Main page    Mar. 25


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

---

Two notes related to the last few days of material (or non-material) on this site. First, we had an item yesterday mentioning the possibility of filing a form 4868, which grants a tax extension, as a means of leaving the federal government cash-starved. We had many accountants and tax lawyers write in and note that filing such a form gives an extension on filing a tax return, but not on paying the actual taxes. So, if one engages in this form of civil disobedience, and does not pay taxes until much later this year, one should be prepared to pay interest and penalties.

Second, (Z) is again grateful to the folks who expressed concern and/or good wishes as he recovered from the shingles vaccine this weekend. Several readers who did not necessarily know we might share their messages, so we're not going to include any initials/cities here, wrote in with a heads-up. Here's one of those:

On July 6, 2023, I had the shingles vaxx known as Shingrix.

On July 17, I suddenly became very weak and wobbly in my legs, and started walking like I was auditioning for the Ministry of Funny Walks.

By July 19, I could barely walk, and we went to the local hospital in Cape Cod where we were vacationing. They were very nice doctors but they completely mis-diagnosed it, and by July 24 I could only stand if holding on to something. At that point, my wife and I "flew" to an ER in New York City (she drove, actually). By the time I got there I was pretty much paralyzed from the waist down.

As it turned out, after 18 hours and a gazillion tests, I was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a known but rare consequence of the shingles vaxx. I received 5 consecutive days of IViG (intravenous immunoglobulin) to stop it.

(Z) seems to have made it through the woods with just some (rather unpleasant) joint pain that made it difficult to type. But this seems worth passing along, just in case any readers do have this particular complication.

This Is What a Clown Show Looks Like

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey is jealous right now, because they have absolutely nothing on the clowns currently running the U.S. defense establishment. Most readers have probably heard by now, but in case you haven't, numerous high-ranking members of the Trump administration were using Signal to discuss plans for bombing Yemen's Houthi fighters. And one of the people in the group chat accidentally included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the group text, with the result that he knew exactly what was going to happen hours before the bombing began.

Let us start with the most obvious point here, namely how unbelievably stupid and careless this was. Undoubtedly, the group used Signal because it's heavily encrypted. We would guess that tech bro J.D. Vance, who was part of the chat, sang the praises of that particular service. However, it's ridiculous to think that any private concern, no matter how skilled, can plausibly provide secure encryption better than what the U.S. government can provide. Beyond that, the weakest link in the chain isn't Signal and its encryption, it's the phones. All the encryption in the world doesn't help much if an unfriendly gains access to one or more of the phones that are receiving (and decoding) the encrypted messages.

And finally, even if you have heavy-duty encryption and even if you have properly secured phones, that's of little use if your message hygiene is so poor that you're not even sure who's getting the message. There were reportedly 18 people in the group chat, including NSA Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special U.S. Envoy for Bigotry Stephen Miller. Can those folks really be sure that someone problematic—say, Russian ambassador to the U.S. Alexander Darchiyev, or notable loudmouth Tucker Carlson, or Elon "Everything I Hear Immediately Goes on eX-Twitter" Musk—was not on the chain? The answer to that question is clearly "no," since the participants did not even realize Goldberg was on the chain until he wrote a story for his publication yesterday.

Having dispensed with how stupid and careless Team Trump was, let us now talk about what hypocrites they are. To start, there are quite a few people involved in this meltdown, starting with Donald Trump himself, who leaned heavily into "but her e-mails." The criticism there was that Hillary Clinton, despite following advice from her two immediate predecessors, MIGHT potentially have exposed classified information to people without security clearances. Well, the Trumpers actually DID expose classified information—no "might have" about it. And the information they exposed was not one of those classified-but-really-shouldn't-be-classified things, like "the vice president of Ghana requires a gluten-free meal at state dinners" or "the U.S. Secretary of Energy spoke to the Secretary for Public Administration of Nauru about bird-guano futures today." It was legitimately sensitive information about a future, but imminent, military operation. When information like this leaks, people can die.

