Christie's Chances
We return to our occasional series of "Wildly Early 2016 Presidential Speculation" articles, because of Washington's current obsession over how much damage Chris Christie has done to his chances to become the next Republican nominee for president. Has Christie hurt his chances beyond all repair? Or will (as some of his supporters are beginning to claim) the entire episode actually help out Christie, two years from now?
In my own personal view, which is based on not much more than gut feeling at this point (since, once again, it is ridiculously early to even be engaging in 2016 speculation), I don't think Christie has either hurt or helped himself much at all. Now, before I attempt to justify that claim, two caveats are in order. For the purposes of discussion, I am going to assume that no second shoe will drop in the scandal -- that no smoking gun emerges pointing right at Governor Chris Christie. Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but in our speculation here we're going to assume that no further information is revealed which damages Christie's chances even further -- a rather large assumption, which is why I'm explicitly pointing it out up front. Secondly, please keep in mind that when I say "Christie's chances" what I am specifically talking about is "Christie's chances to win the Republican nomination." It's wildly early to predict even that, but it is way too early to begin assessing the general election itself. So we're not even going to touch the "could he still win the White House?" question at all.
Many on the left seem to be currently overstating the damage that has already happened to Christie's chances to win the nomination. "Christie's Toast!" would be the theme of such analysis, in fact. This, it seems to me, is a bit overstated, for a number of reasons. The first is the notoriously short attention span of the American voter. The bridge scandal is going to be ancient news by the time the primary season rolls around in early 2016. Two years is an absolute eternity in politics, folks. While New Jersey Democrats are going to investigate the heck out of the scandal for many months to come, if no further bombshell revelations emerge, then eventually the story will fade (at least on the national level).
The second reason Christie may not be as toasty as some are now assuming is how the whole thing may actually play in Peoria (so to speak). Using a traffic jam as political retribution is an ugly thing, pundits assume, because everybody hates traffic -- it's a universal issue and nobody is on the side of "traffic jams are a good thing." But this may overstate the resonance with most voters. Outside of metropolitan areas, traffic isn't as big an issue, to begin with. Anyone not used to commuting over a bridge as busy as the George Washington Bridge is going to have a different view of what happened than those who fight such traffic on a daily basis. Beyond the rural/urban split, how badly are Republican primary voters going to feel about a traffic jam experienced in a blue state, really?
Which brings me to the heart of my argument. Because in assessing the damage to a possible Christie 2016 candidacy, many are making the mistake of only looking at his chances in the general election. But to get to the general election, Christie has to win the Republican nomination. And the electorate for these primary contests is going to be radically different than the general election voting pool.
What were Christie's chances of winning the nomination before this scandal broke? That is a tough question to answer, because of all the variables involved. Who else will be running? What will the big political stories be? There are many unanswerable questions, at this early date. Assumptions must be made to even begin to assess Christie's chances of winning the nomination. Some of these are easier to make than others, though. It's a pretty safe bet that Christie, should he run, will center his campaign around being "straight-talking" and "getting things done." Also, in a secondary way, around electability -- Christie will be making the case "I've got the best chance to win the general election, and aren't Republicans tired of losing at the national level?"
He'll be making this case against a field that can be roughly divided along the current schism between the Establishment Republican faction and the Tea Party absolutists. There will likely be a few other candidates also vying for the nomination who have big Establishment Republican backing, and there will definitely be a few candidates with stellar Tea Party credentials. Christie's path to victory will consist of being a lot more charismatic and exciting than all the other Establishment candidates, which really shouldn't be all that hard to accomplish, when you think about it. What chances does someone like Jon Huntsman have against Christie, after all? As for the Tea Party, Christie will undoubtedly try the same "divide and conquer" strategy which worked so well for Mitt Romney. If there is only one viable Tea Party candidate in the race, Christie may have a problem. But the safe money is on there being multiple Tea Party candidates, all trying to be more extreme than the others. If the Tea Party vote in the primaries is split, Christie could pick up delegates almost by default from Republican voters who want a truly viable national candidate.
