# So, we should get used to saying "President Christie?" Yea or nay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 21, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448 "2013-11-21T17:12:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/161 "2014-01-06T05:58:44Z")
Then you’re alone among the political prognosticators. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/162 "2014-01-06T06:00:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then you’re alone among the political prognosticators. Funny how you always think that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/163 "2014-01-06T06:30:28Z")
Now you’re not even making sense. Remember that my problem last time was that I was the contrarian. Now you’re the contrarian. Although it’s a lot more valid to be so 11 months before an election than 11 days, like I was.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/164 "2014-01-06T10:01:35Z")
> [@bup](#): > > The GOP is already working to change the nomination process, to keep the extreme wackos from dominating the conversation early. I don’t doubt what you wrote, but just out of curiosity, how would they go about this? The problem isn’t the extreme candidates; that’s an effect. The problem is the voters. They support the extreme right-wingers. ---
**Author:** ![Einstein\_was\_a\_Hippie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e99b99/32.png) [@Einstein\_was\_a\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Einstein_was_a_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/165 "2014-01-06T10:39:58Z")
Get used to saying “President Clinton” …again. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/166 "2014-01-06T10:40:57Z")
They want less debates. Basically, they want to coronate the establishment candidate and not give anyone a chance to beat him. In the end, the establishment choice always wins anyway, but they feel he has to tack too much to the right due to how the debates kept on swinging the polls in 2011-2012. Personally, I say that’s a feature. I’ve never seen an electorate pay enough attention to the debates that it actually vaulted underfunded candidates to the top. In the end the best funded guy won, but that was a function of the underfunded guys being extremists or obviously not bright enough to be President. Any one of the would have beaten Romney had they not all imploded at subsequent debates. We should be celebrating that level of voter engagement. The Republican establishment sees that as a threat. They want it to be about money, because they can control who gets the money. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/167 "2014-01-06T15:24:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They want less debates. Basically, they want to coronate the establishment candidate and not give anyone a chance to beat him. > > In the end, the establishment choice always wins anyway, but they feel he has to tack too much to the right due to how the debates kept on swinging the polls in 2011-2012. > > Personally, I say that’s a feature. I’ve never seen an electorate pay enough attention to the debates that it actually vaulted underfunded candidates to the top. In the end the best funded guy won, but that was a function of the underfunded guys being extremists or obviously not bright enough to be President. Any one of the would have beaten Romney had they not all imploded at subsequent debates. > > We should be celebrating that level of voter engagement. The Republican establishment sees that as a threat. They want it to be about money, because they can control who gets the money. Or they want candidates that won’t throw away easy elections or shut down the government when they win? What the establishment is trying to do would clearly benefit your party, frankly i hope they fail too because i don’t want Republicans to finally take the senate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/168 "2014-01-06T16:24:56Z")
I’d expect that career politicians and party hacks would be better politicians than the more diverse group that was sent to Congress in 2010. Now we just need to find smart non-career politicians to elect. But going back to the Bush/Delay GOP is something no one should want outside of Karl rove. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/169 "2014-01-06T16:35:34Z")
Right, Bush/Delay actually won which would be (and was) horrible for the country. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/170 "2014-01-06T18:43:46Z")
> [@Octarine](#): > > I don’t doubt what you wrote, but just out of curiosity, how would they go about this? What \*\*adaher \*\*said, mostly. Fewer debates where 8 or 10 people onstage get airtime. Friendly debate moderators who steer away from questions that would make the moderate guy have to say something insane. They also want to shorten the whole primary, and get to the convention earlier, so there’s less time ‘tacking hard right’ by the non-joke candidates. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/171 "2014-01-06T18:54:43Z")
> [@bup](#): > > … Friendly debate moderators who steer away from questions that would make the moderate guy have to say something insane. … Are these going to be debates, or some kind of commercial showcases? Clearly, the Republicans would prefer the latter. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/172 "2014-01-06T21:13:58Z")
Christie strikes me as another Guiliani or similar politician. Conservatives say they’ll vote for him because he has an R after his name, but once they compare him to the Santorums and the Bachmanns he doesn’t look conservative enough. Liberals say maybe they’d vote for him, but then they really look at his positions and they realize (a la John McCain) that he’s not a liberal at all. Liberal moderates have better options. Conservative moderates aren’t very numerous. I just don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/173 "2014-01-06T21:38:25Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Christie strikes me as another Guiliani or similar politician. Conservatives say they’ll vote for him because he has an R after his name, but once they compare him to the Santorums and the Bachmanns he doesn’t look conservative enough. Liberals say maybe they’d vote for him, but then they really look at his positions and they realize (a la John McCain) that he’s not a liberal at all. > > Liberal moderates have better options. Conservative moderates aren’t very numerous. I just don’t see it. But Rudy ran an epically bad campaign. I’m not sure that is fair. He defeated himself and swiftly. McCain 2000 is a comparison though that makes sense. McCain was an excellent candidate from anyone looking for a rational, not willing to kowtow to the religious right but fiscal conservative candidate. But Carl Rove executed the plan that defeated him with Bush the lesser who should have been a terrible candidate. I was still a Republican back in 2000 and McCain was the candidate from my party I liked the best since Reagan in 1984. The Bush campaign successfully brought out every aspect of the current Republican party that largely repulses me. Reagan sadly brought them in and Newt probably did the most to cement the new look for the Republicans. I thought McCain might have been able to wrestle the party back from the Theo-Cons and Neo-Cons but he lost and lost pretty soundly. By 2008 he really wasn’t the same candidate anymore. With Christie, I don’t like him nearly as much as I liked McCain (2000 version), but I still see him as being someone that might be able to pull the party back towards the center. But it probably won’t happen. Strange thing with 2000, I really liked 2 of the candidates. John McCain & Bill Bradley. I would have campaign for either one of them if they had successfully won the nomination but both lost and lost long before they got close to the NJ primary. I ended up voting for Nader in 2000. I had only campaigned for one prior candidate and that was Reagan in 1984, then in 2008 I campaigned for Obama. Though I am fairly disillusioned with him at this point. I voted for him it 2012 but did not campaign for him. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/174 "2014-01-07T04:35:53Z")
Christie will likely have one advantage McCain didn’t: he won’t be facing an insanely well funded candidate with near 100% name recognition. A Chris Christie win is a lot more likely when your best opposition is Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Although Republicans could get a little too excitable and nominate one of the young guns like Rubio or Cruz, but it’s way too soon for that. Rubio is nowhere near ready to be President and Cruz has to learn Rubio’s sense of moderation and bipartisanship. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/175 "2014-01-07T06:31:17Z")
I can’t see myself voting for ALEC Christie any more than I’d vote for ALEC Rubio or ALEC Santorum. But I’m just one voter. ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/176 "2014-01-07T09:31:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A Chris Christie win is a lot more likely when your best opposition is Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Although Republicans could get a little too excitable and nominate one of the young guns like Rubio or Cruz, but it’s way too soon for that. Rubio is nowhere near ready to be President and Cruz has to learn Rubio’s sense of moderation and bipartisanship. That may be true, but you’re working under the assumption that Christie is going to run. Do you think the fact that the Romney campaign rejected him for VP after an investigation has any bearing on whether he’s fit to be a Presidential candidate? I can imagine a guy like him having quite a lot of skeletons in his closet, realizing this fact, and rather than be exposed on national television, simply choose to not run. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/177 "2014-01-07T09:43:29Z")
That’s certainly possible, but it’s unknowable. I think VP’s actually get more vetting these days than Presidents. a Presidential candidate is willing to deal with drama, because it’s HIS drama, and he’s got well over a year to convince the public that he’s all right. A Presidential candidate doesn’t want a headache from someone else’s drama when the campaign season is at its peak. If Christie has any skeletons, I suspect they’ll be dribbled out sometime between now and 2015, and if public reaction is unfavorable, he’ll never enter. Or, he could have serious skeletons and decide never to run. Or, like Mark Warner or Mitch Daniels, revel in the hype but then pass on running because it’s too much of a pain in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/178 "2014-01-07T15:21:54Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I can’t see myself voting for ALEC Christie any more than I’d vote for ALEC Rubio or ALEC Santorum. But I’m just one voter. What? Seriously, what is this ALEC stuff? > [@Octarine](#): > > That may be true, but you’re working under the assumption that Christie is going to run. Do you think the fact that the Romney campaign rejected him for VP after an investigation has any bearing on whether he’s fit to be a Presidential candidate? I can imagine a guy like him having quite a lot of skeletons in his closet, realizing this fact, and rather than be exposed on national television, simply choose to not run. Funny, I remember it the other way around, Christie rejected the tentative proposal of an offer to be the VP on the ticket. No formal offer was made but Christie wisely rejected the strong possibility of the offer. Also why do you suppose Christie would have many skeletons in his closet. It is hard to be the Governor of NJ without said skeletons already being exposed. The Democratic party in NJ has had 2 chances to dig very deep. Christie problems are pretty much out in the open, if he wins, he will challenge Taft for largest President and he often shoots his mouth off. He is blunt, he has shown a strong willingness to buck the status quo and sacred cows. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/179 "2014-01-07T15:47:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They want less debates. Basically, they want to coronate the establishment candidate and not give anyone a chance to beat him. > > In the end, the establishment choice always wins anyway, but they feel he has to tack too much to the right due to how the debates kept on swinging the polls in 2011-2012. > > Personally, I say that’s a feature. I’ve never seen an electorate pay enough attention to the debates that it actually vaulted underfunded candidates to the top. In the end the best funded guy won, but that was a function of the underfunded guys being extremists or obviously not bright enough to be President. Any one of the would have beaten Romney had they not all imploded at subsequent debates. > > We should be celebrating that level of voter engagement. The Republican establishment sees that as a threat. They want it to be about money, because they can control who gets the money. I don’t know if the Republican establishment can get the genie back in the bottle. Like it or not, a great many delegates are selected in primaries and caucuses. To win the Iowa caucus and South Carolina primary, there is no such thing as being too far to the right. If the right wing of the party can unite behind one candidate, it’s going to be their turn this time around. 2016 may be the year that the Republicans finally nominate their True Believer. Romney snuck in because the parade of unRomneys coming out of the clown car were all seriously flawed candidates. By the time it came down to Santorum and Romney, the math simply wasn’t there for anyone but Romney. Will there be an establishment candidate with the money to beat back the True Believers? I’m not betting on it. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448/180 "2014-01-07T16:43:16Z")
Yeah if the crazies manage to unite behind one candidate like Ted Cruz instead of doing the Trump/Palin/Bachmann/Cain/Paul/Perry/Gingrich/Santorum carousel like last time they would be a lock. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-we-should-get-used-to-saying-president-christie-yea-or-nay/674448.md?page=10)