If you actually look at the report (linked above), the Clinton/Giuliani trail heat every Qinnapiac U poll of NJ since July has been this close. I've also seen polling from other sources earlier in the year that had Giuliani giving Clinton a sound drubbing in NJ others more recently that had Clinton eating Rudy's lunch.

But you're correct in saying that we're getting up to that time of the election year when Garden Staters invariably start having Republican fantasies. You're also correct that they begin returning to their senses as the election approaches and once the Democratic machines in Hudson, Bergen and Passaic counties swing into operation on top of that, the result of most statewide elections turns out to be a solid win for Democrats.

No horse race if one of the horses is stuck in the barn.
I agree with the posters above. Guiliani was the only candidate who could have made NJ competitive for the GOP. But with his recent Sex on the Cith scandal and his spinning to the right on gay rights, abortion, immigration to appeal to the wingnut base - he'll be tainted goods by the time Feb 2008 rolls around.

Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 1:59 PM:

I have a better headline for you dc. Any dem is doing great in "delegate rich" states, because the states are royal blue and Mr. 9/11's policy positions are more extreme than the king's. The dems would only be so lucky if he wound up being the republican nominee. Talk about landslide, unless of course the dems are dumb enough to nominate clinton II, then it would be an ugly, disgusting mud-slinging race with the result up in the air til the bitter end.

This post is silly. First, they had to search high and low to find a post with a positive spin for clinton II, because of all the bad press in the last 24 hours. Then its a poll about how great she is doing in New Jersey?????? I bet Jersey hasn't gone red since the b-movie actor, like NY. What a joke.

Sometimes, you gotta think before posting. Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, we must remember that there is a nomination to be won, and my thesis has been that this remains Hillary's race to lose because of her strength outside of the early states, which have always been competitive and unpredictable (Buchanan, McCain, Robertson, Tsongas, did well in the early states but got nowhere after that.) Therefore a poll that shows Clinton increasing her lead to a whopping 51%-17% (from 48%-20% in mid-October) over Obama in delegate-rich state like NJ, while at the same the race is tightening in the early states, supports my theory. Any Dem might do well in delegate-rich blue states against the GOP but what is the picture for the Dem nomination? A Dem would first have to be nominated before s/he could go on and do well against Rudy or any other GOP nominee. For now, Clinton is still winning hands down in NJ despite the tightening of the race in the early states. Got the relevance of this poll now?