• 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!

Has "Bridgegate" eliminated Chris Christie's chances for president?

Has "Bridgegate" eliminated Chris Christie's chances for president?


  • Total voters
    66
If the right insists on making the perfect the enemy of the good they are likely to lose the next presidential election.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. is "in touch".

But the democrats seem more willing to listen and pretend to care about things that make them seem more in touch. Whatever their staff says will look good under casual scrutiny, probably.

Republicans tend to either follow their personal beliefs (not necessarily religious, you understand) more, and thus appear to disregard "the people" a bit more - depending who you selectively call "the people" in a given conversation.


Then of course there are the propaganda agencies of both parties - the Democrat propaganda system seems better at it's job.....
I mean the "news" agencies, of course.

This obviously means that the spin on democrat actions is usually better when it shows up in the news.
 
Can someone explain to me why he was ticked off a democrat didn't support him? That would be like Obama blocking all interstate highways in ohio because John Boner didn't endorse him. Of course he didn't he is a republican.

Christie wasn't ticked off. Some of his staff were apparently ticked off because so many other Dems were supporting Christie.:peace
 
It might hurt him but I dont know if it sunk him. I do like him though but not all of his beliefs.
 
4 of the latest polls matching Paul against Clinton
CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54 Paul 41 Clinton +13
Quinnipiac Clinton 48 Paul 41 Clinton +7
McClatchy/Marist Clinton 55 Paul 40 Clinton +15
Quinnipiac Clinton 49 Paul 40 Clinton +9

But with a little less than 3 years to go, these polls do not mean that much, just a snapshot of the day. But what is important is the favorable/unfavorable ratings. Here they are for most candidates:
Clinton 47% favorable 45% unfavorable
Christie 43% favorable 31% unfavorable
Paul 34% favorable 39% unfavorable
Cruz 26% favorable 40% unfavorable
Bush 31% favorable 41% unfavorable

Those in the minus area have a lot of work to do. Clinton is well known, flaws and all. Christie is better known than the rest, but we will have to see how this bridge incident hurts him. The rest need a lot of improvement to become a viable candidate. But they have the time.

blacks and minorites will not support Clinton the way they did Obama
 
He claims he had nothing to do with the bridge closure, it was his aide that did it.

Yes, He's toast

No, he's still in the running

I Don't Know

i said i don't know because i think it depends on how he handles it. he has set himself up as a no-crap kind of guy. I think if he makes a strong and majorly offensive move against all involved, and maybe become one of his own biggest critics, i think he could set himself as a one chance guy who doesn't take failure as an option and save his chances for 2016
 
He claims he had nothing to do with the bridge closure, it was his aide that did it.

Yes, He's toast

No, he's still in the running

I Don't Know

Not really since he had nothing to do with it and he is handling it very well.
 
blacks and minorites will not support Clinton the way they did Obama

It is hard to tell at this point. It probably all depends on who the candidate is the Republicans choose. Historically since 1964 until Obama blacks voted 90% in favor the Democratic Party. That percentage rose to approximately 95% in 2008 and 2012. In 2016 it will probably drop back to around the historical average of 90%. In 2012 Blacks made up 12.5% of the electorate, 95% of those voted for Obama or 11.875% of the electorate and 0.625% voted Republican. Back to normal levels which is bound to happen doesn't mean much of a gain for the Republicans or a loss to the Democrats. Instead of receiving 11.875% the Democrats will receive 11.25% and the republicans 1.25% of the electorate. That is a whopping 0.625% difference or in total votes from 2012 of 762,500 out of 122,000,000. Blacks cast approximately 15,250,000 votes in 2012 of which 14,488,000 went to Obama. If Obama received the historical average of 90% of the black vote he would have gotten 13,725,000 instead of the 14,488,000.
 
Christie was superb today: honest, forthright and accountable. I will support him for POTUS in 2016.:peace



I believe him too, simply because I don't think he is that stupid..
 
It is hard to tell at this point. It probably all depends on who the candidate is the Republicans choose. Historically since 1964 until Obama blacks voted 90% in favor the Democratic Party. That percentage rose to approximately 95% in 2008 and 2012. In 2016 it will probably drop back to around the historical average of 90%. In 2012 Blacks made up 12.5% of the electorate, 95% of those voted for Obama or 11.875% of the electorate and 0.625% voted Republican. Back to normal levels which is bound to happen doesn't mean much of a gain for the Republicans or a loss to the Democrats. Instead of receiving 11.875% the Democrats will receive 11.25% and the republicans 1.25% of the electorate. That is a whopping 0.625% difference or in total votes from 2012 of 762,500 out of 122,000,000. Blacks cast approximately 15,250,000 votes in 2012 of which 14,488,000 went to Obama. If Obama received the historical average of 90% of the black vote he would have gotten 13,725,000 instead of the 14,488,000.

This actually reminds me of something that has bugged me for awhile now...

Why does such a large percentage of black persons vote democrat?
 
I don't know, I watched him on CNN and listened to a couple of their pundits. They think he did the right thing in apologizing and firing the guy. They also think he is home free unless another smoking gun is found that ties it directly to him. At least as far as they are concerned, the bridge closing is behind him. For now as they put it. I tend to believe them. I know democrats will try to tar him for this and republicans will say it is no big deal, he's innocent and just a product of a democratic witch hunt. But I am not sure how independents will view this whole thing.

But I will worry about independents later. I am still not sure if Christie can win in the Republican primaries and all of this is moot if he doesn't. Christie probably has more to worry about him embracing President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy than the bridge closing.



Ummmm and you don't think that there may be certain Republican presidential hopefuls that would love to see him ruined??
 
Personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. is "in touch".

But the democrats seem more willing to listen and pretend to care about things that make them seem more in touch. Whatever their staff says will look good under casual scrutiny, probably.

Republicans tend to either follow their personal beliefs (not necessarily religious, you understand) more, and thus appear to disregard "the people" a bit more - depending who you selectively call "the people" in a given conversation.


Then of course there are the propaganda agencies of both parties - the Democrat propaganda system seems better at it's job.....
I mean the "news" agencies, of course.

This obviously means that the spin on democrat actions is usually better when it shows up in the news.




I pretty much agree with what you are saying here.

What we have in Washington, D.C. is pretty much the same thing that we've had since 2008, meaning that it's not all that great for the USA and its people.
 
It just solidifies his candidacy as a democrat! Please encourage him to switch parties so he can be where he belongs.

Typical Republican-speak. When your guy gets caught, just transform him into a Dem.
 
Personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. is "in touch".

But the democrats seem more willing to listen and pretend to care about things that make them seem more in touch. Whatever their staff says will look good under casual scrutiny, probably.

Republicans tend to either follow their personal beliefs (not necessarily religious, you understand) more, and thus appear to disregard "the people" a bit more - depending who you selectively call "the people" in a given conversation.


Then of course there are the propaganda agencies of both parties - the Democrat propaganda system seems better at it's job.....
I mean the "news" agencies, of course.

This obviously means that the spin on democrat actions is usually better when it shows up in the news.

The Dems are better on social issues. Both parties are disasters on economics.
 
Democratic strategist, Bob Shrum said earlier, that he thought this controversy and the way Christie handled it will help him.

Democrats LOVE Christie. He should be able to win the DEMOCRATIC primary for president hands down for their incessant raving praises about him.
 
Whew...well, that's one less democrat we're going to have to contend with...
 
Too much time before the election. Unless he is directly linked to the act it will fade into the past except for the rhetoric of those who fear him.
 
This actually reminds me of something that has bugged me for awhile now...

Why does such a large percentage of black persons vote democrat?

It goes back to FDR and the great depression. Prior to 1932 blacks, the ones who could vote anyway voted overwhelmingly Republican. This makes sense as it was Republican Lincoln who freed them. But starting in 1932 they began switching to the Democratic Party and FDR and by 1936 71% of blacks voted for FDR while only 44% of blacks at that time identified themselves with the Democratic Party. But the shift would continue. This should not be a surprise as the majority of whites also became Democrats. By the end of WWII 56% of all Americans identified with the Democratic Party vs. only 26% with the Republicans. Mainly because FDR provided hope during the depression and brought America victory in WWII. In 1948 75% of Blacks voted for Truman while only 60% of Blacks identified themselves as Democrats.

Eisenhower in 1956 became the last Republican to receive 40% of the black vote, Nixon in 1960 received 30% of the black vote and since then the average has been around 10% By 1968 85% of blacks now identified themselves as Democrats and that pretty much continues to today. In 1960 Nixon was asked to speak before an NAACP gathering and he declined, JFK accepted and by not accepting considering Nixon lost the election by only 110,000 votes, it probably cost him the presidency. But blacks noticed this. 1964 Goldwater voted against the civil rights bill and that added more insult to injury. The movement from Republican to Democrat was complete.

Blacks had been very loyal to the Republicans from the Civil War until the Great Depression probably voting in roughly the same number for them as they do now for the Democrats. Although I can find no stats on it from that time period. But from 1932 to 1964, while blacks were completing this switch, the Republicans could have gained a lot of them back as proved by IKE’s 40% of the black vote in 1956. At least it wouldn’t be monolithic. Nixon in 1960 and the nomination of Goldwater was the final nail in the coffin that sealed the loyalty of blacks to the Democrats. Republicans since has pretty well ignored the black vote and really has done nothing to attract them to their party.

This is the best I can come up with right off the bat. It leaves a lot out, but it would take a book to explain it all in detail. The thing to remember about this time period, from 1936 until 1970 the majority of all Americans identified themselves as Democrats, over 50% and the Democrats didn’t fall below the 50% mark until 1970 when they hit 48% and it has been downhill from there to today where the Democrats stand at 30% of the entire electorate. The Republicans who were at 26% at the end of WWII are at 24% today. But the key years were 1932-1964. There were years during that time period 32-64 where the Democrats controlled the House by 333-89, 313-117 and even as late as 1967 295-140. The senate was at times just as bad with the Democrats controlling it 75-17, 69-23, 66-28 and in 1967 68-32. This gives you an idea how the Democratic Party dominated politics during that time frame, with over 50% of the electorate associating themselves with the Democratic Party, it shouldn’t be a surprise.

It took Eisenhower to break a 20 year string of Democratic presidencies, Nixon did win in 1968 by a sliver over Humphrey, but the Democrats split their votes between Wallace and Humphrey back then. Much like the Republicans did back in 1912 between Roosevelt and Taft that let Wilson win.
 
Ummmm and you don't think that there may be certain Republican presidential hopefuls that would love to see him ruined??

I do, I believe Christie will have a rougher time winning the nomination than the general election. Very much so, there are plenty of republicans that want to see him ruined to a point where he won't run. After all, he is just a RINO. From what I see in the break down of the polls, Christie strength is with independents, not so much within the republican party. Today only 18% of Republicans want him as their nominee. But Christie would defeat Clinton in the general election match up because independents prefer him over Clinton by a 49% to 26% margin.

It seem independent like him a whole lot more than Republicans
 
Except that I've been saying this about Christie for years now, but then why let facts get into the way of your leftist rhetoric.


Typical Republican-speak. When your guy gets caught, just transform him into a Dem.
 
I'm not excited about Christie but I have to be honest. I'm voting for anyone who has a chance of winning who isn't a democrat.

I think if Christie, as a campaigner, is as straight forward and blunt as he was when he first took office, he'd be difficult to beat, even though as an administrator he reminds me too much of McCain.
 
I do, I believe Christie will have a rougher time winning the nomination than the general election. Very much so, there are plenty of republicans that want to see him ruined to a point where he won't run. After all, he is just a RINO. From what I see in the break down of the polls, Christie strength is with independents, not so much within the republican party. Today only 18% of Republicans want him as their nominee. But Christie would defeat Clinton in the general election match up because independents prefer him over Clinton by a 49% to 26% margin.

It seem independent like him a whole lot more than Republicans

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Absolutely. And IF CC gets the GOP nod, the wingnuts WILL hold their nose and vote for him, anyways, before they vote for Hilda.

Christie is the only hope I see for the GOP to regain the oval office. But there's plenty of time for the dynamics to change a dozen times yet.
 
Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Absolutely. And IF CC gets the GOP nod, the wingnuts WILL hold their nose and vote for him, anyways, before they vote for Hilda.

Christie is the only hope I see for the GOP to regain the oval office. But there's plenty of time for the dynamics to change a dozen times yet.

Sure is. What we see today may be completely changed tomorrow. We have no idea what events, what happenings, what issues will be hot come 2016. Back in December of 2011 and January of 2012, Generic Republican Candidate was trouncing President Obama and it looked like the Republicans would pick up 7 or 8 seats in the senate and more seats in the house. But things changed immensely over the next 10 months and Obama won re-election fairly easily, the Republicans lost 2 senate seats and I think 6 house seats. What was important in December and January became irrelevant in November of 2012.

They say a month is an eon in politics, what does that make nearly 3 years? An eternity in politics I suppose.
 
I think Christie's weight issue eliminates him from ever being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
 
Typical Republican-speak. When your guy gets caught, just transform him into a Dem.

He wasn't "caught" in anything except being an honest, forthright, accountable leader. Excellent POTUS material.:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom