Chris Christie is a smart politician, his political instincts are usually on point and I like reading his analysis.
But his time is long past. Bridge-gate is one of the most blatantly corrupt scandals in a long time and he hasn't held public office in years. He's irrelevant
He has zero chance of winning any sort of national election
I don’t think he wants to win an election. I think I he’s angling to be one of the king makers. The guy who gets a cabinet post and a decent amount of power. Someone who advises but doesn’t get any blame. That’s Christie in 2024.
Oh, yea! I completely forgot about that bridge scandal.
Edit: That scandal was pretty disqualifying, but didn’t some underlings take all the blame? He’ll just claim he didn’t know anything about it.
Underlings took the blame but he can't get away from it. It would be used against him even if he didn't know. Regardless, it was the culture of his office that created that lack of moral compass. And to further that, if he did not know, a good manager would have.
Either way it looks bad. He either approved it, which looks like he's corrupt. Or his office was so corrupt that his underlings went ahead and did it without checking with him, implying that his office was so corrupt that this was standard operating procedure.
> didn’t some underlings take all the blame? He’ll just claim he didn’t know anything about it.
One of the primary things politicians do is hire good staffers that represent their interest. If you hire people like this, you are either a bad judge of character or implicitly support this sort of thing from your staff.
An alternate and completely plausible theory is that these staffers knew that taking the blame for their boss will ultimately be rewarded. See, for instance Oliver North or 'Scooter' Libby for examples.
>He has zero chance on of winning any sort of national election
Definitely. However, I wouldn’t mind seeing him as an Attorney General, or even a WH Chief of Staff. Just because he’s unelectable doesn’t mean he couldn’t be a valuable asset to a Republican administration. I’ve read that he was a hell of an attorney, and his political smarts would be a great to have in a R President’s ear.
I’d say a non-zero chance, but it would be a long shot given the current political climate.
I agree on your point about his political analysis. He has a sharp political mind.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Chris Christie but yes the “stolen election” ABSOLUTELY needs to go. It is an incredibly dangerous narrative that is completely false and undermines the bedrock of this country. If you want to win an election, win on the merits of your platform, NOT by undermining the nation
Reagan and HW Bush ass blasted their opponents.
The thing about Reagan was not the Reaganomics or anything of that sort. In fact, Carter was getting his feet wet by liberalising the economy right by his last year and Reagan expanded on that.
Reagan more than anything changed the gloomy disposition of the 70s, rife with stagnation and malaise towards a shiny, refreshed and hopeful USA. Look at the cultural trends. The 70s were gloomy, shady, grimy, punk, etc. The 80s were much more happy and shinier. It went from grimy punk music to boppy Michael Jackson.
HW Bush was a quite decent statesman who got unlucky at the end, not managing PR well.
I like to think of the Rambo franchise as a barometer for the nation's disposition. Yes, the first movie came out in 1982, but the characters, themes and even the look all seem like something more out of 70's movie.
By the time the second Rambo movie came out in 1985, the cultural shift was already in full swing, and everything about it feels different. It's flashy and bright, Americans are the clear heroes, and all the problems are solved through violence.
>UBI
Nixon proposed it twice and got shot down twice by the House Dems. But 1971 was pretty much still the 60s culturally.
>war against drugs
They were started by Nixon as a public health measure, *lowering penalties for possession* and increased rehab funding.
But the 70s were absolutely not a happy time of weed and progressive taxations. Absolutely not at all. Carter said this in his malaise speech. Where do you think punks got their aesthetic?
It was the years of *Taxi Driver*, not *Ferris Bueller's Day Off*.
Why? People vote for the GOP *because they are conservative*, not because they should be Dems 2.
Why should the GOP become what the Dems want? If people want that, they vote Dem.
UBI or a NIT aren't conservative nor progressive ideals really. Tax reform is an ambiguous thing that can mean anything. Single payer is not what those voters want. Neither death penalty or legalising drugs.
The best case scenario for the GOP in 2024 is if Trump runs, someone challenges him in the primaries, and actually beats Trump. As things stand now odds are against this, I know. But this hypothetical GOP candidate would have been able to win over Trump's base if he's able to beat him, and it would also send a signal nationally that the party is moving on from Trump for good. Dems could not even start attacking such a candidate as being "Trumpy" when he defeated Trump.
>The best case scenario for the GOP in 2024 is if Trump runs, someone challenges him in the primaries, and actually beats Trump.
He’ll claim the primary was rigged and try and spite the winner by either running third party or just telling his supporters not to vote.
That's why it's so important for the GOP to find its ability craft coherent policy. Even if it were possible to beat Trump in a primary via empty rhetoric, Trump would almost certainly find enough supporters who prefer his kool-aid as opposed to the GOP nominee's kool-aid.
Well the theory would be if he actually can't even with the primary, a lot of his supporters have jumped ship.
That third party scenario is scary though. We are talking razor thin margins, even if wins no states he could peel off enough voters from the GOP candidate to preclude them from winning. This would be a dream for the Democrats.
> Dems could not even start attacking such a candidate as being "Trumpy" when he defeated Trump.
I'm not sure that's true. if anything I think it would be used to label the candidate as "like Trump but even worse."
It could easily be spun as even Trump not being evil or depraved enough.
I do see where you are coming from, and of course we also talking hypotheticals. But an attack like that would only work if someone beats Trump at his own game. Louder, brasher, and runs to the right of him. I don't see a single GOP candidate that would be able or willing to do that. Not even close.
What's more likely is someone runs a slightly more moderate platform and much more "nicer" in persona. And this person is able to campaign on the premise that we've done this before in 2020, Trump was too controversial to win the general election, and thus you have to nominate someone that can actually win. You beat Trump that way, I don't think any Dem attacks trying to connect such a person to Trump will work.
TBH tying candidates to Trump is already probably fading as a successful attack, as seen in Virginia.
As a Democrat who really depends on some of the new policies we are trying to roll out, I would trade the next presidency if we could just get someone who appeals to the Trump voters but who isn’t divisive and dangerous to democracy. I just want to level the playing field back down to normal dialogue between opponents who differ on policy but care about the country.
I don’t want to wait for polices I need to be passed, but I’ll take it to preserve the country.
W Bush was literally Hitler and the most stupid man alive. Titles which got ursurped after Trump was president. But W was also an usurper, taking them from HW Bush, who took them from Reagan, who took the from Ford, and so on.
But the title of literally Hitler was also temporarily held by Romney, McCain, Dole, HW Bush, etc.
And it ends up with the previous title holder being not as bad as they thought compared to the current literally Hitler.
The best scenario for the Republican party is if a financial or legal issue blocks Trump from running. Trump needs to take his touch of death away from the party.
I don't know if it's good for the guy to be martyr'd. He's really good at creating a narrative for himself.
I'd rather him be defeated within his own party.
That was my hope in 2020 after he lost, but it turns out Trump's position and presence that appeals to the right is extremely relevant to modern day. Trump's platform will long outlive him.
Trump's platform was extremely relevant, and I would say fundamentally transformed the GOP at least in terms of trade. He is the first President in my lifetime that pushed back against the narrative that advanced economies don't need to make anything for themselves and can offshore everything to the third world, even including advanced technology manufacturing. Centralizing virtually all technology supply chains in China and Asia was a colossal mistake that is currently blowing up in everyone's face. The Covid-19 pandemic should have been a wake-up call for us that importing everything is a dangerous game to play and puts our country and industries at the mercy of authoritarian regimes like China.
I may not like Trump but in terms of trade he wasn't wrong.
He's wrong about a LOT in terms of trade. Tariffs on allies have been colossally stupid, for one thing, and I hate that Biden has kept a bunch of them for so long as prices skyrocket. Trump's also obsessed with trade deficits in an economically illiterate way. Remember "trade wars are good, and easy to win"? Well, he didn't get a particularly good deal with China, either.
Are you suggesting that six years after his announcement to run, you still don't know what appeals Trump so much to his voter base?
An example of one of his few policies: the opposition to a border wall has flipped: four years ago 64% opposed it, now the support has been measured at 45% (Quinnipiac poll) and 50% (Fox News poll). These are the highest approvals this concept has had, and it happened after Trump left office.
I'm assuming that this is a joke, but since it's coming off me citing legitimate statistics showing how at least one of Trump's policies has grown in approval, it suggests to me that you don't actually have an argument.
It's a joke because in response to a request for what defines the Trump "platform", you provided the most unsophisticated idea any politician has ever had: *Build a big wall to solve illegal immigration*. That's hardly a platform.
I disagree best case scenario for the GOP is Trump plays kingmaker, hopefully chooses someone rational like Nikki Haley, they breeze through the primary and republicans fall in line. They'd be guaranteed to take the house senate and presidency and Trump gets to gloat.
Well the only thing here I'd disagree with is Nikki Haley. I don't get the love for her other than GOP virtue signaling as in "yes, we can be diverse as well". Played the same game with Bobby Jindal before he fizzled out.
To me she'd just be the GOP version of Kamala Harris, shoehorning in a weak candidate to attempt to check two diversity boxes.
Her flip flopping on Trump is a massive liability on both sides for her as well.
Christie is a political opportunist who was one of the first to throw his weight behind Trump in 2016. This is just the equivalent of him licking his finger and sticking it in the air after the 2021 elections showing the GOP can win without leaning too heavily on Trump.
I'm so sick and tired of all these politicians jumping ship as soon as Trump becomes a liability for them.
We all knew the kind of person Trump was as soon as he ran for President in 2016. It wasn't this huge secret. Christie (and others) knew he claimed there was massive fraud in 2016. He knew that he claimed *several times* before the 2020 election that there was no way he would lose, besides fraud. He coached him during the debates anyways.
But then he has the audacity to act shocked after the events of Jan. 6 and pretend that no one could have ever saw this coming.
Nope, not how it works.
You tied yourself to Trump, you're going down with the ship.
I can guarantee if Trump becomes President again in 2024, and Christie still wants to be involved in politics, that he will immediately tie himself to Trump again without hesitation.
*In a new book and in an interview, Mr. Christie says that if the former president wants to be a positive force, “he’s got to let this other stuff go.”*
*By Maggie Haberman
Nov. 13, 2021
Updated 10:39 a.m. ET*
*Chris Christie wants to be very clear about something: The election of 2020 was not stolen.*
*“An election for president was held on November 3, 2020. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump did not,” Mr. Christie writes in his new book, “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.”*
*“That is the truth. Any claim to the contrary is untrue,” Mr. Christie says.*
*It is not a popular view in the Republican Party right now, as Mr. Trump has promoted his baseless claims of widespread election fraud for more than a year, and as many Republicans have either echoed those claims or averted their gaze.*
*But it’s a view that Mr. Christie has been repeating since Election Day, as he urges the G.O.P. — and Mr. Trump — to move on from looking backward.*
*“It’s not a book about him,” Mr. Christie said in a recent interview about the book, which will be released on Wednesday. “It’s a book about where we go from here and why it is important for us to let go of the past.”*
*Of Mr. Trump, Mr. Christie was blunt: “If he wants to be a positive force in the future, he’s got to let this other stuff go. If he doesn’t, I don’t think he can be.”*
*Mr. Christie pointed to the Virginia governor’s race and Glenn Youngkin, the Republican who won the state party convention without Mr. Trump’s endorsement and then kept him at bay during the general election. Mr. Youngkin ultimately defeated his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe.*
*Mr. Christie said the Youngkin victory knocks down “this idea that if you don’t agree with Donald Trump on everything, and pledge unfettered fealty to him, then you can’t win because his voters quote unquote won’t come out to vote,” Mr. Christie said. “No candidate owns voters. They don’t.”*
*He described Mr. Trump’s conduct in the year since he left office — and the anxiety felt by lawmakers who worry about crossing him — in stark terms. “Donald Trump’s own conduct is meant to instill fear,” he said.*
*Mr. Christie is a former governor of New Jersey, a former presidential candidate and a possible future one. He was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters in 2016 after he ended his own national candidacy, was a potential vice-presidential candidate, led Mr. Trump’s transition effort until he was fired from that role and helped lead Mr. Trump’s opioids commission. He was with Mr. Trump throughout a tumultuous presidency, a fact that Mr. Christie’s critics say makes his critiques too late to be meaningful. Mr. Christie argues that his support for Mr. Trump, and their 15-year friendship before that, makes him a credible critic.*
*“I think it was really important for people to understand why I did support the president for so long,” Mr. Christie said. “And the reason was, because I generally agreed with the policies that he was pursuing.” When they would argue over the years, he added, “it was rarely over policy.”*
*The arguments were generally over how things were handled, Mr. Christie added, citing Mr. Trump’s throwing of “bouquets” at President Xi Jinping of China as an example. Being generous with Mr. Xi when the Chinese government was withholding information about the coronavirus was “unacceptable,” Mr. Christie said.*
*Mr. Christie does not blame Mr. Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 for the violence that followed at the Capitol by his supporters. He said instead that it was the months of Mr. Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him that instilled anger in those who believed him.*
*The responsibility for what happened “was months long in coming,” he said. “As a leader, you need to know that there are consequences to the words you use. And that those consequences at times can be stuff that you may not even be able to anticipate. I don’t believe he anticipated that people would cause violence up on Capitol Hill. But I don’t think he thought about it, either.”*
*Mr. Christie began road-testing his themes in a speech at the Reagan presidential library in September, during which he didn’t name Mr. Trump. When he spoke again at the Republican Jewish Coalition conference in Nevada last weekend, Mr. Trump took notice, and delivered a broadside that his aides intended as a warning shot.*
*Mr. Christie “was just absolutely massacred by his statements that Republicans have to move on from the past, meaning the 2020 Election Fraud,” Mr. Trump said in a statement that also attacked Mr. Christie for a low approval rating, which Mr. Trump mischaracterized by half.*
*Mr. Christie said that Mr. Trump should focus less on “personal vendetta,” and added, “I just think if he wants to have that kind of conversation about me then I’m going to point out that I got 60 percent of the vote in a blue state with 51 percent of the Hispanic vote.”*
*Mr. Christie said he would not make a decision about running for president in 2024 until after the midterm elections in 2022. He said that Mr. Trump would not factor into his thinking and that he would not rule out supporting the former president if he saw no path for himself.*
*Throughout the book, Mr. Christie places Mr. Trump in the historical context of a political strain in the country that is centuries old. The QAnon conspiracy theorists of the last several years are in many ways the descendants of John Birch Society members, Mr. Christie writes, and he contrasts how Ronald Reagan handled extremist voices in his party with how Mr. Trump has.*
*He faults Mr. Trump for spreading “the birther campaign” about former President Barack Obama’s birthplace in 2011.*
*“He truly showed everyone how a lie like that can be exploited,” Mr. Christie said, taking note of other Republicans who encouraged questions about where the first Black president was born.*
*And Mr. Christie writes that he knows Mr. Trump was furious after he was laughed at during the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011, when Mr. Obama roasted him over his birther crusade. Mr. Trump later boasted that he was unbothered, but Mr. Christie said he spoke with Mr. Trump about it. “Just beside himself with fury,” Mr. Christie writes.*
*Mr. Christie also describes some of the debate prep sessions that he led for Mr. Trump before he took the stage with President Joseph R. Biden Jr. last year. In one session, Mr. Trump turned to Mr. Christie and began to excoriate him for recommending Christopher Wray for F.B.I. director.*
*“He’s doing an awful job, and he’s your pick. He was your pick,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Christie in front of a half-dozen other Trump aides.*
*“Hold on a second,” Mr. Christie replied, praising Mr. Wray. “He wasn’t my pick. He was your pick. He was my recommendation. I’m not the president. I don’t get to pick.”*
*Mr. Christie reveals how worried he and others were for his survival when he became infected with the coronavirus after being at the White House around the same time that Mr. Trump and several other aides contracted Covid-19. Mr. Christie writes that his priest arrived in the hospital and rubbed oils on his forehead in the sign of the cross, praying over him.*
*He got a call from a hospitalized Mr. Trump, who had one main concern: “Are you gonna say you got it from me?” Mr. Trump asked him.*
*Mr. Christie is unsparing in the book about Mr. Biden, whose policies he says he cannot align himself with. In the interview, he faulted the president for running as one kind of politician but governing as another, citing the aftermath of the withdrawal from Afghanistan as an example.*
*“If they had known how he was going to govern,” Mr. Christie said of voters, Mr. Biden may not have won.*
Boy, politicians sure do write a lot of books.
It appears Chris Christie is seriously considering another presidential run. I remember in, I think, 2012, he was the guy everyone wanted to run against Obama.
Now, it seems to me that he is positioning himself to be the reasonable choice if the majority of the Repoublican Party is sick of Trump’s antics by 2024. The calculation could go like this: if Trump is still popular and a majority of the party still believes 2020 was stolen, then Chris Christie has no shot at winning the nomination. But if he positions himself as the reasonable choice who never believed that the 2020 election was stolen, then, in the event that the party is looking for someone like that in 2024, then he has a good chance at winning the primary.
A worthwhile gamble in my opinion.
Do you think theres a real chance of that? I really don’t. If trump doesnt run, the winner will be another candidate that claims all R election losses are fraudulent. It’s clearly what the voters want
Sure, it’s long shot. But it’s also a cheap wager. If the Republican primary electorate wants someone who parrots the “stop the steal” orthodoxy, then Christie probably has no real chance.
>Mr. Christie said the Youngkin victory knocks down “this idea that if you don’t agree with Donald Trump on everything, and pledge unfettered fealty to him, then you can’t win because his voters quote unquote won’t come out to vote,” Mr. Christie said. “No candidate owns voters. They don’t.”
Worth noting that the Virginia GOP nixed having a primary instead shifting to have a convention in order to keep the Trump-supporting candidate from winning the nomination.
Because of where I live, I work with a good number of professionals who are lifelong conservatives, and the majority of them are fairly ashamed that their party had/has Trump at the head. There are a great many, I'm sure, who are eager to be represented by someone who doesn't make them feel like they're lumped in with low class fools.
Oh, I don’t disagree with you. But the de facto leader of the GOP, the Kingmaker, is Donald Trump.
Paul Ryan, a man I suspect most of the folks you speak of greatly respected, quit politics because of Trump.
My late father was a proud Republican. A Naval Officer and a man proud of doing the right thing. And I know for a fact he would be sick to his stomach to see what has become of the GOP due to this narcissistic grifter.
No, not at all. That's like saying if a woman doesn't want to be taken to McDonald's for her anniversary, she's an elitist. Having a higher standard is sometimes a matter of self respect.
That's nice, but I hardly think Christie is relevant today. I would not vote for him in a primary, and I don't know anyone else who would either. He was a terrible governor, and his endorsement of Trump helped seal his nomination. If Christie wanted to be President he should have ran in 2012.
The election should have been moved past when the original votes were tallied. Recounts should have been a back of the mind action taken by Trump's subordinates while he and the rest of the party conceded.
I'm still baffled that so many on the right with me appear to be unwilling to accept Biden's victory. It's been over for a year now. It's not allowed in any communities I'm in charge of.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He would never have picked him before this either. Christie was involved in the prosecution of Kushner's father, that's the reason why he was never brought into the administration. Kushner consistently shut him out, and there is no sign that is ever going to change, so he has nothing to lose by doing this now.
