
New Jersey Democrats brace for nail-biter with governor's primary
The Democratic primary for the New Jersey governor's race is a jump ball just more than a month before voters head to the polls.
Public polling of the race has been sparse, but the available public and internal surveys have shown Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) with a small lead over the other five candidates running. But her leads have generally been no more than a few points, often with another candidate within the margin of error behind her.
That's given candidates hope that anyone could pull off a win next month in a race where Democrats are favored.
'All of these candidates are within striking distance from one another,' said Ashley Koning, the director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University. 'It seems like a lot of the voters still aren't sure, still very undecided and can't coalesce around a single candidate.'
The race to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy (D) gradually became more crowded as a half dozen major Democratic candidates launched bids to replace them.
All of them bring extensive resumes in New Jersey politics: two House members, two mayors of major cities who have served for more than a decade, a former mayor and current president of the state education labor union, and a former state Senate president who's been an influential powerbroker in state politics for years.
Sherrill, a fourth-term House member and former Navy helicopter pilot, appears to be the slight favorite, at least on paper.
One of the only consistent trends in polling has been a slight lead for Sherrill. In the most recent public polling from the Eagleton Center, Sherrill led by 5 points over her next-closest opponent, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop.
She's also led by varying small amounts in internal polls, including those conducted by other campaigns. Along with receiving the endorsement from most of the county parties in North Jersey, which has the largest population in the state, Sherrill isn't in a bad spot.
But her lead in the Eagleton poll was within the margin of error and her leads in other surveys have consistently been in the single digits. With the percentage of undecided voters often being as high as the percentage of Sherrill's support and predicting turnout in an off-year primary being difficult, Koning warned that the state of the race may be different than it appears.
'Just because she's having consistent but small leads doesn't mean in reality she's having a consistent but small lead,' Koning said. 'That kind of misinterpretation would be very reminiscent of what we saw with [Hillary] Clinton back in 2016.'
Sherrill's campaign disputed the idea that the race is open, arguing that she is the front-runner based on the polling. Her campaign argued that it has developed a strong field operation and that Sherrill has been willing to appear on traditional and nontraditional media, no matter where voters receive their news.
Most of the other Democratic candidates — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller and Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) — have placed second in at least one recent poll. Former state Senate President Steve Sweeney is the only one who hasn't but has still had decent support.
The candidates largely agree on many issues, pushing to lower the cost of living in what is one of the most expensive states to live in, investing in clean energy and education, and improving housing affordability. But as the primary has approached, they've increasingly taken shots at each other to argue they're the one who will get their goals accomplished in office.
They have also pointed to specific proposals that set themselves apart from the rest.
Fulop in particular has sought to call out Sherrill over what he argues are vague positions on the issues and being the choice of the party machine, comparing her to New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy.
Murphy ran for Senate in the Democratic primary with the backing of her husband and several party leaders, but she dropped out after struggling to fend off opposition from now-Sen. Andy Kim (D).
Sherrill campaign spokesperson Sean Higgins argued Sherill's 'affordability agenda' covers a range of key issues like housing, health care and energy costs, saying a unique policy point is her call for protecting children and democracy online from the harmful effects of social media and Big Tech.
'She's got a really clear vision for the state, and I think her story shows that she has a different kind of leadership that we're seeing resonate in this campaign,' Higgins said.
Fulop told The Hill in an interview that the fundamental difference between his campaign and the others' is the 'really detailed policies' he's proposed from day one and the political reform he's called for.
'[Voters] want somebody who is more than just a fighter against some of the Trump policies,' he said. 'I think a differentiator is that I talk more about substance on how I'm going to stand up for New Jersey, but people want to hear that.'
He argued that voters want to hear a 'clear vision' instead of 'platitudes.'
On his website, he's laid out extensive policy proposals on various issues that are all at least a dozen pages long.
Fulop expressed optimism about his campaign, arguing that he has the most momentum and is receiving the right signs on the ground from voters. He's positioned himself as an antiestablishment outsider, having crusaded against the county line system that favored county-endorsed candidates and calling for reducing a 'corruption tax' that he argues raises costs because of lobbyists' political power.
'June 10 is going to be, in some ways, kind of a referendum on whose vision is right, whether people want change from that system or they're comfortable with the way it's working,' he said.
Gottheimer told The Hill in an interview that he's the only candidate with a 'very specific' plan to cut not just costs but taxes as well, calling for a property tax cut of nearly 15 percent. He also pointed to the recent ad that depicted him fighting President Trump in a boxing ring as showing he won't let 'anybody mess with Jersey.'
'People are just really looking for somebody who's going to take on these costs and taxes and be unafraid to take on Trump,' he said.
He noted that 'undecided' has more support in the race than any other candidate but expects that to drop as the primary approaches.
'That's why I'm running around the state,' Gottheimer said.
Spiller, who is a former mayor of Montclair, has argued he's set himself apart as the only candidate not receiving contributions from Wall Street and other wealthy donors.
'I'm the one candidate in this race who isn't funded by big corporate PACs, hedge funds, developers, and Wall Street,' he told The Hill in a statement. 'I'm a science teacher, union leader, and immigrant — and New Jerseyans know I'm the one candidate they can trust to stand up to Donald Trump and the wealthy special interests.'
Spiller has received some criticism over the millions of dollars that a super PAC with ties to the union he leads has spent to boost him in the race. He's defended himself by arguing that the money is coming from average working people rather than hedge funds.
The Hill has reached out to the Baraka and Sweeney campaigns for comment.
One major difference for this race is the lack of the county line that previously had been highly influential in primaries in New Jersey. The ballot was designed like a grid, with the candidate who receives the party endorsement in each county usually receiving the first and most optimal spot, making it difficult for other candidates to compete without the endorsement.
But a judge struck down the county line as unconstitutional last year, and the governor signed a bill in March officially repealing the county line ballot system.
2024 Election Coverage
Still, the race could be a test of the influence of the state party in the new era for New Jersey politics.
Strategist Julie Roginsky said the removal of the county line system requires party organizations to effectively organize and reach voters rather than relying on the line. She said the candidate who best demonstrates their ability to stand up for New Jersey and oppose Trump may have the best chance of breaking through with the backdrop of this race happening with him in the White House.
'If you are able to authentically, and I use the word authentically purposely, authentically message that you are that fighter, you stand a much better chance of winning that primary,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Elon Musk stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on May 30, only months after promising to transform government by cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget and eliminating so-called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Just a week later, Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump ― the man Musk spent nearly $300 million to elect — went up in flames, as Americans watched the drama unfold in real time on X and Truth Social. Trump publicly denounced Musk as 'disloyal' for criticizing the president's signature legislative effort, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination' and openly called for Trump's impeachment. The spectacle of the richest man in the world and the president of the United States exchanging insults online may be remembered as DOGE's final chapter in the public imagination. But it should not obscure the damage Musk wrought when he commanded one of the most powerful positions in the Trump administration. More from Freep Opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run To start, Musk's promised savings never came. The DOGE website currently claims to have saved the public $175 billion through a range of actions like eliminating 'fraud and improper payment' and cancelling grants. But even that sum — which is believed to be falsely inflated through a combination of guesswork and suspect arithmetic — is less than 3% of the federal budget, and less than 9% of the $2 trillion in cuts Musk promised upon assuming his role. In other words, DOGE failed on Musk's own terms. What did materialize is an unprecedented attack on public institutions, beginning with the people who carry out the work of public service. According to the latest data, around 260,000 federal employees have either been forced out, been slated for cuts, or chosen to leave their posts since DOGE began its work. These aren't faceless 'bureaucrats.' They are the people who test our water for contaminants, inspect our food for harmful bacteria, and ensure air travel is safe, among other public services. The department with the highest number of planned terminations is Veterans Affairs, with up to 80,900 personnel serving our nation's veterans slated for future cuts, according to the New York Times. Many of these jobs are health care workers who care for veterans directly. More from Freep Opinion: I'm a gay man in Detroit. Celebrating Pride feels more important than ever In cutting both people and programs that provide essential services, DOGE attempted a bargain that Michiganders are painfully familiar with: treat government like a business, and attempt to cut public services to balance the books no matter the risks to public health, the economy or democracy. During our state's era of emergency management, decision-making power in several cities and school districts like Flint and Detroit shifted from democratically elected local officials to appointees of the governor. In Flint, a series of emergency managers focused on cost-cutting to address the city's financial crisis, including the ill-fated decision to switch the city's water source. The result was the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in American history. Flint should have been a warning to the country that 'efficiency' without regard for public welfare is a dangerous proposition. Yet DOGE was a far more extreme expression of this logic. Like Flint, the DOGE experiment is a grave warning about what happens when democracy is treated as a private enterprise rather than a public trust, when billionaires think they know best what people need in their own communities. And while it may take decades to account for the potential harms DOGE's actions might produce, we are already seeing some. Here in Michigan, DOGE reportedly canceled $394 million in federal public health grants, money that ultimately supports local health initiatives statewide. These cuts are not abstract. They will be felt in people's bodies and the broader society. Local health providers will have to cut back on critical services such as vaccine administration and interventions for substance use disorder. According to a 2019 study, every dollar invested in public health departments yields as much as $67 to $88 of benefits to society. DOGE also cut $15 million in AmeriCorps funding for our state, impacting programs that offered tutoring, support for seniors, and assistance for homeless residents. At a time when Michigan ranks 34th in the nation in overall child wellbeing, students in more than 60 school districts may see tutoring support disappear. This begs the question: Who ultimately benefited from Musk's relentless cutting? The clear answer is Elon Musk, who is $170 billion richer since endorsing Trump in the summer of 2024, even accounting for the drop in Tesla's stock attributed to the public backlash over DOGE's actions. (How this most recent fiasco will affect Musk's bottom line remains to be seen.) Meanwhile, DOGE spent months attempting to 'delete' entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which stops predatory banks from scamming veterans, seniors, and consumers in general. And it destroyed the IRS' ability to audit wealthy tax cheats, forcing workers and families to shoulder more of the nation's tax responsibility. DOGE has also made us less free. The initiative's most significant legacy may be what the writer Julia Anguin described as 'a sprawling domestic surveillance system for the Trump administration ― the likes of which we have never seen in the United States.' In agency after agency, Musk and his lieutenants accessed the most sensitive data about Americans and handled it with reckless disregard. Information like Social Security numbers and bank accounts that once stood in the relative safety of government silos are now being merged to create more sweeping surveillance tools than ever before. They could be used to further crack down on immigrants' speech, or to simply make it easier to target political enemies. This is what we're left with. A public more exposed to harm — from preventable diseases, from corporate predation and scams, from toxins in our air and water—and a small group of wealthy elites more empowered to dominate our government and our democracy. Perhaps this is why a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Musk's job performance, arguably accelerating his departure from government. The American public deserves a government that is fit for purpose and delivers on its promises. But Elon Musk never intended to create that. DOGE was built on the fiction of Musk's mastery of all things, one of the many myths attributed to the ultra-wealthy. What it concealed was a public sector novice who failed to understand the basic mechanics of the institutions he railed against. On the day Musk announced his departure, a lawsuit against him and DOGE was cleared to proceed, accusing him of wielding unlawful power over federal agencies, contracts and data without democratic oversight. It was a fitting coda. Musk left behind no durable reform, only institutions hollowed out, public trust frayed, and a template for how easily government can be turned against the people it exists to serve. Even this spectacular fallout with Trump should not distract from the wreckage he leaves behind. Bilal Baydoun is Director of Democratic Institutions at the Roosevelt Institute, a national policy think tank devoted to building on the legacy of FDR. A version of this column was previously published on the Roosevelt Institute's Substack. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access witha Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Elon Musk-Trump spat is a distraction from DOGE failures | Opinion


Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
AP Decision Notes: What to expect in the New Jersey primary
WASHINGTON — Nearly a dozen candidates will compete in New Jersey on Tuesday for the chance to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy . Voters will also pick nominees for the state General Assembly. New Jersey is one of only two states, along with Virginia, with a gubernatorial race on the ballot this year. Historically, presidential politics has cast a long shadow over the two contests, with the president's party frequently losing one or both seats. Although Democrats have long dominated New Jersey's federal offices as well as the state Legislature, the governor's office has changed hands regularly between the two major political parties for most of the last century. The last time a party held the governorship for more than two consecutive terms was in 1961.

Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Webb: 'Give me a chance'
GRAYSON Sen. Robin Webb, who just last week was the lone Democrat representing rural Kentuckians, said she never expected her party switch to garner so much attention. Webb, who has represented back-country counties in Frankfort since the 1990s, has been the center of both praise and contempt after announcing she would be joining the Republican Party last week. Often voting in line with Republican legislature and sponsoring bills with bi-partisan support throughout her decades in the General Assembly, Webb said she didn't anticipate her announcement to be a surprise, or that it was worthy of reaching the national stage. 'Oh heck no. I'm not that important,' Webb said when asked if she expected to appear in national and international headlines, including multiple talking segments on Fox News since the announcement. That attention has brought Webb an array of reactions, a mixed bag of 'disappointment and meanness expressed — but it's overall been positive,' she said. After decades in the legislature and at the near halfway point of her Senate term, Webb said she chose to join the Republican party to 'get it out of the way,' ahead of the General Assembly's interim budget session. 'I wanted to be starting legislative work in earnest and get it out of the way so it wouldn't be a distraction,' Webb said. 'I felt like it was the transparent and ethical thing to do, to not do it at the last minute.' As mentioned, Webb's legislative history has often leaned conservative on issues related to gun, conservation and agricultural issues, which she said compounded onto a 'disconnect and rural divide' within Kentucky's Democratic Party. 'Of course there are a few issues we separate on,' Webb said of her former party. 'They just have a different demographic and I felt like we weren't being acknowledged.' That division, Webb said, became more clear to her on energy, agricultural and social policies, although she said she still strived to remain 'party-blind when it comes to work.' 'Like I said, my votes are pretty consistent the past 25 years. Nothing much has really changed about me,' Webb reasoned. 'I landed where my votes and things have taken me.' The Senator's district — Boyd, Carter, Greenup and Lewis County — has continued to trend from historically Democrat to Republican in local and national races, but Webb told The Daily Independent her decision to change parties was not swayed by future political races or aspirations. 'I felt like if my voting record was that far off, I would've probably had opposition,' Webb said, adding running as a Democrat candidate has never lessened her popularity in her district. 'I represent a Republican district and I won one of the most Republican counties in the state,' Webb said. 'To nip that myth, I do not have my eye on any other office. I like where I am and will run for state senate again.' In response to statements of betrayal possibly felt by rural Democrats who officially have no representation in Frankfort, Webb said that shouldn't be the case as she will continue to legislate as she always has. 'They should feel like I'm being transparent and honest,' Webb said. 'I'm being true to myself and trying to be true to my people. 'I thank everybody who has put me where I am and all the party support I've received from both sides,' Webb said. According to Webb, her party affiliation was not swayed by national politics, either, as she said 'nationally, I don't agree with anybody completely,' as her national focus has been preserving Second Amendment rights and preserving 'the Constitution as a whole.' Webb's primary focus in the Senate, however, will continue to be on 'rural issues and voters.' 'I will continue to look at how to help my people and continue to look at their issues,' Webb said, '(and) try to bring our share of tax dollars and try to grow our economy. 'I'm still who I am and I hope that they give me a chance to do it,' Webb said to her voters — no matter their registration. 'My people mean more to me than anything and that's not going to change.'