He already said that he wouldn't. The GOP has filed a court case to prevent it, but with the amount of accepted options a candidate has to transfer campaign money around after they're done campaigning, I don't see how they can stop it from getting to Lautenburg somehow.

Nah. People don't have that long term of a memory. By election day, most people will have forgotten about the name switch controversy.

Forrester is the superior candidate. He wins 53%-47% over the elderly Lowsyberg.

Excuse me, GOP Reality Check: former Senator Frank LOWSYBERG? Senator Lautenburg, while indeed elderly (I give you points for that) has 18 years of Senatorial experience behind him. Doug Forrester has served 2 years in office-as Mayor of his town, as well as State Pension Director. Lautenburg, among other things, wrote the bill that bans smoking on airlines. Forrester has never written a bill in his lifetime. The point is, calling someone lousy when the record doesn't show it simply speaks volumes about a person. No poll out yet has shown Forrester beating Lautenburg-Zogby had Lautenburg up by 12. The point is, Lautenburg should win-I'd say by a 52-46 margin.

Probably more than that. Forrester shows no campaign skills so far other than being the not-Torricelli.

Lautenberg is like Wellstone with dementia and no people skills. He probably will win, but he consequently will replace Thurmond as the white elephant (or donkey) in the chamber.

Could we get rid of the 126.8% poll for Forrester. I doubt he'll do that well. Most candidates have trouble just getting to 100%

Okay.

Lautenburg has gained 3 points since the last Rutgers poll-Forrester has lost 2 points. This new poll came out after the "Ponderings" flap, so Forrester may have been hurt by that. Lautenburg is out with his first ad today-it's positive, describing his record and then stating the usual Democratic line for the future (perscription drugs, Social Security, etc.). If Lautenburg's ad is successful, he should be able to win. Keep in mind that he may have coatails for Anne Sumers and Tim Carden, which could make a difference.

Sorry about that. It was a carryover from when Neal admittedly had skewed the poll in favor of Torricelli.

Not a problem. Nice to see you've made it back.

Where would we be without Neil's long lists of statistics (something from the PW message days) :)

Wouldn't think the Bos is too happy about his hometown paper endorsing a GOPer.

If Lautenburg's across 50% in the next batch of polls, then this race is over. However, I am very displeased by the campaign here. Lautenburg has run constant negative attacks, rather than describing his record and what he wants to do in Washington. The Bergen Record didn't exactly endorse Glick, but it said that both major candidates were terrible. That's tantamount to endorsing Glick. Lautenburg will hopefully deliver for New Jersey in the Senate.

From a strategy viewpoint, it's really too late in a campaign to run positive ads. Lautenburg is doing what he needs to, and counting on his previous exposure for name recognition and positive feelings towards him.

I saw the first debate between Forrester and Lautenberg. I am worried that Lautenberg needs to be far more focused in the last debate. He wasn't in the earlier debate and he mightbe giving Forrester an unexpected opening in this race's last days. It was good though to see the poll result still showing Lautenberg up 51-41.

So few people actually watch congressional debates that Lautenburg would have to make a complete ass of himself to the point where he is panned by the people on the network news shows to lose this race.

I hope RParker. I did read positive reviews of the debate about the men's performances. I just fear some last minute thing could cause him to lose.

To all the Democrats who use this site, I have a question. Let's say you squeak through this election, maybe picking up a seat or two in the Senate. With two retread old farts responsible for the gains, will you feel a "mandate" from The People? I can't imagine why young people would be inclined to vote Democrat after this election -- which has exposed the raw, ugly underbelly of the Democratic party.

When I think about the 2000 election, I wonder the same thing about Republicans. Who would vote for a bunch of vile, under-handed dirty-tricksters who so obviously aren't even interested in helping the majority of their constituents... just the very rich ones. Where is George W. Bush's "mandate?" He didn't even get half the popular vote. Hell, he didn't even win Florida, and only gained office via a Supreme Court coup d'etat.

"With two retread old farts responsible for the gains" You mean, like Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms?

All right, for those Democrats who can't quite come to grips with the Florida results, tell me this: Please identify which (1) media/newspaper recount and (2) voting standard (dimples, hanging chads, etc.) you contend actually demonstrates Gore won Florida.

None of the above - that stuff is just the petty chicanery the republicans threw in for variety. http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency Read, please, and *learn*. Jeb and Katherine covered all the bases.

Patriot, here's what I read: "In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" So, you come down on the side of ex-felons voting? Is that how you maintain the Republicans cheated the public? By making sure ex-felons couldn't vote? I think that would make a great campaign issue for Democrats: "Vote Democrat to Stop Republicans From Barring Ex-Felons From Voting." I think that would sell like hotcakes all around the Country. Where's Carville!?!?!

Of the people on that ex-felon list, only about 5% were *actually* ex-felons. that's the whole point. The other 95% simply shared the same race and *similar* name to actual felons. Kind of a "Disqualify them all, just in case," attitude. Yeah, in case they don't vote for the shrub. Harris asked the firm in charge of the list to deliberately disqualify more people than should have been. She then told the people who complained that they should go through the process of seeking clemency from the Governor, even though they weren't actually felons. (It's a conveniently long process - no way they could have been eligible to vote in time.) The Florida Supreme Court told the Governor's office not to pull crap like that in TWO SEPARATE CASES, yet it still went on. Those kind of tricks made the race so close that Harris later had the opportunity to step in and try to GIVE Florida's electoral votes to Bush, anyway, whether the ballots were counted or not. That delayed things further, and got the Gore vs. Bush case time enough to get to the Supreme Court, who then pulled their little slam-dunk. And then proceeded to say "this case is unique, and can't be used as precedent to argue for anything else. Yeah, because it was a huge LOAD OF CRAP. It was a long process, and had many different fronts, but it all started in Florida with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Well, it may have started before that, but they were the ones who did the actual evil deeds and got the ball rolling.