Election Night - Results & Discussion

Here are a few links to help you keep tabs on tonight’s election results.

This thread will remain at the top of the page for tonight, so please feel free to post results as you see them and also discuss how things are turning out.

>> Virginia Governor and Delegate Races - Governor, District 36, District 37, District 67, District 73, District 76

>> New Jersey Races - NJ.com Coverage, Asbury Park Press, Atlantic County

>> Minneapolis - The Official Results, The Star-Tribune

>> NYC Races - Newsday, NY Times, NY Post, Board of Elections

>> Syracuse, NY - The Post-Standard

>> Albany, NY - Times-Union

>> Portland, Maine - WMTW-TV

>> New London, CT - The Day

>> Davenport, IA - KWCQ-TV

>> Berkley, Michigan - Official Results

>> Pittsburgh - The Official Results

14 Responses to “Election Night - Results & Discussion”

  1. Douglas E. Says:

    Poor Russ Potts is getting his butt kicked with 6% reporting.

    J W Kilgore Republican 64,387 49.58%
    T M Kaine Democratic 63,335 48.77%
    H R Potts Jr Independent 1,997 1.54%

  2. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Kilgore is really jumping out there, probably heavily Republican areas reporting now…

    20% reporting…

    J W Kilgore Republican 275,590 55.17%
    T M Kaine Democratic 215,394 43.12%
    H R Potts Jr Independent 8,111 1.62%

    That is kind of a terrible start for Potts though. :(

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Well… with 30% now reporting…

    T M Kaine Democratic 315,678 52.19%
    J W Kilgore Republican 276,094 45.65%
    H R Potts Jr Independent 12,563 2.08%

    At least he’s above 2%.

    I still have some faith that he could finish in the 3-5% range… and that really wouldn’t be so bad when you consider the nature of this race and how it unfolded.

  4. Austin Cassidy Says:

    The CP’s candidate for Delegate isn’t doing as badly as I kind of expected…

    S C Jones Republican 3,113 73.40%
    J A Scheideman Constitutional 1,126 26.55%

  5. Douglas E. Says:

    Hector Castillo is beating Jeff Pawlowski by 2 to one in Ocean County NJ.

  6. Austin Cassidy Says:

    The statewide numbers show Castillo at about 1% and Pawlowski at around 0.67%.... hard to say if it will hold.

  7. Timothy West Says:

    I am most surprised at the similar nature of the two way races between the R and the CP guy and the VA two way race between a D and a L. Both vote totals are exactly in the 20-22% range - meaning there is little to no crossover appeal from each third party to supporters of either major party.

    It is a bad sign for the R’s that a CP guy can take 20% against the incumbent R. Also the NJ and VA Governors races going to the D’s. Bush is toast, and he’s going to take the Republican Party with him.

    What this means: the third parties who want to be successful have to widen their positions on both the left and the right. Especially the Libertarians, who are in the best spot of all, they just dont realize it yet, and they dont know how to get from where they are to where they have to be to start getting more than 33.1% in a district. The LP must adopt a second front to the left.

  8. Jay Edgar Says:

    “Hector Castillo is beating Jeff Pawlowski by 2 to one in Ocean County NJ.”

    This was true throughout New Jersey. Remember that Castillo had matching funds. He probably spent around $750,000 while Jeff only raised and spent around $50,000.

    The NJ Gubernatorial race was perceived as being very close between the Republicrats. Its hard for any third party candidate to get many votes in a (perceived) close race. The eight third party candidates combined only got 3.3% of the total vote. Hector came in third with 1.22% while Jeff had 0.63%.

    In good news Jeff did win the Parsippany High School mock election! Perhaps there is a future?

  9. R. Paul Says:

    No one really thought that the election would be close. Not in the least.

    The campaigns of the major parties always SAY that the election will be close in order to insure that “their” constituencies will come out to vote, insuring maximal participation (neither defeatism for the underdog’s supporters nor overconfidence for the lead candidate).

    Insider, but unafilliated, pundits confidently called the election in July for Corzine at about 10% margin, give or take one or two percent. This barring any unforseeen surprises.

    Costillo outpolled the populist-conservative Pawlowski because Costillo was the only ethnic in the race in a state that is growing increasingly Hispanic. Neither candidate gave anyone a real polivy-based reason to vote for them .

