Pollster.com

Though Corzine has been gaining this seems extreme and I think we would need to see confirmation from another poll before taking it seriously. The conflicting trends are an largly democratic state,but upset with Corzine over property taxes and corruption.
If Corzine wins it will likly be because of his success in tarnishing Christies reputation and the reluctance of New Jersey voters to vote Republican.
Could be a long count.

I agree. We have been seeing Daggett in the mid teens for the last couple of weeks. I doubt he would fall back to 7% without any ads targeting him.

Those unfavorables look skewed as well.

Corzine has definitely targeted Christies going so far (and low) as making fun of his weight issue.

OK...the poll's off; I agree; but still, is this really good news for Christie?

Well, Christie's gonna win by 4%; we already know that because Stillow stands by his prediction so...not to worry.

btw I predicted Corzine by 2% several weeks ago, when he was still down

Correct, by 4. Don't forget my other comment though that part of me hopes Corzine does pull it out Because if Dems are so stupid to keep voting for those making there lives miserable, then I want them extra miserable. So though I think Christie wins, part of me wants Corzine to win just to try and teach stupid Dems a lesson. So I am torn between my desire to see NJ try and turn itself around by voting for Christie and the fact most Dems are so stupid, I would like to see them continue digging there graves there in NJ just to prove a point i nthe long run.

Suffolk has an interesting analysis. They polled ALL candidates (12 in total) and they say that when voters are presented with the entire list, they motivate more towards Corzine and that it also hurts Daggett:

The Suffolk University poll, which included all 12 candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, points to the possibility that the confusing New Jersey ballot ultimately will hurt the campaign of independent Chris Daggett. Daggett is polling 7 percent statewide. His name appears in different locations on the ballot, depending on the county. Some counties list the candidates in rows while others use columns, yet in all 21 counties, the Democrat or Republican is listed first or second in every case.

“Independent Chris Daggett struggles to be found on the ballot, which benefits Jon Corzine, whose campaign is peaking at the right time for him," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University in Boston. "The poll tells us that voters believe Corzine is the best choice of the twelve candidates and the most comfortable choice of the major three. The bottom line is that, if this trend holds, it will be an amazing comeback for Jon Corzine."

Bolding mine.

That makes sense to me.

Here are the full numbers (with Leaners):
Corzine 42%
Christie 33%
Daggett, 7%
Other (9 others) 3%
Undecided 14%

This poll confirms the trend, look for more of the same, I believe. And, as predictable as the sun rising over the Jersey shore, Stillow begins the spin.

Not spin, I said that from the beginning...I was torn from the start. If you recall I said the same thing about CA...part of me hopes they continue voting for libs who contineu to run them int othe ground....said it fro mthe beginning, say it now and will say it in the future!!!

"if Dems are so stupid to keep voting for those making there lives miserable, then I want them extra miserable"

The cunning new GOP strategy: winning elections by NOT winning them.

STILLOW, Christie is a terrible choice. He reminds me so much of Rudy G. NJ doesn't like bullies like Christie or Rudy.

Guys, all I am saying and have been saying for ever now is that these crazy blue states who keep voting for liberals who make there lives miserable thru high taxes or whateve rit is....they keep voting for libs....so I say screw 'em. If they like getting kicked in the face, then use a steel tipped boot! NJ people hate corzine, his favorables and approval are down where Bush was....yet they may re elect him so ya, I say screw 'em...let them starve and rot.

Same with CA....MI....and these other one party states.......you get what you vote for and if that means crumbling cities, a bankrupted state, a super hig htax burden and an overall miserable society in that area, so be it.

Stillow, you do not get it. I will take NJ over AL, MS,SC, etc. The last time I checked, these states had more citizens below poverty level, their schools are bad, health-wise, they rank lowest what else? they depend on the Federal Gov more than any other states. What GOP strategy has made any state richer?

Do you see what the GOP brought? the biggest economic collapse since The Great Depression. Talk about bad policies and they are synonymous with GOP's policies.

