Lautenberg up by 5 in new poll

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

[chimera]

Sorry, I don't recall those discussions, if any. I'm just saying that this is Jersey, and it has been trending very liberal lately. Its an uphill battle for anyone with an "R" after their name. Forrester had a shot against Torricelli because when his corruption wasn't (surprisingly) buried down the memory hole by the media then there might have been enough momentum among the sheeple to override the "Free Money" 'Rat gambit. A 'Pub can win in NJ, but it takes a confluence of circumstances, generally involving over-the-top corruption with a well-known and somewhat popular RINO candidate. Forrester vs. Lautenberg doesn't play out that way, I'm sorry to say. LousyRat is a known 'Rat commodity, and Forrester is being painted as "too conservative", or a "radical" on issues like taxes and abortion. That will be enough, unfortunately, for the sheeple to throw it to the Lousy One. They know the 'Rats are corrupt, but it doesn't matter, because, like Clinton, the sheeple only care that he's a 'Rat and liberal.

[tsomer]

I'm praying that we'll get a reprieve, and Forrester will skin by. Right now all I have to go on is that most of the Dims I know (including my wife) are finding the situation, er..., 'distastefull'. I'm hoping this translates into apathy or no-name options, but those are long odds.

I'm beginning to think the pundits are right; so far Forrester has defined himself in contrast to his opponent. The Dims choice of Laut was pretty smart in this regard, there's not enough substance in Laut to make that contrast. He's a shape-shifter; no one cares about his voting record because they know he doesn't care.

To win, Forrester has to state a coherent and believable vision for the country. Hope will get people to the polls, spleen won't.

Keep in mind that speaks more about me than the campaign. I've gotten more active lately and decided to try distributing lawn signs. I get turned down, of course, but that doesn't mean they're not thinking. The important thing is to offer, as a favor, and when they decline say that you really think he's the best. Tell them you think he's a formidable character, that's he's done well for himself and his family and will do as well for us. Then smile and keep your temper in check if they start spewing.

This is the way it has to get done.

[Antoninus]

Anyone who thinks this race is over based on one poll showing Forrester down by 5% is a certifiable idiot. This race is just getting started and what's more, Forrester is GOING TO WIN.

Why do I say that? Because Lousenberg continues to refuse to debate. At least two radio venues that I know of are offering the candidates to debate live on the air and only Forrester has accepted. Both said that if Lousenberg won't come on, they'll give the entire hour to Forrester.

We're going to take this one... I can feel it. And as for you Negative-Nelly defeatists who do nothing but gripe about a campaign that's within easy striking distance of victory --- a pox on you!

[Antoninus]

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.

Exactly. Brilliant!

[SwinneySwitch]

"Lautenberg has been ducking debates"

Forrester needs to keep hammering on this until Nov. 5th!

[KQQL]

@

[westfield3]

A common error is to give polls more accuracy than they claim for themselves. An analysis of the the Eagleton polls (the first from early October showing 44-44) shows that much of the "move" is actually changes in the sampling.

In the first poll, the Dem/Rep ratio was 33/30 (the rest undeclared or "independents"). The new poll, the ratio is 35/28, so one would expect to see a four point "widening" even if the poll was taken the same day.

IF the random draw pulled these same 35/28 pool two weeks ago, the early October poll would have Lautenberg winning 46-42. This poll has him winning 47-42 - statistical noise.

The media, however, too lazy to genuinely cover a campaign, goes back to the "score" and even then , reports it through whatever prism they want to see the world.

I am not reading these results with rose-colored glasses - we cannot win without the independents - and they aren't there yet. The dems and especially soft money ads have pounded Forrester for being anti-woman and a gun crazy and they are having traction in the absence of any meaningful media buy from our side.

Forrester has to define himself and close the sale in the next two weeks - and the good news is that there is still time to do it.

[Tymesup]

A month ago, the Newark Star-Ledger had an article gushing over Torricelli and another bashing Forrester. Last Sunday, they had an article that was pretty favorable to Forrester. This Sunday, they had a long piece on Lautenberg that could have been written by Lautenberg's people.

Some kids in the Lyndhurst library were eagerly checking out Lautenberg's website, with an adult helping them.

Forrester's dentist called Steve Malzberg's radio show, said Forrester was a good guy.

The DNC is running an ad talking about Forrester's pro-gun stance. Given the current sniper situation, I think it will be effective.

[Saundra Duffy]

Stop stabbing the GOP guy in the back with negative comments. A lot of that has been going on in California only it was our gubernatorial candidate for governor who was getting stabbed. With friends like these, who needs enemies. GO, FORRESTER! GO, SIMON! For victory & freedom!!!

[deport]

It may well be over but there is still time for things to change. I haven't kept close tabs on this race but I've read some articles indicating that some of the democrat base and independents couldn't support Torch this time around, thus Forrester looked like a sure winner. But with Lautenberg the dems/indies that had problems supporting Torch are more comfortable coming back to where they apparently wanted to be to begin with. That may well be what's being seen now but time exist for things to change.... jmo.

[Wolfstar]

I am so tired of the knee-jerk "blame the Republican" reaction everytime an unfavorable poll comes out. Sometimes the candidate deserves blame, sometimes not. In this case, Forrester was blind-sided by the stinking, rotten bait-and-switch game the Dems played. It's not his fault that the heavily Dem electorate in NJ seems to be as ethically challenged as their party leadership. If people are willing to, in essence, support the scam through their vote, nothing any Republican can do will have an effect.

[njmaugbill]

Forrester hasn't blown it yet. This election is not over. However I've got to tell you this is exactly what was predicted would have happened if the Candidate had left the race.

Forrester had spent his money producing ads running against the government official. Lautenberg just made new commericials or recycled old ones. The Attack ads are coming from the DNC or Senatorial election committee and were made up in advance.

This candidate should not have been allowed to remove himself from the ballot.

Bill from Nutley

[Coop]

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".

Well, I had a flash of inspiration. But I agree with your choice of words; I was just trying to be polite. :-)

[Coop]

I'm just saying that this is Jersey, and it has been trending very liberal lately.

Do you recall the last Senate race in NJ? Corzine outspent Franks by about $55 million. Do you know what the final margin was in liberal land?

[chimera]

No, but this is politics and the final margin doesn't matter. It could be one vote or one million votes. The bottom line is a 'Rat is in the Senate, and his opponent is not.

Rats understand this and do whatever it takes to get at least that one extra vote. 'Pubs play by the rules and like most fair-minded people expect others to do likewise. Trouble is, 'Rats don't. I'm not saying conservatives have to play by 'Rat rules, but they have to know what the nature of the fix is, in order to try to counter it. When you play by the rules and your opponent doesn't, that puts you at a disadvantage and you have to understand that and do what it takes within the rules to counter it. If that means going nuclear, getting down and dirty, dishing it out to the 'Rats in like measure that they give you, I say do it. Even if that means supporting a candidate that may not align with you on all issues, but is still preferable to a 'Rat, because better your friend on some issues and who will give your side a fair airing than a 'Rat who will blow you off at every turn.

Has Forrester been doing that? I don't know, maybe being there you can tell us if what he's doing now is effective against Lousenberg. It seemed to be so against Torricelli. But my impression is that now the 'Rats are hammering Forrester on his 2nd Amendment and pro-life stands, straight out of the DNC playbook and talking points. Is this resonating with the Jersey sheeple, or has Forrester effectively countered that, and will it play in liberal land?

[MatthewViti]

Lautenberg is a self-hating Jew hater.

http://www.jtf.org/

[Coop]

No, but this is politics and the final margin doesn't matter.

When folks pop up on threads and say "there's no way Forrester can overcome the demographics!," then the final margin most assuredly does matter.

Liberal Corzine outspent Pubbie Franks by ~$55 million.

Corzine won 50-47%. Hardly a blowout. But I imagine if we went back to visit those threads two years ago, we'd probably find a lot of similar comments.

Will Forrester's new campaign work? We'll see in two weeks. But the man has already defeated one opponent, and now he has had to completely readjust (thanks to a lawless NJ court) and try to defeat the sequel. But the Republicans in NJ are mad enough that he may pull it off.

[chimera]

Corzine won 50-47%. Hardly a blowout. But I imagine if we went back to visit those threads two years ago, we'd probably find a lot of similar comments.

Certainly not a blowout, but in the end it didn't matter from an outcome-based viewpoint, because the 'Rat won and is in the Senate and Franks is irrelevant. That's the way elective politics works.

Its important to remember that our opponents place winning above everything else. They understand that to implement an agenda they need power, and will do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power. I'm not saying conservatives should sacrifice everything, including principles, like the 'Rats do, to win, because winning an office at the cost of one's ideological and personal soul is a hollow victory at best.

I'm concerned that in race after race conservatives lose because they are too interested in being gentlemanly and good losers and making nice while the 'Rats cut their throats. We need to understand that in politics you sometimes have to call a 'Rat a rat (because they are) and a liar a liar (because 'Rats lie for a living), and give no quarter and take no prisoners, because certainly our opponents don't afford us those courtesies.

Now, that being said, is Forrester doing any of that? The NJ 'Rats certainly present a target-rich environment for that kind of game plan.

[Coop]

I'm concerned that in race after race conservatives lose because they are too interested in being gentlemanly and good losers and making nice while the 'Rats cut their throats.

I'm concerned that we lose because in race after race the handwringers and naysayers appear, talking down legitimate candidates, writing them off, saying they can't possibly win, refusing to donate critical time and money to campaigns that need the help. Then, on election day, those candidates lose by 1-2%, or even by 3-4 points.

The handwringers and naysayers then say "See, told you he'd lose."

And they simply never make the connection.

[chimera]

Don't worry, the connection is made. I'm not saying don't try, but my earlier post was simply an honest assessment of the race. Its a goner because of the corruption of the 'Rats and the judges. In a close race, which this one likely will be, that can often tip the balance. When the game is fixed, its all that much harder for a conservative in NJ to win, especially since its an uphill battle to begin with.

The choice was clear cut when it was Forrester against Torricelli, because enough had come out about Torricelli that even the corruption-innoculated NJ electorate could see the difference. It was a choice between an honest Republican and a patently corrupt 'Rat, and the stench of corruption was too great for the 'Rat issue positions to overcome, so Forrester was the choice. The 'Rats realized this and got rid of Torricelli like a bad cold, knowing they they had the NJSC in their pockets, bought and paid for. The 'Rats have muddied the picture now with Lousyberg, to the point where what will make the difference is the "D" after the 'Rat's name, because the sheeple know he will give them want they want on things like abortion and free money from da gubbmint.

So what can Forrester and the 'Pubs do? IMO they need to play hardball right up to the end, and point out that its still an issue of honesty vs. corruption, no different than when Torricelli was the 'Rat candidate. Lautenberg, by being a willing part of the corrupt and dishonest bait-and-switch, is no less corrupt than Torricelli. If that's perceived as going negative, so be it, because, in the end, its dishonest and negative not to point out corruption when its obvious to anyone with the eyes to see it and the honesty to admit it.