New Poll: Who should Governor Christie appoint to the U.S. Senate if Menendez resigns?

A technical glitch prompted the deletion of the poll we were running, Who should Governor Christie appoint to the U.S. Senate if Menendez resigns?  Given that the poll was the most popular post of the last few days, we decided on a do over.

Surprisingly, 2010 congressional candidate Scott Sipprelle was leading the poll by a wide margin before we took it down this morning.  Sipprelle had 39% if the votes, followed by State Senator Joe Kyrillos with 19%.  Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno and Congressman Chris Smith each had 12%.   Here are the results of the original poll.

We’ve added former Highlands Mayor Anna Little’s name to the mix because we had a couple of complaints that she was excluded.

Posted: February 3rd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: 2013 Election, Bob Menendez, Chris Christie | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

10 Comments on “New Poll: Who should Governor Christie appoint to the U.S. Senate if Menendez resigns?”

  1. In Light Of The Recent Menendez Stories said at 12:46 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    Can’t We Just Do A “Do Over” For The Election 🙂

  2. Joe D said at 12:57 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    It is clear that Scott has had his supporters flock to the net. The average person has never heard of him. Joe K. would be ideal and the likely choice based on his relationship with the Governor. I think its Joe’s for the taking and its his to accept or decline. What is a more interesting question is who will run on the D side in the special election? Would Booker run then (likely) leaving the Lautenberg seat up for another R to go after?

  3. Mahatmacane Jeeves said at 1:19 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    Well, it appears by the one vote for Little Anna that either she of Rob must read Art’s blogs religiously.

  4. Gene B said at 5:49 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    With Romney from Massachusetts and Geraldo from NJ, Republicans just might be able to weasel their way into a socialist majority.

  5. Gene B. said at 9:03 am on February 4th, 2013:

    Call the Governor and tell him that I changed my mind. Typically, a Governor would appoint the person who has the best chance for reelection. In NJ, that would be a chronic supporter of bloated budgets.

    But we will not be able to rebuild NJ or America if that thinking does not stop soon.

    So, I would tell the Governor that he should select Anna Little because she is the only Constitutionalist on the list. She is also a pragmatic Constitutionalist, meaning that she fully understand that Fair Tax is not really supported by Constittuional purists but it is the only way to get rid of the IRS and fix the tax system.

    We need someone who can help teach NJ citizens that they have been shooting themselves in the foot. We need that much more than supporting a Republican Party that can never help NJ as long as they try to imitate Democrats.

    My vote has now been switched to Anna Little although I cannot change it on the poll because my IP address is locked out.

  6. observer said at 10:50 am on February 4th, 2013:

    What exactly is a constitutionalist? Anna Little declared that Social Security was unconstutional. Well a conservative Supreme Court disagreed with that about 75 years ago.

    It appears these terms are used by people who I doubt even know what is in the constitution .

  7. Gene B. said at 12:20 pm on February 4th, 2013:

    Observer –

    You defined the difference between a Constitutionalist and others when you said that the Supreme Court can determine what is Constitutional. The problem with America is that we have given judges the final say in everything, regardless of justice, accuracy, or legislative intent.

    That fact is that judges are lawyers. As a group, they do not understand the original intent of the Constitution. In law school, the only class that they take on the Constitution is based on judges decisions and not original intent. Being a lawyer, Anna fully understands original intent better than most other lawyers I’ve met.

    I agree with Anna if she said that SS is not Constitutional (I do not know if she said that or not). The only way to make something Constitutional is to go through a legislative amendment process, not through judges.

    From a practical point of view, every State and Federal legislator violates their oath on a regular basis because almost none of their legislation meets the strict test of being Constitutional.

    But it is still something that needs to be taught to the voting public because the basis of America that got us this far was the Constitution. My comment was that Anna is the only person on the list that understands the Constitution as it was designed to be used. But she is also practical and supports some issues that are borderline Constitutional because that would be the only way to get anything passed in our current political system.

    Here is another reason why Christie would be advised to choose Anna or another true Constitutionalist. Although Christie will get reelected with no problem in NJ, if he ever wants to run for President, he will need to appeal to a wing of the party that now considers him a RINO. If he chose Anna, he would be able to point toward his selection as an example of the type of people who he supports.

  8. observer said at 12:29 pm on February 4th, 2013:

    Now you are just being a crank. In 1801 John Marshall established the concept of judicial review. The Supreme Court is one of the three branches of goverment. The jurisdiction of the courts can be restricted by Congress. or via amendment. In 213 years no Congress or amendment was ever enacted to change what John Marshall determined in 1801.

    Secondly Social security was enacted through the legisative process. Ever hear of the Social Security Act? or the several amendments to the same. Who do you thinmk created it Stalin? Trotsky? Lenin? The Social Security Act of 1935 (signed into law on 8/14/1935) was the Act the Supreme Court found constitional.

    If you actually read the constitution in its entirety, maybe you will learn something instead of talking out of your behind.

  9. Gene B. said at 1:29 pm on February 4th, 2013:


    Name-Calling Liberal Revisionist (AKA Observer):

    There are supposed to be three branches. The courts do not have the authority to give themselves the power to change the Constitution as you believe they did in the Judiciary Act. Nor can any law that Congress passes reverse the Constituion unless they go through the prescribed amendment process.

    The fact that they regularly give themselves powers that they are not entitled to indicates a major problem with the elected members of the other branches. Ultimately, it is the voters who refuse to vote for candidates who support the orignal intent of the America who are at fault.

    Thanks for making my point that the Governer should choose a Constitutional Originalist so that it would bring this debate into the public. Voters have given us the mob controlled democracy that you support because they do not undeerstand the results of their actions.

    This is my last comment on this thread as I have decided to return to my policy to never respond to drive-by name callers, especially if they are anonymous.

  10. Michael Priestley said at 7:13 pm on February 12th, 2013:

    Just as long as it is a Republican. The Democrats must PAY for this mistake! Thank you!