Several of the folks involved in the leaked thread have also leaned heavily into additional criticism of (invariably) Democrats, and the blue team's allegedly lax handling of information. To take one example, Waltz has excoriated his predecessor as NSA, Jake Sullivan, for being careless with classified information. Last we checked, Sullivan never leaked plans for an imminent military strike to some random magazine editor.

Still, everyone knows that when a Trumper does something, no matter how bad, it's either not wrong or not their fault. The rush to excuse this breach was so rapid that a passing beam of light said "Damn! That's fast!" A rundown of some of the more prominent apologists, along with their angles:

• Donald Trump, reminding everyone of what he really cares about (Hint: not national security), said: "I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. It's to me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine."
  
  
• Pete Hegseth declared that the whole thing is a hoax, and that Goldberg made it all up. This despite the fact that Goldberg had all sorts of details that were spot-on correct, and that others in the group text had already admitted that Goldberg's reporting was correct.
  
  
• Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), in his role as the Trump administration's lead congressional lapdog, said that he doesn't think anyone involved should be disciplined, because they're going to make real sure it never happens again. We dunno, Mike, did you make certain they crossed their hearts, hope to die?
  
  
• Josh Hawley, in his role as one of the Trump administration's congressional sub-lapdogs, expressed shock that people are upset "about who's on a text message."
  
  
• Will Cain, the talk show host who is fluent in Newspeak, praised the administration for its transparency and its collaborative decision-making.
  
  
• Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, both of whom are employed by the state-run media operation, slammed Goldberg for reporting on the story. We believe that is known as "shooting the messenger."

The overall lesson here, particularly given the response to Hillary Clinton's e-mails, would seem to be: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Now that the conversation is public, there are a few instructive things to be learned about the dynamics of the Trump administration:

• The fly in the ointment, as it were, was Vance. He did not think bombing Yemen was a wise idea, either tactically or politically, and suspected that Trump didn't really understand the decision that he was asked to make. In other words, Vance has apparently reached the same conclusion as so many others who worked in close proximity to the President, namely that he's a nitwit. Needless to say, that kind of independent thinking, particularly when it involves (implied) criticism of Trump, is not going to be great for Vance's long-term prospects in the administration.
  
  
• Vance and Hegseth really hate the United States' European allies, thinking of them as freeloading goldbrickers.
  
  
• While there was some concern about national security, the more prominent theme of the conversation was messaging, and how the attacks would look to the voting public.
  
  
• Waltz is a pretty awful human being. After the bombings, which killed at least 50 people, he celebrated with a string of emojis: a fist, an American flag, and fire. (Other participants in the chat at least had the decency to respond with praying hands.)

If you would like to read Goldberg's actual report, the link is here, though an Atlantic subscription is required. Also, he withheld anything that he thought might be classified.

If you are a reader who is not a fan of the Trump administration—and that is nearly all of our readers—we have both good and bad news for you. Let's start with the bad: There are going to be no real consequences to this inexcusable breach of national security. There is talk that Waltz's head might roll, but we think it's more likely than not that he keeps his job. And even if he does get cashiered, he'll get replaced by some other whackadoodle alpha male. Trump seems to have an infinite supply of Looney Tunes NSAs, from Michael Flynn to John Bolton to Robert O'Brien to Waltz. And whatever happens with Waltz, this will all be forgotten within weeks, as the unending tidal wave of crazypantsery that comes out of the White House pushes the whole thing out of people's minds.

And now the good news for the anti-Trumpers. This is an administration that just cannot stay out of its own way. Trump's underlings shoot themselves in the foot so often they should all be issued bulletproof loafers. And so, even if the Democratic resistance is disorganized and ineffectual—and that's basically the story so far—folks who are not happy with this administration can still sit back and wait for the next big, unforced blunder. Which, if the usual pace holds, should come sometime around 1:30 this afternoon—assuming the administration is having an unusually good day, of course. (Z)

Trump Gets out His Favorite Magic Wand. Again.

