Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: Republicans don't want Christie to run in 2016 (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  once upon a time, he was the presumptive nominee (5+ / 0-)

    perhaps it's ridiculous to make such calls, so far out from the primary, and election

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:33:12 AM PST

    •  I think that applies to Hillary as well (7+ / 0-)

      Given that nobody has even formally announced that they are running, doesn't it seem a bit premature to have already picked a winner in any race?

      •  See NYT/CBS Poll released this morning. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Lysis, tomwatson
        More than 8 in 10 Democrats say they want Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2016, showing a level of interest in her that no other potential candidates – Democrat or Republican – come close to matching among their party’s voters, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll.

        Democrats were divided over Mr. Biden, with 42 percent saying they wanted him to run and 39 percent saying they did not, the poll found.

        Twenty-two percent of Democrats said they would like to see Ms. Warren run, compared with 17 percent for Mr. Cuomo and 3 percent for Mr. O’Malley.

        That level of support for her within the party cannot be discounted. She also drew strong support from independents

        •  Christy's Was good too. It's polling, that's all (0+ / 0-)

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:59:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She's a known (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ratcityreprobate, Lysis

            quantity. Christie was not.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:05:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It borders on willful obliviousness. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wuod kwatch, tomwatson

              Hillary Clinton is the most well-known and well-respected Democrat on the national stage right now.  How so many Democrats here can truly think otherwise in spite of mountains of evidence of the respect and support she commands is mystifying to me.

              I can understand not liking it, or even resenting it, if she's not your preferred candidate, but it's a pretty obvious reality right now.

              •  it reminds me of that dude who would not believe (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JamieG from Md

                the universe of polls (in fact, almost all polls undercounted the strong Hispanic support for Democrats) and started     Nobody PICKED a winner.  The poll numbers FOR her are crushing anyone else in the Democratic party to such a degree as to leave very little doubt where we are heading.  

                There is no coronation, "resistance is futile" doesn't exist.   It is just that the poll numbers are so extreme in favor of her, that we are in uncharted territory.   Never before in the history of polling has a candidate, from either party, gotten this much support from his or her party in the early going, ahead of primary season.  

                •  You know what's ironic? (0+ / 0-)

                  The tea partiers and the GOP is very envious of this fact. They think if she has marginal opposition in a primary that she's going to have all that time to explain to people how bad the GOP is. Maybe they are right this time.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Seriously, isn't there some poetic justice (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    in the fact that she'll be blasting away at the same people who were part of the vast right wing conspiracy that was trying to get to her and her husband by coming up with idiotic attacks regarding Vince Foster (he was murdered by the Clintons), Paul Wellstone (he was murdered by the Clintons), the Colombian drug cartel (the Clintons had a lot of smugglers murdered to cover their tracks in their drug smuggling activities), on and on and on.    

              •  I don't think we're discussing the same thing (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not disagreeing that at the moment she enjoys a large degree of support from a broad slice of the electorate. What I am saying is that the election is still more than 2 years away and that's approximately a lifetime in politics. First, we don't know what might happen to her health, since she's no longer a spring chicken.

                We also don't know what galvanizing issues might come up between now and then. What happens if we truly end up on the brink of war with Iran  and she makes some sort of gaffe that turns off a large portion of the electorate?

                Hell, what if the NSA has tons of information on her that we HAVEN'T seen yet and some disgruntled tea party member decides to dump it?

                My point isn't that any of this is bound to happen, but that it certainly might, and to state this early in that she's the only possible nominee is to fly in the face of history.

    •  Decks are cleared for Jeb. Clinton vs. Bush oh god (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 01:10:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  forget the names, we don't really have a deep (0+ / 0-)

        bench.   The natural "incumbent" Joe Biden does not get anyone excited, Elizabeth Warren isn't interested in running, and even if she were she isn't top choice for most Democrats, then you have a bunch of unknowns who would have a huge mountain to climb just to get some recognition, and then they still don't have the experience, gravitas, popularity, high approval of HRC.

        The same is true for the GOP.  They are all clowns.  Jeb Bush, while he is half a clown, is actually the only GOPer who makes a little sense on some things like Immigration.  So, if they pick him it would not be because of the Bush name, but because he is the only one (aside from Huntsman, who would never make it past single digit with that crowd) who is a bit more balanced, yet can convince the nutty right-wing to vote for him.  

        •  who... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wuod kwatch

          Who in her or his right mind would vote for Mr. Bush?  

          They should listen to the self-declared expert on such matters, who commented, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

          Who knew that I would agree with that Bush, or another, who happens to be both idiots' mother, who said "We've had enough Bushes [to last us for eternity, and then some...]."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site