Eagleton polled 886 registered voters, but the main differences is they did not push leaners, and they also gathered the results by who controlled each district by asking if they'd vote for the current Congressman or "challenger running against him." Note that this gave two (or three) sub-samples. So the results are:
In the statewide generic ballot by party, Democrats are at 33% and Republicans at 31%.
In the five Republican districts, Republicans are at 40% and Democrats at 25%.
In the eight Democratic districts, Democrats are at 41% and Republicans at 22%.
As the pollster notes, "Nearly 20 percent do not know how they will vote, and 10 percent say they do not plan to vote at all." Of course, a lot more than 10% of registered voters will skip the election.
You might think 47-39 doesn't seem much like 33-31, but going back to the FDU poll, without leaners Democrats led 39-34. I don't think it is really too different from Eagleton. I personally suspect the "with leaners" sample gives a better view, because I don't believe so many voters are really persuadable.
Anyway, I think Professor Redlawsk has a pretty good quote summing it up:
"The overall picture statewide seems to suggest that Republicans are at parity with Democrats in 2010, but this is misleading," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "While the statewide vote may be close, it is less likely to be so in most congressional districts. We did not poll at the district level, and in the 3rd district Democrat John Adler is likely to face a very difficult challenge. Still, at the aggregate level incumbents of both parties start the year with an advantage over potential general election challengers."
It would be really interesting to get a poll of Adler's NJ3 district, but in truth it's too early to be definitive.
Quick Update: President Obama has 57-37 approve-disapprove on his job, and 56-31 for "general impression." Democrats in Congress are at 35-42 and Republicans at an even worse 25-48. 52% says Obama's change is happening "too slowly."
The sample has 55% claiming they voted for Obama and 31% claiming McCain which might argue some Republicans are missing. On the other hand, maybe they are in the 6% who claim they voted for someone else (Palin?), and furthermore, the sample also claims they voted 42-31 for Christie over Corzine which is a better margin for Republicans than reality. So it's probably just difficult to get people to say they voted for the unpopular loser.
It sometimes feels like a political eternity has gone by since President Obama was sworn-in with a Democratic Congress last January. After sweeping into office with the most electoral votes since L.B.J in 1964, our country was poised to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. A little over a year later, we have made a lot of progress and realized important achievements on issues long neglected by the Republicans.
But there is much more to do. This Congress and this President are on path to do more. True to their pattern of siding with special interests, the Republican obstructionists are fighting hard to turn back the clock to the policies that caused so much harm to begin with. We need to fight back.
The losses over the last year - Senator Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, as well as the gubernatorial races in Virginia and right here in New Jersey-show that there are political obstacles. We can clearly see that those who stand opposed to reforming health care, protecting the environment and creating good jobs for American workers are well-funded and highly motivated. We can learn from those political setbacks and use them to motivate more people to join us in the fight for more progress.
Two years ago, special interest groups poured $1 billion into American elections - mostly trying to discredit Barack Obama and Democratic candidates. This year their influence could even be more pernicious. I'm sure you're aware the Supreme Court recently issued a ruling removing all limits on corporate money. This will open the floodgates and give corporations unchecked influence over our political process. Big business - even those owned by foreign entities - can now crack open their treasure chests to buy as much television time and as many direct mail pieces as they want to help out their handpicked candidates. Washington Republicans and right-wing challengers will most assuredly reap the benefits - since they've been staunch advocate for tax giveaways to the wealthy and the companies they represent. America is already struggling with the worst recession since the Great Depression, caused in large part by the reckless behavior of big business. The last thing our nation needs is for these same companies to be able to buy elections and undermine our political process.
First up, President Barack Obama is at a 53% job approval rating (an improvement on the sub-50 showing last time). Disapproval is at 38%, so the the net +15 matches the margin he beat McCain by in 2008. His numbers with independents are 53-33.
On the other hand, the right track/wrong track numbers for the country are at 38-52, hardly surprising with 10% unemployment, massive deficits, and victory-less wars.
Democrats lead the generic ballot for U.S. Congress 47-39 with leaners. That doesn't exactly suggest many Democratic incumbents will be swept away, though I don't doubt NJ3 is a battlefield.
If the election were held today, Senator Bob Menendez would get 38%, a (hypothetical candidate) Tom Kean Jr would get 39%, Someone else gets 6%. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but not unfamiliar either. The pollster notes that Menendez did worse with the subgroup that was asked about him closer to the questions about health care reforms.
Senator Menendez is at 29-25, favorable-unfavorable, and Senator Frank Lautenberg is at 42-29. The negative ads of 2006 have been forgotten as Kean Jr is at 28-11. Kean was at 33-32 at the end of the last campaign, so you can see that campaigns matter.
As for health care reform, the numbers are lousy but not disastrous, as you know if you follow it in national polls. 37% think they will be better off and 42% think they will be worse off if health care reform passes. On the other hand, for the "country as a whole," "better" leaads "worse" 45-40. No doubt the numbers are dragged down by strong Republican opposition, but the two sets for independents are 31-35 and 41-33. The numbers are very striking by race, because only 28% of "Whites" think they'll be better off. Overall, 35% say they'd advise their memver of Congress to vote for a health care reform bill, 40% against, and 25% don't know. That 25% is more Democrats and Independents, so they need to be won over, perhaps by the reality of the bill helping them. (Cough, cough, too bad some genius designed most of the benefits to start years from now.)
A comment over on Blue Jersey about the state of our Congressional District really raised an eyebrow and got me thinking. The comment was this:
I'll give you another example - I live in NJ-5, Scott Garrett is my congressman. It is looking more and more like the county parties aren't going to put ANYONE up - at a time where republican turnout will be higher and more motivated than the past 5+ years.
This is a sad statement on our politics in their current state. Gerrymandering has gotten to a point where folks like Garrett can serve until they are redistricted out or retire. His only threat real and perceived is in the primary, when the smallest fraction of the electorate makes all the decisions. Democrats won't run anyone because they don't want to spend the money. Politics is a business.
This reality undermines the entire intent of a Representative being accountable to their constituents. Forget the fact that the Democrats can't get someone who believes enough in their values to step up. With the Democrats punting, there's no one to bring up relevant questions for voters to ponder at the ballot box. Why vote against small business tax cuts repeatedly? Why vote against balancing the budget repeatedly? Why vote against extending unemployment benefits repeatedly? Why vote to hasten Medicare's insolvency?
Granted, Garrett is by all accounts safe in this seat. In fact it hasn't really been close on election day in a very long time. That said, Democrats failure to supply voters with any kind of alternative abdicates their fundamental responsibility in our already flawed two party system.
I do not think Leonard Lance can be beaten in a Republican Primary. Even if David Larsen won, he would be cut out in redistricting in 2012."
Doherty's statement is sure to anger some of the same people that put him in office, but his decision seems to be more about is own political standing and thinking Lance is the safe bet so it's better to keep his powder dry in this one. Larsen will need to raise some seed money to show people he's serious and not just looking to loan his campaign money for the effort. I'm told that Lance won't be the only Republican to get a challenge from the tea party crowd as someone may run against Frank Lobiondo.
Then in the seats held by Democrats, there are a few primary races to run against the Incumbent. There are numerous candidate running in the 3rd district and Justin Murphy could also get support from the tea partiers as he runs again this year. There is also the primary to run against Rush Holt as Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle will face off in a right v. further right battle and there may be more candidates to jump in the race. Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini and others have expressed interest in challenging to run against Frank Pallone as well. The tea partiers are even saying they may put someone up against Scott Garrett from the right, if that's possible in comments to stories that are being written. The amount of candidate running in GOP primaries can be seen as an indication of the enthusiasm and also anger out there with the public right now, who only want to see 8% of incumbent re-elected right now.
By contrast, the Democrats in New Jersey don't seem to like primaries as much. The only primary challenge I've seen so far is one against John Adler, but his warchest will make that an uphill climb. I know inside political circles they tend to shy away from primaries, because it makes you spend resources you want to conserve for the general election battle and take stands you often don't want to defend. But sometimes primaries can better prepare candidates for the trial by fire that is a general election campaign. Even if the GOP candidates don't win their primary challenges, the incumbents will already be in campaign mode given the voter angst right now. The competitive primaries to challenge Democratic incumbents will season them for the rigors of a race. With the climate and public opinion where it is, it's important that candidates don't wait to start their campaigns and these primaries insure that the GOP won't.
The Washington Post had an extensive story yesterday about Senator Menendez and his role leading the DSCC. The story went into looking at the Massachusetts debacle and found an anonymous White House official ready to air some dirty laundry:
One senior administration official, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the White House's grievances, acknowledged that there was plenty of blame to go around, especially in the failure to notice how intensely Republican voters were motivated. But the official also argued that Menendez bore a larger burden because it was his job to protect the seat.
"I don't understand how they could have missed how fundamentally unsound the candidate was," said the administration official. "They shouldn't have been surprised by it."
The anonymous source continued saying that his predecessor would never have allowed it to happen:
"Chuck Schumer would have been a rabid dog if he had one race in America and he wouldn't have rested, even if he had a 40-point lead," said the official, who argued the committee needed an A-team on the ground sooner. "They chose not to do that because it was a comfortable lead and they wanted to save their resources for what they thought were going to be really tough races."
But of course once the dirt was shoveled on Menendez, the official on the record comment completely contradicted the anonymous comments:
"That's not a view I share," said David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, adding that there was plenty of blame to go around. "I don't think any one institution or person bears a preponderance of responsibility for that. They have a very good staff over there, they do a very good job. This is not a case where you can say this was their fault."
While I agree with Axelrod that everyone shares blame, he's pretty much trying to close the gate after the horses have gotten out at this point. For his part, Menendez said the anonymous comments weren't helpful:
"Finger-pointing here is not only irresponsible, it risks misreading the political environment right now."
The bottom line is the DSCC is charged with paying attention to make sure that just this situation doesn't occur. Coakley shouldn't have been able to go dark for weeks after the primary and when they went off the reservation, the campaign should have been reigned back in. They can say Coakley wasn't the best candidate or who they would have wanted, but you have the candidate you have at that point. They tried to get more involved but at that point it was to late. Massachusetts needs to serve as a wake up call and an opportunity to be better prepared for the difficult road ahead. It's going to be a tough climate out there, but turning the attacks inward isn't going to make that job any easier. They all should have seen this coming and they all should work together to make sure it doesn't happen again.
If a Democrat beats Congressman Frank LoBiondo in this November's election, it won't be State Senator Jeff Van Drew doing it. Van Drew has confirmed to Coastal Broadcasting that he will not be running against LoBiondo in this November's election. The State Senator will be up for reelection 2011, along with Assemblyman Nelson Albano and Matt Milam. Cape May Councilman David Kurkowski ran against LoBiondo in 2008, in the Republican's most recent victory.
After he didn't pull the trigger in 2008 with all the wind at the back of Democrats, I wasn't expecting him to jump in this year given the current climate. He didn't close the door on a future run however:
"I'm not going to be running in this cycle," said Van Drew, D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic.
While Van Drew will not run, Egg Harbor Township resident George Sakura says he plans to run. He hasn't spoken to the Atlantic County Chair about his run yet and says he plans on running not against LoBiondo, but against the idea of lobbyists running the country. We will have to see if anyone else steps forward to challenge for the Democrats and if he gets anyone running against him from the right in the primary as well.
As things shape up for a packed primary, everyone is jockeying to show their influence and now the Camden County Republicans are feeling their oats:
The truce between Ocean County chairman George Gilmore and Burlington County chairman William Layton seemed headed south in December, when Layton reiterated his support for NFL player Jon Runyan's candidacy. But the three chairmen, along with state party head Jay Webber, sat down shortly before the New Year in an attempt to calm the storm.
The plan, Camden County chairman Rick DeMichele said in an interview on Wednesday, involves Camden County Republicans holding off on an endorsement until the Ocean and Burlington parties name their pick.
