You make it seem like (and sorry if I misread you) this dooms a Republican Presidential candidate. But President Bush lost all of the Democrat “lock” States you have listed in both of his elections and obviously won both times. He also lost Wisconsin, New Hampshire (ex. 2000), Maine and Vermont which you listed as “in play.”
I don’t think Christie will be President unless there is a shift in GOP primary politics; but I think he would be competitive in a general. It’d be a weird election and you’d potentially see Christie winning states that hadn’t voted for a Republican in awhile but you might see him losing some red states, too. Even some of the states that vote heavily Republican do so by a small enough margin that if a portion of the hardcore right wing stays home in “protest” of Christie on election day those states could go Democrat if their turn out is normal.
There is a big difference between Rudy Giuliani/Fred Thompson and Christie, though. There are no clear cut scandals that would undermine Christie from day one. Giuliani had an affair that was publicly revealed in his past. Further, Giuliani was a stupid campaigner. He chose an unorthodox strategy of focusing on Florida’s primary and ignoring all the early ones where you build up buzz (but not a lot of delegates.) He did okay in Florida but didn’t win, and his unorthodox strategy only worked with a win in Florida. It’s never smart to just skip all those earliest States and any candidate who does it is doomed to failure.
Fred Thompson also joined the primaries very, very late. I don’t know why people bother doing that. Fred Thompson also had very little political experience as a one term Senator and then mostly an acting career.
Christie on the other hand has won two statewide races and has a good bit of experience as Governor (which would be seen as better experience than Rudy or Thompson’s), and managing a statewide campaign shows he has some political sophistication. Thompson and Giuliani both made primary moves that only an amateur politician would make. I don’t know that Christie would be interested in a run in the GOP primaries unless he sees some polling numbers showing that he would be competitive in the early states, but if he did I’d be surprised if he ran a campaign as unprofessional as that of Giuliani or Thompson.
It’s an advantage like he said, not a sure thing.
Exactly. It’s a significant advantage, but it guarantees nothing.
And GWB - regardless of what people think of him now - ran not as a right wing zealot but with a more moderate ‘compassionate conservative’ mantra.
Hell, people talk about how Ronald Reagan couldn’t get nominated by the current Republican Party. I’m halfway convinced GWB couldn’t get nominated and that wasn’t all that long ago.
Also, even if Christie could pull off a narrow nomination victory in the primaries the Far Right would likely abandon him in the general election, maybe even run a third tea party type candidate, which would siphon off just enough votes to ensure a Hillary win in November.
The Republicans have become their own worst enemies, and I don’t see things improving for them for quite some time.
Obviously, since I’ve already discussed who I think shouldn’t** run as the republican nominee, one might naturally ask who I think should** run. Well, I think a good alternative to Christie and a stickler with his conservative values would be Rand Paul. He’s firm in his positions and doesn’t waver, even though those positions make him vulnerable to unpopularity with the mainstream crowd. If he ran in the general election in 2016, he would get my vote.
Rand “Wiki” Paul? Ha ha ha ha ha! The perfect combination of ignorance and arrogance. Maybe he can get the black vote by reminding everyone that Lincoln was a Republican. Maybe he can tell us all how he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He’s just as batshit crazy as his dad.
I fixed up your quote boxes for you, Foreign.
Here’s a problem with your theory. There’s absolutely no evidence supporting it, and a mountain of evidence disproving it. Homosexuals are no more or less likely to have been the victims of childhood sexual assault than heterosexuals. There’s no evidence that exposure to pornography effects sexual orientation. There is no common background experience among people who identify as gay - we come from stable, supportive homes, and broken, abusive ones. We come from rigidly moralistic families, and ludicrously permissive ones. We come from every religious background, and every nation, and no one yet has found a single common social influence among gays that occurs at a significantly higher incidence than is found among heterosexuals.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that you are correct in your statement that humans were “designed” or somehow intended to be heterosexual.
So fucking what?
Humans weren’t “designed” to fly, but we have airplanes. Humans weren’t “designed” to surf the internet, but here we are. Humans weren’t designed to survive cancer, but we still invented chemotherapy, just to spit in nature’s eye. There is no other segment of human existence where people care about what’s “natural” or not, except when somebody’s genitals are involved.
And, of course, gays are hardly unique in having sex that can’t possibly result in a child. Ever received oral sex from your opposite sex partner? How is that less “unnatural” than when I get oral sex from my partner? Nobody’s getting pregnant in either case, so what makes your relationship so special?
Well, you’re wrong. Gay sex doesn’t “create” AIDS or HIV. It’s one method of transmission, but hardly the only one, and far from the most common. If susceptibility to HIV is evidence of how “unnatural” something is, it would appear that lesbianism is the most natural thing in the world, given the extremely low infection rates among lesbians, and the virtual impossibility of transmitting the virus through lesbian sex.
Also, if bleeding from an orifice is an indication of unnatural sex, it’s useful to keep in mind that the vagina bleeds for three days out of every month, regardless of whether you’ve stuck anything in there recently.
Yes, when you say things like, “Gay people make AIDS,” you are, in fact, talking about every gay person, everywhere. Even the ones you don’t know are gay.
…but I never heard that he fell asleep at a Springsteen concert. If true, and this becomes widely know, his chances are doomed.
Also, he should get his hearing checked.
Of course, *after *a Springsteen concert is also a good time to have your hearing re-evaluated!
Nyeh. I’ve seen Springsteen twice. He doesn’t really do loudness well. Tons of other bands bring the pain better. And not just metal bands.
Maybe a matter of where and when. Saw him at the Sports Arena in LA and my ears rang for days afterwards 
:dubious: Be careful, you. That kind of talk might discourage women from anal sex. And then won’t we all be sorry! :eek:
I have a good friend, a conservative with whom I’ve long discussed politics, who, for the last eight years, has referred to President Obama as “what’s his name”. My friend’s last name is Christie. (I’ve asked and he states that the Governor is “some kind of distant cousin”.) In the event that said Governor does become President, I will follow my friend’s example.
Conservatives and upper-class folk in general used to refer to FDR as sniff harrumph “that man.”
Sorry if I said anything offensive on this thread. I’m leaving the Straight Dope message boards. Bye.
You can’t save yourself that way. Og will find you.
My Pop told me that back in his day there was a joke about a well to do man who stopped at a news stand and looked at the headlines of the newspaper. The attendant asked him if he wanted to buy the paper and the rich guy says “I’m just checking the obituaries”. To which the attendant replies “the obituaries aren’t on the front page” to which the wealthy man responds ***“the sonovabitch I’m waiting for will be!!!” * **
Looks like Gov. Buddha has his own little scandal to worry about. Or maybe a big scandal. So the governor wasn’t pleased that he failed to get the endorsement of Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor. So maybe that endangered his bloated margin of victory by a tenth of a point. What’s a sumo to do? Cut off 2/3 of the lanes to the busiest bridge in the country and create massive traffic jams all over Fort Lee. That’ll show them! Oh, and if there’s a fire or medical emergency and someone might die because of your presidential ambitions? Fuck 'em. Do it on the morning of the first day of school, and order the people involved NOT to tell the local media or anyone else for that matter. Why tell the local fire or police? Any potential life-threatening emergency is chump change compared to Christie’s God-given right to be president.
You think something this small is going to derail him? He has to overcome being a loud, fat, brash New Jerseyian who is too liberal for the Tea Party (though he is not liberal by any reasonable use of the term), and you think a dumb ass lane closure that may or may not have been done for the reasons stated in the article is going to be a smoking gun? Really?