Rutgers-Eagleton Poll: Lautenberg's re-elect at 24%; someone new at 61%

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

According to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, to paraphrase PoliticsNJ's Wally Edge, how much does it really matter?

The last time Lautenberg sought re-election, 1994, his numbers in this poll were 37% re-elect; 51% time for a change—these numbers today are significantly worse.  That year, he was re-elected 50%–47% over conservative GOP Assembly Speaker Garabed "Chuck" Haytaian, one of a triumvirate of crappy, overrated challengers Frankie has knocked over since '88. (Thanks to BlueJersey for the numbers.)

Lautenberg has never been especially strong at the polls—he's yet to win a general election race by double digits.  He sounded horrific on the campaign trail in 2002, ducking debates left and right, and he's not getting to be a more skilled orator with age.  He'll be 90 at the close of his sixth term, if he wins one next year (and then lives through it).

Like it or not, New Jersey is emerging as one of the better shots the GOP has to pick up a Senate seat this year.  And like 1994 and 1988, the GOP is totally going to blow it.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I realise I'm wading into a minefield with an observation of New Jersey politics here but to me the main problem the Republican Party of New Jersey has is a lack of good candidates who are willing to run.  Of course, given the year and the time it is hardly fortuitous to be a GOP candidate in New Jersey but still Lautenberg would be vulnerable virtually anywhere else.  I think he will be re-elected in 2008, however, I do wish that he would stand aside and let a younger Democrat run for the seat. 

[Keystone Phil]

So Lautenberg will win re-election by only seven points now, right?

[Conan]

So Lautenberg will win re-election by only seven points now, right?

Menendez was elected last year with 8 points. Look for Lautenberg to get more than that.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I realise I'm wading into a minefield with an observation of New Jersey politics here but to me the main problem the Republican Party of New Jersey has is a lack of good candidates who are willing to run.

Part of the problem is that good GOP candidates tend to go down, even when they do run: Reps. Dick Zimmer and Bob Franks come to mind—both strong, moderate legislators who just couldn't seal the deal.

It's a terrible state to have to run in: without its own media market, candidates are at the mercy of New York and Philly stations (which give out virtually no earned media to NJ candidates).  It takes massive amounts of cash to run a credible campaign for anything in the state—the most expensive State Senate race in NJ has cost $4.4 million, more than most recent U.S. House races.  A credible Senate candidacy costs at least $10 million.  Who wants to give up a safe seat and seniority to put up with that, especially when there's such a built in Democratic advantage?

Folks in the State Legislature who want to be that lucky Republican who sneaks in that unexpected win, that's who.  (Remember, NJ State Assemblymen and Senators don't face election in even-numbered years.)  Right now you've got a pair of Republican Assemblyman (one soon to be elected to the State Senate in a safe Morris Co. seat) seeking the nod, alongside a wealthy businesswoman (a more moderate version of Forrester, complete with vagina).

They can't win the seat on their own.  They have to win it as "Lautenberg's generic opponent."

Democrats can't—and won't—win Senate seats uninterrupted forever.  They're up to eleven consecutive wins in the state, but only two of them have been landslide wins of more than 10 points.  I've always felt, personally, that Republicans will accidentally wind up winning a Senate seat when they least expect it—that should have been 2002, but the State Supreme Court kept the seat in Dem hands.  With an elderly man whom voters never really warmed up to carrying the Democratic banner in an actual, real, lengthy campaign, the potential for a GOP upset here in 2008 is as good as any.  Probably better than Republican chances against Menendez in 2012, and better than GOP chances in the open seat come 2014. (Unless Lautenberg tries for seven terms, which I'd never rule out!)

My best guess, at this point: Lautenberg by 5 over Estabrook; Lautenberg by 7 over Bramnick; Lautenberg by 9 over Pennacchio.  I'd be very surprised if this one went to the double digits—Lautenberg is just too weak a candidate.  And while 2008 probably isn't going to be a stellar year for Republicans, this race is going to be more a referendum on the aging Lautenberg, and less on the Bush administration (like in 2006).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Polls always seem to lean Republican in NJ, anyways. I think the Democrats are all at work when they call.

[Democratic Hawk]

Can the old man not just retire?

Dave

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uni poll for starters.

The numbers make sense, just realize how much of that 61% want him replaced with another Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can the old man not just retire?

Dave

Actually, he retired in 2000.

[Democratic Hawk]

Can the old man not just retire?

Dave

Actually, he retired in 2000.

Quite. I should have said ... only this time permanently

Dave

[Conan]

I realise I'm wading into a minefield with an observation of New Jersey politics here but to me the main problem the Republican Party of New Jersey has is a lack of good candidates who are willing to run.

Part of the problem is that good GOP candidates tend to go down, even when they do run: Reps. Dick Zimmer and Bob Franks come to mind—both strong, moderate legislators who just couldn't seal the deal.

It's a terrible state to have to run in: without its own media market, candidates are at the mercy of New York and Philly stations (which give out virtually no earned media to NJ candidates).  It takes massive amounts of cash to run a credible campaign for anything in the state—the most expensive State Senate race in NJ has cost $4.4 million, more than most recent U.S. House races.  A credible Senate candidacy costs at least $10 million.  Who wants to give up a safe seat and seniority to put up with that, especially when there's such a built in Democratic advantage?

Folks in the State Legislature who want to be that lucky Republican who sneaks in that unexpected win, that's who.  (Remember, NJ State Assemblymen and Senators don't face election in even-numbered years.)  Right now you've got a pair of Republican Assemblyman (one soon to be elected to the State Senate in a safe Morris Co. seat) seeking the nod, alongside a wealthy businesswoman (a more moderate version of Forrester, complete with vagina).

They can't win the seat on their own.  They have to win it as "Lautenberg's generic opponent."

Democrats can't—and won't—win Senate seats uninterrupted forever.  They're up to eleven consecutive wins in the state, but only two of them have been landslide wins of more than 10 points.  I've always felt, personally, that Republicans will accidentally wind up winning a Senate seat when they least expect it—that should have been 2002, but the State Supreme Court kept the seat in Dem hands.  With an elderly man whom voters never really warmed up to carrying the Democratic banner in an actual, real, lengthy campaign, the potential for a GOP upset here in 2008 is as good as any.  Probably better than Republican chances against Menendez in 2012, and better than GOP chances in the open seat come 2014. (Unless Lautenberg tries for seven terms, which I'd never rule out!)

My best guess, at this point: Lautenberg by 5 over Estabrook; Lautenberg by 7 over Bramnick; Lautenberg by 9 over Pennacchio.  I'd be very surprised if this one went to the double digits—Lautenberg is just too weak a candidate.  And while 2008 probably isn't going to be a stellar year for Republicans, this race is going to be more a referendum on the aging Lautenberg, and less on the Bush administration (like in 2006).

I don't know if you're in Mass full time now, but in my opinion, NY's media outlets give our two senators and some congressmen a fair shake of coverage. Also, I think your underestimating Lautenberg. People will be surprised when they find out how he's in such great shape and health (hope there's no jinx there). Also, the man has a fortune of his own and will be able to actually campaign, on and off tv. He will win by a wider margin than Menendez in 06.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't know if you're in Mass full time now, but in my opinion, NY's media outlets give our two senators and some congressmen a fair shake of coverage. Also, I think your underestimating Lautenberg. People will be surprised when they find out how he's in such great shape and health (hope there's no jinx there). Also, the man has a fortune of his own and will be able to actually campaign, on and off tv. He will win by a wider margin than Menendez in 06.

I'm in Mass full time, yes, but I've spent about 25 years of my 27 on the planet in the middle of at least one of New Jersey's two media markets, so I know a little bit about both.  And while what you consider to be a fair shake is, well, up to your own personal interpretation, I think you certainly realize that there's no where near as much coverage of a New Jersey Senate race as compared to a New York Senate race.  (Case in point: 2000.  Bob Franks cut a very sad figure in his desperate attempts to get free media to notice him; all the oxygen was being sucked up by Hilldog/Lazio.)

