Menendez +2 (NJ, Gravis)

[Calthrina950]

This poll is hilarious. No way is it accurate. I will say though, Menendez needs to just try and give the slightest bit of a crap about the race. He won't lose, but it would be beneficial for him to not end up winning by an embarrassingly small margin for a New Jersey Democrat. Hugin is already running ads, making himself look like the lesser evil, when that just isn't true. Menendez needs to run a few ads here and there that emphasize the importance of keeping Democratic numbers in the Senate. He should be fine if he does that. There are plenty of Democrat hacks in this state, like myself that will vote for him regardless. They just need to be reminded to because it's a pretty easy expectation that Menendez will coast again, as he always does. I don't know if he will heed my advice though. I will agree with some other posters, in that I really would have preferred if he just didn't run for re-election.

In my opinion, the more moral and less corrupt candidate should take precedence over the more corrupt and less moral one, even if that candidate is at odds with your political viewpoints.

[Calthrina950]

This poll is hilarious. No way is it accurate. I will say though, Menendez needs to just try and give the slightest bit of a crap about the race. He won't lose, but it would be beneficial for him to not end up winning by an embarrassingly small margin for a New Jersey Democrat. Hugin is already running ads, making himself look like the lesser evil, when that just isn't true. Menendez needs to run a few ads here and there that emphasize the importance of keeping Democratic numbers in the Senate. He should be fine if he does that. There are plenty of Democrat hacks in this state, like myself that will vote for him regardless. They just need to be reminded to because it's a pretty easy expectation that Menendez will coast again, as he always does. I don't know if he will heed my advice though. I will agree with some other posters, in that I really would have preferred if he just didn't run for re-election.

In my opinion, the more moral and less corrupt candidate should take precedence over the more corrupt and less moral one

Agreed. Any Republican would be a rubber stamp and enabler for this corrupt, immoral and  treasonous administration and must be defeated

You twisted my words. I would be voting for Hugin if I were in New Jersey. Menendez is the more corrupt and immoral candidate here. Not all Republicans are enablers for Trump's administration, and he is not a traitor, under the legal definition within our Constitution. There are several other Republicans whom I would have no trouble supporting or voting for, and I plan on splitting my ticket in Colorado this year.

[Calthrina950]

As long as it wasn’t Roy Moore-type allegations against him, I’d enthusiastically vote for Menendez in this race. This election is a referendum on Trump, therefore you need to vote for the party, not the person. I’d vote for Rod Blagojevich or Edwin Edwards before I’d vote Republican in any congressional race this year.

That's not necessarily true. I would rather support the candidate that has at least some ethics over the one that does not. I'm not a straight-ticket voter who votes based purely on party identification. I look at the candidates, evaluate their relative merits, and vote accordingly.

[Calthrina950]

As long as it wasn’t Roy Moore-type allegations against him, I’d enthusiastically vote for Menendez in this race. This election is a referendum on Trump, therefore you need to vote for the party, not the person. I’d vote for Rod Blagojevich or Edwin Edwards before I’d vote Republican in any congressional race this year.

That's not necessarily true. I would rather support the candidate that has at least some ethics over the one that does not. I'm not a straight-ticket voter who votes based purely on party identification. I look at the candidates, evaluate their relative merits, and vote accordingly.

This is really the only way to properly vote - take the candidates that you're given, weight their positions in terms of personal importance and vote for the least bad option. In most cases, this exercise will result a vote for the candidate of the party where the voter most often leans, but for voters with less traditional priorities or candidates with ethical issues, the calculus is less straightforward. On Menendez, I would - without hesitation - cast a Hugin vote in New Jersey because Bribery Bob is that odious. Presumably, based on this poll, a fair number of left-leaning indies feel the same way.

And if it gets too close for comfort and the national party has to deploy resources to HEAVEN FORBID New Jersey to defend a corrupt senator in a so-called blue wave year, it becomes yet another piece of evidence that the DNC does not have core principles the way a political party should.

And Hugin, from what I've been told, seems to have moderate views on social issues. But unfortunately, most voters are probably like Wolverine22, in the sense that they will support a candidate no matter what they do, so long as they have an R or D next to their name. That was what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore last year. 91% of Republicans supported him even after the pedophilia allegations came out.

