November 19, 2005 - 2:13pm
News

ARE NEW JERSEY'S GOP CONGRESSMEN IN JEOPARDY?

by David P. Rebovich

2005 was supposed to be the year that angry suburbanites in New Jersey would turn out to vote against the Democrats in Trenton. That, of course, did not happen. Now the question is whether 2006 will be the year that those same suburbanites decide to vote against the Republicans in Washington, D.C., and in doing so replace a GOP congressman or two in the Garden State.

The fact that New Jersey's congressional districts are drawn to be safe suggests that no changes will occur among the current lineup of seven Democrats and six Republican congressmen. But President George W. Bush's low approval ratings, continued problems at home and abroad, and the disagreements that many New Jerseyans have with some of the President's policy positions and decisions all seem to give the Democrats an opportunity to make spirited challenges in a few districts here.

But ousting an incumbent New Jersey congressman is rare. The last incumbent representative to lose reelection here was Republican Michael Pappas in 1998. Pappas was a freshman in central Jersey's 12th district who was a surprise winner of a three-person primary in 1996. A staunch conservative in a district that had become more yuppified and moderate, Pappas had a less than distinguished term and still received 47 percent of the vote in his failed reelected bid against Democratic newcomer Rush Holt.

Since then the state's incumbents have all been reelected, no matter what was happening at the top of the ticket. Al Gore beat Bush by 16 points in 2000, but his enormous landslide had no impact on the state's House races. Last year, John Kerry carried New Jersey by a solid 7 points. But not only were all the incumbents reelected, none of the Republicans won by less than 15 points.

The latter is an impressive figure, the kind that can discourage potentially strong candidates from challenging one of the state's sitting congressmen in 2006. Of course, it's normally difficult to be competitive against an incumbent congressman. They have big advantages - high name recognition, a record of helping the district and constituents, the ability to gain key endorsements and raise lots of money, and experience in campaigning. And as elsewhere, New Jersey's districts are drawn to favor incumbents. They are stacked with voters who regularly support candidates from the incumbent's party.

But incumbents can and do lose. Freshmen congressmen who have been swept into office on the coattails of a popular presidential or senate candidates are often vulnerable when two years later they have to run on their own. In other cases, factors such as old-age, scandal, laziness, changes in a district's demography, wedge issues, or a charismatic or well-financed challenger can lead to an incumbent's demise.

Will any of these factors be relevant in 2006 in New Jersey's thirteen House races? Well, it's a sure bet that like their counterparts across the country, Democrats in New Jersey will try to capitalize on President Bush's low approval ratings, concerns about the war in Iraq, his unpopular budget and social policies, and his controversial nominations to the Supreme Court. While incumbent Republican congressmen may be personally popular in their districts, Democrats will try to nationalize the races and argue that New Jerseyans need to send a message to the White House.

That message is that New Jersey rejects many of the President's policies and, that despite their respect and affection for their own representatives, voters here need to reject incumbent congressmen who have supported those policies. If the President's poll numbers here continue to remain low - his approval ratings nationally and in New Jersey are below 40 percent -, Democrats will also claim that their party stands a real chance of gaining a majority in the House and thus of preventing the GOP from pursuing policies that are not popular in New Jersey or beneficial to many of its residents.

This fall the Corzine campaign ran an effective ad that called Doug Forrester George W. Bush's choice for governor. It closed by asking New Jerseyans, "Is he your choice?" Don't be surprised if that ad serves as a template for Democratic challengers in the fall 2006 congressional races who will try to make the case that Republican congressmen are simply ratifying the President's proposals. Democratic ads will no doubt include a list of the President's policy positions that individual Republican congressmen have supported.

These lists will likely include the war on Iraq, deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental deregulation, social security reform, the allocation of homeland security funds and education and transportation aid, embryonic stem cell research, and the President's nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, Having to explain their votes and their views on these issues may not be pleasant for some incumbent congressmen. And by focusing on these issues, Democratic congressional candidates may be able to attract more people to the polls and swing some unaffiliated voters to their side next November.

For this scenario to play out, several factors have to fall in place. One is that President Bush's approval ratings need to remain low. Another is that the President neglects to address growing concerns about the war in Iraq. Then the Democrats here have to recruit some strong congressional candidates and raise the money necessary to run a media campaign that puts Republicans on the defensive.

In addition, the Democrats need a quality replacement for Jon Corzine in the U.S. Senate, someone who can carry the banner in the fall campaign and attract not only the party base but also unaffiliated folks to the polls in large numbers. Support from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, financial and organizational, would be especially helpful if a Democratic challenger looks like he or she is in striking distance of the GOP incumbent.

Of course all of this assumes that New Jersey's Republican congressmen will not smell the coffee and realize that their political survival requires them to be responsive to their constituents, even if that means disagreeing with the President.. This year incumbent Democratic assemblypersons in competitive districts emphasized how they had bucked their party's leaders on key issues - ethics and property tax reform - important to voters. Don't be surprised if we see New Jersey's Republican congressmen, already a pretty independent bunch, going their own way, and not the White House's, more often in 2006. That may be the best way to keep themselves and their party in power.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is Managing Director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics (www.rider.edu/institute). He also writes a regular column, "On Politics," for NEW JERSEY LAWYER.

svodi can be reached via email at .

Comments

Hello Professor, I think you might be right with respect to Fe


Hello Professor,

I think you might be right with respect to Ferguson, as the Democrats will probably field a credible, well-financed opponent (Vitale?). However, most of the other incumbents are pretty well established (Districts 2,3,4). There are lots of independents in all three that were perfectly happy voting against Bush and for their incumbent Congressman for a multiplicty of Mayhewsian variables. Though all of these districts will be competitive when the seats become open, or if the next redistricting changes them somehow. Garrett (the closest to Bush of all GOP incumbents) and Freylinghuysen would probably only be vulnerable in a primary.

I do think Bush (as well as Delay, Frist, etc.) could hurt Republicans nationally in 2006, which would bring back the historical off-year trend that was bucked in 98 and 02.

But I think combination of the modern, candidate-centered electoral process in conjunction with the incumbent-safe map, will mean NJ's GOP incumbents are ok, even if Bush is still radioactive at that point.

I think the national parties benefit from having a draw in NJ, because it frees up resources to be spent elsewhere in cheaper media markets.

Oh, and members of the House don't have to worry about voting for Roberts or Alito.

11/20/05 11:17 pm

In 2004 Bush carried all 6 of New Jersey's Republican held congr


In 2004 Bush carried all 6 of New Jersey's Republican held congressional districts. Despite those very recent results, if the Presidential election were held today, he probably would only carry the 5th, 11th, and very narrowly the 7th. However, New Jerseyeans often draw distinctions between their moderate (or in the case of Garrett, strongly conservative yet independent-minded) Republican Congress members and National Republicans. In the Clinton 1996 and the Gore 2000 NJ landslides, Clinton and Gore both overwhelmingly carried districts where GOP incumbents in some cases carried those districts by even larger margins. And speaking of Mike Pappas, in 1996, when Clinton carried the 12th district, Pappas also carried the open congressional seat. (Ironically, Pappas' downfall was singing praise for Ken Starr on the House floor. This shows it's probably NOT a good idea to bash the guy who your constituents also voted for).

The so-called "incumbent protection plan" makes the Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11 Republican leaning (at least NJ Republican leaning). Of that group the 2nd seems be a little more marginal, where Kerry only narrowly lost in 2004 and where there also seems to be an abundance strong Democrat state legislators. However, I don't see any strong Democrat candidates mounting a serious challenge for this seat until LoBiondo retires. In fact, in the right climate (unpopular GOP President and strong Dem candidate), I could see Democrats picking up any open seat, except for the 5th and the 11th. But again, I stress the phrase "open seat."

11/21/05 1:10 pm

I think the Democrats fairly strong showing against Garrett in 2


I think the Democrats fairly strong showing against Garrett in 2004 when Bush was still pretty popular (and ran well ahead of the congressman) shows that with the current climate Garrett is vulnerable. I bet Bush's approval rating is below 40% in the 5th.

If the Democrat can convince moderate Republicans and the large number of pro-choice undeclareds that Garrett has betrayed them, they can win. Here is what I believe are the necessary and obtainable Democratic percentages to win in each county in the district:

Bergen: 54
Passaic: 55
Warren: 43
Sussex: 35

11/21/05 4:48 pm

PaulieWalnuts, I see what you're saying about Garrett's potent


PaulieWalnuts,

I see what you're saying about Garrett's potential vulnerability, but the most likely scenario is that he would be defeated by a Marge Roukema-style moderate in the primary rather than in the general. It is my understanding that while the Bergen and Passaic portions of this district aren't nearly as conservative as the Sussex and Warren parts, all of these areas are still Republican.

If a moderate beats Garrett in the primary, some staunch conservatives might either vote for NJ Conservative or Constitution Party, or not vote at all. But this also assumes a lack of support for the Republican candidate, will ultimately mean significantly more votes for the Democrat. Frankly, Republicans in this district can still afford to lose a considerable number of votes, and still win a general election with relative ease.

If anything (and despite restricting) the two hot spots are still the 7th and the 12th. 7 is now strongly Republican leaning and 12 is strongly Democrat. However, 7 still contains some Democrat leaning towns in Middlesex County and 12 contain portions of Republican leaning Monmouth County. Neither districts are exactly competitive, but both least seem to have some semblance of a two party system.

11/23/05 12:58 pm