Stomping Grounds: Assembly ’25, DOGE, Ballot Design and Hoboken

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.

Races for State Assembly are beginning to take shape.  Where do each of you view your greatest opportunities to flip seats in 2025?

Dan Bryan: For Democrats, holding the majority they currently have is a massive win. The onus is very much on the NJ GOP. Democrats are working with a significant majority in the Assembly, with 52 of 80 seats. Democrats can make runs in places like LD25, LD21, or maybe even LD30. But holding 65% of a legislative chamber is a pretty good place to be.

Republicans fumbled a massive opportunity in 2023, when they actually *lost seats* in the second midterm of an incumbent Governor. But politics is cyclical – the incompetence can’t last forever (can it?), and eventually they’ll find themselves on the winning end of a successful cycle. But you could have gotten rich betting against the NJ GOP for the last decade, and I’ll need to see their success before I believe it.

Alex Wilkes: The most natural place to start are districts that saw the greatest shift toward President Trump in 2024. Fortunately for Republicans, there are many that fit this bill. Moreover, many of these districts will also be missing a key part of the equation: a strong senate candidate to carry the ticket. Add this to a non-existent county organization line? I mean, let’s face it, a lot of the assembly candidates in these districts are kind of losers that have been saved by the machine. Adding to their woes is that some of them will face real primaries from the left for the first time thanks to Steve Fulop.

I think down south, LD3 (Trump Net Shift +4.8%), LD4 (+5.3%), and LD8 (+3.5%) are ripe for a rematch. All of these districts represent the rapidly changing Trump coalition of the working class and minority voters that we saw shift in 2024. Even more suburban, affluent LD11 (+8.9%) is worth an investment without the sparkle of Vin Gopal. We also need to take a look at LD36 (+18.3%) and LD38 (+14.3%), which again, represent that changing Trump coalition and actually overperformed expectations in 2023 – despite that being an overall bad year for Republicans.

With respect to 2023, I have a little bit of a bone to pick with Dan for two reasons. First, I think that the disappointments of that year can be fairly attributed to aftershocks from the 2022 Dobbs decision. There was a reason that the Democrats dumped millions on Philly and NYC broadcast running the abortion issue into the ground in a state that allows elective abortion up to the time of birth. Second, Republicans still harbored grave misgivings about the safety of pre-Election Day voting. Donald Trump changed that overnight in 2024. I think it will be much easier to convince Republicans about the convenience of banking their votes early, particularly because they’ve already done it. Most importantly, I think there is still an anti-incumbent mood in the air at a time when Democrats could not be less prepared to deal with the true challenges of an open primary.

Among the many things dominating news cycles is DOGE — the Department of Government and Efficiency – and President Trump has granted Elon Musk and his team some fairly broad authority; some federal judges are limiting it.  How is DOGE being received in the eyes of voters?

Alex: The rapid expansion of the federal government over the last two decades has come at the expense of the American people – and they know it. That’s part of why they voted against Kamala Harris – the ultimate creature of the Washington glitterati – in 2024.

Inauguration weekend is the first time I’ve spent any length of time in D.C. (besides a quick overnight or day trip) since I moved to New Jersey seven years ago. What I saw made my stomach turn. A Christian Louboutin and Tiffany store at the very heart of the city? That means that there are enough people who live and do business there who can afford those luxury items. That’s okay in places like Short Hills where people get paid for creating things of value, but there is no doubt that a bloated, unaccountable government creates that kind of perverse culture.

If you’re not persuaded, forget what that says about our values; we simply cannot afford it. A little louder for those in the back: we cannot afford it! We are $36 TRILLION dollars in debt to America’s adversaries.

In Elon Musk, we are blessed to have one of the greatest minds of our time who is willing to take time away from his successful and mind-bending private enterprises to help us figure out the many layers of waste, fraud, and abuse that have built up over time.

No one likes to see someone lose his or her job, but at the same time, the average American absolutely cannot relate to pearl-clutching bureaucrats who are aghast that someone has asked them to name just 5 things they did at work that week. Most Americans working white-collar and blue-collar jobs have to do that every day.

Look, if the Democrats really want to die on the hill of funding interpretative dance for transgender monkeys in Singapore or something, go stand with Andy Kim and cry in front of a federal building. Other than in very specific parts of Virginia, it’s a losing battle and they know it. They’re only hope is to scream, cry, and pray that their gravy train of taxpayer dollars doesn’t evaporate.

Dan: It’s important to state up front why the Trump administration is trying to cut Government spending: they want to cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations *again,* at the expense of working Americans. Their plans will weaken our government, divide our country, and add even more to the ballooning federal deficit

DOGE has been a political disaster. It’s hard to convince people that the supposed act of “cutting government waste” is a bad thing, but then again you can’t put anything past the brilliant political mind of Elon Musk. The cuts have been indiscriminate, harmful to our country in countless ways, and, in some cases, possibly illegal. 

Let’s be honest with ourselves: we’re not going to cut government spending in any significant way by laying off National Parks rangers. The vast majority of our federal government spending is on the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Since the Trump administration can’t touch any of those, they cut VA healthcare workers instead. It’s shameful cowardice.

We’re already seeing President Trump’s numbers plunging, and DOGE is just one of the reasons.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a ballot design bill that has just minor tweaks from the bipartisan Assembly version approved late last year.  Will this be enough to make the lawsuit go away – or is Steve Fulop right that limitations on using names with permission in slogans is unfair?

Dan: Everyone deserves the same shot at elected office, regardless of who they are. I think that’s a value that we all, now, agree upon. Within that, there are plenty of healthy conversations to be had.

I think the debate about the ballot design is starting to get away from us a bit. The debate over the county line was clear: many people in our state, including Judge Quraishi, thought it was an unfair advantage on the ballot. But now, it seems like we’re fighting on new terrain every day. 

Is association (bracketing with a running mate) really a bad thing? I remember people fighting for it in BOE elections as a way to help underfunded community campaigns compete with more established, well funded campaigns. I’m not arguing the merits one way or another, but merely pointing out that there should be plenty of nuance to the conversation.

I think we’re now at the point where there is a healthy ongoing discussion on what the final version of the ballot design will look like. We need to remember that we’re less than one year removed from Judge Quraishi’s decision, and we’ve already seen alignment on a number of critical issues. The final bill should be one that sees no one getting exactly what they want, but one that all sides can live with.

Alex: I’m against all forms of DEI including that for incumbent New Jersey legislators. The ballot design should provide for equal opportunities rather than preferred outcomes. That being said, I also recognize the right of political parties to freely associate and decide who should use their slogan or name. Also, as a practical matter, without the preferential ballot position, I think it’s likely that the power and recognition of the better-known slogans will fade over time. It’s probably the most we’re going to get from incumbents voting on their own future.

There are five candidates in the race for mayor of Hoboken.  Why does Hoboken, which is smaller than Irvington, Piscataway, and Vineland, get so much outsized attention in New Jersey politics?

Alex: Nostalgia.

Dan: I can write a book on this question, so I’ll do my best to keep it (somewhat) brief. 

Hoboken is a great town to govern. It’s one square mile of more than 50,000 residents with an unbeatable location. It’s a small town community with quicker access to New York than most parts of Brooklyn. It’s a mix between “born and raised” and “new Hoboken,” which also forms the traditional fault line in local politics. The business community is a mix of legendary local spots that have been around for decades and newer spots that attract the 20-somethings that just moved in. 

When you’re the Mayor of Hoboken, you interact with everyone from condo associations to the President, from titans of industry to Hollywood stars, from colorful locals to the global elite. I worked in Hoboken politics from 2009 to 2015, which was also the tipping point when “new Hoboken” finally gained political control from the “born and raised” contingent. It was a wild time.

(Nothing is ever as clean as that, of course. Plenty of our supporters had lived in Hoboken their whole lives, and plenty of our opponents’ supporters had just moved to town. But this is the traditional political fault line. As a great Hoboken character once said to me, “Born and raised isn’t a place, it’s a state of mind.”)

It’s a City large enough to fit world-class development and tens of thousands of diverse residents, but small enough to implement cutting-edge governing techniques, like Rebuild by Design, on-street car sharing, vision-zero initiatives, and pedestrianizing busy roads. It’s a fantastic place to experiment with quality of life initiatives for city residents.

The politics in Hoboken have always been divisive at best and toxic at worst. It’s in the water. But great things are possible there, because it’s a city unrivalled in layout, access, location, and economy. You have to be a little crazy to run for office in a town like Hoboken, but if it’s the right kind of crazy, you can do an awful lot of good for one of the premier destinations in our state.