No, not that. That "wand" is hardly magical, at least according to Stormy Daniels. We mean tariffs, which are apparently the solution to every single foreign affairs issue ever.

We are hardly experts on international finance but pretty much all tariffs we've ever heard about were bilateral. Country A slaps duties on Country B, Country B generally responds by slapping duties on Country A. It would appear that Donald Trump is about to invent, for lack of a better term, trilateral tariffs. On Monday, he announced that any country that trades for Venezuelan oil would be hit with a 25% tariff on all goods that country tries to import into the United States.

It is one thing to try to use tariffs to influence some other nation's trade relationship with the United States. It is another thing to try to use tariffs to influence some other nation's trade relationship with a third nation (Venezuela or otherwise). We've never heard of that particular arrangement. It is possible that we're just not well versed enough to know about this, and we are happy to be advised by any reader who knows better. That said, we think we're probably right that this is a new "innovation" conjured up out of thin air, because when Trump announced the new plan, he had to make up a formal-sounding term. The White House is calling the punitive duties "secondary tariffs."

We suppose these so-called "secondary tariffs" are in the same ballpark as trade sanctions, but it's not quite the same. And we are rather skeptical that other nations will allow themselves to be strong-armed like this. If Trump follows through with his threats, which is always uncertain, there will undoubtedly be harsh counter-tariffs. For the record, the nations that buy the most oil from Venezuela are China, India, the U.S. and Spain. Of course, Trump has already hit China with a 10% tariff, so 25% on top of that would be... quite a lot.

Meanwhile, we continue to wonder exactly why Trump has such a bug up his a** about Venezuela. For some reason, he's convinced (and has been, for several years) that some huge portion of the world's ills emanate from that particular region. Yes, the residents of Venezuela are brown, but so too are the residents of most Latin American (and African) countries. And yes, the governments of Venezuela have often been corrupt, but so have the governments of Colombia, Peru, Panama, etc. And yes, sometimes the leaders of Venezuela have been socialists in name (not always in practice), but that's also true of many other Latin American countries. Whatever's going on, it's pretty clear that Trump has decided that the Axis of Evil is no longer Iran, Iraq and North Korea, it's Venezuela, Venezuela and trans people. (Z)

Curtis Speaks Some Truth about Social Security

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) continues to impress as a Republican who is willing to be a straight shooter, and to say things that are on target, even if they are unpopular. This weekend, he was on Meet the Press, and was asked about the future of Social Security. He said:

We're not being honest when we look people in the eye and say we're not going to touch it. If we don't touch it, it touches itself. You know that, right? That's not being honest with the American people, and I think that's one of the things that makes them not trust us, when we say something that they just know is not true.

He concluded with the observation that people who are currently drawing Social Security will be OK, but there needs to be a conversation about what's going to happen for people in their 20s or 30s.

This strikes us as entirely unobjectionable and entirely correct. At the moment, the books for Social Security don't balance. Or, to be a bit more precise, they're not going to balance by 2035 or so, when the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be exhausted. Either more money needs to flow into the system, or less money needs to flow out. And now is probably a better time to start talking about options, as opposed to doing what Congress normally does, and waiting until the very last minute.

Obviously, Curtis is just one senator, and his opinions do not presage any sort of meaningful progress on the subject. However, we take note of his words for two reasons. First, they stand as a refreshing contrast to the smoke and mirrors show that's coming from Elon Musk and his DOGEys. We still don't entirely grasp what Musk & Co. are trying to do, but we are sure that the goal is NOT to save Social Security. Second, basically everyone reading this site is longing for the day when some regular Republican will come along and lead the Party out of the Trumpy wilderness, so it can go back to being a normal, sane counterweight to the Democrats. More and more, Curtis looks like he'd be an excellent candidate to be that person. (Z)

One Week to Go in Florida

We are now one week removed from the two special elections in Florida that will fill the seats left vacant by Matt Gaetz and Mike Waltz. Since these races are (apparently) not being polled, this is about as close as one can get to experiencing what politics was like before 1950 or so, when there was at least some mystery surrounding Election Day results.

