Elections:
The Reason for Schundler’s Loss Was Not Liberal Voters

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

November 2001

by Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst for the NJ Family Policy Council

In their attempts to paint a picture as to why Schundler lost the election for governor, many NJ columnists and political pundits have been telling NJ voters that he was “too conservative”. But if you look at what the voters said in the exit poll conducted by Edison Media Research you will see a different picture.

When voters leaving the polls were asked to indicate if they thought McGreevey and Schundler were “Too Liberal, Too Conservative, or Just Right”, 42% said that McGreevey was “Too Liberal”, and conversely 44% said Schundler was “Too Conservative. Basically this is “a wash” because the sampling error for the poll is +/- 3%.

Secondly, when people and the media talk about being too conservative, they are generally referring to moral issues such as abortion. Schundler won by a 3% margin among those who said the abortion issue was most important. But while recognizing that two-thirds of voters in this state support abortion being generally available, the fact is most voters (51%), do want “stricter limits” on abortion . Support for banning partial birth abortion and passing a parental notification law is high, and the exit poll does not confirm the issue was a determining factor in his loss.

So, if Schundler’s conservatism wasn’t the main problem, what were some of the reasons that McGreevey won? The top three most important issues to NJ voters in order of importance were the economy, taxes and education. Those that voted based on taxes supported Schundler, while those that voted on education and the economy chose McGreevey.

On the issue of education, Schundler had new ideas for reform, but he lacked the money and support needed to reach the middle and lower income voters to let them compare his ideas versus putting more money into the existing system. Instead they believed the McGreevey TV ads and the weekly ads run by the teachers union. Further, the loss of a month of campaign time due to the September 11th attacks as well as the preoccupation of voters with anthrax, put the Schundler campaign at a much greater disadvantage than the McGreevey campaign. Schundler had to ask voters at such a time as this, to try new ideas for education in NJ, persuade them that it was not a risky venture, and that it would not hurt public schools. McGreevey on the other hand reiterated the teachers union’s positions and promised more “targeted money” – a familiar but straightforward message.

As far as the economy, which was the first concern on the mind of voters, McGreevey came out ahead. While he refinanced Woodbridge debt inherited by his predecessor, the average tax bill increased by a total of 30 percent since 1990 . Mayor Schundler accomplished economic and fiscal reform in Jersey City that was nationally recognized, and stabilized tax increases for almost a decade. Republicans could been more outspoken to voters in support of his accomplishments in this area.

Which brings us to another major factor of lack of support from Acting Governor DiFrancesco and many of the business as usual Republican legislators. Strong support from these legislators for Schundler’s ideas on education and the economy, combined with more party money for TV ads, may have swayed a lot more votes to the Republican column. The Republican State Committee raised only ~2 mil. compared to the ~16mil. raised by the state Democratic Committee. Considering such odds the fact that Schundler garnished 42% of the vote is respectable.
November 2001.

back...