Republicans held onto a majority of seats, but the sharp rise in
Democratic performance in all 13 districts could indicate future shifts. Still, a majority
of elections likely will be lopsided, which is no surprise given that the public's
representative in the state's redistricting process openly sought to ensure that the
parties won a roughly proportionate share of seats -- only possible in a winner-take-all
system by creating non-competitive districts.
click here to go to key to explain symbols
| PREDICTION: Uncontested Win (1: 1R) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996: | 1994: | 1992: | Clinton: | First: | |
| 3. James Saxton (R)* | 64% | 66% | 59% | 50% (+1, up 4) | 1984 |
| PREDICTION: Landslide Win (7: 2R, 5D) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996: | 1994: | 1992: | Clinton: | First: | |
| 1. Robert Andrews (D)* | 76% | 72% | 67% | 59% (+10, up 5) | 1990 |
| 5. Marge Roukema (R)* | 71% | 74% | 72% | 43% (-6, up 3) | 1980 |
| 6. Frank Pallone (D)* | 61% | 60% | 52% | 55% (+6, up 5) | 1988 |
| 9. Steve Rothman (D) | 56% | - | - | 60% (+11, up 6) | 1996 |
| 10. Donald Payne (D)* | 84% | 76% | 78% | 82% (+33, up 5) | 1988 |
| 11. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)* | 66% | 71% | - | 42% (-7, up 3) | 1994 |
| 13. Robert Menendez (D)* | 79% | 71% | 64% | 71% (+22, up 11) | 1992 |
| PREDICTION: Comfortable Win (3: 2R, 1D) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996: | 1994: | 1992: | Clinton: | First: | |
| 2. Frank LoBiondo (R)* | 60% | 65% | - | 50% (+1, up 3) | 1994 |
| 4. Christopher Smith (R)* | 64% | 68% | 62% | 51% (+2, up 5) | 1980 |
| 8. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D) | 51% | - | - | 58% (+9, up 6) | 1996 |
| PREDICTION: Win (1: 1R) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996: | 1994: | 1992: | Clinton: | First: | |
| 7. Bob Franks (R)* | 55% | 60% | 53% | 51% (+2, up 4) | 1992 |
| PREDICTION: Vulnerable (1: 1R) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996: | 1994: | 1992: | Clinton: | First: | |
| 12. Michael Pappas (R) | 50% | - | - | 48% (-1, up 2) | 1996 |
click here to go to key to explain symbols
back to Summary page