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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Then why are the House republicans suffering and why are the republicans Congressional election numbers so low. They are below by double digits. It has to do with the Abramhoff scandle plus Bush approval ratings.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Then why are the House republicans suffering and why are the republicans Congressional election numbers so low. They are below by double digits. It has to do with the Abramhoff scandle plus Bush approval ratings.

So House Republicans are now the same as Tom Kean Jr., do you realize you don't make any sense?  Stop trying to cover one stupid statement w/another, just admit that your being hypocritical and Tom Kean Jr. has the adv in this race.

What in the world gives Bob Menendez an adv except for polls taken before the building scandal came out?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The congressional republicans are at 28% this includes the House and the Senate. It is at 28%. I am not saying he is directly tied to the Abramhoff scandle but the scandle has brought shame on republicans in general. Just like Monica Lewinsky scandle did on Dems. Kean may or may not be affected because he isn't in Washington.

Didn't republicans benefit from the monica lewinsky scandle that answers my question and Dems couldn't gain the majority in 2000 because of it.

[Gustaf]

The congressional republicans are at 28% this includes the House and the Senate. It is at 28%. I am not saying he is directly tied to the Abramhoff scandle but the scandle has brought shame on republicans in general. Just like Monica Lewinsky scandle did on Dems. Kean may or may not be affected because he isn't in Washington.

Didn't republicans benefit from the monica lewinsky scandle that answers my question and Dems couldn't gain the majority in 2000 because of it.

Are you aware of the fact that Democrats made big gains in 2000? It was the best congressional election years for Democrats in the past decade.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But the Monica Lewinsky scandle hurt their chances of taking back the House, and hurt Al Gore's chances in TN in 2000. I am saying that scandles can have a small impact on the party in power.

[Gustaf]

But the Monica Lewinsky scandle hurt their chances of taking back the House, and hurt Al Gore's chances in TN in 2000. I am saying that scandles can have a small impact on the party in power.

Do you have any basis for making that statement? How come that 2000 was such a good year for Democrats if they were so hurt by the Lewinsky scandal?

And why do you think Abramoff will start having an effect on the election NOW when it happened like a year ago?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Answer my question, they lost the presidency, and Cook said they were suppose to take back the house which they didn't. Why are the republicans in the House and Senate at 28%, I am saying scandles don't have an overriding effect on races, the candidates  have to win it for themselves, but it can have some impact.

[Gustaf]

Answer my question, they lost the presidency, and Cook said they were suppose to take back the house which they didn't. Why are the republicans in the House and Senate at 28%, I am saying scandles don't have an overriding effect on races, the candidates  have to win it for themselves, but it can have some impact.

You haven't asked a question so how on earth am I supposed to answer one???

"Supposed to take back the house" doesn't mean anything. They made their best congressional election in a decacde, how is that a poor performance?

And you said, explicitly, that scandals have overriding effect on races. That is your specific claim and what we are debating.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I didn't say that the scandles is an overarching determining factor. The Dems made gains but they lost the presidency in 2000 due to the monica lewinsky scandle. Monica Lewinsky played a part. And they were suppose to take back the House. The presidency is more important than the house. And they lost it, and Bush ran on Monica Lewinsky until he got the presidency.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I didn't say that the scandles is an overarching determining factor. The Dems made gains but they lost the presidency in 2000 due to the monica lewinsky scandle. Monica Lewinsky played a part. And they were suppose to take back the House. The presidency is more important than the house. And they lost it, and Bush ran on Monica Lewinsky until he got the presidency.

Do you realize Clinton was not impeached over his affair w/Monica Lewinsky but the fact he perjured himself and lied about it?  His affair was sleazy, but it wasn't an impeachable offense.  That and Abramoff will have a 1% effect on NJ at the most, and not 1% of the vote, but 1% of the people of the state of NJ will even remember who Jack Abramoff is when voting for Tom Kean Jr or Bob Menendez.

What are you doing?

Easy, you are distracting people from the real picture which is Bob Menendez is going downhill very fast due to Corzine, Zelema Farber, Bob Torricelli, Frank Lautenberg, Jim McGreeevey, the party's rejection of Codey, the 2002 ballot mess, the building scandal, Tom Kean's prestige, and numerous other factors.  STOP DIVERTING

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as the Republicans have a 28% approval ratings, I think it will have a 20% net affect. I think that the turnout in Trenton and Newark will overwhelm the support in the GOP areas, there are more people. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

As long as the Republicans have a 28% approval ratings, I think it will have a 20% net affect. I think that the turnout in Trenton and Newark will overwhelm the support in the GOP areas, there are more people. 

