New Jersey 2008

[Smash255]

No

Bush received a decent sized 9/11 bounce in NJ, which is over and done with as far as the GOP is concerned.

Jersey is known for polling quite a bit more GOP than they actually vote.

Giuliani would make it closer than the others, but his views on Iraq (and its very unlikely it won't be a major issue in 08) will hurt him.

[Smash255]

No

Bush received a decent sized 9/11 bounce in NJ, which is over and done with as far as the GOP is concerned.

Jersey is known for polling quite a bit more GOP than they actually vote.

Giuliani would make it closer than the others, but his views on Iraq (and its very unlikely it won't be a major issue in 08) will hurt him.

This is true.  A lot of polls in 2004 showed the state nearly tied between Bush and Kerry and ended up going to Kerry by seven.  Some polls also showed Tom Kean tied or even ahead of Bob Menendez in 2006 and Menendez won by nine points.

Also Forrester, Corzine in 05

[Smash255]

No

Bush received a decent sized 9/11 bounce in NJ, which is over and done with as far as the GOP is concerned.

Jersey is known for polling quite a bit more GOP than they actually vote.

Giuliani would make it closer than the others, but his views on Iraq (and its very unlikely it won't be a major issue in 08) will hurt him.

This is true.  A lot of polls in 2004 showed the state nearly tied between Bush and Kerry and ended up going to Kerry by seven.  Some polls also showed Tom Kean tied or even ahead of Bob Menendez in 2006 and Menendez won by nine points.

Also Forrester, Corzine in 05

I'm pretty sure that there was not a single poll that showed Forrester ahead of Corzine, ever.  There were a few polls that showed it close now and again, but the Forrester campaign's numbers disintegrated once it ran those attack ads about Corzine's ex-wife.

Kean's numbers fell apart once Foley came out, and they never recovered.

If I recall, the final polls in both those races were pretty accurate.

As far as Forrester was concerned I was referring to polls showing it a bit closer than it really ever was.  Race was quite close in the polls for awhile.  Polls at the end were a bit closer, but I don't think Forrester collapsed at the end as much as the majority of the polls till about 2 weeks out were too GOP friendly, same thing with the Menendez-Kean race

[Smash255]

NEW JERSEY -
Clinton (D) 52%
Giuliani (R) 47%

CONNECTICUT -
Clinton (D) 53%
Giuliani (R) 45%

Its hard to see Giuliani winning either New Jersey or Connecticut, however.  Also for the measure:

NEW YORK -
Clinton (D) 56%
Giuliani (R) 42%

This is being generous to Giuliani.

Your making the democrat lead in each of the three states because you are a democrat. I don`t doubt that Giuliani might loose Connecticut because it is heavily democratic. But I think that New Jersey might swing republican. It is always one of the closer states along the east coast, that and New Hampshire.

I think that Giuliani might have a chance in New York and I will tell you why. My history teacher told me that most of New York is conservative but what gives it to the democrats by such a big margin is that New York City is liberal. But, I believe that Giuliani might have an advantage in New York because he was mayor of New York City and the rest of New York is conservative.

Rural upstate NY conservative??  Yes, but thats about it...

Long Island is conservative??  Wow, you must have fooled me, where the hell have I been living for just about the last 25 years?

Westchester is conservative??  Albany???  Buffalo?

[Smash255]

The point is, trying to say that only NYC is liberal out of all NY state is simply laughable. Gporter's made himself look like an ignorant moron in front of everybody.

that wouldn't be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th time and so on...

[Smash255]

The point is, trying to say that only NYC is liberal out of all NY state is simply laughable. Gporter's made himself look like an ignorant moron in front of everybody.

Come on...lay off a little.

I would be willing to cut him some slack if he actually tried to debate the issue (no matter how wrong he may have been) if he didn't dismiss those who disagreed as oh your just a Democrat

[Smash255]

Hah...New York's Upstate isnt that conservative...


Could Giuliani feasibly win over South Jersey (the winnable parts)...Burlington Co...etc...enough to win him New Jersey if the North remains the same?

Guiliani would probably win those counties.  He best shot at winning is winning Bergen and capturing 40% in Essex or Hudson and breaking 60 in Sussex

But he wouldn't. Giuliani would win Bergen and Somerset, but he'd lose Burlington and maybe even Ocean and all of South Jersey while only running 1% or so ahead of Bush 2004 in North Jersey. Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, these are not counties that will vote as strongly for Giuliani's weird liberal-authoritarian social policies as they did for Bush, and nor will Atlantic, Cumberland, Cape May. He'd do best in the wealthy areas, but strength in Somerset, Morris and Bergen can't make up for losses elsewhere.

Yes, Giuliani would do very well in wealthy areas, but he will also do just as well as Bush in the strongly Republican areas.  Hunterdon is nearly as wealthy as Somerset and Morris (and most of Bergen), and will vote similarly.  Sussex and Warren care about nothing but the (R) next to a candidates name, and the shore is not going to go back to Democrats for a while.  All of New Jersey is reasonably wealthy, as well as libertarian, not to mention the state's undeniable general approval of Giuliani.  He would do much better than Bush throughout the state.  Blah, blah, blah...what I'm basically saying is; Giuliani would make significant gains in North/Central Jersey and stay about the same as Bush in South Jersey.  As seen by Giuliani's southern numbers and his high recognition nationwide, social conservatives don't seem to care about Giuliani's social liberalism.

problem Rudy would run into and why I don't think he would really improve on Bush's 04 numbers in Jersey is IRAQ.  It looks like its going to be a big issue in 08 and he is clearly are the wrong side of the state on Iraq.

[Smash255]

I think Giuliani could so some major damage in Passaic and Bergen Counties, and make Morris, Hunterdon, and Somerset more Republican...but I think the odds are against him getting the additional 5% or so needed to actually win the state. But if any of the Republicans can win NJ, its Giuliani...but I say the odds are 2 to 1 against.

A moderate Republican can win NJ, I was suprised at how well a medicore conservative Republican did so well here in 2004, and the reason Kean didn't win 2006 was that year presented odds that were soo dead set aginst a Republican combined with the fact that he wasn't a strong canidate, But still he was close to victory then Foleygate broke.

Theroetically? Maybe...Unfortunately, there seems to be substantial partisan support for both parties, regardless of the candidate, and the Dems have the best of it.

South Jersey isn't the sort of area thats, initially going to lean to Giuliani...while Giuliani is going to have a tough task breaking down that dem advantage in formerly semi competitive areas up in the north(east)

However despite these odds New Jersey will most likely be up for grabs come 08, Also if Ohio leans Democratic going into 08, Rudy will need to take New Jersey in order to win.   

The only reason NJ was as close as it was in 04 was due to the Bush 9/11 bounce that he received in much of suburban NYC.  A bounce which is gone for the GOP.

How Bush did in 04 is basically the best a Republican can do in NJ.  Rudy might make it interesting, but he wouldn't win, no other Republican would have a shot in hell.

[Smash255]

I think Giuliani could so some major damage in Passaic and Bergen Counties, and make Morris, Hunterdon, and Somerset more Republican...but I think the odds are against him getting the additional 5% or so needed to actually win the state. But if any of the Republicans can win NJ, its Giuliani...but I say the odds are 2 to 1 against.

A moderate Republican can win NJ, I was suprised at how well a medicore conservative Republican did so well here in 2004, and the reason Kean didn't win 2006 was that year presented odds that were soo dead set aginst a Republican combined with the fact that he wasn't a strong canidate, But still he was close to victory then Foleygate broke.

Theroetically? Maybe...Unfortunately, there seems to be substantial partisan support for both parties, regardless of the candidate, and the Dems have the best of it.

South Jersey isn't the sort of area thats, initially going to lean to Giuliani...while Giuliani is going to have a tough task breaking down that dem advantage in formerly semi competitive areas up in the north(east)

However despite these odds New Jersey will most likely be up for grabs come 08, Also if Ohio leans Democratic going into 08, Rudy will need to take New Jersey in order to win.   

The only reason NJ was as close as it was in 04 was due to the Bush 9/11 bounce that he received in much of suburban NYC.  A bounce which is gone for the GOP.

How Bush did in 04 is basically the best a Republican can do in NJ.  Rudy might make it interesting, but he wouldn't win, no other Republican would have a shot in hell.

No Smash. I don't buy that. 2004 was the best a Bush style conservative could do in New Jersey...not necessarily a Republican.

The 04 results in NJ were much better for the GOP than you would typically see due to an extreme event that being 9/11.   Now in another extreme event like that, which has the same voting bump for the GOP another type of Republican (such as a Rudy)  might be able to do a bit better.  However, barring that extreme event that favors the GOP, any Republican candidate really is not going to do any better than that in NJ. 

[Smash255]

Rudy is the type of Republican that voters in NJ used to be comfortable voting for, and I think they still would be.  CT is another issue, but I think he might get a lot of support from the Italian community there.

