Chris Christie, the GOP's last national hope finished politically?

[Xplode441]

I would have to disagree with you. The only reason why he "could" win is because he is moderate. He might not have as much support from the conservative base as someone who would be farther right on the spectrum. Before these scandals, Christie's national approval ratings for almost over a year were in par to those of Hillary Clinton, which is far more than anyone else who is already "known" for presidential ambitions from the Republican party. It would really be shocking to see someone come forward who could actually have a chance to win nationally who would not be moderate conservative to even stand a chance nationally, in my opinion....

 

You incorrectly assume that Christie's popularity was in him being a moderate. No, it was in him not being Hillary.

It's basic principle that the US shifts favor between Republican and Democrat. It's always been this way. 2008 saw a shift towards Democrat after people were left unsatisfied with Bush's presidency. 2014 is seeing a shift towards Republicans after people are becoming unsatisfied with Obama's presidency.

This is where that boost in third party comes into play as it's a prime example of the people becoming disillusioned. You can also see it in the 2012 elections where the favored front runner for the GOP was switching every other week until the people finally "settled" with Romney.

[colourwheel]

 

You incorrectly assume that Christie's popularity was in him being a moderate. No, it was in him not being Hillary.

It's basic principle that the US shifts favor between Republican and Democrat. It's always been this way. 2008 saw a shift towards Democrat after people were left unsatisfied with Bush's presidency. 2014 is seeing a shift towards Republicans after people are becoming unsatisfied with Obama's presidency.

This is where that boost in third party comes into play as it's a prime example of the people becoming disillusioned. You can also see it in the 2012 elections where the favored front runner for the GOP was switching every other week until the people finally "settled" with Romney.

 

My argument is why was there such a shift in state elections in favor for the Democratic party in the 2013 election cycle, without looking at gerrymandered districts? The only true victory I saw for the Republican party for the 2013 election cycle was for Chris Christie. Chris Christie's poll numbers only plummeted after the light of these scandals.....

 

Further more even if you are suggestion some third party or independent to come in and sweeps the election away, how you figure this would change how the government operates addressing the dysfunction? If an independent was to ever to be elected more or less they would probably tend to swing towards the Democratic party when dealing with political policies when looking at history of national elected officials in congress. Independent candidates that lean to the right of the spectrum have never won elections when it comes to policies.

Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel

[Xplode441]

My argument is why was there such a shift in state elections in favor for the Democratic party in the 2013 election cycle, without looking at gerrymandered districts? The only true victory I saw for the Republican party for the last election cycle was for Chris Christie. Chris Christie's poll numbers only plummeted after the light of these scandals.....

 

I'm speaking in terms of Presidential elections. That's why I never mentioned local or state elections. If you're going to look into local or state elections, then it's more complex than a pendulum.

People tend to see more results for themselves on the local and state level which solidifies their political choices on those levels.

It's pretty much the difference between micro and macroeconomics.

This is the reason why you'll see states that are fairly blue in terms of local and state politicians even go red during Presidential elections.

 

As 2015 draws closer, you'll see what I mean. People haven't seen much impact of what Obama's done, so they decide that they'll need to look elsewhere to see results. This is the basis of the political pendulum theory. People see Hillary and they're not reminded of the Clinton years, they see another liberal candidate coming right after we just had one that isn't super popular right now.

The reason you saw Christie hitting home runs was because he was being polished up to be the front runner, same reason you see Hillary doing the same right now. People aren't seeing the gears running in the background and are just seeing the results, it's hard to explain this to you without confusing you as I did earlier. It's like the Wizard of Oz with the GOP being the wizard and Christie being the projection cast. They haven't announced that he's their man, but it's obvious that he was going to be. He was being pushed through the news media in stories of him being such a good moderate and a Republican. The people saw him as the front man and they got behind him because he's not the front man the Democrats were pushing. I feel like that last bit was very redundant.

As I said earlier, you could see this happening in the 2012 candidate runnings with the people jumping around on who was their favorite GOP candidate.

 

inb4; but if the political pendulum is real, then why did Obama get reelected.

Short answer, because it's pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot.

[colourwheel]

@Xplode441

 

Please enlighten the readers in which candidate you think does stand a chance then. If not Christie for the Republican party, since you seem to be so sure the only reason why Christie wouldn't stand a chance is because he is a moderate, regardless of these scandals.

 

 

inb4; but if the political pendulum is real, then why did Obama get reelected.

Short answer, because it's pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot.

 

You only need to look back to at least George Bush Senior to know this is not true....

 

12 Presidents have served a single elected term - John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James K Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. These presidents failed to serve a 2nd term in office which were not due to death or otherwise but by actually failing to be "re-elected" to office.....

Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel

[Xplode441]

 

@Xplode441

 

Please enlighten the readers in which candidate you think does stand a chance then, if not Christie for the Republican party since you seem to be so sure the only reason why Christie wouldn't stand a chance regardless of these scandals.

 

I'm not here to say what candidate stands a chance, you seem to be misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm telling you why Christie wouldn't have won anyway despite these scandals. If you want my opinion on who'd make a good front runner for the GOP, then I'll tell you Marco Rubio (Would be Crist, but he's pulled away from the party). He'd be great at appealing to the blue-collared workers and college aged kids while still pulling a conservative base.

 

 

You only need to look back to at least George Bush Senior to know this is not true....

 

12 Presidents have served a single elected term - John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James K Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. These presidents failed to be re-elected a 2nd term in office which were not due to death or otherwise but by actually failing to be re-elected to office.....

12 of 44

That's around 27%.

Also Polk didn't seek reelection and was probably one of the best presidents we've had. He pledged to serve one term and accomplished all goals he set.

So that's 11 of 44

That's 25%.

 

Doesn't exactly discount what I said.

[colourwheel]

 

If you want my opinion on who'd make a good front runner for the GOP, then I'll tell you Marco Rubio....

 

Intersting...

 

 

 

 

inb4; but if the political pendulum is real, then why did Obama get reelected.

Short answer, because it's pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot.

 

You only need to look back to at least George Bush Senior to know this is not true....

 

12 Presidents have served a single elected term - John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James K Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. These presidents failed to serve a 2nd term in office which were not due to death or otherwise but by actually failing to be "re-elected" to office.....

 

12 of 44

That's around 27%.

Also Polk didn't seek reelection and was probably one of the best presidents we've had. He pledged to serve one term and accomplished all goals he set.

So that's 11 of 44

That's 25%.

 

Doesn't exactly discount what I said.

 

25% out of 44? If you ask me, that hardly counts as being "pretty much impossible"....

 

I can agree it being "hard" to knock an incumbent from the presidency but would never go as far as suggesting it even being remotely close to being "impossible"....

Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel

[Xplode441]

25% out of 44? If you ask me, that hardly counts as being "pretty much impossible"....

 

I can agree it being "hard" to knock an incumbent from the presidency but would never go as far as suggesting it even being remotely close to being "impossible"....

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hyperbole

 

Has this simply devolved into an argument of semantics?

[colourwheel]

@Xplode441

 

Let me remind you that you were "trying" to make the argument why someone got re-elected as it being "pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot." Even as an exaggerated statement, that in itself is a pretty bold claim as to why someone got re-elected and not on the fact that the people wanted Obama to be re-elected as president. Obama won the election by almost 5 million on the popular vote winning 332 electoral votes total. Obama won every Battle ground state except North Carolina. I think it is safe to say the Nation as a whole wanted Obama to win, and not because it's "impossible" for an incumbent to lose.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impossible+definition

 

 

Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel

[Xplode441]

 

@Xplode441

 

Let me remind you that you were "trying" to make the argument why someone got re-elected as it being "pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot." Even as an exaggerated statement, that in itself is a pretty bold claim as to why someone got re-elected and not on the fact that the people wanted Obama to be re-elected as president.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impossible

It's pretty well known that when going up against an incumbent that the odds are going to be stacked against you. You're literally told this even in high school government classes.

The incumbent is well-known, has a better medium to contact the people through, is more visible, and the people are comfortable with him being there already.

 

I'm guessing you were born in the Clinton years or Bush Sr. years and weren't politically active until around high school and after, so be honest. Had you ever heard of Mitt Romney before 2008 or 2012? I'd hope you'd heard of Gingrich being how he was pretty well known during the Clinton years, but Romney nor his dad were all that well known.

 

Did you really not go over all of this stuff back in high school?

 

Let me explain it to you in simple terms.

You're driving down the road and you see a McDonald's and a diner named Jeffry's. You're pretty hungry and you know you're going to stop to eat, but would you rather go with the unknown presented to you, or do you go with what you know?

Most people go with what they know and are comfortable with. This is why people tend not to order off the menu and such.

 

Also, do you not understand what a hyperbole is? It literally is an exaggeration. Also, I never stated that the people didn't want Obama in office. I stated that as an incumbent he was harder to take out of office. You obviously don't disagree with me on this as the evidence you tried to supply fell against you.

Your entire argument right now is based on you taking a hyperbole too literally. How does that make you feel?

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pretty+much+impossible

Feel free to browse other examples of similar hyperboles in order to familiarize yourself with it.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Xplode441

[rizon72]

The hypocrisy on this 'conspiracy' is mind boggling to me. Talking to a few friends this morning, they were absolutely convinced that Christie is guilty. Especially after someone in his administration pleaded the 5th. (Not sure if this is true or not.) However, I pointed out that means as much as Lerner pleading the 5th in the IRS scandal. I was told that was two separate things, one is a witch hunt by republicans the other is a case of bullying. I'd like to know the truth for both.