Stomping Grounds: NJ-8 Debate, the race for Payne's seat; and votes on Speaker Mike Johnson – New Jersey Globe

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.  She is currently the campaign manager for Curtis Bashaw’s U.S. Senate race.  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. 

How did Rob Menendez and Ravi Bhalla do in their first NJ-8 congressional debate?  Will Menendez’s bid to deflect connections to his father and cast Bhalla as an unethical candidate work?

Alex Wilkes: I’m sorry, I can’t help it, I have a lot of style notes, and they’re probably a lot more useful than what you think about what I think about two guys talking about who can tax us more.

For one, campaign staffers, please take the time to test your candidate’s audio beforehand. Test it, record it, play it back. Mayor Bhalla sounded like he was on Skype in 2007. You might argue that it’s the substance that matters, but if voters can’t hear you, what good does it do?! Simple USB microphones don’t cost a lot, but they help tremendously.

I agree with Dan (below) that I thought that Menendez’ decision was a good one. It showed energy and vigor in a debate where he was expected to be on the defensive. My only advice would be to put something below him, out of the camera frame, like a stack of boxes or a music stand to rest the candidate’s hands on so he doesn’t move so wildly outside of the normal confinements of a desk. You learn the hard way that little movements look much more exaggerated on camera than in person.

For Zoom appearances like this, it’s important to make sure that your camera is at eye level. For much of the debate, Menendez was looking down, which sometimes gave the appearance that he was (gasp!) reading from notes. My God. Don’t be afraid to put that iPad on an adjustable tripod and use a sticky note arrow to keep your eye focused on that tiny camera. (Unless, of course, you’re actually just reading from notes.)

Anoter thing: active listening. Especially if you’re going to do something unorthodox like stand for a Zoom, you need to be careful about prolonged glances off to the side. It can be very hard to learn a “neutral” face for debates and television appearances, but every effort should be made to not look bored, overly eager, or angry.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Dan Bryan: I think Rob Menendez did everything he could in this debate. He deflected the attacks on him the best he could, and pivoted back to the attack on his opponent and to his positive messaging. This was a tough spot for him, and I think he did as much as he could with it.

But let’s also be fair to Mayor Bhalla – he went in with one goal, and I think he achieved it. At every turn, he worked to tie Congressman Menendez to his father, not allowing the actions of Senator Menendez is accused of to recede into the background. With the Senator’s trial about to start, it’s hard to find fault in his strategy.

On a mechanical note, I thought it was very smart for Congressman Menendez to stand throughout the debate. Personally, I miss in-person debates – there is so much less life over Zoom, though I understand why it’s necessary. So good on him and his team for finding a way to bring some energy and dynamism to a difficult format.

The race for Donald Payne’s 10th district seat seems to be taking shape, with eleven Democrats preparing to run before today’s filing deadline.  What’s your early take on the campaign?  Since there’s only one office on the ballot, lines clearly don’t matter since there are none, but is this an early way of showing a party organization’s strength without a line?

Dan: I have always been a skeptic of the true strength of the line. To me, the power of the lines emanated from the perceived power of the lines – in other words, people didn’t challenge the line because they thought it was impossible, not because it was impossible.

In my opinion, the power of organizational strength always emanated from the quality of the organizations themselves, not from ballot design. Every political party, whether local, county, or statewide, should look at the upcoming primaries as an opportunity to prove their organizing strength. Above all, of course, the quality of the candidate matters.

I believe that Newark Council President Lamonica McIver is a fantastic candidate. She has already accomplished so much in her short career, and as a young mother of color, she represents a community desperately underrepresented in DC. Kudos to Chairman Jones for backing a fantastic candidate.

Alex: I can’t say that I have been following this race all that closely, but from my bird’s eye view from the other party, I think we are seeing some of the inevitable dynamics of a post-line world.

The line system (and I don’t disagree, by the way, with my friend, Dan, about the value of strong party organizations) did seem to favor “the next in line,” who was usually an old guy who had been around long enough to call in his chits. I think this was especially true in deeply-entrenched partisan parts of the state. 

With that now gone, it looks like some opportunities are opening up for some more diversity in the candidate selection. And by diversity, I mean real diversity – not performative, box-checking “DEI.” Let’s face it, a nearly all male, older congressional delegation is not all that representative of the demographics of the party – or even the county committees, for that matter. I’m interested to see where it goes!

Bonnie Watson Coleman voted against quashing Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bid to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson (so did Rob Menendez; the other six Democrats sided with Republicans), saying it wasn’t her job to save Johnson’s job, and the Speaker she really wants is Hakeem Jeffries.  Is she right?

Dan: The only bright spot in DC these days is the continued inability for Congressional Republicans to tie their shoes. They govern like the Sideshow Bob GIF, constantly stepping on rake after rake, with no end in sight.

I’ll do what political pundits aren’t allowed to do, and admit that I see both sides of this one. In defense of Congresswoman Watson Coleman and Congressman Menendez, why should they be tasked with saving Republicans from themselves? If they are in chaos, let the American people see it and judge them for it. If that means Congress can’t function, well, it’s not functioning all that well as is, and elections have consequences.

But in fairness to Minority Leader Jeffries and the rest of our New Jersey delegation, at some point we do need to guard against that chaos. I’m no fan of Mike Johnson, but I’m not sure what Democrats gain by allowing him to be thrown overboard. And if they can negotiate something for themselves in return, all the better.

Alex: The reality is that when you’re dealing with thin margins and a polarized society, each party is vulnerable to their extremes challenging the leadership in the House. Democrats can wax nostalgic for the days of Nancy Pelosi, but even she was facing threats from the left wing towards the end and granted rules concessions accordingly.

As the minority party, Democrats certainly have the choice not to “save” a mainstream Republican Speaker, but I think they saw the consequences of doing that last time: Gottheimer’s self-important “Problem Solvers’ Caucus” imploded, critical funding bills stalled. No one looked good coming out of that mess, and I think most Democrats learned their lesson.