Phil Murphy is running one of the most liberal campaigns for Gov in recent times

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Murphy admits and owns his wall street ties. Hillary hid behind the supposedly independent "Clinton Foundation" and tried to pretend that the money wall street gave her had absolutely no influence at all on her, a ridiculous assertion. That's a clear difference.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

[IceSpear]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

[IceSpear]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

Look at my response:

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Murphy admits and owns his wall street ties. Hillary hid behind the supposedly independent "Clinton Foundation" and tried to pretend that the money wall street gave her had absolutely no influence at all on her, a ridiculous assertion. That's a clear difference.

[IceSpear]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

Look at my response:

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Murphy admits and owns his wall street ties. Hillary hid behind the supposedly independent "Clinton Foundation" and tried to pretend that the money wall street gave her had absolutely no influence at all on her, a ridiculous assertion. That's a clear difference.

So if she admitted she was a corporate shill, everyone would've given her a pass for being a corporate shill? Yeah...I highly, highly doubt that.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

Alright, fair enough, I'll admit to maybe straying from the issue at hand. But the flip-flopping thing is actually relevant here, because (and I'm speaking only for myself here) that's sort of the hub of the matter vis-a-vis the comparison between Clinton and Murphy: Murphy is a new agent, making his progressive bona fides more believable, whereas Clinton's history of being on every side of virtually every center-left issue made it difficult to give her platform the benefit of the doubt.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

Look at my response:

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Murphy admits and owns his wall street ties. Hillary hid behind the supposedly independent "Clinton Foundation" and tried to pretend that the money wall street gave her had absolutely no influence at all on her, a ridiculous assertion. That's a clear difference.

So if she admitted she was a corporate shill, everyone would've given her a pass for being a corporate shill? Yeah...I highly, highly doubt that.

At the end of the day, Voters like Authenticity. It's unlikely it would have been a positive for her, but she could at least have made it neutral rather than strong negative.

[Shadows]

I can see it now:

"Sanders WOULD have won! This guaranteed victory by Phil Murphy, who is campaigning like Bernie, in which the Republican could not win proves it!"

Despite the fact that he's currently matching Clinton's margin in NJ in a far more favorable environment than she had.

That is not a fair statement. NJ had a Republican Gov & 2 time Republican Gov. VT, Mass, MD have GOP Governors & are super blue at the Presidential level & are some of the strongest & sure-shot Dem states that there is.

Downballot & Governor races are often less partisan, especially in open races like these. Comparing it to the Presidential race is like comparing apples & oranges.

Even in Nov, 2015 when the mood was going against the GOP, The Democrat won by 10% odd. Democrat Gov. candidates have never won by margins anywhere close to the Presidential level.

It's true that gubernatorial races are less partisan, but you also have to take into account that Trump is toxic in the state, Christie is even more toxic, Christie's LG is the Republican candidate, Murphy is outspending Guadagno, the political environment is (supposedly) horrible for Republicans at the moment, and that Murphy led by 25-30 points earlier on in the year.

When you consider all the factors as a whole, he "should" probably be doing better than he currently is.

Yea but how is 25% realistic ? People said the same about "Swing State Utah" or Arizona & Georgia & even Texas turning blue n stuff. It is crazy. Trump & Christie maybe toxic but ultimately most of the Republican voters will come home. The campaign will get personal, partisan & these lead vanishes. Ultimately in Murphy wins by 10-12%+, I think it will be a solid win from a state which had a 2 time GOP Gov.

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Murphy is not running for President. I don't think people will have as much problem if Hillary was running for Gov.

Ultimately there were negotiations with Bernie, haggling in the Platform committee votes & ultimately Hillary adopted most of Bernie's agenda to get Bernie's endorsement. Or atleast that is what it seemed because she campaigned vigorously against many of those proposals in the primary.

And many people criticize her for insufficiently campaigning for those promises. She barely mentioned a 15$ Minimum wage in the primary. Her ads were mostly against Trump & his personality. In the end, if you are honest, you will say her campaign was more about Trump being unfit for President rather than a huge focus on her progressive economic agenda.

I remember when Trump blasted her on ACA failures, Hillary kept saying I want to fix this, he wants to tear it down without talking about Fixes negotiated by her & Sanders - Public Option, Lowering Medicare eligibility age, drug imports, Medicare negotiating prices. None of these would have solved the ACA problems, but to the average clueless voter it looks like solutions rather than "I will fix it" without specifics after having some office since the 90s.

[KingSweden]

“Phil Murphy is a genuine traitor” JFC man do you hear/see the things you say?

Thanks for pointing that out! I meant to write "class traitor". (in a non-serious way, of course) FWIW, I saw someone on AAD give Ro Khanna that label in response to a discussion about his shift to the left over the past year.

Anyway, I'm not sure what's so controversial about my post? The idea that people should take everything politicians do/say at face value is an absurd one and even most apolitical people realize that.

Of course he does. Most BernieBro holdouts are just Branch Trumpidians in disguise.

Okay, but given that I'm not a "BernieBro holdout" or in any sense sympathetic to Trump or his policies...?

Again, the idea of a socialist being a tad bit skeptical of a Goldman Sachs executive's seemingly-sudden lurch to the left really shouldn't be surprising.

Ro Khanma is really just an opportunistic hack. If he told me the sky was blue I’d have to look outside just to check.

[Shadows]

“Phil Murphy is a genuine traitor” JFC man do you hear/see the things you say?

Thanks for pointing that out! I meant to write "class traitor". (in a non-serious way, of course) FWIW, I saw someone on AAD give Ro Khanna that label in response to a discussion about his shift to the left over the past year.

Anyway, I'm not sure what's so controversial about my post? The idea that people should take everything politicians do/say at face value is an absurd one and even most apolitical people realize that.

