Christie has no chance to win NH. All the opposition needs to do is show clips of Christie and Obama being together after Hurricane Sandy. They won’t even need to do that, the polling really isn’t showing signs of tipping Christie’s way. I think Christie has a case of Guilianitis- the inability to talk about anything but 9/11.
It sure is looking like Cruz taking Iowa, between his superior ground game and the evangelicals hopping off the Carson train. Trump is poised to take NH AND SC. I’m not seeing how Rubio survives going 0 for 3. My money is on it being a two man race between Cruz and Trump.
New Hampshire has moderate Republican voters plus a lot of independent voters. If Trump loses Iowa, Christie has a pretty good shot at NH. Christie also still polls pretty strong against Clinton, so he has an electability argument to make. His manner will also appeal to a lot of Trump voters. Trump has always been pretty cozy with the Clintons, yet no one seems to be holding that against either Trump or the Clintons.
I should point out that Bush is polling fifth nationally (per RCP averages), and that Rubio’s polling at 2x to 3x what Bush is polling, practically everywhere.
In addition, Bush is on the verge of being pushed down to 6th nationally as Christie’s on the verge of overtaking him, he’s fifth in the polling in practically every state with December polling, except for Florida where Carson’s plummet has elevated him to fourth. In NH, in addition to running fifth overall, he’s running third out of the four Establishment-lane candidates, behind both Rubio and Christie, and is just barely ahead of Kasich.
He’s bombarded NH with ads, and spent plenty of time in the state, and is at 8% in the NH polls, which is pretty much where he’s been since Labor Day. And there are too many people ahead of him for him to win by the preferred Bush approach of having surrogates smear them.
Let’s see: his route to victory is by losing Iowa and NH.
Don’t Bogart that joint, my friend. Even if Cruz and Trump split the wins in those states, there’s no way that can help Bush. That just sets SC up as the big Cruz-v.-Trump showdown - and the loser of that showdown will hardly be KO’d; either of them would still have a viable campaign after losing SC.
Most of Bush’s ink at that point would be in the form of “when’s the poor doofus going to drop out?” (A. After Florida.)
I haven’t been much of a McCain fan since he made the decision in June 2004 to advance his political prospects by gluing his lips to Shrub’s ass. But even given that, no. Christie can’t be John McCain 2000, let alone John McCain 2008. The best Christie can hope to do in NH is win the Establishment lane. And then his campaign will go to South Carolina to die.
I’m not surprised Graham’s staff went to Bush. I would have fully expected Graham to endorse Bush. I think the establishment was probably encouraged by Jeb’s last debate performance, but they’re still not fully committed.
My point, such as it was, was that the whole ‘the party decides’ theory seems to be short-circuiting. The various pieces of ‘the party’ are making contradictory decisions, or not deciding at all.
My greatest regret, is that Trump was not giving another speech about “America not winning anymore” or going on about how we are no longer great, and having this news/video reel play right behind him.
I agree. This election shows just how little control (as opposed to influence) shadowy figures like the Koch’s and Adelman’s actually have. The herd has escaped the pen and they have no idea how to get them back in, other than backing the-eminently-buyable-but-just-as-nuts-(but not as rich!)-as-Trump, Ted Cruz.
If the Repubs eventually nominate a candidate that is not Trump/Cruz, I see the Tea Party herd sitting out the election (at best) or Trump running a separate candidacy (at worst). If Trump or Cruz does win the election, many Repub moderates (and yes, they do exist) will probably sit this one out.
Whether they (T Partiers or moderates) sit out enough to counter possibly-apathetic Democrats tired of Hillary remains to be seen. But I don’t see any resolution behind this dilemma that results in an energized, fully-engaged Republican party.
Rand Paul has been criticizing Marco Rubio for not showing up for work. Today he was tweeting about the Festivus airing of grievances, and mentioned that he wouldn’t count Marco Rubio’s salary as an example of federal wasted money.
The excuse for Rubio’s sparse Senate attendance had been that he, like so many Presidential candidates before him, was fully occupied by campaigning for President.
But lately, it’s come out that Rubio’s been doing very little campaigning on the ground in the early states, saying that voters in those states would see him on Fox and Friends, or see his commercials, and see more of him that way than if he were shaking hands on New Hampshire street corners.
And he may be right, but it knocks a big hole in his excuse for his lack of presence in the Senate. If he’s not in the Senate, and he’s not in Iowa or New Hampshire, then where the hell is he?
