So, we should get used to saying "President Christie?" Yea or nay?

I was at a family party just recently and as the party was coming to an end, one of the last things to be brought up in discussion was politics. Just before he left to go back home, one of my family members commented that the 2016 election was currently predicted to be Chris Christie vs. Hillary Clinton, and, as it stands now, professionals say, Chris Christie would win.
What our your thoughts on this? Like or dislike?
I dislike it, personally. And the fact that Christie is not a conservative is not the sole reason I dislike it; I dislike it mostly because he has signed legislation as the governor of New Jersey that has infringed on people’s rights, and I take that as a huge red flag. You may not agree with the type of therapy he recently banned involving homosexuality, and you might even be glad he banned it, but that doesn’t mean he had any right** to ban it, and I think this ban qualifies him as a possible future dictator, or, at the least, a path paver for a future dictator. I’m not jesting. Regardless of a politician’s political stance, be it liberal, conservative or moderate, the one thing they should always be evaluated by is their treatment of human rights track record. I know John McCain was not ultra-conservative either, but at least he hadn’t promoted any blatant human rights abuses back in 2008, so my family could comfortably and confidently cast their ballots for him, despite their more right-wing leanings.

Christie isn’t surviving the primaries, since the primaries are the breeding and nesting ground of the common Loon, most of whom are convinced that Romney lost because he wasn’t stupid-stubborn and black-hearted enough.

Christie isn’t conservative enough to win the GOP nomination. End of story.

There’s a poll out there right now that has it Christie 43, Hillary 42. But that’s not really saying a lot.

For one thing, it’s a straight CvH poll. It doesn’t break down in the electoral college. And Hillary - or any D candidate - has an enormous edge in the electoral college. I can quickly think of 200 electoral votes that are a lock for any D candidate and possibly more. The R candidate has a higher hurdle to get over.

For another, Christie’s big edge is in independents. But that’s because he’s not being picked over yet. Once people get a better look at him in the heat of a primary and general campaign that’ll start to evaporate. Christie also closes the gap with Hillary on latino voters but - if the past is a guide - the party as a whole will turn those folks away from him during a general.

PLUS Christie has to get through the Republican primary system which encourages extremists to run and moderates to take extreme positions. What happened to Mitt Romney in the primaries is waiting to happen to Christie. I don’t care of combative or everyman a candidate is…if they have to come out strongly against abortion and immigration and so forth to get the nomination that one and a half feet in a bucket come the general.

Nay. Popular names sometimes never even run, despite all evidence to the contrary they will. If he did run it would be difficult for him to win the Republican primary. If he did, I think he could beat Clinton. There’s a strong pro-HRC contingent on these forums who forget that in large part she lost to Obama because she’s so unlikeable to a large number of people (including Democrats.) She’s got gravitas but she’s not likeable, Christie does not have gravitas but is likeable. So while I think Christie could beat Clinton (he could also lose to her, I wouldn’t speculate on who would actually win–just saying he could beat Clinton), I don’t see anyway he wins a Republican primary.

He’s far more to the center than Romney, who was criticized throughout the primaries for being a RINO. I don’t believe Christie would be willing to go far right to win the primaries, and if you’re not willing to do that you probably can’t get nominated.

I actually suspect Christie will or has already realized all of this, and will probably not run unless he sees hard numbers suggesting he could beat whoever else has thrown their hat in the ring in the GOP primary. Just as an example, Paul Ryan has much stronger support from the conservative base and the far right who are powerful in the GOP primary. If Ryan runs in the primary I can’t see Christie wanting any part of it as he knows he’ll never beat Ryan 1 v 1 in the GOP primaries.

I don’t think the GOP can win the White House in 2016. I think they are still looking at probably 2020 or 2024 before they can effectively reorganize as a party and appeal on a more even footing to the country. Their dysfunction until then will make it impossible to win an election in the electoral college.

There is absolutely no chance that Christie would get the nomination, much less the presidency. The early battles are in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Sure, he has a good chance in NH. But in Iowa, it’s go hard right or go home. Even more so in South Carolina. Lose two of the first three and the fat lady starts to warm up if not start singing. If it’s Hillary vs. Christie, name one state that Christie would take that Obama did not in 2012. I can’t. But I can see her picking up Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. Maybe even Arkansas. Hillary would mop the floor with Christie. But just in case, they better reglaze President Taft’s bathtub.

History has already demonstrated Clinton is much worse at winning elections than Obama, there is no reason to assume she’ll do as good as Obama did in either of his Presidential elections let alone better than him. Campaigning actually matters.

I’m not so sure- she just ran a terrible tactical campaign. She ceded the caucus states to Obama and beat him handily in many of the larger states that had primaries. But her tacticians didn’t realize how crucial those caucus states were and by the time they figured out that their strategy was wrong, it was too late.

Yeah, who knows what *other *forms of child abuse he might outlaw if he had the power… <shudder>

Just to spell out the Electoral College advantage:

Solidly in the D column
California - 55
Oregon - 7
Washington - 12
Hawaii - 4
Minnesota - 10
Illinois - 20
Michigan - 16
Pennsylvania - 20
Maryland - 10
Washington DC - 3
Delaware - 3
New York - 29
Connecticut - 7
Rhode Island - 4
Massachusetts - 11

Total in the D column: 207

Note that I left New Jersey - normally a lock for D - out to move it to ‘in play’ status with Christie as a candidate. Other R candidates would be at a greater disadvantage.

By contrast, the Rs have these states as a lock:

Alaska - 3
Idaho - 4
Utah - 4
Arizona - 11
Montana - 3
Wyoming - 3
North Dakota - 3
South Dakota - 3
Nebraska - 5
Kansas - 6
Oklahoma - 7
Texas - 38
Arkansas - 6
Mississippi - 6
Alabama - 9
Georgia - 16
South Carolina - 6
Tennessee - 11
Kentucky - 8
Indiana - 11

That gives the R candidate 163. The differential is significant. A Republican candidate needs to mostly run the table of the in-play states to win while a Democratic candidate has many paths to victory.

I left Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and Florida in play.

It the ACA is tanking as much next year as it is this year, and the GOP manages to beat down the crazies (both doubtful but possible propositions), yes, I can imagine that Christie could win.

I think it far more likely that he will lose in the primaries to a more maniacal right wing opponent.

As it stands right now, Ted Cruz would whomp Christie in GOP primaries. And no way in hell would Ted Cruz ever get elected as POTUS.

Interesting definition of human rights you have there.

Not seeing how WI, OH, CO, VT, and ME are going to turn red. Especially Vermont, I don’t care if Christie is from the eastern seaboard, these people have a socialist senator for goodness sake.

As that may be, I didn’t include them because I didn’t feel certain about their voting patterns and I’d rather be worst case than best.

Certainly Ohio - a state I know best - has been a 50-50 state like Florida for the last several election cycles. Classic toss up state territory.

On the other hand, I included Pennsylvania as a D lock because - even though the R candidate always seems to say it’s in play - it always goes blue. It was 1988 the last time it went red.

I admit that it’s not good therapy, as it promotes the false notion that seeing a counselor can make a gay person straight; however, I don’t see how it’s child abuse, and I don’t agree with Christie’s action against it.

It’s foolish to treat the whole thing as a foregone conclusion. Christie and especially Clinton would make very strong candidates for their respective nominations, but we still don’t know how the 2014 elections are going to go, nevermind the ones in 2016.

Some people speculate that the reason PA always goes blue is because the only “right-wingers” in the state are Anabaptists such as the Amish and Mennonites who don’t believe in politics and thus don’t believe in voting. So, unless the local people change their religious doctrine on politics/pacifism, the Republican party is not going to win there. I think there is some truth to this theory.

That’s almost certainly wrong. There’s a Republican governor right now and Rick Santorum was a congressman and senator from Pennsylvania for a while. It seems like it’s a state with a pretty even mix of Republicans and Democrats, and either the cities are growing faster than the conservative areas or the Republicans have just moved to the right by Pa. standards. Or both.

Exactly what I wanted to say, saved me a lot of typing.

Plus I add to my nay … he’s too fat, he goes to sleep at Bruce Springfield concerts, he has skeletons in his closet, he’s a sure thing for SNL to make fun of him and everyone doesn’t automatically like people from Jersey. I like people from New Jersey, but Christie is not going to be the next President of the United States of American and that’s my final answer.