Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not sure why PA would be in play for Christie when it wasn't for McCain or Romney.

 gorgon wrote:
I'm not sure why PA would be in play for Christie when it wasn't for McCain or Romney.

Well... Obama can't run again as he's popular in that state.

 gorgon wrote:
It's really hard to win when you have someone on the extreme flank of your own wing.

Santorum's going to be twice as strong this time around, just because his campaign won't be starting off as a joke this time. He'll have resources and support from the get-go, and that's HUGE. He'll never win because clearly the party wants to run someone electable like McCain and Romney. But he'll make things freakin' miserable for Christie. Santorum is a strong and smart campaigner...even if he's also a lot of other things.

I still say that Christie's Jersey/bully/Sopranos act won't play well everywhere in the country. Maybe it doesn't need to. Still, expect to see all those ugly incidents with him berating New Jerseyians in public to crop up in ads again and again. The guy has a temper and mouth that he doesn't control well, and I think some people are going to like him less once they see that. If I was running another campaign, I'd even try placing hecklers at his rallies and stops just to see if I could get something ugly out of him.

If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.

Gore and Kerry were apparently popular in PA too. The commonwealth just leans blue now in Presidential races.

Also, if McCain and Romney can get the nomination, why can't Christie? Clearly the party elite want an electable candiate. But recent history suggests that he'd come into the general election too beat up to win, and there will be other GOP candidates more than willing to beat Christie up during the primaries. They're all there to become President, not to coronate the leadership's preferred choice.

And again, I think that the idea of Christie as the great moderate won't hold up for the general election as people become more familiar with him. Remember how people said the same thing at first about McCain and Romney? Heck, Romney might actually be more moderate than Christie, and look where that got him. And you can forget about Christie as a great uniter/healer of DC...that's not his style or track record at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
It's really hard to win when you have someone on the extreme flank of your own wing.

Santorum's going to be twice as strong this time around, just because his campaign won't be starting off as a joke this time. He'll have resources and support from the get-go, and that's HUGE. He'll never win because clearly the party wants to run someone electable like McCain and Romney. But he'll make things freakin' miserable for Christie. Santorum is a strong and smart campaigner...even if he's also a lot of other things.

I still say that Christie's Jersey/bully/Sopranos act won't play well everywhere in the country. Maybe it doesn't need to. Still, expect to see all those ugly incidents with him berating New Jerseyians in public to crop up in ads again and again. The guy has a temper and mouth that he doesn't control well, and I think some people are going to like him less once they see that. If I was running another campaign, I'd even try placing hecklers at his rallies and stops just to see if I could get something ugly out of him.

If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.

Yeah, Texas would be among the places I'm talking about.

 gorgon wrote:
Gore and Kerry were apparently popular in PA too. The commonwealth just leans blue now in Presidential races.

Also, if McCain and Romney can get the nomination, why can't Christie? Clearly the party elite want an electable candiate. But recent history suggests that he'd come into the general election too beat up to win, and there will be other GOP candidates more than willing to beat Christie up during the primaries. They're all there to become President, not to coronate the leadership's preferred choice.

Yeah, only took how many primary debates full of mudslinging and embarrassing sound-bites and FoxNews trying to get a near unlimited amount of "anybody but Romney" campaigns going before Romney could walk away the victor?

And again, I think that the idea of Christie as the great moderate won't hold up for the general election as people become more familiar with him. Remember how people said the same thing at first about McCain and Romney? Heck, Romney might actually be more moderate than Christie, and look where that got him. And you can forget about Christie as a great uniter/healer of DC...that's not his style or track record at all.

To be fair, moderate Romney polled a hell of a lot better than "hey hey, party base, look at me, I can be a fringe right wing extremist too" Romney.

Romney shook the Etch-a-Sketch and became "Kissing the Base's base" Romney. Then he tried to shake it again, and couldn't clear it.

The Democrats didn't win the 2012 elections near as much as it was lost by the Republicans. And the "pander to the crazy base" primary system is a large cause of that IMO.

I would almost think that open primaries (or at least let Independents vote in either) would help that out.

The media will love Christie until such time as he gets ahead in the primary then they will beat on him to keep the race going.

Once the Presidential Race (ie Democrat vs. Republican) they will turn completely against him. He will be the combative hardliner who sat on children and ate babies when he fought against the unions and good hardworking teachers.

 Frazzled wrote:
If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.

So does the United States.

I have no idea how Christie could win the primary. Right now he get can't even get a ticket to CPAC. And that's not a ticket to speak at CPAC - they won't even let him in the door to take a seat in the crowd.

Now, you don't necessarily have to be a CPAC favourite to claim the primary (never got a hope in hell campaigners like Ron Paul and Bobby Jindal have done well in the strawpoll, afterall), but you you look at the list of candidates and you pretty much see the list of people that will run in the next primary. And they won't even let Christie in the door.

I thought Christie said he wasn't interested in being prez or has that changed now?

I thought his statement was more that he "was not interested in running as a Democrat or Republican"?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I thought his statement was more that he "was not interested in running as a Democrat or Republican"?

Yup... he said that... numerous times in fact.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I thought Christie said he wasn't interested in being prez or has that changed now?

No-one is interested until they think they can win

And people in this thread were talking like he could win. He can't, and what's more, Christie is a smart enough operator to know he can't win. Hence his statement



That said, maybe instead of talking about Christie we should talk about banning gay conversion therapy - fething awesome. That stuff feths kids up.

 sebster wrote:
That said, maybe instead of talking about Christie we should talk about banning gay conversion therapy - fething awesome. That stuff feths kids up.

Amen. It's a vile practice and the sooner it is banned in every state, the better.

 ironicsilence wrote:
from what I know of the catholic faith, xole has it right, being gay isnt a sin, however making gay whoppie is a sin. So in the eyes of a catholic god, everything is cool as long as there is no penetration

I believe that any sex outside marriage is seen as sinful, not just homosexual encounters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
If its Christie vs. Hillary in 2016, as it stands now, he has an excellent chance of losing Texas.

It's votes, or having them succeed from the Union?

Why stop at this? Can we start outlawing all of the other quack "therapies" too?

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Damn, no baby will every be born near the Jersey Shore again.

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, moderate Romney polled a hell of a lot better than "hey hey, party base, look at me, I can be a fringe right wing extremist too" Romney.

Romney shook the Etch-a-Sketch and became "Kissing the Base's base" Romney. Then he tried to shake it again, and couldn't clear it.

The Democrats didn't win the 2012 elections near as much as it was lost by the Republicans. And the "pander to the crazy base" primary system is a large cause of that IMO.

I would almost think that open primaries (or at least let Independents vote in either) would help that out.

No, I really disagree with that. Credit needs to be given to the Obama campaign for winning a race that should have been unwinnable, thanks to their superior data mining, microtargeting, fundraising, etc.

And I'd also suggest it's not just the Etch-A-Sketch thing at work. Opinions about candidates have a way of shifting after people see more of and "get to know" them. Romney had some issues there, methinks. He was just a little odd somehow (not that many of us wouldn't be), which probably didn't help him given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

It's also important to note that lots of candidates have overcome bruising primaries.

 gorgon wrote:
given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.

Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".

Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.

Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".

Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.

Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.

"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".

And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".

Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.

Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.

"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".

And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.

Low-information voters... as in, folks who don't normally vote and/or do vote, but don't follow politics. The Obama campaign kicked assed in reaching out to those voters... they got people engaged and took the Romney campaign to the sheds.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Why stop at this? Can we start outlawing all of the other quack "therapies" too?

And Homeopathic medicine?

in 2012 the obama campaign team basically wrote the book on how to win a modern day election. Everything they did with data mining and such should be used in every campaign going forward

I wasn't just talking about Obama though, I was considering the election as a whole and considering all the offices that were open last year. House/Senate/States. Who expected the Democrats to pick up 2 seats in the Senate?

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... the Obama campaign had incredible grass root organizations and was waaay more effective in reaching those "low-information voters".

Future republican campaigns better scrutinize the '12 election and learn from it... if they don't, they'll get clobbered.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
given the "detached rich guy" narrative the Obama campaign built.

Let's not ignore how much Romeny helped build up that image.

Yeah... that's true. He definitetly had an image problem... and that 49% comment.

"Low-information voters" are just as common (some would argue more common) among hardcore conservative types. See: most of the deep south. Obama also used social media and the internet far more effectively than the Romney camp, and those are rarely "low-information voters".

And yeah, that 49% comment really did a number on his campaign. That and being associated with the circus of republican rape comments. Oof.

Low-information voters... as in, folks who don't normally vote and/or do vote, but don't follow politics. The Obama campaign kicked assed in reaching out to those voters... they got people engaged and took the Romney campaign to the sheds.

Erg, my apologies. Confused low-information with single-issue.

 streamdragon wrote:

Erg, my apologies. Confused low-information with single-issue.

It's cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I wasn't just talking about Obama though, I was considering the election as a whole and considering all the offices that were open last year. House/Senate/States. Who expected the Democrats to pick up 2 seats in the Senate?

When Todd Akins and that GA dude opened their mouth.

Oh... binder full of womens... and #WarOnWomen.

In this thread, viewers, if you look carefully, you might see a glimpse of that most rare of creatures - a moderate Republican. Normally they are spooked by loud noises, but I think we can get a closer look - this specimen is from New Jersey, and so may have acclimatized to the noise of people. Hopefully we can try to get him into a breeding program, as we're concerned with his species dwindling numbers. It's a real shame, because these creatures once placed a vital role in a vibrant ecosystem.



And, a dominance display! Look how he shows all the other creatures he intends to challenge the alpha for leadership. Truly, nature is beautiful.

---

So far as separating the conversion therapy thing from talking about Chris Christie, is that possible? I think to do so we'd have to have at least one person claiming conversion therapy is OK, and that seems to have no bites. The closest is Manchu, who is mostly focused on the "yellow journalism" aspect of accurately reporting that the Catholic Church considers acting on homosexual impulses to be sinful? Not exactly... endorsing conversion therapy, there. Not sure how we can discuss the ending of an odious practice without at least one person white knighting it.

Who took Christie pizza?