Thus far, the two Democrats running have been raising money like gangbusters. Gay Valimont, who is running on gun control in the ruby-red (R+19) FL-01, has hauled in about $6.5 million. And Josh Weil, who is running in the slightly less red (R+14) FL-06, has brought in nearly $10 million.

That is quite a lot for a House race, especially since both districts are relatively cheap media markets. That said, one cannot assign too much meaning to those totals, impressive as they are. First, it's hard to translate money into votes, and the more money spent, the less the return per dollar, generally speaking. Second, most of that money is coming from Democrats out of state who are looking for ways to channel their energy into... something, anything. Needless to say, most of these donors cannot vote in the actual elections.

That said, there is one very faint glimmer of hope for Democrats who would really like to see at least one of the two seats flip. The Republican running in the less red of the two districts, Randy Fine, has been raising money at an exceedingly anemic pace—less than $600,000 so far, or about 1/16th of his opponent's take. That means that Fine did not get commercials on the air until this week, that he doesn't have much money for get-out-the-vote efforts, and that he's not inspiring much enthusiasm among Republicans. True, he's a Trumper, and most Trumpers who have extra money burning a hole in their pockets probably spend it on Trump Bibles, or Trump guitars, or whatever the latest grift is. Still, being outraised by that big a margin is pretty terrible.

The model that Democrats are looking to here is the special election in PA-18, back in March 2018. In that one, Democrat Conor Lamb pulled the upset over Trumpy Republican Rick Saccone, despite the district being R+11. Obviously, R+11 is within shouting distance of FL-06's R+14. We would guess that Trump has not been in office (again) for long enough, or done harm enough, to really get rank-and-file voters' blood boiling. Sure, the politics-watchers are mad, but there aren't enough of them to carry the day. That said, with nearly $10 million to burn, maybe Weil can get some voters to the polls who would not normally vote in a special election. It takes around 100,000 votes to win a special congressional election, which is rather less daunting than the 80 million votes it takes to win a presidential election. (Z)

An Early Look at the Democratic 2028 Presidential Field

The 2028 presidential race began on Nov. 6, 2024, and is now quietly in swing. This is the invisible primary phase, where POTUS-wannabes test the waters, talk to donors, and try to raise their profiles. The election may be years away, and yet, the DNC will soon need to start preparing for the 2028 presidential primaries.

In the spirit of gearing up to cover the 2028 horse race, The Washington Post's Aaron Blake has made a list of the Top 12 contenders:

12. Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN): Blake: Let's face it. Walz added nothing to the ticket. He was supposed to connect with working-class dads and bring them home to the Democrats. He didn't. He didn't stumble, but a presidential candidate needs to be inspiring in some way. He's not. He'll probably run for a third term as governor and then call it quits. Us: It's a tough assessment, but it's probably right.
    
    
13. Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC): Blake: Imagine, a moderate Jewish AG named Josh S. wins a swing state commandingly. It happened, not once, but twice. Stein will be up for reelection in 2028. He'll probably go for that for the time being. Us: We agree again.
    
    
14. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY): Blake: A Democrat is elected governor in a red state and the Democrats go gaga. But going national is a whole different kettle of catfish. Us: Well, it worked for Carter and Clinton. We'd rank Beshear higher on the list. His pitch will be "I can bring in non-Trumpy Republicans and win in the South, especially Georgia and North Carolina." Maybe he can. He first has to decide if he wants to run for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat in 2026. He said he didn't, but he could change his mind.
    
