Daggett at eight percent in New Jersey gubernatorial poll

A new poll by the Republican firm Neighborhood Research finds independent Chris Daggett at eight percent in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. The firm’s August poll had Daggett at six percent. In August, 56 percent of respondents said they had never heard of Daggett; in the new poll, conducted September 14-17, that number is down to 40 percent.

23 thoughts on “Daggett at eight percent in New Jersey gubernatorial poll

  1. Skyler McKinley

    And thus begins the direct uneasiness of both Republicans and Democrats in New Jersey. Until Daggett reaches about 15% in polling, he will only be considered a spoiler. At that threshold, he’s got a legitimate chance at the Governor’s mansion.

  2. Jeremy Young

    Skyler, give Daggett time to get there. One poll already had him at 13%, and we’re seven weeks out, he’s only run one ad, and it’s before the debates. I can actually see him winning this thing, though he’s still quite a long shot.

  3. Robert Milnes

    Skyler, what are you doing slumming at IPR? Who cares about this race? -unless Daggett turns blue libertarian, or green, unprecedented. Jeremy, what’s your interest in this one? No progressives here. Only the possibility that Daggett turns libertarian which isn’t usually considered progressive.

  4. Jeremy Young

    Skyler’s already explained his reasons for being here. I don’t see what skin off our nose it is to have him here. Anyhow, I quite like him.

    Robert, I’m more interested in successful independent candidacies than I am in third parties. My ideal governmental system is a no-party system rather than a multi-party system, though the latter is a valid stepping-stone to the former. So I get really excited when genuine independents like Daggett and Angus King and Jesse Ventura (rather than opportunistic party-switchers like Tim Cahill) show strength in various races.

  5. Richard Winger

    Jeremy Young, can you explain more why you say the ideal governmental system is a no-party system?

    The urge to form political parties seems to be a universal constant. People even form parties in countries in which that action is illegal. “Party” really just means “group of people”. What’s so bad about people forming groups? When there are no political parties, that weakens the ability of ordinary people to have a voice in government, and makes it easier for very rich individuals to dominate even more than they already do.

    When Minnesota had non-partisan elections for state legislature, the legislators quickly found that they couldn’t conduct business without forming informal parties inside the legislature, so that’s what they did. Finally the voters thought, well, since we have a Conservative caucus in the legislature and a Liberal caucus in the legislature, let’s bring it out in the open and bring back partisan elections, which was done in 1972.

  6. Ross Levin

    I wasn’t trying to be mean – I was just trying to be friendly toward Skyler and maybe start some conversation. I know him from the Gravel campaign.

  7. John Famularo

    Jeremy Young wrote,
    “genuine independents like … Jesse Ventura”

    Jesse Ventura is a good example of how useless it is to win high office without a base of support in lower offices and party operations at the precinct level.

  8. Richard Winger

    Jesse Ventura was not an independent candidate. He was recruited by the Reform Party to be its gubernatorial candidate; he entered the Reform Party primary and won it; then he was elected as the Reform Party’s nominee. While he was in office, the party in Minnesota changed its name to the Independence Party, and Ventura appointed a member of that party to a short term in the U.S. Senate, Dean Barkley. Ventura was a minor party guy 100%, never an independent candideate.

  9. Jeremy Young

    Ross, understood. I know Robert doesn’t like Skyler, though.

    Richard, here is how I see it: the function of government in a representative democracy is to choose the most effective policies, subject to the periodic approval of the voters. The best way to accomplish this is to have a truly deliberative body, where as many ideas as possible are considered and evaluated for their effectiveness by the members of Congress.

    In a party system, however, each party determines which policy it will support based on a combination of political and ideological concerns, and all the members of that party more or less are required to support that policy position. So the total of possible policies, instead of being infinite and determined based on effectiveness, is instead equal to the total number of parties and determined based on partisanship. As a result, the most effective ideas are often never considered at all, or if they are considered are generally rejected.

    I concede that it will be exceedingly difficult to maintain and enforce a true no-party system. However, I believe it can be done. It will ultimately require laws and the intervention of a strong regulatory state to stamp out all evidence of partisanship. The first step, however, is to break the two-party system’s stranglehold over our government by encouraging independents and third parties of all stripes. When all parties are weakened, it will be easier for the government to eliminate them entirely.