[Calthrina950]

As long as it wasn’t Roy Moore-type allegations against him, I’d enthusiastically vote for Menendez in this race. This election is a referendum on Trump, therefore you need to vote for the party, not the person. I’d vote for Rod Blagojevich or Edwin Edwards before I’d vote Republican in any congressional race this year.

That's not necessarily true. I would rather support the candidate that has at least some ethics over the one that does not. I'm not a straight-ticket voter who votes based purely on party identification. I look at the candidates, evaluate their relative merits, and vote accordingly.

This is really the only way to properly vote - take the candidates that you're given, weight their positions in terms of personal importance and vote for the least bad option. In most cases, this exercise will result a vote for the candidate of the party where the voter most often leans, but for voters with less traditional priorities or candidates with ethical issues, the calculus is less straightforward. On Menendez, I would - without hesitation - cast a Hugin vote in New Jersey because Bribery Bob is that odious. Presumably, based on this poll, a fair number of left-leaning indies feel the same way.

And if it gets too close for comfort and the national party has to deploy resources to HEAVEN FORBID New Jersey to defend a corrupt senator in a so-called blue wave year, it becomes yet another piece of evidence that the DNC does not have core principles the way a political party should.

And Hugin, from what I've been told, seems to have moderate views on social issues. But unfortunately, most voters are probably like Wolverine22, in the sense that they will support a candidate no matter what they do, so long as they have an R or D next to their name. That was what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore last year. 91% of Republicans supported him even after the pedophilia allegations came out.

I would assume Hugin has somewhat moderate social views; it'd likely be mandatory for a republican to win in New Jersey with far right social views. I don't know much about his positions, but I'd gather that they probably are somewhat close to my blue state Republican Governor's positions - social moderate / fiscal conservative.

And re: Moore, there's a non-crazy argument to be made that it's more strategically inept to end up with Menendez, as opposed to Moore. It of course goes without saying that morally, Moore's behavior is considered worse by the overwhelming majority of people, but his behavior came to light only after winning his primary. Menendez had been indicted, had the case end in a mistrial, and was severely sanctioned by the full Senate before his primary. And it's not like NJ doesn't have a deep Dem bench. I just fundamentally don't understand the loyalty the party and by extension, the voters, has shown to Menendez, especially when contrasted against Menendez's former colleague from Minnesota.

I don't understand the last part, in bold, either. But I think the difference in how these situations were treated was that Minnesota, both at the time the allegations against Al Franken came out, and now, had a Democratic Governor, whereas Chris Christie was still in office while Menendez's corruption trial was underway. Partisan concerns were probably the reason why the Democrats did not apply pressure on Menendez at that time to resign. And once his case ended in a mistrial, they could make the claim that the matter had been litigated, and that it was time to move on. Hopefully, since Menendez will win reelection (unless if he is charged again or sexual allegations on par with Moore's come out), this will be his last term, and he will either retire or be primaried out in 2024.

[Calthrina950]

As long as it wasn’t Roy Moore-type allegations against him, I’d enthusiastically vote for Menendez in this race. This election is a referendum on Trump, therefore you need to vote for the party, not the person. I’d vote for Rod Blagojevich or Edwin Edwards before I’d vote Republican in any congressional race this year.

That's not necessarily true. I would rather support the candidate that has at least some ethics over the one that does not. I'm not a straight-ticket voter who votes based purely on party identification. I look at the candidates, evaluate their relative merits, and vote accordingly.

This is really the only way to properly vote - take the candidates that you're given, weight their positions in terms of personal importance and vote for the least bad option. In most cases, this exercise will result a vote for the candidate of the party where the voter most often leans, but for voters with less traditional priorities or candidates with ethical issues, the calculus is less straightforward. On Menendez, I would - without hesitation - cast a Hugin vote in New Jersey because Bribery Bob is that odious. Presumably, based on this poll, a fair number of left-leaning indies feel the same way.

And if it gets too close for comfort and the national party has to deploy resources to HEAVEN FORBID New Jersey to defend a corrupt senator in a so-called blue wave year, it becomes yet another piece of evidence that the DNC does not have core principles the way a political party should.

