Research 2000/Daily Kos New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey
- Chris Christie 46%
- Jon Corzine 39%
- Steve Lonegan 43%
- Jon Corzine 40%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Chris Christie 38% / 15% (+23%)
- Steve Lonegan 22% / 13% (+9%)
- Jon Corzine 36% / 55% (-19%)
Among Republicans
- Chris Christie 69% / 6% (+63%)
- Steve Lonegan 52% / 5% (+47%)
Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted May 25-27. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Goldman,
Are you ready to concede my victory in our “how high will oil prices get” debate a couple of months ago?
May 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
First Thoughts on Specter v. Sestak
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/05/first_thoughts_on_specter_v_se.html
If it turns out that Sestak defeats – or nearly defeats – Specter in the Democratic primary next year, I do not expect us to hear the line we heard about the PA GOP. We won’t hear how the PA Democratic party is too narrow or ideological to support a sensible moderate, etc. etc. etc. For the Beltway punditocracy, all analysis must flow from the broader meme. No exceptions, which is why Specter’s departure was interpreted in reference to the “GOP is shrinking, narrow, and gross” narrative. The meme on Pennsylvania is that it is trending blue (inaccurate; it hasn’t budged in 50+ years), so a Sestak victory will be interpreted as a sign that Pennsylvania just wants a more liberal Democrat. When you think about this, it makes little sense: how can the GOP reject Specter because of decline and the Democrats reject him because of expansion? But that’s how the kind of conclusion you draw when you’re afflicted with the Swamp Fever.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Well, it looks like Christie is pulling away from Lonegan. Flinging mud doesn’t seem to have helped the latter.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Tommy,
You’re going to have to refresh my memory. Perhaps you’re confusing me with Illinoisguy, who took issue with your support for higher oil prices, as it would be politically beneficial to your beloved Palin. All I could find on the subject matter were the following threads, including this first link in which you described yourself as an “asshole.”
http://race42008.com/2009/03/26/poll-alert-franklin-marshall-college-2010-pennsylvania-gop-senate-primary/
http://race42008.com/2009/03/18/meet-palins-inner-circle/
http://race42008.com/2009/03/21/were-most-all-populists-now/
May 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
hahaha, I see from the final thread that you linked that you did not indeed make a prediction. So I suppose I can only prematurely call a victory for myself, with my citation to the Kiplinger’s article that predicted what is transpiring right now with the increase in oil prices.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I see you’re still cheerleading for higher oil prices even though it does the country grat harm. you don’t care as long as your little darling’s budget gets better. Sorry, friend, the only way she impresses anyone is to quit having a budget that is 3 times higher per capita than any other state in the union. Perhaps if she would cut it down to only twice as high per capita as California, people would recognize that she at least has trimmed a tiny bit of fat from an outlandish budget.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
How is the budget outlandish when at this moment, it’s smaller than the budget submitted by the previous governor in his final year in office?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
http://omb.alaska.gov/08_OMB/budget/Enacted/FY2008_ConfComm_Less_Vetoes_Fiscal_Summary.pdf
Take a look at the amount authorized for the final Murkowski budget. As of this moment, I believe the expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year are lower than the amount authorized in Murkowski’s final budget.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Tommy Boy!!!!! WHO IN THE HECK CARES WHAT THE BUDGET IS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS???HUH????
Your gal’s budget is three times higher per capita than any other state, including California!!!! THat’s what you compare! You know that! You’re no dummy! They have tapped into the oil companies’ ‘would be’ profits so heavily that ANYBODY, I repeat ANYBODY could balance the budget. Heck if oil prices go down, just move the budget in the general budget of where all other states spend per capita and its balanced. Heck, they have a tough time even then. Last year and next year will run a deficit for Pete’s sake!!! How do you explain that and expect us to think that Sarah Palin is some super duper fiscal conservative? You Palinites just need to get your head out of the sand, wake up and smell the roses! She’s good looking; that’s about it folks! And I couldn’t care less about that qualification.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Illinois,
Take a look at this map:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/
You’ll see that according to this map, Alaska’s state budget deficit is characterized as “none.” Only three other states can claim that characterization.
Why are you focusing on per-capita? Why not ask the question whether there is another governor in the country at this moment who can claim that their last authorized budget is smaller than their state’s budget from three years ago? How much was the Massachusetts budget for fiscal year 2002 compared to Mitt’s last budget or Arkansas’s budget for fiscal year 2002 and Huckabee’s last budget. You’ll be surprised if you ask the same question for Sanford’s budgets.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Why are you focusing on per-capita?
Because that’s the only way you can make an apples and apples comparison to other states…..
Tommy, when the per capita cost is so bloomin’ high, ANYBODY can tighten the belt a tiny bit and show improvement. You can still be guilty of spending WAY TOO MUCH money, but just not as much as the Governor before you. I’ll tell you what…..EVERYBODY agrees that California’s budget is WAY WAY WAY too high per capita…..why don’t you challenge your gal to just get hers down to, let’s say, double their’s…..that shouldn’t be much to ask if someone were truly conservative. Like I said they tapped the ‘would be’ profits of the oil companies so deeply that ANYBODY could have done well about having a surplus…
Don’t play games with me on the deficit Tommy….you tried that before….and YOU HAVE BEEN CHEERLEADING for prices of oil to go up regardless that it hurts the USA big time.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Thank you Tommy Boy for that beautiful map. What is even more impressive is that Mrs. Palin is able to be a great governor during a deep recession while Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee got to govern during easy times.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“and YOU HAVE BEEN CHEERLEADING for prices of oil to go up regardless that it hurts the USA big time.” That’s why we say “Drill baby drill!” Oil price are eventually going to go up regardless of what Tommy Boy wants. We thus need to be realistic and drill for our own oil.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Tommy Boy wants it to go up to makes Sarah’s budget look better. You don’t need to deny it for him because he didn’t. He didn’t because he knows its true.
May 30th, 2009 at 5:59 am
It is almost irrelevant what Tommy Boy want, Mrs. Palin (and the Alaskan legislature) was the one balance the budget despite the recession; with the respect the Tommy Boy, he had nothing to do with balancing the budget. But, thank goodness for people like Tommy Boy who do want to make use of this country’s natural resources.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:10 am
IT was far from balanced until price per barrel has now doubled. I say once again ANYBODY could balance a budget with that kind of revenue streaming in from the oil companies. They stil spend 3 times more per capita than any other state. That’s the true picture of her fiscal conservatism.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I spend more than 3 times as many individuals in the world and I can still balance my personal budget. Alaska has great wealth and it has great need of infrastructural spending. The Palin administration has improved the infrastructure of Alaska. It would be interesting with all the high taxes in Taxachesetts to see how the infrastructure there has improved. Further more, MA is such a compact state, it does not need as much money spent on roads to link remote areas. I truly would like to know why MA cannot balance its budget. Is lack of oil revenue the only excuse?