  10. Robert Milnes

    Ahhh yes, the opportunity of the possible winning fusion ticket of Gravel/Ruwart while Skyler was Gravel’s campaign manager which everybody missed including Gravel & Ruwart! I don’t know Skyler enough to like or dislike him. He’s a democrat so I instinctively have a negative attitude about his politics. I said he has a lot of balls being here but that doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t like him. In some ways I respect & admire balls. & if he wants to slum at IPR comments, that’s fine with me even though I have very little to say about it. I wouldn’t censor him even if I could. I’m serious as a heart attack. If Gravel/Ruwart, or ANY fusion ticket, was campaigned on that basis, they could win by plurality. But in this case it looks like even the candidates were not aware of the possibilities. If Skyler knew or suspected & being a loyal democrat didn’t mention this to his candidate, well that would say a lot.

  11. Spartacus


    “In some ways I respect & admire balls. ”

    I love admiring balls too, but let’s keep that on the down low.

  12. Robert Milnes

    Now a woman with balls I REALLY admire & respect. & that is what happened between Ruwart & I. I asked her to bolt the Lp & join me Independent. She replied no. I replied Just as I suspected-no balls. To which she replied that she was banning my email address.

  13. Spartacus

    I know what you mean. I also don’t like it when women have no balls. I prefer chicks with dicks.

  14. Solomon Drek

    Daggett has no chance. But he could swing the election to Corzine in a close race if he gets more than ten percent of the vote.

    Beware of polls. LP candidate Murray Sabrin was polling at ten percent just before the 1997 election and he ended up with less than five percent.

  15. Jeremy Young

    Robert, I didn’t “ruffle Libertarian feathers” because just about everyone here knows I’m a proud statist, and not a libertarian at all. What it amounts to is that the initial steps for my plan and that of Libertarians are the same, so we’re on the same team at the moment. And since third parties will probably never take off the way we want them to, we’ll probably always be on the same team.

  16. Skyler McKinley


    You and I have our disagreements, but I admire your persistency.

    Senator Gravel liked Ms. Ruwart and certainly respected her candidacy. However, they had fundamental disagreements which prevented any sort of fusion or alliance to be possible. It wasn’t that myself or any other staff members tried to disrupt the idea, it’s that neither the Senator nor Mary were interested in that sort of fusion candidacy.

    And yes, I am a Democrat. I was on Senator Gravel’s staff when he made the switch to the LP, and I maintained my loyalty to my candidate and to a lesser extent, my employer. Immediately following the termination of the Senator’s campaign, I managed a campaign for a Democrat who was in direct competition with a GP candidate. And following that campaign, I worked for a Democratic member of my state’s legislature.

    I am not anti Third Party. I’ve stated that here on several occasions. I fully support the broadening of the political and legislative process here in the United States to include other parties in the discussion. And that’s why I visit IPR, from time to time. Because, as Chris Daggett has shown, third parties and independents are absolutely working their way into this conversation.

    Ross, how are things?

  17. Robert Milnes

    Skyler, thank you for the further info on the 2008 campaign Gravel & Ruwart. Ruwart is a purist. A fusion ticket with anyone other than another purist would be out of the question for her. Hence she refused the vp with Barr. But that is a part of the problem with third parties & independents. Nader chose-instead of a fusion with a lib vp, a fellow leftist, Gonzalez. Lose. & even if he did win, he has no other candidates to support him in Congress i.e. Nader would have to deal with an all dem-rep. Congress. The voters realize that & don’t vote Independent in droves. It is an extremely complex situation with powerful forces. Even genius Carl Milsted came up with a brilliant but incorrect solution-a “new upper left party”. Which would directly compete with fellow third parties, LP & GP. You have already explained your rationale for visiting IPR occasionally.

  18. Trent Hill

    “And that’s why I visit IPR, from time to time. Because, as Chris Daggett has shown, third parties and independents are absolutely working their way into this conversation. ”

    Im glad to have you around Skyler. Ignore Robert if he gets on your nerves–we all do the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *