The Politics Thread

[Max]

I think that the national Democrats made a big mistake when they decided to provide Barbara Buono with zero help in her race against Chris Christie. For that matter, NJ Dems made a big mistake when they decided not to field a stronger challenger. (Though had both state and national Democrats not abandoned her, Buono would not be losing this badly.)

I'm sure the thinking among Democrats was that Christie couldn't have been defeated, and that he can't get the GOP nomination in 2016. Regarding the former, it would have been hard to beat Chrisite, but he actually was vulnerable on many fronts, most notably on the fact that NJ has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. If Democrats had actually made an effort, Christie's margin of victory would have been modest, instead of the anticipated landslide.

And now, because of the upcoming landslide in a very Democratic state, Christie will be the GOP establishment favorite. Democrats are kidding themselves if they think the GOP is too far right to nominate him; just look back at how McCain and Romney won their nominations. All the big money will flow to the establishment candidate, while the far right (who hates McCain/Romney/Christie) will have their votes split among many different candidates.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Max

[marceline]

Yes. Let's look back at the McCain and Romney Administrations. Those were some halcyon days.

[quartermainefan]

Giuliani won his NY elections and was hugely popular with NY, establishment and the media. He couldn't win a single delegate. Chris Christie has to win caucuses in places where Michelle Bachmann is considered a legitimate politician, and Ted Cruz is welcomed with open arm at victory dinners celebrating the government shutdown. How will Christie win there?

[quartermainefan]

 

 

 

[Max]

Christie won't focus on the Iowa caucuses or the South Carolina primary (where he knows he will do poorly). Instead, he will focus like a laser beam on winning sizable margins of victory in New Hampshire and Florida. Then comes Super Tuesday, and Christie should do well because (as the establishment favorite) he will have by far the most money.

Giuliani would have done much better, but a pro-choice candidate has no chance to win the GOP nomination. Michelle Bachmann did terribly when she ran for president; she dropped out after getting about 5% of the vote in Iowa.

I am assuming that you are assuming that--in the event he wins the nomination--Christie cannot defeat Hillary Clinton. To be honest, the "dance" Christie will have to do will be little different than what McCain and Romney did. But, the latter two are poor politicians, while Christie is an immense political talent (evidenced by the fact that he is the only Republican who has won a statewide election in NJ in the past 15 years). You can bet that Christie won't do stupid things like choose Sarah Palin as his running mate or say the term "self-deportation." Instead, he'll "act like a moderate" (by continuing his pretend friendships with Democrats) while doing things (below-the-radar) as governor that only the GOP and Democratic bases will take notice of; things like confronting the teacher's unions, making women go through more steps before getting abortions, etc.

Hillary Clinton will be a very formidable opponent, but she nowhere near as good a politician as her husband; her political skills are also lower than those of Obama. On the other hand, Christie is the best--and most ruthless--politician I have seen since Bill Clinton. This man leaves nothing to chance: he bullies a Democratic legislature to get want he wants, and he wasted $24 million on a special election for a U.S. Senate Seat. (This was the seat to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Frank Lautenberg. The expensive special election was held only three weeks before the gubernatorial election, and really the only reason why Christie made this decision was because he was scared that his margin of victory would have fallen by a few points if he had shared a ballot with Cory Booker. When a reporter asked Christie why he was wasting taxpayers' money like this, he even stated that he didn't care.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/nyregion/christie-sets-october-special-election-for-lautenberg-seat.html?_r=0

As you can tell, I am not Christie's biggest fan. However, I am just pointing out my opinion that he is more likely than anyone else to become the next president. Honestly, the biggest obstacle I see for him is actually staying alive until the next election. This is obviously a taboo topic, but the concerns over his weight are legitimate and extremely serious.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Max

[marceline]

I'm not assuming any such thing. I don't consider Hilary the default candidate. A lot can happen between now and 2016.

My comment was simply geared at the fact that you seem to consider the fact that "Christie will be the GOP establishment favorite" to be a good thing when the last two elections show that it isn't and that was before the GOP started eating its own.

[Max]

I am sorry for upsetting you. I honestly wasn't sure exactly want you meant by that comment, so I therefore used the awkward phrase "I am assuming that you are assuming." I do know that there are people who think that the GOP shouldn't nominate an establishment candidate, because it worked out poorly for the party in 2008 and 2012, and I wanted to point out that Christie was a far better politician than either McCain or Romney.

I don't consider Hillary the sure-fire nominee either (even though I gave the opposite impression). I just mentioned a Hillary vs. Christie match-up because she is the strongest candidate for the Democrats in a general election. (This is off-topic, but if she runs, Elizabeth Warren could get a lot of votes in the primary, although odds are against her defeating Hillary.)

Regarding the GOP eating its own, that started in 2010 (which was obviously before Romney's nomination). Of course, I concede things have since gotten worse.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Max

[quartermainefan]

I think Hillary would chew Christie up in an election. She would have the entire democratic party behind her, he would have half the republican party behind him. The guy can't even get invited to republican conferences because they don't like him. The joke is on them though because as they insist he is not conservative enough, he is just conservative enough to win 70% of the vote in his state while they watch their electoral stock plummet in the name of philosophic purity.

[Huntress]

The big problem is that basically every citizen has been spied on. In Europe we have very strict privacy laws (it's part of the European Union directive) and people are actually fighting for them to get tightened even more, so that revelation was a huge slap in the face for everyone.

Yesterday it was revealed that the NSA has gathered information from Google, Yahoo and other media companies without their knowledge.

Are you fine with that as well?

[DRW50]

Didn't Guiliani try this strategy too?

[Max]

No, DRW. Giuliani made the mistake of skipping NH completely. He also had the misfortune of having McCain in the race, who also attracted the mainstream wing of the party (but was able to do a much better job in this regard than Giuliani because McCain--like Christie--is pro-life).

Upon further thought, I am not so sure that Christie will do terribly in IA or SC. While he probably has little chance of winning these contests, a third or even second place finish (which would be viewed as big victories by the political class) might be possible. That's because Christie can emphasize his pro-life and anti-gay marriage views, which have great appeal to the Huckabee/Santorum values voters.

Qfan, the only conference that I can recall Christie not being invited to was this year's CPAC; they were upset at him for his hug with and lavish praise for Obama (which I did feel were over-the-top, but which most Republicans really don't believe cost Romney the election), for criticizing the NRA, and for criticizing House Republicans over Sandy relief. The amount of anger directed at Christie has dissipated at a surprisingly fast rate, and I would be shocked if he wasn't invited next year. Conservatives now hate Marco Rubio far more than Christie, because Rubio broke with them on immigration. (Thus, unless something changes, I fully expect that Rubio will not run for president in 2016.)

Christie will probably not have the entire party behind him, but the vast majority of the party will vote for him (if for no other reason than to stop a Hillary presidency.) Hillary will also have the vast majority of the Democratic party behind her, but she won't have the entire party behind her. That's because--unlike Obama how was in 2008 and 2012 (and unlike how Warren is today)--Hillary is not the progressive savior. Of course, many Democrats do love her, but the fringe left is very suspicious of her (and Bill) because of ties to big business, hawkish foreign views (e.g., she voted for "Bush's War"), and the fact that she ran an allegedly "racist" campaign against Obama in 2008. Furthermore, while not a very PC thing to say, the level of African-American turnout in 2016 is very likely to be closer to 2000/2004 levels than the historic highs of 2008/2012.

Since Hillary won't be able to enthuse the base the way Obama did, she will need to rely far more on independent voters. But on this score, I believe that Christie will do better, because he is the better politician of the two: while I've already explained Christie's ruthless political genius, I should state that Hillary really isn't a master politician. Of course, everyone knows how Hillary blew the 2008 race, a nomination that everyone originally thought would be a shoo-in. But, we should also look at 2000: on the same day that Al Gore won very Democratic NY by 25 points, Hillary defeated the extremely weak Rick Lazio by only 12 points.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Hillary is a great politician, but that is because they interchange Bill's skills with those of Hillary. Indeed, if the 2016 race could be between Bill and Christie, Bill would win. But it won't be, and Christie is the most talented politician since Bill.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Max

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

Christie is the only candidate that stands a chance again Hilary and even then it only means the difference between a decent margin of victory and a total blowout against someone like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

And then we won't even talk about the actual substance of what Chris Christie represents. His ideals and values are strictly Republican. He's really not that "moderate" IMO. More importantly his personality is what will kill him in the end. He's a bully....point blank. He can't help it. He loves hearing his own voice....at the beginning and at the end. If he doesn't like what he's hearing he goes on a rampage and lashes out.

The Republican base....the absolutely wild fringe is absolutely fed up and unless they're still retarded and split between the 3 above mentioned tea party candidates I don't see Christie getting the nomination. IF (and I truly believe that will be a huge IF in 2016) he does somehow eke it out then he's going to implode in the debates. He'll implode on television. He'll find someway to come across as completely arrogant and reveal himself to be all show and no substance....

His victory in New Jersey is not impressive. If not for Sandy and Sandy aid he'd be toast. Combine that with this horrible Democratic candidate he really wasn't challenged....at all.

[juppiter]

I think Christie is being underestimated. I agree that he is further outside the mainstream than he appears, but with the right having gone apeshit the past few years, he is able to appear more mainstream than he really is.

And Hillary is being overestimated. Her approval ratings aren't what they were in 2011. And she is a woman. It's gonna hurt her. The things we're not allowed to say about male candidates will be used against her. I see the gender gap coming into play, except I think woman-on-woman crime could do her in.

If it is Hillary vs. Christie, I could definitely see him winning.

[juppiter]

I actually have to echo most of what Max said on this page. Hillary is a great elder stateswoman, she is a brilliant mind, she had played the game (she voted for the Iraq War for god's sake and supported the troop surge) but she is not a brilliant politician. She cannot sell [!@#$%^&*] with a smile the way Bill could.

Edited November 3, 2013 by juppiter

[DRW50]

I'm not all that sure why people assume Christie will get out of the primaries.

The media worships him, they love that he hates the right people and verbally abuses for kicks - it makes them feel warm and squishy inside. It's their "strong father" fetish. But the media does not control GOP primaries.

I don't really know about Hillary. 2008 taught me not to bet on a sure thing.