2009 New Jersey Governor's Race

[East Coast Republican]

It's not rambling nonsense.  I don't have hours to spend on this forum for days on end so I just consolidate all of my points into one big post.  I guess you have trouble reading anything longer than 3 sentences...especially if it makes good points.

Yes, Christie has his work cut out for him with the Bush appointee crap but this is far from a lost cause.  This is 100000 miles from 2004.  Why can't y

I hope you do bump it regardless of what happens.  I'll definitely bump it IF Christie wins-but just for you, I'll be bumping it regardless.

How you like that Phillip with TWO Ls?

[Keystone Phil]

Oh and KeystonePhil, are you done having a mental spaz out/meltdown over your belief that Lonegan was somehow going to upset Christie?

:-)

Just saw this after reviewing all four of your posts (three of which included attacks on me. Hmmm).

I never had a mental "spaz out" or meltdown. I never flat out said that Lonegan was going to upset Christie. I said if turnout was horrific enough, it was possible and it looked pretty bad at points during the day.

How you like that Phillip with TWO Ls?

More ten year olds on the forum, I see.

And, yes, I'll bump it regardless. I admit when I'm wrong. I'm sure you won't be around to do the same.

[East Coast Republican]

Oh I'll be here to admit if I'm wrong punk.

Are you implying that I'm some troll who was already a member here and joined just to troll you?  That's beyond weak.

FYI: I'm 20 but when I speak with smug people online, I talk to them the way they deserve it.  You say I act like a ten year old?  You can't even admit Christie has a 'decent' shot at da governa race! 

[Keystone Phil]

Oh I'll be here to admit if I'm wrong punk.

Mature. Already throwing the insults and you haven't got ten posts under your belt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

I never said or even hinted that (especially that you've already been a member here) but now that you mention it...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. You're going to be fun.

[Sam Spade]

Folks, you have to be careful about numbers in polls done right after primaries.  While it is true there will be a certain amount of consolidation around a candidate, numbers will often appear inflated for the winning candidate in a contested primary because X side's supporters get very enthused after said primary victory, not to mention hardcore party supporters generally, which means they show up more in polling.

[Lunar]

and there's that whole name recognition thing


Also, right after a primary, most voters have only heard the winning candidate be attacked from an ideological extreme, and not from the center.  Think conservative Democrats in Appalachia would have still backed Hillary to an extreme extent once the general election kicked off?

[Sam Spade]

and there's that whole name recognition thing


Also, right after a primary, most voters have only heard the winning candidate be attacked from an ideological extreme, and not from the center.  Think conservative Democrats in Appalachia would have still backed Hillary to an extreme extent once the general election kicked off?

That is true, but the enthusiasm factor is usually more important in post-primary polls.

And also, as you correctly point out, these observations apply as well to Virginia.

[Rowan]

I don't understand how enthusiasm would play a factor. Maybe in an unweighted poll it would, but in a weighted poll the effect would be lessened, no?

[Lunar]

I don't understand how enthusiasm would play a factor. Maybe in an unweighted poll it would, but in a weighted poll the effect would be lessened, no?

"I'm absolutely giong to vote"  - now

"I want to get home a bit early to make the kids dinner" - November

[East Coast Republican]

While excitement after primary victories certainly plays a role in polling, Christie has been leading consistently for months at margins of 7-10%.  I do suspect we'll see the real numbers in about a month as Corzine starts to open up his reelection campaign.

Even then, I don't see how it could evaporate (in a single month) Christie's built in lead from these past months.  So, Christie does have a genuine lead at this time-but it's most likely not over 10%.  Whether Christie can hold it against the Democratic Machine in Jersey is another story.

SIDE TRACK: Same thing about primary excitement goes for VA except I think Deeds might have a very small genuine lead over McDonnell...let's see if he can hold it.

Ya...that's basically everything I've been trying to say about this race over the past couple of days.

[Keystone Phil]

  This is the real deal this time, enough with the over-cautious dismissal.

I remember that in 2002. And 2005. And 2006.

[Keystone Phil]

  This is the real deal this time, enough with the over-cautious dismissal.

I remember that in 2002. And 2005. And 2006.

Not from me you don't, only from the hacks.  No one serious about New Jersey politics thought those races were winnable.  Except 2002, but that was an especially ridiculous occurrence.  The point we start wleading by 10% or so consistently is a good time to start seriously looking at the race as one we have a shot at.  This is not the same as 2005 or 2006 or even 2002.

Oh, come on. They weren't all hacks. People thought 2005 and 2006 were possible.

What's going to stop the Dems from pulling another fast one like they did in 2002 if Corzine is still trailing by double digits in September or October?

[Brittain33]

There have been excuses for Corzine's performance since his first dismal showing months ago.  It's to the point that it's not just the effect of some random occurrence anymore.  These numbers have been the same for a long time and it's time to admit that it's legit.  Republicans get your hopes up and Democrats be worried.  This is the real deal this time, enough with the over-cautious dismissal.

