Are Chris Christie's Problems with the Republican Base Exageratted?

[illegaloperation]

Not at all.

Christie have the same problem as Huntsman does.

[barfbag]

Not at all.

Christie have the same problem as Huntsman does.

Not quite that bad. Christie comes off as a roaring leader who is tough on unions and defense. I hope ideology doesn't sink him in the primary because he'd do a good job as commander in chief.

[morgieb]

Probably, yeah.

I mean, the Republicans often nominate candidates that aren't well supported among the base. I think being friendly to Obama isn't too much of a flaw if he runs a good campaign. Plus a lot of the more right-wing candidates have liberal baggage too.

[Mister Mets]

Not at all.

Christie have the same problem as Huntsman does.

Not quite. He has one problem, in a perceived coziness to President Obama.

But he's a better presence. He's unlikely to be running against a frontrunner with an appeal to the same donor base. And there isn't the question of whether he was planning a bid against his boss. Some found that icky about Huntsman, although I personally didn't see anything wrong with it.

[RogueBeaver]

One issue that will probably come up on some point is guns. Can't fault a Northeastern Pub for taking a Northeastern view, but in a national primary which starts with IA/NH/SC...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Christie's problems with the base are personal.  The GOP's nutty base expects those who seek its support to be in lockstep with them all the time.  Concede NOTHING.  NEVER admit that Obama does anything right.  EVERYTHING Obama does is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Because Christie broke from this script during Hurricane Sandy, praising Obama and his Administration for his non-political disaster management, he became a non-team player.  The timing of Christie's praise for Obama's performance during Hurricane Sandy (even while making it clear he was still supporting Romney) is something that just doesn't register on the current GOP nutty base.  They really believe that Christie's actions gave Obama a small last-minute bounce that enabled him to push past Romney in a race where Romney was perceived as having gotten the last-minute upper hand.

Then, to make it worse for Christie, he chose to schedule the special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) a month before the general election, severing that race from Christie's re-election.  This was terrible for national Republicans, who had chance to pick up an open seat on Christie's coattails.  Christie perceived being tied to the national GOP as a negative, and something that would drag him down.  The end result of this is likely to be the Democratic candidate winning fairly easily, whereas the GOP Senate candidate would be more likely to prevail if the special election had been scheduled at the general election. 

At a certain level, the GOP base, however nutty, is not entirely wrong to hold the latter against Christie.  Christie's actions could well result in the GOP not taking the Senate back in 2014.  Rick Santorum was not wrong in stating during the primary that "Politics is a team sport."  At a practical level, what motiviation does the base have to stand by Christie?  Very little, in fact.  Christie really isn't a guy who's going to turn blue states red; Al Gore lost the entire South, so why should Christie do so much better?  If the GOP wants to carry PA, they could run Pat Toomey.

[barfbag]

Christie's problems with the base are personal.  The GOP's nutty base expects those who seek its support to be in lockstep with them all the time.  Concede NOTHING.  NEVER admit that Obama does anything right.  EVERYTHING Obama does is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Because Christie broke from this script during Hurricane Sandy, praising Obama and his Administration for his non-political disaster management, he became a non-team player.  The timing of Christie's praise for Obama's performance during Hurricane Sandy (even while making it clear he was still supporting Romney) is something that just doesn't register on the current GOP nutty base.  They really believe that Christie's actions gave Obama a small last-minute bounce that enabled him to push past Romney in a race where Romney was perceived as having gotten the last-minute upper hand.

Then, to make it worse for Christie, he chose to schedule the special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) a month before the general election, severing that race from Christie's re-election.  This was terrible for national Republicans, who had chance to pick up an open seat on Christie's coattails.  Christie perceived being tied to the national GOP as a negative, and something that would drag him down.  The end result of this is likely to be the Democratic candidate winning fairly easily, whereas the GOP Senate candidate would be more likely to prevail if the special election had been scheduled at the general election. 

At a certain level, the GOP base, however nutty, is not entirely wrong to hold the latter against Christie.  Christie's actions could well result in the GOP not taking the Senate back in 2014.  Rick Santorum was not wrong in stating during the primary that "Politics is a team sport."  At a practical level, what motiviation does the base have to stand by Christie?  Very little, in fact.  Christie really isn't a guy who's going to turn blue states red; Al Gore lost the entire South, so why should Christie do so much better?  If the GOP wants to carry PA, they could run Pat Toomey.

He's taken a strong stance against the public schools and unions and comes across as a manly leader. It's not like he's in as bad of a position as McCain was or Huntsman would be in. Usually the "lock in step" mindset is on social issues and Christie has been vague enough to still come off as socially conservative in the GOP Primary.

[Senator Cris]

Christie may have problems with the Republican Base, but he could be seen as one of the few capable of beating the Democrats, like Romney in 2012.

[barfbag]

He's just what we need.

[Consciously Unconscious]

No.  He will have problems with the republican base.  I know I won't vote for him unless he changes his views or if he picks a vp candidate I really like. 

[Down the Gurney]

In a single sentence: the GOP will not support an Obama enabler who was one base short of a home run with our president.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

In a single sentence: the GOP will not support an Obama enabler who was one base short of a home run with our president.

Is this a joke or have you really confused the bases?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Christie may have problems with the Republican Base, but he could be seen as one of the few capable of beating the Democrats, like Romney in 2012.

This may well be true.  But the base is in no mood to hear about electability after McCain and Romney (especially Romney).

[cheesepizza]

In a single sentence: the GOP will not support an Obama enabler who was one base short of a home run with our president.

This pretty much describes what's wrong with our party right now. 

Christie stands with us on the economic issues that matter.  He's not perfect.  Neither was Reagan.  But he stands up for what he believes in and is assertive (unlike McCain/Romney/Dole) and engaging.

[barfbag]

In a single sentence: the GOP will not support an Obama enabler who was one base short of a home run with our president.

This pretty much describes what's wrong with our party right now. 

Christie stands with us on the economic issues that matter.  He's not perfect.  Neither was Reagan.  But he stands up for what he believes in and is assertive (unlike McCain/Romney/Dole) and engaging.

Romney was a little better than McCain and Dole. Regardless, Christie is a strong leader and hopefully our party will have learned its lesson about being hesitant to support non-base Republicans.