© Matt Rourke, Associated Press |
Republicans look to New Jersey for an off-cycle upset |
When we talk about the "honeymoon phase" of a new administration in Washington, it may be a deep bipartisan swoon or a one-sided affair like we have today. But the real honeymoon is for the rest of the country. After a long, brutal two-year presidential election cycle, the votes have all been counted, the oaths of office taken, and the balances of power rebalanced. In other words, normal people can unplug from politics for a little while and see what happens next. But we, of course, are not normal here. The permanent campaign is never more permanent than it is for the junkies in the political press who cover elections. No sooner have the voting booths been stowed away than we are on to the next one. What's next are a pair of April 1 special elections in Florida to replace former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R), who resigned ahead of a damning ethics report, and former Rep. Mike Waltz (R), who gave up his seat to become White House national security adviser. Those are both very Republican districts and little will be gleaned about voter attitudes by which one of a field of red-hot MAGA aspirants replaces them. There will be, maybe as soon as early summer, a slightly more interesting race in New York to replace the soon-to-depart Rep. Elise Stefanik (R). She should have no trouble being confirmed as Donald Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, but has to cool her heels in the House until the zero-margin Republicans get reinforcements from Florida. We're not going to waste your time on parsing House special elections, though. If it looks like something weird is going to happen, we will let you know. We'd like to direct your attention, instead, to elections that are not special but still very useful in seeing where voters' heads are. Five states — Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia — hold "off cycle" elections in odd-numbered years. The first three time their gubernatorial cycles to fall in the year after federal midterm contests, when the next presidential cycle is already well underway. By the time Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi are picking new governors in 2027, we will be deep into the back nine of the second Trump term. But not New Jersey and Virginia, which pick governors in the year right after a presidential contest. And while neither of them is a swing state, they are at least politically diverse enough to provide a core sample of the electorate that tells us where voters are heading in the early going of a new administration. Virginia has, in every modern cycle other than 2013, been a harbinger of the results of the next midterm election. The midterm curse for parties in power hits Richmond before it moves up I-95 to Washington. All signs right now point to a repeat of the trend in Virginia this November. Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is a strong favorite to win her party's nomination to succeed term-limited incumbent Gov. Glenn Youngkin. She's an excellent campaigner, a staunch conservative and should be able to dispatch a challenge from a very ambitious state senator. But it gets a great deal harder from there. As a poll this week shows, Earle-Sears is starting at a distinct disadvantage to the Democratic front-runner, former Rep. Abigail Spanberger. Spanberger is also a good campaigner who has kept a studied moderation that matched her heavily suburban Northern Virginia and the commonwealth as a whole. Spanberger could still draw a primary foe, but right now she seems to be on a glide path to the nomination. If that's so, she wouldn't have to play to her left flank in the way her Republican counterpart may need to in the GOP's June primary. But beyond any questions of party unity and Virginia's decades-long history of going against the party in power in Washington, there's this: Virginia is home to 152,360 federal employees, second only to California as a percentage of the state's workforce. There are tens of thousands of jobs supporting those jobs and heaven only knows how many more contractors. An administration that has devoted its opening act largely to shredding the federal bureaucracy probably hasn't won many new admirers in a place that Trump lost by almost 6 points last year. Democrats have lots of reason to feel good about their chances in Virginia, but how about New Jersey? We have been long accustomed to thinking of Virginia, a Southern state that voted Republican on the presidential level for most of the second half of the 20th century, as the tougher spot for Democrats compared to its off-cycle counterpart, New Jersey. No Republican presidential candidate has won the Garden State since 1988, and Republicans haven't won a Senate race there since 1966. But when we look a little more carefully at the 2024 results, we see that the presidential race in New Jersey was closer than any year since 1992, the first year Democrats took control. Democrats still won by a comfortable 6 points, the same as Virginia, but the trend is moving in the opposite direction. As Virginia gets bluer, New Jersey may be acting a little purple. The leading Republican candidate is Jack Ciattarelli, the businessman and former member of the state Assembly who came within a whisker of unseating incumbent Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in 2021. Murphy is now term-limited, but probably couldn't win a third term even if he was allowed. Murphy's debacle of a bid to get his wife the nomination for the Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Bob Menendez — now awaiting the start of an 11-year prison sentence for corruption — was a good insight into how much the incumbent has worn out his welcome. But Ciattarelli is no shoo-in for the GOP nod. Longtime state lawmaker Jon Bramnick is a serious contender, and the two seem headed for a collision in the June 10 primary. Ciattarelli seems more Trump-y and Bramnick seems more old-school, but both have plenty of support and lots of campaign cash to spend. However intense that gets, though, it will pale in comparison to the fracas on the Democratic side. Two sitting members of Congress, Rep. Josh Gottheimer and Rep. Mikie Sherrill have both jumped in the race, as have the mayors of two of the state's largest cities, Newark and Jersey City, as well as the president of the state's very powerful teachers union and the longtime former president of the state Senate. I don't know what the New Jersey version of a goat rodeo is, but this sure looks like whatever that is. Of course, the reason the field is so crowded is that, despite the headwinds of 2024, Democrats remain the clear favorites to retain the governor's mansion. They wouldn't all be fighting for a prize unless they thought it was valuable. But, of course, ugly and expensive primaries weaken candidates for the general election. With plenty of bad blood left over from the Murphy years and the Menendez scandal, the score settling could get intense. That's a long way of saying that Democrats are pretty clearly favored to win both of the off-cycle contests, but if Republicans are looking for evidence that they may be spared the expected midterm shellacking of 2026 they should look to New Jersey first. | Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions & amplifications: WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com. If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be publicized, please specify. |
By Chris Stirewalt | Thursday, February 27 |
|
|
Net Score: -3 points [Average includes: Washington Post: 48 percent approve - 51 percent disapprove; CNN/SSRS: 46 percent approve - 54 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac: 45 percent approve - 49 percent disapprove; Survey USA: 51 percent approve - 45 percent disapprove; Gallup: 45 percent approve - 51 percent disapprove] |
AFTER DECLINE, CHRISTIAN SHARE OF U.S. POPULATION HOLDS STEADY |
|
|
Smithsonian Magazine: "Robert Caro has spent most of his life asking questions of others, and he rather prefers it that way. … Caro is legendary for going further than normal biographers would typically go, a proclivity epitomized by his reporting on [Lyndon B.] Johnson's childhood in the Texas Hill Country. Realizing that he wasn't really understanding the milieu from which Johnson emerged, Caro and his wife (who has often played a substantial role alongside him as a researcher) moved to the area — for three years. Similarly, Caro has long said that he doesn't feel able to complete this final volume without spending time in Vietnam. … Caro's will specifies that no one else may finish this book for him if he does not finish it. … I think this may have left many people the impression that we face an all-or-nothing scenario — that if Caro doesn't finish the book, we will see none of it. But when I ask him about this, he clarifies that whatever else happens, these 951 pages and counting will be available to see the light of day." |
|
|
Senate eyes big changes to House budget bill: The Hill: "Senate Republicans are staring down a major fight to overhaul the House's budget resolution as lawmakers eye big changes. … Even as Senate Republicans say they're relieved the House was able to advance the measure, they're also crying foul that it wouldn't make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent and fretting about the deep cuts to Medicaid that would be required to finance it. … Buoying [John Thune] and company's hopes is that they seemingly got the president on board with their plan, as he posted his support for it early Wednesday. … The two chambers will eventually need to pass identical budget resolutions in order to officially unlock the reconciliation process." |
MAGA faithful weigh Trump agenda against potential midterm losses: The Wall Street Journal: "On Capitol Hill, some Republicans worry that President Trump's blitz of government layoffs has cut too deeply. … Trump's approval rating turned negative in several recent opinion polls, a potentially ominous sign for the 2026 midterms. The MAGA faithful have a response: Keep pressing ahead, and don't worry about the next election. … Many [at CPAC] said Trump's approach to Washington has fulfilled their wildest ambitions. That would make any midterm losses worth it. But they also believed Trump would have a winning message by 2026. … 'It's not worth holding on to power with white knuckles and saying, Oh, we're scared we might lose the midterms, so let's not do anything,' said Christopher Kelly. … Trump, in his remarks at CPAC on Saturday, predicted that voters would support his party in 2026. 'I think we're going to do fantastic in the midterms,' he said." |