    
15. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA): Blake: He's very ambitious and definitely wants to be president. Other Californians have done it (Nixon, Reagan). But if Bernie Sanders is Mr. Authentic, he is Mr. Slick. Us: Newsom might be able to win a Democratic primary in a fragmented field, but he is much too woke and slick to win a general election unless the Republican is very unpopular. A lot of people were moaning about Biden vs. Trump, saying they didn't want either of them. They will pine for that matchup if 2028 is Newsom vs. DeSantis.
    
    
16. Sen. Raphael Warnock: Blake: He eked out a couple of narrow wins in a red state, so Democrats are taking a closer look at him. But they probably want him to hold his Senate seat until times are less turbulent and there is less at stake. Us: Like it or not, 2028 is the year of the white man for the Democrats. A white female veep is fine (looking at you, Big Gretch), but failing to pick a white man would be political malpractice in 2028.
    
    
17. Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD): Blake: Moore is a Black man so people are comparing him to Barack Obama. But Barack Obama was a once-in-a-generation brilliant politician. Moore is not. Us: Moore could run for president some day when times are more placid, but not 2028.
    
    
18. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ): Blake: He's the most intriguing new senator and he is not up in 2028, so he wouldn't have to give up a Senate seat to run: Us: A young, telegenic mostly liberal except on the border, Latino Marine Corps veteran and Harvard graduate who grew up dirt poor and is from a key swing state. Whoa! What else does he need? He will have been in the Senate for 4 years in 2028—exactly the same as Barack Obama in 2008. If he jumps in, he could be a contender, even in a "white man" year.
    
    
19. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA): Blake: He is seen as a liberal but has a strong independent streak. He is more working-class than anyone else on the list except Gallego. He is very tall and has a commanding personality. Us: He had a crippling stroke. That's all the Republicans will talk about. It is sad, but disqualifying. And that's before his heel turn toward Trumpism, which has alienated much of his (former) base. He's way too high on the list.
    
    
20. Kamala Harris: Blake: Her loss was a disappointment, but with Biden weighing her down, she still did a respectable job. The big question is: Will she run for governor of California in 2026 instead of for president in 2028? Us: Adlai Stevenson ran twice. Adlai Stevenson lost twice. Does she want to win the Adlai Stevenson Award? If she runs for governor, she would probably win. To us that makes more sense. She's young enough that she could run for president in 2036.
    
    
21. Pete Buttigieg: Blake: He is a great campaign surrogate and is comfortable going into the foxes' den and holding them at bay. He is very knowledgeable and, at 43 years of age, is a big contrast with all the octogenarians. Us: He's gay. That's six bridges too far. If he were straight, he'd be a great pick. Maybe someday, but running for either governor or senator of Michigan makes more sense, although he would be tarred as a carpetbagger.
    
    
22. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI): Blake: Her stock faltered in 2024 when Harris lost. Would the Democrats try with another woman? Us: We agree. If she runs, the intention should be that she is aiming for the #2 slot. That would be OK, given the dynamics likely to be in play in 2028.
    
    
23. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA): Blake: A lot of Democrats are thinking: "What if ...?" If Shapiro had been on the ticket, Harris would probably have carried Pennsylvania and maybe the Blue Wall. He sounds a lot like Obama, and maybe that is not a bad thing. Us: He is young, has a dynamic personality, is an extremely good speaker, and is a generally likeable guy. Harris didn't pick him because he came over as too ambitious. That's not a bad thing for a presidential candidate, though. He's Jewish and a big supporter of Israel. Depending on the state of the Middle East in 2028, that could play a role.

