NJ-SEN 2024: Draggin' The Line (3/24: Murphy OUT)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would not share such a negative view towards political machines. If anything the delivering of things to communities is plainly more concrete of a way to proceed than an amorphous ideology-based qualification. There's nothing "cynical" about supporting someone because they've fixed a school or a road in your community. And those are tangible things. Wouldn't it be more cynical to use ideological purism as a way to climb the ladder?

Machine politics is in fact an effective way to shave off the worst edges of hyper-ideologicalized politics. It's generally an important element in a functional political system.

Me making things up

I'm sorry that you wasted 70 or so seconds of your life on a post that was, to put it kindly, utterly silly, and disrespects legitimate differences in political opinion.

Your defense of New Jersey political culture is totally in theory and doesn’t actually deal with what the results in the state government actually look like. The legislature’s historically been on the more dysfunctional side (the state’s had two shutdowns this century + a lot of near misses), some of the highest corruption in the US, and among the worst public finances of any state. Not really sure what about it (and other states with similarly corrupt and machine-heavy  political cultures) makes it good.

First of all I'm not actually convinced NJ's that much more "corrupt" than most states. There's significant cultural subjectivity involved in what does and doesn't get qualified as such. (People called earmarks corrupt and I'm hugely pro-earmarks) Additionally I tend to prioritize, in my elected officials, communities getting their part from the pie over strict adherence to a strict code of ethics. I like it a bit more "old-school". Also, I tend to view politicians (and interest groups) as only naturally doing self-interested things regardless of the structure by which they're working with. I'm not a person who believes in the generalized left-leaning reformist progressive idea for how government ought to work; I just don't view it as feasible or actually realistic, so it's not the yardstick I look at for guidance.
I'm also especially focused on polarization and minimizing the role of doctrinaire ideology in governance.
I think I'll let these Roll Roons posts speak for me because I have broadly similar concerns to him.
You could call all this "theory" but guess what? By that same token, so are the grounds you are using against my arguments.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I would not share such a negative view towards political machines. If anything the delivering of things to communities is plainly more concrete of a way to proceed than an amorphous ideology-based qualification. There's nothing "cynical" about supporting someone because they've fixed a school or a road in your community. And those are tangible things. Wouldn't it be more cynical to use ideological purism as a way to climb the ladder?

Machine politics is in fact an effective way to shave off the worst edges of hyper-ideologicalized politics. It's generally an important element in a functional political system.

Me making things up

I'm sorry that you wasted 70 or so seconds of your life on a post that was, to put it kindly, utterly silly, and disrespects legitimate differences in political opinion.

Your defense of New Jersey political culture is totally in theory and doesn’t actually deal with what the results in the state government actually look like. The legislature’s historically been on the more dysfunctional side (the state’s had two shutdowns this century + a lot of near misses), some of the highest corruption in the US, and among the worst public finances of any state. Not really sure what about it (and other states with similarly corrupt and machine-heavy  political cultures) makes it good.

First of all I'm not actually convinced NJ's that much more "corrupt" than most states. There's significant cultural subjectivity involved in what does and doesn't get qualified as such. (People called earmarks corrupt and I'm hugely pro-earmarks) Additionally I tend to prioritize, in my elected officials, communities getting their part from the pie over strict adherence to a strict code of ethics. I like it a bit more "old-school". Also, I tend to view politicians (and interest groups) as only naturally doing self-interested things regardless of the structure by which they're working with. I'm not a person who believes in the generalized left-leaning reformist progressive idea for how government ought to work; I just don't view it as feasible or actually realistic, so it's not the yardstick I look at for guidance.
I'm also especially focused on polarization and minimizing the role of doctrinaire ideology in governance.
I think I'll let these Roll Roons posts speak for me because I have broadly similar concerns to him.
You could call all this "theory" but guess what? By that same token, so are the grounds you are using against my arguments.

It's not even about ideology. The county-line system is literally "pay for play." If you give the NJDP enough money, you gain influence. This is not about purity tests or effective leadership, it's just rich people supporting other rich people for higher office. That is not democracy and the "Democratic" Party would do itself a favor by abandoning machines and stopping trying to sue candidates off the ballot. We are constantly told that the next election is the most important one, that if Democrats lose then democracy is dead. But there's a reason the Republican Party is more open to outside candidates like Donald Trump. If Democrats truly care about democracy, they should walk the walk.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would not share such a negative view towards political machines. If anything the delivering of things to communities is plainly more concrete of a way to proceed than an amorphous ideology-based qualification. There's nothing "cynical" about supporting someone because they've fixed a school or a road in your community. And those are tangible things. Wouldn't it be more cynical to use ideological purism as a way to climb the ladder?

Machine politics is in fact an effective way to shave off the worst edges of hyper-ideologicalized politics. It's generally an important element in a functional political system.

Me making things up

I'm sorry that you wasted 70 or so seconds of your life on a post that was, to put it kindly, utterly silly, and disrespects legitimate differences in political opinion.

Your defense of New Jersey political culture is totally in theory and doesn’t actually deal with what the results in the state government actually look like. The legislature’s historically been on the more dysfunctional side (the state’s had two shutdowns this century + a lot of near misses), some of the highest corruption in the US, and among the worst public finances of any state. Not really sure what about it (and other states with similarly corrupt and machine-heavy  political cultures) makes it good.

First of all I'm not actually convinced NJ's that much more "corrupt" than most states. There's significant cultural subjectivity involved in what does and doesn't get qualified as such. (People called earmarks corrupt and I'm hugely pro-earmarks) Additionally I tend to prioritize, in my elected officials, communities getting their part from the pie over strict adherence to a strict code of ethics. I like it a bit more "old-school". Also, I tend to view politicians (and interest groups) as only naturally doing self-interested things regardless of the structure by which they're working with. I'm not a person who believes in the generalized left-leaning reformist progressive idea for how government ought to work; I just don't view it as feasible or actually realistic, so it's not the yardstick I look at for guidance.
I'm also especially focused on polarization and minimizing the role of doctrinaire ideology in governance.
I think I'll let these Roll Roons posts speak for me because I have broadly similar concerns to him.
You could call all this "theory" but guess what? By that same token, so are the grounds you are using against my arguments.

It's not even about ideology. The county-line system is literally "pay for play." If you give the NJDP enough money, you gain influence. This is not about purity tests or effective leadership, it's just rich people supporting other rich people for higher office. That is not democracy and the "Democratic" Party would do itself a favor by abandoning machines and stopping trying to sue candidates off the ballot. We are constantly told that the next election is the most important one, that if Democrats lose then democracy is dead. But there's a reason the Republican Party is more open to outside candidates like Donald Trump. If Democrats truly care about democracy, they should walk the walk.

If you spend enough money, anywhere you can become politically powerful, whether in a way the public eye can recognize or otherwise. It's not a county line thing. It happens everywhere. Those American oligarchs the Kochs used the KS state legislature to advance their business interests! Perfection is not attainable in government and NJ is not perfect with the county lines or destroyed without it. But considering the whole context, it's clear that the state is better off with it, given what it holds back.

[pikachu]

I would not share such a negative view towards political machines. If anything the delivering of things to communities is plainly more concrete of a way to proceed than an amorphous ideology-based qualification. There's nothing "cynical" about supporting someone because they've fixed a school or a road in your community. And those are tangible things. Wouldn't it be more cynical to use ideological purism as a way to climb the ladder?

Machine politics is in fact an effective way to shave off the worst edges of hyper-ideologicalized politics. It's generally an important element in a functional political system.

Me making things up

I'm sorry that you wasted 70 or so seconds of your life on a post that was, to put it kindly, utterly silly, and disrespects legitimate differences in political opinion.

Your defense of New Jersey political culture is totally in theory and doesn’t actually deal with what the results in the state government actually look like. The legislature’s historically been on the more dysfunctional side (the state’s had two shutdowns this century + a lot of near misses), some of the highest corruption in the US, and among the worst public finances of any state. Not really sure what about it (and other states with similarly corrupt and machine-heavy  political cultures) makes it good.

First of all I'm not actually convinced NJ's that much more "corrupt" than most states. There's significant cultural subjectivity involved in what does and doesn't get qualified as such. (People called earmarks corrupt and I'm hugely pro-earmarks) Additionally I tend to prioritize, in my elected officials, communities getting their part from the pie over strict adherence to a strict code of ethics. I like it a bit more "old-school". Also, I tend to view politicians (and interest groups) as only naturally doing self-interested things regardless of the structure by which they're working with. I'm not a person who believes in the generalized left-leaning reformist progressive idea for how government ought to work; I just don't view it as feasible or actually realistic, so it's not the yardstick I look at for guidance.
I'm also especially focused on polarization and minimizing the role of doctrinaire ideology in governance.
I think I'll let these Roll Roons posts speak for me because I have broadly similar concerns to him.
You could call all this "theory" but guess what? By that same token, so are the grounds you are using against my arguments.

When I talk about corruption in the context of New Jersey, I am talking about the most basic, illegal "public use for private gain" type of stuff which is widely-agreed upon as corruption, is prosecuted as corruption by the government, and is endemic to the culture of the state.

This is literally just from doing a basic Google search, but from the last year you have stuff like:

• A mayor using municipal resources for his landscaping business.
• The mayor of Paterson using city workers to do construction on his relative's business.
• Two mayors committing health insurance and tax fraud.
• Literally Bob Menendez.

I'm not sure how any of this lets "communities get their part from the pie" (unless we're counting communities as politicians' friends and family) or comes from a cultural difference of how people see what's corrupt or not (though Bob Menendez would be performing much better in this primary if New Jerseyans minded this stuff as little much as you make them out to). The state itself also ranks among the highest for federal convictions related to corruption.

And I'm not even sure what ideological nightmare New Jersey's political culture is holding back? The state already sucks at the things that people fearmonger about the far-left – it has the second-worst credit rating of any state, high taxes, unfunded pensions, population loss, etc.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

When I talk about corruption in the context of New Jersey, I am talking about the most basic, illegal "public use for private gain" type of stuff which is widely-agreed upon as corruption, is prosecuted as corruption by the government, and is endemic to the culture of the state.

This is literally just from doing a basic Google search, but from the last year you have stuff like:

• A mayor using municipal resources for his landscaping business.
• The mayor of Paterson using city workers to do construction on his relative's business.
• Two mayors committing health insurance and tax fraud.
• Literally Bob Menendez.

I'm not sure how any of this lets "communities get their part from the pie" (unless we're counting communities as politicians' friends and family) or comes from a cultural difference of how people see what's corrupt or not (though Bob Menendez would be performing much better in this primary if New Jerseyans minded this stuff as little much as you make them out to). The state itself also ranks among the highest for federal convictions related to corruption.

And I'm not even sure what ideological nightmare New Jersey's political culture is holding back? The state already sucks at the things that people fearmonger about the far-left – it has the second-worst credit rating of any state, high taxes, unfunded pensions, population loss, etc.

Well, to be blunt, I don't put all that much stock in these common definitions. I've read and heard a lot of political history (vast array of places and times), which has led me to be more wide-ranging in what I take into account, for better or worse. You could call me overly permissive of this stuff, by most people's standards I would probably qualify. The gold bars story didn't even impact my opinion of Menendez much actually. I felt sorry for him more than anything else.

In any case I would blame the state's problems not on the county line but on the overegged nature of how interest groups like unions operate and the fact that the economic shifts over the past half-century haven't been the most helpful. A case in point of governance problems in the Northeast being how expensive it is to expand subway lines in New York City. Now that is definitively excess, but that's not the county line's fault. NY doesn't have the county line. It's not a Northeast-unique issue either. Huge amounts of money from Covid relief went into the hands of business, with American taxpayers paying the price for that. Who knows who and friends of friends having influence on the government is by far more likely than unlikely. Probably only places like Minnesota are able to do noticably differently on this, in part due to a very strong civic engagement culture. Most don't have that. It's no baseline workable for most. Instead you get this. The question is how much pretense needs to be put up, if any, to hide that fact. In NJ it's conducted more honestly, and more brazenly as a result.

For a contrast, take Texas, my home state. Ken Paxton was elected State Senator back in 2002 and voted for laws that he later broke. Also his wife was active in politics alongside him, in Republican circles. She used her position as his wife to get elected to a state senate seat herself. Meanwhile, he got elected AG and fell into legal troubles, but in the end, he's still in politics. Why? He's backed by evangelicals, mainly. He's pushed their stuff. He also has allies. That's an interest group and that's a powerful one at that. It's not about what laws he's hypocritically broken, that decides his fate, it's the interest groups backing him. He's powerful enough to escape any real consequences. He even survived an impeachment trial, unfortunately. In the end it is what it is. Texas, unlike New Jersey, has the wind to its back and it's been growing greatly over the decades. We even had a massive amount of money to spend on education and tax relief and power and such via referenda (which I voted for). It's not the lack of a county line that makes TX prosperous. It's its economy, which also fuels excessive deference to corporate interests in the state government.

Getting rid of the county line does nothing to fix these problems. It probably empowers utopian idealists while failing to help much at all to assist the state with its core problems, which are either the product of irreversible shifts or human nature (or both). There will be power shifts, but the state's actual trajectory is either unchanged or negatively impacted. I would sooner look at incremental fixes that are more certain to improve material conditions than something like this, and suggest the Governor do his part to push for such changes rather than pushing his wife into a Senate seat. Of course, if the county line is hated enough there will be concrete change on that front, and people will get what they ask for, warts and all.

[LabourJersey]

The county line system gives NJ among the better and less polarized state legislatures in the country. It'd be a shame to see it go.

If indifference to corruption counts as better, sure.

Machine politics is in fact an effective way to shave off the worst edges of hyper-ideologicalized politics. It's generally an important element in a functional political system.

Strong political parties are a way to shave off the worst margins of politics.

But the New Jersey style of machine politics is a terrible form of strong political parties. We can have better forms of strong party networks in this country

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Has anybody in history every once said "I wished my government was more like the one in New Jersey" ?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

When I talk about corruption in the context of New Jersey, I am talking about the most basic, illegal "public use for private gain" type of stuff which is widely-agreed upon as corruption, is prosecuted as corruption by the government, and is endemic to the culture of the state.

This is literally just from doing a basic Google search, but from the last year you have stuff like:

• A mayor using municipal resources for his landscaping business.
• The mayor of Paterson using city workers to do construction on his relative's business.
• Two mayors committing health insurance and tax fraud.
• Literally Bob Menendez.

I'm not sure how any of this lets "communities get their part from the pie" (unless we're counting communities as politicians' friends and family) or comes from a cultural difference of how people see what's corrupt or not (though Bob Menendez would be performing much better in this primary if New Jerseyans minded this stuff as little much as you make them out to). The state itself also ranks among the highest for federal convictions related to corruption.

And I'm not even sure what ideological nightmare New Jersey's political culture is holding back? The state already sucks at the things that people fearmonger about the far-left – it has the second-worst credit rating of any state, high taxes, unfunded pensions, population loss, etc.

Well, to be blunt, I don't put all that much stock in these common definitions. I've read and heard a lot of political history (vast array of places and times), which has led me to be more wide-ranging in what I take into account, for better or worse. You could call me overly permissive of this stuff, by most people's standards I would probably qualify. The gold bars story didn't even impact my opinion of Menendez much actually. I felt sorry for him more than anything else.

In any case I would blame the state's problems not on the county line but on the overegged nature of how interest groups like unions operate and the fact that the economic shifts over the past half-century haven't been the most helpful. A case in point of governance problems in the Northeast being how expensive it is to expand subway lines in New York City. Now that is definitively excess, but that's not the county line's fault. NY doesn't have the county line. It's not a Northeast-unique issue either. Huge amounts of money from Covid relief went into the hands of business, with American taxpayers paying the price for that. Who knows who and friends of friends having influence on the government is by far more likely than unlikely. Probably only places like Minnesota are able to do noticably differently on this, in part due to a very strong civic engagement culture. Most don't have that. It's no baseline workable for most. Instead you get this. The question is how much pretense needs to be put up, if any, to hide that fact. In NJ it's conducted more honestly, and more brazenly as a result.

For a contrast, take Texas, my home state. Ken Paxton was elected State Senator back in 2002 and voted for laws that he later broke. Also his wife was active in politics alongside him, in Republican circles. She used her position as his wife to get elected to a state senate seat herself. Meanwhile, he got elected AG and fell into legal troubles, but in the end, he's still in politics. Why? He's backed by evangelicals, mainly. He's pushed their stuff. He also has allies. That's an interest group and that's a powerful one at that. It's not about what laws he's hypocritically broken, that decides his fate, it's the interest groups backing him. He's powerful enough to escape any real consequences. He even survived an impeachment trial, unfortunately. In the end it is what it is. Texas, unlike New Jersey, has the wind to its back and it's been growing greatly over the decades. We even had a massive amount of money to spend on education and tax relief and power and such via referenda (which I voted for). It's not the lack of a county line that makes TX prosperous. It's its economy, which also fuels excessive deference to corporate interests in the state government.

Getting rid of the county line does nothing to fix these problems. It probably empowers utopian idealists while failing to help much at all to assist the state with its core problems, which are either the product of irreversible shifts or human nature (or both). There will be power shifts, but the state's actual trajectory is either unchanged or negatively impacted. I would sooner look at incremental fixes that are more certain to improve material conditions than something like this, and suggest the Governor do his part to push for such changes rather than pushing his wife into a Senate seat. Of course, if the county line is hated enough there will be concrete change on that front, and people will get what they ask for, warts and all.

This whole wall of text boils down to saying that "well places without the county line still have problems" which like duh, nobody is arguing getting rid of it will handily fix every problem associated with New Jersey.  You have given zero positive argument for why the county-line is good or helps improve governance at all, beyond claiming it helps reduce political polarization and claiming to be well-read on political history(something that almost all members of this forum are).

There is just zero positive case being made for the county-line system here beyond your dislike for idealistic politicians.

[The Mikado]

https://twitter.com/staciberger/status/1763017365292278100

Great system you have there, New Jersey. Real model of 21st century democratic values. Have people vote by raising hands in public knowing that the Governor is singling out those who don't support his wife for retribution.

Just because Tim Turner thinks things were better in the 1880s with no secret ballot or civil service exams and people were free to bribe and threaten voters doesn't mean people should be saddled with it in the 2020s. Seriously, New Jersey, ditch this Tammany holdover BS and get with the times.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://twitter.com/staciberger/status/1763017365292278100

Great system you have there, New Jersey. Real model of 21st century democratic values. Have people vote by raising hands in public knowing that the Governor is singling out those who don't support his wife for retribution.

Just because Tim Turner thinks things were better in the 1880s with no secret ballot or civil service exams and people were free to bribe and threaten voters doesn't mean people should be saddled with it in the 2020s. Seriously, New Jersey, ditch this Tammany holdover BS and get with the times.

From what I heard, the Middlesex vote isn’t even binding, it’s an advisory vote and the chairman can just give the line to Murphy if he feels like it even if Kim wins the line somehow.

Also I have a feeling this is going to backfire and Kim will win Middlesex in the actual primary. Phil Murphy did horribly there in 2017 and got just 43% of the vote in the county despite having the line there and universal support.

(Though granted, one of his two main rivals, John Wisniewski, is from Middlesex)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This whole wall of text boils down to saying that "well places without the county line still have problems" which like duh, nobody is arguing getting rid of it will handily fix every problem associated with New Jersey.  You have given zero positive argument for why the county-line is good or helps improve governance at all, beyond claiming it helps reduce political polarization and claiming to be well-read on political history(something that almost all members of this forum are).

There is just zero positive case being made for the county-line system here beyond your dislike for idealistic politicians.

I don't have to make a primarily positive case for the county line. Making a reasoned enough case that the county line isn't the cause of the state's problems (arguing that pretty much is what Kim and his supporters are doing) is good enough, and I'm happy making a negationist case because the arguments the other side are making give me a free pass to limit myself to that alone as I please. If you don't agree with that case that doesn't necessarily constitute an indictment of either you or me, I simply says we come from different perspectives.

Also, I do not think other states should affirmatively adopt the county line as a system either. Simply there's zero need for every place to all look to one platonic ideal for how they organize themselves. I believe states should be willing to operate by different rules. Variation in local political systems is one of this country's strengths. Progressive reformers don't seem to think this way, and that's a net negative in my eyes. Diversity is part of what makes this country great. Within certain bounds (obviously Jim Crow shouldn't return and secret voting is necessary, for example), let states experiment and operate differently from other states.

NJ is obviously allowed to dump the county line. It's also not obliged to follow in the steps of other states or even take into account what other states feel about its government. That's part of the beauty of this country. What I do disagree with strongly is the belief that every state's government has to look effectively alike. I'm among the most authentically pro-diversity posters on this entire forum.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

This whole wall of text boils down to saying that "well places without the county line still have problems" which like duh, nobody is arguing getting rid of it will handily fix every problem associated with New Jersey.  You have given zero positive argument for why the county-line is good or helps improve governance at all, beyond claiming it helps reduce political polarization and claiming to be well-read on political history(something that almost all members of this forum are).

There is just zero positive case being made for the county-line system here beyond your dislike for idealistic politicians.

I don't have to make a primarily positive case for the county line. Making a reasoned enough case that the county line isn't the cause of the state's problems (arguing that pretty much is what Kim and his supporters are doing) is good enough, and I'm happy making a negationist case because the arguments the other side are making give me a free pass to limit myself to that alone as I please. If you don't agree with that case that doesn't necessarily constitute an indictment of either you or me, I simply says we come from different perspectives.

Yes, you do because the negative case for the county-line has been made quite clear. The negative case rests in the democratic ideals that the position of power should be decided by the genuine popular preference of the populace which the county-line distorts and harms by instead entrenching that power upon political bosses who are not subject to democratic accountability. So unless you inherently reject the democratic principle you have to make some sort of argument regarding the benefit of the county line. n
 

Also, I do not think other states should affirmatively adopt the county line as a system either. Simply there's zero need for every place to all look to one platonic ideal for how they organize themselves. I believe states should be willing to operate by different rules. Variation in local political systems is one of this country's strengths. Progressive reformers don't seem to think this way, and that's a net negative in my eyes. Diversity is part of what makes this country great. Within certain bounds (obviously Jim Crow shouldn't return and secret voting is necessary, for example), let states experiment and operate differently from other states.

NJ is obviously allowed to dump the county line. It's also not obliged to follow in the steps of other states or even take into account what other states feel about its government. That's part of the beauty of this country. What I do disagree with strongly is the belief that every state government has to look effectively alike. I'm among the most authentically pro-diversity posters on this entire forum.

This is nonsensiscal. I don't even know how to argue with this, Diversity is good so it's good that some states are actual democracies and other are corrupt pesudo-democracies.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Has anybody in history every once said "I wished my government was more like the one in New Jersey" ?

If I was forced to move to Florida, I would.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This whole wall of text boils down to saying that "well places without the county line still have problems" which like duh, nobody is arguing getting rid of it will handily fix every problem associated with New Jersey.  You have given zero positive argument for why the county-line is good or helps improve governance at all, beyond claiming it helps reduce political polarization and claiming to be well-read on political history(something that almost all members of this forum are).

There is just zero positive case being made for the county-line system here beyond your dislike for idealistic politicians.

I don't have to make a primarily positive case for the county line. Making a reasoned enough case that the county line isn't the cause of the state's problems (arguing that pretty much is what Kim and his supporters are doing) is good enough, and I'm happy making a negationist case because the arguments the other side are making give me a free pass to limit myself to that alone as I please. If you don't agree with that case that doesn't necessarily constitute an indictment of either you or me, I simply says we come from different perspectives.

Yes, you do because the negative case for the county-line has been made quite clear. The negative case rests in the democratic ideals that the position of power should be decided by the genuine popular preference of the populace which the county-line distorts and harms by instead entrenching that power upon political bosses who are not subject to democratic accountability. So unless you inherently reject the democratic principle you have to make some sort of argument regarding the benefit of the county line. n
 

Also, I do not think other states should affirmatively adopt the county line as a system either. Simply there's zero need for every place to all look to one platonic ideal for how they organize themselves. I believe states should be willing to operate by different rules. Variation in local political systems is one of this coun

Bad news for your argument here is that these democratic ideals are already not how power actually works in this country, and deep down people know it. Only a myopic few think that a poor farmworker in California can expect to have the same power as a Silicon Valley CEO. I discuss politics with people IRL and I've yet to come across people who said they think Trump's going to jail. Powerful bureaucracy and the courts on one end and strong corporate powers on the other are what wields majority power in this country. There's oligarchic elements to how politics operate in this country that are visible to me as a Texan and are visible in some form in vast parts of the country to those who know where to look. Money and institutional memory are power multipliers, so that's not surprising.

Our Founding Fathers, rightfully so, understood that pure democracy, however defined, could pose problems with governance, and they knew their history. Which is why they believed that balancing mechanisms were important (as can be seen in our own Constitution), and mediating elements have in fact always been present in some form. As it were, the tyrannies of people becoming slaves to amorphous ideology can be balanced by strong machine politics, which could tame the worst potential of demagoguery (especially on the GOP side, thank god). And the county line is a formalized version of this in New Jersey, where these practices are conducted the most openly or among the most openly of any state. All this centers politics even more heavily on getting money for the communities who put you there, as that is what machine politics naturally does best.
Does this mean this is the only way the state can desirably be organized? Of course not. Is it flawed? It most definitely is to some extent. It can be legitimately said strong machines create their own problems. However, if the problems that exist would substantially still likewise exist if the county line didn't exist, then at the very least it severely weakens the anti-county line case and makes it far less singularly problematic at worst. It can definitely be fairly said that there's a legitimate anti-county line case, supporting strong big-tent parties with strong organization, but Andy Kim and his supporters aren't making it, instead they're scapegoating it for things it doesn't cause and overstating the impact county lines actually have.

And I must categorically reject your terminology here, describing some states as "pseudo-dictatorships". The 'dictatorship' trope is generally an extreme oversimplification of complex political systems and while it can be validly used (case in point: Paraguay, Romania at some points of history) it is usually slipshod and says more about the user of the term as opposed to the place the person is applying it to. It's more worth it to look at precisely what the interest groups are and organize within the current rules to reduce their overall say, if you oppose them*, rather than rely on stereotype categories that function as shibboleths more than anything else.
*=Seattle has this great program where they give people money to donate to campaigns of their choice as they please. Its called Democracy Dollars iirc

Re: my point on diversity of political organization, I'd think that a Singaporean of all people would understand it. Oh well.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/SageOfTime1/status/1763047674050216314https://twitter.com/SageOfTime1/status/1763058523263418487https://twitter.com/INSIDER__NJ/status/1763011082287812719https://twitter.com/MeKamalMustafa/status/1763140661904109643https://twitter.com/pocryphal/status/1763294551521874098https://twitter.com/SageOfTime1/status/1763302467238834188https://twitter.com/SageOfTime1/status/1763302666745106485https://twitter.com/tjcNJ/status/1763316488977498149

[Oryxslayer]

Couple updates:

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1763565755012993321?t=zT96VNbNj9z4DLxWY...

https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1763574149362987009?t=qxDlX4x2cyaxfXfgy...

Tiny Sussex and Warren are going to endorse Andy over the weekend,  though only one actually uses the line system.

[brucejoel99]

Couple updates:

also, I didn't catch these 'til just now:

Speaking of lawsuits!

https://twitter.com/AndyKimNJ/status/1762190602920178142

https://twitter.com/MonkeeBread/status/1762220517484793893
https://twitter.com/lawliberg/status/1762216484116336954
https://twitter.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1762219286511141258

https://twitter.com/wildstein/status/1763237616101499218https://twitter.com/RebovichInst/status/1762938037837652079

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/NJOutlook/status/1763650545229734126

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/NJOutlook/status/1763650545229734126

Lmao, what did she do?

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/NJOutlook/status/1763650545229734126

Lmao, what did she do?

https://twitter.com/LizzieKFoley/status/1762869362170437741?t=-_fpDxFrqpoJKWrU7l...

https://twitter.com/LizzieKFoley/status/1762880690641580175?t=0ddut0cKv-9aoruClR...

Uhhh...what? Good campaigns don't let this happen.

And in this case it's not a sign of dropping out, cause Tammy was at a big fundraiser and launched a new ad campaign yesterday.

Given what happened earlier, I would not be surprised if the campaign themselves called for this after they lost control somehow.

[GoTfan]

How big a blow to the 'Organization' would it be if Kim does manage to win this?

[CityofSinners]

The maschine is built on the jobs and contracts it can give out at the local and state level. Kim winning has very little impact on that.

A lot of the maschine power is built on the assumption that the county line can deliver a primary. That there is no hope running a real campaign against the candidate that got the line.
Kim undermining that image is a serious but not fatal blow. In less high profile campaigns having the line and support of local maschines will still be a huge advantage.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/NJOutlook/status/1763650545229734126

Lmao, what did she do?

https://twitter.com/LizzieKFoley/status/1762869362170437741?t=-_fpDxFrqpoJKWrU7l...

https://twitter.com/LizzieKFoley/status/1762880690641580175?t=0ddut0cKv-9aoruClR...

Uhhh...what? Good campaigns don't let this happen.

And in this case it's not a sign of dropping out, cause Tammy was at a big fundraiser and launched a new ad campaign yesterday.

Given what happened earlier, I would not be surprised if the campaign themselves called for this after they lost control somehow.

They're now blaming Kim's campaign for her suspension lol

https://twitter.com/danieljohnbryan/status/1763648911988642208https://twitter.com/NickTagliaferro/status/1763654728737562644https://twitter.com/OrganizerMemes/status/1763682876338679878https://twitter.com/AidanDiMarco/status/1763652526379794679https://twitter.com/AidanDiMarco/status/1763653880624148793
& we get content out of this:

https://twitter.com/TammyForNJ/status/1763715494006125011https://twitter.com/TammyForNJ/status/1763723776833863718https://twitter.com/TammyForNJ/status/1763728049764258124https://twitter.com/TammyForNJ/status/1763748591133171925

[brucejoel99]

2nd audio leak of the campaign! Last time was Tammy's campaign threatening NJ College Dems, this time it's Bergen chair Paul Juliano introducing Tammy at last Sunday's event:

[...?] line, was elected by 2,600 votes on all of the Southern lines. He enjoyed the lines down in Camden County when they suited him, but now the Line is no good!? Because he's thinking that he's not gonna get the Line, but he's competing for all the Lines, by the way, in every county, so I wanna say that. Please join me as we welcome the next United States Senator from the great state of New Jersey, Tammy Murphy!

https://twitter.com/SteveKim1234/status/1763736733248545100

[wbrocks67]

I wish we had more polls of this race (and wish the primary was sooner than June) but Tammy's campaign just gets worse and worse by the day