GOP reps face angry constituents as DOGE presses ahead: The New York Times: "In congressional districts around the country over the past week, Republican lawmakers returning home for their first congressional recess since Mr. Trump was sworn in faced similar confrontations with their constituents. In Georgia, Representative Rich McCormick struggled to respond as constituents shouted, jeered and booed. … In Wisconsin, Representative Scott Fitzgerald was asked to defend the administration's budget proposals. … Many of the most vocal complaints came from participants who identified themselves as Democrats, but a number of questions … came from Republican voters. … The tenor of the sessions suggests that, after a brief honeymoon period for Mr. Trump and Republicans at the start of their governing trifecta, voters beginning to digest the effects of their agenda may be starting to sour on it." |
Moderates hit Trump on DOGE, Ukraine: The Washington Post: "Lisa Murkowski is getting some sudden backup from a handful of prominent moderate Republicans using rather strong language. They've used words such as 'embarrassing,' 'cruel,' 'absurd,' 'extortion' and 'trauma' while crying foul over what Trump and Elon Musk are doing to the federal government, as well as Trump's attacks on Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. … Two of the three House Republicans who represent districts Trump lost in the 2024 election have also been increasingly outspoken about Trump's Ukraine comments. … The fact that these members would lead the charge in raising red flags about Trump and Musk isn't too surprising. Each of them is rather unusual in the MAGA-era Republican Party as far as their latitude to distance themselves from Trump. … We shouldn't expect many other Republicans to start talking in these terms right now." |
New York lieutenant governor ditches Hochul: The Hill: "New York Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado said on Monday he would not run for reelection with Gov. Kathy Hochul in 2026 but said he would explore other options to represent New York in state government. … 'I am determined to be your voice in state government now and in the future. All options are on the table, and I will be exploring them,' he added. Candidates run independently for governor and lieutenant governor in the primaries, but their names appear together on the general election ballots, as Hochul's and Delgado's did in 2022. Delgado has publicly broken with Hochul on a number of issues throughout their tenure, including most recently when he called for New York City Mayor Eric Adams's resignation." |
|
|
Tim Walz passes up Senate bid, but considers 3rd gubernatorial campaign — Axios |
Poll: Andrew Cuomo leads field in NYC mayoral race — NBC New York |
Slotkin to deliver Dem response to Trump's joint address — Politico |
Key Dems back Chavez-DeRemer for Labor secretary — The Hill |
|
|
"You got a guy like Byron, he just hasn't been a part of any of the victories that we've had here over the left over these last years. He's just not been a part of it." — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis while talking to reporters dismisses Rep. Byron Donalds, whom President Trump has endorsed to succeed DeSantis. DeSantis instead praised the potential candidacy of his own wife, Casey. |
Geometry teachers hit hardest |
"I wouldn't be against them taking it from a Pentagon to a Trigon. Cut a couple sides off it." — Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville backs budget cuts at the Pentagon. |
|
| "Democrats must admit to some unvarnished truths. Trump and his admirers have won only when Dems put up a female candidate for president. And progressive platforms will never pull in enough independent voters to win. Like it or not, we still live in a middle-of-the-road, paternalistic society." — Mike Carson, Georgetown, Texas |
Mr. Carson, I might say that every other loss Democrats have experienced in the previous 197 years was with a male candidate, but that would be a little too cute. I have to accede to your point that twice Democrats have nominated women, and twice they have been defeated. And as for the progressivism of the platform, I will also have to grant you that Democrats have found themselves badly out of step with mainstream voters. There aren't enough votes on the far left to make up for losses in the big, fat middle. But how do we explain the two wins of Barack Obama? A very progressive senator with a biography so exotic that Republicans accused him of being a secret Kenyan and stealth Muslim. The simple answer is that the times were different. In the wake of the war in Iraq and the financial panic of 2008 Americans were ready for profound change, and Obama found a way to represent both a dramatic departure from the status quo and stability. If you would have said in 2001 that a progressive, African American man with the middle name Hussein would be president before a white, moderate woman had the chance, it would have sounded crazy. But Obama had the talent to take advantage of the opportunity he found. I do not