And that the Dem leader possibly targeted had shot down two early judicial nominees, which caused his huge hissy fit on 8/12. It could be a cumulative thing too.

But on the other hand... who gets mad at their state senator for a traffic jam? It's so much more a mayor type of thing.

I agree with you that it was likely cumulative and that all these things were factors.

especially affluent communities. It stuck out that Bergen was a stronghold. I know if we still had our former Dem Mayor (jailed for corruption) instead of his replacement, he would have picked up an endorsement here too- even though we are pretty liberal here. It's about $$$, and corruption, and the threat of future damage to the area's economy. There;s a boom in Ft Lee, and they were sending out warning shots.

I doubt that those who did it had any allusions that it would prevent any democrat from getting reelected. To them it was just payback to democrats in general for supporting their politicians.

As Maddow pointed out, the timing fits perfectly. On one day, Christie is calling democrats "animals" and the very next morning they are calling for the bridge to be shut down.

Christie himself pointed out that he had no revenge motive against the Fort Lee mayor, and the mayor agreed. So why target him either? There had to be a reason, and Maddow's fits far better.

So they were also gloating about it causing trouble for a Democratic mayor AND mocking how it was sticking a bunch of Democratic voters children in traffic and in general displaying that as far as they were concerned anyone not a Republican who was getting slammed by the mess they were making was getting what they deserved.

So? That doesn't in any way invalidate it being the fight over the Judiciary being the thing that kicked it all off. That e-mail going out from his office the very next morning after Christie essentially announced the the state that the Democrats should have thought about the repercussions of their actions? Assuming that's a coincidence is silly.

ii is cumulative, retribution on the senator and the mayor. I think the mayor just added fuel to the fire.

The retribution was because of the Senate Democrats' actions re judicial nominees by Christie after his egregious and unprecedented decision re the re-appointment of Judge Wallace. It was targeted toward the citizens of Fort Lee for electing Democrats, especially the Senate leader.

It makes little sense, imo, for such drastic action to be taken against a Mayor who hadn't even been asked to endorse Christie, other Democratic Mayors didn't endorse him and there was no retaliation against them so one has to ask why Fort Lee, what was it that caused Christie/his inner circle to 'pull the trigger' on a retaliatory plan that obviously had been pre-planned ahead of time? Christie has a major meltdown late in the day about the Democratic Senate and, lo and behold, at 7:30 the next morning, the retaliatory action is put in play. The timeline fits and Rachel's theory makes much more sense, imo.

their refusal to extend UI and cutting food stamps. They think the poor and vulnerable invariably vote for Democrats, they are wrong of course but their actions are, imo, retaliatory just like Christie/his inner circle's actions against the people of Fort Lee, imo.