There you have it. We would guess that the favorites are Beshear, Gallego, and maybe Shapiro if the Middle East is calm. One guy who is not on the list is Mark Cuban. Although he is a (self-made) billionaire, he would be a plausible candidate to run on an anti-billionaire platform. Nick Hanauer already wrote it for him. Suppose he proposed going back to the Eisenhower era of a 91% marginal tax rate. Then throw in a proposed 95% estate tax above a billion dollars. Cuban would get a lot of respect from the "businessmen must be smart" crowd but also from people who think he might actually clamp down on billionaires before the peasants get out their pitchforks and burn them all to death. He would certainly be a very unusual candidate. (V)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #40: Phil Murphy

We have a bunch of pending projects sitting on the back burner, and it is time to bring some of them to the front burner. So, consistent with the item above, we're going to start running down the potential Democratic candidates for 2028, one each Monday. Since we've got plenty of time before the election, we're going to cast our net widely, and do the top 40 contenders. Where do we get that list? Well, a couple of months back, we asked readers to vote for it.

We begin with the fellow that readers voted 40th most likely to get the blue team's nod in 2028. That's pretty low, but it still outpaced a bunch of folks who didn't even make the cut, like Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Dwayne Johnson. And so, we give you: Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ).

• Full Name: Philip Dunton Murphy
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 71
  
  
• Background: Born to a lower-middle-class Irish-American family in Massachusetts, Murphy was a hard worker and a smart fellow, and managed to secure admission to Harvard, graduating with a B.A. in Economics in 1979. He followed that with an MBA from Penn's Wharton School in 1983.
  
  Following his college career, Murphy commenced a very successful career with Goldman Sachs, during which he held many posts, rose high in the ranks of the organization, and amassed a personal fortune said to be in excess of $100 million.
  
  
• Political Experience: Murphy started his political career in the rich guy way, serving in a couple of positions on various civic boards, then raising money for the DNC ($300 million, in total), and then reaping the reward of his fundraising with appointment as ambassador to Germany during the Obama years.
  
  Friends did not see Murphy as the type to actually appear on a ballot, but he decided to run for governor of New Jersey in 2017, and he won in a walk, 56%-42% over then-Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno (R). Murphy's reelection was far less lopsided; he won in 2021, 51% to 48% over Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli (R).
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): Increasing taxes, particularly on easy targets like the wealthy and cigarette smokers.
  
  
• What Would His Pitch Be?: "I am a much better CEO for USA, Inc. than Donald Trump."
  
  
• Instructive Quote: "Two people may not like each other and can't work together. Their mutual dislike is their problem. I don't let it become mine. I'll be the man in the middle and the three of us can work out something everybody is happy with."
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: Murphy's best-known fan is... rocker Jon Bon Jovi, who has performed multiple concerts to rally support for the Governor.
  
  
• Recent News: Murphy is known for putting his foot in his mouth, enough that local reporters have coined the term "Murphy-isms." He did it again recently, casually suggesting that he might be harboring an undocumented immigrant in his house in defiance of the Trump administration, and daring Trump border guru Tom Homan to "come and get her." This infuriated anti-immigration voters in New Jersey, and did not please pro-immigration voters, who felt that Murphy was using this person as a political prop. Things did not get better when Murphy explained that there actually is no undocumented immigrant in his house... maybe.
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) He's a businessman with experience in international finance, and the U.S. economy and its trade relationships with other countries figure to be in pretty shabby condition by 2029; (2) He's got diplomatic experience, and the country's diplomatic relationships figure to be in pretty shabby condition by 2029; and (3) He's a bland white guy in a year where many Democratic primary voters may be looking for a bland white guy.
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) It's an image-driven world, and in approximately 100% of photos and TV appearances, Murphy looks like the world's biggest dork; (2) His fortune was built, at least in part, on the back of sweatshop labor in China, which will not play well with the Democratic base; and (3) Murphy is a little old to be commencing a term that could last 8 years, particularly given what happened with Joe Biden.
  
