Yeah, but Romney had to go hard right to get there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but Romney had to go hard right to get there.
So what if -- again -- the GOP manages to figure out a way to tweak the primary so it favors Christie without having him have to sacrifice himself? This in turn allows him to run as a "true" moderate against Clinton and would make for a super close election, perhaps the closest since 2000/2004?
Yeah, the base will be pissed that the GOP pushed them to the side for the primary, but they'll still come back in the name of keeping Dems from getting at least twelve years in the White House.
Manmademan
Member
The GOP can't figure out how to prevent congressional tea party republicans from destroying their own legislation on ideological grounds. Figuring out how to "tweak the primary" to get around the voters they're pandering to is probably a bit beyond the republican establishment at this point.
Eh? Everyone here seems to be downplaying the GOP's intent to seriously alter the way they do their primaries, no?
I think 2014 will speak to a lot of that, we'll see how well they learned from the shutdown fiasco. I think a lot of the battles will be settled heading into next year and they'll be in top form for 2016, which will really count, especially if they do better than expected next year (i.e. winning back the Senate, which is entirely possible at this rate)
theprodigy
Member
and 3rd one doesn't count
Manmademan
Member
How exactly do you think they're going to "alter" their primaries to get around the fact that the far right (whether christian conservative or tea party) are massively overrepresented at the polls? Voter ID checks?
Moderates (which is chris christie's base) do not turn out for primaries in proportion to their numbers in the general.
edit: softened my language a bit.
They could make states like NY/Cali/etc. at the top of the list on the same day, and make all the bible belt states and the midwest dead last. This changes the momentum of the race, no? That would benefit someone like Christie I think. It would give him momentum which would in turn bring the moneyhats his way.
Also Turtleface may help usher in an even more perverse era of campaign finance after all.
Also Turtleface may help usher in an even more perverse era of campaign finance after all.
Manmademan
Member
There's a reason states were jockeying to be first, both among democrats and republican primaries last round.
The earliest states carry the most weight, and with it the most money coming in from advertising, campaign events, etc. There is a substantial financial incentive for states to go earlier, and sticking the south (where the republican base mostly IS) dead last isn't going to fly.
That, and we've already seen that winning in states that republicans are guaranteed to lose in the general (like NY, Cali, etc) carry little to no weight at all with primary voters.
How have I not heard of this until now? :O
...no? Did that actually happen?
T-Paw?
Manmademan
Member
Huntsman. Utah governor from 2004-2009. Resigned to take the ambassador to China job from 2009-2011. Polled great with moderates and had a reputation for cooperating with Obama which destroyed all support from the base in the primary.
There are more than a few parallels there with Christie. From the last PPP poll in November, This is how Christie's support breaks down- currently he's in a virtual 4 way tie with Cruz, Paul, and Jeb Bush with all of them hovering around 15%.
Sounds good? Not so fast:
Chris Christie:
Very Liberal: 9%
Somewhat Liberal: 33%
Moderate: 32%
Somewhat Conservative: 15%
Very Conservative: 3%
42% of christie's support is from "somewhat to very liberal" republicans, and another third from moderates. Conservatives can't stand him, and there's no way you go more than a few days in the primary with numbers like that. i don't even think Romney was that low.
Christie gets obliterated in every state below the mason/dixon, pulling numbers like these.
It is December 2013 and you guys are looking at 2016 general election polls...
I will say this. I'm certainly not worried at the latest poll numbers with Hillary v. Christy, so much as I'm confused/frustrated.
Haha, oh wow completely forgot about him.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Rasmussen (LOL) had Cain up two points on Obama in 2011 before his scandal came out.
That explains it. As much as I like the Cain train, I was pretty sure he'd never lead Obama on any legit poll.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Chill dudes. A republican could win in 2016, nothing is ever certain...but polls today cannot confirm or deny anything about 2016. Around this time in 2005, everyone assumed Hillary and Gulianni would face off for the presidency in three years.
Christie can beat Hillary imo, under the right circumstances, but I don't see him getting out of a GOP primary season. Assuming Obamacare works and isn't a disaster/high increases in premiums/exodus from the exchanges/etc, it's going to have 7-10 million private insurance customers, and even more Medicaid free riders (I kid); potentially 20 million people by late 2015. The repeal fight will be dead in Washington...but very much alive in the south and other GOP stomping grounds. Candidates will still be forced to make ridiculous statements and someone will still be arguing for complete repeal (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul?). I'm assuming 2016 will be like 2008 in the sense that the major GOP candidates will each have their own healthcare proposal/plan, just like Edwards and Hillary did (Obama eventually revealed one as well). If the atmosphere is still violently anti-Obama, we can assume candidates with plans that don't outright destroy the law will be met with anger.
In short, whoever emerges from the primary will likely be forced to cosign a plan or promise to eliminate healthcare for millions of people. Even if the candidate somehow manages to win the nom by promising to change the law instead of repeal it, I'm going to bet money that they'll at least promise to kill the Medicaid expansion, which will leave millions of working poor people screwed. Romney couldn't moderate after winning the nom, how the hell will the 2016 candidate do it if they won the nominee while promising to fuck over millions of people?
The flip side of this coin, however, is that Obamacare could indeed be a disaster, in which case a repeal candidate could gain momentum. Meanwhile the dem nominee would be forced to decide whether to throw the working poor under the bus and demand major changes/repeal, or alienate the middle class (who get fucked by the law) by supporting the law. Again, this is just a hypothetical. I think the law will work overall, but if it doesn't we'll see a lot of people who make 40-50k a year wondering why their tax dollars are being used to give healthcare to poorer people, while they themselves are stuck with higher premiums and no subsidies.
Christie can beat Hillary imo, under the right circumstances, but I don't see him getting out of a GOP primary season. Assuming Obamacare works and isn't a disaster/high increases in premiums/exodus from the exchanges/etc, it's going to have 7-10 million private insurance customers, and even more Medicaid free riders (I kid); potentially 20 million people by late 2015. The repeal fight will be dead in Washington...but very much alive in the south and other GOP stomping grounds. Candidates will still be forced to make ridiculous statements and someone will still be arguing for complete repeal (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul?). I'm assuming 2016 will be like 2008 in the sense that the major GOP candidates will each have their own healthcare proposal/plan, just like Edwards and Hillary did (Obama eventually revealed one as well). If the atmosphere is still violently anti-Obama, we can assume candidates with plans that don't outright destroy the law will be met with anger.
In short, whoever emerges from the primary will likely be forced to cosign a plan or promise to eliminate healthcare for millions of people. Even if the candidate somehow manages to win the nom by promising to change the law instead of repeal it, I'm going to bet money that they'll at least promise to kill the Medicaid expansion, which will leave millions of working poor people screwed. Romney couldn't moderate after winning the nom, how the hell will the 2016 candidate do it if they won the nominee while promising to fuck over millions of people?
The flip side of this coin, however, is that Obamacare could indeed be a disaster, in which case a repeal candidate could gain momentum. Meanwhile the dem nominee would be forced to decide whether to throw the working poor under the bus and demand major changes/repeal, or alienate the middle class (who get fucked by the law) by supporting the law. Again, this is just a hypothetical. I think the law will work overall, but if it doesn't we'll see a lot of people who make 40-50k a year wondering why their tax dollars are being used to give healthcare to poorer people, while they themselves are stuck with higher premiums and no subsidies.
Manmademan
Member
This was essentially my point. Anything beyond that is too far out to call, and depends a lot on what happens with Obamacare. However, I don't put good odds on Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, OR Paul Ryan defeating Hillary unless Obama's poll numbers are rolling around in single digit approval territory.
While obviously different candidates, Christie's situation reminds me a bit of Huntsman. He'd have been a formidable opponent for Obama, but we all knew there was no way in hell he'd get through the primaries. Christie is of course more popular, but I'm still dubious he gets through the primaries. And if he does, he does it as Romney did, by turning hard right and damaging himself in the general as a result.
This is the situation I see happening, though Christie is already polling stronger than Huntsman ever did.
I just can't see Christie spouting that far right crap with a straight face.
JesseEwiak
Member
He's already pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-public sector unions, a neocon, and pro-cutting spending. Throw in a little "evolution" on climate change (blah blah I thought the science was settle blah blah my good friend a scientist (from Exxon) showed me new information) and gun rights (blah blah New Jersey is different than America) and he's back holding all the right opinions.
RustyNails
Member
People are forgetting GOP primaries are trial by fire in the literal sense. Remember Perry got booted for saying illegal immigrants should not be left to die on streets. Only way Christie is making it through is if becomes slimy like Mitt Romney. There is no way he is carrying South Carolina and Georgia. This is confederate country.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
That's because it's fun and there's nothing else going on.
I feel like the PoliGAF community thread at it's core is more about politics than policy, and there's no immediate politics worth talking about, even less when there's so little legislation actually getting passed or possibly being passed before 2016.
I'm not confused by it at all. About the only thing the average person knows about Christie is that he occasionally compromised on some things and he's a popular republican governor in the blue state of NJ. They don't know any of his less appalling side because there's no reason to yet and can easily fill in the blanks with things they agree with.
Regardless of primary shenanigans or any scandals, all democrats have to do is run a few attack ads on some of his anti-abortion statements to remind everyone he's still a Republican.
Though I do feel we maybe are underestimating republicans too much right now. It's not impossible to see them coming out of 2016 with the house and the presidency. The general public doesn't always think the way we do.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So the times has a giant Benghazi story out.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp
No al qadea link, video played big part.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp
No al qadea link, video played big part.
Given the shady reputation New Jersey politics have, it'd be quite something if the GOP nominates Christie after all the shit they gave Obama for being from Chicago and performing "Chicago style" politics.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
They'd be good with it though since they are adept at ignoring their own cognitive dissonance.
JesseEwiak
Member
IOIYAR. See David Vitter still being in the Senate.
The Librarian
Banned
Um what are you talking about??????
http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/28/the-7-most-absurd-things-harry-reid-said-in-2013/
Breaking!!!!
ClassyPenguin
Banned
It is December 2013 and you guys are looking at 2016 general election polls...
To be fair, that started as soon as 2012 was over.
The page won't display for me for some reason, but did they manage to find something to finally implicate Obama?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It's on the times front page.
But yes they found the phone call where Obama called his libyan friend. Damning stuff
Ah missed the Hillary subtext, haha, I thought it was only about the lady in the pics from Mandela memorial.
That was a fantastic read.
Joe Molotov
Member
Well, so much for FOX
RustyNails
Member
Susan Rice redeemed?
Any chance this gets discussed in sunday talk shows? In any case, Republicans already won the propaganda war with Benghazi. Fuck Lara Logan and 60 minutes btw.
How'd they win? No one gives a crap outside the bubble.
RustyNails
Member
Because no other media other than NYT until now bothered to do investigation and bought GOP's propaganda hook, line and sinker.
I think youre confusing apathy with agreement. Just because other places arent attacking the rights benghazi bs doesnt mean the agree. It just means they dont care or think its news worthy. Id say the right lost benghazi, because wheneever people bring it up they seem crazy.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Gregory said he's gonna ask isaa about it.
Isaa will dismiss it as one story and say he plans on continuing his investigation because there are still 'unanswered questions'
JesseEwiak
Member
"Are you going to believe the liberal New York Times or a real Tea Party Patriot like Ted Cruz when it comes to Benghazi? Hillary lied, 4 real Americans died!"
Wow. Guess this means Issa's gonna have to apologize for wasting everyone's time and millions of tax payer dollars for the past year.
lol
Honestly, the ideas that Obama had direct control over what happen in Benghazi was always ridiculous, and the Susan Rice attack was always partisan bullshit. Reducing this story (and this really great piece) to LOL, Darrell Issa is a fucking idiot, while true, is missing the point.
There was some major screw-ups there, and there is really nothing to celebrate (and it's not like it's going to make the GOP and their cronies stop the attacks which were never bothered too much with facts).
There was some major screw-ups there, and there is really nothing to celebrate (and it's not like it's going to make the GOP and their cronies stop the attacks which were never bothered too much with facts).
Great Obamacare news
This is significantly more than I had even hoped for. With the state exchanges they may be around 2 million. California alone should have over 400k.
RustyNails
Member
Yes, and Issa is not interested in finding what the real screw ups were. He is chasing non existing scandals and wasting everyone's time and resources, and the media has no balls to question him.
theprodigy
Member
shockingly, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I still will never forget Romney's press conference that night. Was the attack even over for 12 hours?
- Status