In a special election on October 16, New Jersey residents chose Democrat Cory Booker to fill the seat of the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. This result was highly anticipated. What’s more interesting is that his opponent, former mayor of Bogota Steve Lonegan—a Tea Party Republican—won a full 44 percent of the vote. In a Democratic state frustrated by the recent government shutdown, Lonegan’s strong showing was surprising.

The endorsements Lonegan placed most prominently on his website included those of Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Rand Paul, all politicians who are much farther to the right than most politicians in New Jersey. The state has not elected a Republican senator since 1972 and has not had a majority vote for a Republican president since 1988. While recently re-elected Governor Chris Christie is a Republican, he is seen as far more moderate than any of the aforementioned figures.

Moreover, the vast majority of New Jersey residents disagree with Lonegan on important matters of policy. For instance, residents’ support for the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) is higher than the national average. Recently, New Jerseyans came out strongly in favor of the legalization of gay marriage in the state. Lonegan stood firmly against popular opinion on both of these issues: In his campaign, he said that he supports the full repeal of the ACA and believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. These issues are critical and particularly relevant. Coupled with the recent fiasco in Congress, they should have spelled disaster for Lonegan’s campaign.

Why, then, did so many New Jersey voters support Lonegan?

Critics of the electoral system might argue that the population was uninformed, but this claim seems to be unfounded. First, senator-elect Cory Booker’s role as mayor of Newark meant that he was widely recognized and that his positions were relatively clear. Lonegan, too, was open and direct about his opinions.

Others might try to explain Lonegan’s success by saying that New Jersey is suddenly leaning toward the right. But New Jersey currently has almost 800,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, reflecting the leftward lean of the state population. Moreover, there is little love among the residents of the state for most Republicans, whom they blame for the recent government shutdown.

A few possible explanations remain. The first is that people were simply unhappy with Cory Booker and chose the alternative. While this is possible, voting for a candidate whose position is so much at odds with one’s own seems both risky and unlikely. Given that 44 percent of New Jersey residents do not belong to the Tea Party, Lonegan’s position must have been at odds with those of most voters.

As such, Lonegan’s impressive showing appears to be the result, quite simply, of a problem with getting out the vote. Cory Booker was the predicted favorite—so much so, perhaps, that many people did not bother to cast their ballots. Indeed, only around 24 percent of residents did vote. I know many Jersey residents who missed filing the necessary paperwork or made plans for that day, certain of a victory.

While Cory Booker did ultimately win, the smaller–than-expected victory margin should serve as a lesson: The predicted victor may not always easily succeed. Instead, it is critical, especially in smaller elections, for the candidates work to convince people to vote. If a sufficient number of citizens decide that the election’s result is a foregone conclusion, they just might find that they’re mistaken.

This free rider problem reared its head again in this week’s gubernatorial election. Luckily for Christie enthusiasts who took this gamble—most eligible voters did not actually vote—the incumbent and forecasted winner did triumph.

But exit surveys from Election Day reveal some interesting things about New Jersey state politics: While Christie won just over 60 percent of the vote, his victory did not translate into resounding support for the GOP or a personal presidential run in 2016. Indeed, 57 percent of those who voted had an unfavorable opinion of the GOP and viewed both the Democrats and President Obama in a positive light. Only 51 percent believed that Christie would make a good president; more said they’d vote for Hillary Clinton were she to run against Christie in 2016.

These numbers illustrate an additional lesson: There’s a distinction between statewide and national political ideology. The economy and taxes are the two most critical issues for Jersey residents when they’re concerned with their own backyards. But voting on a national level often prompts people to choose the candidates whose platforms they believe in on an ideological level. This is why Jersey has a Republican governor and Democratic senators.

If any New Jersey politician is to run for president—Christie in 2016 and Booker, perhaps, in the future—he or she will have to recognize this distinction. State “support”—sometimes, it seems, the result of the majority’s apathy—does not directly translate into national support. At the national level, candidates must be ideological leaders, and must espouse the broader beliefs that Jersey residents hold dear.

Edyt J. Dickstein ’17 is a Crimson editorial comper in Thayer Hall.