Stomping Grounds: Ads from Ciattarelli and Spadea super PAC; Sherrill’s Musk money; and Chuck Schumer

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 get together weekly with New Jersey Globe editor David Wildstein to discuss politics and issues.

Jack Ciattarelli is up on the air with his first TV ad.  You’ve both been in the room when campaign teams mull their messages and sweat over ever second of the script.  So – what’s your review of the ad?

Dan Bryan: It’s a great ad, in and of itself. He’s toeing the line between MAGA and sanity probably about as well as he possibly can, and he comes across like a fighter.

But.

There is no substance behind *any* of this. A tax cap…how? What cuts will it lead to?

Lower property taxes…how? Are you drastically slashing spending, or increasing it through tax relief efforts? If so, where is the money coming from?

Stop overdevelopment…how? What will you allow, and where?

He presents these phrases as policy, but treats them like buzzwords. He needs to show that his campaign platform is something more than a few empty paragraphs on a website.

Alex Wilkes: I think it was a strong ad. I like that they were prescient enough to raise the electricity rate hikes we’re all talking about now – and Democrats are scrambling to minimize – even though the footage was clearly shot in the fall. I thought it was also smart to add in the quip about Democrats caring about “pronouns over property taxes” because 1) it’s true and 2) it riffs off of one of the most powerful ads of the 2024 cycle (“Kamala is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you”). I think the fact that they’re starting with a positive ad, rather than one that responds to attacks from opponents, shows that they’re confident they have enough in the arsenal – money and content-wise – to carry them through June.

Here’s a new digital ad from Legacy of Liberty, a super PAC supporting Bill Spadea.  What do you think?

Alex: If you have Trump audio or visuals, you usually use them to your greatest advantage. For that reason, I think the Trump radio clip would’ve been stronger right up front.

Dan: The ad feels narrow and sycophantic. I understand playing to the Trump crowd in a Republican primary, but doesn’t a gubernatorial campaign need to be about more than that?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think even Republican primary voters want something more to their candidate than “Trump boot licker.” This feels pretty thin.

The Democratic gubernatorial primary is starting to become a bit tempestuous, with Steve Sweeney leveling some shots at the candidate who’s been ahead in the polls, Mikie Sherrill.  He sharply criticized her for taking $30,000 from Elon Musk’s SpaceX PAC for her congressional races.  She wound up announcing that she’d donated the money to charity.  Was this the right now.

Dan: Musk is the caricature of a villain right now – he’s pure kryptonite to Democrats and independents. I can’t think of a better foil for any Democratic primary candidate, and I do understand the thought process behind this attack.

But I do think voters are inherently cynical about issues like this. We hate money in politics, because at the same time, we know how campaigns are funded, and it isn’t all with small dollar donations. Voters resent that the vast majority of candidates have to play this game, but I think they usually chalk it up to the system rather than a candidate.

Alex: This feels like the pretty standard template for dealing with donations that get you into trouble. Truthfully, I’m surprised that her team didn’t just do this quietly and proactively so that they could say it was done and dusted by the time someone inevitably brought it up. It kind of goes to my theory that Democrats have gotten soft under one-party rule. I’m sure it will still end up on paid media — if someone is willing or able to pay for it.

There’s a lot of focus on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lately and his ability to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate.   How big a problem does Schumer have?  What does he need to do to gain he confidence of rank-and-file Democrats?

Alex: This is bigger than a Chuck Schumer problem. Who is the leader of the Democratic Party, as a whole, right now?

Is it Rep. Jasmine Crockett protesting President Trump with TikTok dances? Is it the psychopaths lighting Teslas on fire? Is it the MSNBC prime time hosts? I don’t really think Democrats themselves can answer that question right now.

And believe me, I say this as someone whose party has spent plenty of time in the wilderness. It’s going to take time or an inciting moment to come together.

If Democrats decide to make Chuck Schumer the sacrificial lamb, I think it’s probably shortsighted, but I think that he’s much more durable against a challenge from disorganized factions. Remember, conservatives threatened to topple Mitch McConnell for years with most ending in a whimper. Schumer is a shrewd operator in New York, and the Senate is still a pretty clubby place. I wouldn’t bet against him.

Dan: Let’s start here: no one’s job should be safe in the national Democratic Party right now. We just lived through yet another catastrophic failure of strategy, execution, and leadership from Democrats in DC. It was inexcusable to lose the first election to Donald Trump, and unconscionable to lose the second. And it feels like no matter what happens with national Democrats and the DNC, we just rinse and repeat with the same people, the same firms and the same ideas year after year. I don’t think Senator Schumer is the Democrats’ biggest problem in DC, but I don’t know many people that see him as part of the solution for the future, either.

Senator Schumer has done plenty of good in his career, but his remarks on the Republican party last week made him seem out of touch and, frankly, naive. The Republican Party is not going back to the “old Republican Party,” regardless of what happens with President Trump. We’re now on year 31 of the “new Republican Party,” the one that puts party over country and has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to govern and would far rather destroy our country than work with a Democratic administration for the good of the country. (Not all Republicans, of course…)

But let’s say he’s right, and Republicans come back to the fold of reality at some future date  – what is our strategy right now? How are we fighting back today?

I don’t think Schumer’s going anywhere, but I do think Democrats are in desperate need of new vision and new leadership.