B+ because he will win fairly easily without even really trying.
Him winning fairly easily has nothing to do with the quality of his campaign, lol. In fact, you kind of disproved your own point ("without even really trying").
How else do you determine the quality of a campaign other than the margin of victory/defeat?
This is terrible logic, frankly (and yes, I know this is a preelection post, but this comment is still not exactly true or correct as framed).
A Democrat is expected to win NJ by 15 points, so even a 10 point win (Murphy won by 3.2%, of course, but I know this is a pre-election post and I admittedly also thought NJ would go blue by more) would be a dissapointment. Andy Beshear 'only' won by 0.42% in 2019, so I guess he's a poor campaigner? What matters
is the margin - but when controlled for the state's partisanship, and how well a campaign the opponent ran; just two of many examples of this applying:
1. Marsha Blackburn ran a good campaign because she won by about 10 points in a blue year - bad logic because TN is a solid red state; or you could say she ran a terrible campaign because TN voted for Trump by much more - also bad logic because Phil Bredesen, the opponent, was strong ... in reality Blackburn ran an average-ish campaign, nothing terrible but nothing exceptional
2. Joseph Cao ran a good campaign because he won in a blue year in a massively blue district - bad logic because the incumbent, Bill Jefferson, was extremely scandal-plagued and bogged down by scandal; or you could say he ran a terrible campaign because he won very narrowly - bad logic because the district's partisanship was and is ultra-blue ... in reality Cao ran a decent, maybe-a-little-above-aveage campaign, not bad at all but not really that great, either.
Poll
