Three Lessons from Democrats Running for New Jersey Governor

An Independent’s Perspective on What the Party Gets Right—and Still Misses

I’m not one to be actively politically engaged. I prefer to analyze politics unemotionally and from a distance. At a recent New Jersey Democratic Governors' roundtable before the June primary, I had the opportunity to hear from four leading candidates in person: U.S. Representative for New Jersey’s District 7, Mikie Sherrill; Jersey City Mayor, Steven Fulop; Newark Mayor, Ras Baraka; and former Montclair Mayor, Sean Spiller.

I won’t bore you with the NJ-specific details (I’m also not a NJ resident anymore), but much of the talk was about fighting the good fight against who some are calling the Orange Menace (I would not stoop to that level of juvenile name-calling. Also, half the talk was about him and notably this is a state election.)

The talk got me thinking about some broader political takeaways, especially for the Democratic Party, from the standpoint of an independent and political moderate.

Lesson #1: Strong, smart, and moral(?) politicians exist

I came away impressed with the intellectual quality, charm, and charisma of each of the candidates. This forum was great because it was a discussion, not a debate, so you didn’t have candidates directly criticizing each other and then the tiresome sniping back and forth. There was plenty of substantive discussion and policy talk on the law, federalism, immigration, and economic issues like housing, transportation, and affordability.

In this one hour talk all four came across as making seemingly strong governors, even if I personally prefer the more centrist and economically libertarian leaning candidates. When politicians like Spiller frame housing as a demand-side issue tied to people not having enough money, it suggests a misunderstanding of the core problem: housing shortages are driven by excessive permitting, regulations, and barriers to new construction.

Overall, the candidates were well-prepared and informed on the issues, and had a strong understanding of NJ political issues and what their Democratic party base wants.

While ethics and moral character often seem like an afterthought in presidential and national politics, Sherrill and Baraka have squeaky clean records. And as a congresswoman, Sherrill has been praised for her bipartisan public service, transparency, and results for her constituents. What one might expect from a former Navy combat pilot and less so from a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for NJ.

Spiller and Fulop have not avoided scrutiny, with charges of illegality and corruption leveled against them, respectively.

Another note on intelligence. Sherill, who immediately stood out as someone who is very smart, quick on her feet, passionate, charismatic, and warm, brings to mind the defining public speaking qualities of a politician. Politicians often carry a reputation for being smarmy, or speaking only in platitudes while lacking strong policy ideas or the executive, administrative, and leadership skills needed to achieve lofty goals. There is something to each of these criticisms but we often paint politicians with too broad a brush.

In the past, I’ve criticized the fact that most Congresspeople are lawyers and this background leads to a limited viewpoint and skills. And while this is true in part, it’s important to note the politicians who are not just good speakers but who have the intellect, the will, and the moral courage to get things done in a prudent and effective way.

You really can’t be a successful politician at a high level without being an effective communicator. But this is only one part of the job and it’s been noted that running for office and being in office require different skill sets. And that’s why it’s important to judge a candidate on both aspects, even if most people make judgments based on intuitive feelings of whether they like a candidate, rather than on careful and nonpartisan rational analysis.

Lesson #2: Stop attacking Wall Street and billionaires

This lesson is mainly not supported by the data and thus requires a nuanced position. For fair and unfair reasons much of the electorate vacillates between suspicion and open-hostility towards Wall Street and billionaires. The reason I make this point is much of the anger towards financiers and entrepreneurs who have founded and profited from majority ownership in billion-dollar companies is unfounded, especially as the latter has created a lot more value and jobs than they’ve supposedly taken away.

Sometimes CEO pay is unjustifiably high due to skewed market incentives, limited accountability in compensation structures, and stark disparities compared to the wages of other employees and professions. That doesn’t diminish the difficulty of their jobs or the exceptional skill and resilience required in a ferociously competitive, ever-changing global economy.

The larger point is that if Democrats actually want a stronger and larger middle class they should be joining forces with Wall Street and big business rather than just criticizing them and then taking their campaign dollars surreptitiously. From a factual and broader perspective it’s clear that finance is an essential spark energizing the real economy, while big business is the fundamental driver of the production of goods and services that bring comfort and meaning to our lives.

Democrats can gain popularity points by saying we need to tax millionaires and corporations more, and in a country that desires a lot of redistribution and social welfare programs progressive taxation is a key way to accomplish this. What would be even more effective is implementing taxes as not a punitive measure, but as a practical necessity to fund important government services (while not running excessive deficits). There is room for a center-left position on not taxing wealth and business in a heavy-handed way that hurts revenue streams, business investment, and the broader economy. Too often the left comes off as anti-success and subsequently anti-American on these topics.

In contrast, the MAGA movement’s opposition tends to emphasize anti-elite and anti-globalist sentiment, rather than direct hostility toward Wall Street, billionaires, or large corporations. Trump has consistently balanced this dynamic by positioning himself as an ally to wealthy elites and big business, advancing policies that prioritize their interests through tax cuts and deregulation. Much of this deregulation is just smart policy that Democrats would be smart to adopt, see the Abundance agenda from Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein’s new book for more details. Democrats can find a better middle ground here to attract more voters and govern more effectively.

Lesson #3: Recognize that Democrats are to blame for Trump’s victory

It was both explicit and implicit that Democrats (read Kamala Harris and the top brass in particular) are to blame for Trump returning to the White House. The constructive exercise of assigning blame leads to recognizing that much of Democratic messaging is out of touch with the working and non-college educated classes. On issues like race, immigration, gender identity, and regulation of speech, many Democrats come across as out of touch and contrary to their identity and beliefs. Ruy Teixeira, writing in The Liberal Patriot, provides compelling evidence that makes this case.

What Working-Class Voters Really Want

Winning over these voters is harder than just being less progressive or woke, although that can’t hurt in elections that are not made up of predominantly Democratic voters. Democrats have to first acknowledge that college-educated and mostly white voters that strongly agree with their policies and values are at odds with Trump voters. Especially the ones who voted for Biden in 2020 and defected to Trump.

In a Democratic primary which is the contest these four gubernatorial candidates are competing in—you can't afford to run too much as a centrist— for fear of being out-lefted by your opponents. And then in a general election in a somewhat purple but blue-leaning state like NJ, you then modulate to the center. This is easier said than done as a good candidate also has to come across as authentic and a person who stands by their convictions. Something candidates can learn from Harris on what not to do.

Conclusion

Overall, I came away from the forum impressed with the candidates and this as a exercise in democracy. I've argued before that people should spend much more time focusing on local and state politics, where policies have a greater impact on daily life. Doing so could also help reduce the polarization and vitriol endemic at the national level.

The challenge with this is national politics is more fun and salacious. Donald Trump knows how to stay in the headlines serving up tasty bites to his base and goading his enemies into outrage and protest.

There is a related argument that if you don’t like the quality of the politicians then why don’t you run yourself. Ownership over our lives and democracy are important (American) values. And second best is taking the time to really vote for the candidate that appears to be not just of your party or ideological beliefs, but a good manager of people and policies, and of high moral character. Mikie Sherrill came across as that candidate in this one hour talk.

The best candidates, legislators, and executives are the ones that don’t demonize easy targets like Wall Street and billionaires, but the ones that bring people together and enact good policies, for non-ideological and non-partisan reasons.

Democrats can’t bank on a struggling economy to sink Republicans in this election or in 2026, and especially not in 2028. They have to be humble, self-aware, and passionately moderate to win back swing voters. Being anti-Trump will only get you so far if you don’t have a strong platform, message, and personal convictions to stand on. I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic the current Democratic Party can do this, but I’m not optimistic Trump and the Republicans will course correct on some of their worst policy and moral errors so far.