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

[ShadowRocket]

We all know how since last October it has been a major talking point in regards to 2016 speculation, that Chris Christie seriously damaged, possibly destroyed, his prospects of winning the Republican nomination when he commended President Obama on his help with the Hurricane Sandy relief. And how since then, calling out House Republicans for delaying passage of a relief bill and snubbing a social conservatives gathering for a meeting with Bill Clinton has only made the problem worse.

Which leads me to ask, does anyone else think these actions are being exagerrated in terms of their impact?

I mean, John McCain and Mitt Romney arguably committed greater "sins" against the Republican Party. McCain was a thorn in the side of Bush during his first term, was suggested as a running mate for John Kerry, and supported immigration reform with Ted Kennedy. Romney of course put in place the prototype for Obamacare in MA and changed his position on important issues to the base everytime he ran for something. Christie's violations seem pretty minor compared to those two.

Granted, the perception of being a moderate will hurt him in the primaries, but he's been a pretty center-right governor, and if the conservative base can't rally around a single candidate, and I'm not sure it can, it seems to me that Christie should be able to follow the McCain/Romney path to the nomination.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Oh God yes. All of his actions that the base does not like will be forgotten/ignored in 2016.

[Goldwater]

I sure hope so.

[Blue3]

Republicans hate Obama more than they ever hated Kerry or Clinton.

Look at what happened when Crist hugged Obama. Now Christie has done that, and beyond. Even seeming to side with Obama while snubbing Romney in the last few weeks of the election. And continuing to support Obama and attack other Republicans.

In a sane country, this shouldn't hurt Christie. But it really has. He has stronger approval ratings from Democrats... who will easily be persuaded to vote Democrat again if Christie ever makes it to be nominee (which he won't, unless the GOP radically transforms by Election Day 2016).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Republicans hate Obama more than they ever hated Kerry or Clinton.

Clinton was a bit more moderate and Kerry did not win.

Look at what happened when Crist hugged Obama. Now Christie has done that, and beyond. Even seeming to side with Obama while snubbing Romney in the last few weeks of the election. And continuing to support Obama and attack other Republicans.

You have no idea how bland of a Governor Charlie Crist was. Unless he ran for Governor again in 2010, he had no chance of winning any Republican primary, with or without the Obama hug. A better example is the owner of Big Apple Pizza in Fort Pierce, who picked Obama off his feet when he went to hug him, and lost a good deal of business.

In a sane country, this shouldn't hurt Christie. But it really has. He has stronger approval ratings from Democrats... who will easily be persuaded to vote Democrat again if Christie ever makes it to be nominee (which he won't, unless the GOP radically transforms by Election Day 2016).

Again, people over estimate Christie's "problem" in the GOP. Come 2016, when he is the only electable candidate, the base and establishment will rally around him.

[RogueBeaver]

Christie could win if no clear winner emerges from the conservative primary. But TP and right-wing GOP's opinion of Christie had been deteriorating well before Sandy. Northeastern Republicans aren't going to have an easy time in a national election, even a very talented one who's more right-wing than Generic Northeastern R. One issue which will come up: guns.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The problem isn't with Christie, it's with the Republican base. It's never been so divided, so unresponsive to public opinion, or so upset at being unable to do anything constructive in Washington.

[Mr. Morden]

Problem seems to be more in pundits' binary yes/no prognostication.  Some say that his problems with the base will sink him and others that he'll be fine.  Both seem so certain, with fewer than you would hope making intermediate predictions, in which his problems are a drag on his chances, but with him still having a greater than 0% chance of winning the nomination.  The field is rather divided right now in any case, so even if you think his problems with the base will *probably* prevent him from being nominated, and that they keep his chances at the nomination at being down at ~15%, 15% would still make him one of the leading candidates.  Heck, 10% would make him one of the leading candidates!

[Mr. Morden]

And yes, we've seen this before, with McCain and Romney.  Heck, we've even seen it in previous cycles, like with Dole in 1996, coming off of the Gingrich Congress of 1994.  Each time, you hear "Oh, this time it's different.  The party has never disliked a candidate for being a RINO so much, because they've never been this crazy and uncompromising before."

Maybe, but we'll see.  The track record is enough to make me cautious.  I certainly don't think putting Christie's chances at the nomination in the ~15% range (which again, would probably put him in the top 2 or 3 candidates) is overly optimistic.

[NHI]

I certainly hope so. He's one of, if not the best candidates for 2016.

[Bull Moose Base]

Problem seems to be more in pundits' binary yes/no prognostication.  Some say that his problems with the base will sink him and others that he'll be fine.  Both seem so certain, with fewer than you would hope making intermediate predictions, in which his problems are a drag on his chances, but with him still having a greater than 0% chance of winning the nomination.  The field is rather divided right now in any case, so even if you think his problems with the base will *probably* prevent him from being nominated, and that they keep his chances at the nomination at being down at ~15%, 15% would still make him one of the leading candidates.  Heck, 10% would make him one of the leading candidates!

And yes, we've seen this before, with McCain and Romney.  Heck, we've even seen it in previous cycles, like with Dole in 1996, coming off of the Gingrich Congress of 1994.  Each time, you hear "Oh, this time it's different.  The party has never disliked a candidate for being a RINO so much, because they've never been this crazy and uncompromising before."

Maybe, but we'll see.  The track record is enough to make me cautious.  I certainly don't think putting Christie's chances at the nomination in the ~15% range (which again, would probably put him in the top 2 or 3 candidates) is overly optimistic.

This all sounds about right to me.

I think several things are exaggerated about Christie.

1. His odds of running. No guarantee. I think there are a few plausible scenarios where he sits it out.
2. His odds of winning NH. A poll here had everyone saying he'd win easily. Not really.
3. The impossibility of winning the nom. as Morden goes through above.
4. His crossover appeal. It wouldn't sustain.

[ShadowRocket]

Republicans hate Obama more than they ever hated Kerry or Clinton.

Look at what happened when Crist hugged Obama. Now Christie has done that, and beyond. Even seeming to side with Obama while snubbing Romney in the last few weeks of the election. And continuing to support Obama and attack other Republicans.

In a sane country, this shouldn't hurt Christie. But it really has. He has stronger approval ratings from Democrats... who will easily be persuaded to vote Democrat again if Christie ever makes it to be nominee (which he won't, unless the GOP radically transforms by Election Day 2016).

Which Clinton are you refering to? Regardless of which one, the GOP hates them just as much as they do Obama. The reason why that hate may've subsided for the moment is by virtue of neither one being Obama, but it'll be riled up once again the moment Hillary formally announces.

Still I don't see how the examples you've cited are any worse than what McCain or Romney did to piss off the base in their own respective circumstances. If anything I would say Romney did the most to accomplish this, out of the three, with providing the template for Obamacare. Which has pretty much been the bane of the GOP's existance for the last several years.

[bballrox4717]

No, but the Tea Party/far right conservatives still do not make up the majority of the party. If they did, Mitt Romney would not have been the nominee in 2012. You can't assume the people who yell the loudest in the GOP speak for the party. Poll after poll show that most Americans, including Republicans, love the work he is doing right now.

Christie is still a strong candidate who has by far the best ability to connect with average people. Even if he is in more trouble with the base right now, Christie has a natural touch when it comes to voters that Romney, McCain or Dole could never claim. I believe it is much more likely that his big mouth will get him into the most trouble during campaigning and cause him to sink.

[tmthforu94]

I think so. Most of his problems with the base are over his behavior, not necessarily actions he's taken as Governor, and could be washed away once he starts campaigning as a conservative Republican.

[Frodo]

I think so. Most of his problems with the base are over his behavior, not necessarily actions he's taken as Governor, and could be washed away once he starts campaigning as a conservative Republican.

Do you really think his Tea-Party opponents (for the sake of argument, let's suppose Rand Paul runs) will let the base forget Chris Christie's transgressions against GOP orthodoxy -and worse, his (sometimes even physical) closeness to President Obama?  I think you underestimate the potency of the argument offered by the true believers that the GOP has tried going 'moderate' the last couple of times -and both times they lost.  And they will not hesitate to point out that McCain and Romney lost because they weren't right-wing enough, that now is a time to nominate one of their own, a man (or woman) of spotless adherence to conservative principles.  

Judging by what has happened to Marco Rubio's 2016 chances (regardless of the fate of immigration reform in Congress), I would not hold out hope that the saner elements of the GOP will win out yet again with Chris Christie as your nominee.  

[Thomas D]

I don't know but this would be a killer line in a debate:

"Governor Christie, Why don't you go win President Obama another teddy bear?"

[Mr. Morden]

Another reason why I think people who think Christie's chances are zero have got it wrong is because I think he's a comparatively skilled politician.  That's something that people sometimes ignore here.  You can't predict elections just by seeing who ticks off the relevant ideological boxes.  You also need to factor in the political skills of the candidates.  And Christie's in much better shape on that score than, say, Huntsman.  Which is why I'm not yet convinced that Christie has Huntsmanned himself.