  
• Polls: Murphy is not a prominent enough name to be asked about in polls of the 2028 field. However, there are approval rating polls for him, and they are... not good. He's sitting at roughly 40% approval, which puts him near the bottom of the heap among Democratic governors. He's unpopular enough that the Republicans have a real chance to reclaim the governorship later this year.
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Murphy running for president; here are some of those responses:
  
  
  • K.J.O. in Brookdale, NJ: I do not think Phil Murphy would make a good presidential candidate. After two terms as New Jersey governor I cannot think of anything he has done. While it is not as bad as that sounds, he certainly was not in the newspaper publicizing his accomplishments. Our offshore windpower project went belly-up. I am still disappointed with his plans to use his political power to install his wife as senator for New Jersey. In fact, that failure shows he does not have political power. He was an improvement over several past governors such as Christine Todd Whitman, Chris Christie and James McGreevey, but after two terms as governor I have no idea what he stands for and cannot imagine Phil on the campaign trail inspiring people to vote for him.
    
    
  • D.K. in New York City, NY: I am a lifelong New Jersey resident. I voted for Murphy twice. He is a decent, honest and effective governor. He is not the best politician, meaning he leads from the middle. New Jersey is a prosperous middle-class state. It is extremely diverse. Governor Murphy keeps most of the people satisfied most of the time. His constituency is moderate Democrats and reasonable Republicans. I consider that a good thing in many ways for a governor, but it will not cut it on the national level. He is like Al Gore, but with less personality and better executive skills.
    
    
  • M.S. in Dunellen, NJ: As a lifelong Jerseyan, I have found Murphy to be a competent but unremarkable governor. (Around here, unremarkable can actually be a compliment.) I don't think he would do well on a national stage, though. Even here, he is sometimes seen as out of touch and he seems to struggle to relate to the average person in an authentic way (even his smile can come across as forced and unnatural). I've appreciated his leadership, especially during the pandemic, but I don't see him doing well in a presidential campaign. I wouldn't mind being wrong about that, though!
    
    
  • B.S. in Stanhope, NJ: If Murphy's wife hadn't tried to muscle her way into the U.S. Senate seat now held by Andy Kim (D), I would've said he might be a viable presidential candidate in 2028. But that scheme showed his political instincts aren't quite shrewd and authentic enough for today's Democratic Party. Another black mark for me was his disastrous unpreparedness for the first major snowstorm of his governorship—highways were clogged for many hours until cars could be dug out. There was no excuse for being caught so flat-footed. He's a very bland rich white guy and a decent enough governor, but I question his appeal to a despondent Democratic Party looking for an anti-Trump.
    
    
  • K.W. in Trenton, NJ: Short answer: No way! And I voted for the guy twice. He's just another empty suit/traditional politician who makes promises and does not really improve things for the average person.
    
    New Jersey Transit is still a disaster (expensive, too many delays). And his environmental record is now officially a bust. We are also heading backwards with regards to EV credits/tax incentives. (I've driven EVs since 2012 and have two in my garage, so I'm a bit familiar.)
    
    
  • M.M. in San Diego, CA: No, not unless he became ubiquitous in any and all media for the next three years. Although I know his name, I have never seen a photo of him or heard him speak. While he may be the perfect candidate, if I, a person who follows politics closely, can't pick him out of a lineup, then the general public will just shrug him off. Without prior name recognition, he couldn't get elected. If he runs in 2028, then he might have a chance in 2032, if feasible (I don't even know how old he is... now I'm going to look him up).
    
    
  • S.P. in Harrisburg, PA: I am not overly familiar with Phil Murphy, but he seems like a northeastern tax-and-spend Democrat. If someone like that is the nominee, the 2028 election would be the exact repeat of the 1988 election.
    
    
  • J.C. in Honolulu, HI: Phil Who?
  
  
• The Bottom Line: Again, we're casting a broad net, which means we're going to end up writing about some pretty poor candidates. We think Murphy is one of those; too many demerits to be viable.

Next week, it's #39 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). If readers have comments about him running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Meanwhile, you're not going to believe what we move from the back burner to the front burner tomorrow. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones