Do you think Christie will run? Why or why not?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

.

[The Other Castro]

Yes because he's actually that self-deluded.

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.
Because his ego is as big as the rest of him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.  Because he can count, and he will be able to count the small amount of money folks will contribute to him. 

All of the GOP candidates fall into niches.  There's the libertarians (Paul), the religious/social conservatives (Santorum, Huckabee, Carson), the Establishment "business" Republicans (Jeb, Mitt), the National Security Republicans (Graham), and the Club for Growth-types (Rubio is trying to fill this void).  These guys will always have SOMEBODY funnelling them money, because even if they lose, they advocate a specific position that the advocates of that position(s) want to be advanced in a Republican Administration.  One way to do that is THEIR man making a strong showing and an impression on the delegates who will not just rubber-stamp the candidate, but write the platform and set the tone for the 2016 fall campaign. 

Then you have the Tent-Exanders and Map-Expanders.  Rubio's a bit of an expander, but he's grown beyond that role.  In this category are usually Governors who often don't have a current voting record on Federal issues, but who have the abilty (when needed) to be a bit amorphous, ideologically, during the fall campaign.  The really valuable "expanders" are those Governors that can bring in their state and turn it from blue or purple to red.  These guys get their money on the merits; on the perception that they're "electable" and can "carry their home state".  In this category are Kasich, Walker, Snyder, Pataki, and Christie.

Of all of these guys, who stands out?  Kasich, of course.  He's got the most experience, he's the best ideological fit for the GOP these days of that bunch.   When you look at these guys, what is clear is that Kasich has the most on-paper ability to expand the map and Walker has the most "star-quality".  Snyder has less of what Kasich and Walker have, but he's not ticked too many people off, and his record, for a Republican or a GOP-leaning moderate, is OK.

What's happened is that Christie has lost his reason to run.  There's no market for him.  No one believes he'll beat Hillary, and if defeat is ineitable, the GOP would rather lose with a guy they like.  No one likes Christie; people only liked him because they thought he could win, and no one thinks that now.

[Joe Biden 2020]

No, because I think he is smart enough to know that he has fumbled that ball long ago.  The country will not be receptive to a scandal-ridden governor from a state known for its corruption.  I think he's smart enough to know that ship has sailed.  Sadly, this is his likely his last chance and thus is doomed to fade from view in January 2018.  He has absolutely no chance in 2020.  Now, will his ego get in the way?  Maybe, but his intelligence hopefully will win out.

[JonathanSwift]

Of course he's not going to run. Look at him!

[TDAS04]

No, even he realizes he can't win.

[Crumpets]

I think he's banking on having an amazing debate performance à la Gingrich 2012. He'll run, but if he doesn't get a game changer by November or December, he'll drop out before Iowa.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think he's banking on having an amazing debate performance à la Gingrich 2012. He'll run, but if he doesn't get a game changer by November or December, he'll drop out before Iowa.

Christie needs to (A) not run for President, (B) get elected to Bob Menendez's Senate seat, and (C) allow time pass to rehab his image.  I would add (D) keep the weight off as well.

A long time ago I predicted that nothing really horrible would happen to Christie over Bridgegate, but it would expose his unsavory side and cost him a run at the Presidency in 2016.  I think we're seeing this play out, and an actual run at the Presidency will make Christie look like more of a loser than he has to.  But if he is able to win Menendez's seat in 2018 (or before, if there's a special election) and no one but small fry take the fall for Bridgegate, Christie will be able to rehab his image; possibly even reinvent himself.  

Christie's an arrogant blowhard, so I don't think such prudence comes naturally.  But if he listens to the right advisers and is willing to be patient, he may re-emerge as a viable Presidential candidate  IMO, there is NOTHING he can do between now and the 2016 primaries that would not result in Christie making a fool of himself if he actually runs.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes because he's actually that self-deluded.

[Likely Voter]

I have gone back and forth. Of course he has been planning a run for years and every bit of him wants to be president so it is very hard for him to give it up. I'm sure he feels that the felonious activities of his staffers shouldn't keep him from from his destiny. So he has stuck with his plan, does all the pre-run things (liking hanging with Romney this weekend) and continues to appear to be running. The only thing he has changed is going from positioning himself as the establishment frontrunner (ala Romney 2012) to the scrappy truthteller ready for a comeback (ala McCain 2008).

But his whole plan now relies on getting a big debate moment. If by the end of this month he isn't in the top 10 (he is currently ranked 8th and trending down), will he risk degrading himself at the kiddie table forum on FOX?

[Del Tachi]

Nope, he knows he can't win and an unsuccessful presidential run would make him look really bad considering that he was once largely perceived as 2016's best GOP contender. 

[Suburbia]

No.  Because he can count, and he will be able to count the small amount of money folks will contribute to him. 

All of the GOP candidates fall into niches.  There's the libertarians (Paul), the religious/social conservatives (Santorum, Huckabee, Carson), the Establishment "business" Republicans (Jeb, Mitt), the National Security Republicans (Graham), and the Club for Growth-types (Rubio is trying to fill this void).  These guys will always have SOMEBODY funnelling them money, because even if they lose, they advocate a specific position that the advocates of that position(s) want to be advanced in a Republican Administration.  One way to do that is THEIR man making a strong showing and an impression on the delegates who will not just rubber-stamp the candidate, but write the platform and set the tone for the 2016 fall campaign. 

Then you have the Tent-Exanders and Map-Expanders.  Rubio's a bit of an expander, but he's grown beyond that role.  In this category are usually Governors who often don't have a current voting record on Federal issues, but who have the abilty (when needed) to be a bit amorphous, ideologically, during the fall campaign.  The really valuable "expanders" are those Governors that can bring in their state and turn it from blue or purple to red.  These guys get their money on the merits; on the perception that they're "electable" and can "carry their home state".  In this category are Kasich, Walker, Snyder, Pataki, and Christie.

Of all of these guys, who stands out?  Kasich, of course.  He's got the most experience, he's the best ideological fit for the GOP these days of that bunch.   When you look at these guys, what is clear is that Kasich has the most on-paper ability to expand the map and Walker has the most "star-quality".  Snyder has less of what Kasich and Walker have, but he's not ticked too many people off, and his record, for a Republican or a GOP-leaning moderate, is OK.

What's happened is that Christie has lost his reason to run.  There's no market for him.  No one believes he'll beat Hillary, and if defeat is ineitable, the GOP would rather lose with a guy they like.  No one likes Christie; people only liked him because they thought he could win, and no one thinks that now.

[/]

Of course he's not going to run. Look at him!

Badum-chhh