As someone who lives in one of the most Italian neighborhoods in the entire country, all I can say is Iraq Iraq and Iraq.  Rudy will obviously do well with the Italians who traditionally vote Republican, however moderate Italians, who have moved away from the GOP in recent years is where Rudy really would have been able to do quite well with and much better than any other Republican.  he would still do better with them than any other Republican, be he is not going to be able to capitalize on them as much as he otherwise would have because of his views on Iraq.

[Smash255]

Let's get some things straight about New Jersey, past and present.

(1) The New Jersey Democratic Party is not weak.  The only thing that matters in New Jersey is money, and Democrats are flush with it.  And unlike their feuding days of the 1990s, Democrats are remarkably united despite there being a different political boss for North and South Jersey.

(2) No New Jersey Republican is going to lose friggin' OCEAN County any time soon.  It is easily the most Republican shore county -- more so than Monmouth, Atlantic, and even Cape May.

(3) Mark Foley was a MAJOR reason why Tom Kean Jr. lost -- even Wally Edge of PoliticsNJ backs me up on this point.  Dispute it if you will, but Kean's lead instantly evaporated the moment the Foley scandal broke.  He very well may have lost anyway, but Foley was KEY in Kean's numbers ending as badly as Forrester's.

(4) Giuliani wouldn't get 40 in Hudson and certainly not in Newark-dominated Essex.  But I'd expect him to easily carry Bergen and to strongly compete in Middlesex, Passaic, and Mercer, which is why he'd carry the state.  He'd probably run strong enough to carry Burlington, too -- it's really not that Democratic a county.

(5) It is absolutely mindblowing that someone could think that Bush would be a stronger candidate than Giuliani in New Jersey.  My f-ing God, do you not understand the concept of the favorite son?  Commuters love the guy -- and why shouldn't they?

1.  agree

2.  agree

3.  Not really, if you look at how NJ has polled in the past, the Republican candidate has generally polled much better than they actually performed throughout the race.  Polls closer to Election Day generally are closer to the final result (though sometimes still GOP friendly)  It had little to do with Foley and more to do with historic polling tendencies in NJ.

4.  Not anymore.  His views on Iraq pretty much shoot in the foot his chances of doing as well in bergen as you claim and the state as a whole.

5.  Bush did very well for a Republican in NJ in 04 because of the 9/11 bump which was still there at the time.   Rudy is a better fit for NJ than Bush, but the 9/11 bump gave the GOP what the best they could generally expect in the state even with Rudy outside of an extreme circumstance such as 9/11.  Rudy's views on Iraq are just too much against the voters in NJ for him to win there or even get as close as Bush.  He will do better than any other Republican candidate there, but the 9/11 impact which propelled Bush is gone NJ will be back to its typical tendencies in 08.  Rudy would do better than any other Republican, but his views on Iraq limits how much better he would do. 

Those voters who would unlikely be willing to vote for any other Republican candidate, but would be more willing to vote for Rudy because of who he is and his social views would be turned off by his Iraq views.

[Smash255]

Mr Moderate

The times Menendez started pulling away were also around the same time that Corzine increased on his lead in 05, same with Kerry in 04 (remember the close polls) and Gore in 2000.  the state has had a long history of polling more Republican than it has actually voted and the polls have generally started to turn around and closer to the final result in the last couple weeks.  Kean didn't lose due to Foley, it was just the earlier polls showed things better for the GOp than it actually was, it happens almost every year.

Regarding the war in iraq, as long as Bush is there I don't see any major troop withdrawals within the next year, Iraq is still going to be the major issue.  The NJ voters who rudy  generally would have more appeal to compared to other GOP candidates are for the most part staunchly anti Iraq, and whatever gain he gets is not going to be nearly enough to help him, his Iraq views just won't allow it to happen.

[Smash255]

I think what Smash said about Jersey is true. The 9/11 bounce that happened on 04 is gone. Jersey won't be a battleground in 08.

That's what I don't get. Even giving Dole all Perot's vote in 96, both 1996 and 2000 were thumping wins. Kerry even with the 9/11 bump, and high turnout still beat Bush by 7. Giuliani will make things tight, but I certainly don't consider it a battleground yet.

Rudy probably keeps it close to 04 levels (about 9 points more Democratic than nationally).    The 9/11 bounce not being there anymore makes the state more Democratic, Rudy makes up for that, however his views on Iraq diminish the bump he gets from being Rudy and his social views.

[Smash255]

Again, there was no 9/11 bounce.  I'll go into greater detail if necessary, but I've already cited my case numerous times before.  Just thought I'd remind everyone...

Much of New Jersey, Long Island, Rockland, and CT, especially SW CT, what do they all have in common???  Their was without a doubt a 9/11 bounce in NJ.