Chris Christie not running for President in 2012

[her209]

Wonder what happened?

If Obama gets re-elected, will that kill his chances of winning the nomination in 2016 if he chooses to run then?

 

[Strk]

I don't know, he didn't want to in the first place?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/w...tion---chris-christie-s-answer?xrs=share_copy

 

[woolfe9999]

I think it's pretty clear that Christie understands a moderate cannot win the primary in the current GOP environment.

 

[Ausm]

I think it's pretty clear that Christie understands a moderate cannot win the primary in the current GOP environment.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[halik]

I think it's pretty clear that Christie understands a moderate cannot win the primary in the current GOP environment.

Romney is in the lead on intrade, so I don't think that's the case.

I would think it's more so the fact that he's said it a million times he won't run... and he doesn't have the cash.

 

[CPA]

why would it kill his chances in 2016?

 

[woolfe9999]

Romney is in the lead on intrade, so I don't think that's the case.

I would think it's more so the fact that he's said it a million times he won't run... and he doesn't have the cash.

The polls are all over the map right now. I also question Romney being a moderate. I'd say he is a mainstream conservative, not as far out as the tea party backed candidates but not a moderate. Huntsman is a moderate and he's nowhere in the polls. Christie is also a moderate.

Look at the trouble that Perry is having over not being party line on the singular issue of out of state tuition for illegals. Yet Perry isn't even remotely a moderate. Christie would have many fold those issues with the GOP base.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Wow, a politician who actually meant what he said, over and over . . .

 

[xj0hnx]

Wow, a politician who actually meant what he said, over and over . . .

Yea, it seems like this might have been news a month ago, but after the fifth time of announcing that he isn't running it's kind of getting old already.

 

[JS80]

It's the smart move. Everyone knows the economy will continue to bleed 2012-2016 no matter who wins. It's best to have Obama at the helm and take the blame. Then he will have a better shot in 2016 when the party of the left has gone to shit.

 

[ProfJohn]

why would it kill his chances in 2016?

This was his chance and perhaps only chance.

Talk to Mario Cuomo about how that works.

Obama is almost certain to lose next year and if he does that mean a Republican President in 2016 who will be running for re-election. It also means a new Republican vice president who is set up in 2020 as the favorite.

So this is essentially the only chance many of these people will ever have to be President (unless Obama wins next year)

Who ever wins the GOP nomination this year and their VP pick will probably dominate GOP presidential politics for the next 12 years as happen with Nixon/Ford, Carter/Mondale, Reagan/Bush and Clinton/Gore UNLESS the VP pick is someone who can't run on their own ala Quayle, Chenney and perhaps Biden.

 

[Thump553]

Smart move on Christie's part. It is extremely had to defeat a sitting President, no matter how unpopular (witness GWB in 2004).

In 2016 the election is going to be wide open-the Dems don't have any strong contenders currently on the horizon and Christie, at present, looks to be by far the strongest GOP contender for 2016. If he runs now and loses (or fails to get the nomination) he will be damaged goods, yesterday's bright boy.

Cliff's: Christie passing up iffy chance in 2012 for very strong chance in 2016.

Looks like the GOP will have to choose among the current bunch of flakes or the phony, perpetual candidate, Romney.

 

[ProfJohn]

The polls are all over the map right now. I also question Romney being a moderate. I'd say he is a mainstream conservative, not as far out as the tea party backed candidates but not a moderate.

See!!! There is your whole problem

If you think Romney is a 'mainstream' conservative then you have NO understand of conservatism at all.

Romney is a moderate and other than Huntsman he is THE most moderate person in the primaries. Christie would be ever farther to the right than Romney on most issues

BTW do you think Bush was conservative too?

 

[JS80]

Yea dude, Romney is a RINO.

 

[woolfe9999]

See!!! There is your whole problem

If you think Romney is a 'mainstream' conservative then you have NO understand of conservatism at all.

