NJ-03/06: Monmouth: Pallone's lead evaporating; Adler's lead gone

[cinyc]

    I don't really know about Monmouth, but there seems to be a bizarre trend of Republicans surging in Congressional Districts across the country while struggling to hold their leads in Senatorial & Gubernatorial races.

NJ-03 is an R+1 seat.  In how many R+1 or greater Senate races does the Republican candidate trail?  Zero.   Well, one, if you think West Virginia is close.  Republicans are struggling to hold their leads in races that are Even or Democratic-leaning.  Plus, Senate races are higher profile, so candidate quality matters more.

NJ-06 is a D+8 seat - and Pallone losing is a real stretch.

[cinyc]

     I don't really know about Monmouth, but there seems to be a bizarre trend of Republicans surging in Congressional Districts across the country while struggling to hold their leads in Senatorial & Gubernatorial races.

NJ-03 is an R+1 seat.  In how many R+1 or greater Senate races does the Republican candidate trail?  Zero.   Well, one, if you think West Virginia is close.  Republicans are struggling to hold their leads in races that are Even or Democratic-leaning.  Plus, Senate races are higher profile, so candidate quality matters more.

NJ-06 is a D+8 seat - and Pallone losing is a real stretch.

     So you mean to say that Republicans have been running weakly in the House compared to the Senate? I'm not sure why that would have happened, though it does make this trend make more sense.

No.  I'm saying that the Senate focus is generally on tightening in Republican takeovers in D+ states.  Most of the R+ state Senate contests aren't really close.  There's too much hand wringing about Senate races getting close in states that Republicans really shouldn't be close to winning in a normal election year.   CA?  D+7.  WA?  D+5.  WI?  D+2.  PA?  D+2.  etc.  A direct comparison would be to D+2 House districts, not R+1 House districts, like NJ-03.