Poll gives Lautenberg edge (Independents favor Lautenberg over Forrester)

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

[Brytani]

Forrester also challanged Lautenberg to 21 debates in 21 days, which Lautenberg agreed to infront of the media. Today it was announced he would not debate Forrester as promised. Forrester needs to bring this point up, if Lautenberg is lying this early on in a campaign, how can the voters be assured he will keep any promise given to them?

[HiTech RedNeck]

21 debates? That's a lot of debates. Is this common in Congressional races? Even the Bush - Gore presidential race did not debate that often.

[Brytani]

When lautenberg first ran for Senate that is what he challenged his opponent - Forrester challenged him to the exact same thing.

[StopGlobalWhining]

Why isn't Forrester highlighting Lautenbergs record when he was in the Senate? It's nothing to be proud of. Lautenberg was wrong about Gulf War I when he predicted that 10,000 American troops would come home in body bags, and he voted against the resolution to support Bush I.

He voted to increase taxes on senior citizen recipients of Social Security, and he voted against eliminating the marriage tax.

Lautenberg might not remember those votes, but they are on the record. Call him on it.

[Brytani]

All we can hope for is that the Forrester campaign is doing their homework on Lautenbergs voting history and that the voters in NJ listen.

Pushing Lautenbergs approval of terrorism will go far I would think in NJ, especially since many of those killed on 9-11 were Jersey residents.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Gee, the last poll I saw had Lautenberg ahead by 10. This looks to me as though those numbers are dropping!!!

[itsahoot]

How would that play out if the SCOTUS takes the case but renders
the decision after the election?

Try this scenerio for a fit. The SC puts the Torch back on the ballot
This outrages the Dems, and they vote the Torch in. The other way around if they elect the Lout, and he resigns, then The Torch
would only have a two year term, the other way he gets six years.

Don't forget they run dead people so their constituents can participate.

[Howlin]

The Mellman Group are democrats!

[Howlin]

Frank won't live past the 4th one!

[Laverne]

Yes it did make sense Congressman -- and I appreciate your response. In fact, you hit on the very point I was hoping you would.....sort of. It was my hope that if the fed court could overrule SCONJ, then the DEMS would appeal to the SCOTUS! (That would be a hoot!) I was hoping your expertise would suggest a situation, such as you have, where both sides would then have to appear before the Supremes; albeit from different perspectives. Thanks for your response.

[Tall_Texan]

The decision on the absentee ballots, whichever way its decided, will almost surely be appealed.

I'm agreeing with you. Unless the SCOTUS makes a ruling this week, it's not likely to rule at all until after the election which will be too late for Forrester.

But the precedent needs to be stopped in its tracks or you'll have a mockery out of the entire primary process with rogue candidates entering only after the field has been cleared and with no time to expose the negatives of a candidate (particularly with CFR in effect).

I think this is a trial run for 2004 and that the DNC will substitute whomever wins the nomination for President with their own hand-picked candidate (likely Clinton, Clinton or Gore) after the nominee is forced to step aside but too late for the GOP to run an effective counter-campaign. And, given the Repubs are almost guaranteed to re-nominate Bush and his squishy "let's get along with the Democrats" tone, the Rats are setting things up to steal 2004 right from under our noses.

As much as they hate the thought of losing the Senate, the Rats can't bear the possibility of six more years of Bush.

[lasereye]

the favorable/unfavorable numbers on the court decision do not look good for the SCONJ decision.

What are you referring to? According to this article, nobody but Republicans are upset in NJ:

Other Than Republicans, Few in N.J. Feel Outraged

I strongly suspect this article is an accurate portrayal of non-GOP voters thinking.

[alwaysconservative]

I like that word "concession". Maybe that should be what somebody should be asking Lautenberg: "Wasn't Toricelli's withdrawal DURING the campaign a concession?"

Don't candidates have the RIGHT to concede defeat during an election?

[KQQL]

Lautenberg (D) Forrester (R)
Survey USA 10/3 49% 45%
Mellman Group (D) 10/3 44% 33%

Yea I know....
That's why there is (D) after the groups name

[swheats]

What is the average IQ of NJ Independent voters?

[swheats]

I hope the Supremes wont wait that long and order the NJ high court ruling overturned tomorrow, or depending on where you live-today.

[swheats]

He sound nervous, but was he speaking the truth? Personally I'm tired of hearing and seeing neatly coifed, immaculate dressing, smooth talking liers. It's time for real emotion and truth talking.

I hope Forrester stands his ground and continue the race, he should get the majority vote just for standing on principles.

[Clemenza]

GOP should have run KEAN he could have defeated anyone in NJ

Kean was approached about it, but declined the offer. He's too happy serving a President at Drew University, I guess.

[willyboyishere]

I live in NJ, and have watched this up-close. I expect much
will be made in the coming weeks of the idea that "Lautenberg is not Torricelli" in the same way that
"Gore is not Clinton" was used in the last Pres. election.
They've already floated the Torricelli "I'll cut his nuts off" hyperbole about Lautenberg from some time ago to establish that there is "no love lost" between the two. It's true that the two men are not interchangeable, as no two men are, but Lautenberg has served as an even better
"good little Dem" yes-man than Torricelli has, and is even yet
more vicious than Torricelli was. Regardless of what a poll
of 601 (!) yielded, I think that enough will transpire by election day that NJ voters will pull the lever for Forrester. Lousenberg will be perceived as carrying dual taints: as a hastily-chosen sub for a failing candidate AND
a virtual "candidate" only made possible by the NJ Supremes stretching the law to the breaking point.