• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Christie's New Jersey Is Least Solvent State

Removable Mind said:
He is a rising star among the right base...sort of. He's too moderate for many Republicans. But has appeal to a lot of independent voters.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence was correct, not the first. He does not appeal to the GOP base. He DOES present as a 'centrist' of sorts and as such appeals to many independent voters. In a state like New Jersey I think he has to. I dont think any of us know what Christie really is or stands for. I dont see him winning the GOP nomination.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont think any of us know what Christie really is or stands for. I dont see him winning the GOP nomination.
Click to expand...

A lot of people said that about Romney. And McCain

But the fact is, despite all the talk about the power of the "republican base", the GOP has a habit of nominating "establishment" republicans.
 
sangha said:
A lot of people said that about Romney. And McCain

But the fact is, despite all the talk about the power of the "republican base", the GOP has a habit of nominating "establishment" republicans.
Click to expand...

At least in the last two cycles, they also have the habit of nominating whoever is considered "next in line." McCain in 2004, Romney in 2008. But I think that's too small of a sample size to determine any sort of trend.
 
sangha said:
A lot of people said that about Romney. And McCain

But the fact is, despite all the talk about the power of the "republican base", the GOP has a habit of nominating "establishment" republicans.
Click to expand...

The Republicans usually nominates the next in line. I suppose Romney fits in there as he ran in 2008. McCain ran in 2000 so his nomination fits the bill. Although he didn't run for Republican nomination in 1996, George W. Bush thought about before declining as did McCain. Dole who ran against Clinton in 1996 was a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1988 and won 5 states. Reagan ran in 1976 against Ford before he was nominated in 1980 and so it goes. The next in line continues. Hopefully 2016 will break the next in line streak.
 
Kobie said:
At least in the last two cycles, they also have the habit of nominating whoever is considered "next in line." McCain in 2004, Romney in 2008. But I think that's too small of a sample size to determine any sort of trend.
Click to expand...

McCain wasn't "next in line". He tripped into the nomination: it was like an accident.

Mitt Romney was definitely next in line though. He spent 2006-2012 kissing up to the G.O.P. establishment.
 
Kobie said:
At least in the last two cycles, they also have the habit of nominating whoever is considered "next in line." McCain in 2004, Romney in 2008. But I think that's too small of a sample size to determine any sort of trend.
Click to expand...

Perotista said:
The Republicans usually nominates the next in line. I suppose Romney fits in there as he ran in 2008. McCain ran in 2000 so his nomination fits the bill. Although he didn't run for Republican nomination in 1996, George W. Bush thought about before declining as did McCain. Dole who ran against Clinton in 1996 was a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1988 and won 5 states. Reagan ran in 1976 against Ford before he was nominated in 1980 and so it goes. The next in line continues. Hopefully 2016 will break the next in line streak.
Click to expand...

I guess "next in line" could be a reasonable way to put it, but I don't see it that way. What I've seen is that the GOP primaries have a variety of candidates and the candidates from the right wing of the party have a habit of "crash and burn" and it's someone from the more moderate and established part of the spectrum who wins the nomination.
 
reinoe said:
McCain wasn't "next in line". He tripped into the nomination: it was like an accident.

Mitt Romney was definitely next in line though. He spent 2006-2012 kissing up to the G.O.P. establishment.
Click to expand...

McCain was the runner-up in the 2000 primaries.

EDIT: I meant 2008 and 2012 with McCain/Romney, not 2004 and 2008.
 
sangha said:
I guess "next in line" could be a reasonable way to put it, but I don't see it that way. What I've seen is that the GOP primaries have a variety of candidates and the candidates from the right wing of the party have a habit of "crash and burn" and it's someone from the more moderate and established part of the spectrum who wins the nomination.
Click to expand...

That was definitely evident in 2012. Not quite as much in 2008 ... the only real whackadoodle was Keyes, and nobody paid him any attention.
 
Kobie said:
At least in the last two cycles, they also have the habit of nominating whoever is considered "next in line." McCain in 2004, Romney in 2008. But I think that's too small of a sample size to determine any sort of trend.
Click to expand...
Bush was the outlier. The GOP also nominated Bob Dole for no other reason than he was 'next in line'.

Frankly I think members of both parties should be disgusted with their choices for candidate. But then...I found Gary Johnson to be a tremendous letdown as well.
 
VanceMack said:
Bush was the outlier. The GOP also nominated Bob Dole for no other reason than he was 'next in line'.

Frankly I think members of both parties should be disgusted with their choices for candidate. But then...I found Gary Johnson to be a tremendous letdown as well.
Click to expand...

I remember the slate of GOP candidates in 2000 being remarkably underwhelming. Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes actually stuck around for a while. Gore won the Ds in a walk, but IIRC I voted for Bill Bradley in the primary.
 
sangha said:
I guess "next in line" could be a reasonable way to put it, but I don't see it that way. What I've seen is that the GOP primaries have a variety of candidates and the candidates from the right wing of the party have a habit of "crash and burn" and it's someone from the more moderate and established part of the spectrum who wins the nomination.
Click to expand...

I think all fringe candidate will crash and burn at some point. I never seriously considered Bachman, Santorium, Gingrich of having a chance of winning the nomination in 2012. It was Romney's to lose and the cash he piled up and spent, he wasn't about to lose even if he had to buy the nomination. By that I mean in every state Romney won he outspent all of his opponents 5-1 and sometimes as high as 10-1. In every state where the money was relative even, Romney lost. So I suppose one could say he bought the nomination.

The next in line sticks as to the crash and burn fringe candidates. I thought Perry would do much better than he did, but even Perry didn't have the cash to challenge Romney much. But the side shows are pretty interesting and keep us talking even we know in the end the fringe candidates are going nowhere. You have to go back to 1964 to when an establishment or next in line candidate didn't win the republican nomination.
 
Perotista said:
I think all fringe candidate will crash and burn at some point. I never seriously considered Bachman, Santorium, Gingrich of having a chance of winning the nomination in 2012. It was Romney's to lose and the cash he piled up and spent, he wasn't about to lose even if he had to buy the nomination. By that I mean in every state Romney won he outspent all of his opponents 5-1 and sometimes as high as 10-1. In every state where the money was relative even, Romney lost. So I suppose one could say he bought the nomination.

The next in line sticks as to the crash and burn fringe candidates. I thought Perry would do much better than he did, but even Perry didn't have the cash to challenge Romney much. But the side shows are pretty interesting and keep us talking even we know in the end the fringe candidates are going nowhere. You have to go back to 1964 to when an establishment or next in line candidate didn't win the republican nomination.
Click to expand...

I was actually surprised Perry didn't do better than he wound up doing. I thought he had just enough Tea Party support to placate the right, while he maintaining his sanity so the moderates didn't flee in droves. But he crapped out pretty quick.
 
Kobie said:
I was actually surprised Perry didn't do better than he wound up doing. I thought he had just enough Tea Party support to placate the right, while he maintaining his sanity so the moderates didn't flee in droves. But he crapped out pretty quick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, That surprised me too.
 
VanceMack said:
Your last sentence was correct, not the first. He does not appeal to the GOP base. He DOES present as a 'centrist' of sorts and as such appeals to many independent voters. In a state like New Jersey I think he has to. I dont think any of us know what Christie really is or stands for. I dont see him winning the GOP nomination.
Click to expand...

Well, he's in a world of disarray. Don't know if he'll survive. He appears to have peed in his peanut butter.
 
Kobie said:
I was actually surprised Perry didn't do better than he wound up doing. I thought he had just enough Tea Party support to placate the right, while he maintaining his sanity so the moderates didn't flee in droves. But he crapped out pretty quick.
Click to expand...
Not too shocking actually. Perry just mouthed rhetoric. His 'end' came when he took the position three branches of the fed should be shut down and he couldnt answer which three.
 
Removable Mind said:
Well, he's in a world of disarray. Don't know if he'll survive. He appears to have peed in his peanut butter.
Click to expand...
Theres a visual I dont think any of us need...Stare into the sun...quick...stare into the sun!!!
 
sangha said:
Mayor of Hoboken, N.J.: Christie aides tied Sandy fund requests to support for project - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Morning, Sangha. Long time no see.

IMO, "CLAIMS" of his direct involvement in the bridge incident isn't the problem. It was how he dissed (and arrogance about) the situation just after it occurred. That alone started a media frenzy...they didn't really care whether or not the incident was a problem and/or directly related to him. It's a win-win for the tabloids, which make up virtually all news sources. But he sits in the "buck stops here seat".

That's not the only issue being hurled at Christie. The Fed is jumping in on a couple of issues.

He's just been in the right place at the wrong time...whether he's directly involved or not. The press doesn't discriminate. It'll **** up anyone without flinching.

IOW, the media slaughter will hurt Christie...guilty or not.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Agreed on all 5 points, and with me, conservatives need to get their heads out of their asses on this one. Although I am not endorsing Christie (Assuming he really had no involvement in the bridge fiasco) he doesn't play social politics like some of the other more right leaning candidates do, and to me that's a good thing, and why I think independents break for him. Don't know how that will play out in the primaries though, but we'll see. I do like that he seems to have it together fiscally, and isn't afraid to take on big unions, and can articulate (Albeit rather bluntly) conservative fiscal principles in a way that lay people seem to get. Another thing I like is that this guy over any other (R) will most definitely bring it to Hillary in a presidential election.

Three biggest things concerning Americans are, Debt, Economy, and Democare. However, the Dems will make the or try really, really hard to make the issues, Immigration, war on women, and general inequality issues. The low information voters will eat it up, but I'm hoping not enough. Christie seems to be the best to handle those issues, whereas guys like Cruz, Rubio, and Paul seem like they'd fall into the dems trap.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I am under the impression that he does not appeal to the tea party. He is too moderate.
 
Removable Mind said:
Morning, Sangha. Long time no see.

IMO, "CLAIMS" of his direct involvement in the bridge incident isn't the problem. It was how he dissed (and arrogance about) the situation just after it occurred. That alone started a media frenzy...they didn't really care whether or not the incident was a problem and/or directly related to him. It's a win-win for the tabloids, which make up virtually all news sources. But he sits in the "buck stops here seat".

That's not the only issue being hurled at Christie. The Fed is jumping in on a couple of issues.

He's just been in the right place at the wrong time...whether he's directly involved or not. The press doesn't discriminate. It'll **** up anyone without flinching.

IOW, the media slaughter will hurt Christie...guilty or not.
Click to expand...

I not only agree with everything you said, but I also do not believe that he actually ordered the bridge closing

To be honest, I think it may have been the result of a miscommunication. I think his aides misheard him. They thought he said "Close the bridge!!", but what he really said was "Close the fridge!!"
 
sangha said:
Mayor of Hoboken, N.J.: Christie aides tied Sandy fund requests to support for project - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

I believe that's just the Party's marching orders message having been received ...
sharks-circling.png
 
sangha said:
Mayor of Hoboken, N.J.: Christie aides tied Sandy fund requests to support for project - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Let me start over Sangha...just start sipping my java, so I wasn't very clear in my previous reply to you in which I said the following:

IMO, "CLAIMS" of his direct involvement in the bridge incident isn't the problem. It was how he dissed (and arrogance about) the situation just after it occurred. That alone started a media frenzy...they didn't really care whether or not the incident was a problem and/or directly related to him. It's a win-win for the tabloids, which make up virtually all news sources. But he sits in the "buck stops here seat".

That's not the only issue being hurled at Christie. The Fed is jumping in on a couple of issues.

He's just been in the right place at the wrong time...whether he's directly involved or not. The press doesn't discriminate. It'll **** up anyone without flinching.

IOW, the media slaughter will hurt Christie...guilty or not.
Click to expand...

My point is that Christie's arrogance following the bridge incident was the fuse that set off a chain of accusation regarding several things. The media (the tabloids) when on a killing frenzy. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether or not he's guilty...the slice and dice tabloids has effectively damaged Christie.
 
Removable Mind said:
Let me start over Sangha...just start sipping my java, so I wasn't very clear in my previous reply to you in which I said the following:



My point is that Christie's arrogance following the bridge incident was the fuse that set off a chain of accusation regarding several things. The media (the tabloids) when on a killing frenzy. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether or not he's guilty...the slice and dice tabloids has effectively damaged Christie.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that

Whether he ordered it, or knew about it (or not) this scandal goes right to his image as a take charge leader who doesn't mince words. It reveals him to be just another typical politician engaged in political corruption and when he caught, he engages in the same sort of political talk (ie "I take responsibility but I didn't know anything") that every other crooked pol uses to evade responsibility.

In addition, because the bridge closing was such an obvious example of political overreach and abuse of power, the media is now free to dig up every instance in which he has thrown his (political) weight around and use it to reinforce the image of him as corrupt politician.

Now, every deal he has made, every contract his state has awarded, and every endorsement he has received, will be looked into for signs of political favoritism and quid pro quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom