Also, John Kasich. He tried to run back in 2000, got nowhere and then lifted his public profile over(twelve years of)night. Then there were those two or three years in middle of the decade when Ohio turned into Dubai or something. Huckabee's always a factor, too.
Don't underestimate the ability of Christie (or any candidate) to adapt and change when running for president. He knows what he has to say and do to repair the damage. The Christie we know right now won't be the Christie that ramps up his campaign next year.
True. Have to keep in mind that it's a Republican primary. Not too hard to appeal to anger. It'll come down to who's most willing to play the demagogue (among the candidates that don't self-destruct a la Perry or Cain).
Does not matter who the Republican nominee is. Right now, there is only one candidate for president the Repubs care about. The current race (there are always things that can happen which will change the dynamic) will be decided on how much they can tear Hillary down.
The problem is that the Republican primary votes are not moderate. Very difficult to pull the wool over their eyes. Perry tried, so did Rudy G and others without success. Those that have tried and were able to slip through like McCain and Romney were sunk trying to swim back to the middle. Christie would probably do better in the general election than most other Republican candidates. I just don't know if he fits the brand the hard liners want.
this country needs the hero it deserves... <img src=http://cdn.tss.uproxx.com/TSS/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dave-chappelle-black-bush.jpg>
We all know about GOP primary voters. But, IMO, Christie does not compare to Rudy, Rick Perry, McCain or Romney. Rudy was never a serious candidate. The one and only thing he had going for him was being mayor of New York when 911 happened and having many people fall in love with his post-tragedy demeanor. He cashed in on that richly but parlaying it into the GOP nomination was a huge stretch. I never took him seriously at all because his candidacy was doomed from the very beginning. Right-wingers would have burned the country down before allowing Rudy to be the nominee or V.P. selection. Christie, unlike Rudy, has been pro-life for a while now and isn't openly hostile to social conservatives. There is no comparison at all to Rick Perry other than they both are governors. Christie has much more polish and won't douse himself with gasoline and light a match like Perry did. There isn't much comparison to Christie and McCain either. McCain isn't much of a "moderate" to me. Romney is a good comparison to Christie and shows a candidate with a moderate background can transform himself into a GOP nominee. Christie also comes across as more genuine than Mitt and he doesn't project any weirdness. If you ask me, if Romney can do it, so can Christie. GanjaRockets, great post!
Primary voters have been moderate enough for the sake of electability; how many times did you hear the word "divisive" during Hillary's run in '08? Also pretty sure, or at least one would hope; that was why Heinz and Gator were picked in '04.
Santorum is actually more plausible than you'd think; not because a majority of the population agrees with his views, but is conformist and isolated enough to not want to feel "pushed around" by groups they're used to ignoring, marginalizing or just having their cafeteria food served to them by. Like Hootie Johnson and the "bayonet."
Actually if he didn't skip the early primary and set a media and fundraising tone, like Obama did with his speech in Iowa, Giuliani would have probably done well, especially with the type of white men or middle class people in general who respect leadership, success and public order more than identifying with any socioeconomic group or political philosophy. The guy had an insane amount of national press and popularity outside of his constituency, even stretching all the way back to '94, and by people who had no idea what his politics were. I still don't understand the logic behind skipping stuff early on, does it ever actually work independent of some front-runner screwing up?
Rudy knew not to even bother in Iowa (Huckabee) and New Hampshire (McCain). He also wasn't about to do well in South Carolina with Huckabee and McCain duking it out after the Iowa and NH results. You can't use pre-primary national polls to conclude a candidate is viable. Rudy's support was shallow and this was exposed. Unless you are Mitt Romney running against the Freak Show, you can't with the GOP nomination with shallow, non-passionate support. He had no chance from the beginning.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there talk from one of the Republican candidates last time around about secession? Specifically Texas? Do any of the possible candidates this time around believe in that?
Metaphorically, at some rally that was chronologically well before and had nothing at all to do with the presidential campaign.
Secession. If it was Texas, that must have been Perry or Tancredo or some one like that? It was probably just to rally the base. Do Texans support secession?
Our country is a shopping mall with a free pizza buffet and a 24-hour movie theater. No one wants to secede from anything.
