EXACTLY TWENTY YEARS AGO, Frank Lautenberg first ran for public office. He was a sprightly 58 at the time, a successful businessman who came to the rescue of a Democratic party whose senior senator was embroiled in controversy and forced to step down. Back then, it was Senator Harrison Williams’s implication in the Abscam scandal that left an open seat. Lautenberg spent $5 million of his own money (a considerable amount at the time) to defeat Republican congresswoman Millicent Fenwick, 51 percent to 48 percent.
This time, it was Robert Torricelli–like Williams, a senior senator–who dropped out of the race amid charges of illegally accepting gifts from a now-imprisoned donor. He was replaced by Lautenberg, no longer a political novice. “He is basically a quasi-incumbent,” says Cliff Zukin, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers. Lautenberg won two reelection bids and served for 18 years. After tonight’s decisive victory, it’ll be 24 years, assuming he finishes his term in 2008 at the ripe old age of 84. (You think that sounds old, but when Lautenberg was born, Strom Thurmond was already 22 years old.)
It’s hard to believe that for New Jersey Republicans, their Senate nightmare continues. Less than two months ago, their candidate, Douglas Forrester, had a comfortable lead over his Democratic opponent. In late September, a Newark Star-Ledger/Rutgers-Eagleton poll showed Forrester leading 47 percent to 34 percent. Of course, he was running against Bob Torricelli at the time. At the end of the month, the Torch dropped out and Lautenberg stepped in. And not once did the Republican candidate have a lead in the polls after that.
The problem, as some analysts point out, is that Doug Forrester had to wage not one war, but two, against two different types of opponents. (For instance, he had to do four debates, not one.) More important, he had to change messages, shift the focus of the debate, and churn out new political ads. In short, two campaigns during the span of one cost more money. Forrester spent more than $7 million out of his own pocket (of which $3 million went to the primary). Lautenberg, who has never been a drain on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, entered the race and spent more than a million of his own funds in just the few short weeks he was running. The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, meanwhile, decided to pour its resources in other crucial races–in Missouri, Texas, Georgia, and Minnesota–that they thought had a better chance of winning.
Compounding the problem is the fact that New Jersey is one of the most expensive states in which to run for office. Says Kellyanne Conway, president and CEO of the Polling Company: “You need to be able to get on television and that means advertising in the New York and Philadelphia markets, which costs a lot.” Just ask Democratic junior senator Jon Corzine, who spent more than $63 million of his own money to defeat Republican Bob Franks (who spent less than $7 million). And much of the airtime is going out to people who can’t even vote for you. “You spend millions of dollars to become the most famous person in Bucks County, [Pennsylvania] and Greenwich, Connecticut,” quips Alvin S. Felzenberg, a veteran of New Jersey politics who served in the Kean administration and is close to Forrester.
But the other problem for Doug Forrester was his inability to define himself. Throughout the early part of the campaign, everyone knew Forrester as “the guy running against Bob Torricelli.” This worked perfectly since Torricelli’s negatives were steadily climbing. But as soon as the Torch was out, Forrester needed a new message.
“Forrester did talk about the issues, such as his protecting Social Security pensions from politicians who wanted to raid them, but for whatever reason, it just wasn’t publicized much,” says Felzenberg. “He had difficulty finding his stride after Torricelli dropped out, and that was an opportunity lost.” In fact, a number of political experts point to the time between Torricelli’s backing out and Lautenberg’s stepping in as the crucial moment of the race. “He had the media spotlight shining solely on him,” says Cliff Zukin, “but he failed to be statesmanlike. It was a tremendous opportunity he missed.” Adds David Rebovich, a political science professor at Rider University who has followed the race closely: “His focus before Torricelli dropped out was on honor and integrity. When Torricelli finally quit, Forrester was perceived as being too strident, too preachy, and too opinionated. New Jerseyans are looking to elect a pragmatic person–someone they feel comfortable with. And when in October Forrester had new and refreshing ideas, it was way too late.”
Some say this was a problem early on, even before the Democrats switched their candidates. “From August to September, the two words he should have never said were ‘Robert Torricelli’,” says Conway. “By October, it should have been all about Doug Forrester. It’s not enough to say the other guy is a scoundrel. Why should we vote for you? Forrester wanted to convince people he wasn’t Bob Torricelli and it certainly worked. But that’s not enough.”
Still, you can’t blame it all on one guy. No one anticipated Torricelli would drop out of the race and be replaced with another candidate–way after the deadline and with the help of the New Jersey State Supreme Court. At the other end, President Bush didn’t stump for Forrester late in the game after having visited during the height of the candidate’s popularity over the Torch. In essence, in New Jersey, if you want to get the aid and attention of national Republicans, you better be a sure thing–but in the Garden State, the GOP hasn’t won a Senate seat since 1972. And Lautenberg’s particular seat has been in Democratic hands since Harrison Williams first won in 1958.
So should Republicans write off New Jersey for good? “It’s not over quite yet,” says David Rebovich. “Don’t forget, New Jerseyans will be electing at least three very pro-life candidates to the House. And Republicans are very optimistic about taking on Governor McGreevey in 2005 and Jon Corzine in 2006.” Kellyanne Conway points out that New Jersey is that rare breed of state in which the majority of voters are actually registered independents, so political sentiments can fluctuate. (They just haven’t been fluctuating in the right direction for a decade.) Says Cliff Zukin, “Republicans can win. They just need all the right things to go their way. It just wasn’t the case this time around.”
Nevertheless, it is worrisome to many to see how New Jersey has lurched towards the left over the last ten years: In 1992, New Jersey voted for Bill Clinton over George Bush Sr., 43 percent to 41 percent. Four years later, Clinton won the state again, with a whopping 54 percent to Dole’s 36 percent. And in 2000, New Jerseyans gave a stunning 56 percent of their votes to Al Gore over George W. Bush, who garnered a measly 40 percent. It is a far cry from 1988, when the elder Bush trounced Michael Dukakis here, 56 percent to 42 percent.
The next crucial test comes in 2004 when Bush runs for reelection. Can he make a good showing in the Garden State? Sure, it’s possible. Though it’s hard to imagine everything going the right way.
Victorino Matus is an assistant managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