Romney is a moderate and other than Huntsman he is THE most moderate person in the primaries. Christie would be ever farther to the right than Romney on most issues

BTW do you think Bush was conservative too?

His record in Mass suggests he's a moderate. His current rhetoric suggests he's a pretty staunch conservative. Arguably he had to compromise as governor of a blue state. He certainly isn't a social moderate. Where is he on abortion, gay rights, immigration?

Yeah, Bush was a conservative on foreign policy as the repubs have been a hawkish party for a long while. And a conservative on the bulk of social issues. He was a big spender but the high defense spending IS conservative. The tax cuts were conservative. Medicare Part D was not. I get what you're saying about the high spending making him not a conservative, but then I have to wonder who was the last "conservative" POTUS we had? It certainly wasn't Reagan or GHWB.

The fact is "conservative" has a more extreme identity today than it has in the past. Most past republicans are RINO's by current definitions.

 

[lothar]

It's the smart move. Everyone knows the economy will continue to bleed 2012-2016 no matter who wins. It's best to have Obama at the helm and take the blame. Then he will have a better shot in 2016 when the party of the left has gone to shit.

Smart move on Christie's part. It is extremely had to defeat a sitting President, no matter how unpopular (witness GWB in 2004).

In 2016 the election is going to be wide open-the Dems don't have any strong contenders currently on the horizon and Christie, at present, looks to be by far the strongest GOP contender for 2016. If he runs now and loses (or fails to get the nomination) he will be damaged goods, yesterday's bright boy.

Cliff's: Christie passing up iffy chance in 2012 for very strong chance in 2016.

Looks like the GOP will have to choose among the current bunch of flakes or the phony, perpetual candidate, Romney.

Christie’s message of lean government and tax cutting resonated with voters at a time when consumer confidence was near record lows, said Brigid Harrison, a professor of law and politics at Montclair State University.
“He’s missing an opportunity,” Harrison said by telephone before Christie’s announcement. “It’s an opportunity that may not come along again and in my opinion won’t.”
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in 2016, but he won’t be the cool new kid in school -- he’ll be part of the party establishment, and there will be a new rising star,” Harrison said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-2012-republican-presidential-nomination.html

 

[ProfJohn]

Smart move on Christie's part. It is extremely had to defeat a sitting President, no matter how unpopular (witness GWB in 2004).

Bush had 49% approval on election day.

Obama has 42% approval rating today.

HUGE difference. Everyone with approval below 49% has lost. Right now Obama is looking at losing by 2-5 percent.

At this point everything points towards Obama losing. His numbers are already well below what it takes to win. And the economy is getting worse which means his numbers will get worse.

Other than Truman not one President has had below 50ish percent approval a year before the election and won a second term.

BTW Clinton is the ONLY Democrat to win two terms since Roosevelt. Every other Democrat has either not run or became President when the previous President died.
Truman won 1 election in 1948 did not run again
JFK won 1 election in 1960 killed
Johnson won 1 election in 1964 did not run again
Carter won 1 election in 1976 lost in 1980
Clinton won 2 elections
The whole 'incumbents almost always win two terms' thing tends to ignore that fact.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

good, need him here in NJ for a few more years to clean up the mess anyway.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Taft's soul can now rest, since he will continue to be known as the fatest President of the United States of America.

 

[JS80]

Christie’s message of lean government and tax cutting resonated with voters at a time when consumer confidence was near record lows, said Brigid Harrison, a professor of law and politics at Montclair State University.
“He’s missing an opportunity,” Harrison said by telephone before Christie’s announcement. “It’s an opportunity that may not come along again and in my opinion won’t.”
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in 2016, but he won’t be the cool new kid in school -- he’ll be part of the party establishment, and there will be a new rising star,” Harrison said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-2012-republican-presidential-nomination.html

2012-2016 will be a catch 22. Cut government spending and coming closer to a balanced budget will have short term negative effects to the economy.

Maintaining deficits and/or increasing tax rates/status quo will have short and long term negative effects to the economy.

Whoever wins in 2012 will be a loser. I think Christie understands this and is why he is passing. It's a much better strategy to re-elect Obama and force his hand to balancing the budget so he can be the fall guy as the economy remains weak and then elect a conservative in 2016 who can then take credit for a recovery after the effects of the medicine have passed.

 

[CrackRabbit]

2012-2016 will be a catch 22. Cut government spending and coming closer to a balanced budget will have short term negative effects to the economy.

Maintaining deficits and/or increasing tax rates/status quo will have short and long term negative effects to the economy.

Whoever wins in 2012 will be a loser. I think Christie understands this and is why he is passing. It's a much better strategy to re-elect Obama and force his hand to balancing the budget so he can be the fall guy as the economy remains weak and then elect a conservative in 2016 who can then take credit for a recovery after the effects of the medicine have passed.

So what you are saying is that it is correct to "Blame Bush" for the mess that we are in now and that Obama's policies are actually working but may not have results until he is out of office?

 

[lothar]

2012-2016 will be a catch 22. Cut government spending and coming closer to a balanced budget will have short term negative effects to the economy.

Maintaining deficits and/or increasing tax rates/status quo will have short and long term negative effects to the economy.

Whoever wins in 2012 will be a loser. I think Christie understands this and is why he is passing. It's a much better strategy to re-elect Obama and force his hand to balancing the budget so he can be the fall guy as the economy remains weak and then elect a conservative in 2016 who can then take credit for a recovery after the effects of the medicine have passed.

I generally agree with you on that...However by the time 2016 comes there may be a new kid on the block, and Chris Christie could have to fight for his life and may now be associated with the "old guard" of the GOP in some people's eyes who want to see a newcomer that's not part of the already hated party establishment.

 

[Thump553]

Bush had 49% approval on election day.

Obama has 42% approval rating today.

HUGE difference. Everyone with approval below 49% has lost. Right now Obama is looking at losing by 2-5 percent.

At this point everything points towards Obama losing. His numbers are already well below what it takes to win. And the economy is getting worse which means his numbers will get worse.

Other than Truman not one President has had below 50ish percent approval a year before the election and won a second term.

BTW Clinton is the ONLY Democrat to win two terms since Roosevelt. Every other Democrat has either not run or became President when the previous President died.
Truman won 1 election in 1948 did not run again
JFK won 1 election in 1960 killed
Johnson won 1 election in 1964 did not run again
Carter won 1 election in 1976 lost in 1980
Clinton won 2 elections
The whole 'incumbents almost always win two terms' thing tends to ignore that fact.

Newsflash to PJ: every single GOP candidate currently in the race, with the exception of Hunstman and Romney, is unelectable. Huntsman doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination and Romney, well, he's Romney-the general perception is that he will say anything but believe nothing. I just don't see any of that group of clowns (Huntsman expected from the clown category) winning-and God save the US if they do, for any of them will greatly accelerate the decline of America started with GWB.

 

[JS80]

So what you are saying is that it is correct to "Blame Bush" for the mess that we are in now and that Obama's policies are actually working but may not have results until he is out of office?

Blame Bush is a strategy that has worked well so far for the left. It won't work in 2012-2016.

And no, Obama's policies are not "actually working." Re-read my post. I don't see Obama trying to cut government, which would be the optimal solution to long term US prosperity.

 

[JS80]

I generally agree with you on that...However by the time 2016 comes there may be a new kid on the block, and Chris Christie could have to fight for his life and may now be associated with the "old guard" of the GOP in some people's eyes who want to see a newcomer that's not part of the already hated party establishment.

I'll just say that's it's too far out to say anyway. I would like to see Rubio being the first Latino to be president in 2016. He has the potential to be a Ron Paul without the crazy monetary and foreign policy stances.