The Trump test, Democrats' future and big money: Three things to watch in New Jersey's primaries
New Jersey voters are heading to the polls on Tuesday to pick nominees for this year's race for governor, in the first high-profile primaries for both parties since the 2024 election.
New Jersey is one of two states with a gubernatorial race this year, along with Virginia. And both contests will be closely watched as early indicators of how voters are responding to President Donald Trump's second term.
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy cannot run for re-election due to term limits, so there are contested races for both parties' nominations. Candidates and groups have spent $85 million on ads this year in both primaries, according to to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact, with more than $75 million spent in the Democratic primary alone.
As Democrats nationally have tried to regroup following Trump's 2024 victory, where he also narrowed his margin of victory in bluer states like New Jersey, the six Democratic candidates have presented different paths forward for their party. And the race is still unsettled heading into the primary.
On the Republican side, five candidates are on the ballot — but former state Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, whom Trump endorsed in mid-May, is viewed as the front-runner.
Polls close at 8 p.m. ET. Here are three things to watch as voters make their choices.
The crowded Democratic primary remains the most unpredictable race New Jersey has seen in decades, in part because county parties can no longer give advantageous ballot positions to their preferred candidates, following a lawsuit from Democrat Andy Kim during his Senate run last year. The suit weakened the state's party machines and contributed to a wide-open contest.
As Democratic voters in New Jersey have evaluated the candidates, some have prioritized electability, raising concerns that Ciattarelli will be tough to beat in November. The former state legislator lost to Murphy in 2021 by 3 percentage points. And Trump also made gains in the state last year, losing by 6, a 10-point improvement on his 2020 margin, which was the second-largest swing toward Trump in the country. Democratic voters also say they are looking for a candidate to take on Trump.
Against that backdrop, each Democrat has been pitching a different path forward for their party, and Tuesday's primary will be Democratic voters' first major opportunity to weigh in on which path they should take.
Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill has been viewed as the relative front-runner after leading in limited public polling, although candidates are often clustered together within the margin of error.
Sherrill has leveraged the party's successful playbook from the 2018 midterm elections, when she and other Democrats flipped Republican-held House seats. She has emphasized her background as a Navy helicopter pilot and a federal prosecutor in her pitch as someone who can effectively govern and take on Trump.
Sherrill has faced recent attacks for her House campaign accepting donations from a corporate PAC tied to Elon Musk's SpaceX, and for being late to disclose two stock trades related to her husband's work. Sherrill's House campaign donated the PAC money to charity. She also paid a fine for the late disclosure and supports a stock trading ban for members of Congress.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka has been pitching himself as the true progressive in the race who's willing to take on the president. He garnered national attention when he was arrested last month at a federal immigration detention facility. (The charges were later dropped, and Baraka is now suing New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba in response.)
The attention has given Baraka's campaign a last-minute boost, with recent fundraising reports showing that his campaign raised $962,000 in the 17 days following the arrest, more than twice as much as his next closest Democratic competitor.
Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop is also appealing to the party's liberal voters, describing his supporters as 'pragmatic progressive' voters. Fulop has been running an anti-establishment campaign, criticizing the state's Democratic political machine and Murphy, whom he described at a recent campaign stop as a 'sub-average' governor.
Teachers' union president Sean Spiller has said he also considers himself a progressive and has criticized those in his party who he says are backed by wealthy corporate interests. Spiller himself has been boosted by Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by the New Jersey Education Association, which Spiller leads.
Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer, one of the more moderate members of Congress, has been pitching an economic-focused message, saying he will work to bring down the state's high cost of living.
And former state Senate President Steve Sweeney, who lost re-election in 2021 to an underfunded GOP challenger, has argued that he is best equipped to lead the state government given his legislative experience. Sweeney, who is also stressing his blue-collar roots as a former ironworker, could have a geographic advantage as the only candidate from South Jersey.
The GOP primary will be a key test for Trump's endorsement and determine whether the president has helped consolidate his supporters around Ciattarelli, his preferred candidate in the race.
Ciattarelli sharply criticized then-candidate Trump in 2015, calling him a 'charlatan' and unfit to be president, and he notably did not campaign with Trump when he ran for governor in 2021. Trump knocked Ciattarelli for failing to do so in a radio appearance last year with Ciattarelli's chief competitor in the GOP primary, Bill Spadea.
'This guy never came to ask for my support,' Trump said then of Ciattarelli. 'And you know what, when MAGA sees that, they don't like it and they didn't vote for him. He would have won easily if he did.'
Spadea also asked for Trump's endorsement in the race, and the possibility that Trump would take sides in the primary loomed over the contest for months.
The president ultimately endorsed Ciattarelli on May 12, writing on Truth Social that Ciattarelli is now '100%' MAGA and is best positioned to win in November.
Ciattarelli, for his part, now says he fully supports Trump and dismissed his past comments in an April interview with NBC News, noting other Republicans (including Vice President JD Vance) have criticized Trump in the past.
The primary could also shed light on the size of the anti-Trump wing of the GOP in New Jersey, with state Sen. Jon Bramnick in the race. Bramnick, a longtime state legislator who is also a standup comedian, has called for a return to civility, and he has sharply criticized Trump in the past.
Two other candidates are also on the Republican primary ballot: former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac, a a self-described 'forever Trumper' who has been endorsed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and contractor Justin Barbera.
Tuesday's primaries in New Jersey will also test outside groups' influence as they've spent millions of dollars in the pricey New York and Philadelphia media markets to reach Garden State voters.
The pro-Spiller super PAC Working New Jersey, which is tied to the state's teachers' union, had spent a whopping $35 million on the race as of May 27, according to the latest campaign finance reports, while Spiller's campaign itself had spent $342,000. The group has spent $12.1 million on ads this year, according to AdImpact.
That ad-spending sum was surpassed only by Affordable New Jersey, a super PAC supporting Gottheimer, which was funded largely by transfers from Gottheimer's congressional campaign. That group has spent $14.8 million on the airwaves.
Fulop has also gotten a boost by a super PAC called Coalition for Progress, which has spent $8.1 million on ads this year. Sherrill's aligned super PAC, One Giant Leap PAC, has dropped nearly $5.9 million on the airwaves, largely over the last month of the race.
Ciattarelli has had a financial advantage in the GOP primary, spending $6 million on ads, compared to Spadea's $1.7 million and Bramnick's $1.2 million, according to AdImpact. Both Ciattarelli and Spadea have also gotten boosts from super PACs, but both groups have spent less than $1 million on ads in the race.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?
Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.
