| Now the election results are in and... well... it wasn't exactly a killer issue, with Christie losing every single swing race.
I remember thinking that this was kind of a weird issue - along the line of Roseman's quote. Who really cares? But I figured that Christie, the mega-strategist, had to have some polling showing that this was actually something that really resonated with people. It didn't really resonate with me or the people that I know (who tend to focus more on jobs, taxes, and schools). But who knows - maybe in the far corners of some key swing district there are a lot of people who get really fired up about judge-haters.
Turns out the emperor, in this case, had no clothes. And it's not the first time. According to this analysis, going after activist judges is a loser of a campaign issue. The words mean different things to different people, and, fascinatingly, both liberals and conservatives WANT activist judges (as epitomized by the activist conservatives who want the Supreme Court to strike down the federal health care law). So a campaign against "activist judges" doesn't really hit home for either party.
How could Christie have been so far off the mark? Perhaps he's been spending too much time in the national right-wing echo chamber, which loves these kinds of issues. Perhaps he has nothing to say about his lousy jobs record.
But, hey, in case you're wondering about when that "activist judge" issue might come again - apparently Joe Kyrillos is planning to run for U.S. Senate on it. And Christie shows no signs of letting up, bizarrely targeting the Supreme Court for trying to decide the pen/ben issue too quickly.
I guess deciding cases SLOWLY is the next thing that Christie thinks will resonate with the public?
Good luck with that one. |