@Stillow
Don't you worry! You're not in a blue state so continue enjoying your low taxes. You can call somebody a fool if the person decide to pay more taxes to help the economy. The republicans made this elections a test for Obama policies although Christie himself campaigned on a progressive platforms with the only exception in terms of property taxes. I don't think progressives like to pay high taxes per se. However, it would be difficult for progressives to give a thumb up to a PARTY OF NO, a party that has resolved to thwart any democratic policies albeit good and who have signalled their avowed aim of saying NO to anything Obama.

Excuse me for just a minute while I laugh at you for blaming hte GOP for the economic collapse......hahahahahahahaha...

Ok, all done. Anyone who can think for themselves, which excludes you liberals knows the economy was tanked by g'ment involvmenet in the elnding industry by forcing banks to lend to subprime borrowers, etc...its been discussed before.

Again, if you one party bue states like living in crap, please keep voting blue. Republicans are morons too.....which is why I am a conservative, not a republican. You know that evil conservatism which created the middle class and lead to the largest and most prosperous middle class i nthe history of man......its so evil to keep your own money....wow! Can you imagine someone who works 40 hours a week has the nerve not to want to be taxed to death? Boy I will tell, selfish punk rotten evil money grubbing conservtives. Keeping what you earn, pffff, pure insanity!

There is nothing miraculous about a likely Corzine win. I have said from the very beginning that any of you who thought Chrisite was going to win this thing (and some of you even predicited him winning easily) were smoking something. Corzine is a lackluster candidate to be sure and he has certainly left a lot to be desired as a governor, but NJ elects moderate republicans like Tom Kean and Christie Whitman not pro-life nuts like Chris Christie. YOU CANNNOT RUN PEOPLE WITH THE POLITICS OF ALABAMA AND EXPECT TO WIN IN NJ! The last presidential candidate to win NJ was Bush 41 in 1988. The last GOP senator to win in NJ was 1974! Stillow, I am waiting for Mitch McConnell to come out openly and say that you can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and our party will accept you even if we don't agree with you. The only GOP national figure who had the guts to say things along these lines was Gerald Ford, but unfortunately it was too little too late at that point.

Notwithstanding anything, the red states are the poorest. They have the worst colleges and low literacy rates overall.

were it only so that blood-red states were paradises full of happy and healthy people

Just travel to MS or LA or SC and look at how well a right wing has served the interests of the people in those states, especially with regard to education and health care.

Forbes top 5 most livable cities in 2009; 4 out of 5 are blue (ME is deep blue in Presidential elections though it has marginally red senators)

1. Portland ME
2. Bethesda, Md.
3. Des Moines, Iowa.
4. Bridgeport/Stamford, Conn.
5. Tulsa, Okla.

IdahoMulato

Pay more taxes to help the economy...I love it....geee, letting people keep there money and spend it in the ECONOMY would never help the economy would it? Only g'ment spending money it does not have will help......some of you libs are so totally brainwashed, even the obvious escapes you.

Notwithstanding anything, the red states are the poorest. They have the worst colleges and low literacy rates overall.

What are you guys talking about? The south is mixed...it was domianted by Dems for decades, it sonly recently conservatives have taken over the south. LA for exdample hadn't had a GOP senator in forever until Vitter...Jindal just took over for a moron Dem who bungled Katrina.

Idaho, talk to the people in Detroit about literacy where ahlf the city cannot read.....................

@Stillow
The south was taken over by the republicans after LBJ landslide in '64 due in large part to the civil right legislation and that's more than 4 decades. They might have democratic senators but they still vote republican in the presidential all the time or in majority of the times. We're not looking only at one state. We're looking at all red states as against blue states overall. Red states tend to have more poor people, high illiterate rate, low-scale colleges, low-funded schools and colleges, etc. These are the people who watch Fox news 24 hrs a day. They don't want to consider any other perspective(s).