See, as bad of a reason as that is, at least it's a reason.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is not bad to think that the Abramhoff scandle with Burns and the Republicans are going to have some impact on the House and Senate races. If you don't think so, you are in for a surprise. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

It is not bad to think that the Abramhoff scandle with Burns and the Republicans are going to have some impact on the House and Senate races. If you don't think so, you are in for a surprise. 

If your counting on Abramoff to deliever you seats, your in for a big suprise.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is going to in the House, but in the senate I don't know.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It is going to in the House, but in the senate I don't know.

Again, just trying to steer away from the fact Bob Menendez is collapsing as I correctly predicted he would.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The races remain close when Governors appoint senators. The independents usually wait until to last minute to decide if an appointee is fit to be fully elected. Remember, Knowles was leading Murkowski and then the independents broke late and broke for Murkowski. The same thing happened in 2002 with jean Carnahan. The independents wait until the last minute when deciding on an appointee.

[ATFFL]

The races remain close when Governors appoint senators. The independents usually wait until to last minute to decide if an appointee is fit to be fully elected. Remember, Knowles was leading Murkowski and then the independents broke late and broke for Murkowski. The same thing happened in 2002 with jean Carnahan. The independents wait until the last minute when deciding on an appointee.

The problem is there were no good, reputable pollsters who did the Alaska Senate race.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The races remain close when Governors appoint senators. The independents usually wait until to last minute to decide if an appointee is fit to be fully elected. Remember, Knowles was leading Murkowski and then the independents broke late and broke for Murkowski. The same thing happened in 2002 with jean Carnahan. The independents wait until the last minute when deciding on an appointee.

Apprently the Indys must have broke away from Jean Carnahan, considering she lost.  That is an awful analogy.  Plus, Alaska is much more Republican than NJ is Democrat.  And Lisa Murkowski was part of a political machine, the state had numerous corrupt officials since the last statewide election, and she had nothing that awful against her.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am talking about MO senate race in 2002 against John Ashcroft not 2004. As far as AK Knowles had the lead all the way through, independents wait untill the end to decide. I didn't say decide on the incumbant. I just said decide.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am talking about MO senate race in 2002 against John Ashcroft not 2004. As far as AK Knowles had the lead all the way through, independents wait untill the end to decide. I didn't say decide on the incumbant. I just said decide.

That might be the most idiotic thing I ever heard simply because it could not be true by an stretch of the imagination.  Jean Carnahan ran in one election and that was in 2002, and lost, she never won.  The 2004 MO senate race involved Kit Bond.  MEL Carnahan ran against John Ashcroft in [2000] w/the governor promising to appoint Jean to take the seat.  So what you say is untrue factually.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But she was going to be the appointee. But in Ak the independents broke late for Murkowski and she was the appointee, I expect the independents to break for Menendez. And Fairleigh Dickinson had NJ a close race all along in 2004 and it wasn't even close. And Quinnipiac had the race essentially tied in 2004. So, if you are relying on those two polls it is risky business. I meant 2000, maybe MO is a bad example but the 2004 AK senate race is a good example. Look, Dems outnumber republicans in the state, I expect the Dems to pull it out. Just like you said Republicans outnumber Dems in AK, I expect Menendez to pull it out due to the same thing. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

But she was going to be the appointee. But in Ak the independents broke late for Murkowski and she was the appointee, I expect the independents to break for Menendez. And Fairleigh Dickinson had NJ a close race all along in 2004 and it wasn't even close. And Quinnipiac had the race essentially tied in 2004. So, if you are relying on those two polls it is risky business. I meant 2000, maybe MO is a bad example but the 2004 AK senate race is a good example. Look, Dems outnumber republicans in the state, I expect the Dems to pull it out. Just like you said Republicans outnumber Dems in AK, I expect Menendez to pull it out due to the same thing. 

I'm not a blind partisan who relies solely on polls that help me, but you have your blinders on to all the problems plauging Menendez, but you seem to think Abramoff will hurt Kean.  That is lunacy at its best.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am saying that it will play a roll. I am saying the registration in Dems will help out Menendez. Also, he has more money than Kean as well. When the ads start flowing Menendez can come. I am saying that eventhough Kean is ahead right now, Menendez can come back. He isn't down yet.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am saying that it will play a roll. I am saying the registration in Dems will help out Menendez. Also, he has more money than Kean as well. When the ads start flowing Menendez can come. I am saying that eventhough Kean is ahead right now, Menendez can come back. He isn't down yet.

The scandals are just beginning to unfold.