Booker, with only 21 percent unfavorable toward him. Race influences Booker’s high favorability; Booker’s favorability is higher among those who identify as being non-white (59 percent) as opposed to those who identify as white (52 percent). Specifically, 80 percent of those who identify as black are favorable of Senator Booker, with only 8 percent saying they are unfavorable.

Age is also a large factor in Booker’s high favorability. Those who fall between the ages of 18-29 are favorable of Senator Booker at 51 percent, with 13 percent unfavorable, and 36 percent responding that they have no opinion or do not know. Although Booker’s favorability rises with age, so do negative feelings toward him, and the gap between those who view him favorably and unfavorably decreases. For example, those 50-64 years old have a higher favorability of Senator Booker (54 percent), but 26 percent are unfavorable – a 28-point gap, compared to a 38-point gap among millennials. Millennials – who, just like the Senator, are know for their tech savvy ways – have been a key demographic for Sen. Booker during his time in New Jersey.

Another demographic that one would normally expect to be a large support base for Democratic candidates would be women. The Center for American Women and Politics addresses the issue of the gender gap between the two political parties, showing that women are more likely to register as Democrats than as Republicans and are more likely to register as Democrats than men. With Booker being a Democrat, we would expect support among women to be a strong factor in his high level of favorability. Gender is not statistically significant for Sen. Booker, however, as there is very little difference between men (53 percent) and women (54 percent) who are favorable toward him.

With strong ratings throughout New Jersey – especially among those groups that make up a large portion of the Democratic base – Sen. Booker may be a great addition to a Clinton presidential ticket for 2016, especially with key demographics.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 President, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized

Some other Favorability Ratings in NJ

In most of our regular Rutgers-Eagleton Polls we usually have a few additional questions that do not make it into one of our press releases. In particular, we ask favorability ratings of a range of political actors but don’t always have a place to report them.

In today’s blog post, we take a quick look at those ratings from our most recent poll. In addition to Gov. Chris Christie and former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s ratings, which we already reported (especially our extensive battery on Christie) in earlier releases about our July 28 – Aug. 5 poll, we also asked about:

President Barack Obama
U.S. Senator Cory Booker
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jeffrey Bell
Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno

The overall favorability question is asked at the very beginning of the survey:

First, I’d like to ask about some people and groups. Please tell me if your general impression of each one is favorable or unfavorable, or if you do not have an opinion. If you do not know the name, just say so. [RANDOMIZE ORDER]

Ratings0814Several things jump out at us immediately. First, while President Obama’s national job performance ratings are in the 40s at best, voters in New Jersey still feel more favorable about him than not. In fact, Obama and Gov. Christie have nearly the same favorability ratings here in New Jersey, an interesting dynamic in a state that is much more Democrat than Republican.

Second, Hillary Clinton has the highest favorability rating of this group (54%) – NJ voters are 22 points more favorable than unfavorable about her, versus a 9-point favorable margin for Christie and a 7-point margin for Obama. But Cory Booker has the highest net-favorable rating, +32 points, due mainly to the fact that few feel unfavorable toward him. But nearly a third have no opinion on Booker, a seemingly high number for someone who has been such a media darling.

Third, while Christie of course is known by virtually every voter, and most have an opinion, the same cannot be said for the other two Republicans on this list. Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, despite having served with Christie for nearly 5 years, is virtually unknown. More than 7 in 10 NJ voters either have no opinion or don’t recognize her name. The quarter or so who do are split evenly, suggesting perhaps guessing as much as anything. The result for Jeffrey Bell, who is challenging Booker for the U.S. Senate seat, suggests he is maybe even less visible – almost 80% have no opinion, and the other 20% split evenly, as with Guadagno.

A couple of interesting things appear when we examine some groups – particularly party identification and gender.

There is no surprise in partisan reactions to Obama: 82% of Democrats feel favorable toward him while 83% of Republicans are unfavorable. This is polarization at its most stark. Clinton generates nearly as much variation – 83% of Democrats like her, while 68% of Republicans feel unfavorable toward her.

But when we turn to Booker, we see somewhat less polarization, with 65% of Democrats feeling favorable, along with 35% of Republicans, “just” a 30-point gap, versus a 71-point gap in favorability toward Obama between Republicans (11% favorable) and Democrats (82%).

Even Christie’s partisan favorability gap is 51 points – while 79% of Republicans like him, only 28% of Democrats do. So Booker seems to be in a somewhat different place compared to the others.

When we look at the gender differences, we see some interesting results. On Obama, men are evenly split at 45%-45% but women are 12 points more favorable (52%) than not (40%). For Clinton, the gap is much larger. Men are favorable by a 9-point margin, 47% – 38%, but women show a 32-point net favorable rating, 59% – 27%.

Booker, on the other hand, shows a different kind of gender gap in favorability ratings. Men (51%) and women (49%) have about the same level of favorability, but men a much more unfavorable (24%) than women (12%). Instead, women are far more likely than men to have no opinion on Booker.

Unlike most Republicans, Christie’s favorable ratings show no gender gap at all of any kind. Men rate favorability at 50% favorable to 40% unfavorable, while women are 49% – 41% favorable toward Christie, no statistical difference between them.

Finally, turning back to Guadagno and Bell, we see similar partisan dynamics between the two. While Republicans are of course more likely to be positive toward both of them, the key story is that even among Republicans, they are unknown, with more than 60% of GOP voters saying they have no opinion or don’t know either one. While Bell has just burst back on the scene after 30 years away, and thus we would not expect even Republicans to know him, the fact that they also do not know Guadagno, the state’s sitting Lt. Governor, is a sign of just how much Christie takes the spotlight and how little she has been visible even to her own partisans.

We have asked some of these ratings regularly, so here are a few trend charts in case anyone is interested.

Christie0814Obama0814 Booker0809Clinton0814

 

5 Comments

Filed under Christie NJ Rating, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Jeffrey Bell, Kim Guadagno, Obama NJ Rating

Heads up – New Poll Coming!

The summer tends to be a bit slow here at the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Most of our students are off doing summery things, and we’re working hard on planning the next year. But this year we have a poll underway right now, with results to begin being released around the middle of next week. It will be some of the usual – the US Senate race, how Gov. Christie’s doing, and the like, but we’re also working on some interesting questions in cooperation with folks at the New Jersey Medical School, asking about health-related issues. Those results will be released a bit later, after we’ve had time to do some detailed analysis. In the meantime, watch for new numbers on Christie, Booker, and even bridgegate (remember that?)

2 Comments

Filed under Bridgegate, Chris Christie, Christie NJ Rating, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, NJ Voters, Obama NJ Rating

Analysis of Rutgers-Eagleton 2013 Pre-election Polls Released

Following inaccurate results for final pre-election polls in October 2013 (NJ Special Senate) and November 2013 (NJ Governor), the Eagleton Institute of Politics commissioned an outside study by Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates of New York to identify reasons for the outcomes of these polls. Today, The Eagleton Institute of Politics and Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling are releasing this analysis to the public as part of a commitment to transparency and education.

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll reported a final pre-election poll for the special Senate election between then-Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a Democrat, and Republican former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan in which Booker held a 22-point lead. Booker ultimately won by 11 points. In the final November gubernatorial pre-election poll, Rutgers-Eagleton had Republican Governor Chris Christie ahead of his Democratic challenger state Senator Barbara Buono by 36 points: Christie won by 22.

The Langer report identifies the primary reason for the inaccurate results as the failure to put the “head-to-head” questions, which asked respondents for their vote intention, at or near the beginning of the questionnaire. Because these questions were asked after a series of other questions, it appears that respondents were “primed” to think positively about Governor Chris Christie in the November survey, which then may have led Democrats and independents in particular to over-report their likelihood of voting for the Governor. A similar process occurred with the October Senate poll, where voters were first reminded of how little they knew about Lonegan and how much they liked Booker before being asked the vote question.

Ruth B. Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics stated that, “In response to these results, Eagleton chose to contract with an independent, highly respected, outside survey research firm to review its recent work and offer suggestions for improvement.” She added, “The Institute is committed to contributing to political knowledge in New Jersey and nationally with credible, impartial data. When we saw we had a problem, we knew we had to learn why and what to do about it.”

“Gary Langer and his colleagues spent many hours examining multiple aspects of our polling to understand what went wrong,” said David Redlawsk, director of Eagleton’s Center on Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) and professor of political science at Rutgers. “We are grateful for the efforts they put in and the advice they have provided, both in terms of this specific issue and general operations of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. The results of this report will make what we do even better.”

The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll has been a valued source of information about the views of New Jersey residents for over 40 years. As an academic-based survey research organization, ECPIP strives to be transparent and accessible. “We have a special obligation to take our educational mission seriously, which includes informing the public as well as learning from our own errors.” Redlawsk notes that survey research results released by the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, for example, aim to meet the transparency standards set by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Further, in recent years, the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll has been providing open informal insights and perspectives about survey research from Redlawsk and members of his staff through its blog at https://eagletonpollblog.wordpress.com. And for many years full data from the Poll has been freely available, generally after a one-year period, at http://eagleton.libraries.rutgers.edu/.

Langer’s major finding is that the order in which the head-to-head ballot test questions were asked most likely added inadvertent bias to the results in both the October and November Polls, although the results came out in opposite partisan directions in the two polls. Decisions made by ECPIP to maintain the standard set of questions about political figures including Cory Booker and ratings of Chris Christie at the beginning of the questionnaire worked to particularly prime Democrats in the November poll and Republicans in the October poll to support the candidate from the other party – Christie or Booker.

Redlawsk noted that the cause was a decision to maintain an ongoing four-year series of questions about Governor Christie that have been asked at the very beginning of a Rutgers-Eagleton NJ Poll since the governor’s inauguration. “We made this decision purposefully to maintain the integrity of our time series,” said Redlawsk. “This long-term research has greatly informed our understanding of public opinion about Governor Christie, and we had concerns that moving these questions after a head-to-head vote question would bias those results for the same reason we ended up biasing the vote questions.”

Most pre-election head-to-head polls focus only on the election and do not include long batteries of additional questions. The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll was unable to field separate pre-election surveys and thus combined the head-to-head polls with the regular surveys of New Jersey public opinion. “In retrospect, this was the wrong choice when one goal was to be as accurate as possible with pre-election numbers,” noted Redlawsk. “We should have either fielded a separate poll or just focused on our long-term work, rather than trying to do both at the same time.”

The Langer report on the cause of the pre-election poll mis-estimates is available to the public now on the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll website at http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu (PDF).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 NJ Election, Buono, Chris Christie, Cory Booker, NJ Senate 2013 Special Election, Steve Lonegan

#2 Senator Cory Booker – Rutgers-Eagleton Poll’s 2013 Top 5 Countdown

2.) Cory Booker wins the Special Senate Election

This special election was not supposed to happen – at least not this year. Newark Mayor Cory Booker had been on a different path, with speculations rising over a possible challenge to Christie for the governorship and then an early (and much-criticized bid) to unseat fellow Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in 2014. But all of that changed when Senator Frank Lautenberg passed away on June 3, 2013, leaving behind a vacant Senate seat. Christie called for a special election, and a race between Booker and former Bogota, New Jersey Mayor Steve Lonegan ensued. The special Senate race in New Jersey became major national news as both candidates stood behind their stark ideological differences and as Booker’s large lead – once thought inevitable – took a surprise turn and began to narrow in the final weeks, making the race more of a contest than anyone had expected. Polls widely varied throughout the shortened campaign, with who exactly would turn out on the specially set date extremely difficult to predict. Booker ultimately won by 10 points – suggesting that the race tightened up as time went on, but also reinforcing that uncertainties that are always part of special elections. The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll recapped the twists and turns of the campaign for the London School of Economics and Political Science’s American Politics and Policy blog.

Booker

And on to #1 for 2013…

Leave a comment

Filed under Cory Booker, NJ Senate 2013 Special Election

Following up on our Booker – Lonegan Numbers from October

Did the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll have a “Bradley Effect” in Our Final U.S. Senate Results?

Bear with us, this is a LONG post…

In our final pre-Senate special election poll, we had Newark Mayor (and now U.S. Senator) Cory Booker up 22 points over his opponent, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. The real-world results were different – Booker’s margin was “only” 12 points or so. At the time we speculated on many reasons that our numbers could have been off on the head-to-head question, especially given that we did not see significant levels of variance with other polls on questions such as Booker and Lonegan favorability ratings. We speculated some more the day after the election looking at turnout, but also noting that we wondered if the fact that Booker is an African-American may have played a role. We have since done some fairly complex statistical analysis to examine this question. The upshot is that we see a very clear “race/ethnicity of interviewer” effect in our data; that is, our Black and Hispanic interviewers got more “Booker” votes from among the white respondents they talked to than did our white and Asian callers. And, our white callers got fewer “Booker” votes among Black and Hispanic respondents than did our non-white callers.

This is a complex phenomenon that has previously been documented by researchers, in particular in the aftermath of the 1993 Virginia governor’s race when polls badly overstated support for Doug Wilder, the African American candidate who won, but by a much smaller margin than expected. This is commonly been called the “Bradley Effect“. The argument is that respondents “guess” the race of callers and some will then adjust their responses to conform to what the believe is the caller’s expectation. Whether or not that is exactly what happens, the fact is that the data in our case seem to show exactly that happening.

Now, is the effect enough to account for being off by 10 points? That’s harder to calculate. However, our call center is very diverse – among the 113 student callers working on that poll, 25% were white, 19% Black, 47% Asian, and 11% Hispanic. Across the board our callers averaged about 7 completes per caller, with some variation by race/ethnicity. Overall, 22% of the 695 respondents for whom we have caller data were collected by white callers, 22% by Black callers, 46% by Asian callers, and 10% by Hispanic callers.

So here’s what we have – this is using all our respondents, NOT adjusting for Likely Voters. (Making that adjustment does not make any difference in our basic results.) First the unweighted responses to the question:  “Let’s talk about the Senate election in October. If the special election for the Senate seat were being held today and the candidates were [ROTATE ORDER: Democrat Cory Booker and Republican Steve Lonegan], for whom would you vote?”  (Note, that we did a followup to the don’t knows, asking how they “lean”. We will ignore this right now and focus only on the initial question.)

SNAG-005

Note we have a 22 point margin between Booker and Lonegan in the raw unweighted data, about the same as we had in the final weighted sample. The “Refused” represents people who would not answer the question at all, and the “System” are people who were not asked because they said in an initial screening question they would not be voting.

So what happens if we look at these responses by race of interviewer?

SNAG-003

Now we are only dealing with the 721 people who gave us a response to the question. Note that White interviewers got 50.3% support for Booker. But Black interviewers got 59.5%. Hispanic interviewers found even more Booker support: 62%. Finally, Asian interviewers (the largest group in our call center) found 49.9% support for Booker, pretty much the same as white interviewers.

Next we look at the percentage support for BOOKER by a combination of the Respondent’s race/ethnicity and the caller’s race/ethnicity. This now uses 697 respondents for whom we have their race (a significant number always refuse to answer that question.)

SNAG-002

The raw numbers (Total Column) show that 49.6% of these white respondents supported Booker, while Booker support was 91.1% of Black respondents, 80.0% of Hispanics, and 51.2% of other. Other in this case includes Asian, multiracial, and any other response to the question. These are essentially “normal” results in that we expect Black and Hispanic voters to be more supportive of Booker.

Looking at the Total ROW at the bottom, we see that for White callers, 50.7% of all their respondents supported Booker, with a similar result (50.5%) for Asian callers. But for Black callers, 60.1% of respondents supported Booker, while for Hispanic callers it was 65.2%; both are well above the total 56.3% Booker support among this set of respondents.

More importantly, note that WHITE respondents talking to WHITE callers gave Booker 49.2% support. But when talking to Black or Hispanic callers, white respondents were more likely to report a Booker vote, at 54.9% and 58.0% respectively.  This effect has been documented in the past, including in the Wilder race for VA governor in 1993.

We see another interesting effect with non-white respondents, though we have to be very careful here since we have relatively few of them, so any one group could be highly skewed. But in general, non-white respondents who talked to white callers, were less likely to report Booker votes than when they talked to non-white callers.

All of this is interesting but it doesn’t account for the possibility that callers of different races/ethnicities may have talked to different kinds of respondents. As a simple example, if white callers were more likely to talk to Republicans (regardless of respondent race), while non-white callers talked more to Democrats, we would see the same pattern but it would not be because of the race/ethnicity of the caller. To deal with this we must do a more complex multivariate analysis to control for these kinds of differences.

We won’t go into the details of the statistical analysis here, but it was designed to control for key factors that affect the vote choice – partisanship, ideology, and voter race/ethnicity, and voter gender. That means that we make sure the differences we see in the vote by caller race/ethnicity are NOT because of these factors. We added in one more control, that for what is termed in political science as “Racial Resentment” (see also here), a measure of “subtle anti-Black feeling”. We included this because Booker is African American and research has shown that this measure helps predict the likelihood of voting for a Black candidate.

By using multivariate statistics (specifically logistic regression) to predict the likelihood of a vote for Booker based on the controls above AND the race/ethnicity of our callers, we can examine the extent to which we see caller race/ethnicity conditioning poll responses. Follow is what we find:

SNAG-001

The first row of data shows all respondents by the race of the interviewer. Results are very similar to the initial table before we control for other factors. Across everyone, voters who talked to Black and Hispanic callers were more likely to say they would vote for Booker than those who talked to white and Asian callers.

As the table shows, there are differences across the race/ethnicity of respondents. Looking only at white voters, they remain more likely to tell Black and Hispanic callers they support Booker. For Black and Hispanic voters, talking to a white caller seems to lower the likelihood of reporting support for Booker, compared to talking to non-white callers. And because the model used for this prediction controls for partisanship and other factors, we are pretty confident that the results are in fact related to the race and ethnicity of callers and the race/ethnicity of voters.

To check this, we also ran similar models with the Buono-Christie responses from the same poll (where our results were in line with everyone else’s in mid-October) which show no effects for race/ethnicity of interviewer. Even more interesting, we also tested this model with the evaluation we asked voters to give to Booker (called a “feeling thermometer rating”) on a 0-100 scale, and we found no significant effects for race/ethnicity of callers. The issue seems limited to the question of the vote itself, and not other questions.

So what does this all mean?

For the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, it means that our pre-election numbers which overstated Booker support were, at least in part, because we have a very diverse call center, probably much more diverse than any other call center that polled on this election. It also means we will have to look more carefully at how we handle election polling when there is a non-white candidate in the mix.

And it also means that in an election like this, with an African-American candidate, polling that does not use interviewers – like computerized polls where respondents listed to a computer ask the question and respond on their phone keypads, known as “interactive voice response” – may result in more accurate results, at least for those who can be reached this way. However, IVR cannot be used to call cell phones, so at a minimum it would be necessary to combined IVR with live calling of cell phones in order to get a reasonable sample of the population. This is what Monmouth did in its pre-election polls, apparently to good effect. IVR has other issues, though, and has to be looked at very carefully.

If you’ve made it this far in this very long post, congratulations! Bottom line for us: our final pre-election Booker-Lonegan poll was off by 10 points, overstating Booker’s numbers. We now think a least some significant part of that error is due to this race/ethnicity of interviewer effect as the evidence shows.

Of course, this does NOT explain our problem in the final Christie-Buono poll, where we were off by 14 points (showing Christie up 36 points while he won by 22.) Given the evidence from the October poll where our numbers for the governor’s race fit with other polling centers results, something else must have happened in our final gubernatorial poll.  Apparently we suffered from one problem in the Senate race, but something else in the race for governor. We’re currently moving forward on trying to understand what that might have been. We’ll report more on that effort in the (we hope) not-too-distant future.

2 Comments

Filed under 2013 NJ Election, Cory Booker, NJ Voters

Well, Booker won, but we were pretty far off…

While not all the final numbers are in as this gets written, it looks like Cory Booker has won the Senate race by between 11 and 12 points. Our final poll, which ended last Sunday, had him up 22 points in our likely voter sample. That’s pretty far off. Monmouth and Quinnipiac were essentially right on the mark.

We’ll try to figure out why we missed it this far over the next weeks. After all, while we’d like to get it “right” we always stand by two points: 1. Polling is NOT a prediction, no matter how much we sometimes act and talk as if it is. It provides an estimate at the point in which the poll is done. It does not foretell the future. 2. We are an academic operation, and even when we get what seem to be out-of-the-norm results, we look for the learning opportunities for ourselves and for others in what we find.

What’s interesting to us is that our other numbers in the same poll make “sense” – for example, our favorability ratings for Booker are in the same range as other polls that have reported them.  And as our releases over the next week will show, other numbers from the same sample also seem reasonable. So something is odd specifically in what we recorded for the Booker-Lonegan vote question. It doesn’t look like a technical problem; we’ve checked that. We recorded what people told us. And the sample doesn’t seem demographically odd as a whole. Given these two points, no matter how we thought about likely voters in our modeling, we kept showing Booker +20 or so.

On obvious problem, then, is that we failed to get a good “likely voter” screen as much as we tried.  Our likely voter calculation did screen out more unlikely Booker supporters than it did unlikely Lonegan supporters, which suggested Lonegan’s supporters would turn out at a higher ratio than would Booker’s.

And in a very quick look, that is be exactly what happened, but even more than we expected.

Last year Republican Joe Kyrillos lost to Sen. Bob Menendez by a 17-point margin. Kyrillos won 7 counties, Menendez won 14 counties. This time around, Lonegan appears to have won the same 7 counties plus another two. More interestingly, Lonegan overperformed Kyrillos in 18 of 21 counties – that is, he did better as a percentage of the vote than did last year’s GOP candidate throughout the state.

Booker overperformed in exactly zero counties as this is written, instead getting the same percentage in 3 counties that Menendez did last year. So it does look like Lonegan supporters were much more likely to turn out than we were seeing in our data.

Another indicator is that in the 7 counties Kyrillos won last year, turnout was just under half of what it was in 2012 (about 46% of last year’s total at the moment).

But in the counties Menendez won last year (and Booker won all but two this year) turnout appears to only be about 40% of the number that voted last year.  Again, Booker not only underperformed Menendez, but also had lower turnout in his winning counties.

Finally,  there are real regional differences: Lonegan’s “best” over-performance came in:

Cumberland +13 points over Kyrillos’ results
Salem +11
Warren +9
Atlantic +8
Ocean +8
Gloucester +8
Cape May +7
Sussex +7
Camden +5

Except for Sussex and Warren, these are southern and shore counties.
Booker’s least worst counties were:

Essex +0 points versus Menendez’s results
Bergen +0
Monmouth +0
Hudson -1
Mercer -1
Morris -1

Nothing South Jersey in this list, though Booker held even in a couple Republican counties.

This leads us to wonder if the fact that Booker is African-American played any role. If it did for us, why not for other pollsters? We have some thoughts on this point we will be investigating, and we’ll come back and talk about that once we’ve done so.

These are not final numbers at this point, so there may be a percentage point shift here and there. But one part of the story seems clear. We assumed better turnout in Democratic counties than actually occurred and we underestimated Republican turnout. And,  Booker underperformed compared to Lonegan all over the state, if we use 2012 as a baseline, which we did not see coming in what people were telling us last week.

It might be worth noting that in most places a 11-12 point win is pretty much a landslide. But given the low initial expectations for Steve Lonegan, it probably seems disappointing to Booker forces. But give Lonegan lots of credit. he ran an impressive attention-getting campaign, for better or worse, and probably can count this as a moral victory if nothing else.

As for us, well we do have another election on which to focus!

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 NJ Election, Cory Booker, NJ Senate 2013 Special Election