"I discussed with them my desire to be the last county party to endorse," DeMichele said. "If they can't come to a consensus, then wherever Camden goes gives that candidate a clear advantage."
So his 15% will decide he says, while 42% of the district is in Burlington County and 43% in Ocean. And about that double secret meeting:
None of the chairmen would divulge details of what was said in their meeting, however. Asked if his organization would switch its endorsement if Camden and Burlington went the other way, Gilmore would not commit.
"We'll cross all those bridges when we come to them," he said.
Oh boy do I hope they cross that bridge. This is starting to be some real fun. Camden County has never felt the power to really play and even if they don't have it, I'm enjoying them trying to flex their muscles. If the party chair power struggle wasn't enough, enter new candidate to the field Joe Rullo:
While Runyan and the party chairs grab local headlines, one prospective candidate is sitting in frustration. Joseph R. Rullo isn't persuaded by assurances that all potential challengers will get a fair hearing. He's already up with a campaign Web site -- rullo4congress2010.com -- and has announced a Feb. 18 fundraiser.
"He's counted me out," said Rullo, a 40-year-old solar energy consultant. "It hurt my feelings."
Hurt feelings? Uh ok. This is politics and bare knuckle with who he's playing. He needs to get a thicker skin if he's upset that they don't want him to take their power. Layton for his part could care less what anyone else says. He's had enough Runyan Kool Aid to last the cycle:
"The excitement is overwhelming, quite frankly," Layton said, describing voter reaction to Runyan's candidacy.
Layton is like one of those pull string dolls. Pull string... Jon Runyan is the greatest. Pull string... Jon Runyan is exciting. Pull string... Everyone loves Jon Runyan.
My guess, George Gilmore is not amused and that must've been a fun meeting in December when they all sat down to make public peace in private.
If you thought things were shaping up to be fun in the 3rd Congressional District GOP pending primary, they just got a little more crowded yesterday according to the Atlantic City Press:
A former Democratic freeholder candidate and recent Republican campaign organizer is adding his name to the growing list of Republicans running for the party's nomination in the 3rd Congressional District race.
Joseph Rullo, 40, of Toms River, said he is going through the process to be endorsed by the Ocean County Republican Organization, but said he would still run in the primary even if not backed by the party.
Rullo owns Today's Solar Energy in Toms River and worked on Ocean County Freeholder Jack Kelly's 2008 primary campaign for congress. He has already opened a campaign headquarters, filed with the Federal Election Commission, and started a Web site that has, along with his bio and campaign platforms, pictures of his two cats.
Of course this news was not welcome to Bill Layton, the chairman in Burlington County and head cheerleader for Jon Runyan:
Burlington County Republican Chairman William Layton said he had not heard of Rullo or his candidacy until contacted Monday by The Press of Atlantic City.
Layton said he wished Rullo luck, but thought the keys to winning the upcoming election would be name recognition, fundraising ability and a personal story to contrast with Democratic Rep. John Adler.
Translation: If you're not Jon Runyan and you're not bringing a bank, you need not apply. And while George Gilmore got notice of Rullo's effort, it seems he was caught off guard by the stance the candidate has already taken on his run:
Ocean County Republican Chairman George Gilmore said Rullo had reached out to him saying Rullo was interested in running but not that he would be running in the primary regardless of the county's selection process results.
Gilmore said county organizations are put in place for the purpose of deciding what is best for the party as a whole, and that a contested primary would only weaken its chances in the general election.
"If we get in a primary fight, regardless of where candidates are coming from, it's not a good thing for keeping the unity of the party and focusing our attention on Mr. Adler and his record," he said.
Translation: I want to pick my own candidate through my organization and if you don't listen choosing to run anyway, it screws us all. This one is shaping up to be good. So far candidates saying they plan to run include Rullo, Jon Runyan, Mo Hill and Justin Murphy. Who else wants to join the party?
The news this week that North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd will not run again for re-election only complicates things for Senator Menendez in his role leading the DSCC. The Dodd news could actually prove to make the seat more secure for Democrats, but the Dorgan seat will be an uphill climb to hold. Here's what the Senator had to say about things yesterday:
DSCC chair Robert Menendez, the chief of Dem efforts to hold the Senate, acknowledged that the party faces a "challenge" next year, and declined to predict whether Dems would hold their super-majority.