Yeah. Ok, sure, Republicans have been disappointed in NJ several times before. But the state is not going to elect and reelect Democratic governors from now until the end of time. Virginia disappointed Democrats on the Presidential level many times, too, with polls showing competitive races that melted away before Election Day. Then Obama won it big.

Perhaps I'm scarred from having lived through a NJ tax revolt as a teenager, but the state has every ability to throw out entrenched Democrats if it wants to.

Democratic control of state government is much more recent than many people recognize, I think. The governorship dates back only to 2001, and uncontested control of both branches to 2003. That is enough time for the Democrats to own the current situation, but not nearly long enough for people to assume "they can't be beaten."

[Brittain33]

What's going to stop the Dems from pulling another fast one like they did in 2002 if Corzine is still trailing by double digits in September or October?

There is no Democrat waiting in the wings with the stature and likeability to win in such a situation. Perhaps the only one with the positives to run and win now would be Richard Codey, and one reason he was popular is because he was an accidental governor and betrayed no ambition to be governor in his own right. (See Rell, M. Jodi.)

Note that Corzine is unpopular, but he is not an unelectable, scandal-tarred ethical black hole like Torricelli was. Corzine stepping aside because "he might not win" is simply not going to float. Republicans seem to forget that the issue with Torricelli isn't just that the Democrats didn't want to run him, it's because he was indicted and facing a criminal trial which made his participation in the election a total farce. I know people like to believe that the 2002 court case was a total travesty and Democrats could swap in people for whatever reason they want, but that's not accurate.

[Keystone Phil]

What's going to stop the Dems from pulling another fast one like they did in 2002 if Corzine is still trailing by double digits in September or October?

There is no Democrat waiting in the wings with the stature and likeability to win in such a situation. Perhaps the only one with the positives to run and win now would be Richard Codey, and one reason he was popular is because he was an accidental governor and betrayed no ambition to be governor in his own right. (See Rell, M. Jodi.)

I don't care why he's popular; all that matters is that he is popular.

If the party hacks decide they don't want Codey back, they could find someone who wants it and they'd most likely win the General as long as they don't have any major problems. The only issue is that it would probably cause a huge fight within the party as to who gets it/"deserves" it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It shouldn't have floated with Torricelli but it did. The people of that state fall for the most ridiculous nonsense.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, come on. If he wasn't down in the polls by fifteen points in September, he would have never been yanked and everyone knows that.

They could have always challenged him in the primary. They didn't. They only started to care when it looked like he was going to get blown out and it's ridiculously hackish if you don't acknowledge that.

[Brittain33]

I don't care why he's popular; all that matters is that he is popular.

My belief is that if he stepped in to replace Corzine at the last minute, he'd be sacrificing a lot of what makes him popular and he would lose. It would be out of character. And if the opening were to open up, Rob Andrews or someone else would jump in. But it's not going to happen, because Corzine is not an unusually flawed incumbent and he has enough money to keep his campaign running.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, not only was Torricelli unpopular, he was under indictment and probably going to jail. The New Jersey Supreme Court took the latter into account when they ruled. You may disagree with their ruling, and that's fine, but it's still a different situation.

I don't see where "the people of the state" have any responsibility for the outcome, or any obligation to have voted Republican for their senator for the next six years. If Forrester had identified why people should vote for him instead of basing his campaign entirely on "help is on the way" and "pay no attention to what I'd actually do in office," he would have earned his seat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am arguing that if he had only been down in the polls by 15 points, but had not had any material changes in his legal position, Torricelli would never have agreed to step down, the Democratic Party wouldn't have tried to make him, and even if they had, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't have gone along with it. Plenty of candidates go into Election Day or even October with huge deficits and no chance of winning and still go through with it. The indictment changed everything. It changed Torricelli's calculus and brought him on board. Of course the Democratic Party would have happily accepted his retirement letter any time before then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do acknowledge that he should have been challenged in the primary and it's the shame of the NJ Democratic Party that they didn't. That said, it's political reality that it's hard to challenge incumbents who aren't under actual indictment. This is true in either party and in many states. It would be hackish of you not to acknowledge that his indictment after the primary but before the general election was a game-changer above and beyond simple unpopularity which, as you've been eager to say many times on this thread, often doesn't stop NJ Dems from getting reelected, especially to federal office!

[Brittain33]

P.S. Given that I'm all but cheering on Christie on this board, I think I've demonstrated I'm not a hack for the NJ Democratic Party.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't care why he's popular; all that matters is that he is popular.

My belief is that if he stepped in to replace Corzine at the last minute, he'd be sacrificing a lot of what makes him popular and he would lose. It would be out of character. And if the opening were to open up, Rob Andrews or someone else would jump in. But it's not going to happen, because Corzine is not an unusually flawed incumbent and he has enough money to keep his campaign running.

Sacrificing what makes him popular? He'd lose? He wouldn't be in the race at that point! 

I'm not saying he'll do it but listen around September if he's trailing and I guarantee the NJ party bosses start making noise about "Plan B."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was under indictment and probably going to jail...and that didn't stop the NJ Dems from nominating the man. Again, you may disagree but it's clear that he was yanked because he was in terrible shape in the polls. If he wasn't, he would have stayed and they would have fought the evil Bush administration and prove that the Torch was innocent!

And, yes, the ruling was bogus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But there was no outrage. The public clearly disliked Torricelli yet switching him at the last moment because he was polling so terribly was acceptable? It's unreal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So now, because you're indicted, you're allowed to suddenly leave the race? Wasn't the indictment well before September anyway? This was a hack move, plain and simple. I know plenty of candidates go through with it when they're down. They're not the subject here! They decide to lose with some moral standing. I don't see how this indictment suddenly makes things more acceptable. They knew he had problems before. They didn't care. They only cared because he was polling so horribly. The switch was illegal. The switch was disgusting and yet you defend it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, ok. So because it is difficult, you get a pass and you're allowed to make an illegal switch after the fact when your guy is polling so low. Nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, so it was after the primary. Big deal. You're failing to accept that there is no deceny in their actions. He would have never left if he wasn't polling so badly! That's arrogance. If you want me to believe that the indictment suddenly made everything ok then why didn't he step aside immediately afterwards? Stop trying to justify this.

By the way, when exactly was this indictment?

[Brittain33]

You're failing to accept that there is no decency in their actions.

Phil, I am so not playing this game. If you want to find someone to beat over the head about the Torricelli swap and attack them for thinking it was the most wonderful, ethical thing in the world, it isn't going to be me. I am only in this thread to argue why it isn't going to happen to Corzine. I'm talking about Torricelli to draw a contrast with Corzine's situation, not to defend Torricelli. That's what you should take away from all of my posts. I am arguing why Corzine won't do a switch, not why it's an awesome thing to do and Torricelli is my hero.

Anyway, yes, I did some research and I was wrong about the indictment; Torricelli wasn't indicted. What happened in the fall was the release of more documents indicating how he should have been indicted and everything he'd done wrong, which was damning but not with legal implications. So, on that count, I withdraw that statement.

But I'm not here to help you work out your anger over Torricelli and the N.J. Democratic Party by standing in as your vision of an amoral N.J. Democratic Party hack. Take it somewhere else. That isn't me. If I want emotional manipulation and projection, I've got relatives who can do the job better than you.

[Keystone Phil]

You're failing to accept that there is no decency in their actions.

Phil, I am so not playing this game. If you want to find someone to beat over the head about the Torricelli swap and attack them for thinking it was the most wonderful, ethical thing in the world, it isn't going to be me.

Dramatic much? You're defending it. When I call you out on it, you suddenly don't want to "play this game."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I never hinted that you believed the switch would be awesome and why the Torch was your hero. You were defending why the switch happened. It's silly.

You're under the impression that you need to be indicted to be swapped with another candidate. Not in this state. Again, keep an eye out for the stories of Corzine being replaced if he's polling where Torricelli was polling in September.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what I thought so his withdrawal was even more outrageous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't just admit you were wrong. You took a stand. It was wrong. This isn't about my anger over Torricelli or even the NJ Dems; it's about people like you who excuse it and when you're called out, you whine.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, yeah, ok.

It's always "Poor old me!" whenever someone is proven wrong. You defended the switc,. I call you out on it and then you complain about it. You were pressed to give reasons why the switch was suddenly acceptable because he was under indictment. You don't want to address it anymore? Fine. Stop blaming me for a foolish stand that you took.

Phil, it is absolutely disgraceful for you to attack me for my lack of decency on this issue and thinking "it's ok" and then cut the following quote from your quotes of mine:

You admitted he should have been gotten a challenege...and then excuse why he didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because you went on to say why we shouldn't have expected a primary challenge! You come up with excuses why we shouldn't fault the NJ Dems for challenging the guy.

That's great that you say you wanted him challenged. When it actually came to acting, though, you defended an illegal switch because he was "under indictment." Upon further research, he wasn't! You still defend it but suddenly don't want to talk about it and pull the "mean old Phil" card.

If you're finished with something, stop responding.

[Brittain33]

If you're finished with something, stop responding.

Ok, I'm done. 

My parting gift for you: please understand the difference between "explain" and "excuse." It may help you understand why people say things you find morally objectionable, so you can see that it doesn't mean an endorsement.

[Keystone Phil]

If you're finished with something, stop responding.

Ok, I'm done. 

My parting gift for you: please understand the difference between "explain" and "excuse." It may help you understand why people say things you find morally objectionable, so you can see that it doesn't mean an endorsement.

I'll just leave it at that. I hate wanting to end a discussion and saying that I'm done with it, only to have the other person continue and I can't respond. 

[Rowan]

New web video for Christie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHnsJYft8Io

[Rowan]

Christie snubs the NJEA, sorta:

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30582/christie-declines-seek-njea-endorsement

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Christie snubs the NJEA, sorta:

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30582/christie-declines-seek-njea-endorsement

He wouldn't have gotten it anyway, and I presume that whatever his plan to help balance the budget is, he'll run afoul of the state worker and teacher unions.