Coulter makes sense for once...kind of.

[Keystone Phil]

She suggests that we run Christie (good). If we don't run him, Romney will be the nominee (not necessarily) and we will lose (not a bad bet).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49407.html

[Keystone Phil]

She makes no sense. Christie didn't even beat Obama here in NJ.

Ah, I missed that Obama vs. Christie race. What year was that?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/12/coulter-politics-101/

And when asked why the U.S. should support Israel knowing that there are jailed dissidents and journalists, she joked, "What do you mean? I think there should be more jailed journalists."

"Here's a lesson of history: Do not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy. Not even to keep them away from domestic policy. It's a mistake to ask those who don't even like democracy to defend it," she said.




Yep, she makes sense all right.

Ok, troll, the topic is about her making sense for once. So stay on topic or leave.

[Keystone Phil]

No, she doesn't makes sense even there.

Ok so at least stay on topic.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, as Rowan correctly pointed out, is irrelevant. He would be running against Obama for President of the United States of America, not New Jersey.

[Keystone Phil]

A Republican doesn't need NJ to win so I don't even understand what the point is that you're trying to make.

I was making the point that if Christie can't win in his own state, it doesn't spell good for the rest of the country.

Again, that doesn't make sense. If Mitt Romney runs, does anyone really expect him to carry Massachusetts?

And who was the last Republican to carry NJ?

George H.W Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

And I think we had a Republican President since then. Christie doesn't need New Jersey to win the Presidency.

[Keystone Phil]

Of course he isn't going to win New Jersey. To point that out is extremely meaningless.

We shouldn't expect anything else from certain members here.

[Keystone Phil]

And I think we had a Republican President since then. Christie doesn't need New Jersey to win the Presidency.

Not winning it is one thing.
Not even making it competitive when he is supposedly so beloved, is another.

Px doing the only thing he knows how to do: changing the subject.

No one has said he is beloved. He has an approval rating around 50%. In New Jersey, that's excellent. He's popular but not beloved. They just don't want him running for President but if you think it won't be competitive and make Obama spend time and money there, you're wrong. At least you're consistent though.

[Keystone Phil]

Al Gore didn't resonate enough in his home state of Tennessee so, naturally, there was no way he was going to win the popular vote in 2000.

[Keystone Phil]

Al Gore didn't resonate enough in his home state of Tennessee so, naturally, there was no way he was going to win the popular vote in 2000.

Al Gore wasn't a sitting statewide official in Tennessee at the time of the election and hadn't been for years. I don't think a sitting Governor or Senator who could even possibly lose their own home state is all that viable.

What does that matter? He was a Senator and a Congressman from said state for awhile and helped Clinton carry it in 1992 and 1996.

You're clueless if you think someone isn't viable because they can't win their home state especially when that state is usually safe the other way. It isn't necessary for victory so it has no impact on a candidate's viability.

If Christie is losing his home state by the same amount that McCain lost it, what does that say about the rest of the country?

Here's the obvious answer: the rest of the country isn't as Democratic/liberal as New Jersey!

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally different set of circumstances. By the way, why are we all taking this one poll to be golden? He's losing by the same margin as Huckabee. Does anyone really think that would happen?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not saying it is. But if Christie is losing New Jersey by the same amount that McCain lost it, even if you completely ignore the home state factor boosting his numbers, then he's about on par with McCain. Which is great for Christie except that McCain sort of lost, by a good amount.

He's on par with McCain...in New Jersey. That has no baring on the national landscape.

[Keystone Phil]

You really ought to cease with the name calling, it doesn't help your argument. That said, one of the reasons Christie is even talked up is because he won the Governor's seat in a blue state. Rather the state is necessary for a win isn't my point, it's about crossover appeal. As a sitting Governor, one would have to show a few points of crossover appeal in their own home state in order to crossover in a Presidential election.

Wrong. Totally wrong.

One of the reasons why Christie is talked up is because he's a conservative Governor in a liberal state. That isn't his only strong point with Republicans.

Also, I still don't understand why lacking crossover appeal in a state that is pretty solid for the opposition in a Presidential election year means someone cannot have crossover appeal elsewhere. I think you know it is a foolish point, too. It's just so obvious.

[Keystone Phil]

If crossover appeal wasn't some of the reasoning behind Republicans talking him up, then why is that his being a conservative Governor in a liberal state even a strong point for him? You are contradicting yourself and don't even realize it.

Because it proves that long odds can be overcome. New Jersey Democrats might be too stubborn to vote for anyone but Obama/any other Democrat in a Presidential race but Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, etc. are a different story.