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.
