Why Christie’s Win Tells Us Even Less than McDonnell’s

Hopefully, I’ll have more on the New Jersey election results later, but I must say that I’m incredibly amused by the varied commentary on the “meaning” of the New Jersey elections by pundits who have zero understanding of politics in this state.  The fact of the matter is that Christie should have had this election wrapped up in June; that he failed to do so is testimony to his weaknesses as a candidate and, I would argue, to the weaknesses of the GOP establishment, which is why I must respectfully dissent from even Mr. Larison’s analysis that Christie’s victory “show[s] that competent center-right candidates interested in governance and all those “parochial” local issues can tap into voter discontent and win electoral victories.”  That New Jersey is considered a “blue” state is largely irrelevant – I don’t care how “blue” or “red” a state is, when it’s managed this incompetently for this long, the opposition party is going to make some headway.  The Star-Ledger’s Paul Mulshine (proving that dead-tree columnists can still have value) beautifully illustrates how the, well, nihilism of the Christie campaign will result in no meaningful change or solution to the state’s deep-seated problems:

The winner last night, Republican Chris Christie, managed to get through the entire campaign without taking a single principled stand on a single issue. He was against waste, fraud and abuse. He was against corruption. He was in favor of tax cuts. And that was about it.

As a result, Christie can’t claim a mandate. That’s not just because he won by such a small margin in what should have been a runaway. It’s also because you can’t win a mandate to do nothing — which is what he promised to do.

As they say, read the whole thing.  You’d think I wrote it, and it explains beautifully why at best Christie’s governorship will be able to slow the state’s downward spiral rather than do anything to put it in reverse, or at least neutralize it.