New Jersey is screwed.

[Archae]

For Senate they have a choice between a Teabagger, and a Wall Street phanboi and religious nut.

[In_The_Wind]

1. N J has my sympathy.

[haikugal]

2. Seriously....

where are the good people?

[brooklynite]

3. Pro-Gay rights, Pro-4th Amendment, Pro-Social Security, Pro-Choice, Pro-ACA, Pro-Environment...

The Horror!

[Zorra]

4. No, the horror is that the plutarchs have another Third Way tool

who will do whatever they want him too.

At least he'll be better on social issues, which makes him better than a republican, but still just the lesser of two evils.

[brooklynite]

5. Too bad Dennis Kucinich didn't relocate...

Don't know why he thought Washington State was a better choice than New Jersey.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I know, right?

I mean, what fool would choose a place like this over New Jersey?

[Fawke Em]

7. Is that Bigfoot in the background?

(Sorry, I always think of Sasquatch when I think of Washington state. )

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti... who can tell 'em apart?

Seriously though, I was stationed on Whidbey Island and the house I lived in had a perfect view of the Puget Sound backed up by the Olympic Peninsula. I nearly cried when it was time to finally come back home to So. Cal.

Breathtakingly beautiful. Does Jersey have stuff like that? I didn't see anything like that when I was there...

[mick063]

10. I grew up in an extended family of loggers.

Their entire lives, they lived in, and made a living in the remote forests of Oregon.

None of them believe that Bigfoot exists. They ate a lot of wild berry jam though.

[postulater]

13. Yikes, run for your life!

Looks like that thing is about to splode.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Kucinich is too busy working for FoxNews

[Zorra]

29. Typical Third Way response. Fail. Can't y'all ever address issues honestly and directly?

Oh, yeah...history...I guess not.

[duffyduff]

36. WHAT "social issues"? This man is for the abolition of public education and is a clear fraud.

If you are not in favor of public education, you are the ENEMY.

[brooklynite]

42. "I believe that access to a high quality public education is a fundamental American right"

Are you saying that support for Charter Schools in any form = abolition of public education? If so, I think you're going to be disappointed with any NYC Mayoral candidate.

[duffyduff]

34. In what universe? Booker is a right-wing foundation-backed FRAUD. n/t

[SummerSnow]

43. And remember Donald Trumps daughter threw a fundraiser for him.

He's a rethug plant

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Let's review

The so-called Left can't even come close in a Democratic primary in New Jersey when there really isn't any danger of the GOP candidate winning in the general. Can't even come close. In a dependable Democratic state with almost no threat of losing the general. You can't turn around and say, "Oh, they voted for the safe, electable choice." Any Democrat who wins the primary will win the general. This was New Jersey Democrats choosing their most favored candidate. Why didn't they vote the way you want?

Why?

I think it's time to face facts: Maybe you have a messaging problem...

[hfojvt]

12. a messaging problem?

Or a finance problem?

But Booker only took 59% of the vote, meaning of course that "not Booker" took 41% of the vote.

Plus, how can we be sure that Republicans will lose in the general election? Didn't the state elect a Republican Governor and aren't they set to re-elect him?

[brooklynite]

14. Last time I checked, 59% wins...

[hfojvt]

24. actually 40% could win

in a 3 way race.

59-41 is not, however, the world's biggest shellacking.

[brooklynite]

25. When Reagan won 49 States in 1984, he got 58.8%...

Yes, in a three-way race you COULD win with 40% or less...but Pallone and Holt didn't. This was a "landslide" margin, and the October vote is going to be bigger. Pretty obvious why Christie didn't want to be on the same ballot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. NJ hasn't elected a Republican to the US Senate in over 40 years

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Indeed, and any suggestion that either of the candidates in the GOP primary have a snowball's

chance in hell merely demonstrates a deep ignorance of New Jersey politics in general, and this race in particular.

There was no danger from the GOP here. It would seem a perfect place to see Dems (it was a primary, after all) elect the supposedly "most Left" candidate.

Didn't. Even. Come. Close.

If the "Left" can't come close in a race like this, where can they win? Where? And when? They can't win among Dems in a Democratic state in a race with no real GOP opposition.

[kelliekat44]

32. Booker is hated for the same reasons Obama is hated. nt

[Shankapotomus]

16. Booker is from the highly populated

area of NJ. Which means, as long as most voters focus on surface details like that, he was going to get all those votes. Simple as that.

[tabbycat31]

27. So is Shelia Oliver

But she does not have the name ID.

[JoePhilly]

19. The average democrat is aware of the danger that the GOP

presents. So they are looking to elect more Dems as their top priority.

Meanwhile, there is a part of the left who appears to be more afraid of centrist Dems, than of Republicans. And so they spend a great amount of effort, trying to make those battles the top priority.

For the average democrat, who is focused on how dangerous the GOP is, the idea of focusing on an intramural fight, or making that fight the top priority, makes little to no sense. Add to that the level of hysteria and outrage put forward, and average Dems basically turn away.

The disgruntled left is good at picking apart any Dem. What they aren't so good at is developing strong alternative candidates who can get elected and then get things done.

That's probably why the "I won't vote for Hillary" threads on DU out number the "I think person X would be a great liberal President", by about 10 to 1. Its easier to attack Hillary than to come up with real alternatives.

Same in this case.

And when you suggest its their approach, they'll claim its the unnamed TPTB or DLC or some other mean group.

[ecstatic]

39. +1000 nt

[JustAnotherGen]

30. That was my point in voting for Pallone

And it would have given Sherrod a lot of help in the Senate. Pallone and S. Brown are very similiar in their approach to the issue.

This was never going to be a close race in October. Never.

[limpyhobbler]

11. That's ok we're all screwed anyway.

[brooklynite]

15. Can some name a specific issue difference btwn Booker and Pallone/Holt?

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Perhaps New Jersey Democrats don't hate Wall Street as much as you do

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Yup

Many New Jersey Dems are first generation middle class, having grown up in the working class areas of New Jersey, Philadelphia, and New York City. How did they move into the middle class? Through the financial industry.

This is not to say that the financial industry is great: it's generally a shit show run by greedy lunatics. But when you go from poor to having some dough because you're a secretary at Morgan Stanley, you tend to be less enthusiastic about know-nothings from God-knows-where shitting on your job, and insisting you vote to get rid of it.

[ProSense]

23. I don't think that's it,

otherwise, Jon Corzine would have won, and we wouldn't be stuck with the asshole we now have.

Corzine, a real progressive, lost in part because his detractors played up his connection to Goldman Sachs. That coupled with the fact that they bought Christie's bullshit about property taxes helped to depress the Democratic vote.

Despite Booker's connection, this race wasn't decided on links to Wall Street.

Booker seems cozy with Christie, and that overshadows a lot. Booker's ad "sometimes you have to sit down to take a stand" was particularly annoying to me.

He has some good positions on social issues, which were played up during the campaign, along with the ad above, but he is a Wall Street tool (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002709535). He's more in the mold of Andrew Cuomo. Despite Corzine's connection, he never kowtowed to Wall Street.

Booker's Wall Street ties should have been stressed more.

The other problem is that Booker started positioning himself a long time ago, long before Lautenberg's death.

If progressives are going to win, they're going to have to jump in and make their case years (at least a couple), not a few months before people go to the polls.

[karynnj]

26. Corzine had far bigger negatives than just the Goldman Sachs history

I did a small amount of very discouraging phone banking in 2009 and it was painful - there were any number of people who said that they just couldn't vote for him who on their own brought up that they would love to have been making the choice to vote for Codey. (It was SO bad that I did far less than I had in many prior elections. I thought early on that I could argue based on choices he made (that were probably as good as possible) on the budget given the circumstances, but the opposition was intensely personal to him. An early hint of that - which I didn't understand politically - was the huge anger he faced when he nearly died in a car crash where his car was going 90 miles on hour on an expressway and he did not have his seat belt on. While his driver should have followed the law (he was NOT going to some emergency Governmental meeting), but you expect reactions of concern and sympathy to outweigh the anger.)

Corzine went into the race with abysmal approval numbers - and the fact that he was willing to self finance. He then ran a very nasty campaign on the assumption that if people hated both candidates the inherent greater strength of the Democratic party's GOTV would win.

One root of the discontent with Corzine was that he seemed tone deaf on somethings - like not seeing a problem with having the state negotiate with his girlfriend who was high in a government union. There had to be a way that either of them could have been kept at a distance from the negotiations. However the BIG reason was the actions he took in response to the collapse of the economy.

From my perspective, he did many very good things there - managing to keep funding for education and healthcare whole. He did some very good appearances early in 2009 explaining his reasons to Democratic organizations - and he took ownership of eliminating a small annual refund of property tax to those with incomes above (I think) $75000. However he did not even TRY to defend that this really was a statement of NJ values. They had to greatly cut the budget as revenue imploded (imagine what happened to the taxable income in a state near Wall Street!). This is what he SHOULD have campaigned on -- instead he mostly attacked Christie - making a completely dislikable man sympathetic.

Even then, if the race were just these two - he might have won. There was a third candidate who was seen as better on the environment. The really sad thing is that a man (Christie) who really seemed unlikely to go anywhere in politics - having lost re-election to the Morris County Freeholders board (where no Democrat has won election in decades) because his Republican peers enlisted another guy to run as a team with them - may well be a viable nominee for the Presidency. Just what we always wanted - a guy who channels the Sopranos - as the "leader of the free world"!

