Better chance to be comeback kid 2016 - Christie or Perry?

[Likely Voter]

Both Chris Christie and Rick Perry were at one point favorites to win the GOP nomination - Perry Peaked in the summer of 2011 and Christie peaked in the winter of 2013. Both fell from grace, Perry's famous 2011 debate flubs and fizzle out, Christie rocked by scandal and problems in New Jersey. Both are now considered long-shots for 2016. But candidates have come back from what seemed like political death before, including Bill Clinton in 1992 and John McCain in 2008.

So between Perry and Christie, which one has a better chance at a comeback?

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If Perry doesn't come off as a goob again, he may do better. I think that Christie's relatively moderate positions and air of scandals (even if he wasn't actually involved) will prevent him from doing well.

[7,052,770]

Christie for sure. Being perceived as a "moderate" will help him in the primaries, not hurt him, just like it did for McCain and Romney.

[Maxwell]

Both have a decent chance - the conservatives have a diverse field, and Jeb Bush is dull and, to his credit, honest about his position, where Christie's brashness and crass dishonesty may be more appealing. Christie is also the type to have a Gingrich 2012 debate moment.

[Lief 🗽]

Christie really only needs Jeb Bush to collapse before he can mount a comeback. Perry will need a couple of candidates to go first.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Christie.  Political skill plays a big roll here

[Ebsy]

They're both doomed.

[IceSpear]

Christie. The establishment will never let someone under indictment get the nomination, whereas it's looking like Christie is going to be cleared of involvement in Bridgegate.

But the chances for either are still very low.

[andrew_c]

They're both damaged goods.  Only Christie has any chance at all.  As for Perry, well, he committed political suicide long ago.

[Sir Mohamed]

Christie certainly has more chance in the country. Perry might be more popular among the GOP, especially among conservatives, but Christie is more electable to the entire country. The election is not decided by stounch liberals or stounch conservatives, moderates make the difference. So I would give Christie an edge over Perry to win the general election.

[Former Democrat]

Christie of course! Perry is a joke

[Blair]

Christie, he has a brand and political skill. I never understood the love for Perry even before his debate flop

[Sir Mohamed]

Christie of course! Perry is a joke

Nice that Republicans akowledge that.

Christie is my favorite (modern) Republican. But I don't think he's going to be the 2016 nominee. Jeb will push him aside.

[Mister Mets]

Good quesiton. I had to think this over for a bit.

Both seem equally likely to be convicted of something.

Perry's advantage is that he has a record that appeals to Republicans. Expectations are pretty low, and his disastrous performance in 2012 can be excused if he proves knowledgeable this time around. His problem is that the Republicans are trying to get rid of their image as the party of old white guys (Romney, McCain, Dole, Cheney) and idiots (Quayle, W, Palin) and he's an elderly guy who has said some stupid things. He's also going to have a lot of competition. Walker has a similar record, but he's a generation younger, and comes from a swing state. Jeb Bush spent two terms as a conservative Governor, and has deep connections in Texas. Senators like Cruz and Rubio didn't have to worry about the compromises executives have to make.

Christie's political talents are tailor-made for a presidential primary. Videotaped town halls would provide him with free media. There is a moderate constituency in the primaries (McCain did well in 2000, Huntsman finished third in New Hampshire in 2012) and there isn't as much competition for it.  Christie would have to deal with expectations. He's known to be politically talented, so it's likely that voters who don't like him have factored that into their decision.

I'll still go with Christie.

[RogueBeaver]

Christie but both are extremely unlikely.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'd say both are actually quite likely to happen. I don't get why people expect the field to either stay exactly as it is now or have one minor change. I'm sure everyone here saw Huckabee and Santorum winning states in April '07 and '11. It's not an exact parallel because they started off as minor candidates, but Gingrich could be offered as an example as one person did above. He was considered top 4 the year before (Romney, Huck, Palin, and Newt were the GE matchups vs. BHO), but never actually caught on with primary polling.

Christie will probably have a massive jump come debate time and is a very serious contender so long as he can get funded. I will continue to believe that for months. His poll numbers will certainly rebound. Favorability ratings mean almost nothing to me right now when these people aren't in the spotlight.

Perry has a smaller chance, but I wouldn't count it out. If you'd call jumping to 8-10% in a poll at some point a comeback, I'd give him even odds. The Texas brand could be pretty beneficial as could the abuse of power charges so long as he prepares it right. But if he gets a follow-up question in the debate to explain beyond what he prepared as his powerful statement, it's end game for him.

[Reaganfan]

Christie.  Political skill plays a big roll here

Agree. He's still a very likely nominee, IMO.

[ShadowRocket]

Christie. He has the talent and only really needs for Jeb to stumble in order to regain relevance. I think Perry will get lost in the shuffle.

[Likely Voter]

I still feel that Perry is being under-estimated. There is a reason he was the front-runner once, and that is he is a conservative evangelical governor with a good record and good hair. He can appeal to the base but has some establishment support (especially in his home state). He is a perfect fit for the GOP. That space is now being filled by Walker but if Walker falters and Perry performs well in the debates I think he has a path to win IA.

As for Christie, his raison d'être is gone. He is no longer the beloved governor of a blue state, his ratings are spiraling down and his record is poor (or at least can easily be portrayed very poorly by his opponents). He is a bad fit for the conservative base and the moneyed establishment have alternatives if Bush falters (Kasich, Rubio, possibly Walker, maybe even Pataki). And let's not forget that very soon a number of his inner circle are going to be indicted and unlike Perry's indictment, these will not be easily dismissed as a political witch hunt.

Both are long shots, but Perry's path seems easier to me. 

[Eraserhead]

Christie of course! Perry is a joke

Exactly what I was going to say.

[RINO Tom]

Uh, the one who can form articulate sentences, haha.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Christie will turn everyone off. Perry at least has a small sliver of a chance.

[Bull Moose Base]

Christie winning this poll 2 to 1 is the tip-off that the correct answer is Perry.

1. Bush will soon start using his war chest to destroy Walker and Rubio.

2. Walker and Rubio seem likely to be as bad in debates as Perry. Although "Oops" didn't destroy Perry, it is what is keeping him from getting any traction this time. If he's comes across as less foolish, he'll be considered a viable nominee.

3. He's more conservative than Bush or Kasich (and governor of a bigger state than either), more popular at home than Walker, Rubio or Christie, and has more experienced as governor than any Republican.

A lot of people ahead of him would have to stumble for him to comeback but that's not all that unrealistic a scenario.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Christie is loathed by the entire political spectrum and his abrasive style maybe is appealing for conservative activists but is a huge turn-off for regular voters.
Unless he saves a baby from a building on fire I can't see how he can become competitive.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Christie. He's a crook, but an articulate crook.