[bballrox4717]

Another reason why I think people who think Christie's chances have got it wrong is because I think he's a comparatively skilled politician.  That's something that people sometimes ignore here.  You can't predict elections just by seeing who ticks off the relevant ideological boxes.  You also need to factor in the political skills of the candidates.  And Christie's in much better shape on that score than, say, Huntsman.  Which is why I'm not yet convinced that Christie has Huntsmanned himself.

Agreed. Huntsman's Mandarin moment in the debates was cringe-worthy.

[TJ in Oregon]

My impression has always been that it's people telling the base we're (assuming I can be considered part of the base) supposed to be outraged than us actually having something against Christe. I'm not a huge fan of his, but it's because of his bombastic temperment and not his political views. I worry how his style would work when actually running for president or running the whole country, not just the state of New Jersey. There may be some people out there mad about him caring more about Hurricane Sandy than the presidential election, but most of them will get over it if Christe actually wins the nomination. There is someone out there mad about pretty much every strange thing imaginable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem Christie had back before late 2012 was that he was being promoted heavily across the nation and he had to some effect the same thing going against him that Rudy did being "America's Mayor". Once people got to know Rudy, his positions on abortion, guns and immigration, he was done. As for Christie he is somewhat better off, but he is still going to get burned pn the last two. Someone is going to use immigration to get past all these people. Rubio, Ryan, Christie, etc etc. It might be Paul now that he has an out based on his amendment being rejected, or Santorum but it will come up and the two people most vulnerable are those that "surprise" as opposed to those we already know about.

In way this anti-Christie stuff may have helped him because it might take some of it off the table by the time 2016 rolls around.

[Frodo]

Can you imagine how devastating this image will be to Christie by the time the GOP primaries really get going? 

[ShadowRocket]

I think so. Most of his problems with the base are over his behavior, not necessarily actions he's taken as Governor, and could be washed away once he starts campaigning as a conservative Republican.

Do you really think his Tea-Party opponents (for the sake of argument, let's suppose Rand Paul runs) will let the base forget Chris Christie's transgressions against GOP orthodoxy -and worse, his (sometimes even physical) closeness to President Obama?  I think you underestimate the potency of the argument offered by the true believers that the GOP has tried going 'moderate' the last couple of times -and both times they lost.  And they will not hesitate to point out that McCain and Romney lost because they weren't right-wing enough, that now is a time to nominate one of their own, a man (or woman) of spotless adherence to conservative principles.  

Judging by what has happened to Marco Rubio's 2016 chances (regardless of the fate of immigration reform in Congress), I would not hold out hope that the saner elements of the GOP will win out yet again with Chris Christie as your nominee.  

The thing is though that in order for the primaries to produce a Tea Part nominee, the conservatives will have to unite behind a single candidate. In a field that could potentially have Rubio, Paul, Santorum, Walker, Cruz, Perry, and possibly others, I'm just not sure that'll happen. All while Christie will have the moderates and indepedents to himself. 

I'm not denying that he'll have problems, but again, I just don't see how Christie's transgressions against GOP orthodoxy are anyworse than those of McCain or Romney. Especially since with his, he has a pretty simple defense of why should his constituents have had to suffer for political reasons. Which seems pretty sound when compared with Romney trying to explain Romneycare as a states right issue.   

[badgate]

Can you imagine how devastating this image will be to Christie by the time the GOP primaries really get going? 

Coupled with the ridiculous/hilarious gay rumors about Obama...this would make a fun caption contest.

[Link]

Problem seems to be more in pundits' binary yes/no prognostication.  Some say that his problems with the base will sink him and others that he'll be fine.  Both seem so certain, with fewer than you would hope making intermediate predictions, in which his problems are a drag on his chances, but with him still having a greater than 0% chance of winning the nomination.  The field is rather divided right now in any case, so even if you think his problems with the base will *probably* prevent him from being nominated, and that they keep his chances at the nomination at being down at ~15%, 15% would still make him one of the leading candidates.  Heck, 10% would make him one of the leading candidates!

That sounds more like a problem with the litmus test Republican Party.  As of late is seems like an all or none game.  If you believe the base will have a significant problem with even one of Christie's policies, decisions, behavior then you have to immediately strike his name.  It's an extreme situation.  You can't expect a lot of intermediate answers.

[Minnesota Mike]

I certainly hope so. He's one of, if not the best candidates for 2016.

I certainly hope not As a Democratic leaning Independent Christie is the only candidate I would fear. I think he will have a tougher time winning the nomination than the General if he runs.