[ProSense]

31. True. His ratings were in the tank, and

From my perspective, he did many very good things there - managing to keep funding for education and healthcare whole. He did some very good appearances early in 2009 explaining his reasons to Democratic organizations - and he took ownership of eliminating a small annual refund of property tax to those with incomes above (I think) $75000. However he did not even TRY to defend that this really was a statement of NJ values. They had to greatly cut the budget as revenue imploded (imagine what happened to the taxable income in a state near Wall Street!). This is what he SHOULD have campaigned on -- instead he mostly attacked Christie - making a completely dislikable man sympathetic.

Even then, if the race were just these two - he might have won. There was a third candidate who was seen as better on the environment. The really sad thing is that a man (Christie) who really seemed unlikely to go anywhere in politics - having lost re-election to the Morris County Freeholders board (where no Democrat has won election in decades) because his Republican peers enlisted another guy to run as a team with them - may well be a viable nominee for the Presidency. Just what we always wanted - a guy who channels the Sopranos - as the "leader of the free world"!

...I cringe at the thought of the attacks on Christie backfiring.

My point was not about the voting population as a hole, but Goldman was used effectively by Christie to create apathy among more progressive voters.

<...>

Goldman has been particularly vilified in the minds of many people as a Wall Street behemoth that leveraged the influence of its lobbyists and former executives to curry political favor and that used government bailout payments to boost its profits. A recent article in Rolling Stone magazine branded Goldman “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

“Goldman right now, to its detriment, is equated with Wall Street and Washington walking hand in hand, and there’s a widespread suspicion that it’s a conspiratorial relationship,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian and the author of “Collateral Damaged.” “There’s a sense that because of its power and connections, when the economy finally clears up, Goldman will benefit from that before the rest of the country.”

Mr. Corzine’s Republican challenger, Christopher J. Christie, has used the governor’s Goldman Sachs years to tie him to a variety of unsavory financial schemes, at one point releasing an Internet ad featuring a clip of Gordon Gekko, the villain in the film “Wall Street,” who famously declared, “Greed is good.”

And surveys show that voters’ confidence in Mr. Corzine’s ability to lead the economy, once his strong suit, has plummeted. So as he runs for re-election Mr. Corzine is far more eager to talk about the lawsuit his administration filed against Lehman Brothers or his work as a United States senator on a corporate ethics bill, than his years as chief executive and a chairman of a mighty investment house. His campaign advisers point out that it’s been nine years — an eternity in politics — since he left Wall Street and four years since he sold the last of his stock in Goldman Sachs; they say they are confident that voters will judge him by his actions as an elected official rather than his past as a bond trader.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyregion/05corzine.html

[karynnj]

40. I completely agree on that - and 2009 had to be the very worst year to be labeled

as a former Goldman Sachs CEO. I was just adding that he had many many negatives and ran a nasty campaign.

I wonder if the fact that he was NOT a career politician was part of the problem. As CEO, his job was never to make people sufficiently happy with him. As governor, he seemed better at leading on what to do than he was at building up support for what he did -- except within the government.

It was saddest as he had the ability to speak clearly and even persuasively when he had to defend his choices. I saw that at the Morris County meeting. (For NJ people, Morris is one of the most affluent counties.) Many people were intensely unhappy that he was eliminating their property tax rebate. He quietly led them through the numbers and the choices - and I think actually did persuade many that it was a fair and reasonable thing to do. This was an all Democratic audience (or at least it was through the local party that invitations to this open event were sent out), but this was persuading people to look beyond their self interest. I was next to a group of school board and teacher neighbors and they were very surprised that he had managed to keep every school at at least the year before's dollars.

[ProSense]

41. Agree, and this is

"As governor, he seemed better at leading on what to do than he was at building up support for what he did -- except within the government. "

...spot on.

[NuclearDem]

38. Absolutely.

Booker seems cozy with Christie, and that overshadows a lot. Booker's ad "sometimes you have to sit down to take a stand" was particularly annoying to me.

That irritated the hell out of me as well. It just reeks of something from a career politician rather than a dedicated progressive. You can't just expect to sit down with conservatives and negotiate over these issues.

[Larkspur]

28. I expect Booker to win the US Senate seat and become the new "Joe Lieberman"

of the Senate. His ties with Wall Street will make sure he stays right of center on economic issues. He'll intentionally clash with Sen. Warren, Wall Street's arch Nemesis, to satisfy his donors.

[vi5]

33. Wonder how all the Obama apologists

Who are now crowing about the Booker win as a victory for their special brand of center right corporate "bipartisanship" are going to feel once Booker starts criticizing Obama again for being mean to Wall Street and the wealthy when the Pres decides to pretend he's a populist/liberal (usually only when he needs to get the spotlight off of somethine else he's done that he's being criticized for).

Will he then become one of "the enemies"??

[duffyduff]

37. It isn't even "center-right." This is FAR RIGHT.

I don't want ANYBODY with right-wing foundation connections anywhere NEAR the Democratic Party.

[dionysus]

44. you could have gotten bonus points if you said "cult" or "messiah"

[NoOneMan]

35. Thats peanuts compared to what climate change will bring NJ

[SummerSnow]

45. Stronger than the storm