New Jersey Senate Race

[Dan Stack]

Hmm... So many references to puns, w00t, and things like the Liz'Hadar, perhaps it's safe for a new political thread, one not about people getting killed.


If you go to www.nytimes.com, www.washingtonpost.com, or any other major newspaper you can read about the Torricelli issue.

Basically, Torricelli, incumbent senator from New Jersey, won the democratic primary but has of late been doing horrible in pre-election polls. The campaign against him has been mired with questions about his character, especially given the senate rebuked him for ethical lapses for accepting gifts in return for influence.

Trailing badly in the polls, he dropped out of the race this week. The Democrats petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court to allow them to appoint a new candidate. New Jersey law stipulates that may be done 51 or days prior to an election. With barely thirty days before the election, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously said the Democrats could do so.

What do people think of this? Would it be ok in any race where one candidate is trailing in the polls to replace that candidate before an election?


Personally, as an unaffiliated voter (largely disgusted by both parties, though in the interests of full disclosure I lean slightly towards Republicans in elections) I think it's a bad idea, given the precedent it could set. The argument made is New Jersey voters deserve their choice. My opinion is that they had a choice, Torricelli won a primary and by dropping out it is he who deprived them of that choice. (As an aside, if he died I'd be more open to a replacement candidate. In this case Torricelli was afraid he'd lose and therefore dropped out.)

Hypothetical question...

If, in October of 1996, with Bob Dole badly behind Clinton in the polls, would it have been ok if the Republicans dropped Dole and had Colin Powell run instead?

[Capt.Hunter]

Hell, I'd buy any amount of wheeler-dealing if it resulted in Powell getting into the Oval Office (though I'd prefer him if he could pronounce "Colin" properly...)!

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[qerlin]

Yup...love how the GOP always take heat for Watergate, but the Dems can just ignore the local election laws for their own profit & people seem okay with it, save the opponents.

Gee, why not -- instead of elections -- we just have the two parties send lawyers to the local court and just argue it out there? Better yet, why don't we just have 'em do a wrestling match or some such -- how American -- televised for our entertainment?

Where the hell are Jefferson or Jackson when you need 'em. (Wife's response: dead. Like that's an excuse! )

[dimeboy99]

I haven't been following this story much, as we are having a heated election in my own state between a very popular congressman taking on a popular and connected incumant senator. (polls are neck and neck)

My question would be, how many of the NJ Supreme Court judges were appointed by Democratic Gov's?

[Dan Stack]

The NJ Supreme Court is, if I recall, 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Independent. That said, the decision was unanimous.

Some random replies...
-> While I'd like to see Powell run for president (don't know if I'd vote for him), I'd hate it if my hypothetical situation in '96 took place. Following the rule of law is important, something both parties bend to their liking.

-> Votes do matter, despite recounts. Torricelli dropped out of the election because the voters made it clear he didn't have a prayer and all the recounts in the world won't save him. Sooner or later, you do have to answer to the voters.

-> What I can't stand is the fact that, in this case, the Democrats are whining about the voters would be deprived of a choice and point their fingers at the evil Republicans. While of course the Republicans would love to run unopposed, it was Torricelli who chose to drop out, after running for, winning, and accepting his parties nomination. His name should stay on the ballot as a warning to all that the law does matter. That it is being allowed off and a new one on is an indication that the rule of law does not matter. Would the Democrats be ok with it if tomorrow Forrester dropped out of the race and McCain announced his intention to run for the senate seat on behalf of the Republicans. I mean, so what about the residency law, the voters deserve their choice...

[Cybrludite]

I'm real leary about turning electorial law on it's head like this. There's enough trouble with the percived legitimacy of the results as it is. (See Styro's remarks) To make it worse, it's the Democrats that are doing this. If it were the Republicans, you'd hear all sorts of yelling & screaming in the media and what-not. The metter would be fixed via the soap box & the ballot box. Consider the stereotype of the Red or Flyover Country voters and their (real) concern over 2nd Amendment issues. Now consider what such folk might do if a pattern emerges of the Democrats using the courts to overturn (or in New Jersey, prevent) electorial results they don't like... Only one box left in American politics if you lack access to the soap box & the ballot box is ignored.

[First of Two]

I'm just giddy ove the New Jersey stuff, and I'll tell you why...

No matter what happens, the Dems are going to take a pounding!

Option #1. Toricelli's name stays on the ballot, meaning the Republican candidate essentially runs unopposed. Reps win, possibly taking back the Senate.

Option #2. The Dems win in the Supreme Court, take the Torch's name off the ballot, and disencfranchise all the abseentees and overseas voters who may have already voted for him! Plus, it just looks BAD, going TWICE to the Supreme Court because you lost according to the laws of the state. Plus, the Reps get to bash the Dems for doing another "end run around the law." Even if the new Democrat wins, Republicans can have hours of fun referring to him as the NEW "His Illegitimacy."

Reps Win! Reps Win!

[qerlin]

Originally posted by First of Two

Reps Win! Reps Win!

So, uummmmm...what's your political affiliation?

[First of Two]

Originally posted by qerlin
So, uummmmm...what's your political affiliation?

Well, untill the "First of Two" party finally gains national recognition...
I belong to the "Anything but a Democrat" party.

[Liz Not Beth]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Liz Not Beth
Democraps and the Republican'ts. I vote Independent. Always for the looser. Always.

(Walks away singing "It's My Vote And I'll Waste If I Wanna")

Sing it, sister! Same here -- libertarian when available, otherwise, I'll vote for a rabid squirrel before one of the establishment hacks. Less dangerous.

[Cybrludite]

As far as Federal offices go, I favor the "any party that has a half-way rational stance on foreign relations" method. Thus, I generally end up voting Republican. A more accurate version of my politics would be that I'm Libertarian on domestic issues & Machiavellian on Foreign Policy.

[First of Two]

I'm Libertarian on domestic issues & Machiavellian on Foreign Policy

OOH, I like that! I may have to steal that and use it elsewhere.

[Capt. Chris]

The Dems have really shot themselves with this one since the did end run the law since they needed to have 51 days to replace the torch. So on any contest of the election with a dem winning will most likely be lost since they violated State law. With that said their arguement of denying a choice in the election is wrong.
Since you can always write in a vote.

What they needed to do is to have the torch step down (even though he stays on the ballot) and tell dem and others to vote for the replacement as a write in. yes it would still be very likely that they will lose but at least they would not have violated any laws doing it especially in the new climate that character and morality is being looked at by the voters.