These voters are the ones that Christie is going to target as his base. And the bridge scandal isn't going to matter much to them (that's my guess, at any rate). Christie's bully nature is going to win him what might be called the "macho vote." Anyone who doubts the strength of this demographic would do well to remember Arnold Schwarzenegger getting re-elected governor in one of the bluest states in the nation. "I want someone in office who will kick ass" is more powerful politically than a lot of inside-the-Beltway types realize. The bridge scandal actually helps Christie with this faction of voters, when you think about it.
The Republican primary electorate contains other groups, though. But again, remember that this scandal will be old news by the time the primaries get under way. Right-wing media is already focusing more on how Christie handled the scandal than the scandal itself. This can be summed up as "Christie took swift action, fired people, and answered all the media's questions." If no further dirt is uncovered, then Christie's press conference last week will be seen as the final word on the subject for a lot of folks. And this, too, plays well with a certain segment of the Republican base. Christie will have shown "leadership" and "accountability," which plays very well indeed in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. "Mistakes were made, and Christie cleaned them up" will be the theme used to court these voters.
Which is why I really don't think Christie has done much damage to his chances for winning the Republican presidential nomination in two years. The only tarnish that might stick to him is in the area of electability. Voters who target their choices on who might be best expected to give the Democratic nominee a run for her (or his... ahem) money may be convinced that swing voters will be less inclined to vote for Christie because of the scandal. But that's a fairly subtle thing, and by the time the primaries are held there should be plenty of polling to prove this point one way or another. Christie may still show the best chances in the general election of the entire Republican field, even with the scandal in his past.
Other Republican candidates can, of course, be expected to try to exploit Christie's weaknesses, especially during the debates. But it's a risky strategy for them to use, for two reasons. The first is they'll be taking the side of the (gasp!) liberal media, and the second is that anyone who directly attacks Christie in a debate is very likely going to get a smackdown in response. It's in Christie's nature to give a full-throated defense of his own record, which should be on full display in debate season.
Chris Christie may or may not have fatally hurt his chances to win the presidential election because of the bridge scandal. I leave it for others to look that far into the future. But when it comes to assessing his chances to win the Republican nomination, I really can't see that he's hurt himself politically much at all. Republican primary voters love a good story about sticking it to Democrats, after all, meaning that the entire scandal is seen differently by these voters than by East Coast elites. More moderate (and less macho) voters will see the scandal as an exercise in executive responsibility after the fact -- the swift firings and transparent nature of Christie's press conference may be all that such voters remember in two years' time. And finally, if any of Christie's Republican opponents try to use the scandal against him in a debate, I would bet good money that two years from now Christie will come up with a dandy answer to any such accusations -- likely such a snappy answer that it will become the highlight of such a debate the next day. All of this adds up to Christie still having just as good a chance of securing the Republican nomination now as he did before the bridge scandal broke.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hi Chris:
How much the damage sticks to Christie, in my view, will depend on 2 things: One: more shoes dropping or not and
Two: whether his opponents take advantage of the opening now available.
Right now, I think, both repub opponents who will battle him for the repub nomination, AND Dem opponents, should he actually get the Pub nomination, already have plenty to work with.
To me, while the bullying angle is valid, I think the incompetence angle is the real killer. The guy claims "he knew nothing!!!" He is on record as being sarcastic about "holding the cones" when reporters asked him about these events, before the story broke nationally. He's being asked about this 4-day traffic jam and allegations are swirling in NJ about whether his administration was exercising a vendetta, but he was completely blindsided by the story when it hit last week? He hadn't looked into it at all to that date? Just had no idea? First he'd heard of it?
Within hours he's fired one of his top aides without even asking her what she'd done or not done? Coz at that point he was just too upset?
He hadn't previously given a damn about the events or how they'd affected his constituents? Just not his problem evidently? Not his administration's problem? Just not important enough to have bothered looking into?
Righties won't care about any of that because they are idiots who operate purely on "if liberals don't like him I do" but other people are capable of some amount of analysis and evaluation and I think Christie came off as just another "find a scapegoat" "mistakes were made" no-accountability-here politician in trouble. He talks a good game but he's done nothing but weasel. His trusted aides became "stupid liars" -- good judge of character, he.
Was he stupid or is he lying? Neither is good for him. This takes a lot of bloom off the rose.
It's quite possible that media will attempt to give him a pass -- but anyone running against him is an idiot of they allow that.
Don't forget, too, that Romney passed on him for veep because they were concerned about what's lurking in this guys background. The pubs blew 2012 in a lot of ways, but one thing they are very good at is oppo research.
CW,
Excellent analysis... Can't find any fault with it..
Paula,
To me, while the bullying angle is valid, I think the incompetence angle is the real killer. The guy claims "he knew nothing!!!" He is on record as being sarcastic about "holding the cones" when reporters asked him about these events, before the story broke nationally. He's being asked about this 4-day traffic jam and allegations are swirling in NJ about whether his administration was exercising a vendetta, but he was completely blindsided by the story when it hit last week? He hadn't looked into it at all to that date? Just had no idea? First he'd heard of it?
Ya know.. All of that sounds VERY familiar.. Eerily so...
Ahh yes, that's right.
It played out EXACTLY the same way for Obama and Benghazi. Obama and IRS targeting Conservatives. Obama and the WWII Veterans. Obama and Train Wreck Care Dot Com, Obama and every scandal that has happened.
Obama knew nothing about any of it and was shocked (SHOCKED, I tell you!!) that any of it was occurring..
Within hours he's fired one of his top aides without even asking her what she'd done or not done? Coz at that point he was just too upset?
{cough} Shirley Sherrod {cough, cough}
The only difference between Christie and Obama was that, as CW points out, Christie showed LEADERSHIP. He basically owned up, took steps and kicked ass..
Compare and contrast that to Obama who never took responsibility for ANYTHING, beyond milquetoast and insincere "The Buck Stops Here" whinings..
I know I have mentioned this before (once or twice) but I find it so fascinating that EVERYTHING you complain about in Republicans is the exact same thing that occurs in Democrats in general and Obama in particular...
It's fascinating. :D
Michale
Michale-Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!
I agree Obama should have fought for Shirley Sherrod -- however, once matters became more clear he apologized for firing her, as did Tom Vilsack, and offered her a high position in the USDA.
"Christie showed LEADERSHIP. He basically owned up, took steps and kicked ass.."
No, he passed the buck, said (many times in many ways) that he had no idea what kind of liars he was employing as his top aides, threw what's her name under the bus as fast as he could, to the extent of claiming that he hadn't even bothered to ask her to tell her story. Evidently he found the newspaper's conclusions persuasive enough, even though he had previously done everything he could to convince the world the story was bullshit.
He's just a typical blowhard weasel who takes credit when things to well and pushes blame on underlings when they don't.
He's supposed Kicking Ass, as I mentioned above, will certainly appeal to people like you, while simultaneously repelling others. So, enjoy telling yourself what an impressive leader he is, and make sure to share that with all your likeminded friends so that your leaders decide "he's the one!" for 2016. I think Hillary, Joe Biden, or whoever else gets the nod on the Dem side will then have plenty of good stuff to work with! Bring him on!
While I hate the trite "Bridgegate" moniker, there are important parallels between how Richard Nixon's burglary scandal made its debut, and how Christie's GW Bridge story is breaking.
Both initially began with accusations of easily understood criminal behavior, allegedly perpetrated by persons with direct connections to the office and person of the CEOs in question.
These circumstances opened up inevitable criminal investigations which could not/cannot be easily, quietly or quickly shut down. Fire in the sausage factories = press field days = a brisk breeze over the fires.
Both Nixon and Christie responded in the opening game by firing key personnel and claiming ignorance. In both cases the claims of ignorance initially seemed both hard to believe and hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Still, a credible threat to the CEOs is that fired subordinates face their own legal sanctions and have every incentive to cut deals with prosecutors.
Nixon had to worry about evidence on audio tapes, while Christie must worry about E-mails. Christie has the much bigger worry. E-mails are much less ambiguous than audio tapes, subject to much quicker automated analysis, and basically live forever. While Nixon had his office bugged, Christie and his entire staff are "bugged" and leaving a much better electronic trail for prosecutors to follow.
So yes, it's early in the game leading up to 2016, but the landscape has changed dramatically. It's simply impossible to believe that at least a few more shoes aren't about to drop. Christie may be innocent, he may beat the rap, but at best, this looks to be a major distraction for him, and equally important, his backers. The latter may decide it's just easier to shoot the lame horse and pick another from their stable.
Christie would have been smarter to have kept his press conference to about 15 minutes rather than nearly 2 hrs. Inconsistencies between his detailed account and independent witnesses were bound to crop up.
Just today, Christie's assertion that he hadn't met with David Wildstein "in a long time" has been compared to the fact that the two were photographed together on Sept. 11th, the third day of the bridge crisis making national headline news. You might think the governor should have asked a few questions, but apparently he did not. Why not?
There will be a steady drip of this kind of thing.
Again, I am amazed at how nit-picky ya'all are...
Just today, Christie's assertion that he hadn't met with David Wildstein "in a long time" has been compared to the fact that the two were photographed together on Sept. 11th, the third day of the bridge crisis making national headline news.
The EXACT same assertion was made with Obama and how he met the head of the IRS at the White House right before the targeting of conservatives..
And ya'all pooh-poohed it away as meaningless...
There will be a steady drip of this kind of thing.
As there was with Obama.. :D
The Christie-saga could be word for word and point for point as any of Obama's scandals..
But because Christie has a '-R' after his name and Obama has a '-D' after HIS name, the responses from the Left are diametrically opposite..
The Right ain't much better, to be sure..
Which is why I treasure my NPA status so much..
I can point fingers at BOTH Partys and yell "HYPOCRITES!!!!" :D
It's one of my few pleasures in life.. :D
Michale
He's supposed Kicking Ass, as I mentioned above, will certainly appeal to people like you, while simultaneously repelling others.
You see, therein lies the problem.
You think that the vast majority of Americans think like you do..
And yet, the "kick ass" you so disdain IS what works in America..
No where is this more epitomized than in the Stargate and Star Trek franchises...
You had Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. Kick ass American shows that had an almost TWO DECADE RUN... 20 Frakin Years!!
Then Hollywood liberals entered the scene and brought us Stargate Universe.. All of the sudden, it was all about touchy feely, feelings, character development, nuance, all of the things that the Left cherishes but Joe SixPack despises....
It barely lasted 2 years...
Star Trek: TNG... 7 Years
Star Trek: DS9 7 Years...
Star Trek: Voyager 7 Years...
Liberals take over and create a touchy feely Star Trek with Scott Bakula as Captain. Barely goes 4 years...
Are you seeing the pattern??
America is a Center Right to Right country..
Americans thought they would give the Left a chance and see what they could do..
An economy in the toilet. American prestige in the toilet. American allies totally shunning the US.. A nuclear armed Iran.. Our MidEast allies running to Russia and China..
And a POTUS who doesn't give a rip about anyone but himself...
Yea, Democrats had their chance..
They blew it..
It's that simple...
Michale
Stargate vs Star Trek? Really?
What a silly, silly man you are.
CW,
You forgot to mention because ... "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!"
Heheh. Ok, I stole that from this editorial in the Newark Star-Ledger
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2014/01/chris_christies_gwb_scandal_an.html
-David
M, regarding 6
It's the press that's being picky, not me. That's what the press does, especially when somebody like Christie talks too long, providing reporters with a bonanza of loosely anchored facts to check.
Obama is indeed a good example of how the steady drip of negative press can bog down a political agenda.
Paula,
Stargate vs Star Trek? Really?
Yes, really..
Do you have any facts to refute my conclusion??
No??
Didna think so.. :D
David,
JUST the man I wanted to see!! :D
Did you invest in NEST??? :D
You forgot to mention because ... "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!"
You mean, like the Left did with "ABU GHRAIB, ABU GHRAIB, ABU GHRAIB"???
At least one of our Ambassadors was never killed on Bush's watch and, post 9-11, not one single jihadist made it to their targets on US Proper.
Obama's count was 1 dead ambassador and 5 jihadists acquiring their targets..
Don't even get me started on Iran and Obama handing the Middle East to Al Qaeda and Iran on a silver platter...
TS,
Obama is indeed a good example of how the steady drip of negative press can bog down a political agenda.
There is no reason to be..... wait?? What did you say??? :D
But, actually, you miss my point..
It's not negative press that bogs down a political agenda. It's negative ACTIONS. Actions that the American people simply do not like.
THAT is what Christie and Obama have in common. They are acting like 2-bit corrupt politicians (the most disgusting and degrading slur I can imagine) and the American people of the here and now demand more from their leaders..
Christie and Obama are simply two sides of the same corrupt and perverse coin.
Just like Democrats and Republicans..
Michale
Stargate vs Star Trek? Really?
Besides, those are just 2 examples that I am intimately familiar with.
If I dug around, I am certain I could come up with hundreds of more examples of the same..
American Values is not a dirty word, don'tcha know... :D
Michale
Despite 'Bridgegate,' Christie's Approval in New Jersey Still 59%
88% (including 75% of Democrats) say knowing what they know now they would still vote for Chris Christie as their governor.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/despite-bridgegate-christies-approval-new-jersey-still-59
New Jerseyians are not impressed with this faux Democrat Hysteria scandal... :D
Michale
At least one of our Ambassadors was never killed on Bush's watch and, post 9-11
All kinds of ambassadors and embassy personnel were killed on Bush's watch
http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww307/AndreasFerrari/zzzzzzzzz2n8d5z8_zpsf277ba75.png
Still in denial though, eh?
Did you invest in NEST??? :D
Nah. It was only open to VC companies unfortunately.
I wish I'd of invest in Nestor though. Will post the link in a separate post. Nestor is a stock that went up 1900% as people confused it with Nest.
:)
-David
Nestor ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/investors-buy-nestor-not-nest-2014-1
Paula -
Good point on the incompetence issue. How Christie could have not been aware of what was going on could indeed be damaging, later...
Especially since CC was a fed. prosecutor, which means he's supposed to be able to get to the bottom of such shenanigans quickly. The fact he didn't speaks volumes.
Michale -
Like Paula, I do enjoy when you laud "leadership" on the one hand, and then excoriate Obama for "throwing someone under the bus" on the other hand. Strange how that works, eh?
TheStig [4] -
I, too, hate "Bridgegate"... just had to say that...
Good point, though, on the Nixon parallels. "Enemies lists" and all of that...
[5] -
Yeah, but the 2 hrs will allow CC to later state "he answered all the media's questions," which will be a political asset for him.
Michale [7] -
OK, I just have to call "bullshit" here. The original Star Trek series, with Cap'n Kirk, full of hormones, and kicking ass and taking names everywhere in the galaxy he went... lasted only 3 years. So, sorry, but macho isn't any sort of measure.
And, seriously, you're counting Voyager in with your stats? I mean, I liked the series (better than I ever liked TNG, I might add), but hardcore Trek fans seemed to hate it. I mean, a WOMAN captain? Who stood about five-foot-nothing?
Heh.
Paula [8] -
Actually, that's a valid topic of conversation here. Michale and I see eye-to-eye on very limited topics, but this does happen to be one of them. I can't personally chime in on the Stargate thing, as the movie is the only thing I enjoyed in that series, but Star Trek arguments can get quite convoluted, here.
Heh.
:-)
-CW
David,
Still in denial though, eh?
No US Ambassador has been killed since the Carter Administration when Ambassador Dubs was killed in Kabul in 1979.
Then along came Obama's incompetence and Ambassador Stevens was killed on 11 Sep 2012 in Benghazi.
I wish I'd of invest in Nestor though. Will post the link in a separate post. Nestor is a stock that went up 1900% as people confused it with Nest.
Where's a time machine when ya need one, eh!?? :D
CW,
OK, I just have to call "bullshit" here. The original Star Trek series, with Cap'n Kirk, full of hormones, and kicking ass and taking names everywhere in the galaxy he went... lasted only 3 years. So, sorry, but macho isn't any sort of measure.
Yea, but ya have to go back almost 50 years. It was quite a different time back then, I am sure you will agree..
But you actually prove my point for me. Liberal Hollywood have done everything they can to distance themselves from the Original Trek.. They even tried to KILL the "Star Trek" part of Star Trek: Enterprise in Season 2 (Might have been Season 3). Fans excoriated Beavis & Butthead for that and ST:Enterprise never recovered. Which is a shame because ST:Enterprise had some really good aspects to it. It was at it's best when it was laying the foundation for the Original Trek.
As to Voyager, I liked it as well. I didn't expect much from it, calling it a LOST IN SPACE wannabe... But I was pleasantly surprised. Especially after they lost Kes and added Seven Of DoubleD :D
I can't personally chime in on the Stargate thing, as the movie is the only thing I enjoyed in that series, but Star Trek arguments can get quite convoluted, here.
This entire line of reasoning came about while I was laying new CAT5 at work for a LAN upgrade. I was mulling over the Weigantian discussions and somehow STARGATE UNIVERSE popped into my head. I remember thinking to myself, "It had such great potential, coming off of nearly two decades of the successful Stargate franchise. But then liberals got ahold of it and killed it.." and viola..
An argument was born.. :D
Liberals are even MORE culpable because when they destroyed Stargate Universe, they killed the Stargate Atlantis movie that was in the works...
If you like great time-travel movies, I would highly recommend STARGATE SG1: Continuum... :D
Michale
Is there a way to GOOGLE media articles for specific time frames???
Michale
Is there a way to GOOGLE media articles for specific time frames???
Never mind.. :D
David,
Yemen Consulate Attack, Sep 2008? No Americans killed..
Istanbul Consulate Attack, July 2008? No Americans killed...
Yemen Consulate Attack, Mar 2008?? Attack missed the consulate. No Americans killed..
Syria Consulate Attack, Sep 2006?? Only casualties were the attackers. No Americans killed..
Karachi Consulate Attack, Mar 2006?? The attack was actually against the Marriot Hotel, not against the Consulate itself. David Foy, FSO was the only American killed
Tashkent Consulate Attack, Jun 2004?? No Americans killed..
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea..
The author of that little graphic is utterly and completely ignorant of the circumstances or, more likely, doesn't want to concede the facts..
There is absolutely NO comparison between the incompetence and the lies of Benghazi to any past event....
Michale
There is absolutely NO comparison between the incompetence and the lies of Benghazi to any past event.
Here I couldn't agree with you more ;)
(Albeit for different reasons)
-David
Here I couldn't agree with you more ;)
I am glad you can finally concede that there has NEVER been a scandal full of lies and incompetence as Obama's Benghazi scandal..
I mean, honestly. The Obama Administration blatantly stated that the anti-muslim video prompted the protest that turned into an attack.
There WAS no video in Benghazi.
There was no protest in Benghazi.
What there was was a terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda offshoot in Libya...
THESE are the facts....
Obama lied.. Our ambassador died...
It's that simple...
Michale
Shoes continue to drop on Christie. The landscape is tilting further, and fat guys don't move well uphill.
Yes, 2016 is a long way off, but as handicappers, can we agree the Christie presidential odds need a severe downgrading? More mayors are coming forth! Athletes are coming forth with accusations! Athletes!
I think I smell toast... and I'm no where near running out of metaphors.