In the minds of John and Jane Q. Voter, I would think that the "tri-partisan" 7-0 decision from the NJSC (agreed upon by all GOP, DEM, and IND justices) should serve to kill any argument from Forrester or the GOP that this decision was politically motivated or unfair. It can't be denied that NJ election law is silent as to what can specifically happen inside the 51-day window and, therefore, leaves it open to judicial interpretation by state courts. The beauty here is how the legislature crafted the law to be durable and capable of conforming to a number of circumstances.

If the legislature meant the 51-day window to serve as a strict cut-off, it would have been much easier to say "no candidate shall be replaced on the ballot with fewer than 51 days remaining before an election". If that is what the legislature had intended, this debate would have never happened. However, by remaining silent on what happens with fewer than 51 days remaining, it gives state courts the leeway, based upon existing circumstances (i.e., ability of county clerks to reprint and redistribute ballots), to be flexible. What makes this fair is that the law doesn't benefit any particular political party. The same principle would apply if Torricelli was a GOP Senator in the same situation.

Regardless of what the law is or should be, most partisan DEMs see replacing Torricelli on the ballot as the correct decision while partisan GOPers do not. That fact is really irrelevant though. Those two blocks will vote for their candidate in large percentages anyway. Politically speaking, how this plays in the mind of the swing/independent voter is what really matters. Unlike how the GOP won the spin war in 2000 by portraying the Florida Supreme Court as influenced by partisanship and, therefore, unfair (since I believe all but one of the justices were DEM appointed), they don't have such an opportunity for spin here. Therefore, it is most likely that independent voters will not see this decision as soiled by politics and will accept Lautenberg as the DEM candidate without bias.

That doesn't mean Lautenberg wins automatically; that will be decided upon the issues that matter to each voter. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, the unanimous NJSC decision does mean that the GOP just lost their opportunity to spin this in such a way to create a significant "backlash" vote. Had the decision split more along party lines, there would be ample opportunity for spin.

With respect to a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, it seems awkward for the GOP, as "champion of states' rights", to be consistently making federal cases out of state election issues in FL and now in NJ...

Sorry for being so brief. ;-)

Lautenberg has clearly become the favorite, but I don't think he's a shoe-in. He only won by 3 points in 1994, and he didn't exactly look all that great speaking on TV two nights ago. If Forrester were smart, he would immediately challenge him to a series of debates. He really has nothing to lose at this point, and if he could portray Lautenberg as being "out of it" in any way, it just might give him an opening.

On a different, but similiar note, a new indy poll yesterday shows Gordon Smith with a 23-point lead in Oregon. Bradbury is finished.

If the Dems have some cajones, they should seriously consider replacing him on the ballot with Kitzhaber (assuming he's willing). You know the GOP would challenge it all the way to the USSC. That would backfire big time, just as I think the NJ case will. Can you imagine the possibilities the Dems could have, charging the GOP with going to the courts to stop voter-choice in Senate elections in MULTIPLE states? I really think the Dems should push this for all it's worth, in as many places as possible. It just might cause the ultimate implosion of the GOP this cycle.

With the budget problems Oregon has had, I'm not sure Kitzhaber would be that good a candidate right now.

It'd definitely be a calculated risk, with the intent of turning independents away from the GOP, and firing up the Dem base. Not just in OR, but nationwide. Considering it looks like Gordon Smith has an insurmountable lead, the only real question is whether Kitzhaber and the Dems want to pursue that kind of nationwide strategy, or if NJ is pushing their luck enough.

Syracuse, NY

Two contradicting views in Roll Call by Kondracke and Rothenberg. I do not know who is right. However, both have to be aware that there are a lot of undecideds this late in the game.

I think Al Gore is actually helping Democrats of late. He helped point out to the public that Bush was playing politics with the war on Iraq and on terrorism. Daschle and Gephardt jumped on the bandwagon and I beleive that has help Democrats to thwart some of the GOP attacks on their patriotism and their national security credentials.

Now he is opening up the economic debate and this should help Democrats to attack the GOP and Bush on the economy.

As far as New Jersey, I think Lautenberg is a slight favorite at this moment and if the Democrats aggressively tout him in a big a campaign he should win easily.

Oregon is gone. I thought Bradbury had a chance but its over. I also think Tennessee is slipping away for the Democrats. If I were the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee I would focus my money on the following GOP seats: New Hampshire, Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, and South Carolina. And I would funnel millions into the Campaigns of Wellstone, Carnahan, Johnson, Lautenberg, Harkin, Cleland, and Landrieu. Right now I forecast a 1-2 seat gain for the Democrats.

What about the Democrats who voted for Torricelli in the primary? Don't they get a say in this? It is just wrong for the party bosses to do this. I think this shows how desperate the Democratic party is to hold on to power.

Um, aren't you forgetting that Toricelli resigned? The Democrats should be allowed to have a candidate run for the office.

I wouldn't talk about desperation. The Republicans, who lost the popular vote, had a hired mob shut down vote counting in Florida, insisted that military ballots sent out after the deadline count, purged thousands of legal Democratic voters, and had W's Daddy's appointees rule in favor of his son. Give me a break. I'm sick of Republican carping. They just can't take it when Democrats play rough and tumble.

