Lautenberg up by 5 in new poll

politics NJ ^ | 10-21-02 | Eagleton Poll

[frmrda]

A new Star-Ledger/Eagleton- Rutgers poll shows Democrat Frank Lautenberg with a five point lead in the race for U.S. Senator, outpolling Republican Douglas Forrester by a 47%-42% margin. The poll surveyed 800 likely voters between October 17-19 has a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.

[frmrda]

This was the poll that showed them at 44-44 last week that all of us were hoping was correct. All other recent polls also show Lautenberg up.

Forrester blew it. Other than those cute "Let Frank Lautenberg play" ads of a week ago since the switch.

Granted it was an uphill fight to begin with, and Lautenberg has been ducking debates but Forrester has let valuable time go by and has gained no traction.

[frmrda]

Ping

[frmrda]

Guys, go to the link and keep following it to get more detailed info. It goes into depth, especially that Lautenberg is winning the independents despite their problem w/ the ballot switch. Also, Forrester's unknowns are still about 47%. That's his campaigns fault. He's wasted 2 weeks with commercials complaining about the ballot switch and one with Tom Kean, neither of which show Forrester.

[BlackRazor]

Poll Ping!

Here's a link to the PDF press release:

http://slerp.rutgers.edu/releases/140-1.pdf

If you want on or off my poll ping list, let me know!

[section9]

Hold on, people!

Down five with three weeks to go ain't bad at all in New Jersey.

The fact that Lautenberg didn't show up to debate is something that is beginning to register with NJ voters. Forrester is chasing Lautenberg down to debate him, which is a ballsy move on Forrester's part.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[BlackRazor]

Here's a different take, from NJ.com:

Democrats' lead slipping in Hudson

Lautenberg's age seen as one of key factors

Monday, October 21, 2002

By Peter Weiss

Journal staff writer

Former Sen. Frank Lautenberg holds a lead of nearly 10 points over Republican Douglas Forrester among Hudson County voters, according to a poll conducted by New Jersey City University for The Jersey Journal.

In the poll, 34.7 percent of respondents favored Lautenberg, while 24.9 percent favored Forrester. There were 33.3 percent undecided and 7 percent said they would vote for a third-party candidate.

But if scandal-plagued Robert Torricelli, who was replaced on the ballot by Lautenberg, had stayed in the race, 38.9 percent said they would have voted for him and 38.4 percent said they would not.

The poll supervisors, Dr. Fran Moran, of the political science department, and Dr. Bruce Chadwick, of the English department, thought the poll results were "not encouraging" for Lautenberg in the highly Democratic county.

"In the last poll we conducted just a few days before Sen. Torricelli withdrew from the race, we reported he enjoyed a 45.5 percent to 23.3 percent lead over Forrester, but even that number was low for a Democratic candidate in Hudson," they stated.

"The Lautenberg numbers should cause some concern for the Democrats in that Hudson's tradition of strong support for Democratic candidates is important in statewide elections. Forrester has not made any great inroads in the county. Instead, what we found is a surprisingly large number of voters now saying they are undecided."

The pollsters surmised that two issues may be working to Lautenberg's detriment - his age and the manner in which he replaced Torricelli, a court-approved move that came after the presumed deadline for making changes.

The poll found that 43.9 percent said Lautenberg's age, 78, might affect their vote, while 47.2 percent said it would not.

When Lautenberg first ran for Senate in 1982, he made an issue of the age of his opponent, Rep. Millicent Fenwick. She was then 72.

Also, 37.1 percent said that regardless of who they'll vote for, Lautenberg shouldn't have been allowed to replace Torricelli, while 41.8 percent said it was okay.

"We believe that Lautenberg's lackluster performance in the county at this point may stem at least in part from resentment at the way in which he came to be on the ballot," Chadwick and Moran stated.

"Age may be the second issue that accounts for Lautenberg's numbers."

The pollsters said one plus for Lautenberg is Gov. James E. McGreevey's good ratings here.

He was given a favorable rating by 58.9 percent of respondents, including 50 percent of Republicans.

[chimera]

This one's a goner. It was from the time the corrupt judges allowed the 'Rats to pull their bait and switch and dump Torricelli. Forrester had a chance against that scumbag because he was too corrupt even by NJ standards, which is really saying something. Lousyberg is just shady enough to slip by.

Hey, this is the Jerz, the Massachusetts of the Mid-Atlantic states. The only thing that matters to sheeple tere is the "D" after the candidate's name, because the operative equation is:

"D" = Free Money

[Coop]

Forrester blew it.

Really? Did I miss the election?

Once again, it absolutely amazes the number of FReepers that fall all over themeselves blaming the Republicans for the lawlessness of the Dems. (see Clinton Impeachment or Florida 2000)

Folks, Lautenberg is the incumbent here. He's consistently under 50%. Quit whining and work for victory. 'Nuff said.

[Coop]

This one's a goner.

Let me guess. You were one of the ones I was arguing with back in June/July, as you were busily telling me Forrester could never hope to beat Torricelli, no matter corrupt he is. Where have you been the past couple of months?

[funkywbr]

NJ wants a Dem no matter what, and that "IS" what they will get unfortunately.

[HamiltonJay]

Forrester, should be pointing out Lautenbergs record against terror, its abysmal. Also you can vew Lautenberg as an incumbent, because of his previous service, if you do that, he needs to hit 50% in polls to be assured victory. I do agree with criticism that Forrester campaign has made some mistakes since the whole fiasco. Don't think criticizing the switch is wrong, but should not have been crux of campaign. Of course Forrester's campaign made him a 1 trick pony, "I'm not the Torch", so it is not suprising that the high numbers don't know much about him. Not that pounding the torch was bad, but should have put forward some more message than that.

2 more weeks.

[Honcho]

I always thought Forster's reply from the very start of this mess should have been bolder and more along the line of something like this:


"The Democratic Party of New Jersey has engaged in tatics that are more dishonest than the canidate they prepose to replace. My message to the rest of the country who are watching these antics is that the overwelming majority of the people of the great state of New Jersey are honest hard working people. They go to work, they take care of their kids and they follow the rules and by God the Democratic Party of the State of New Jersey can too. But in x number of days none of this is going to matter. No ties with the mob, no bribery, no biased court, and no smoked filled, backroom deals can stop the tide of change sweeping across this state. The people of New Jersey are going to reject these dishonest, unfair practices by electing Forster to the U.S. Senate! "


If he would just be bold, I still think there is time for him to pull this out. GO FORSTER GO!

[Grut]

If he would just be bold...

Well, he is a Republican.

[frmrda]

Coop I must say, I admire your optomism, but this one's not looking good (its not so bad - I didn't think we were going to win anyway - had Torch stayed in Forrester would have).

Granted some things Forrester couldn't control - the Ct. decision, Lautenberg not debating, the fact that he's in a Dem state that was a longshot to begin with - and worst of all a state that cares nothing about lawlessness.

The only hope here is that Forrester's campaign does a complete 180 and "introduces" himself in the next 2 weeks. I know you've been saying "he is talking about issue". Not really. When Torch was running he rightfully campaigned, as one poster said, as a "one trick pony". Well, that pony needs to get the whip taken to it, because he's behind coming down to the stretch - against a horse that was put out to pasture and thought shot dead for dog food years ago.

[agrace]

This is good news. Hudson is just about the most Dem county in NJ. It went 70% for Gore.

"In the last poll we conducted just a few days before Sen. Torricelli withdrew from the race, we reported he enjoyed a 45.5 percent to 23.3 percent lead over Forrester, but even that number was low for a Democratic candidate in Hudson," they stated.

"The Lautenberg numbers should cause some concern for the Democrats in that Hudson's tradition of strong support for Democratic candidates is important in statewide elections. Forrester has not made any great inroads in the county. Instead, what we found is a surprisingly large number of voters now saying they are undecided."

[Coop]

Coop I must say, I admire your optomism,

Yeah, so many seem to accuse me of being an optimist because I don't sit in the corner throwing ashes over my head, muttering "Woe is me."

I'm not an optimist here. I'm worried about the Dems winning NJ. But I look at the numbers (which is what I always look at), and Lautenberg not only is NOT a lock, he's not in good shape at all for a virtual incumbent. Can Laut win? Of course. Is it a given? Not by a long shot.

It's not you seeing the glass half empty, and me seeing it half full. I see a glass of water, and you see a glass of urine.

[Coop]

The only hope here is that Forrester's campaign does a complete 180 and "introduces" himself in the next 2 weeks. I know you've been saying "he is talking about issue". Not really.

And you're basing this comment on what? Visiting Forrester's website and seeing his ads, press releases, issues, etc.? Doubtful. Most likely you're saying this because everyone else around here says it.

[frmrda]

It's not you seeing the glass half empty, and me seeing it half full. I see a glass of water, and you see a glass of urine.

OMG, that's a freaking hilarious line. I want to use it. I'll give you credit the first 2 times I use it, then its "mine". Except I won't say "urine", I'll use a word that rhymes with "kiss".

What I'm looking at here is not only numbers, but demographics, recent voting history and the "intangibles" (Republican incompetence, snatching defeat from the jowls of victory) and the fact that Forrester's campaign is not good.

[frmrda]

No, I say it because I've seen his ads on TV (what most people get their ideas from), and the fact that he would introduce himself saying "Hi, I'm the guy running against Bob Toricelli". Not a bad stategy at the time, but it went by the wayside once the Ct. theft happened.

Granted he was talking about some issues, but not enought that once Torch dropped out he had something to fall back on, or make an easy transition. Plus the fact that 2 weeks after the switch he's been virtually invisible on TV

[Snuffington]

This was the poll that showed them at 44-44 last week that all of us were hoping was correct. All other recent polls also show Lautenberg up. Forrester blew it.

Sheesh! Don't break out the cyanide capsules just yet. A 5 point difference in a 3.5% margin of error poll, with 2 weeks of campaigning left? It's hardly time to throw in the towel.