I certainly don't doubt that Lautenberg is in fine shape for a man his age—I seems like he stays pretty active, and that's great.  But he's never been an eloquent speaker, and it's pretty clear that Lautenberg 2002 was not the same Lautenberg that was re-elected in 1994.  He's got plenty of money, of course—if he didn't, he'd never have made it past the primary in 1982.  It's not like Lautenberg spends like Corzine, though.  He's just a run-of-the-mill self-financier who will put up the same kind of cash Menendez did.

The goal is going to be to have Lautenberg on TV as much as possible showing off how active and sharp he still is.  But that means he just can't duck the debates like he did in 2002.  He's going to need to face off against Bramnick, or Pennacchio, or Estabrook one-on-one in an unscripted forum.  He's never been good at debating, and with the public so skeptical about his skills, one or two "senior moments" could send his campaign right off a cliff.

All that being said, I do think Lautenberg will win re-election.  But it's certainly no where near a certainty (and no where near the 85% likelihood Tradesports has him pegged at—I'm trying to pick up a few shares of GOP to win real cheap), because there are just so many possibilities for this to go wrong.

If Lautenberg wins by a larger margin than Menendez, he'll have had the strongest (Senate) electoral performance since Bill Bradley in 1984.  That's unrealistic.

I know Bill Bradley.  Frank Lautenberg is no Bill Bradley.  He's just a cranky ol' partisan prick.  He's not charismatic in the slightest, and he needs to be to overcome the age issue here.

He'll win, but even against the third-tier candidates the NJ GOP is poised to run, he's not going to walk away with it.

[Conan]

I don't know if you're in Mass full time now, but in my opinion, NY's media outlets give our two senators and some congressmen a fair shake of coverage. Also, I think your underestimating Lautenberg. People will be surprised when they find out how he's in such great shape and health (hope there's no jinx there). Also, the man has a fortune of his own and will be able to actually campaign, on and off tv. He will win by a wider margin than Menendez in 06.

I'm in Mass full time, yes, but I've spent about 25 years of my 27 on the planet in the middle of at least one of New Jersey's two media markets, so I know a little bit about both.  And while what you consider to be a fair shake is, well, up to your own personal interpretation, I think you certainly realize that there's no where near as much coverage of a New Jersey Senate race as compared to a New York Senate race.  (Case in point: 2000.  Bob Franks cut a very sad figure in his desperate attempts to get free media to notice him; all the oxygen was being sucked up by Hilldog/Lazio.)

I certainly don't doubt that Lautenberg is in fine shape for a man his age—I seems like he stays pretty active, and that's great.  But he's never been an eloquent speaker, and it's pretty clear that Lautenberg 2002 was not the same Lautenberg that was re-elected in 1994.  He's got plenty of money, of course—if he didn't, he'd never have made it past the primary in 1982.  It's not like Lautenberg spends like Corzine, though.  He's just a run-of-the-mill self-financier who will put up the same kind of cash Menendez did.

The goal is going to be to have Lautenberg on TV as much as possible showing off how active and sharp he still is.  But that means he just can't duck the debates like he did in 2002.  He's going to need to face off against Bramnick, or Pennacchio, or Estabrook one-on-one in an unscripted forum.  He's never been good at debating, and with the public so skeptical about his skills, one or two "senior moments" could send his campaign right off a cliff.

All that being said, I do think Lautenberg will win re-election.  But it's certainly no where near a certainty (and no where near the 85% likelihood Tradesports has him pegged at—I'm trying to pick up a few shares of GOP to win real cheap), because there are just so many possibilities for this to go wrong.

If Lautenberg wins by a larger margin than Menendez, he'll have had the strongest (Senate) electoral performance since Bill Bradley in 1984.  That's unrealistic.

I know Bill Bradley.  Frank Lautenberg is no Bill Bradley.  He's just a cranky ol' partisan prick.  He's not charismatic in the slightest, and he needs to be to overcome the age issue here.

He'll win, but even against the third-tier candidates the NJ GOP is poised to run, he's not going to walk away with it.

Menendez got more coverage than Hillary last year. They didn't have a competition, we did. Also, Lautenberg won by 10% in 2002. That's greater than his 1984 and he only had one month to campaign. Also, until I see a poll telling me otherwise, he already is walking to reelection, with a cain on top of that. Corzine isn't known for his charismatic campaigning either, btw.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Menendez got more coverage than Hillary last year. They didn't have a competition, we did.

Uh, well, yeah.  Obviously.  You can't force news on a boring race.  Hillary essentially ran unopposed.

Also, Lautenberg won by 10% in 2002. That's greater than his 1984 and he only had one month to campaign.

Only 9.92%, so still single digits!    And yeah, if you can call it an actual campaign.  Doug Forrester wasted most that time stupidly trying to get the NJ Supreme Court decision reversed.  Lautenberg pretty much waltzed into office—Forrester never defined himself beyond "Not Torricelli," and the polls were virtually unmoved from Lautenberg's entry to the eventual conclusion.

Also, until I see a poll telling me otherwise, he already is walking to reelection, with a cain on top of that.

So far as polls go, how about one showing his re-elect at 24% and his "someone new" at 61%?  That should be a massive red flag to anyone.

(And yes, at Lautenberg's age, I strongly suggest he move with the aid of a cane.  Preferably a walker.)

Corzine isn't known for his charismatic campaigning either, btw.

And Corzine hasn't won a race with double digit numbers either.

[Conan]

Menendez got more coverage than Hillary last year. They didn't have a competition, we did.

Uh, well, yeah.  Obviously.  You can't force news on a boring race.  Hillary essentially ran unopposed.

Also, Lautenberg won by 10% in 2002. That's greater than his 1984 and he only had one month to campaign.

Only 9.92%, so still single digits!    And yeah, if you can call it an actual campaign.  Doug Forrester wasted most that time stupidly trying to get the NJ Supreme Court decision reversed.  Lautenberg pretty much waltzed into office—Forrester never defined himself beyond "Not Torricelli," and the polls were virtually unmoved from Lautenberg's entry to the eventual conclusion.

Also, until I see a poll telling me otherwise, he already is walking to reelection, with a cain on top of that.

So far as polls go, how about one showing his re-elect at 24% and his "someone new" at 61%?  That should be a massive red flag to anyone.

(And yes, at Lautenberg's age, I strongly suggest he move with the aid of a cane.  Preferably a walker.)

Corzine isn't known for his charismatic campaigning either, btw.

And Corzine hasn't won a race with double digit numbers either.

So there's nothing to tell us that he won't win bigger than Menendez. He's more popular than Menendez and he doesn't have any ethical questions asked of him nor has he ever had any. Plus, he doesn't have a good challenger yet. I do think he should just take the opportunity up and let another dem run because it's not likely they will lose anyway. Who would you favor as a replacement? I personally like Holt the most of the NJ dem delegation.


Edit: Also, Corzine won against Forrester with 10.4% according to the official election results.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Who would you favor as a replacement? I personally like Holt the most of the NJ dem delegation.

On the Democratic side, I'd easily prefer Holt over the rest.  Andrews comes in second.
On the GOP side, I'd like to see Diane Allen and Bill Baroni move up.

Edit: Also, Corzine won against Forrester with 10.4% according to the official election results.

Ah, you're right.  The source I was looking at had unofficial returns (98%).

[Conan]

Who would you favor as a replacement? I personally like Holt the most of the NJ dem delegation.

On the Democratic side, I'd easily prefer Holt over the rest.  Andrews comes in second.
On the GOP side, I'd like to see Diane Allen and Bill Baroni move up.

Edit: Also, Corzine won against Forrester with 10.4% according to the official election results.

Ah, you're right.  The source I was looking at had unofficial returns (98%).

Bill Baroni looks quite promising.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Bill Baroni looks quite promising.

Indeed, though I'm terrified that it'll all fall apart once the consultants get a hand on him.  I have more confidence in Diane Allen, because I've seen her run a U.S. Senate campaign before.

Kean was phenomenal as a State Senator, but made a terrible statewide candidate.  Mostly because he tossed away everything that made him phenomenal as a State Senator.