Ced-good Senate analysis. Looks like Oregon was a little of a stretch, but provided the Democrats keep the Senate (and, especially if it's Lautenberg in NJ, I have a very good feeling they will), you could do a lot worse than Gordon Smith. As for Tennesse, I don't think Clement, as good a candidate as he is, had much of a chance to begin with-if Lamar! got the GOP nod there was no way he was going to lose, but if he lost, it was imperative that the Democrats run a good candidate to prevent Senator Bryant. I agree with where the DSCC should go, with he exception of Arkansas; barring a huge surge for Tiny Tim, Pryor has it in the bag.

You're right Ced. I think the DSCC needs to shore up Wellstone, Carnahan, Landrieu, Shaheen, Cleland, and Johnson. Kirk, Strickland, and Pryor can also use some help. The Texas race is still close. A Dem poll had Kirk up by 4 pts. Cornyn is slighty ahead, but with a good GOTV program Kirk can win it.

I hated to see Oregon slip away, but I think the Democrats are in a good position right now. All they need is a tie and they keep the Senate. I am begining to feel the Democrats will hold every seat they have and actually gain Colorado and Arkansas. NH and TX are still very doable.

I think the GOP dream team: "Thune, Talent, and Coleman" will all fall just short. If they were going to win I feel they should already be ahead in the polls. None are and the three Democrat incumbents are actually well liked in their states. It would be different if they were unpopular or if they had scandals like Torricelli.

I tend to agree with you Ced. Right now it looks like a 1 to 2 seat gain. But I think the Dems have a better shot at New Hampshire than Colorado. Unfortunately, as good a candidate as Kirk is, I can't see Texas electing a black. And keep an eye on South Carolina.

Hold on - one poll does not end a race. For all anyone knows, the poll could be totally off. This is Oregon. Polls are less reliable here than they are anywhere else, given the mail-in system. Let's wait before we give seats up.

There was also a GOP poll last week showing Smith with a 50-33 lead. Normally I wouldn't put any stock in that at all (and didn't at the time), but it correlates nicely with this independent poll.

If you guys check the comments section on Daily Kos, you'll see some Oregonian posted that the person who did this poll had worked for Smith. He suggests the numbers are way off about one particular district he's familiar with (something like, Gore carried it 67-24, and Smith is ahead by a dozen points), so he questions the whole poll.

A serious question: is it possible for a series of bogus polls to be done in the hope of discouraging money going into a particular race? You'd hope local Dems would be doing their own polling in response, but even so, it might deter donors (like me) from injecting cash into what seems a throwaway.

More than ever, Democrats made a mistake in Oregon. They should have convinced a U.S. Representative to run. Anyone of the four could have made this race more competitive than Bradbury.

Here is a bit of interesting news. I really expected better from this woman. She seemed very intelligent.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kansas-Governor-Remark.html

Oh for goodness sakes. Can't everybody just lighten up.

She is about right there. I'm much more likely to die because of Missouri's 'roads' than a terrorist attack.

It might not sound too good, but it is an interesting insight into which is really the more conservative state--Missouri or Kansas. Kansas has decent schools and good roads. Missouri has pro sports.

Kansas indeed has decent schools and the sixth highest high school graduation rate in the country. But, Missouri has pro sports, Jim Talent and John Ashcroft and they all went out of state for an education.

I grew up on the Missouri-Kansas border and I can tell you that Missouri is more conservative than Kansas. MO has much more strict abortion laws for example. Taxes and welfare benefits are higher in KS. Missouri is much more culturally conservative.

AC-Would I be right if I said that Kansas is a Midwestern state while Missouri is basically a Southern state? Even though Kansas is traditionally Republican and Missouri has usually been more or less Democratic, Kansas produces Republicans like Nancy Kassenbaum while Missouri produces Democrats like Ike Skelton (and we won't even go into John Asscroft).

AC - What about the whole evolution thing? Also, isn't the area around Kansas City the most least conservative part of the state? I'd bet that western Kansas is far more conservative.

Missouri has several elements to it all of which lead it to being culturally conservative. Saint Louis is largely a Midwestern industrial city with a lot of culturally conservative, but economically liberal folks. This is changing as suburbs become more homogenous across the country.

Outstate--is largely Southern. Kansas City is hard for me to explain.

One of the interesting stories is in the '76 governors race, Kit Bond ran as a liberal Republican who was nominally pro-choice.

Kansas has two wings to its Republican Party--one of Pat Roberts and Bill Graves that is "let's not get too excited" types who want reasonable bang for their bucks. Then there is the Brownback type that just can't wait for the Second Coming. More recently, within the Republican Party, the Second Coming group is growing in influence. The current fight between them and Graves is probably the first in a long realignment from solid Republican to competitive moderate Dems vs the Second Coming Party.

The Evolution deal demonstrates it pretty well. The Second Coming ran under the radar for several seats to win. Once the rest of the state figured out what the hell was going on, the creationists were beaten pretty solidly. There was another under the radar deal out west, and that is going now be challenged as a write-in.