(Fusion Voting) "New Jersey Centrists Seek to Legalize Their Dream: The Moderate Party"
GoSlugs said:
Is this true? Is SO out of Donald Payne's district now?
I don't follow NJ politics very closely but, as SO was the last place I voted in the US, that is where my congressional representation falls.
Is the new district a solid blue one? As I recall, Sherrill's original district was fairly purple.
The new 11th District, which now includes South Orange and Maplewood, isn’t as blue as their old 10th but appears to be bluer than Sherrill’s old 11th. It was drawn by Democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/politics/us-redistricting/new-jersey-redistricting-map/
I keep on getting bounced around. Was in Sherrill's district, now I'm in Payne's.
NJ-11 was a lot more purple, but looks like they swapped out parts of it (including my part) for the deeper blue parts, including SOMA. I think the lopping off of the farther western parts especially have made it much more Democratic.
On the map at the wikipedia page, you can click "from 2013 to 2023" or "from 2023" to see the change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_11th_congressional_district
(though that caption seems wrong to me -- the district is changed as of this year, not next. Not sure why it uses "2023").
Sherrill's victory was very satisfying, as it ousted a long-time Republican incumbent who refused to even hold town hall meetings. A grass roots organization, NJ-11 For Change, formed to target him; I went to a few meetings and gave some money, but I'm not a very good activist so didn't do much beyond that. Felt good to see Sherrill win though, and I'll miss having her be my congressperson.
PVW said:
(though that caption seems wrong to me -- the district is changed as of this year, not next. Not sure why it uses "2023").
Keyed to the term that the district’s representative will serve, I believe. From the wikipedia text: “On December 22nd, 2021, the New Jersey Redistricting Commission adopted a new congressional map that will take effect in January 2023 for the following decade.”
I will miss NJ 10 a little bit. I actually have grown to like Donald Payne over the last 10 years. His office was very helpful on the one occasion I needed constituent services and the man has some amazing suits in his wardrobe. On the downside, the Rep. Payne is a career back bencher who struggles with some serious health concerns that I suspect curtail whatever urges for activism he may have.
GoSlugs said:
STANV said:
I haven't finished reading this thread, but the answer to this is The Right, Fox News , et.al.
The Congressperson who is running for re-election in the District that now includes Maplewood and South Orange is Mikie Sherrill who is a moderate and gets lots or press and TV appearances.
Is this true? Is SO out of Donald Payne's district now?
I don't follow NJ politics very closely but, as SO was the last place I voted in the US, that is where my congressional representation falls.
Is the new district a solid blue one? As I recall, Sherrill's original district was fairly purple.
You should make sure to vote.
GoSlugs said:
I will miss NJ 10 a little bit. I actually have grown to like Donald Payne over the last 10 years. His office was very helpful on the one occasion I needed constituent services and the man has some amazing suits in his wardrobe. On the downside, the Rep. Payne is a career back bencher who struggles with some serious health concerns that I suspect curtail whatever urges for activism he may have.
Same here. The one time I needed his assistance, his office came through with flying colors.
DaveSchmidt said:
Keyed to the term that the district’s representative will serve, I believe. From the wikipedia text: “On December 22nd, 2021, the New Jersey Redistricting Commission adopted a new congressional map that will take effect in January 2023 for the following decade.”
Ah, that would make sense.
GoSlugs said:
I will miss NJ 10 a little bit. I actually have grown to like Donald Payne over the last 10 years. His office was very helpful on the one occasion I needed constituent services and the man has some amazing suits in his wardrobe. On the downside, the Rep. Payne is a career back bencher who struggles with some serious health concerns that I suspect curtail whatever urges for activism he may have.
He's relatively more productive, legislatively, according to a tracking site.
Donald Payne Jr., Representative for New Jersey's 10th Congressional District - GovTrack.us
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Keyed to the term that the district’s representative will serve, I believe. From the wikipedia text: “On December 22nd, 2021, the New Jersey Redistricting Commission adopted a new congressional map that will take effect in January 2023 for the following decade.”
Ah, that would make sense.
Of course. Congresspeople were elected in 2020 to serve their current Districts. This year they run for new terms to begin in Jan. 2023 so while serving their current Districts they are running to serve their new ones.
In NYC and suburbs this has caused some odd things, like two long-term incumbent who used to represent different sides on Manhattan now running against each other in a newly drawn District that crosses Central Park. Even odder north of the City where Sean Patrick Maloney, who is actually the Chair of the Dem Congressional Campaign Committee deciding to run in a District adjacent to his old District because in became redder, and forcing out another Dem who has decided to run in a District a distance away, that is Mondaire Jones , presently representing the area around Rockland County running in the newly created District in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. But everyone and his/her brother is running in the Dem Primary in that District including Bill DiBlasio, Elizabeth Holtzman who was on the Watergate Committee and a refugee from China who was part of the Tianamen Square protests.
It's so nice to find a thread that is actually a discussion of politics.
NYC geography makes for odd situations. When I lived in Astoria, my representative was Carolyn Maloney. And yes, on the map Astoria is very close to the UES. In practice, the East River is a significant barrier and the UES didn't feel particularly close; felt like our part of Queens was just kind of thrown in to round out the district. (worse than congressional districts was trying to find nearby services, eg being told Target was just 1.2 miles away. True, but without a boat not especially relevant).
Not to defend Sean Patrick Maloney, but he lives in the district in which he is running though the majority of his old district is the district north of that one.
PVW said:
NYC geography makes for odd situations. . . . (worse than congressional districts was trying to find nearby services, eg being told Target was just 1.2 miles away. True, but without a boat not especially relevant).
I feel your pain on this. I was stuck at the Charlotte airport (because American sucks). AA decided to rebook me on a plane to JFK because it is only 12 miles from EWR. I don't think that the folks in Charlotte believed me that while that may be true as the crow flies, it was about 2 hours and a $150-200 car ride away.
Steve said:
I feel your pain on this. I was stuck at the Charlotte airport (because American sucks). AA decided to rebook me on a plane to JFK because it is only 12 miles from EWR. I don't think that the folks in Charlotte believed me that while that may be true as the crow flies, it was about 2 hours and a $150-200 car ride away.
In one of my old jobs our corporate travel department always tried to book me on the lowest cost fare, inevitably put of JFK. They had a hard time believing the trip was 2 - 2.5 hours from Maplewood. My boss in LA used to personally approve my flights out of Newark when I told him Maplewood taxi was $50 each way including a tip, but the car service I'd take to JFK was $200 one way 
Talk about thread drift!
From a discussion of a new Political Party to a discussion of the geography of airports.
NOT supporting another party, but I found this interesting: (Gifted, should work)
jimmurphy said:
NOT supporting another party, but I found this interesting: (Gifted, should work)
I tried, but I had to stop reading when I got to "The Problem Solvers Caucus".
I can't imagine a more useless group of congress critters.
Pretty sure they've solved 0 problems and have caused more problems than that.
drummerboy said:
I tried, but I had to stop reading when I got to "The Problem Solvers Caucus".
I can't imagine a more useless group of congress critters.
Pretty sure they've solved 0 problems and have caused more problems than that.
Sure. Dismiss it based upon the author or the name of the group, rather than reading and commenting on the substance that indicates that others might not share your world view, and might vote accordingly.
And for the record, that doesn’t include me, who cannot imagine voting for a Republican right now.
jimmurphy said:
drummerboy said:
I tried, but I had to stop reading when I got to "The Problem Solvers Caucus".
I can't imagine a more useless group of congress critters.
Pretty sure they've solved 0 problems and have caused more problems than that.
Sure. Dismiss it based upon the author or the name of the group, rather than reading and commenting on the substance that indicates that others might not share your world view, and might vote accordingly.
And for the record, that doesn’t include me, who cannot imagine voting for a Republican right now.
I didn't stop just at the "name of the group". I've read enough about them over the years that I just can't imagine that if I read more I'll get anything useful out of it.
I have to manage my time, after all.
But for you...
sh!t that's a long piece. but so far it's the same old clap trap that Dems are too far left and too woke and gee wouldn't bipartisanship be nice (even though the other party has no desire to be bipartisan.)
I'll trudge on but it might take a while.
drummerboy said:
sh!t that's a long piece. but so far it's the same old clap trap that Dems are too far left and too woke and gee wouldn't bipartisanship be nice (even though the other party has no desire to be bipartisan.)
I'll trudge on but it might take a while.
You’re a mensch. ;-)
The real problem Dems have is that most of the crtisicims of them as "too woke" and "far left" are based mostly on anecdotes, exaggerations, and outright lies. No matter WHAT they do, Republicans will label them as such and most of the media will simply report the claims in the name of "fairness" and "balance." The median Democratic member of Congress isn't "far left."
And as one of the NYT commenters pointed out, the progressive caucus was very willing to make a deal to get BBB done. It was the so-called moderates who reneged and blew up the deal.
The problem the Democrata have with getting things done is really not the fault of progressives as it is timid centrists who are afraid to be labeled as "socialists" on Fox News. Even though they will be anyway.
ml1 said:
And as one of the NYT commenters pointed out, the progressive caucus was very willing to make a deal to get BBB done. It was the so-called moderates who reneged and blew up the deal.
The problem the Democrata have with getting things done is really not the fault of progressives as it is timid centrists who are afraid to be labeled as "socialists" on Fox News. Even though they will be anyway.
I didn’t post the link to the article so much because I agree that Centrist positions are right, or Progressive positions are wrong.
I agree that the Progressive wing is playing ball, ml1.
To me, the article was more about messaging and understanding the mindset of swing voters (yes, yes - they’re all idiots, DB.)
I’m sure some recall that I endorsed Warren, and maybe think that’s incongruent with many positions I take here. I did so because I think her character is beyond reproach, and I thought that the system would rein in some of the more “ambitious” ideas while she was working toward reining in Wall St. and reducing income inequality.
Probably naive in thinking that could happen…
What the article pointed out to me was that these are not revolutionary times and that the message needs to change.
To me, Obama was the near-perfect President. He considered the entire constituency, perhaps to a fault. He underestimated the popularity of Universal health care. Could have rammed it through.
Big mistake.
If only we as a nation, were colorblnd.
jimmurphy said:
ml1 said:
And as one of the NYT commenters pointed out, the progressive caucus was very willing to make a deal to get BBB done. It was the so-called moderates who reneged and blew up the deal.
The problem the Democrata have with getting things done is really not the fault of progressives as it is timid centrists who are afraid to be labeled as "socialists" on Fox News. Even though they will be anyway.
I didn’t post the link to the article so much because I agree that Centrist positions are right, or Progressive positions are wrong.
I agree that the Progressive wing is playing ball, ml1.
To me, the article was more about messaging and understanding the mindset of swing voters (yes, yes - they’re all idiots, DB.)
I’m sure some recall that I endorsed Warren, and maybe think that’s incongruent with many positions I take here. I did so because I think her character is beyond reproach, and I thought that the system would rein in some of the more “ambitious” ideas while she was working toward reining in Wall St. and reducing income inequality.
Probably naive in thinking that could happen…
What the article pointed out to me was that these are not revolutionary times and that the message needs to change.
To me, Obama was the near-perfect President. He considered the entire constituency, perhaps to a fault. He underestimated the popularity of Universal health care. Could have rammed it through.
Big mistake.
If only we as a nation, were colorblnd.
it's frustrating to read such articles in the NYT though. As a so-called "liberal" newspaper, they do as much as anyone to set the "liberals are extreme" framing. See the multitude of "cancel culture" articles they publish. As well as the one cited above. They aren't helping the "messaging" one bit by carrying water for conservatives.
It's time we stop thinking of the Times as a "liberal paper". Baquet and his successor Kahn make it very clear that it is there job to elevate both sides of any issue as equal, lest they appear to be seen as taking sides and not "independent". And that means liberals are treated as being just as extreme as Republicans.
jimmurphy said:
drummerboy said:
sh!t that's a long piece. but so far it's the same old clap trap that Dems are too far left and too woke and gee wouldn't bipartisanship be nice (even though the other party has no desire to be bipartisan.)
I'll trudge on but it might take a while.
You’re a mensch. ;-)
thanks but I just couldn't do it. my eyes started to glaze over.
ml1 said:
it's frustrating to read such articles in the NYT though. As a so-called "liberal" newspaper, they do as much as anyone to set the "liberals are extreme" framing. See the multitude of "cancel culture" articles they publish. As well as the one cited above. They aren't helping the "messaging" one bit by carrying water for conservatives.
I don’t think they see themselves as a liberal paper at all.
drummerboy said:
thanks but I just couldn't do it. my eyes started to glaze over.
Doesn’t confirm anything for you.
jimmurphy said:
I don’t think they see themselves as a liberal paper at all.
they don't. That's why my scare quotes. But right wingers do, and they use it as a club to beat up liberals -- See!! Even the liberal NY Times agrees that Dems are too extreme/too woke/too shrill/too whatever.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
it’s true.come November mikie sherill will be on our ballot. I like her.