This is one race where I wouldn't ind seeing the Republican win. As much as I've been impressed with Ulmer, I'd love to see Murkowski leave so that Knowles can win the seat in 2004-I think part of the reason this isn't the blowout we expected is because people don't want Murkowski to give up the clout he has in Washington.

In terms of a GOP congressional majority, it's best if Murkowski loses his race for Governor.

Unless he decides to call it quits after a loss, which is a definite possibility. In that case, it's a small negative to have Murkowski lose the chance to appoint his successor.

I think Ulmer has the momentum and will win in November. I think that Knowles will likely challenge Murkowski in 2004 anyway. If Murkowski can't beat Ulmer, how the crap can he beat Knowles.

Torricelli might resign within a couple of hours.
McGreevy will apoint his successor.
Lets go Senator Menendez

Holy shit where did you hear this?

Though I'll repsectfully disagree with your successor choice and suggest Senator Pallone-if Congressman Menendez stays where he is, he'll be Speaker Menendez in 10 years.

I read it on politicsnj.com. I think McGreevey will pick Pallone from Monmouth county. I lkie Menendez, but he wants to stay in the house. Can you say Senator Pallone?

Holy shocking developments Batman! Truly shocking!
But seriously, I hope it happens with all my heart. Any Democrat other than Torricelli can win this race.

If Torricelli resigns, the Forrester campaign is officially (by NJ law) over. The only catch is that Torricelli's successor must be named within 30 days of November's election. By NJ law, the appointed successor then would serve 2 years, and not be due up for election until 2004. If the successor is named outside of 30 days before the election, then he would be up for election this year.

My guess is that Torricelli resigns, then McGreevy appoints a successor sometime next week, once we're within the 30-day window. The successor is then a Senator for 2 years.

Looks like the Dems just saved a Senate loss, and are now practically guaranteed of holding the Senate. Assuming these rumors are true, of course. But it sure makes a lot of sense.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Menendez has turned down the opportunity to be named Torricelli's successor, or to run in his stead. Pallone, Lautenberg and Rob Andrews are considered the leading candidates.

This would basically seal it for the Democrats. Forrester came across to me as something of an empty suit who had one HUGE advantage-that he wasn't Bob Torricelli. Now, if this is true, that advantage is gone, and the natural Democratic tendencies of the state should be too much for him to overcome.

Here's the relevant section of NJ law. Note the importance of the 30-day window. If I'm interpreting this correctly, a Torricelli resignation could well mean no NJ Senate election this year:

NJ State Law.19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do. The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.

Hmmm...I would expect some sort of court challenge by the goopers, but if you are right this may be great news.

Cancelling the election this year is not going to be good for the Democrats in the long run. It would be better to have Toricelli resign now and replace him with someone who can win this year. It's riskier, yes, but the alternative has the appearance of rigging the outcome, even if it is perfectly legal.

Even if the election could be cancelled, that's not the path the Dems should take. For one thing, it's not the right thing to do, and for another, it'd probably cause a backlash in other races where we can't afford a backlash.

The right thing to do is for the Torch to resign and for another candidate to run in his place. I hope that's what happens.

Hard to believe that Scalia would let this apparent plan fly, anyway. Irreparable harm, and damn state's rights.

I heard that if the bTorch actually resigns the most probable candidates to replace him are former senators Bradley and Lautenberg. I hope Bradley gets appointed. But I don't think the Torch will resign. If he does I'd be happily surprised but also astounded (resigning is not a thing I see Toricelli do)

Back to what this thread was intentioned for:
"I think Ulmer has the momentum and will win in November. I think that Knowles will likely challenge Murkowski in 2004 anyway. If Murkowski can't beat Ulmer, how the crap can he beat Knowles."

As a small state Alaska is heavily dependent on the immense clout their three members of Congress exude. After 22 years in te Senate, he has gotten plenty of it-and people like him having that clout. He's 50-50 because they'd much rather have him in the Senate than the Governor's Mansion.