tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6688184460770362397..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: PostElection: WinnersJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3547457813227995072013-11-07T12:40:08.714-06:002013-11-07T12:40:08.714-06:00Scott, you could be right -- perhaps the "imp...Scott, you could be right -- perhaps the "implicit bargain" anonymous refers to was not an actual bargain. But even if you're correct, what that says about Christie is that he was able to scare away serious opposition by his presumed strength at the polls. So we'd have to say that the outcome on Tuesday was largely a reflection of other people's estimation of his political strength, rather than itself a demonstration of his inherent appeal to blue state voters. And since this has mostly been used to comment on the 2016 Presidential election, it's worth pointing out that Democrats won't be deterred from making a full effort in that race (particularly for an open seat!).Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-83709623977065078732013-11-07T12:16:52.037-06:002013-11-07T12:16:52.037-06:00"Christie is evidence that as long as Republi..."Christie is evidence that as long as Republicans are willing to govern and work with the other side, Democrats will pick their battles sparingly."<br /><br />Fair point, but that has nothing to do with his appeal to voters. I take it that this isn't what impresses you or Jonathan about Christie, but all of the other coverage I've seen has been about Christie's appeal to voters.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64992770548775546452013-11-06T18:42:35.659-06:002013-11-06T18:42:35.659-06:00On the applicability of anything this election to ...On the applicability of anything this election to 2014: At least according to WAPost, the Obama coalition showed up in Virginia. I haven't seen turnout numbers, but the failure of that coalition to show up generally in 2010 was important. So while VA may be a special case--all the money and attention and major party figures involved--it is at least a hopeful sign that the turnout problem won't be as bad in 2014.Captain Futurehttp://dreamingup.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8535598794623449682013-11-06T16:30:32.896-06:002013-11-06T16:30:32.896-06:00Couves, I think you may be reading too much into t...Couves, I think you may be reading too much into this "deal." I think this is more likely a de facto outcome rather than an explicit negotiation. It's generally difficult to recruit strong candidates for a race that no one believes you're going to win. In this case, there were two "not going to win" races that happened to balance each other out. In other cases, you might have two Democrats or two Republicans who run essentially unopposed in their respective races. (Who even knows the name of the Democratic candidate in AL-1?)Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14463704452160534252013-11-06T15:19:02.739-06:002013-11-06T15:19:02.739-06:00I think it also matters what one wants to accompli...I think it also matters what one wants to accomplish, Couves. Having a fairly competent Republican governor that is willing to make deals and work with Democrats isn't such a bad deal for the Democratic leadership in NJ. Especially if they need to rein in some of their hard-core base, like the teachers' union. As long as Christie isn't trying to dismantle the school system (or destroy human rights), using him as the bad cop can get things done in the state that a Democratic Governor might not be able to accomplish.<br /><br />Christie is evidence that as long as Republicans are willing to govern and work with the other side, Democrats will pick their battles sparingly.Patnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-22399246009672451912013-11-06T14:43:08.997-06:002013-11-06T14:43:08.997-06:00Jonathan, I'm sure the Democrats figured it wo...Jonathan, I'm sure the Democrats figured it would be hard to beat Christie and the Republicans figured it would be hard to beat any Democrat running for the open senate seat. So that calculus went into the deal. But when people talk about how impressive Christie's electoral showing is, the assumption is that it's impressive because it reflects his inherent appeal to voters (or the inherent appeal of moderate Republicans generally), not that he was good at working a backroom deal that got Democrats to not seriously contest the election.<br /><br />There's been considerable press coverage of how appealing Christie is -- "Look, how great Christie does with women!" -- as a commentary on his 2016 prospects or the prospects of moderate Republicans generally (which I took to be your point in this post). No one is marveling at his skill at making backroom deals, especially when no mention is even made that such a deal took place.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17533378441656031232013-11-06T13:47:05.498-06:002013-11-06T13:47:05.498-06:00Christie also played his cards right. By pulling a...Christie also played his cards right. By pulling a total 180 on his position (schedule special elections to coincide with nearby regular elections to save money), he got Booker off the ticket. Democrats didn't show up in NJ partially because they'd already voted for the guy they actually liked a few weeks earlier.<br /><br />Were Booker on yesterday's ballot, Christie's win would have been narrower. Still would have won. Still by a lot. Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49587897862284192002013-11-06T13:21:50.673-06:002013-11-06T13:21:50.673-06:00I agree that that's basically what happened - ...I agree that that's basically what happened - but how does that make it less impressive? Surely one of the reasons that Democrats went for it was that they didn't think they could beat Christie. And another reason was that Christie had the political skills to make Democrats less than desperate to defeat him. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7055936617846585382013-11-06T13:09:18.216-06:002013-11-06T13:09:18.216-06:00I'm not sure the NJ election results are as im...I'm not sure the NJ election results are as impressive as they seem. From a comment on a previous Plain Blog post:<br /><br />"The Democratic establishment in NJ ran a "B" list candidate (Buono) against Christie and failed to fund her, and in return the Republicans ran a "B" list candidate against Booker (Lonegan) and failed to fund him. It was kind of an implicit bargain between the two party organizations in NJ, that Democrats would not seriously contest the Governorship and Republicans would not seriously contest the Senate seat in 2013." <br /><br />http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/10/sunday-question-for-conservatives_13.htmlCouveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.com