 |
| Voters were not exactly lining up on Tuesday at Hackensack's Fairmount Elementary School. |
By VICTOR E. SASSON
EDITOR
By almost any measure -- the economy, health care, environment, immigration, and boots on the ground in the Middle East and Afghanistan -- we're doing far better under President Obama than with his Republican predecessor.
Yet, the GOP was able to take control of the U.S. Senate and hold onto the party's majority in the House, ensuring another two years of gridlock until Obama leaves office.
Could the reason be grounded in low voter turnout, and white conservatives who still bristle at any mention of our first black president?
Apathy expected
Political analysts expected a low voter turnout in New Jersey on Election Day, WBGO-FM reported:
"Fairleigh Dickinson political science Prof. Peter Woolley expects fewer than 40 percent of registered voters in the Garden State will go to the polls because he says the state’s 12 congressional races really aren’t competitive.
“'People who are the strongest partisans or people who are the angriest are the ones who will come out. The broad swath of Americans who are not following all the issues closely are simply not going to know why they should turn out.'”
Today, Obama told a reporter turnout was as low as 15% in states where Republicans triumphed.
News judgment?
The Record played the Democratic sweep of Bergen County offices, including the defeat of the Republican executive, on Page 1.
But the report of a seventh term for ultraconservative Rep. Scott Garrett from a congressional district that includes Bergen County, where 70% of the voters live, is buried on L-3.
That fits with the editors basically dismissing Hackensack attorney Roy Cho and earlier Democratic challengers because they were unable to raise as much money as Garrett.
News judgment?
The Record played the Democratic sweep of Bergen County offices, including the defeat of the Republican executive, on Page 1.
But the report of a seventh term for ultraconservative Rep. Scott Garrett from a congressional district that includes Bergen County, where 70% of the voters live, is buried on L-3.
That fits with the editors basically dismissing Hackensack attorney Roy Cho and earlier Democratic challengers because they were unable to raise as much money as Garrett.
Ignored Cho? The paper endorsed him.
ReplyDeleteDidn't consider him a serious challenger until a poll came out that exaggerated how close he was to upsetting Garrett. Initial reporting of challenge was slanted toward Garrett, as it was in 2012, when then-Teaneck Deputy Mayor Adam Gussen ran against Garrett.
ReplyDeleteGussen's full name didn't even appear in the paper when he won primary before general election, and he never got a story devoted to him and what he stood for.
With Cho, front page piece by Herb Jackson completely omitted how Garrett initially opposed Sandy aid, then the paper was forced to backpedal when Democrats pointed out Garrett lied about that in campaign material,
Between elections, do you ever see stories on Garrett's votes against any legislation that will help middle class or where all his campaign cash is coming from? The paper basically ignores all of his regressive positions.