Not so sure about this one.
Seems possible that Christie/Romney could draw enough votes to send this to the House of Representatives, where we know that Trump, even finishing in third place, could eke out a victory.
How so?
Say Pennsylvania polls 49/49 between Biden and Trump in spring '24, but Christie/Romney starts convincing moderate GOP voters that they’re a better alternative to the Trump crazy train. Maybe they convince some Dems, too, but not as many since both are former Republicans. If the election goes 48/44/8 for Biden, how does that send the slate to the House?
Yes, it would be extremely unlikely that an independent candidate for President could win the necessary plurality in any state in order to gain electoral votes and potentially force a contingent election in the House. The last third-party candidate to win any electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968, and he did so by appealing to a very specific region on a very specific issue (i.e. southern segregationists).
That 8% that would have otherwise stayed home without a “moderate” conservative option would in all likelihood vote a straight Republican ticket down the rest of the ballot, including House Republicans and state legislators who could try various strategies to refuse Biden electors.
Massachusetts doesn’t have many of them. There’s no way anyone wins the Mass governor race without significant support from Democrats (or, liberals if you prefer, since something like 60% of Mass voters register independent).
What do you base this on? Romney’s election was not some unique event. Five of the last seven Massachusetts governors have been Republicans. The Republican party seems to be pretty strong in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts born and raised. I lived in NH for 20 years, but I’m back in Mass now. Mass overwhelmingly elects Democrats to its state and federal delegations. Has for decades. It’s true that we love us a Republican governor, but that’s just because virtually everyone else we elect is a Democrat. A Republican governor is seen as a check on one-party rule.
According to the Wikipedia on Mass Republican Party (Massachusetts Republican Party - Wikipedia)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is often categorized politically as liberal. It is generally considered the most left-leaning state in the US, and all of the state’s Congressional representatives and both US senators are Democrats, while Democrats also form the large majority of the state’s legislature, though the state has a history of electing Republican governors. As with most states, the two main political parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Currently Republicans in Mass:
| Statewide Executive Offices | 0 / 6 |
|---|---|
| Seats in the Massachusetts Senate | 3 / 40 |
| Seats in the Massachusetts House of Representatives | 25 / 160 |
(so 26/206)
The entire Massachusetts federal delegation (2 Senators and 9 reps) is Democratic. The last Republican Mass sent to the US House was defeated in 1997, and since 1983 there have only been 3 Republicans sent from Mass to the US House.
Since 1979 Mass has sent one Republican Senator for one term to the US Senate (Scott Brown).
Honestly, I’m kinda shocked that I have to defend the notion that Mass is overwhelmingly Democrat, and has been for a few decades.
Do you think that an independent Romney/Christie tickets is going to draw so many votes as to win at least one state that would put the Electoral College plurality out of majority? I don’t see it - all that ticket would do is split the R vote in states, handing Biden a plurality win in every battleground state.
This, exactly. An independent run by conservatives is just going to split the vote with the actual GOP ticket, and is going to draw very few people who would vote for Biden. It’s really hard to see how they would be able to actually win a state, which is the only way that such a run could possibly have any impact on the Electoral College part of the election.
I think it’s possible. Don’t forget, Biden/Harris won several states by very close margins. I could see Romney/Christie campaigning hard in those states and eking out a 34/33/33 win in one or two.
I think you’re right, and I think that’s why party switching, at least for major offices, is so rare.
Also, the Republicans elected as governors are generally sane, sensible, not culture warriors, and know how to work with the legislature to get things done for the overall benefit of the state. The last GOP Governor, Charlie Baker, is a prime example.
Heck, if he were the GOP presidential candidate up against a Democrat I had grave reservations about, I’d be strongly tempted to vote for him, despite being a Massachusetts liberal. But the GOP in its current incarnation would never nominate him.
It sure would put a spotlight on where exactly the middle of the electorate is, that’s for sure.
I highly, highly doubt that a Christie/Romney candidacy could peel 10+ percentage points of votes away from a Democratic nominee. Both of those guys are, in all ways that really count, conservatives, and they simply are not going to have any real appeal to liberal voters, when there is an actual liberal candidate on the ballot, assuming that the Democrat isn’t a complete toolbag. “Campaigning hard” isn’t going to get you many votes at all from voters who strongly dislike your platform.
If you have a state that would go 50.5 - 49.5 to Biden without Christie/Romney, what’d be far more likely is that a strong candidacy from them would make that result look more like 50 - 30 - 20.
You’re probably right. But all it takes would be winning a state or two, and they’d need to appeal to those Dems who don’t think of themselves as liberals but more as centrists, and run a very strong campaign in those states. They have certain abilities as campaigners. I would never vote for either of them under any circumstances I can imagine–I despise both of them. But a lot of Dems are gullible idiots, don’t forget. Don’t assume the GOP has a stranglehold on all of them.
And, again, while Romney, at least, has, in the past, taken certain actions which I (and he) would characterize as “reaching across the aisle” to liberals, neither of them are actually centrists in their political views or stances, in the slightest.
Absolutely, there are some Democratic voters out there who are more centrist, but I simply can’t see them finding Romney or Christie appealing, unless they made significant changes to their stances. And, even then, I could see voters not being willing to trust that the leopard has actually changed its spots.
Actually winning a state would require them to (a) pull in the vast majority of Republican voters, and/or (b) pull in a significant fraction of Democratic voters. I have a very difficult time seeing how they can pull this off, especially when the two established parties are stacked against them, and when most Republican voters are still in love with Trump.
Perhaps, but I don’t see either of them as being particularly charismatic or compelling. Romney has the charisma of a 2-by-4, and Christie comes across as a bully.
I’d vote for Baker in a second. I really like him.
PROVIDED he stayed the same Baker we have. Too often they steer hard right when they get national ambitions. As I recall, Romney was proud of MA universal healthcare, right up until he ran for president.
To you and me, sure. But I remember people telling me in 2012 how honest and decent and All-American Romney seemed to them, and I know loads of otherwise sensible Democrats who voted (twice!) for Christie as NJ governor. To me, they were obvious clowns, frauds, clueless defenders of the rich, hypocrites of the first order, but damn, they sure hoodwinked a lot of people into voting for them.
And, likely, the majority of them are also conservatives.
Christie’s brash, bully persona seemed to play reasonably well in New Jersey, and isn’t unlike that of Andrew Cuomo (an actual Democrat) in New York. I don’t think that persona can sell well among liberals in most of the rest of the U.S.
Also, remember that, after his run as governor, Christie spent several years sucking up to Trump; many liberal voters are going to remember this, too, even though Christie, today, is running on an anti-Trump stance.
In general I endorse @kenobi_65’s take on things as per the last few posts.
But I will posit there’s a narrow window of possiblity where @slicedalone’s scenario comes to pass. I think it’s vanishingly unlikely, but never say “never”.
Biden dies or is incapacitated soon. Suddenly the D’s have an open primary while there’s still time for contenders to gin up a campaign ahead of the standard D primary calendar. Meanwhile, it’s evident that Trump is sweeping all comers over on the R side. The Ds, in a typical fit of foolishness, go hardover wacky-progressive and suddenly AOC or equivalent is the early front runner for the D nomination. With Sanders loudly cheering up a storm abut this fine outcome.
Observing this setup, Christie/Romney quickly decide to make an independent attack as a traditionalist center-right alternative to Crazy Communism or Totalitarian Trumpery. And nobody really asks too many questions about where the money to invent this instant 3rd party is coming from.
Now under those circumstance I could see Christie/Romney carrying a couple of states. Especially if the MSM horse-race-oriented reporting leading up to the opening of early balloting made it seem like a three-way neck and neck race.
Given the 270+ rule, any decent showing by a 3rd party candidate throws the Presidential election to the House. The good news is that I’d expect a dyed-in-the-wool D or R to vote downticket along traditional party lines even if they voted Christie/Romney as the “centrist” president. Which just leaves the historically disaffected non-voters to decide which way the House leans.