The New Jersey Turnout Suprise...

The Asbury Park Press seemed unsure how to report this odd bit of news:

Early totals show nearly 3.7 million people cast ballots in last Tuesday's election, prompting officials to herald the record-breaking number and Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells to call turnout "extraordinary."

However, there were also a record 5.4 million people registered to vote. So although the sheer number of people voting was the most ever, turnout accounted for slightly less than 68 percent of registered voters, according to initial estimates — lower than any presidential election in New Jersey since 1920, and possibly the lowest ever.

While 5.4 million people may have RSVP'd, not nearly as many as in past years showed up for the party....

Hmmm..how many of these "registered voters", I wonder, came courtesy of ACORN and thier ilk working their registration magic in New Jersey? A clue comes here, from this otherwise hysterically inaccurate report (based on the APP's reporting) from WCBS-TV:

Lines of voters have replaced the usual apathy seen at New Jersey polls in off-year elections as voters elect a president...
Voter records are already being broken in the Garden State. The secretary of state says there are 631,512 newly registered voters. That sets a record of more than 5.4 million who can vote.

The secretary of state says voter turnout could exceed 80 percent..

OK, so let's assume we have close to 600,ooo fraudulant registrations here (that would be giving ACORN the benefit of the doubt, actually), giving us 4.8 million registered voters. That changes the turnout rate to around 74%, which while still below current levels is not as embarrassing ("3 out of 4 ain't bad", to paraphrase Meat Loaf).

What else might have dampened turnout? For yet another clue, let's turn to a Rutgers think-tank (?) director, who enlightens us with her ignorance:

Ingrid Reed, director of the Eagleton Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rutgers University, said voters thinking President-elect Barack Obama would win the state in a landslide could have led to low turnout, as well as limited interest in the U.S. Senate race and expectations of long lines at the polls.

"When the vote isn't that close, there's no buzz or excitement," Reed said. "... You never get a chance to feel like you're a part of an election. It's like it was rigged against them to participate."

Rigged against whom - potential Demcoratic voters who didn't want to participate in what the media was calling the life-changing, life-affirming event of a millenium?

Or Republican voters who, despite casting 45% of the state's votes to the right in most statewide/national elections, get virtually 0% representation of their viewpoints in Washington? Knowing this state will be called Blue about five seconds after the polls close can certainly make these citizens feel, as Reed says, " ...like it was rigged against them to participate."

But of course, I don't think that is really what Reed was trying to say...

Anyway, low turnout explained.
But the voters willing to continually turn this state over to same people that are destroying it? Ah, still an unsolved mystery, that...