And Hugin, from what I've been told, seems to have moderate views on social issues. But unfortunately, most voters are probably like Wolverine22, in the sense that they will support a candidate no matter what they do, so long as they have an R or D next to their name. That was what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore last year. 91% of Republicans supported him even after the pedophilia allegations came out.

Yeah, Hugin is running one of the most moderate campaigns of any Republican candidate this year. New Jersey often has Green Party candidates on the ballot though, among others, so voters have other options for expressing their dissatisfaction with Menendez while still casting a vote.

If you're someone who cares about corruption, access, campaign finance laws, or anything like that, I don't think you can justify voting for someone like Menendez. If this makes you feel guilty about jeopardizing control of the Senate, assuage your conscience by sending $50 to Joe Donnelly or someone else in a competitive contest.

I certainly do care about these things, which I why I would not be voting for Menendez if I were a New Jersey voter. But unfortunately, many Democratic voters will overlook this and vote for him just because he is a Democrat, and just because they can't stomach voting for a Republican or a third-party candidate. The irony is that this was true in 2016 with many Republican voters, who voted for Donald Trump (despite their personal misgivings with him), just because he was a Republican and was better than the alternatives. I am not like this, which is why I went third-party in 2016 and split my ticket otherwise. 

[Calthrina950]

Menendez sucks, but democrats cant afford to lose a single seat if they want to put a check on Trump. You'd be fooling yourself if you think Hugin wouldnt be a rubber stamp for anything Trump wanted and would vote to protect him at every turn. Even Collin's herself votes with the president 80% of the time. So If you care about "corruption, access, campaign finance laws, or anything like that", then the only choice is Menendez.

Edit:

And seriously, its a Gravis poll paid for by Brietbart. This race will not be close, nor should it be. I wish Menendez had lost his primary but for the sake of a better furture, Menendez needs to and will win re-election in November.

But is Menendez's seat absolutely necessary for the Democrats? What if they pickup Nevada and Arizona, and hold the seats in the swing states? What if they pickup Tennessee? It's unfortunate the only thing which could knock Menendez off would be a Roy Moore-type scandal.

[Calthrina950]

Menendez sucks, but democrats cant afford to lose a single seat if they want to put a check on Trump. You'd be fooling yourself if you think Hugin wouldnt be a rubber stamp for anything Trump wanted and would vote to protect him at every turn. Even Collin's herself votes with the president 80% of the time. So If you care about "corruption, access, campaign finance laws, or anything like that", then the only choice is Menendez.

Edit:

And seriously, its a Gravis poll paid for by Brietbart. This race will not be close, nor should it be. I wish Menendez had lost his primary but for the sake of a better furture, Menendez needs to and will win re-election in November.

But is Menendez's seat absolutely necessary for the Democrats? What if they pickup Nevada and Arizona, and hold the seats in the swing states? What if they pickup Tennessee? It's unfortunate the only thing which could knock Menendez off would be a Roy Moore-type scandal.

I'm assuming we lose either Donnelly, McCaskill or Heitkamp. Maybe we lose all three. There is very little room for error.

There is, but I would rather have a tied Senate then one in which the majority is thanks to some corrupted personage. But that is my personal opinion. It's unfortunate that partisanship is more important than choosing the more ethical and more upright candidate.

[Calthrina950]

Menendez sucks, but democrats cant afford to lose a single seat if they want to put a check on Trump. You'd be fooling yourself if you think Hugin wouldnt be a rubber stamp for anything Trump wanted and would vote to protect him at every turn. Even Collin's herself votes with the president 80% of the time. So If you care about "corruption, access, campaign finance laws, or anything like that", then the only choice is Menendez.

Edit:

And seriously, its a Gravis poll paid for by Brietbart. This race will not be close, nor should it be. I wish Menendez had lost his primary but for the sake of a better furture, Menendez needs to and will win re-election in November.

But is Menendez's seat absolutely necessary for the Democrats? What if they pickup Nevada and Arizona, and hold the seats in the swing states? What if they pickup Tennessee? It's unfortunate the only thing which could knock Menendez off would be a Roy Moore-type scandal.

I'm assuming we lose either Donnelly, McCaskill or Heitkamp. Maybe we lose all three. There is very little room for error.

There is, but I would rather have a tied Senate then one in which the majority is thanks to some corrupted personage. But that is my personal opinion. It's unfortunate that partisanship is more important than choosing the more ethical and more upright candidate.

Menendez is the more ethical and more upright candidate.

How can you say that? He's probably the most corrupt Senator in office right now.

[Calthrina950]

As long as it wasn’t Roy Moore-type allegations against him, I’d enthusiastically vote for Menendez in this race. This election is a referendum on Trump, therefore you need to vote for the party, not the person. I’d vote for Rod Blagojevich or Edwin Edwards before I’d vote Republican in any congressional race this year.

That's not necessarily true. I would rather support the candidate that has at least some ethics over the one that does not. I'm not a straight-ticket voter who votes based purely on party identification. I look at the candidates, evaluate their relative merits, and vote accordingly.

This is really the only way to properly vote - take the candidates that you're given, weight their positions in terms of personal importance and vote for the least bad option. In most cases, this exercise will result a vote for the candidate of the party where the voter most often leans, but for voters with less traditional priorities or candidates with ethical issues, the calculus is less straightforward. On Menendez, I would - without hesitation - cast a Hugin vote in New Jersey because Bribery Bob is that odious. Presumably, based on this poll, a fair number of left-leaning indies feel the same way.

And if it gets too close for comfort and the national party has to deploy resources to HEAVEN FORBID New Jersey to defend a corrupt senator in a so-called blue wave year, it becomes yet another piece of evidence that the DNC does not have core principles the way a political party should.

And Hugin, from what I've been told, seems to have moderate views on social issues. But unfortunately, most voters are probably like Wolverine22, in the sense that they will support a candidate no matter what they do, so long as they have an R or D next to their name. That was what happened in Alabama with Roy Moore last year. 91% of Republicans supported him even after the pedophilia allegations came out.

I would assume Hugin has somewhat moderate social views; it'd likely be mandatory for a republican to win in New Jersey with far right social views. I don't know much about his positions, but I'd gather that they probably are somewhat close to my blue state Republican Governor's positions - social moderate / fiscal conservative.

And re: Moore, there's a non-crazy argument to be made that it's more strategically inept to end up with Menendez, as opposed to Moore. It of course goes without saying that morally, Moore's behavior is considered worse by the overwhelming majority of people, but his behavior came to light only after winning his primary. Menendez had been indicted, had the case end in a mistrial, and was severely sanctioned by the full Senate before his primary. And it's not like NJ doesn't have a deep Dem bench. I just fundamentally don't understand the loyalty the party and by extension, the voters, has shown to Menendez, especially when contrasted against Menendez's former colleague from Minnesota.

I don't understand the last part, in bold, either. But I think the difference in how these situations were treated was that Minnesota, both at the time the allegations against Al Franken came out, and now, had a Democratic Governor, whereas Chris Christie was still in office while Menendez's corruption trial was underway. Partisan concerns were probably the reason why the Democrats did not apply pressure on Menendez at that time to resign. And once his case ended in a mistrial, they could make the claim that the matter had been litigated, and that it was time to move on. Hopefully, since Menendez will win reelection (unless if he is charged again or sexual allegations on par with Moore's come out), this will be his last term, and he will either retire or be primaried out in 2024.

Respectfully, I just don't agree. Phil Murphy is currently governor and it would've been easy for Menendez to resign under the cloud of scandal a couple of days after Murphy was sworn in. Or he could've foregone re-election entirely and stepped aside for someone else! And realistically, the only reason the trial ended in a mistrial is due to the Court's lax standard in McDonnell for corruption charges. I'm partially jaded and think that the difference is that New Jersey has strong machine politics roots and Menendez was still valuable to the machine, whereas Minnesota has less of a machine tradition and there was less pushback when the national effort formed to oust him.

It's also possible that the Party made a strategic decision that they could survive a corrupt candidate and not a #metoo candidate, but then my response would be to inquire why you'd want either...

I don't think there is too much of a divergence in our views here. It would have been best for Menendez to have resigned after Murphy took office, if Democrats sought to maintain the seat. But he didn't, and he won the primary, so now they are stuck with him. Hopefully, the race will be decided by a single-digit margin, enough so as to dissuade him from running for reelection six years from now.