I think CA has you beat, but I agree, it would be foolish for them to try.  That has not stopped them before.

You beat me to that point.  SF, LA, SD - talk about pricey.  But here's hoping towards the GOP foray into the NJ-08 Senate race.

If there's one thing to be learned about the polls in New Jersey, its that pollsters regularly undercount the Democratic vote.  I don't know why, but it seems that on a pretty regular basis, the GOP gets sucked into New Jersey because the Dems look weak in the polls.  And then the Democrat wins by 10 points.  Every.  Freaking.  Time.

The largest group, by registration, statewide is Independents although Democrats have a comfortable lead over Republicans.  This means that unless something is "wrong", Democrats will win consistently.  I don't know why, but loud-mouthed, vituperative Republicans dominate the local newspaper comments and talk radio.  They think they are "smart" but what passes for sophisticated is far from it.  

The dynamic leads to consistently low approval ratings of public officials and consistent Republican losses when everything shakes out.  Also adding to the general negativity has been the slash and burn tactics of federal prosecutor Chris Christie who indicts officials freely on both sides of the aisle and the general negativity of the state's two largest newspapers (the Newark Star Ledger and the Record).  When Christie,a one-term freeholder from an overwhelmingly Republican county, is finally sent packing a lot of the cynicism and 'scalping campaigns" may end.  Good riddance.  (NJ republicans and democrats have nothing on California Republicans like Duke Cunningham but Christie's crusader rabbit nonsense adds to the brew.  

One other note.  The two Republican wins over the last twenty five years were by Whitman and were razor thin.  At least one was bought by street money buys of black ministers to depress turnout under the guidance of Ed Rollins.  They can't win an honest election but Republicans are convinced the next win is around the corner.  And that first surprise by Whitman has funded these chimeras ever since.  (BTW, the third rail in NJ politics is property taxes.  Republicans tend to be anti-taxers, not social conservatives, and are exurban not suburban).

OK -- I figured out that if Lautenberg was replacing a Democrat, then he was a Democrat also.

But it's hard for those of us who aren't following all these state races to get lost.

So it would be wonderful if you lovely bloggers could ID the candidates (and Congresspersons) as (R) or (D) when you first mention them in a story. So we'll know who to cheer for.

I disagree that Missouri and Virginia would have stayed GOP if more money was invested in them. Especially in Virginia, George Allen spent $4 million on two seperate two-minute addresses on live TV, in addition to a heavy statewide ad blitz. Reports of the campaign going bankrupt near the end were grossly exaggerated; Allen had the resources he needed, he just didn't have the votes.

In Missouri, by all account, Jim Talent ran the best campaign he could have. McCaskill ran an excellent campaign as well, and benefitted from both the stem cell ballot initiative and the national wave. Maybe another couple of million could have bought more ads, but the pieces weren't there for Talent in '06.

And its hard to say one way or another if Montanans are susceptible to television advertisements. My general feeling was that, by a few weeks before the election, people had pretty much made up their minds on whether to continue to Burns or to vote in someone new.

Actually Corzine has a 50% approval rating in the Quinnipiac Poll done today (February 28th).  50% in New Jersey is  the equivalent of 70% in any other state...

Why criticize their waste?

They keep losing and pumping more money in... why call them on it?

I mean i doubt they are going to change strategies but... why even create the possibility that they listen to your advice and stop funding NJ races?

That would allow them to put it somewhere else...

Perhaps this is a reason to support Giuliani as well. If I had to guess, I'd say that he might make New York more competitive that even Bush did in 2004 with his 9/11 effect, but that he'd still lost by a pretty decent margin. Of course, if that's the case, he'd probably have to campaign there, and he'd waste a ridiculous amount of money there and in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania as well. In the end, in this scenario, the Democrats will probably take all three, and win a few more states because of the Republicans diverting their resources.

40% approval is pretty high for a new jersey politician. the only person more unpopular in new jersey last year than bob menendez was george bush.

Lautenberg is a heck of a fighter for such an old guy.

Do people here realize he's a WWII vet, of all things?  That's amazing.