Letting people keep vast amounts of income was very in vogue between 2001-2009; in fact it became our official policy (and the law) following 8 years in which this income WAS taxed at higher rates.

Where did it get us? Even without the financial near-collapse caused by naked greed and deregulation (and 0 oversight by regulators)wages stagnated for most (not the top 5% though) and the deficit exploded. Coupled with Iraq Bush, W edition, left us with a massive deficit (he came in with a surplus) and a vastly larger deficit.

Now anyone can call the Clinton surpluses fortuitous and the Bush deficits the result of fighting a pure and just war (Iraq) but that doesn't mean won't snicker when you do it.

@ Stillow, Whe you talk about the government forcing banks to lend to poor people and for which reason caused the crisis, I laugh because you are clueless as to what caused the crisis. CRA does not force any financial institution to lend. When was CRA passed? why was there no such collapse when the CRA was passed?

It is no mere coincidence that the minute Glass-Steaggal Act was torn down and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(yes the reps) was passed coupled with the unbriddled free market principles of the Bush Admin did collapse(big one) occur?

IdahoMulato:

Really, so I guess states like AR, TN, LA,KY, etc aren't part of the south? Since they voted blue durignthe 90's...it was not ujtil Bush in 2000 they went red.....and you cannot use Reagan to compare because every state was red in 1984 except Minnesota.

"its been discussed before."

It's also been debunked before: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

That said, it's fun to see Stillow flip out like this.

tjampel
Your comment is just stupid because while Bush cut taxes, he INCREASED SPENDING!! Tha tis what liberals do...spend spend spend....that is why Bush lost so much support, because he could not control his spending. Tax cuts worke din the 1980's...emphasis on small g'ment worked in the 80's and 90's...as both decades saw tremendous growth and prosperity for the middle class.

The stupid part of your comment is blamign deregulation.....again how many times does it need to be said, it was over regualtion....the federal g'ment FORCED banks to lend money to subprime borrowers....that is over regualtion and over involvement by g'ment.....kick started this whole thing.

@Stillow
We're not talking about occasional flips. Those states you mentioned are generally considered red states.Period!

Shassy
My misguided liberal freind, the CRA setup Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime mortgages. It increased the numbe rof those types of loans freddie and fannie had to purchase. With buyers to buy these crap loans, the lenders made the loans, because they knew the loan would be purhcased by the g'ment via freddie and fannie. Had the g'ment not oredered themto purchase crap paper, the lenders would not have made the loans because there would have been no buyers for them....and no one wanted to hold those toxic assets.

It was once again liberal g'ment at work, setting up a system to which the g'ment would buy these crap loans....big Dems like rains and johnson helped really firestart the purchasing of subprime paper....

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

No one is flipping out...I am laughing at most of you....since you guys don't seem to get it...and I have successfuly made you liberals defend Corzine, which again gives me my laugh for an otherwise dull Monday.

Its become so easy to shatter liberal aguments on this site that even the laghing at you guys is losing some of its novelty.

Stillow, you do not understand New Jersey politics at all, so maybe you should just stop arguing with everyone. You are a teabagger from Texas but out of curiosity, who are you voting for in the gov KBH or Rick Perry.

Why do you think I live in TX? I do not. I did live there for many years and still own property there, but I am registered to vote in NV.....

You know why Hutch wants to be governor of TX don't you? She wants to run for president in 2016. Being governor of the 2nd biggest state is a nice mark on your resume.

Since you've lived in Texas for a long time and even has property there, whom do you support? Hutchinson or Perry? And to be frank with you, I'm now living in Webster, Texas working with an oil and gas company. Anyways, I dont have a take on the mayoral race in Houston since I've been here for a very short time and trying to learn Houston politics. Can you give me any info about those running? Peter Brown, Annise Parker, Gene Locke.

Beats me, I lived in north dallas, the DFW area. I know Bill Whit eis popular down in Houston. Like most Texans, I like both Hutchison and Perry.