Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.
I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.
You mean like giving one his biggest and longest donors a huge prisons contract?
I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.
I'm not so sure. That is what many said after McCain lost, yet here they are again running a supposed moderate masquerading as a hard-line conservative (although with Romney it's hard to tell what he really is). They will run who they think is the best candidate. If Christie gets the nod next time, that will certainly not be a race to the right.
And they shouldn't run right. The pubs need to acknowledge the centrist nature of much of the country and get off of the uncompromising platforms. The fact that Jon Huntsman never had a prayer in the primary speaks volumes. Just like Gingrich "insulted" Romney by calling him the "Massachussetts Moderate." It's ridiculous. Moderates need to have a choice between 2 parties, not 0 parties.
When my guy ran in 2004, he had built up a lead and looked like the nominee.
Bob, at no point did Howard Dean look like the nominee. He finished a distant 3rd in Iowa.
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.
When my guy ran in 2004, he had built up a lead and looked like the nominee. Then the media (and the Clintonites in the DLC) started spreading the word that he was "too angry & too tempermental" to be president. The Iowa thing was a coordinated hack job, facilitated by the use of sophisticated electronic technology that could eliminate background noises to create its desired final effect to support a predetermined strategy. Then it was played over & over, ad finitum, for the kill.
They can do the same thing with Chris Christie.
What Christie would be able to bring to the table is a record of actually balancing the budget in the state of New Jersey, rather than just paying lip service to fiscal platitudes the way Romney does.
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.
"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.
"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2
Tin Foil Hats UNITE! This is pretty crazy BFK. You are saying they manufactured that blood curdling scream to destroy Howard Dean? Really? He went WCW on the crowd and it was funny. Not hard to figure out why it was played over and over and over again. It was Howard Deans 'WHOOPS' moment. You can't make a mistake like that and expect to recover in the 24 hour media cycle.
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.
In 1 sense, only twice (maybe thrice?) in our history has a candidate lost the popular vote and won the election. So a national lead is an indicator, though certainly not the indicator. As for the swing states, Romney has been and still is very close in CO, IA and WI. Trouble is for him that Obama is now opening up larger leads in VA, FL and OH, and Romney needs VA, FL & OH (60 EVs) more than he does CO, IA & WI (25 EVs).
You follow the inner workings of electoral politics pretty closely, cville. I've read your posts and they are well thought-out and make sense. And you are on the money with this one except for one state: Wisconsin. I don't know about Colorado & Iowa.....but there is no way that Romney is going to carry Wisconsin. Obama carried the state by 14% four years ago, and Paul Ryan simply isn't going to make much of a difference. After all, Ryan has never run statewide in Wisconsin. He really only has the known support in his own district. And popular GOP former Governor Tommy Thompson is even in trouble in his senate race there now, after being considered a prohibitive favorite earlier. Wisconsin will remain reliably blue.