But Menendez pushed back hard on the emerging media meme that the Dem retirements spell doom for the party, arguing that the GOP is defending six open Senate seats. Menendez also refused to concede that Byron Dorgan's Senate seat is a certain pickup for the GOP, as many argue, vowing a vigorous contest for it, though he conceded that Rep Earl Pomeroy, the most sought after Dem candidate, wasn't running.
Along with the Dorgan and Dodd seats for the Democrats, the Senator had more to say about the prospects for the GOP maintaining their seats:
"I would say the optics of having six Republican open seats is more significant," Menendez insisted, when asked to comment on the Dems' chances in the wake of the news about the retirements. "They have to run the table to be even at the end of the day,"
He added five of the races in those states - Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Kansas - are "very competitive," and vowed that Dems would benefit from the "bloody" GOP primaries underway in them.
They do have to run the table, but the climate may be a difficult one for Democrats to compete in. Follow me below the fold because there is plenty more to look at.
The Asbury Park Press is hoping for a GOP primary in the 3rd Congrssional District because like we've said before, it would be a reporters dream. It seems like they're trying to give a guide for how the GOP can beat Adler and they start with a competitive primary. But should Runyan be the candidate to challenge Adler for the seat, the APP offers this take:
In an arm-wrestling match against Adler - who is about half his size - he would do well. In debates with Adler, he could get sliced and diced.
I worry when expectations are set that low for anyone. I also don't know how much debates really matter. Before anyone get to any slicing and dicing, they need to get George Gilmore to sign off on a candidacy. The overall premise of their post is that an open primary would be better without the choosing of Gilmore and Layton. I'm guess they're just saying that and know there isn't a chance that would actually happen. That's like asking Kobayashi to stop eating hot dogs.
Senator Menendez appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday with Senators Spector, DeMint and Shelby. The roundtable discussion covered the attempted airline attack on Christmas night first. Here is the exchange:DeMint decided that this was the time to take a shot at Unions say it would be their fault if we gave collective bargaining to airport workers saying it was the top priority of the administration. They then turned to Healthcare reform where Senator Menendez had this exchange with host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, as a member of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, will the House basically have to accept the Senate compromise, given the fact that you passed your version without a vote to spare?
Well, I'm sure the conference will yield some changes, but the reality is, having served in the House and its leadership, I understand sometimes its frustrations with the Senate, but if we are going to have a final law, it will look a lot more like the Senate version than the House version.
And I'm sure there'll be some compromises, but at the end of the day, I would expect that it will look very much like the Senate version.
Wallace then gave DeMint another chance to take shots at just about everyone asking if he would file suit over the healthcare bill. Make sure you check out the exchange between Wallace and Menendez on the agenda for next year where the Senator tries to put things in perspective for the host.
It appears that people paid attention to the strategy of the Corzine campaign when it came to the issue of mammograms. From Politico:
With women's health issues increasingly at the forefront of the health care debate, pols have turned breast cancer into a potent campaign weapon. The volume in the war has ramped up in recent weeks after a government task force released findings - widely criticized by women's groups - recommending that it was unnecessary for women under 50 to screen for breast cancer.
"It resonates with 52 percent of the electorate," said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor for the Cook Political Report. "You can get yourself in a good bit of trouble being on the wrong side of the issue."
The focus on breast cancer signals a willingness on behalf of both parties to play political hardball on an issue typically outside the bounds of the campaign arena. While parties have clashed over abortion - another issue central to women's health concerns - the heated political rhetoric surrounding mammograms, experts say, is beyond the norm.
They pointed to the use of the issue in our very own race for Governor last cycle:
As early as this fall, with two governor's races up for grabs, Democrats had sought to turn the breast cancer issue against their Republican opponents. During the closing weeks of the New Jersey governor's race, Gov. Jon Corzine launched a full-bore TV assault accusing GOP rival Chris Christie of backing a health care policy that would not guarantee mammography coverage for women - a move that, at least temporarily, put the Republican on the defensive.
