New Jersey 2008

[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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Also on a diffrent note which counties would a Republican Presidental canidate have to flip and how well would a Republican Presidental canidate have to do in the soildly Republican parts of the state in order to win it.

Win Bergen win the state usually (except for Franks in 2000 who also lost by 2%), so Guiliani could do that (not that hard), flip Passaic and push 40 in Hudson and Essex he would win.

[Kevin]

Also on a diffrent note which counties would a Republican Presidental canidate have to flip and how well would a Republican Presidental canidate have to do in the soildly Republican parts of the state in order to win it.

Win Bergen win the state usually (except for Franks in 2000 who also lost by 2%), so Guiliani could do that (not that hard), flip Passaic and push 40 in Hudson and Essex he would win.

Something tells me that New Jersey could go Republican in 08, I know you're all going to call me crazy for that, But I just have a feeling it will happen.   

[bullmoose88]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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, wrong, sorry.  We disproved that in another thread already.  This "9/11 bounce" liberals use to justify New Jersey's swing is negligable.  Stop trying to use it.  I'll go over it again if I have to, but I'd rather not.

Then link to your rebuttal.

I've seen other such attempted rebuttals before, but all of them ignore that Bush only made massive gains in the NYC metro. He made no gains in suburban Philly or Baltimore, just for two examples.

[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. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Unless they GOP nominates Giuliani forget about it going GOP.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Rudy is the type of Republican that voters in NJ used to be comfortable voting for, and I think they still would be. 

Like Tom Kean, Jr.

[Kevin]

Rudy is the type of Republican that voters in NJ used to be comfortable voting for, and I think they still would be. 

Like Tom Kean, Jr.

Kean was a poor canidate in a anti-Republican year, He would have stood a chance had the Foley thing not happened.

[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.

[Tender Branson]

If Giuliani is able to advance to the General Election (which I somehow doubt) and his counterpart is Hillary, then it might be some kind of swingstate, but in the end I´d give Hillary at least a 3% advantage.

Every other Republican (Thompson, McCain, Romney, Gingrich) is going to lose this state against her ...

[auburntiger]

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.

I agree. Social issues won't have nearly as much impact on the '08 election. They already were last elections. If its Hillary vs. Rudy, I doubt social issues will be brought up much b/c they agree on alot.
the big one = Iraq. The second most important = illegal immigration, which I believe Rudy is strong on. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Conan]

Rudy is the type of Republican that voters in NJ used to be comfortable voting for, and I think they still would be. 

Like Tom Kean, Jr.

Kean was a poor canidate in a anti-Republican year, He would have stood a chance had the Foley thing not happened.

That's one of the most ridiculous reasons I have read on why he was defeated.

[Aizen]

The Democratic party in New Jersey is pretty lousy and that's probably why NJ isn't as much of a Dem stronghold as it should be

[Verily]

the big one = Iraq. The second most important = illegal immigration, which I believe Rudy is strong on. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that everywhere I go, New Jerseyans disagree with Giuliani about Iraq. Some few are aware that Clinton was not always an opponent of Iraq, but she is now, and has been for long enough (three years by election day) that it shouldn't hurt her. If 2008 is fought on Iraq, Clinton wins New Jersey (and the country) in a landslide. (I am not, of course, suggesting that it will be, but Giuliani's unabashed support certainly won't help.)

Illegal immigration is a major issue in border states and in states with industrial employment problems (the Rust Belt, North Carolina textiles), but not in a state like New Jersey, which is affected minimally by illegal immigration and generally mostly in a positive way (there are just enough illegal immigrants to fill undesirable jobs without being a burden on the economy). I can't see New Jersey voters getting riled up about immigration reform.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

[auburntiger]

the big one = Iraq. The second most important = illegal immigration, which I believe Rudy is strong on. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that everywhere I go, New Jerseyans disagree with Giuliani about Iraq. Some few are aware that Clinton was not always an opponent of Iraq, but she is now, and has been for long enough (three years by election day) that it shouldn't hurt her. If 2008 is fought on Iraq, Clinton wins New Jersey (and the country) in a landslide. (I am not, of course, suggesting that it will be, but Giuliani's unabashed support certainly won't help.)

Illegal immigration is a major issue in border states and in states with industrial employment problems (the Rust Belt, North Carolina textiles), but not in a state like New Jersey, which is affected minimally by illegal immigration and generally mostly in a positive way (there are just enough illegal immigrants to fill undesirable jobs without being a burden on the economy). I can't see New Jersey voters getting riled up about immigration reform.

I can guarantee you she won't win in a landslide. There's too much polarization in this country for either Rudy or her to win big, and by that I mean 330+. IMO, the maximum Hillary could achieve would be to gain NM, IA, and OH, giving her 284. The maximum I think Rudy could get would be to gain WI, PA, NH giving him 321.

Also, illegal immigration may prove to be a bigger issue than people think. There was a video shown on Fox tonight about illegals attacking border patrol officers!! How much longer will we tolerate this crap?!? I really hope and pray this amnesty bill DOES NOT PASS!!

Side note: Trent Lott made a backroom deal with Mistah Kennedy

[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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

Agree to an extent, however, I think that the candidates they put out are so corrupt it might eventually catch up

(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.

Of course

(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.

Kean had all the momentum and would have won by at least 3 points had the Foley scandal not hit.

(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.

Why would he be so strong in Bergen consider the recent trending to the contrary?

(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?

Giuliani wins NJ easily

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

Careful now, because you're arguing two different things.  I agree that there's a built-in Democratic advantage in NJ so far as GOTV goes -- they're just way better at it than Republicans.  This typically hands them one to three points over their final polling numbers.

All of that, of course, has nothing to do with Mark Foley.  The Democratic advantage comes on Election Day, not weeks before.  (Case in point: the Corzine/Franks and Corzine/Forrester races both tightened in the final 1-2 weeks in favor of the Republican.)

In the case of New Jersey 2006, the race had been a narrow see-saw battle up through late September, when Kean had built a tiny, but consistent and confirmable lead in both internal and external polling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On September 28, 2006, ABC News first published the emails between Foley and a former page.  And what happened with Tom Kean's polling numbers?  Compare the first post-Foley poll from each pollster compared to the final pre-Foley poll from each:

Quinnipiac (10/4 - 10/10):  49D (+4) / 45R (-3)
Rasmussen (10/11):  44D (+4) / 40R (-1)
Monmouth University (10/16 - 10/19): 48D (+10) / 39R (-5)

That's no coincidence.  Foley sent the Kean camp into a stumble from which they were unable to recover.

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.

How anyone can make a solid prediction based on the incredibly fluid debate of the Iraq War is beyond me: the 2008 Elections seem likely to be taking place during a period of significant troop withdrawls.  Personally, I believe Iraq will have proved to be more significant to the 2006 Elections than to the 2008 ones.

As to Bergen County specifically, Republicans there are at the very least on the right track: Chairman Guy Talarico is on the way out (in total and utter disgrace, I might add), and the ridiculous divisions in the County party are likely to die with Talarico's reign.  The Bergen GOP was in full on war mode with itself in 2006, and was in no shape to support Kean: the conservative activists who captured the party banner distrusted him for pushing a moderate County Exec candidate into the fray; the moderate activists distrusted Kean because he backed off of support of that candidate and left her twisting in the wind.

Bergen has an inordinate number of moderate Independent voters: they went wild for McGreevey in 2001 while re-electing GOP incumbent Rose Heck to a ~67% Gore district.  They've swung hard towards the Democrats recently, but they've really had no reason to support the GOP.  Giuliani presents a local candidate that Bergen County is very familiar with and very supportive of.  If there's any single county in NJ where Giuliani shines best in relative to his competition, it'd have to be Bergen.

[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.

[AndrewTX]

Eh, Giuiliani is the only republican that can win New Jersey, and I think he'll still lose it by 2 or 3 pts.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

I would like to dispute your arguement that this happened in 2005.  Corzine started with a big lead over Forrester, one that began to narrow
at the beginning of October, not expand.  Take a look at the first few polls in October 2005, compared with the last pre-October poll from the same pollster:
RASMUSSEN (10/04)  45D (-2) / 38R (+2)
RUTGERS (10/3-6)  44D (-5) / 37R (+6)
FDU (10/4-9)  48D (+4) / 40R (+4)
STRAT VISION (10/8-10) 46D (-4) / 40R (0)

In mid-to-late October, there was a move toward Corzine in the polls: SUSA had him gaining slightly, as did Marist and Quinnipiac.  The final set of polls, however, had the race tightening back up to a resonably accurate picture of the final numbers: Quinnipiac had Corzine gaining two to 52% while Forrester gained seven to 45%.  (Actual result, 53 - 43.)

That's nothing like the polling story of 2005, which initially had Kean ahead, then Menendez took the lead in the early summer...until Kean took the lead back in mid-fall, only to lose it convincingly once the Foley matter broke.

A chart of the 2005 polling can be seen here: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/pollgraph.cgi?RaceID=3910&Width=600&Height=400&NoGraphMOE=&NoPollsters=0&SPC4768=%23009900&SPC63082=%2300AAFF&SPC73156=%23AA00BB

In 2004, Kerry did indeed gain around the beginning of October in some polls, it's true, but New Jersey's polling was a jumbled mess throughout the election.  Case in point: Bush had a lead in the 9/14 SUSA poll; FDU had the race tied on (10/14); Quinnipiac had the race tied on (10/25); and Strategic Vision had the race tied on (10/31).  Meanwhile, SUSA had Bush behind by 8 on (10/18); Rutgers had bush behind by 13 on (10/17); and Rasmussen had Bush behind by 8 on (10/30).

The final result was a 6.7% win for Kerry.

But then, in 2000, we had a U.S. Senate election where Bob Franks was hopelessly behind up through the summer and fall, and then all of a sudden found himself in a statistical tie with Corzine in the final Quinnipiac poll.

Your "long history" for New Jersey polling is a selective one.

[DownWithTheLeft]

We are only 7 years removed from Franks ALMOST beating Corzine