Welcome to the Third District: Where no one holds an advantage

Published: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 10:58 AM Updated: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 12:34 PM

By Thurman Hart/NJ Voices Follow

7 closeDiggStumble UponFarkRedditShare Email Print

New Jersey's Third Congressional District is getting a lot of attention lately - mostly because it is viewed as the only district in New Jersey that might actually change hands this fall. And, while the summer election doldrums still hold sway, it's never to early to start talking about what November might look like. Mets fans understand, I'm sure. The first nibble of the season comes from Rutgers-Eagleton polling. All of the standard hedges apply, and probably doubly so, since it is so early, but let's look at the numbers and try to put them into context. The first thing I look at with any poll is the sample size. This one had only 421 respondents. That means the margin for sampling error - the amount the numbers could be wrong simply because more people weren't asked - is around 4.8 percent. It doesn't mean the poll is useless. It just means that a bit more caution needs to be used when trying to interpret those numbers. A further problem is that only 85% of those respondents are either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to vote in November. That means the sample drops to 358 when only likely voters are counted. That pushes the margin of error up to 5.2 or so. Again - it's still usable information, but not exactly reliable. The most consistent finding from the poll is that the people in the Third District don't like anyone. Both President Obama and Governor Christie manage only a 46% favorability rating. Democrats in Congress manage an anemic 26%, but Republicans are even lower at 24%. The "Tea Party Movement" equals the popularity of the Congressional Democrats, and the State Legislature drops to only half of that. So whose coattails are there to ride on? No one, apparently. In a normal election cycle, that would be bad for the challenger. Most challengers are unknown, and so hitching their star to a more popular person or group provides them with a nice bank of support they don't really have to earn. But the popularity of Christie - the most popular figure in the district - is perfectly counterbalanced by the popularity of Obama. It's a push. Again, in a normal election cycle, this would benefit the incumbent. One of the benefits of incumbency is that one gets to build support over the course of the entire term of office. But Adler has a support from only 62% of Democrats. That is exactly the same level of support that Runyan has among Republicans. So the benefits of incumbency are pretty much offset by the anti-incumbent/pro-Runyan sentiment. Again, it's a push.

Of course, the degree to which that is true depends on the size of the respective pools of Democrats and Republicans. Normally, an assumption that they would be roughly equal would be dangerous. In this case, however, it may be warranted. If the last few elections show any sort of trend, they show a movement towards a balancing of partisanship. Between 2002 and 2006, Representative Jim Saxton's share of the vote fell from 65% to 63% to 58%. From 2000 to 2008, the GOP's share of the Presidential vote varied from 45% to 51% to 47%. In 2008, the winning share of the Congressional vote (for Adler) was only 52%. What this means is that the race will likely come down to how well the candidates know the district and how well they can present themselves to the voters - and motivate those voters to get to the polls in November. Right now, things look kind of dim for both sides on that count - when Peter DeStefano is included, support for both candidates drops. Considering the margin of error, the difference between Runyan's support among Republicans and Adler's support among Democrats is statistically insignificant. It isn't that DeStefano gets any support - but his presence causes otherwise partisan supporters to hesitate. That means the support for both candidates is soft and voters are not particularly motivated to support either one. One interpretation of this is that Adler's centric voting has turned off roughly as many Democrats as it has defused the anger in Republicans. Again, this is currently a push. So maybe we are just waiting to see whether Democrats get over the health care vote or Republicans fear Speaker Pelosi more. For Adler, the job is fairly easy. Make nice with the Democrats he's alienated - by pointing out that having Speaker Pelosi rather than Speaker Boehner is worth having a Representative Adler that isn't a hundred percent reliable. Adler is a seasoned candidate who knows how to work a campaign and isn't afraid to take on tough campaign issues. In that frame, the scale tips towards Adler's favor. However, he needs to lock down his partisans now, while the sun is hot, or risk running the last month of the campaign in crisis mode. For Runyan, the challenge is different. He must learn to not be himself. In a recent Philadelphia Inquirer article, he admitted that his primary motivation in running for office was to reduce his own taxes. And this was after seeking a tax reduction on his property in Mount Laurel for farm purposes by raising a few donkeys and selling firewood (why is it so hard for NJ to actually limit farm deductions to professional working farms?). When that is coupled with the fact that Runyan has been late on property tax payments more than thirty times, it's hard for Runyan to make the case that he'll be a hard-core fiscal responsibility type of guy. Plus, Runyan's campaign is long on sound-bites and short on specifics. He claims that, like Governor Christie, "I'm here to make change." Well, what kind of changes? He claims he wants to balance the budget - so where is he going to cut more than a trillion dollars? Runyan's hope is that no one pays attention to such things. That is not necessarily a lost hope. The real question is whether Runyan learns to muzzle himself before he commits a truly memorable gaff. An NFL career doesn't hinge on one crotch punch. But campaigns have been lost on less.