Of course he does. Most BernieBro holdouts are just Branch Trumpidians in disguise.

Okay, but given that I'm not a "BernieBro holdout" or in any sense sympathetic to Trump or his policies...?

Again, the idea of a socialist being a tad bit skeptical of a Goldman Sachs executive's seemingly-sudden lurch to the left really shouldn't be surprising.

Ro Khanma is really just an opportunistic hack. If he told me the sky was blue I’d have to look outside just to check.

Ro Khanna is an interesting case. He has one of the most progressive record of anyone in Congress. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq before it was cool to be it & before Obama highlighted it & ran a campaign based on it. He was for Single Payer in 2015 odd when few Dems supported it.

I am unsure how opportunistic he is. Having ties to big business or rich doesn't mean you are not progressive. Grayson was a hedge fund guy & FDR was a rich guy. Khanna is now suddenly the new champion of progressive policies as per his tweets & that should be taken with a pinch of salt but I find him proposing original ideas for a politician. His EITC is IMO a much better than UBI & is a bold progressive new proposal.

[KingSweden]

“Phil Murphy is a genuine traitor” JFC man do you hear/see the things you say?

Thanks for pointing that out! I meant to write "class traitor". (in a non-serious way, of course) FWIW, I saw someone on AAD give Ro Khanna that label in response to a discussion about his shift to the left over the past year.

Anyway, I'm not sure what's so controversial about my post? The idea that people should take everything politicians do/say at face value is an absurd one and even most apolitical people realize that.

Of course he does. Most BernieBro holdouts are just Branch Trumpidians in disguise.

Okay, but given that I'm not a "BernieBro holdout" or in any sense sympathetic to Trump or his policies...?

Again, the idea of a socialist being a tad bit skeptical of a Goldman Sachs executive's seemingly-sudden lurch to the left really shouldn't be surprising.

Ro Khanma is really just an opportunistic hack. If he told me the sky was blue I’d have to look outside just to check.

Ro Khanna is an interesting case. He has one of the most progressive record of anyone in Congress. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq before it was cool to be it & before Obama highlighted it & ran a campaign based on it. He was for Single Payer in 2015 odd when few Dems supported it.

I am unsure how opportunistic he is. Having ties to big business or rich doesn't mean you are not progressive. Grayson was a hedge fund guy & FDR was a rich guy. Khanna is now suddenly the new champion of progressive policies as per his tweets & that should be taken with a pinch of salt but I find him proposing original ideas for a politician. His EITC is IMO a much better than UBI & is a bold progressive new proposal.

He ran against Honda from the right, then ran against him from the left, and now is reinventing himself as a Justice Dem.

I don’t disagree with your other points, of course. I’m just skeptical that any of us know what Khanna actually believes.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

He really isn't. A lot of people from New Jersey are criticizing him a lot over this.

[kyc0705]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

He really isn't. A lot of people from New Jersey are criticizing him a lot over this.

Eh, most people here barely know that there's an election in two weeks, let alone grilling the frontrunner over his ideological journey. This race is practically invisible.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Calling it now--Phil Murphy's gonna lose reelection in 2021.

Lol

Murphy is going to win reelection in 2021, and it will not be close then either.

He hasn't even won this race yet and you're already predicting he'll win reelection in a landslide. I thought this forum was supposed to be about political analysis, not partisan delusion.

[BuckeyeNut]

Calling it now--Phil Murphy's gonna lose reelection in 2021.

Lol

Murphy is going to win reelection in 2021, and it will not be close then either.

He hasn't even won this race yet and you're already predicting he'll win reelection in a landslide. I thought this forum was supposed to be about political analysis, not partisan delusion.

You thought wrong.

[Lord Admirale]

Being the New Jerseyan here, I can say that we don't like Guadagno OR Murphy, but Christie is so bad, that people are plugging their noses and voting for Murphy. I will not be voting for Murphy, and I certainly won't vote for him in 2021, regardless of how his campaign is. Everything he does oozes fakeness, he's the epitome of Generic D, he's a stereotypical rich politician who will jack up property taxes and not give a flying f*** because he's super rich and doesn't affect him too much, and we have a habit of electing bad politicians (except Booker and Daddy Josh Gottheimer)

[Mr. Smith]

Being the New Jerseyan here, I can say that we don't like Guadagno OR Murphy, but Christie is so bad, that people are plugging their noses and voting for Murphy. I will not be voting for Murphy, and I certainly won't vote for him in 2021, regardless of how his campaign is. Everything he does oozes fakeness, he's the epitome of Generic D, he's a stereotypical rich politician who will jack up property taxes and not give a flying f*** because he's super rich and doesn't affect him too much, and we have a habit of electing bad politicians (except Booker and Daddy Josh Gottheimer)

Lautenberg was decent.

[fluffypanther19]

Calling it now--Phil Murphy's gonna lose reelection in 2021.

Lol

Murphy is going to win reelection in 2021, and it will not be close then either.

He hasn't even won this race yet and you're already predicting he'll win reelection in a landslide. I thought this forum was supposed to be about political analysis, not partisan delusion.

You thought wrong.

[Virginiá]

He hasn't even won this race yet and you're already predicting he'll win reelection in a landslide. I thought this forum was supposed to be about political analysis, not partisan delusion.

There is a lot of good stuff on here, but as is common with most internet forums you have a lot of stray comments floating around that are more gut feelings/hunches with no extensive reasoning. Forums where every post is well thought out and full of detailed analysis do not exist.

[Bojack Horseman]

I just saw a Murphy ad here in Michigan on the Big Ten Network. I don't know why you'd advertise during Rutgers games, considering how bad they are. It's not like any of their fans would be watching.