Quinnipiac Poll: Lautenberg too old; beats generic GOP candidate 40–33%

[Former Moderate]

Not that anyone should seriously believe that Frank Lautenberg will lose his re-election bid (especially considering the quality of GOP challengers looking at the race can be described as "piss poor" at best), but his numbers are still surprisingly low against a generic Republican.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg gets a 41 - 32 percent approval; Republicans disapprove 49 - 31 percent while Democrats approve 55 - 14 percent and independent voters split 36 - 37 percent.

 
Only 31 percent of New Jersey voters say Sen. Lautenberg deserves to be reelected in 2008, while 42 percent say he doesn't deserve to be reelected.

 
But 40 percent of voters say they would vote for Lautenberg if his reelection were today, with 33 percent who say they would vote for an unnamed Republican candidate. Democrats would go with the incumbent 77 - 7 percent, while Republicans would stay with their party 74 - 7 percent. Independent voters tend to back the unnamed Republican 34 - 30 percent.

 
Lautenberg, 83, "is too old to effectively serve another six-year term as U.S. Senator," 54 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is not too old. Even Democrats say 48 - 44 percent Lautenberg is too old, while Republicans say 62 - 35 percent he is too old and independent voters say 53 - 41 percent the incumbent is too old.

Lautenberg, who narrowly won a first term in 1982 by insisting that Republican Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick was too old for the job, would be 90 years of age by the end of his fifth term.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Not suprising at all for New Jersey.   

Three almost universal principles in NJ political polling:
1.) Incumbents always have low approval ratings.
2.) General election polls show a high percentage of undecideds.
3.) Undecideds break for the Democrat.

[Keystone Phil]

And he'll be re-elected by at least twenty points.

[Former Moderate]

And he'll be re-elected by at least twenty points.

That would make the first time, then, that he's ever won by more than ten.

[Keystone Phil]

And he'll be re-elected by at least twenty points.

That would make the first time, then, that he's ever won by more than ten.

Yeah, well the GOP isn't even trying (not that they should. NJ is a lost cause).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Polls 16 months out in NJ are worthless.

[Former Moderate]

Polls 16 months out in NJ are worthless.

What a coincidence—so is Senator Lautenberg!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Polls 16 months out in NJ are worthless.

What a coincidence—so is Senator Lautenberg!

He's one of the best Senators, although he did vote for torture.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

[Former Moderate]

Polls 16 months out in NJ are worthless.

What a coincidence—so is Senator Lautenberg!

He's one of the best Senators, although he did vote for torture.

He is a cranky, partisan prick who shamelessly won office by smearing a distinguished stateswoman.

During his time in the Senate, he was consistantly outshined by the brilliant, socially-liberal-but-fiscally-moderate Bill Bradley.  And there's not a day of the week where I wouldn't take ten Jon Corzines over one Frank Lautenberg.  Even Bob Menendez, whom I'm not fond of, is a better politician.

His 2002 maneuverings to return to the U.S. Senate were disasterous, costing New Jersey tons of seniority because he was too eager to work out a fair deal with Daschle.  He pretty much worked out to the NJ Democrats' ninth choice to replace Torricelli on the ballot after Bradley, Florio, and the seven incumbent Congressmen turned it down.

The only person I can say I prefer Frank Lautenberg to is Bob Torricelli, and that's only because I think Bob Torricelli belongs behind bars.

[Verily]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

[Jacobtm]

It's NJ, they're out of their minds.

I feel like if you took a hat with the names of every university graduate in NJ, and just randomly assigned them to government positions, you'd end up with a better group of people than they have now.

[Former Moderate]

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

In New Jersey, though?  No effin way.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

I was talking about general election results rather than polls, which then I think you will agree my statement holds true.

[Conan]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

I was talking about general election results rather than polls, which then I think you will agree my statement holds true.

Your generic republican % is too high. It's around 42-46%. Not next year though, no good challenger has emerged. It should be around 60-40 or greater so far.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

I was talking about general election results rather than polls, which then I think you will agree my statement holds true.

Your generic republican % is too high. It's around 42-46%. Not next year though, no good challenger has emerged. It should be around 60-40 or greater so far.

My point is that a good challenger is not necessary, even in Schundler/McGreevey McGreevey couldn't pull 60%

[Conan]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

I was talking about general election results rather than polls, which then I think you will agree my statement holds true.

Your generic republican % is too high. It's around 42-46%. Not next year though, no good challenger has emerged. It should be around 60-40 or greater so far.

My point is that a good challenger is not necessary, even in Schundler/McGreevey McGreevey couldn't pull 60%

I know... I was talking about Lautenberg next year. If his challenger is that Dougherty guy, then he might well get 60%+.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This surprises no one.  Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat will always produce 45-48 percent for the Republican and 50-55 percent for the Democrat, in fact it works with any person.

Funny, then, that generic Republican led generic Democrat in 2002, then the two were about even in 2004, and generic Democrat led generic Republican in 2006. Lying to make your party look good generally isn't a good idea. If generic Democrat currently leads generic Republican, it's because, surprise, surprise, the country actually prefers the Democrats right now.

I was talking about general election results rather than polls, which then I think you will agree my statement holds true.

Your generic republican % is too high. It's around 42-46%. Not next year though, no good challenger has emerged. It should be around 60-40 or greater so far.

My point is that a good challenger is not necessary, even in Schundler/McGreevey McGreevey couldn't pull 60%

I know... I was talking about Lautenberg next year. If his challenger is that Dougherty guy, then he might well get 60%+.

You obviously missed my point of uber-popular Democrat combined with scandal ridden not loved Republican does not produce 60%.  I guarantee at least 40% of New Jersey will not vote for a Democrat and at least 50% will not vote for a Republican.  There is really only 10% wiggle room.

[Former Moderate]

Unless Mike Doherty becomes the nominee (and I seriously doubt someone that conservative could win the GOP nomination in New Jersey), it doesn't seem likely that Lautenberg will win with a margin unlike his past races.

Now that soon-to-be-State Sen. Chuck Pennachio is looking into a run, I think he'll take the nod.  He's a pretty staunch conservative, but he's not crazy-right like Doherty is.  I don't know if the independently wealthy Anne Estabrook is going anywhere, but if she somehow becomes the nominee, she'll at least have enough cash to play with the big boys.

Doug Forrester, Chuck Haytaian, and Pete Dawkins were all terrible, unattractive candidates in their own rights.  Frank Lautenberg isn't getting more cuddly and loveable with time, that's for sure, so I don't see how his numbers wind up getting appreciably better if the caliber of GOP candidates remains constant.

[Former Moderate]

Against Doherty, I'd be surprised if Lautenberg could win by more than 15%.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Let's rank the Republican candidates:

1.) Chris Christie
2.) Tom Kean Sr.
3.) Bill Baroni
4.) John Murphy
5.) Tom Kean Jr.


Yeah were pretty screwed

[Former Moderate]

Let's rank the Republican candidates:

1.) Chris Christie
2.) Tom Kean Sr.
3.) Bill Baroni
4.) John Murphy
5.) Tom Kean Jr.


Yeah were pretty screwed

It's funny, whenever national Republicans seriously pursue a Senate seat in NJ, they always fall up short by the same slightly-less-than-10 point margin (1988, 1996, 2006); whenever they wind up punting the seat in the electoral pre-season (1990, 2000, 2002), they almost wind up winning the damn thing to spite themselves.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Let's rank the Republican candidates:

1.) Chris Christie
2.) Tom Kean Sr.
3.) Bill Baroni
4.) John Murphy
5.) Tom Kean Jr.


Yeah were pretty screwed

It's funny, whenever national Republicans seriously pursue a Senate seat in NJ, they always fall up short by the same slightly-less-than-10 point margin (1988, 1996, 2006); whenever they wind up punting the seat in the electoral pre-season (1990, 2000, 2002), they almost wind up winning the damn thing to spite themselves.

Franks more of a suprise than usual, however, I think 2002 can be explained due to "unforeseen circumstances"

[Adlai Stevenson]

I predict Lautenberg is re-elected along the lines of 54%-43%. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

I predict some reason this race becomes competitive when Fmr. State Assembly Majority Leader Paul DiGaetano steps in.  Final result:

Lautenberg 50%
DiGaetano 48%

That's how much sense NJ politics makes