Skip to main content

temperature score of politicians with Christie leading Clinton by a hair

"Temperature" taking Quinnipiac poll of registered voters. Separate charts by party available here.

A fascinating Quinnipiac poll taking the temperature of some well known national politicians among registered voters (MoE +/- 2.6) was released today, with interesting findings.

Chris Christie leads the pack (see top graphic) but only because of support of Democrats and independents. While Christie is doing a good job of capturing the anger about The Way Things Are, among Republicans he trails 2012 loser Rick Santorum, highlighting his difficulties in the GOP primary (think Iowa and South Carolina).

For example, Christie's temp score among GOP voters is 59.8 while Paul Ryan is the standard setter at 68.7, followed by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Santorum (all above 60).

If you want more on that, see yesterday's Gov. Chris Christie/Sen. Rand Paul feud could make Christie president and Libertarian populism and the battle for the Perot vote.

Christie gets a 53.1 temperature rating overall. Meanwhile, just behind Christie are four Democrats, three of them women. In addition to Obama (47.6) and Hillary (52.1), we have Elizabeth Warren (49.2) and Kirsten Gillibrand  (47.6) scoring well. For relatively new faces, those are remarkable numbers for Warren and Gillibrand.

While that speaks little about anyone's chances, it's hard not to conclude that folks are not happy with the status quo.

Politicians, take note.

Originally posted to Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 05:49 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (23+ / 0-)

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 05:49:55 AM PDT

  •  McConnell and Boehner (7+ / 0-)

    fair better than Reid?  Stunning.  Forgive my ignorance, but what does DK mean?  I'm not a poll watcher.

    Thanks.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:05:33 AM PDT

  •  Peter King. My god surely he jests. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, SueDe, ratcityreprobate, Fury

    Uh-oh.  It's for real.  King in New Hampshire.  

    May the angels save us.  Or the elves.  Or the Hulk.  

    Anybody.  Please.

  •  It is striking what happens (9+ / 0-)

    when a politician moves from a theoretical candidacy to an actual campaign. Remember how well Giuliani polled before he was running? I think one's initial gut reaction to a presidential candidate is telling. My initial gut reaction to Christie the first time I focused on him was: Really, this guy is Governor of New Jersey? In national politics you have to look the part. He doesn't seem to pass that fundamental test. Losing some pounds isn't likely to move that needle of presidential appearance, unfortunately. This was also one important factor in the fall of John McCain to Obama: Obama made McCain seem like an angry/crazy old man.

    Christie is benefiting right now by appearing to be the least insane on the right. In a primary battle he will be in an untenable situation of having to either compromise his limited sanity or lose delegates. To strengthen their position, the whole Republican Party will have to move left in meaningful way and it seems there is a little chance of that. What seems more likely at this moment is fracture within the party itself.  

    The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

    by DavidMCastro on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:16:04 AM PDT

    •  Whoa..."look the part"? (5+ / 0-)

      What does that even mean? I'm not trying to be combative...just wondering what "look the part" could possibly mean to a nation of voters who do not walk around with secret service and handlers.

      The fact is, Chris Christie looks and talks like "one of us"...and by us, I don't mean the political nerds (hand raised) on political blogs, but the everyday Joe and Jane who just want to live their lives and put food on the table.

      And, remember that he reached out to and even hugged President Obama in the midst of working with him during a national emergency. The American public tires of hearing children bicker in Washington while they sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of inequality. Christie has crossover appeal that many on that list do not possess...making him a dangerous candidate for a nationwide office spanning 50 states.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:44:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately... movie star appeal is a factor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fury

        I do agree that it's sad that the voting public doesn't make judgments based only on policy positions and personal integrity.  What I am talking about is that there are many voters who take in the physical appearance of candidate and how they sound as much or more than what they say (in terms of content) and how they behave in terms of specific actions. We could wish that this was not true and resolve not to vote in that way ourselves. I voted for John Kerry even though I thought he looked like death warmed over and sounded more pompous than anyone that I would like. Unfortunately, a lot of voters are moved by good looks and good sounds rather than content. To me, Christie looks and sounds like a very big bully. He is the kind of guy capable of "losing it" and going off on a cutting tirade against someone in the audience. This will make for fun viewing but probably will not wear well long with the public. I think we forget how brutal the media coverage is of a Presidential candidate. On TV 24/7 with legions of people waiting to pounce on  and broadcast every single unflattering view/comment/interaction.  It requires someone who is an Olympic athlete of appearance management. Is that Chris Christie? I think not.

        The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

        by DavidMCastro on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 08:22:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed appearance is a factor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fury

          It's well studied that a candidate's "look" can influence voters, even if only subconciously.  Part of Romney's appeal is he "looked Presidential".

          A famous example is the televised Kennedy/Nixon debate.  People who only heard the audio favored Nixon as the winner of the debate.  Those who watched the video favored Kennedy as the winner.  That's the one where Nixon looked pale and sweaty compared to the young, handsome, composed and telegenic Kennedy.

      •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

        He may look and act like "one of us" but he isn't by far in the least bit. Look at his record and what he has slashed.  

        Aw he was nice to the black president and that gives him reason to be president? My have the standards in American politics lowered.  

        And once you see his record and hear him talk about issues? Didn't people say a lot of the same stuff about Guiliani? How'd that one work out?

        •  The difference between... (0+ / 0-)

          ...Giuliani and Christie in this case is that when primary voters looked at Giuliani's record, they saw a liberal Republican.  When they look at Christie's, they will see, for the most part, a conservative Republican.  Giuliani never had a chance, but Christie might be able to pull it off.

  •  Glad to see that Cuomo is down (4+ / 0-)

    in Peter King territory.  I don't usually go with the DINO accusations, but Cuomo has been a horrible "Democratic" governor.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:33:44 AM PDT

  •  Chris Christie doesn't need all Republicans to win (18+ / 0-)

    This is what makes him so dangerous as a candidate. He will still get a large share of Republican voters because they hate the idea of a second Clinton Presidency, but he has crossover appeal to Dems and Indies that will make him very competitive in states that were lost to McCain and Romney.

    And he can win...which is why i believe he will sail through the primaries, in spite of what the loony Right wants. Remember, they also wanted Rick Perry...then Newt Gingrich...right before Romney won the nomination.

    I have said it many times: We take Chris Christie lightly at our peril.

    Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

    by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:34:28 AM PDT

      •  I'm certainly not taking him lightly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fury

        (no heavyweight jiokes, please0, but the point isn;'t how he will do in the general, it's how he will win the GOP primary. It's more difficult than it appears, since Ia and SC are stretches for Christie, making NH and Fl must wins (he can do it, but that's where the Rand paul fight comes in to play in NH, and where Rubio and Jeb come into play in FL).

        Yes, he can win. No, he is not an automatic.

        Interesting that Dan balz' new book points out as a sittng Nj gov, Christie is barred by SEC rules from raising big bucks form NY's wall sdtreet because they potentially underwrite NJ bonds. it was an issue for Romney in choosing him; he'd have to resign.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:51:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um, no. This statement isn't correct: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Remediator, METAL TREK, newdem1960

      "...which is why i believe he will sail through the primaries, in spite of what the loony Right wants."

      The "loony Right" is ALL that's left of the GOP base. That's it. And in a closed primary system (Republican votes only),  all one of his opponents need to do is show pics of him hugging President Obama.  Game over. In the primary, he'll have to go to the far right on order to get those GOP votes.

       I believe that Dems have the potential to pull together a solid back bench with our candidates so that the idea of Christie crossover is pretty slim.

      •  I'm sorry, but it IS correct... (5+ / 0-)

        Even All Coulter supports him for president...and quite frankly, some in the faction you believe "control" that party are starting to come around on issues like immigration reform and are also on the right wide of issues like NSA spying and the like.

        Plus, if the loony Right ran that party, would they have gotten McCain and Romney during the last two presidential elections?

        You WANT to dismiss a Christie candidacy, but mark my words: He will be their candidate, and we will have a fight on our hands because he appeals to many on all sides of the political spectrum. In fact, I believe he is the only potential candidate who can win for the GOP at this stage.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:51:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Christie's nomination battle is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Kahlow

          problematic for him, just the same.

          Aquarius is correct to say the GOP primary base is comprised of voters well to the right of Christie and who are likely to be drawn to Rand or Ted or another crazy person on their primary ballot.

          Base appeal matters because ideology fuels the base.  

          IMO McCain and Romney wound up with their nominations because they were fortunate enough to be the last nitwits standing and not because of significant crossover appeal.

          Another factor arguing against Christie's easy path to nomination is far-Right multi-millionaire largesse.  If the crazy donor sugar daddies align against Christie in favor of one particular far-Right candidate, Christie will have trouble getting out of the first third of primaries.  

          The interesting match-up may come in Florida, where possible contenders Jeb and Marco will duke it out for native son status.  

          •  You know what else fuels the base? WINNING... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jerry056, Mike Kahlow, Fury, SBandini

            If polls show him as the most competitive candidate against Hillary Clinton, you'll be amazed how fast these clods will jettison their "principles".

            As far as the primaries, he'll win NH and IA. He'll get smoked in SC, but who cares? Gingrich won SC last time...and look at where that got him.

            Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

            by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:08:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Winning counts for a lot, point (0+ / 0-)

              taken.  

              Losing does as well, and I could see Christie skipping Iowa, winning in New Hampshire, getting creamed in Carolina, and then needing to win again in Florida, but coming up against Jeb and/or Marco Rubio.  

              Things could get iffy in a hurry.   In one roll of the dice, for example, Jeb could win Florida, Rubio a respectable second, Rand Paul third with convincing strength in the north of the state and the Panhandle, and Christie fourth.  

              It does seem as if Christie would need at least two of the first 4 or 5 primary states in his win column.  I'm not sure at this point that he can count on that.

              IMO, what may work to christie's advantage in a general works strongly against him in the Republican primary.

            •  But.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Remediator

              ....they chose Romney because he was "electable" and now a lot of them think that was a big mistake because he got landslided.   I think Romney took that card mostly out of play for Christie. They're not in a "settle" mood anymore...

        •  Predicting a party nominee (0+ / 0-)

          three years out, or even six months out, is a fool's errand.  President Hillary Clinton in '08, anyone? What about our '88 nominee, Gary Hart, or our '76 nominee, Hubert Humphrey, or our '72 nominee Muskie?  I'll grant you that these are all Democrats, but I wouldn't go out on a limb and predict.

          Besides, it's New Jersey.  There have been two statewide politicians with sky-high ratings three years before the election who saw their hopes dashed by performing less-than-spectacularly in their own re-election bids.  In 1989, Bill Bradley was gonna be our savior in 1992.  In 1990, he barely beat a little known GOP challenger named Christine Todd Whitman.  Result? No more talk of Bradley in '92. Whitman, in turn, won the governorship in 1993 and, while not mentioned for the top spot, was consistently mentioned for the VP position.  That is, until election day in 1997 when a similarly unknown person named James McGreevey almost beat Whitman.  In fact, through most of the night, McGreevey held a consistent one-point lead (47-46, with the rest going to a minor candidate) over Whitman.  It was only the counting of the last few precincts that put Whitman over the top.  To be fair, Whitman was part of the G.W. Bush administration, but as EPA Administrator, not as VP.  Now we have Christie, and while Barbara Buono may not unseat him, she may do surprisingly well enough to dash any presidential dreams Christie might harbor.

          "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

          by TLS66 on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:25:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And yet Hillary still earned more VOTES... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Check077

            ...than Obama. He just won more delegates.

            How soon we forget :)

            I hear what you're saying...and of course, this is ALL just spec at this point. But you have to admit, he does look like the only change for the GOP three years out.

            Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

            by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Barbara is not the campaigner Jimmie was (0+ / 0-)

            and Whitman was never that popular in NJ; she eked out a narrow win against an unpopular but effective governor ( Florio, who was also touted as pres material  early on, before the wealthy organized a new radio station with "John and Ken"to attack him each day in drive time )then nearly lost to the guy the Dem bosses like Jack Fay all got behind ( even tho they all knew as did everyone who grew up in his town that he was at least bi and likely gay ) and who eventually sailed to the governorship easily in 2001, and was doing good stuff but the rest is history. Christie is essentially running with the backing of Dem leaders, Barbara will get only the votes of loyal Dem voters and public employees. It will hurt. Oh,and turnout will suck, which hurts her even more.

      •  The "GOP BASE" whatever that is, is not required (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remediator

        for Christie to win.  He needs them not to vote for the Democrat -- and they won't.

        Unless the economy gets turned around in a way the affects ordinary people, 2016 could be a good year for a non-insane somebody who is not a Democrat.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:07:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can see crossover appeal for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          Christie if he survives the GOP primaries, but there are an awful lot of fundies in the Iowa Republican base.  They're an assiduous bunch, too.

          If they align behind one of their candidates, Christie is going to have a problem persuading them.  Giuliani, also well-positioned in national polling, wound up skipping Iowa altogether.  

          We could see Christie skip Iowa and declare that his campaign begins with New Hampshire.

          •  He needs simply to survive the first half-dozen (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Remediator

            or so primaries. They get friendler deeper into the primary season.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:17:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Christie should campaign in Iowa (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Remediator, Love Me Slender

            It doesn't matter if he loses the caucus, he'd be starting his general election campaign.  Iowans like you to show up and he'd get tons of press coverage and that press coverage would extend into states like Minnesota where it's easy to have local news run down to Des Moines or Mason City to cover the contenders.  Heck he'd get coverage in Wisconsin and Illinois as well.  Face down the crazies and show center-right voters he'd be their alternative to Hillary.

            •  He could. I'm guessing his (0+ / 0-)

              advisors will tell him not to, though.  

              Could be wrong.  He might plunge into Iowa whole hog.

            •  I agree 100%...he shouldn't take the chance that.. (0+ / 0-)

              ...another candidate gets a head of steam. Your point regarding the benefits geographically are spot-on as well.

              On a side note:

              WHY ARE WE GIVING THE GOP FRONT-RUNNER TIPS? :)

              Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

              by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:50:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Remember that Romney didn't get much love (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin, Fury, ivorybill

      til the looneys imploded.

      Christie might need a little patience, but he most definitely can win if he maintains his favorables and doesn't pull Romney insanity.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:06:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree...man, I know people here don't want to... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac, Fury

        ...hear it, but this guy is trouble for us in the general. He puts so many Blue states in play.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:12:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was going to make a similar point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fury

      about how Romney won the primaries, even though he was the grandpa of Obamacare.  I do think Christie, like Romney, will have to say some things that are unpopular with the country as a whole to win the primaries.

      •  I would be surprised if he does that... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, Fury

        Chris Christie speaks his mind...it's probably his most endearing character quality. He frequently says things that piss off his base, yet here he is, the most viable GOP candidate circa 2013.

        If he can win where others fail, the base will flock to him rather than swallow a Hillary Clinton coronation...regardless of what he says in the primaries that makes them happy/angry.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:39:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree...Christie is "dangerous" exactly for the (0+ / 0-)

      reason that the base doesn't like him that much...but if his gravitas with dems-lite and "indies" hold, then he would be a handful.
      -If he prevails at the normination, the base would have no choice but to vote him....they did McCain and Romney...though it was said they won't...

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935 --Talk of foresight--

      by tuma on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 12:40:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We end up with Christie/Cruz on the GOP side (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLizardKing, Love Me Slender

    and we're in for one really tough election.

    "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:39:13 AM PDT

  •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

    all the damned Vichy Democrats will line up behind Christie and sell the rest of us out.

  •  Seems to be a bit of an east coast sample bias (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madronagal

    among the lesser known Democrats: Cuomo, O'Malley, Gillebrand, Warner.  Outside of maybe Gillebrand, I'd be surprised if most people in flyoverland had ever heard of any of them.  

  •  Why does he have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Van Buren, ratcityreprobate

    so much support from Democrats????

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:41:18 AM PDT

    •  By most local accounts, (5+ / 0-)

      in New Jersey he's known for not being a racist. That's a big distinguishing factor I suspect.

    •  read my link (0+ / 0-)

      The way Things Are.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:53:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd venture to (0+ / 0-)

      guess that many D voters are doing the throw the bums out two step along with anyone but.... Since the Dem. electoral machine is not  offering any democratic hope of change other then Third Way corruption it tends to make people less frightened of anybody who appears half way sane.

      This administration's implementation of a anti-democratic agenda and policy and has managed to wipe out any meaningful partisan lines. Fear alone will not hold people captive to vote Democratic if after they vote against RW maniacs they still get RW policy and direction. Polls that offer a list like this one, offer choices that once again      

       I really resent the fact that Hillary is considered the 'inevitable' D candidate.  Maybe if the Dems. quit fishing in the conservative 'centrist' pool and started giving people a real choice they would find that Dem voters would not have to consider a Republican like Christie a viable choice. The lesser evil in a field of degrees of evil.  

      I'm sick of the repeating Clinton/ Bush choice regardless of the persona/name the corrupt party mandarins decide to run. Opening the nominating process up and actually running a Democrat would help, actually fighting for the people and the common good would also.

      After the bait and switch the Dems. pulled with the Obama administration good luck herding the Dems. back to enthusiastically voting for wolves in Dem. clothing. Shorter answer same reason so many people are becoming indies. What choice do we have?      

  •  Chris Christie! Why? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madronagal

    We already have enough of a big, fat, mad, ugly white mad with Rush Limbaugh.  Why anybody is enamored with Chris Christie is simply beyond me.

    This is one dilemma that I hope that the Tea Party 'Publicans will save the Nation from ever having to face.

    We don't need Chris Christie.  How in the world could he be more popular than Hilary Clinton?

    My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

    by NM Ray on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:41:53 AM PDT

    •  First, you should lose the "big, fat" BS... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK, ivorybill

      It implies, correct or not, that there is nothing else to hit him with other than his weight...not exactly a winning argument when people are hurting.

      Second, Hillary is not even remotely as likeable as Obama is to the general public. The American public looks at Chris Christie and sees one of them...an opinionated regular Joe who gave his own party the finger to work with a sitting Dem president during a time of crisis. He hugged Obama a short time before the election...infuriating the Right, but also portraying to the American public that he will work across the aisle when needs be.

      We should not bank on the loony Right saving us from Chris Christie. Remember, they couldn't rid themselves of McCain or Romney either.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:01:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We don't all look alike. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin

      Believe it or not.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:09:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Independents part of the poll is very interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tampaedski

    Among INDEPENDENTS.

    Chris Christie         50.6
    Ted Cruz               50.4
    Rand Paul              49.1
    Paul Ryan              48.0
    Bobby Jindal           47.8
    Scott Walker           45.9
    Marco Rubio            45.0
    Elizabeth Warren       44.2
    Hillary Clinton        44.2
    Peter King             43.6
    Barack Obama           42.8
    Kirsten Gillibrand     42.1
    Jeb Bush               41.8
    Rick Santorum          41.5
    Joe Biden              41.3
    Andrew Cuomo           41.2
    Mark Warner            39.9
    Martin O'Malley        39.2
    Mitch McConnell        38.5
    John Boehner           36.2
    Nancy Pelosi           25.8
    Harry Reid             25.3

    It seems from this that independents lean more Republican than Democrats.

    It's also interesting that Warren does best among all Dems with Indies.

    I think:
    1. Christie's bubble will burst as soon as people see his compulsively arrogant personality on display. Arrogant people don't do well in American politics (Newt's 2012 run being a recent example).

    2. even though he doesn't do well in this poll, I am almost certain that Jeb Bush will run and be the GOP establishment's candidate.

    3. Due to general discontent with both parties, there is a very good opening for an independently wealthy independent (Bloomberg isn't the only one in this category) to enter the race and potentially win. My hunch is quite strong that a viable independent candidate will run  in 2016.

    •  'more Republican than Democratic.' (0+ / 0-)
    •  Good catch (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike Kahlow, ratcityreprobate

      It's been said for a while that many "independents" are really more moderate republicans that are embarrassed to say they are republicans anymore.

      Here's a data point that screams that point loudly.  But it indicates that these "more moderates" are actually not all that sane on average...

    •  Independents never win. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin, dzog, kickass

      You can't just wake up one morning and overturn a political system that has been in place for over 200 years. An indepedent who actually wants to be president has to have a 10, possibly 20 year plan to get there. Just building the infrastructure that it would take to actually mount a bid that would get you 270 electoral votes is a monumental task and would be a multi-billion dollar long term enterprise.

      So forget about independents or third party victories in 2016. Not going to happen.

      •  so true (0+ / 0-)

        indies are these days disaffected Rs who lean conservative but could be persuaded not to vote for a nutcase.

        IOw, they are in play for everyone, but Christie obviously would do well with them. They do not help in in most primaries.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:54:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Perot could've won in 1992 (0+ / 0-)

        had he turned his focus to building a campaign/GOTV apparatus, instead of turning to saying and doing nutty things, after he surged to a lead in polls.

        Someone who is both disciplined and levelheaded (unlike Perot), as well as has enough money of his own to have a strong and sustained presence on TV can still win as an indie, IMO. Especially so given that independent identification has significantly increased since the early 90s.

        •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Magus

          What states would he have won? As I recall, he only had a polling lead in 12 states at his peak. He was never ahead in California, New York, Illinois, Texas or Florida.

          The apparatus he would have needed to build would have taken 20 years to build to compete with the major parties.

          He got a lot of scattered votes all over the place, but in the end he didn't win a single state or a single electoral vote.

          A bust.

          •  let's agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I believe that a winning indie campaign (making heavy use of the web in today's world vs Perot's) can be built around a quality candidate in about a 2-3 year period.

            The fact that Obama came out of nowhere to win the Dem nomination in 2008 (party organization being a neutral player in the primaries) in a contest that went through all 50 states actually provides an inspiration for such a campaign.

            •  Party organization was far from neutral. (0+ / 0-)

              Au contraire. The party orgnans of the Democratic Party were all heavily involved in that primary. In fact, that's when you see the people who are closest to the parties do the most activity at the presidential level. During the presidential primary and the nomination fight for party leader. Party activists take sides and fight it out. Then unite around the nominee.

              But again, this isn't a question of disagreement. It's an empirical question. You say Perot would have won. I asked you which states would have gotten him to 270. At what point was he ahead in the polls enough that he would have ever, at any point in the cycle, on his best possible polling day?

              You can't answer that question honestly and conclude he was ever within a country mile of the presidency. It wasn't even on the horizon for him.

              •  I actually didn't know the (0+ / 0-)

                state polling data at that time. I was using referring only to national polls. I understand that electoral college lanscape can be quite different, especially when we're looking at small leads in national polls, but had Perot pulled ahead and got to 7-10% lead in national polls, then states would have started lining up for him. Alternatively, a good strategist would have helped him turn his national leads into forging a  winnable coalition of states (there are umpteen combinatorial possibilities of reaching the 270 mark.)

                •  That's pure speculation. (0+ / 0-)

                  We have no way of testing that postulate because such an event has never happened. By that I mean this:

                  but had Perot pulled ahead and got to 7-10% lead in national polls, then states would have started lining up for him. Alternatively, a good strategist would have helped him turn his national leads into forging a  winnable coalition of states
                  Maybe. We do know it has never happened that way in American history, or since the advent of modern polling.

                  But the facts that are on the table are pretty clear: Perot never had a national lead in the electoral college. He was never even close, even at his peak in the national polls. That's a fact. Weighing that against your postulate, its hard to claim Perot could have won. And remember, he was the most successful independent in modern times, at least in terms of the popular vote.

                  The evidence is pretty clearly in favor of one of the two major parties producing a president in 2016. Very little chance of independent victory. At least if you just go by the facts on the table.

              •  BTW, (0+ / 0-)

                do you know what happens if in a 3-way race no one secures 270 electoral votes. Do the electors keep voting until someone gets to the 270 mark? What if the process ends up in a dead lock?

                •  It goes to the house by majority vote. (0+ / 0-)

                  Don't ask me what happens if that does'nt work because I have no idea!

                  •  if that doesn't work (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    brooklynbadboy

                    my wife picks the next President.

                    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

                    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 04:35:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  the real answer (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    brooklynbadboy
                    The candidate that receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the offices of President or Vice President is elected to that office. The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a President or Vice President. If no candidate receives a majority for President, then the House of Representatives will select the President, with each state delegation (instead of each Representative) having only one vote. If no candidate receives a majority for Vice President, then the Senate will select the Vice President, with each Senator having one vote.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(United_States)

                    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

                    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 05:42:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Bush (0+ / 0-)

      I do think Bush is going to run for certain. You can tell he wants it  but I think with him it's the timing.

  •  Did the Republicans come up with the phrase (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator

    "Libertarian populism" after a long night of drinking, snorting copious amounts of drugs and playing the circle jerk game?  This is the most ludicrous moniker they've thought up since the last time they tried to slap a happy face on their "starve the poor and give all the money to the rich" philosophy.  But the press seems to love it; they'll use it and push it until someone points out that it's a true oxymoron - or at least until the Republicans prove it themselves - hopefully before the next election.  I would hate to see the public actually swallow it, like they did with "compassionate conservatism."

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:47:41 AM PDT

  •  'Crossover appeal' won't help him in ..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    METAL TREK

    ....republican primaries.  If he does make it to the general, much of that appeal will be lost when the attack ads show his real record to democrats.

    •  But remember, the attacks won't be from Obama... (0+ / 0-)

      Obama was very likeable as a candidate. His positives remained constant from start to finish during the election, and his record was difficult to attack in response.

      Hillary is not so likeable...and she has her own record to be attacked for. That makes the ad wars a wash.

      A Clinton/Christie race will be razor-thin. I still think we win, but it will be very, very close.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't underestimate how important race still is. (0+ / 0-)

        There were millions of people who were motivated to go out and vote for McCain solely because they didn't want a black guy in the White House. A lot of those people would stay home in a Clinton/Christie race.

        Also, by this point Hillary Clinton is far more popular than she was before her time as Secretary of State.

  •  Most of us are not wealthy, which means most (0+ / 0-)

    of us have damned good reasons not to be happy with the status quo.

    Christie would do well to go after independent voters.
    I'm thinking open primary states.

    If the economy does not rebound, I wouldn't be surprised if "establishment fatigue" might encourage a few independents to go primary shopping.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:00:46 AM PDT

  •  I don't get the "Hillary is unlikeable" thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury

    I'm from NJ. Christie's state. Here, MANY people like her & her husband just fine.

    People here in NJ remember the Clintons fondly. Bill won the state twice. They also remember the 90's as "the good times" and they attach that to him. Being his wife and the Senator from our neighboring state also helps her here

    IF Christie makes it through the GOP primary, he will be a VERY formidable candidate, no doubt. But if Hillary is the nominee, he might not even win his home state.

    I could be wrong but this is what I'm seeing as a NJ resident.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:23:26 AM PDT

    •  That's NJ...the other 49 states count, too :) (0+ / 0-)

      She is not as likeable as her predecessor. Fair or unfair, she will be compared to Obama...and quite frankly, she didn't have the greatest likeability factor in the first place. If she did, it is unlikely that she would have lost in 2008.

      She can come off as shrill and cold at times...a stark contrast to Obama's personality, which is engaging and draws people in. I'm not saying that is the end-all, be-all to her...just saying that is part of the perception.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:46:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  polls support that POV (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK

      nor do NJ voters necessarily want Christie to actually run.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:55:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see him appealing from PA thru IA/WI (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK

      He comes off as a Reagan Democrat.  He's Catholic with a blue collar vibe.  He's the anti-Kerry.  You won't see him windsurfing off the Vineyard.

      But he could totally blow it.  Can he debate?  Hillary could destroy her opponent in a debate.

  •  We have serious educating to do re Christie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftangler, liberalej

    He's more conservative than Mitt Romney, yet has a moderate image.  That's a dangerous package; he's far enough to the right for key teabagger figures to trust him, yet appears reasonable enough for swing voters to find him appealing.  He's easily the most formidable GOP candidate, and if the hard-core ideological right splinters like it did in 2012 and 2008, he'll win the primary.  So his downsides — his obsessive neoconservatism on war and security, his vetoing gay marriage even when New Jerseyans were overwhelmingly for it, his cancelling the Hudson Tunnel project after hundreds of millions if not billions had already been spent on it, his generally bullying tendencies, his utter refusal to seriously question GOP orthodoxy on the economy — really need to be emphasized.

    I actually think almost any of the other prospective GOP candidates would be preferable not just from a political standpoint but even from an ideological and policy standpoint; Christie, in my view, veers the closest of the entire bunch to proto-fascism.  I would like him to prove me wrong, but I don't expect it to happen.  I don't see a big theme with Christie — Rand Paul with his strange fusion of libertarianism with American nationalism, or Marco Rubio with his Horatio Alger mentality, all I see with Christie is an excessive interest in power and political point-scoring and being the big kid on the block.  We've had more than enough of that mentality already, thank you very much.

  •  more interesting is the appearance of Peter King (0+ / 0-)

    Christie-King 2016: "Lean and Mean"

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 07:52:20 AM PDT

  •  I see two problems: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Check077

    Hillary might actually not run.

    National Democratic voters have to get their heads out of their asses about ANYONE with an 'R' after their name, like this joker.

    If HRC runs, she will be President. If not, we're kidding ourselves that O'Malley or Gillibrand or Warren or Schweitzer or whomever can win.  For all the riff about how the GOP "can't win" due to demographics and their own foolishness, they could win up with the White House and both sides of Congress in 2016.

    Then may God help us.

    •  It won't be even remotely that easy... (0+ / 0-)
      If HRC runs, she will be President.
      Obama has a likeability factor that shields him to an extend. Hillary is perceived to be shrewd at times and, for better or for worse, will be compared to Presidents Clinton and Obama where likeability is concerned.

      Chris Christie is a formidable opponent in a national presidential election. He will CRUSH his opponents in NH...and once you get past SC and IA, I see many, many primaries he can win.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 08:04:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  President Elizabeth Warren (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schnecke21

    That has a nice ring to it.

    My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

    by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 08:01:51 AM PDT

    •  I think she would be a better candidate... (0+ / 0-)

      ...all the way around than Hillary Clinton...and just as capable of winning in almost every state (OH being the exception..Hillary is ultra-popular there among Dems).

      But I suspect the "pecking order" will be in play here. If Hillary runs, she wins the nomination...bank it.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big Mistake Dems in New Jersey (0+ / 0-)

    I spend a lot of time wondering why Dems are so easily fooled. I simply can't understand why Dems in New Jersey support Christie over their own candidate when his actual record has been against most Dem interests. This even though they know that Christie plans to use New Jersey as a stepping stone to running for president in 2016. So at best, they will have an active governor for 2 years. After he wins reelection he will make a pronounced shift to the right (he's already there but Dems judgment is clouded by his New Jersey persona and Hurricane Sandy response). What Dems have to understand is something that I don't get why other Repubs have not gotten it, Repubs who present themselves as moderate enough to attract Dems--win. Once they win, they work with right wing Repubs to enact the same agenda that the angry, right wing sounding Repubs wanted to enact but were foolish enough to scare off moderate Repubs and conservative Dems. All we have to do is see the example of Walker in Wisconsin, Kasich in Ohio, Scott in Florida, Corbett in Pennsylvania, Snyder in Michigan, and McCrory in North Carolina. What do they all have in common, they all played down their right wing ideology and appeared pragmatic. Once they were elected they went straight for the cultural issues that they played down during the election. All of these governors want the same things as the Cruz's, Paul's, Rubio's of the world, they are just smart enough to hide it until they get elected. Unfortunately, Dems fall for this every time. It makes no sense to give Christie a platform to run for president from when he clearly would be the most formidable candidate against our strongerst candidate, Hillary Clinton. What if Clinton doesn't run? Christie would easily beat any other Dem and could probably defeat even Clinton once the right wing smear machine goes all out against her in a general election. Dems could stop Christie's national momentum right now if they do what they should and defeat him in 2014---how crazy would it be to give him a 30 point win in a deep blue state and propel him towards 2016 with a massive advantage over the right wing zealots that almost any of our potential Dem contenders could beat? The people who say that Christie couldn't get out of the Repub primaries are wrong. Once the national polls continuing showing Christie as by far the strongest Repub candidate against any Dem, they will fall in line behind Christie. Repubs know that they need to win in 2016 and they will do whatever it takes to win, including all sorts of voter suppression. 2016 is a critical year for Dems because the next president will likely replace Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy, not to mention Ginsberg or Breyer. Repubs know what Dems don't admit, the judiciary is where the real power is so they want to make sure that a Repub is in place to ensure conservative judges. Even if the Repubs win the senate in 2014 (I think Dems will keep it by 1 possibly 2 seats), Dems should pick up a strong majority in 2016. Having Christie at the top of the Repub ticket gives them the best chance of holding down their losses on the senate side when all of the Repubs who won narrow victories in an off year election in 2010, will be up for election in a presidential year. Again, why not stop Christie now and allow Repubs to put up an extreme right winger in 2016 so that Dems will have a much easier time of highlighting differences. Dems should remember, there will already be some Dem fatigue with Obama and we will need every advantage that we can get; therefore, it astounds me that Dems can be so shortsighted in New Jersey.

  •  I hope Democrats aren't silly and vote for this (0+ / 0-)

    guy. If other Democrats had voted like black people have since the 60s at about 90%, we wouldn't have had a republican president since Eisenhower and we wouldn't be losing the middle class, we wouldn't have had all those S%L type scandals, fake wars, bank deregulation, recessions. We wouldn't have the tea party controlling the congress. Not to mention the make up of the supreme court would be much different. Oh, and we wouldn't have citizens united either.

    Shit is still shit, regardless whether they put a little perfume on it as Christy is doing.

  •  When (0+ / 0-)

    are "folks" ever happy with the status quo?

  •  I'll never understand women (0+ / 0-)

    Why do so many of them like men that treat them like garbage? It makes no sense.

  •  Christie a far right republican (0+ / 0-)

    The republicans are desperate to paint the far right Christie as "one of us" lol.

    Christie is a Ann Coulter republican. Christie is as a far right extremist as Rand Paul.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site