Fairleigh Dickinson University: Kean(R) has a leg up on Bob Menendez(D)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This race is a tossup and it can go either way.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Kean is ahead right now.

Finally, you have admitted it

[Eraserhead]

This race is a tossup and it can go either way.

Its not a tossup until we see at least two more polls confirm this result....and lets everyone remember that Menendez isn't an incumbant in the true sense. No one has ever voted for him for senator before. He is still new to most voters.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This race is a tossup and it can go either way.

Its not a tossup until we see at least two more polls confirm this result....and lets everyone remember that Menendez isn't an incumbant in the true sense. No one has ever voted for him for senator before. He is still new to most voters.

This race isn't a tossup?  The only way it isn't a tossup is if you have Kean w/the advantage.  Menendez is engulfed w/scandal and Corzine's buddy....and all the other aforementioned things I talked about.  Kean has a slight adv at this point, and that can't be denied after the Rasmussen showing up 5 is released (an 11 point swing).  To say it is not a tossup it is still leaning Menendez shows maybe you aren't following this race too closely.

[Gustaf]

I didn't say that the scandles is an overarching determining factor.

As long as the Republicans have a 28% approval ratings, I think it will have a 20% net affect.

And 20% is not an "overarching determining factor"? Do you think before you post or do you just write whatever pops into your head?

The presidential election is obviously irrelevant, we're talking about congressional elections, and overall effects on all races, not one single race. After two terms, the incumbent party almost always loses power. And the party that wins the presidency almost always takes seats in congress.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The scandles hurt the Dems and they were suppose to take back the House that is as simple is that. And it did matter to the Dems they lost the presidency. The Dems would of won the House and the presidency if Monica Lewinsky hadn't happened. Gore and Gephardt blamed Clinton for Monica Lewinsky.

No, when I write, I don't just write what pops in my head, everyone knows that the Abramhoff scandle is hurting the approval ratings of the congress. And it is huting Conrad Burns and it is hurting the Congressional republicans with Tom Delay.  Gore would have been easily elected, they did a poll before Monica Lewinsky and Gore was winning and they did a poll after the scandle and Bush was  ahead. And if Monica Lewinsky didn't matter why did Bush keep using it in his campaign ads. If the Abramhoff scandle didn't matter why are the Dems using it in their campaign ads.  As far as gaining seats the Dems won 5 seats in 1998, so the scandle in them winning seats didn't matter. The incumbant party doesn't lose seats in presidential elections, they lose seats in midterms. You are wrong about that. The reason why the republicans lost seats, because the public wanted to punish the republicans for impeaching Clinton and they wanted a censure. Of course you don't want to talk about the presidential election, because that goes against the arguement. The fact that Bush used monica lewinsky in all of his campaign ads did have an effect on the presidency and he wouldn't have won it. Scandles do have an effect on Presidential race, didn't Watergate affect the 1976 election and so I am saying the Monica Lewinsky affected the 2000 election. In presidential years the incumbant party won seats were in 1908, 1924, and 1928 when the republicans were the incumbant party and they picked up seats when the incumbant party won reelection, Taft picked up seat when Roosevelt left office, Coolidge picked up seats when he was reelected and Hoover picked up seats when he was taking over for Coolidge. In midterms incumbant party usually loses seats, not always presidential races.


You say it isn't a tossup and Kean's lead is within the margin of error that is a tossup to me.

[Gustaf]

The scandles hurt the Dems and they were suppose to take back the House that is as simple is that. And it did matter to the Dems they lost the presidency. The Dems would of won the House and the presidency if Monica Lewinsky hadn't happened. Gore and Gephardt blamed Clinton for Monica Lewinsky.

No, when I write, I don't just write what pops in my head, everyone knows that the Abramhoff scandle is hurting the approval ratings of the congress. And it is huting Conrad Burns and it is hurting the Congressional republicans with Tom Delay.  Gore would have been easily elected, they did a poll before Monica Lewinsky and Gore was winning and they did a poll after the scandle and Bush was  ahead. And if Monica Lewinsky didn't matter why did Bush keep using it in his campaign ads. If the Abramhoff scandle didn't matter why are the Dems using it in their campaign ads.  As far as gaining seats the Dems won 5 seats in 1998, so the scandle in them winning seats didn't matter. The incumbant party doesn't lose seats in presidential elections, they lose seats in midterms. You are wrong about that. The reason why the republicans lost seats, because the public wanted to punish the republicans for impeaching Clinton and they wanted a censure. Of course you don't want to talk about the presidential election, because that goes against the arguement. The fact that Bush used monica lewinsky in all of his campaign ads did have an effect on the presidency and he wouldn't have won it. Scandles do have an effect on Presidential race, didn't Watergate affect the 1976 election and so I am saying the Monica Lewinsky affected the 2000 election.


You say it isn't a tossup and Kean's lead is within the margin of error that is a tossup to me.

The incumbent party usually loses the presidency after two terms. The party that wins the presidency usually wins seats in congress, but lose in the midterms.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I told in 1908, 1924, and 1928 the republicans gained seats after winning the presidency. And scandles do have an effect 1976 with Watergate had an effect on Ford being reelected. And the Lewinsky scandle had an effect on Gore winning. 1908, 1948 doesn't prove that the incumbant party don't always lose the presidency after 2 terms. In 1992 Clinton lost 12 seats in the House, so that doesn't apply that the party winning presidency usually win seats. And I told you the public wanted Clinton censured not impeached.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Kean is ahead right now and will go on to victory

That is what you meant to say based on the rest of that statement, but then you changed.  When the entire state of NJ becomes Hudson County, let me know.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying as long as it is withn the margin of error and I will not count Menendez out.  This race will pend on the debates, the three debates that are coming up.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am saying as long as it is withn the margin of error and I will not count Menendez out.  This race will pend on the debates, the three debates that are coming up.

And Bob Menendez is a smooth talker, but Kean has more substance to what he has to say, all he has to do is keep saying "Corzine" and the debate is his.  Menendez is "done" so to say, but Kean is certainly showing he will win this race.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But Menendez has more money and can run more ads and we will see if the more money Menendez has will help when the ads start rolling.

[DownWithTheLeft]

But Menendez has more money and can run more ads and we will see if the more money Menendez has will help when the ads start rolling.

And Kean's father hitting the trail will certainly neutralize that.  Menendez doesn't have anyone to boost his campaign, having Jon Corzine tag along doesn't exactly help.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Clinton and Hillary may not help when campaigning but they are money bags and Clinton and Hillary's fundraising machine and NY being so close to NJ can certainly help Menendez.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Clinton and Hillary may not help when campaigning but they are money bags and Clinton and Hillary's fundraising machine and NY being so close to NJ can certainly help Menendez.

Are you just coming up w/stupid things that may or may not help Menendez?  Why don't you just acknowledge he is in deep s*it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying that the Clintons can help fundraise for him, this race is pending on the turnout. Yes, Kean is ahead but it isn't a margin where he can't come back from.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, Kean is ahead and will win this race

That is more like it, Kean will play the corruption issue so well as he already has demonstarted, and his father will neutralize any Menendez ad campaigning.

[Gustaf]

I told in 1908, 1924, and 1928 the republicans gained seats after winning the presidency. And scandles do have an effect 1976 with Watergate had an effect on Ford being reelected. And the Lewinsky scandle had an effect on Gore winning. 1908, 1948 doesn't prove that the incumbant party don't always lose the presidency after 2 terms. In 1992 Clinton lost 12 seats in the House, so that doesn't apply that the party winning presidency usually win seats. And I told you the public wanted Clinton censured not impeached.

Look, you claim that a scandal will cause the scandal-ridden party to lose seats. The example you give is Lewinsky. Well, it didn't happen. The Democrats gained seats. Stop trying to talk around that. Fact remains, that USUALLY (I am putting this in capital letters because it seems like you didn't get it the first time), USUALLY, the party whose candidate wins the presidential election also gains seats in the congressional elections held at the same time. In midterms, however, the party holding the White House usually loses seats.

This is not always true. In 2002 the GOP gained seats and in 1998 the Democrats did the same (mostly, at least). In 1934 the Democrats also gained seats. In between however, this rule held true. In 1956 Eisenhower became the first incumbent president in over a century to be reelected without bringing at least one chamber of congress with him.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying that President Clinton lost 12 seats in the 1992 and the monica lewinsky scandle was used in the 2004 election. If the republicans didn't care about it why did they use it in all their ads. The Dems were suppose to take control of the House, eventhough they gain seats. The people punished the republicans because they wanted censure. The GOP used Monica just like the Dems used Watergate, we have a difference of opinion about that. Bush wouldn't have used Monica in his ads. And he kept saying over and over again Clinton broke the oath of office.

[Gustaf]

I am saying that President Clinton lost 12 seats in the 1992 and the monica lewinsky scandle was used in the 2004 election. If the republicans didn't care about it why did they use it in all their ads. The Dems were suppose to take control of the House, eventhough they gain seats. The people punished the republicans because they wanted censure. The GOP used Monica just like the Dems used Watergate, we have a difference of opinion about that. Bush wouldn't have used Monica in his ads. And he kept saying over and over again Clinton broke the oath of office.

You're claiming that Lewinsky was used in 2004? That's stupid. And if people punished the Republicans, doesn't that kind of go against your idea?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am saying that President Clinton lost 12 seats in the 1992 and the monica lewinsky scandle was used in the 2004 election. If the republicans didn't care about it why did they use it in all their ads. The Dems were suppose to take control of the House, eventhough they gain seats. The people punished the republicans because they wanted censure. The GOP used Monica just like the Dems used Watergate, we have a difference of opinion about that. Bush wouldn't have used Monica in his ads. And he kept saying over and over again Clinton broke the oath of office.

 stupid.

That sums it up pretty well

[Conan]

I predict Menendez 53, Kean 46.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I predict Menendez 53, Kean 46.

Menendez wins (unlikely):
Menendez 49 - Kean 48

Kean wins (most likely scenario):
Kean 52 - Menendez 47

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No one knows if the ML affected the 2000 election cycle, but Al Gore picked Lieberman to blunt the criticism of Bush concerning ML and Gephardt and Gore blamed Clinton.  As for NJ, Kean leads among registered voters and Menendez leads among likely voters.  DeWine trailes in the latest Gallup poll among registered and likely voters.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No one knows if the ML affected the 2000 election cycle, but Al Gore picked Lieberman to blunt the criticism of Bush concerning ML and Gephardt and Gore blamed Clinton.  As for NJ, Kean leads among registered voters and Menendez leads among likely voters.  DeWine trailes in the latest Gallup poll among registered and likely voters.

First of all, that is crap.  If ML affected NJ, then that makes Bush's gain in 04' even more impressive.  Hey, I changed OH now change NJ like you said.  You said, "I'll change NJ when you change OH."  I changed OH, where's you r edit?

And stop quoting Gallup or Zogby!

At least Conan just says I'm desperate but doesn't say stupids reasons that probably don't even help Menendez.