Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NJ: Christie 41 Corzine 40 (Quinnipiac 10/7-12)


Quinnipiac
10/7-12/09; 1,264 likely voters, 2.8% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

New Jersey

2009 Governor
Christie 41%, Corzine 40%, Daggett 14% (chart)

Who is you second choice for governor (asked only of Daggett voters)
Christie 40%, Corzine 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable
Chris Christie (R): 38 / 40
Jon Corzine (D): 40 / 53 (chart)
Chris Daggett (i): 19 / 7

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Corzine: 39 / 56 (chart)

 

Comments
RaleighNC:

Corzine will not go down with any sort of class. Any type of close race will produce "lost" ballots that are, shockingly, all for Corzine. I hope Christie's or Daggett's lawyers are ready because this won't be over on election night.

____________________

Stillow:

Yep, Corzine will pull a Franken....and suddenly votes will be found in trunks of cars, bottom of machines, in closets...and like in Franken's case, they will happen to break for Corize 3 to 1....how lucky for them!

____________________

Gopherguy:

Or maybe Corzine will win, but the U.S. Supreme Court will take the states' right to run their own elections away by declaring Christie won.

____________________

Stillow:

You guys gotta let go of 2000, its over, you lost.

There are therapists available to help people like you with addictions or who suffer from various delusions. As well as several support groups which are free.

Or you can just start drinking...that might help.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Oh I'm over it, I just figured one rim shot deserves another. After all, Pawlenty appointed the judges in Minnesota, Norm Coleman didn't complain about the decision, and none of the legal experts in Minnesota disagree.

I would know, I'm a lawyer in Minnesota. Gopherguy refers to the Minnesota Golden Gophers.

So you keep tooting the Fox News campaign about Franken not being legit. Just know that our law was decided properly while 2000 wasn't (even ask the Supreme Court who said not to use their decision as precedent).

P.S. I did not support Franken.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

Yeah guys, only Stillow gets to raise far-fetched conspiracy theories to make up for being butt-hurt about an electoral loss.

____________________

Gopherguy:

It is also ironic that you support states rights Stillow, but you disagree with states rights when they suit you. That's not to be taken as an insult, it is just an observation.

____________________

Stillow:

Heheh, butt hurt....I just found it humerous and convenient that Franken votes showed up i nthe trunk of a car....just seems a little lucky to me.

Gopherguy

Not sure what you meant, I was in total favor a full recount statewide in FL...I never wanted the SC to even hear the case....the problem was the FL SC went all crazy in the beginnign with selective recounts, etc. Gore's two biggest mistakes were he tried to discount military ballots and only wanted recounts in highly blue areas. But I was in full favor of the SC not taking it, it was state issue. But at the end of the day, you lost....get over it....the proper reply to my post would ahv ebeen to tell me to get over Franken finding new votes i nthe trunk of a car....not putting words in my mouth about states rights.

____________________

Gopherguy:

That's the beauty of states rights, if the state wants to selectively recount districts it's the state's right to do so.

But you are right I did assume you wanted SCOTUS to hear the case and for that I apologize.

The whole point is that Minnesota's laws were properly followed while Federal law was not properly followed.

I guess that would mean Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Rehnquist were not showing judicial restrain and therefore, being activist. :)

____________________

Xenobion:

Norm Coleman didn't complain about the decision? It must be opposite day.

Anyways check your real history of brutal recounts. Gregoire v. Rossi in Washington State.

____________________

Stillow:

I understood the logic behind the SC taking the case back in 2000, there was some euql protection stuff thrown in there, stuff like its unfair to recount one area and not antoher, areas were not treated euqally, etc....bt I am not a fan of the SC in general taking up most of the cases they do.

For what it sworth and since we are on the topic, Gore probably had more people who intended to vote for him...all that stuff about the butterfly ballot, but I saw it...and if people were to stupid to fill it out, then they should not have been voting i nthe first place.So my motto for them is to bad so sad.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Xenobian,

I'm sorry to inform you sir, but you are wrong.

Yes, Norm Coleman challenged the recount, but he did not challenge the final ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of Minnesota law. In fact, accepted their ruling with no grumbling whatsoever. So yes, Norm Coleman did not complain about how the law was carried out.

Here is a youtube clip. Go to 1:30 if you don't feel like watching the entire clip. I hope this enlightens you as to actual history sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgAuRli6uY

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR