If, as the polls seem to indicate, Chris Christie wins his election by about twenty points and Ken Cuccinelli loses his election by about twenty points, what will Congressional Republicans conclude about the way forward?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
48 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
It won’t change anyone’s mind. If they’re moderates, they’ll conclude that the public hates the Tea Party. If they’re Tea Partiers, they’ll conclude that people who live in the Mid-Atlantic aren’t Real Americans ™ anyway.
I can’t even think like a DEM member of Congress; therefore, a GOP mind is way beyond my ability to imagine.
OTOH, both may conclude that NJ voters have selected the next POTUS. (If the GOP doesn’t reject their guy as the Democratic Party did in 2000.)
I’m still baffled as to why Christie can have such a lead in NJ. Not only is such a distasteful man, but he works against the interests of most Jerseyans.
Because Jersey’s state party is a complete mess. I finally saw my first Buono campaign commercial last night!
That must be it, because as a New Yorker I understand Christie, including his appeal, I just don’t understand how he got to be governor.
To put it it another way, in New York (City at least), a guy like Christie, with the same background and personality, would be a Democrat and would govern like a Democrat; and would be wildly popular. But as a Republican, not so much. Reagan was never a big hit in NY, and much more of the pre-Reagan labor tradition survives there.
It’s a Jersey thing. You wouldn’t understand. 🙂
Thing is, most Americans aren’t from Jersey, either, so I’ve always been suspicious of how Christie’s appeal would translate in a presidential run, with or without the rest of the dysfunction in his party. Left or right, New Jersey (or New York) attitude is generally considered pretty obnoxious by people who haven’t lived on the East Coast or been around it long enough to get what it’s about. And Christie’s core appeal is that he’s so Jersey that it’s hard to imagine him being able, let alone willing, to water it down for a national audience. People like authenticity in politicians, but they don’t like assholes.
I hope you’re right. Christie is the only GOP’er who makes me nervous about 2016. He certainly seems like the only one smart or self-aware enough to beat Hillary. And big business-type Republicans love him, so he would take in absolute boatloads of cash.
It seems to me Americans find the Jersey persona endearing, as seen in the popularity of Jersey Shore, Sopranos. But maybe that means it’s tolerable only in small, comedic, somewhat naughty doses – not as Prez.
When Christie ate that donut on Letterman he displayed a sense of humor that is disarming. His tough talking impatience also suggests a “let’s cut the crap and get stuff done” attitude that can be appealing. How do his policy decisions translate nationally, however? One popular thing he did in NJ is limit property taxes. Does he follow the tax and spending (entitlements) mantra of the national party? I cannot begin to fathom whether, in the face of media and party elite support, he can win over the base. Will the Obama hatred fade as his term nears its end and yield an acceptance of a more pragmatic governing style? I have no idea.
Right on all counts but as a NJ taxpayer he really hasn’t done anything.There is a structural issue that he didn’t address (though I am not sure anyone could)
For this and other comments, it’s true that Christie is a stronger general election candidate than just about anyone else his party can cough up right now. But first he’d have to get the nomination, and the kind of cultural intolerance I described above is stronger in the Republicans’ own base than anywhere else.
I talked to a guy from CT – trying to explain his vote for Lieberman. East coasters … just nuts. Christie’s policies are every bit as bad as the rest of the GOP but you vote for his Tony Soprano act for cultural reasons?
I mean … we elected Schwartzenegger but at least we learned from our mistake.
Christie was elected because he isn’t/ wasn’t Corzine.
Sometimes there’s no good choice.
What a shame McGreevey isn’t ten years younger. He was a genuine political talent.
evidently some dirt is about to come out about Christie.
Short of a “dead girl” or embezzlement, doubt it will hurt him much.
ah, cynicism. but you don’t understand NJ
A tough talking guy persona sells well almost everywhere. The trick for a Republican is doing it without also appearing disagreeable, mean, and nasty. As a B-movie actor, it was easy enough for Reagan. The trick for Democrats is doing it without appearing soft and self-centered. FDR and Truman were good at it.
I’ll bet you to at least half the GOP voters, and probably more, Christie comes off as an Obama-loving flaming liberal, as well as way too Catholic and Eyetalian to be president.
That half of GOP voters that you cite constitute at most 20% of the electorate. Could present a primary contest problem for Christie in Iowa (but he’ll still come in close second) and then cruise through NH.
Of course this depends on the competition. With Cruz, Walker, Paul, and Rubio splitting the crazy vote, Christie could cruise all the way.
Well, I’ve seen Christie be disagreeable, mean and nasty. Somehow, he seems to get a pass in the media. Sure, it gets a little play and then goes away like nothing happened. If a Democrat does this, it gets the Wurlitzer on the right feigning “poutrage”, and the dynamic changes to those Democrats are being mean to us. Look no further than the most recent CR narrative. And Obama wasn’t being anywhere near the asshole Christie can be at times. Christie is too good for the current Republican party base, and hopefully they’ll be stupid enough to marginalize him in the primaries. Otherwise, he could be the next president. If he can convince New Jersey voters to vote against their own self interest, he should have no problem with the less sophisticated heartland so called Democrats.
Note:
The media does play a role in presenting or passing on the nasty bits of politicians. However, like the general public, they aren’t immune to seeing the generalized persona of politicians and tend to go with that.
Also, when a Democrat loses his/her cool and the media runs with that, more often than not it doesn’t stick, in part because “losing one’s cool” is easily differentiated from “mean and nasty” and more easily justified by general public viewers. An example is what the MSM tried to do with Hillary in her Benghazi testimony. It stuck with those that already hate her. Everyone else it was a “meh.”
Point taken. I still think Christie appears mean and nasty, while at the same time, losing his “cool.”
You’re undoubtedly correct. It’s just the cameras either aren’t catching that in a pure enough for non-partisans to see it or the media isn’t playing it. If the latter, his opponent screwed up in not using those clips in her campaign.
Yeah .. but then there is also Howard Dean .. the TradMed purposefully sank him
Intra-party and primary considerations are slightly different. iirc, the background sound level was manipulated down in “the scream” which left the impression that Dean was unhinged which is different from losing one’s cool. Then the loop was broadcast 24/7 for the subsequent week. Much to the satisfaction of the Democratic Party establishment, GOP, and media. In 2004, the media was still broadly speaking in the tank for GWB and unlike rank-and-file Democratic voters, they appreciated that Kerry was the weaker general election candidate. Plus they’d been itching since 2000 to catch a leading DEM candidate with a knockout punch — they tried but never succeeded on that with Gore during the primaries.
The media went soft on Hillary’s delusion of her Kosovo visit even though bloggers had no trouble presenting it. Or perhaps the need to present to five second clips to tell the story was too much journalism for them. Similarly, Palin could easily have been and wasn’t given the same treatment as Dean and it would have been more honest because unlike Dean, she was often unhinged as was McCain. Those two fell a bit short on the tough guy persona and displayed too many hints of being thin-skinned.
Should add that Dean has never really mastered the cool medium of TV. As good as Obama in front of large crowds but Obama is also a master on TV. Obama is really better in both venues than Reagan and JFK.
Large crowds? Better. Well for someone like me.
If you meant that Dean is better than Obama in front of large crowds, I’d agree, but it’s a question of taste. Many people prefer less passion than Dean exhibits.
Early in his political career, Reagan may have been able to do both hot (crowds) and cool (TV) better than anyone — but the hot faded quickly.
It’s easy to forget/overlook Gore’s strength as a passionate speaker. Much better than Clinton ever was, but Clinton was stronger with “cool.”
I think a lot of my huge admiration for Dean has a lot to do with personal circumstances. I grew up in a rural conserva-dem’s district and went to religious schools both mainline and evangelical protestant k-12.
I was basically around a lot of Republicans (until I hit college maybe 90% of my friends were Republican) and while I knew I was right, as a kid I didn’t know how to argue against them. It wasn’t until I found the online left that I started understanding how to fight back. Dean was the first politician that I could look at and see that he was genuinely angry at republicans and make an unapologetic case for who Democrats should be. That makes him very inspiring to me.
When Dems stay home, the GOP wins.
They will conclude that the reason Cuccinelli got slaughtered is that he was not conservative enough.
They will conclude that the reason Christie won is that he sold out to the evil President Obama.
More ads in Virginia.
If they were paying attention, they could conclude that low information voters will vote for someone that talks “moderate” even if he is not and go back to lying their asses off.
And I suppose New Jersey republicans will have plenty of time to figure that out as they’re sitting on an overpacked train, wondering why nobody spent more money expanding connections to Manhattan.
I’m sure the stupider ones will conclude that there’s a voter fraud epidemic in Virginia.
They will conclude that the Cooch was not far enough Right and that Obama stole the election for his pal Christie.
I was sitting in a restaurant having breakfast on a Sunday morning in Charlottesville VA back in the late sixties (must have been 67 or early 68) when I heard four well-dressed conservative looking ladies discussing how Communists stole the Election from Nixon.
I do think there’s a plausible case to be made that Daley stole the election for Kennedy. But that has nothing to do with communists.
It was a really surreal discussion. You can see that this has been going on long before Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh.
From 3000 miles away Christie looks like a business friendly candidate like Romney without Romney’s dodgy business record, “liberal” healthcare reforms, complete tone deafness, strange religion, and elite establishment rich guy persona – in other words a very much more regular kind of guy who can attract moderate and working class Dem votes – and that makes him very dangerous to Dem hopes of retaining the Presidency.
Not sure why this isn’t obvious to Democrats. Plus he’ll only be 53 years old in 2016 and hungry for the office (assuming he quits stuffing his face with junk food.).
It’s obvious to me. Why do you think I’m pissed at New Jersey Democrats(and the national party) for not doing more to sink him now?
Because they’d rather spend their time whining about GOP gerrymandered congressional districts and wining Wall St. Plus on public policy issues they’ve had more in common with traditional Republicans for the past few decades than with New Deal Democrats in their party.
Big assumption. More like a leap of faith. My guess is that Christie can no more diet than Edwards could keep his pants zipped.
I think the Right will conclude the Clinton Mafia stole the election in VA. And that NJ is full or unpatriotic socialists. Case Closed.
I remain unconvinced that Christie can sustain a successful Presidential campaign while carrying all that weight. Partially due to public distaste for obese people, but mostly because sustaining a Presidential campaign is physically exhausting for a person in good health. It’s been over a century since we elected a truly fat man as President; in fact, I can’t recall an obese candidate who was a strong contender.
Then there’s his personality. I think it’s likely that some of his insults on the loooong campaign trail will stick in driving public opinion of Christie down, down, down.
Hasn’t he undergone some surgical procedure to reduce his food consumption and weight? Agree that his weight gives him a disadvantage in the rigors of POTUS campaigns — but managed as carefully as GWB was, he can be okay.
The public distaste for overweight candidates is likely much less than it was back when few voters carried extra pounds. As a people, now few of us aren’t fat — and a large proportion carry around more than a few extra pounds.
One reason I don’t appreciate the constant references to his weight except in the context of his physical ability.
“Hasn’t he undergone some surgical procedure to reduce his food consumption and weight?”
He still looks quite obese, and less likely to be healthy enough to sustain a POTUS campaign than anyone else on the 2016 short list.
“The public distaste for overweight candidates is likely much less than it was back when few voters carried extra pounds.”
What is your evidence for this in terms of a Presidential campaign?
So far Christie is noticeably slimmer. Not as apparent as it would be if he weren’t still wearing his larger shirts.
Expect he’ll shed a few more pounds and undergo some cosmetic surgery before 2015. How healthy or unhealthy he’ll be remains to be determined. Some bodies can healthier carry more weight than others.
No evidence wrt Presidential elections because the situation hasn’t happened before. Was using the psychological preference for those “like me.” Not suggesting that the prejudice against overweight people has disappeared; only that it’s declined as the nation as a whole has gotten fatter. (Sort of like how I could perceive in 2007 that the color of Obama’s skin wasn’t an impediment to him winning in 2008.)