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

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

Also, I would add that in general New Jersey in non-federal races is much swingier than its federal PVI lets on. Since 1981 pretty much all elected Dem governors have been flops who served 1 term or less, and many people in the state who vote D federally b/c they think the national GOP is bonkers vote GOP in state races b/c of more local issues like crime and property taxes. Given those factors, a Murphy win that just about matches Clinton's margin would actually be fairly good, and any extra margin he gets would likely be a result of the far-more-toxic-than-usual national Republican administration driving up D turnout and driving down R turnout.

Do Bridgegate and Christie's 15% approval rating not count as local issues? And it's not as if the NJGOP is distancing themselves from Christie. His second in command is the Republican nominee!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.