    If Jeff runs for senior class president of Parisppany High School, I’d support him for sure (so long as he doesn’t pretend to be a libertarian again, and so long as he agrees not to appear in any public debates).

    This morning, I attended the usual “Morning After” deconstruction of the election results sponsored by The Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers in New Brunswick. There was no official mention of the LP or its candidate in the official, sponsored dialogue; however, the talk among those attending was about the poor showing of the LP in comparison to Costillo.

    There was also much unofficial blab about the debates. Apparently, the major party candidates decided to participate in the League of Women Voters’ debates because they agreed between them that neither Pawlowski nor Costillo were likely to say anything that even vaguely threatened their respective established constituencies and their vote totals. In other words, Forrester and Corzine agreed to participate in the debate because they understood that Pawlowski and Costillo were largely irrelevant and it was just another chance to get in front of the camera.

    Of course, the vote totals bore that assessment out.

  10. Pundit Says:

    Vote percentages for Assembly third party candidates in New Jersey show an interesting picture (each voter can vote for 2 candidates. Republicans and Democrats run 2 candidates for each district most of the time. The below list shows the number of third party candidates on the ballot and their percentages.)

    2nd district

    3rd district

    5th district

    8th distrct
    We the People-0.60%

    10th district

    12th district

    13th district

    14th district

    26th district

    28th district
    Socialist Workers Party-0.71%

    32th district
    Politicians Are Crooks-1.36%

    33rd district
    Vote Mango-1.43%

    35th district

    36th district

    37th district
    NJ Conservative-0.78%

    39th district

    It would not be difficult to make one observation: the Greens are enjoying greater support in New Jersey than Libertarians. Pawlowski’s 4th place finish ahead of the Green Party candidate in the gubernatorial race signifies little. With Castillo splitting the Left vote and appearing in the debates, it is not surprising that Pawlowski ended up recieving more votes than the Green Party candidate. Also, the absence of the NJ Conservative Party candidate on the ballot might have benefitted Pawlowski, as well.

    The Assembly’s 2 Socialist candidates (out of the total of 3 that ran) in the 2nd district, performed better than the Libertarians in the 14th district and the 26th district, respectively.

    The Assembly’s 5th district represents a race, which did not feature a single Republican candidate, and included 2 Greens and 1 Libertarian. The third party vote went 5:5:2, in favor of the Greens.

    With the exception of the 5th district, the 1 (and only) Constitution Party candidate performed better than the Libertarians. This is also the case with 1 (and only) NJ Conservative Party candidate.

    Even the Vote Mango, Politicians are Crooks, candidates performed better than the Libertarians.

    The bottom line is: the Libertarian Party of New Jersey cannot be really considered “the major third party” of New Jersey. Not when the Socialists, the Socialist Workers, Greens, Constitutionalists, and NJ Conservatives, Politicians Are Crooks, and Vote Mango perform better. I have yet to think of a state, where Libertarians would perform worse than the legislative candidates of every party imaginable (including the “Vote Joe Smith” candidates).

  11. R. Paul Says:

    Now that it has managed to attract all manner of disgruntled and unprincipled former Democrats (Pawlowski) and Republicans (Edgerton), as well as a whole host of other politically homeless and clueless dregs of NJ politics, the NJLP has lost all of its former and unique ideological appeal.

    Basically, the NJLP and its candidates have become a dumping ground for ex-Reform Party types with no specific, unifying political conviction or ideology, save that of the vague notion that the major parties are somehow inexplicably to blame, and that maybe the government should be somewhat smaller in size than it currently is, without reference to how much smaller, in what categories and why. The LP and its candidates now sound and act like the old American Party or the Conservative Party.

    Can anyone claim to be surprised at the electoral results (or, more accurately, the lack thereof)?

  12. Jay Edgar Says:


    Not at all, typical of NJ. The green party has enjoyed immense success. However their size has been shrinking over time in New Jersey.

    I still don’t understand your criticism of Pawlowski, he did run a very libertarian campaign. You have tried to say he is too conservative, too libertarian, not libertarian enough, and now he’s a democrat?

    Your other posts can be summed up as:

    - you have trouble with him advocating smaller government and instead you wanted him to advocate limited government. You are just splitting hairs here.
    - you want him to give up his support for ending the drug war.
    - you wanted him to publicly state that NJ should end maintenance of all state roads and sell all of the roads. This wouldn’t go over very well in NJ.

    Your confusing posts certainly leave one scratching their head.


  13. R. Paul Says:

    There is a clear distinction with a difference between advocacy of smaller government and limited government. That has been explained in here on more than one occasion. Read any general political/ideological tract/text written by any published libertarian and you will read the exact same treatment as I have given it. No need to scratch one’s topknot. Advocacy of smaller government to the exclusion of advocacy of limited government is the old conservative trick, rejected by libertarians years ago. It’s true that a limited government may coincidently be smaller than the instant one; however, that is not necessarily the case. Again, libertarian principle requires limited government, not necessarily smaller government. It is a fine, but critical point. Conservatives focus on smaller government; libertarians focus upon and advocate limited government. Unfortunately, it’s more than mere semantics.

    I have no truck with Pawlowski except that he is not a libertarian and did not run a libertarian campaign. I never wrote that NJ should end maintenance of all roads. I wrote that advocacy of an increase in gas taxes is unlibertarian, plain and simple. There are any number of methods of funding roads (assuming there should be any) that are libertarian and do not involve gas taxes.

    The Drug War is simply a name for an ongoing and concerted propgram of government’s violation of any individual’s right to ingest whatever they want without interference from government, an extension of the right of self-ownership. Libertarians oppose the laws that constitute violations of these rights, not because we believe people should ingest drugs, but because the drug laws violate their rights. I never saw Pawlowski say that or write that.

    Conservatives like Bill Buckley (whom I personally know and would cringe if you called him a libertarian) opposes the Drug War as well on utilitarian grounds. Necessary conclusion: please pay attention: THE FACT THAT ANYONE OPPOSES THE DRUG WAR IS NO NECESSARY INDICATION THAT HE OR SHE IS A LIBERTARIAN . . . GOT THAT? A person who opposes drug laws might or might not be a libertarian depending upon the reasons why he or she opposes it. Libertarians do not oppose drug laws because these laws prohibit sick people from smoking marijuana, even though these laws may have that prohibitive effect . . . Got that?

    My understanding is that Mr. Pawlowski used to be a Democrat. I read this in the newspapers, in some bio outlining his political background. I also read that he left the democrat party because he didn’t like being told how to vote (apparently, he bucked the party leadership on some issues). I never read that he left the Democrat Party because its programs and policies were statist and violated individual rights. That would have been a good “libertarian” reason for leaving. From what I read, he was merely disgruntled over his treatment by hte party leaders.

    None of this makes Mr. Pawlowski a bad man. I’m sure he’s a very nice man. He’s just not a libertarian . . . got that?

  14. R. Paul Says:

    In the past several years, I have seen the LP fall away from its founding principles and advocacy of limited government based upon those principles.

    Simply put, the LP no bases either its campaigns nor its policies on principle. Instead, some of its candidates mouth some vague attitude about the size of government so that they don’t have to the difficult work of espousing sound policy based upon principle within a political campaign for a real office.

    Make no mistake about it: running an effective, principled libertarian campaign requires a whole lot more than deciding to enter public debates or design lawn signs. As a threshold, it requires a complete understanding of and committment to the libertarian idea. Failing that, whatever campaign is ultimately presented will absolutley, positively fail to communicate libertarian positions and principles to the electorate.

    I do not think that libertarians should run campaigns to educate the public. I think libertarians should run campaigns to win. Thus, in every case and in every campaign, it is incumbent upon libertarians to properly explain why people should vote for this libertarian.

    One of the reasons to vote FOR this libertarian is NOT that she thinks that the Republicans and Democrats are bad or corrupt, or that the government is too big. That’s a good reason not to vote for Republicans and Democrats, but not a good reason to vote for a libertarian. The reason to vote for libertarians is that they have principled ideas and programs that are superior to those of the democrats and republicans (and the other parties as well). You have to tell people what they are and why they are better.

    Pawlowski and his campaign were apparently nearly uniquely unskilled in and unqualified for this task.

Leave a Reply