"No wonder why the insurance industry backs Christie's plan: Fewer mammograms. Bigger profits," one Corzine TV ad declared.
For Corzine, locked in a tough race, the strategy was straightforward: move the dial among women - a group of traditionally Democratic-leaning voters whose support Corzine was struggling to secure.
"I think it was effective in New Jersey," said Peter Woolley, executive director of the Farleigh Dickinson University Public Mind Poll, noting in the final month of the race Corzine jumped 6 percent among women on the question of whether he understood the needs of the average voter. "It clearly didn't move him enough, but it did help him with white women."
While it didn't move things enough for the Governor, there are additional factors that contributed to that. It remains to be seen whether the issue will have an impact in closer races where those additional problems that faced Corzine aren't in play. Either way, it appears mammograms are the latest political weapon.
There's an interesting post by Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling (PPP) on how health care reform will affect turnout in 2010. PPP did a good job with the New Jersey governor's race and I think we have to take his analysis seriously, though as he notes, this is all based on polls of the 2009 likely voters, so it's missing anyone who sat home for Corzine but would turn out next year. (Remember that PPP had Christie leading 47-41 in this poll; the actual result was 49-45.) They asked in both Virginia and New Jersey whether the voter would vote Republican or Democratic for Congress in 2010, which found they'd go Republican over Democratic 46-41 here, and then...
Second we asked how they would vote for Congress next year if no health care bill passed. In Virginia that increased the GOP lead to 49-35 and in New Jersey it expanded it to 45-38. In other words the failure to pass health care did not put any dent into the percentage of people saying they'll vote Republican next year. They're voting for the GOP whether health care passes or not. But it did create a small decline in Democratic support from voters who seem to be saying that if a Democratic Congress can't create meaningful health care reform what's the point in going out to vote Democratic anyway.
Third we asked how people would vote if Congress passed a health care bill with a public option. In Virginia the GOP led 51-39 under that scenario and in New Jersey it was a 47-40 advantage. So in Virginia Democrats poll slightly better with a comprehensive health care bill than without one and in New Jersey there's no difference.
All disputes over the quality of the health care reform bill aside, this is an illustration of why many of us also think a Democratic (Adler) vote against health care is political malpractice. While it makes little difference to most people, it seems there's evidence that failure will keep a bit of the base home, when what Democrats need is to increase turnout. The best you can hope, I suppose, is that the effect is small enough that perhaps it won't really pan out that way if health care reforms fails.
The White House wants David Paterson out of the running for New York's 2010 gubernatorial election. Paterson hopes they'll reconsider.
Because hey -- it worked for Jon Corzine.
In early August, David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard met at a New York City hotel with Corzine's campaign staffers, asking whether or not the incumbent governor could actually win. Corzine's people assured them that he could. Obama's pollster became a top level adviser and it was settled. Corzine would remain the nominee.
This is patty-cake compared to what the White House did to Governor Paterson -- planting a story on the front page of a Sunday edition of the New York Times saying they wanted him gone.
Matt's thoughts on redistricting - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi
I don't know what anyone else in the Blue Jersey community thinks, but I know nothing aggravates me more in New Jersey politics than the configuration of our current Congressional and Legislative Districts. If one were to GoogleIncumbent Protection Plan - New Jersey should be at the top of the list. Democrats and Republicans share the blame on this matter. Legislators cut deals all over the State to make their districts safer - and we should not let that happen again in 2010.
Competitive elections are the bedrock of effective and accountable representation. We need more "toss up" Senate and Assembly races up and down the State so that legislators are governing and serving the best interests of their constituents, and not best interests of corporate lobbyists and political insiders. I will address the political implications that will arise (for example 2 incumbent Senators from varying or like parties falling in the same district), but will not make political circumstances the basis for my analysis.
So in the interest of creating a more effective, and more importantly, more democratic, State Legislature, I am going to propose hypothetical legislative districts. My formula will be simple: New Jersey's population is approximately 8,682,661 people; therefore, each district should have roughly 217,067 people in them. Secondly, I will make every effort to keep municipalities together within a County - it makes sense from a logical and logistical standpoint. Finally, I will not breakup any cities or towns into separate districts. Democrats effectively broke up Newark and Jersey City during the last go round, and even though my party benefited from it, I still think it is wrong.
Some other notable points in how I will come about developing a hypothetical district: I will make every attempt to keep like communities together. For example, my hometown of Wanaque shares a regional high school with neighboring Ringwood; as such, there is no reason why we shouldn't share our State Senator and Assembly members. I will make every attempt to make as many districts as possible competitive and will only be looking at Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic counties in a vacuum-I don't know enough about local politics and municipalities in the other counties, so I wouldn't be able to render a fair assessment like I can for the aforementioned counties. Therefore, I will only be creating hypothetical districts for LD27 through LD40 (while plucking the Passaic towns from LD26 and excluding LD30, which for whatever reason is listed with North Jersey legislative districts).
Update by Hopeful: The call has been moved to 4pm Tuesday, Sept. 8
From an email sent out yesterday by the DSCC:
The 2010 Senate races are really heating up now.
From Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon jumping into the Louisiana race against Sen. David Vitter, to upcoming special elections, the map is constantly changing. Keeping up-to-date on the latest political machinations is crucial as we make plans to defeat the "Party of No" and expand our Senate majority. President Obama's change agenda depends on it.
That's why we at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wanted to let you know about a unique opportunity to hear from DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez. Senator Menendez will be holding a conference call at 2 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 3, and we want you to take part.
During the call, you'll get the inside scoop on the state of the races, key DSCC initiatives and our strategy for winning next November. It's the kind of information we all need to know as we gear up to bring down the forces of obstruction in the U.S. Senate.
I hope you will join Chairman Menendez on Thursday, and thanks for your support of the DSCC. We couldn't do it without you.
With the seats in New York, Illinois and Florida, coupled with the situation in Massachusetts and the Vitter seat in Louisiana, there will be plenty to cover. If you want to know what's going on from the point of view of the DSCC, this call is probably for you.
I don't know that it's much of a surprise that a first term Congressman in what has been considered a more conservative district is a target of the GOP, but John Adler makes the list:
Republicans hope an improved national political environment will help them contest many of the seats it recently lost. Of the 70 targets, 45 are freshmen and sophomores elected in the 2006 and 2008 wave elections.
House Republicans also appear confident that difficult votes on health care and energy legislation will put battle-tested members from conservative districts in trouble. There are over a dozen Blue Dog Democrats on the list, including those who have coasted to re-election in recent years.
When asked recently, potential challenger Diane Allen said it was "kind of early" for her to make a decision yet, but that she was watching and he hadn't done what she felt he needed to do yet. Their challenger in 2008, Chris Myers has been rumored to be the next Senator from Burlington County when the current Senator Phil Haines is appointed to be a judge in the fall, seemingly taking him out of the running. I'll put the full list and NRCC memo below the fold. Adler is the only NJ Democrat targeted by the NRCC.
Now that Chris Christie has chosen his running mate for Lieutenant Governor, people are already looking toward the next elections. Some attention will be paid to who challenges Freshman Congressman John Adler. Diane Allen, who was under consideration apparently to run with Christie, was asked about the prospects of a challenge to Adler in 2010:
"It is kind of early, and truthfully it's just nothing I've given any thought to," she said.
Allen said that her decision will depend on whether Adler does a good job addressing the district's issues.
"I've had conversations with John Adler about things I think need to be done, and we'll see if he gets them done," said Allen. "He hasn't yet."
I'm guessing another consideration will be the warchest that Adler is amassing. He raised the most money of any Frontline Democrat in the Country for the 2nd quarter and has received very favorable coverage for his work reaching out to constituents around the district.
Senator Menendez recently appeared on the Ed Show to talk about the importance of the Democrats having 60 votes. This interview was done the night that Al Franken was declared the winner in the Senate race. Menendez points out that while they may not always have all the Democrats on board, having 60 votes puts them in different bargaining position to apply pressure for getting further support. Have a look for yourself:
