New Jerseyans aren’t always civil, but it’s still possible for a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican to have a rational and pleasant conversation about politics in the state. Dan Bryan is a former senior advisor to Gov. Phil Murphy and is now the owner of his own public affairs firm, and Alex Wilkes is an attorney and former executive director of America Rising PAC who advises Republican candidates in New Jersey and across the nation, including the New Jersey GOP. Dan and Alex are both experienced strategists who are currently in the room where high-level decisions are made. They will get together weekly with New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein to discuss politics and issues.
Democrats had eight days to pick a candidate to replace Bill Pascrell on the ballot, but they only needed seven. State Sen. Nellie Pou, a legislator for the last 27 years, emerged from the four-candidate field to secure the nomination; she could be New Jersey’s first Latina Member of Congress. Was this a good outcome for Democrats?
Alex Wilkes: It’s always better when you can avoid conflict (not that there was much time for that), but I think Democrats at the grassroots level would have to admit that we’ve had a lot of convenient “end runs” around these messy primaries. Respectfully, Congressman Pascrell likely knew he was not in good health but hung onto the seat long enough that there would be no vigorous campaign to replace him. After a disastrous debate performance that exposed the troubling state of his health, Joe Biden rubber stamped Kamala Harris as his replacement, even though there were many eager Democrats who would have wanted a shot.
Primaries can be a huge headache for party leadership – but the “inconvenience” doesn’t obviate the party’s obligation to give voters a genuine choice. Whether it’s the Bidens transferring a bank account with hundreds of millions of dollars raised in his name or county chairs in New Jersey not even consulting county committees before endorsing, this type of heavy handiness will catch up with them.
Dan: New Jersey, the most diverse state in the nation, has finally nominated a Latina to federal office.
Senator Pou will have big shoes to fill, but over decades of her legislative career, she has built a reputation as an effective, smart, and caring leader. There were many good candidates for the CD9 seat – the nomination could easily have gone to Assemblywoman Sumter, Assemblyman Wimberly, or Mayor Sayegh. That Senator Pou stood out so quickly and so early speaks to the reputation and relationships she has built.
As New Jersey moves on from the late, great Bill Pascrell, there is no better person to take the mantle then Senator Pou. This was a good outcome for Democrats.
More than three years after an administrative law judge found that political consultant James Devine filed nearly 2,000 fake signatures on petitions to get his partner, Lisa McCormick, on the ballot in the 2021 Democratic primary, the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability agreed to a plea bargain allowing Devine to get probation instead of a possible 13-year prison sentence. Does this send a good message on how serious New Jersey is when it comes to stopping election fraud?
Dan: Clearly, Devine a disturbed person. I don’t know enough about criminal justice to know whether probation or a jail sentence was appropriate, but this seems like a situation that was well and promptly handled by the Attorney General’s office. I think the fact that he was found guilty and that the rest of his life will be negatively affected does send a message, and I’m glad OPIA moved on this when they did.
Alex: If New Jersey was serious about election integrity, it would implement Voter ID laws that are widely supported by majorities across the ideological spectrum. Legislators would not have dismantled ELEC, and – in the very least – they would close the loophole that loosens reporting requirements for PACs as compared to those imposed on candidates. AG Platkin would address machine malfunctions, including those that occurred in Mercer County in 2022, for which he has yet to provide real answers. Candidates wouldn’t be left off ballots in counties that have ample resources for administering elections. But, hey, one guy made a plea bargain, so I guess we’re supposed to be satisfied with that!
Cumberland County Clerk Celeste Riley’s office initially designed an office block general election ballot that put independents in the same draw as major party candidates and didn’t bracket Democrats and Republicans together. The effect, intended or not, was to put Riley, the last standing Democrat in Cumberland County, right next to a locally popular Republican congressman, Jeff Van Drew. Facing a lawsuit, Riley’s office backed down and will redraw ballots. Is this a better way to design a ballot – or was Riley trying to game the system?
Alex: From phantom candidates to these ballot shenanigans, it’s clear that the Democrats in South Jersey have clearly never fully recovered from the changing demographics that have ended their one-party monopoly. Great work from Jason Sena in immediately identifying this issue and then swiftly bringing legal action to stop it.
Dan: I don’t know whether or not Riley was trying to game the system. I will say that we’re in a tumultuous time for ballot design – until the Legislature passes a bill mandating a new uniform design that comports with Judge Quarashi’s ruling (and I believe they will do so, sooner rather than later), we’ll see more situations like this.
I agree with Alex that there is no room in New Jersey for ballot shenanigans like phantom candidates. I hope that issue is being fully investigated, along with the people behind it.
I’m seeking some free advice from two savvy communications professionals. There’s a Rutgers political science professor named Amy Higer who seems to complain a lot on Twitter/X, and this week it was about voters not having a say on who Democrats would pick to replace Bill Pascrell. I asked her for a better way of handling the reality that a congressman died a week before the deadline to replace him, and found it shocking when she said she’d only offer a solution if someone paid her. Is it worth arguing with chronic complainers who offer no ideas of their own, or should I just ignore the bubble talkers?
Dan: I think, as a general matter, any time we argue with *anyone* from Twitter (and this person is very much “from Twitter”) it’s a mistake. I’ve never felt good about engaging in an online fight, and I’ve never regretted staying out of one.
I’m sure Professor Higer is a nice, well-meaning person, but this was an odd complaint. Political parties play a role in replacing candidates in emergent cases like death – I’m not sure how else we’d do it. I’m not surprised to see her argument fall apart when challenged, because reality often doesn’t matter on social media. All you have to do is engage in the ongoing pile-on of the day, and you’re golden. Honestly, I suspect she is much different in person than she is online, and I won’t judge her based on Twitter.
Twitter isn’t real life, and it should have no relevance in our day-to-day politics.
Alex: I would remind Professor Higer that we actually already do pay her, and from the looks of it, this seems to be a bad investment of taxpayer money. I have a lot of important professors in my life, who thankfully still love me, even if they hate what I do, and I can tell you that the end of August usually does not afford them the time to tweet hourly. I guess every week will be “syllabus week” this semester!