I know Christie is moderate on social issues, but I don't think that that would help him with liberal leaning voters or voters concerned with union rights, unemployment, retirement age, living standards, etc.
And we are in agreement, however, being an independent doesn't mean that they naturally take one set of assumptions over another. You are assuming that to be independent is to be interested in maintaining the status-quo of public unions throughout the country when those states have debt crises of their own. It did not happen so well with Wisconsin or in New Jersey, and the same might be duplicated elsewhere.
I know that a lot of people on the right, and considered far right, do like Christie
When it came to dealing with the unions in a troubled state, yes, they liked him for
achieving results.
... Ann Coulter really likes him. I also know the Bush family talked to him about running for national office or considering the VP, so I don't think the establishment has a problem with him. The establishment GOP always supported Romney. They like Christie because he is far right on economic issues, and he doesn't take ****. That seems to be his calling card, with his aggression, and I don't see it getting many independents or even left leaning independents.
Alright, I have a few problems here. Ann Coulter's opinions are Ann Coulter's, whether or not I would consider her
far right is another matter, because I would be far more likely to stick to labeling her a "attention-whoring, obnoxious commentator that will say or do anything to get into the news and to attack liberals, regardless of former stances."
Next, the Bush family. Ok, so we have a set of assumptions here which beg questions. Bush Sr. was a conservative fellow during his time, correct? However, his foreign policy took a lot less "oomph" for the hawks, right? That being said, what I am noticing here is a problem in really sticking to what is "far right." In recent years, the left had taken a liking to Sr. over Jr, whom it labeled as "far right" (mostly just because of the hawkish foreign policy and some social conservative stances). Next, you mention the GOP establishment as being "far right." However, the narrative for the past two years of almost anyone who has used the term "GOP Establishment," meant to connect it with one of the following: "wrong way for conservatives," "sensible conservatives," or "moderates."
Next set of assumptions. While achieving results with regard to unions in New Jersey, comparatively speaking, does New Jersey politics match up really well with southwestern conservatism or southeastern conservatism? If your definition of economic conservatism is to mean less government and less spending, wouldn't one want to think that a certain Republican politician hailing from a House district of Texas that ran for President as fitting the bill of "far right"? Has Christie suggested the close inspection of the Fed, removal of numerous government agencies and/or departments?
My comparison to Palin is because Palin seemed far right, a conservative candidate only. She was inexperienced too, and combined with her far right positions she was basically a doomed national candidate.
Her positions, if I may be so bold, were incredibly vague, for the most part (part of the reason why I was turned off by the ticket). She was a fairly typical conservative populist (which seems to breed catchphrases and vagueness). Was it "far right" to say "Real America," "Lamestream Media," "Drill Baby Drill" and the other assortment of strange catchphrases the woman came up with? If you want to take her position on abortion as an example, I would be willing to play that. If you want to suggest that her top priority being to keep the definition of marriage between man and woman a far Right position, I would accept portions of that but remind the fairly ubiquitous play that position gets across the two parties. However, let me remind you that: she doesn't reject feminism as a whole (she's just a conservative variation), she wants a
fully funded IDEA (something that both liberals and conservatives haven't been able/willing to do), is fine with a path to citizenship that is not seen as amnesty for illegal immigrants, and so on.
Was Palin's issue mostly due to inexperience or being too far right? That can be debated all day. But from my personal POV, I saw a lot of Hillary supporters ready to line up and vote for McCain until he put Palin on the ticket. The day her candidacy was announced, they were felt Palin's selection was offensive... and way before the interviews. They didn't like her because she was a major social conservative and everything Hillary was not. I also knew somebody, said he wouldn't vote until Palin entered the race. Her religious philosophy made him so angry, he voted against her.
Her biggest problem was mostly because of her inexperience with the press and/or in politics. Remember the "heartbeat away" rhetoric, remember the Katie interview, remember SNL. Perceived inexperience and incompetence with the media. Voters willing to vote for Hillary Clinton would be far more likely to
not vote for Palin because Palin was simply
more conservative. I remember the grumbling about Obama, but I never believed for a second that loyal Democrats were going to switch parties over Barack Obama.
I am sure her interview skills and debate performances turned a lot off too, but I definitely know her positions had a lot to do with it as well.
For Democrats or those more willing to vote for a Democrat that time around, "you betcha." For Republicans or those toying with the idea of voting Republican, not so much.
