Which is better for the Dems in the long run?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Sure, Dems think they can take back the Senate and therefore are supporting Bob Menendez.  But a few years out when more and more would come from corrupt Senator Bob Menendez, this would hurt the Democrats.

Which candidate is better for the Democrats in the long run, and I say Tom Kean Jr

[Speed of Sound]

If Bob is worse for the Dems, shouldnt you support him?

[RJLives]

HA!  Senator Menendez has some controversy surrounding him, but I don't think that, even worst case scenario, they will hurt the democratic party as a whole, it might just hurt him.  If every politician that has had an ethics investigation filed against him destroyed his party, there wouldn't be any political parties left.

[7,052,770]

If I saw polling data that suggested it was very likely that we would get 7 pickups, I'd switch back to supporting Kean.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I voted Menendez.  Kean is clearly an able and dangerous candidate.  If Menendez wins narrowly this year and remains very unpopular for the rest of his term then Kean will only gain support.  The buyer's remorse theory is that people regret voting for someone and then feel sorry for his opponent.  2008 will be an important election.  Frank Lautenberg is an unpopular and elderly Senator and Kean would be an effective GOP opponent for him, more so if Menendez was in office.  I support Menendez and want to him, but I can't help having misgivings about him.  I also think if he loses Kean will be the GOP candidate for Senator again in 2008 or Governor in 2009, and he will likely win one of those races. 

[Virginian87]

I still don't know who to support yet.  I really don't care for either of them.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If Bob is worse for the Dems, shouldnt you support him?

Yes, but Tom Kean Jr. is one of my favorite politicians in the country and the whole home town thing makes me support him