There have been a lot of comments about Christie's chances of nomination and election in '16 in the light of Bridgegate.
My first addition to the discussion is how I read the critical e-mail:
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."
I read that as not some signal to trigger a pre-planned attack. Rather, I read that as a comment between two people in a "corporate culture," so to speak, of bullying and vindictive attacks on all opponents. Christie may not have even known about that particular dirty trick. But his minions all shared the feelings that dirty tricks were the normal response to opposition.
And Christie's appeal to Cuomo supports that opposition. Cuomo's appointment to the Port District board was asking questions, and Christie assumed that this was something that Cuomo could control. Well, Christie's appointment to the Port District board closed the lanes; that was something that Christie was implying that he could control.
Threshold
The question is not whether this scandal has legs to go 2 1/2 years. It doesn't. The issue is that it changes his image. There is a lot more in his background, and every revelation will confirm this image, and with this story in the files, papers are going to be happier printing other of those stories.
The psychology of perception has a word, "threshold." Before you can see or hear something, the signal has to be of sufficient strength. Any intensity over that threshold leads to greater perception. (For that matter, sometimes film was exposed to faint light before being put into the camera to photograph ill-lit objects. The earlier exposure made the film more sensitive.)
Well, the media and the audience are now more sensitive to Christie-the-bully stories. More will come out, and when they do, they will resonate more strongly.
Campaign Theme
Some have suggested that this bullying will only make Christie more popular among Tea-Partiers. Maybe, but that won't make him popular. Before Bridgegate, the Christie primary campaign theme was: "I can win." The base might prefer Cruz, but wouldn't they rather win with Christie than lose with Cruz? The Tea-party set might hate Christie, but they abhor Clinton (to say nothing of Warren).
Well, if their picture of Christie is that he wouldn't win in the general, then they sure aren't going to support him. (The meme I used in response to the TIME article on Christie was: "Republican Primary voters have to decide whether they want to lose by a landslide with Cruz or lose narrowly with Christie." My guess was that losing narrowly with Christie wouldn't be enough for a true believer.)
I think we need to keep this and any other revelations about Christie as far in the public consciousness as we can. (And some of these aren't really revelations. He scheduled the special Senate race at a separate time so that Booker's voters would be less likely to turn out and so Booker's results wouldn't share headlines with Christie's. The taxpayers paid for that, and that was known before the election.)
I think he's the strongest candidate, even with this albatross around his neck, that the Republicans are likely to come up with. For all of our laughing at Romney and Mr. Bus, can you name one state that Romney lost that any of his competitors could have carried. He was the strongest Republican candidate in '12, and I don't see another coming along.