Posted on 10/06/2002 12:35:09 PM PDT by KQQL
Former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg may have been gone, but apparently he was not forgotten by New Jersey voters.
A poll taken by The Record during the first few days of the Democrat's comeback campaign for a fourth Senate term found Lautenberg ahead of Republican Douglas R. Forrester, 46 percent to 40 percent.
Lautenberg campaign officials cheered the results.
"I think that's great, especially since by the time you got into the field [surveying voters], we'd been in the race for a day and a half," said spokesman Tom Shea.
But Forrester campaign manager Bill Pascoe noted that the Republican trailed Lautenberg by less than the poll's margin of error.
"What you've got is a statistical dead heat," Pascoe said, stressing that Lautenberg was under 50 percent.
The poll found Lautenberg had a higher favorable rating than Forrester and that more people felt they knew where he stands on issues. Also, a majority thought the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold Wednesday's New Jersey Supreme Court order allowing Lautenberg on the ballot as a last-minute substitute.
Lautenberg, who retired from the Senate rather than seek re-election in 2000, was tapped by Democratic leaders last week after one-term Sen. Robert G. Torricelli withdrew from the race under an ethical cloud and sinking poll numbers.
The Record Poll found that if Torricelli were still running, Forrester would be ahead, 49 percent to 39 percent. The main reason Lautenberg fares better against Forrester is a radical shift by independent voters, said pollster Del Ali of Rockville, Md.-based Research 2000.
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.
"The parties are unified behind their candidates, but the key is the independents, and that's the disturbing thing for Forrester," Ali said. "Independents just went back to Lautenberg."
The poll contacted 601 likely voters by telephone Thursday and Friday using randomly generated phone numbers in exchanges chosen to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. The margin of error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points for each number.
This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire population of voters were sampled. The margin of error is higher for any subgroup, such as party affiliation.
Pascoe noted that the 4 percent margin of error in the poll means Lautenberg's support could be as low as 42 percent and Forrester's as high as 44 percent.
Pascoe also argued that because of Lautenberg's experience in politics, he should essentially be considered an incumbent and Forrester a challenger.
"The fact that an incumbent is only drawing 46 percent of the vote is troubling news for an incumbent," Pascoe said.
Forrester has maintained that Lautenberg's entrance into the race was illegal, and Republicans are continuing to fight it on several fronts. Before answering questions about the poll, Pascoe said he was conceding only that that Lautenberg was a "potential rival."
Pascoe said he was not troubled that 61 percent of voters said they knew "not much" or "nothing at all" about Forrester's record and where he stands on the issues.
"What you're really talking about is the well-known difficulty of getting known in this state," Pascoe said. "We've had difficulty spreading Doug's positive message because it seemed every other day there was some dramatic revelation about Torricelli. It's been quite a distraction."
Democrats, however, contend that Forrester said repeatedly that his primary reason for running was to oust Torricelli, and that now he's grasping for a new message.
"They've spent $2 million on television and they've not done one issue ad," said Lautenberg spokesman Shea. "It's not surprising people do not know where [Forrester] stands on the issues, because he never talked about them."
The poll found 52 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Lautenberg, a number Shea called "phenomenal," especially since the last time Lautenberg ran a statewide campaign was 1994. Twenty-six percent had an unfavorable opinion of Lautenberg; Forrester's favorable/unfavorable ratio was 43 percent to 21 percent.
Pollster Ali said one positive sign for Forrester is that he still has an opportunity to define himself for voters.
"He's got more room to grow than Lautenberg," Ali said.
Pascoe noted that twice as many people have a positive opinion of Forrester than a negative one.
Ali said Torricelli spent much of the summer trying to portray Forrester as an out-of-step conservative, but that those attacks seemed not to have stuck.
"Torricelli's credibility was so shot with voters, their reaction was probably, 'We don't know if it's true,'" Ali said. "Now, if Lautenberg comes after Forrester, it could hold more water."
Torricelli pulled out of the race Monday, 15 days after the deadline under state law. Since state law did not say what should happen when candidates withdraw after the deadline, Democrats asked for a ruling from state courts.
With historic swiftness on Wednesday, the state Supreme Court heard arguments and then issued a unanimous order telling county clerks to change ballots and mail substitutes for any that had already gone out.
Republicans said Democrats were trying to change the rules at the last minute, and the GOP has appealed the case to two different federal courts and to the U.S. Justice Department.
Democrats are hoping that voters who were turned off by Torricelli would welcome another Democrat and forgive the way the switch was made.
The poll found that 48 percent of likely New Jersey voters thought the state Supreme Court made the right decision in allowing Lautenberg on the ballot, while 34 percent thought it was wrong.
The rest were not sure. Predictably, Democrats strongly supported the ruling and Republicans strongly opposed it. Among independents, 52 percent thought it was the right decision; 23 percent thought it was wrong.
When likely voters were asked how the U.S. Supreme Court should handle the case, 51 percent said the court should uphold the decision putting Lautenberg on the ballot and 36 percent said the court should reverse it and keep Torricelli's name on the ballot.
Ali said home-state pride could explain why voters don't want the state Supreme Court's decision overruled.
"They could be saying, 'This is our state, it's our decision, these are our justices, and we're going to stand behind them,'"Ali said.
He also noted that New Jersey overwhelmingly voted for Al Gore over President Bush in 2000 and there could be some lingering unease in the state about the U.S. Supreme Court's involvement in elections.
That's a factor Forrester and the Republicans have to take into account as they decide how long to push their appeals, Ali said. Barring a quick victory in Washington, "at a certain point Forrester's going to have to say 'Drop this' and get it off the front pages because he needs to get out and define himself.
"If this carries late into this week, it'll become a negative for him," Ali said.
Pascoe did not disagree, but he said that Forrester got into the election because of "some very lofty principles, notably that no man is above the law. If you think about it, that's a serious problem Bob Torricelli had - that he thought he could get away with things.
"Politically, it would make sense for us to accept the ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court and engage in a campaign against Frank Lautenberg right now. But Doug is unwilling to allow a horrible precedent to stand without taking it to the highest court in the land."
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Have him duel Strom Thurmond.
If there's no remedy it's moot. What are they going to do, cancel the election and order a new one?
Schundler was the greatest hope for this state (and the Nation) and they spit on him.
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
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
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"
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."
All the polls being bandied about show Lautenberg at a dead heat or winning.
I know you have your sources, but don't put something like that here unless you have concrete proof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