doubt that sexism cost both Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton some support — perhaps significantly outweighing the still considerable benefits they received as barrier breakers. But we also might remember that we have so far not seen a woman win a presidential nomination entirely on her own merits. Clinton was an accomplished attorney and no doubt achieved a great deal for herself in the Senate and the Obama administration, but she was in the position to do those things because of the man she married. Aside from smacking of dynastic ambition, the candidacy of a former president's wife isn't exactly a pure story of female empowerment. For Harris, she got to the second-highest office of the land on her own, but was grudgingly gifted a presidential nomination by Joe Biden and her party's elders. Harris famously failed in her 2020 run, so her ascendency to the nomination, again, lacked the narrative of a tenacious fighter overcoming adversity. I suspect that many Democrats will agree with your assessment, though. And when donors and the namers of names and listers of lists start thinking seriously about who might carry the party's flag in 2028, female candidates will be met with disapproving looks. Maybe that's just the right amount of adversity and skepticism to forge a woman's candidacy into something that can succeed. Or maybe Republicans will beat Democrats to the punch and end up with a female president before the blue team despite multiple efforts by the Dems. It will depend on whether the right woman and the right moment find each other. All best, c |
|
|
"For the last several weeks, the mainstream media has been making a big deal of the number of government employees let go or, in governmentese, RIFed (reduction in force) — though most media has said 'fired.' Likewise, we have been given a steady stream of stories of the recent graduates of state colleges who spent every dime they have (or their parents most likely) to move to one of the highest cost-of-living (goes unmentioned) metro areas in the country. My question is, and it has not been reported by the mainstream media (looking at you The Hill): What are the job classifications (titles) of these recently separated employees? It really is important because the media is saying the effectiveness of government operations have been adversely affected. Well how do [we know]? It is impossible to tell without knowing if these separated employees are 1102's (admin positions) or nuclear physics experts." — Lynn Gardner, Lewisburg West Virginia |
Ms. Gardner, I can't speak for all of the mainstream media, but I can take responsibility for my little current in the broader flow. I no doubt could be doing more to find out exactly who is being fired, riffed, furloughed, unhired or otherwise separated from their employment. But it is also true that it is very hard to find out to any satisfactory degree of certainty. The Hill and other outlets have been doing lots of good work to keep up with the firings, rehirings, reassignments, etc. But there is a lot of often contradictory information flying around right now. In the light most favorable to the administration, this is an understandable lag as substantial disruptions work through a big, entrenched system. In the light less sympathetic, it's downright shady. We're only about one month in, so it may be that the administration ultimately provides strict accountings of every position eliminated. Or we may all be heading for legal fights over freedom of information. Time will tell. I think your point, though, is that some coverage tends to lump together the firings of essential and nonessential employees. On that front, you make a great point. We should always strive to be specific whenever possible and always pack our coverage with detail. Montani semper liberi, c |
|
|
WCMH: "The Ohio Supreme Court's viral ruling that customers who order boneless chicken wings should expect bones has inspired a lawmaker to introduce a bill that aims to hold food companies accountable. Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) introduced Senate Bill 38 in late January, which would set statewide standards in lawsuits regarding an injury caused by food. Dubbed the 'boneless wing bill' by DeMora, the legislation would mandate that juries determine the liability of a restaurant or food supplier. … 'A [reasonable expectation] test means what would the average person think about a certain situation,' DeMora said. 'I don't know what normal person in the United States doesn't think boneless means without bones.' … DeMora said the bill is in direct response to a July 2024 Ohio Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled bones are a natural part of chicken, so consumers should be on guard for them – even in wings labeled as 'boneless.'" |
|
|
Write to WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name — first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, Nate Moore, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! |
|
|
Chris Stirewalt is political editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of "The Hill Sunday" on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. Nate Moore contributed to this report. |
400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment