Rider University Political Science Professor Ben Dworkin sees
real consequences for Chris Christie, the Republican governor of
New Jersey, in the mid-term elections. Christie has been identified
as a potential national candidate in light of his budget cutting
measures. Dworkin also comments on the role played by Tea Party
activists in his state and elsewhere. His analysis is as
follows:
Christie Unbound
The Governor has a lot riding on this election. This is not just
because he campaigned vigorously for dozens of candidates around
the country.
For the Governor, it’s probably more important to see how
Republican congressional candidates do here in New Jersey. If
Republicans are able to knock off any of the incumbent Democrats in
the state, Christie and his supporters will show that it is
evidence that the Governor’s brand of Republicanism can really
delivery victories in the northeast.
We should remember that over the last two election cycles,
northeast Republican members of Congress have been decimated; “an
extinct species” said some pundits after 2008. So if Christie can
claim that he “delivered” GOP victories in the House in blue New
Jersey, it will further brandish his image in the national
Republican party and provide him with an even bigger platform
heading in to the 2012 election cycle.
By the same token, if Democratic incumbents hold on to their
seats in New Jersey, some of the shine on the Governor’s image will
be tarnished because he wasn’t able to roll back the Democrats in
his own backyard.
The Tea Party Misnomer
Following the election, much will be said about the impact of
the “tea party” segment of the population. Their influence on
Republican primaries across the nation is undeniable, and their
probable influence in the next Congress is significant.
But the term “tea party” — as applied in this election — is a
misnomer. The tea party label is an attempt to impose organization
on something that emerged quite naturally in the electorate.
Recall the summer of 2009. Democratic members of
Congress in New Jersey, and around the country, were inundated with
angry voters who were coming out to protest the possible changes in
the health care system. There wasn’t a tea party organization.
There were just frustrated and angry citizens.
Clearly today, we can look at these public outbursts as a sign
of things to come.
I believe there is a large segment of the electorate who are
seeking “change with fiscal restraint.” These are the people
who give the tea party their strength, even if they don’t consider
themselves members of the tea party.
The Swing Voters of 2010
Forget Soccer Moms. Forget Nascar Dads. “Change with fiscal
restraint” voters are the swing voters in today’s electorate. (Yes,
I know it’s not as catchy a phrase, but that doesn’t make it
wrong.)
New Jersey provides an ideal example of how these voters can
shift. In 2008, Obama won New Jersey by 18%. The next year,
Christie wins by more than 80,000 votes. I think the biggest swing
segment of the population were the “change with fiscal restraint”
voters.
In 2008, these voters were not against the Iraq War per se, but
they were upset about spending $1 billion a week and not having a
clear victory. Later on, these voters were not against the idea of
health care reform; indeed, many will benefit directly from some of
the changes. But they were upset with spending a trillion dollars
to get it done.
Obama offered different change for different people. Some saw
him as a vehicle for a new progressive approach to public policy.
Some saw him as a change to the stifling bitterness of
Washington. Some saw him as more reasonable on spending
matters than the Bush administration.
Where the Democrats make a critical mistake is when they lump
all the “change voters” together. They are not all the same.
The “change with fiscal restraint” voters are those who can vote
for someone like Obama one year and then Christie the next.
Congressional Democrats brought significant change to Washington
over the last two years. They have a list of accomplishments that
is as broad as any Congress since 1932. However, they can hardly
claim to be speaking for those who wanted “change with fiscal
restraint” and those are the people who are most likely to abandon
the Democrats for the Republicans in this election. They are the
pivotal swing voters in 2010.
