Poll gives Lautenberg edge (Independents favor Lautenberg over Forrester)

bergen ^ | Sunday, October 06, 2002 | HERB JACKSON

[88keys]

"The democrats can run a stuffed animal...and win. Remember, most democrats vote the "anybody but the republican" approach. It really doesn't matter who is running on the democratic ticket at any given time. Just that there is a name, any name, on the ballot listed as democrat. That's who they'll vote for."

To continue your theme...and win..."

This is what perturbs me so much...can this really be true?!

If so, and the American electorate would vote as a majority for these people, our republic is history. We are simply "out-voted".

But, I don't believe this, and vigilence amongst the ethical (which does include some of our "liberal-leaning" brothers and sisters) is crucial.

[woofer]

Get him in a press conference and ask him an identically-worded question every five minutes or so to let the audience see just how many totally different, contradictory, and befuddled answers he comes up with.

Eggs-zackly what I've been hoping. That or a debate...televised on CNN and FNC. That'll take the wind out of the 'rats sail. Lautenberg would stand as much chance in the polls as a piece of granite could be an olympic swimmer.

[DaBroasta]

The poll conducted by Ali found 55 percent of independents favored Forrester over Torricelli, but only 34 percent support Forrester when he is matched up against Lautenberg.

Hope these independents don't get to attached to their man Rottenburg. As soon as the elections are over, assuming Rottenburg wins, he'll going to quit again and McGreasy will put a RAT pol in charge that will make the Torch look like a Boy Scout.

[krizzy]

this poll shows 34% think SCNJ made the wrong decision. The other poll I saw said 54% thought SCNJ made the wrong decision. Somone is off by 20%!

[floriduh voter]

NEW JERSEY - THE MOTHBALL STATE?

[MeekOneGOP]

[MeekOneGOP]

a thousand pardons for the language.....

---

Things Robert Torricelli Caught Saying on Tape in Mob Pizza Parlor #1 Hey, kid. Park my Lincoln town car, and when you bring it back, make sure it's a Mercedes #2 I want you to gather together the heads of all the five families. #3 Leave the gun, take the cannoli #4 The f**k, they burned it #5 Absofreakinlutley #6 I was outta line. I'm sorry. But she was a whoooooooore #7 Yes, Bernie. It's true. Bianca took pineapple on her slice #8 Corzine, you interrupt me again, I'm going to cut off your balls. You got that Richie Rich? #9 Okay, one more slab, and then we'll go by the Hoffa off ramp #10 Yeah, my father's family's from Corleone, Sicily. What's so funny?

[ladyinred]

Incredible!

[HiTech RedNeck]

How in the world does it serve this country to have a senile, vegetative senator in office?

Have him duel Strom Thurmond.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That does not mean, however, that the review of the NJ decision is over. If the Court does not issue an injunction, I expect it to announce that it IS taking the case and will issue a fully-briefed, fully-argued decision AFTER the election.

If there's no remedy it's moot. What are they going to do, cancel the election and order a new one?

[wardaddy]

The only thing all of this proves is that we better be prepared to behave just as Machiavellian as the Dems and quit whining about it. The high road is a road that runs outside politics. Take that road and they will eat us alive since they have no qualms about doing anything it takes.....because they are on a crusade against evil (us).

If SCOTUS does not reverse then Lautenberg will be the next NJ senator. We better hammer their asses elsewhere.

[oldironsides]

I hope the stupid idiots know that Lautenberg will resign
for "health reasons" and the inner circle will once again pick the person. New Jersey elects Lautenberg? They will be handing the senate over to another.

[Afronaut]

Forrester will never win; he is as exciting as a house plant. He bought his nomination like that other Rat sweaty guy did. Did the "rule of law" apply with Bob Franks? The Jersey rebub's bite it. They are garbage. Reap what you sow.

Schundler was the greatest hope for this state (and the Nation) and they spit on him.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are missing the point. There was "no remedy" in the Anderson case either. He ran and lost three years before the US Supreme Court decided his case. But the US SC decided the issue of whether state laws could bar independents from running for President.

The US Supreme Court needs to slap down in advance, and hard, all other courts that would even think of doing what the Fla SC did, and what the NJ Supreme Court did. If you don't think that's important, you haven't been paying attention. George Will laid it out pretty clearly in his latest column. So did Jonah Goldberg.

Lastly, if the Court decides that Lautenberg should not have been on the ballot, and Lautenberg manages to win (which it looks like he won't), then the US SC has the admittedly painful option of voiding the election and causing another one to be held in 2004. That last point is why I said the US SC will be rooting for a Forrester win, so they don't get put in a real bad position.

Congressman Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Excellent point. The US District Court in New Jersey, which has before it only the issue of overseas ballots (both military and civilian) cannot "overrule" the whole NJ SC decision. However, it can "overrule" just the one point about the overseas ballots.

That would mean that the NJ Clerks of Election would be subject to conflicting orders on the balloting. They would have to go to the US SC to get relief from the US District Court order.

So, BOTH sides would be on appeal in the US SC, from two different decisions. That would make it easier for the US SC to take the case and act on it.

This cr*p only makes sense to me because I've spent 30 years doing it. That explanation is correct, but did it make sense to you, looking at it as a normal person rather than a constitutional lawyer?

Congressman Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

"Concessions" are the traditional way that election contests end. When it is clear to the loser that he/she has lost, it is traditional to call the winner with congratulations, even if he/she wishes the winner would be strucki by lightning and killed on the spot.

But, concessions are meaningless in the law. Witness 2000, when Gore called Bush to concede when he thought he'd lost Florida. Gore called back later when Florida was back in play to "withdraw his concession." This is not like the unofficial rules of street stickball in which there are "no take-backsies."

(New column just up. First link below.)

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[HiTech RedNeck]

The US Supreme Court needs to slap down in advance, and hard, all other courts that would even think of doing what the Fla SC did, and what the NJ Supreme Court did.

If the SCOTUS shows itself slow to respond to this (as they weren't in Bush v. Gore), the state supreme courts still get to thumb their nose. What is going to happen to them when they defy the SCOTUS? Sure, the SCOTUS is going to sentence them to hang by the neck until dead! (/sarcasm) If there is no practical consequence for the parties that game the state courts, there is no "slap down."

[HiTech RedNeck]

and Lautenberg manages to win (which it looks like he won't),

All the polls being bandied about show Lautenberg at a dead heat or winning.

[hchutch]

He's barely ahead of Forrester, and he should eb ahead by a mile, and the favorable/unfavorable numbers on the court decision do not look good for the SCONJ decision. I'm also willing to bet that a LOT of these polls don't take into account the Green Party candidate.

Forrester has work to do, and he will do it, IMHO. The key is to harp on the "bait and switch" and then to also hit Lautenberg's lousy national security voting record: "Soft on terrorists" is the word to use here. Take things from there.

PJ-Comix - start calling Forrester's people NOW!

[mrb1960]

Do you really think that time limit of 1:00 PM is accurate, or are you just predicting?

I know you have your sources, but don't put something like that here unless you have concrete proof.