Lowest turnout on record, but most voters since 1997

87,000 (0.00 / 0)

Or aboout a 3.7% margin.  Not a lot, but better than Whitman did in her two races.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 15:34:52 PM UTC

This is tragic (4.00 / 1)

It's an awful statement on our Republic that only 23.46 percent, actually less in Christie's case because he didn't hit 50%, can decide an election.  That's why the Republicans want to put things like marriage up for a vote, because they know their folks will show up and Democrats don't.  2010 will have similar turnout.  

---

by: rmfretz @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:28:25 PM UTC

rmfretz hit the nail on the head.... (4.00 / 1)

.....We have failed (so far) as progressives to capitalize on the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in NJ who actually AGREE with us on most issues.

Jon Corzine failed, as a governor, to stand up and to stand out as a populist leader for the progressive movement.   He had four years to take on that role....and he chose to play games trying to deal with the stick in the muds of his own party......and they, in the end, deserted him (despite the lip service to the contrary) the machines passively backed Christie, while taking Corzine's money.

Why?  Because the machines know they can deal with Christie, and Jon Corzine was a wee bit of a wild card.....he just may have turned around and BECOME an aggressive progressive in a second term...and that was too scary for the likes of creatures like George Norcross et al to bear.

The only way this can be turned around is to grow this movement from the ground up and for it to take over the party establishments of BOTH parties.

Just about every decent human being in NJ wants clean honest government......THAT can unite us.   As it is now....most folks in this state aren't registered and aren't voting because they don't think they can make a difference.   The Norcrosses are winning.

Let's do something about it!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:46:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2 perspectives, both misleading (0.00 / 0)

Right now, thanks to the Obama campaign, an unusually high proportion of eligible voters are registered. So of course the percentage of registered voters who voted in the gubernatorial race was low.

Also, the state has a higher population than it used to, hence more eligible voters, so of course more people voted.

The best way to judge participation levels is to look at votes as a percentage of eligible voters, both registered and unregistered. The number of eligible voters is not an officially kept statistic, but I've seen good estimates of it in past races, especially nationally. I haven't seen it for this race, and without it all these comparisons are just babble by officials and media who want to seem like they're saying something meaningful.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 20:06:58 PM UTC