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.
New Jersey Globe: How do you assess the performance of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in this week’s presidential debate? And how do you rate ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis as moderators?
Alex Wilkes: The 5 days of non-stop preparation and memorization clearly served the Vice President well in this debate. She didn’t abuse the English language in her usual fashion, and she planted plenty of bait to throw President Trump off. I did, however, think that some of her reaction shots were overdone and her nervous delivery in the first 10 minutes hurt her performance for many Americans who tuned in just in the beginning.
I will say this: President Trump has debated on a presidential stage over half a dozen times in the last 9 years and not once has the mainstream media, editorial pages, or pundits declared him the winner (save for the June debate against Joe Biden, which was really more of a televised human rights abuse). In almost every contest that has followed, swaths of the public who the conventional wisdom will always miss have cast their votes in disagreement.
Why? Everything they needed to know was said in the first 5 minutes. Vice President Harris did not answer the question Americans tune in every cycle to hear: are you better off than you were 4 years ago? By every objective measure, they are not. It’s an exceptionally close contest and the debate did little to change that, in my opinion, but I don’t think the Harris campaign would be asking for another debate if they didn’t think they needed it.
ABC News and the moderators were a complete abomination. For all of us who managed to survive the Candy Crowley real-time fact check that ended up being false against Mitt Romney, this one-sided display felt like PTSD on steroids. We’re apparently not allowed to complain about referees in this match, but if this had happened to my friends on the left, they would be lighting themselves on fire in the streets in protest. Bottom Line: the Republican Party should never participate in an ABC-sponsored contest again.
Dan Bryan: Vice President Harris was fantastic. She was well prepared, strong, and confident. She knew what she wanted to accomplish, and achieved her goals regardless of the questions that were asked. She and her team clearly planned to bait former President Trump into losing his mind on crowd sizes and defending his record, a plan he gladly went along with.
Maybe her best line of the night was the one she delivered after being tied yet again to President Biden: I’m not President Biden and I’m certainly not Donald Trump – I represent a new generation of leadership. It was clearly written and rehearsed ahead of time, but it was perfectly timed and delivered.
Outside of the Trump smackdown, I do wish some of her answers were stronger. Unfortunately her weakest answer was on the economy, which is arguably the most important issue of this campaign. And she sounded too much like a typical politician when asked to explain her evolving views on fracking, rather than just owning up to it.
But this is akin to complaining about a few bad passes from the quarterback that just won 41-10. This was an utterly dominant performance from the Vice President, and an abomination of a performance from the former President.
I thought the moderators were solid. Their fact checking wasn’t nitpicky or intrusive – it was mostly kept to debunking items like, you know, baby executions and the eating of pets. They asked tough questions to both candidates and stayed on each. To those that say the fact checking was one sided, well, that’s what happens when the lying is one sided. Truth does have a well-known liberal bias.
NJ Globe: Sue Altman is up on the air with her first TV ad this week in her bid for a congressional seat in New Jersey’s 7th district. What did you think of it?
Dan: Sue’s new ad accomplishes the two things she needs to do in this campaign: disqualify Tom Kean, and introduce herself to voters of the 7th District.
Among the more heinous things Congressman Kean has done is create two websites: one to appeal to moderate voters in the 7th district, and one “secret” website to appeal to far-right wing extremists. I’m glad Sue called him out on it, and I hope voters hold him to account for such a blatant insult to their intelligence.
As a friend of mine likes to say, every election these days is a change election, and Sue presented herself here as a change agent. Focusing on anti-corruption efforts is smart, especially with the track record and integrity Sue has on the matter. Saying you stood up to both parties is the same as saying you’ll work with both parties – you’re signaling to voters that you’ll work for them, not the party bosses. And having the message come from in-district Republicans is clever, given the voters she’ll need to win over.
Listen, this is going to be a tough election for Democrats. There are more registered Republicans than Democrats in CD7. But with Sue running this kind of an aggressive race, and an incumbent saddled with the weaknesses and the exposure that Congressman Kean has, anything can happen.
Alex: I think featuring Republicans supporting your candidate in a Republican-leaning district is conceptually a good idea – that is, if they’re actually Republicans.
I’ve been a Republican and a conservative all of my life. I asked for a subscription to National Review for Christmas when I was 12. In a past life, I was twice elected as the National Chairman for College Republicans. I have never in my life heard a Republican – even pro-choice ones – use the phrase “secret anti-abortion agenda.”
It wouldn’t be the first time “Defund the Police” Sue has played fast and loose with her actors. She also released an ad featuring a supposedly “independent” business owner who actually operates her small business in the much more favorable tax environment of South Carolina. Pro tip to Democrat firms, if they have blue hair, they’re probably one of yours!
NJ Globe: On Monday, George Helmy took office as the new United States Senator from New Jersey. As an interim senator, what should New Jerseyans expect to see?
Alex: George Helmy, D.C. chillin’ for the next three months! As someone who loves this massive middle finger to Andy Kim, patron saint of empty water bottles, I mean this with all sincerity: enjoy it, man. Use your perks for Capitol Dome tours, good Kennedy Center seats, a prime table Le Diplomate, or whatever is cool these days. See you on the other side of the revolving door!
Dan: First and foremost, Senator Helmy will restore ethics and integrity to an office that desperately needs it. He’s allowing us to turn the page from Senator Menendez and look forward to better days.
But I also think if anyone can really accomplish anything in just a few short months in the United States Senate, it’s George. He knows the US Senate just as well as he knows the State of New Jersey, so he won’t take any time getting up to speed. I was honored to witness his swearing-in on Monday, and excited to see what he can accomplish for the people of New Jersey.
NJ Globe: Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris received considerable attention. Why do voters care when a celebrity supports someone in a political campaign?
Dan: Largely, I don’t think they do. But I think Taylor Swift’s endorsement is a bit of a unicorn. She’s the most popular artist in the world right now, and her fans don’t just focus on her music. They identify with her personality, her life story, and her values. If she’s telling them that she made a decision that she feels strongly about, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her generating attention and excitement for the Harris campaign and bringing more than a few moderate voters along with her.
Ordinarily celebrity endorsements matter more for garnering attention than changing minds. If you’re running in a race and struggling to get headlines, having a celebrity get involved makes sense – you have free media attention and it helps generate some level of excitement.
Alex: Everyone is entitled to support who they want. Save for Ronald Reagan, Republicans have never been all that popular with the Hollywood crowd but have still managed to win elections over the last few decades. The key question is whether or not the endorsement translates into follow up action (e.g. voter registration, turnout) and if the endorsement mobilizes voters who were not already predisposed to vote for Kamala Harris. On those points, I have my doubts in this case, but I also do not deny the power of celebrity in a close election.