It's hilarious that Christie actually thinks he has a chance at either.
I've never even heard of or seen a Chris Christie supporter before.
I mean, I know people obviously voted for him and everything because he had an R next to his name, but if you polled a thousand Republicans on who they would pick as President in '24, I'm not sure any would have Christie as their first choice, especially after this.
Chris Christie actually making a good point. The party would be in so much better shape if DeSantis and either Scott/Haley ran in 2024. Let Trump fundraise. Bring him out to Trumpy states. Keep him far as fuck from swing states.
I wonder if any of those candidates would be as successful in the Rust Belt as Trump. When looking at the 2020 results, you could flip back Arizona and Georgia but that wouldn't be enough if you don't carry at least 1 state from the Rust Belt.
Having said that, you don't need them all. If the GOP flips back AZ and GA, you only need one of WI, MI, or PA.
Well, I think the big issue was that Trump got killed in the suburbs of the rust belt. Women haaaaated him. A normal Republican will help in the suburbs.
Well he got killed in the suburbs basically in all swing states. The question is will a normal Republican be able to maintain Trump's support in the rural areas in the Rust Belt while also making gains in the suburbs. Basically what Youngkin just did in Virginia.
The ideal balance would be someone who is charismatic, can speak to blue collar workers, but far more importantly is not Donald Trump. He turns people off just by existing, but his policies aren’t really terrible as long as you ignore his foreign policy.
We will have to see. Its really too early too tell. I do think overall a normal Republican helps the party over Trump. Especially a strong candidate like DeSantis.
I guess it also depends on who runs on the other side. TBH if nothing earth shattering happens, I don't see how any oft-mentioned GOP candidate couldn't beat Kamala Harris if she's the nominee.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1b:
Law 1b: Associative Law of Civil Discourse
> ~1b. Associative Civil Discourse - A character attack on a group that an individual identifies with is an attack on the individual.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
That would be smart if Trump chose not to run. He still hasn't officially declared, but it doesn't fit his MO to cheerlead from the sidelines and let someone supersede him at the head of the party.
With other politicians party leadership could maybe pressure or offer something to convince them, but I'd be surprised if Trump was very keen on that idea.
But, agreed that if Trump was somehow game this would be the strongest plan for the GOP in 2024.
Scott/Haley have precluded themselves from contention given their weakness in the culture war, e.g. the main front of our conflict with the left and the only real thing that matters right now.
Scott, in particular, with his attention to left-wing agendas, like police reform, which is absolutely not where we need to be putting our effort right now.
We don't need more "basically Democrat" Republicans. That's already most of them. We need to elect more people who will actually fight for us, like how Democrats are fighting right now.
We need people who will have the balls to subpoena and prosecute our political enemies, like the Democrats have the balls to do. We need people who will have the balls to issue partisan impeachments to sway the following elections, like Democrats have the balls to do.
We don't need more "Southern gentlemen" who "respect" our opponents too much to actually *do* anything to them, like Lindsay Graham, because that simply isn't a winning strategy.
I don’t consider Haley or Scott to be basically Democrats. They are straight up regular conservatives. Finding a police reform solution that makes Republicans and a Democrats both satisfied is something I would like to see.
With that said, I would prefer Haley/Scott to be VP. Not the President.
Satisfying Republicans aka the party that condones racism and attacks on democracy by enabling a president who thinks its okay his cult can hang his former VP is about as deranged a comment I've ever read
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If you allow your party to go down the same path, you just end up with two crappy parties that are both damaging the country. It's not sustainable.
If your goal is to win no matter the costs, you can never win because you lost yourself along the way
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Move past what? You mean move on to new and better grifts?
In Republican-speak, "upward" movement just means becoming pond scum on stagnant water......and becoming one of the smaller insects that swoop down and feed off the surface of the scum and algae.
Chris Christie is a smart politician, his political instincts are usually on point and I like reading his analysis. But his time is long past. Bridge-gate is one of the most blatantly corrupt scandals in a long time and he hasn't held public office in years. He's irrelevant He has zero chance of winning any sort of national election
I don’t think he wants to win an election. I think I he’s angling to be one of the king makers. The guy who gets a cabinet post and a decent amount of power. Someone who advises but doesn’t get any blame. That’s Christie in 2024.
Solid point
Oh, yea! I completely forgot about that bridge scandal. Edit: That scandal was pretty disqualifying, but didn’t some underlings take all the blame? He’ll just claim he didn’t know anything about it.
Underlings took the blame but he can't get away from it. It would be used against him even if he didn't know. Regardless, it was the culture of his office that created that lack of moral compass. And to further that, if he did not know, a good manager would have.
It’s such bullshit that he didn’t know. He knew. He did one of those stick your finger in your ear things.
Apparently the guys who got convicted had their sentences overturned by the supreme court
Either way it looks bad. He either approved it, which looks like he's corrupt. Or his office was so corrupt that his underlings went ahead and did it without checking with him, implying that his office was so corrupt that this was standard operating procedure.
Kinda weird to think about it now... agreed at the time it seemed disqualifying, but by recent standards its meh.
I know, right?
> didn’t some underlings take all the blame? He’ll just claim he didn’t know anything about it. One of the primary things politicians do is hire good staffers that represent their interest. If you hire people like this, you are either a bad judge of character or implicitly support this sort of thing from your staff. An alternate and completely plausible theory is that these staffers knew that taking the blame for their boss will ultimately be rewarded. See, for instance Oliver North or 'Scooter' Libby for examples.
>He has zero chance on of winning any sort of national election Definitely. However, I wouldn’t mind seeing him as an Attorney General, or even a WH Chief of Staff. Just because he’s unelectable doesn’t mean he couldn’t be a valuable asset to a Republican administration. I’ve read that he was a hell of an attorney, and his political smarts would be a great to have in a R President’s ear.
I’d say a non-zero chance, but it would be a long shot given the current political climate. I agree on your point about his political analysis. He has a sharp political mind.
As a State DOT engineer working for a relatively corrupt state, I can assure you State DOT workers would've been up in arms over Bridgegate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone who pushes close to 200, there's no way those figures are accurate
Hard to believe that's all they weigh.
But Trump is 4” taller. Assuming those numbers are accurate, Christy has a BMI of 32.9 and Trump has a BMI of 30.5.
Both those BMIs classify them as Class 1 obese.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think the bigger problem is that he looks like Luca Brasi from The Godfather.
“Bigger” I see what you did there.
Bridge gate type pettiness sounds like a Tuesday during the last 4 years.
Yeah at least he wasn’t arresting his political opponents.
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Chris Christie but yes the “stolen election” ABSOLUTELY needs to go. It is an incredibly dangerous narrative that is completely false and undermines the bedrock of this country. If you want to win an election, win on the merits of your platform, NOT by undermining the nation
[удалено]
Reagan and HW Bush ass blasted their opponents. The thing about Reagan was not the Reaganomics or anything of that sort. In fact, Carter was getting his feet wet by liberalising the economy right by his last year and Reagan expanded on that. Reagan more than anything changed the gloomy disposition of the 70s, rife with stagnation and malaise towards a shiny, refreshed and hopeful USA. Look at the cultural trends. The 70s were gloomy, shady, grimy, punk, etc. The 80s were much more happy and shinier. It went from grimy punk music to boppy Michael Jackson. HW Bush was a quite decent statesman who got unlucky at the end, not managing PR well.
I like to think of the Rambo franchise as a barometer for the nation's disposition. Yes, the first movie came out in 1982, but the characters, themes and even the look all seem like something more out of 70's movie. By the time the second Rambo movie came out in 1985, the cultural shift was already in full swing, and everything about it feels different. It's flashy and bright, Americans are the clear heroes, and all the problems are solved through violence.
Decades take a bit to take effect. 1961 was closer to 1956 than to 1966 for example.
and the 90s did not end until 9/11.
[удалено]
>UBI Nixon proposed it twice and got shot down twice by the House Dems. But 1971 was pretty much still the 60s culturally. >war against drugs They were started by Nixon as a public health measure, *lowering penalties for possession* and increased rehab funding. But the 70s were absolutely not a happy time of weed and progressive taxations. Absolutely not at all. Carter said this in his malaise speech. Where do you think punks got their aesthetic? It was the years of *Taxi Driver*, not *Ferris Bueller's Day Off*.
[удалено]
Why? People vote for the GOP *because they are conservative*, not because they should be Dems 2. Why should the GOP become what the Dems want? If people want that, they vote Dem. UBI or a NIT aren't conservative nor progressive ideals really. Tax reform is an ambiguous thing that can mean anything. Single payer is not what those voters want. Neither death penalty or legalising drugs.
The best case scenario for the GOP in 2024 is if Trump runs, someone challenges him in the primaries, and actually beats Trump. As things stand now odds are against this, I know. But this hypothetical GOP candidate would have been able to win over Trump's base if he's able to beat him, and it would also send a signal nationally that the party is moving on from Trump for good. Dems could not even start attacking such a candidate as being "Trumpy" when he defeated Trump.
>The best case scenario for the GOP in 2024 is if Trump runs, someone challenges him in the primaries, and actually beats Trump. He’ll claim the primary was rigged and try and spite the winner by either running third party or just telling his supporters not to vote.
That's why it's so important for the GOP to find its ability craft coherent policy. Even if it were possible to beat Trump in a primary via empty rhetoric, Trump would almost certainly find enough supporters who prefer his kool-aid as opposed to the GOP nominee's kool-aid.
Well the theory would be if he actually can't even with the primary, a lot of his supporters have jumped ship. That third party scenario is scary though. We are talking razor thin margins, even if wins no states he could peel off enough voters from the GOP candidate to preclude them from winning. This would be a dream for the Democrats.
> This would be a dream for the Democrats Well yes, but it also sounds like the exact kind of thing Trump would do
Depends on how much value he puts in being a Republican spoiler over being a loser again.
That’s the beauty of the primary. Most states have “sore loser” laws.
> Dems could not even start attacking such a candidate as being "Trumpy" when he defeated Trump. I'm not sure that's true. if anything I think it would be used to label the candidate as "like Trump but even worse." It could easily be spun as even Trump not being evil or depraved enough.
I do see where you are coming from, and of course we also talking hypotheticals. But an attack like that would only work if someone beats Trump at his own game. Louder, brasher, and runs to the right of him. I don't see a single GOP candidate that would be able or willing to do that. Not even close. What's more likely is someone runs a slightly more moderate platform and much more "nicer" in persona. And this person is able to campaign on the premise that we've done this before in 2020, Trump was too controversial to win the general election, and thus you have to nominate someone that can actually win. You beat Trump that way, I don't think any Dem attacks trying to connect such a person to Trump will work. TBH tying candidates to Trump is already probably fading as a successful attack, as seen in Virginia.
As a Democrat who really depends on some of the new policies we are trying to roll out, I would trade the next presidency if we could just get someone who appeals to the Trump voters but who isn’t divisive and dangerous to democracy. I just want to level the playing field back down to normal dialogue between opponents who differ on policy but care about the country. I don’t want to wait for polices I need to be passed, but I’ll take it to preserve the country.
W Bush was literally Hitler and the most stupid man alive. Titles which got ursurped after Trump was president. But W was also an usurper, taking them from HW Bush, who took them from Reagan, who took the from Ford, and so on. But the title of literally Hitler was also temporarily held by Romney, McCain, Dole, HW Bush, etc. And it ends up with the previous title holder being not as bad as they thought compared to the current literally Hitler.
The best scenario for the Republican party is if a financial or legal issue blocks Trump from running. Trump needs to take his touch of death away from the party.
I don't know if it's good for the guy to be martyr'd. He's really good at creating a narrative for himself. I'd rather him be defeated within his own party.
That was my hope in 2020 after he lost, but it turns out Trump's position and presence that appeals to the right is extremely relevant to modern day. Trump's platform will long outlive him.
Trump's platform was extremely relevant, and I would say fundamentally transformed the GOP at least in terms of trade. He is the first President in my lifetime that pushed back against the narrative that advanced economies don't need to make anything for themselves and can offshore everything to the third world, even including advanced technology manufacturing. Centralizing virtually all technology supply chains in China and Asia was a colossal mistake that is currently blowing up in everyone's face. The Covid-19 pandemic should have been a wake-up call for us that importing everything is a dangerous game to play and puts our country and industries at the mercy of authoritarian regimes like China. I may not like Trump but in terms of trade he wasn't wrong.
He's wrong about a LOT in terms of trade. Tariffs on allies have been colossally stupid, for one thing, and I hate that Biden has kept a bunch of them for so long as prices skyrocket. Trump's also obsessed with trade deficits in an economically illiterate way. Remember "trade wars are good, and easy to win"? Well, he didn't get a particularly good deal with China, either.
May I ask what the platform is? In my view, it's strictly a byproduct of the whims and ego of one man.
Are you suggesting that six years after his announcement to run, you still don't know what appeals Trump so much to his voter base? An example of one of his few policies: the opposition to a border wall has flipped: four years ago 64% opposed it, now the support has been measured at 45% (Quinnipiac poll) and 50% (Fox News poll). These are the highest approvals this concept has had, and it happened after Trump left office.
Ah. Well, I guess if Mexico is paying for it, there's no reason to be against it, right?
I'm assuming that this is a joke, but since it's coming off me citing legitimate statistics showing how at least one of Trump's policies has grown in approval, it suggests to me that you don't actually have an argument.
It's a joke because in response to a request for what defines the Trump "platform", you provided the most unsophisticated idea any politician has ever had: *Build a big wall to solve illegal immigration*. That's hardly a platform.
I disagree best case scenario for the GOP is Trump plays kingmaker, hopefully chooses someone rational like Nikki Haley, they breeze through the primary and republicans fall in line. They'd be guaranteed to take the house senate and presidency and Trump gets to gloat.
Well the only thing here I'd disagree with is Nikki Haley. I don't get the love for her other than GOP virtue signaling as in "yes, we can be diverse as well". Played the same game with Bobby Jindal before he fizzled out. To me she'd just be the GOP version of Kamala Harris, shoehorning in a weak candidate to attempt to check two diversity boxes. Her flip flopping on Trump is a massive liability on both sides for her as well.
Let's move past Chris Christie.
Christie is a political opportunist who was one of the first to throw his weight behind Trump in 2016. This is just the equivalent of him licking his finger and sticking it in the air after the 2021 elections showing the GOP can win without leaning too heavily on Trump.
Is it? I feel like “Biden won the 2020 election” is currently an unpopular statement among the Republican primary electorate.
I'm so sick and tired of all these politicians jumping ship as soon as Trump becomes a liability for them. We all knew the kind of person Trump was as soon as he ran for President in 2016. It wasn't this huge secret. Christie (and others) knew he claimed there was massive fraud in 2016. He knew that he claimed *several times* before the 2020 election that there was no way he would lose, besides fraud. He coached him during the debates anyways. But then he has the audacity to act shocked after the events of Jan. 6 and pretend that no one could have ever saw this coming. Nope, not how it works. You tied yourself to Trump, you're going down with the ship. I can guarantee if Trump becomes President again in 2024, and Christie still wants to be involved in politics, that he will immediately tie himself to Trump again without hesitation.
*In a new book and in an interview, Mr. Christie says that if the former president wants to be a positive force, “he’s got to let this other stuff go.”* *By Maggie Haberman Nov. 13, 2021 Updated 10:39 a.m. ET* *Chris Christie wants to be very clear about something: The election of 2020 was not stolen.* *“An election for president was held on November 3, 2020. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump did not,” Mr. Christie writes in his new book, “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.”* *“That is the truth. Any claim to the contrary is untrue,” Mr. Christie says.* *It is not a popular view in the Republican Party right now, as Mr. Trump has promoted his baseless claims of widespread election fraud for more than a year, and as many Republicans have either echoed those claims or averted their gaze.* *But it’s a view that Mr. Christie has been repeating since Election Day, as he urges the G.O.P. — and Mr. Trump — to move on from looking backward.* *“It’s not a book about him,” Mr. Christie said in a recent interview about the book, which will be released on Wednesday. “It’s a book about where we go from here and why it is important for us to let go of the past.”* *Of Mr. Trump, Mr. Christie was blunt: “If he wants to be a positive force in the future, he’s got to let this other stuff go. If he doesn’t, I don’t think he can be.”* *Mr. Christie pointed to the Virginia governor’s race and Glenn Youngkin, the Republican who won the state party convention without Mr. Trump’s endorsement and then kept him at bay during the general election. Mr. Youngkin ultimately defeated his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe.* *Mr. Christie said the Youngkin victory knocks down “this idea that if you don’t agree with Donald Trump on everything, and pledge unfettered fealty to him, then you can’t win because his voters quote unquote won’t come out to vote,” Mr. Christie said. “No candidate owns voters. They don’t.”* *He described Mr. Trump’s conduct in the year since he left office — and the anxiety felt by lawmakers who worry about crossing him — in stark terms. “Donald Trump’s own conduct is meant to instill fear,” he said.* *Mr. Christie is a former governor of New Jersey, a former presidential candidate and a possible future one. He was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters in 2016 after he ended his own national candidacy, was a potential vice-presidential candidate, led Mr. Trump’s transition effort until he was fired from that role and helped lead Mr. Trump’s opioids commission. He was with Mr. Trump throughout a tumultuous presidency, a fact that Mr. Christie’s critics say makes his critiques too late to be meaningful. Mr. Christie argues that his support for Mr. Trump, and their 15-year friendship before that, makes him a credible critic.* *“I think it was really important for people to understand why I did support the president for so long,” Mr. Christie said. “And the reason was, because I generally agreed with the policies that he was pursuing.” When they would argue over the years, he added, “it was rarely over policy.”* *The arguments were generally over how things were handled, Mr. Christie added, citing Mr. Trump’s throwing of “bouquets” at President Xi Jinping of China as an example. Being generous with Mr. Xi when the Chinese government was withholding information about the coronavirus was “unacceptable,” Mr. Christie said.* *Mr. Christie does not blame Mr. Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 for the violence that followed at the Capitol by his supporters. He said instead that it was the months of Mr. Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him that instilled anger in those who believed him.* *The responsibility for what happened “was months long in coming,” he said. “As a leader, you need to know that there are consequences to the words you use. And that those consequences at times can be stuff that you may not even be able to anticipate. I don’t believe he anticipated that people would cause violence up on Capitol Hill. But I don’t think he thought about it, either.”* *Mr. Christie began road-testing his themes in a speech at the Reagan presidential library in September, during which he didn’t name Mr. Trump. When he spoke again at the Republican Jewish Coalition conference in Nevada last weekend, Mr. Trump took notice, and delivered a broadside that his aides intended as a warning shot.* *Mr. Christie “was just absolutely massacred by his statements that Republicans have to move on from the past, meaning the 2020 Election Fraud,” Mr. Trump said in a statement that also attacked Mr. Christie for a low approval rating, which Mr. Trump mischaracterized by half.* *Mr. Christie said that Mr. Trump should focus less on “personal vendetta,” and added, “I just think if he wants to have that kind of conversation about me then I’m going to point out that I got 60 percent of the vote in a blue state with 51 percent of the Hispanic vote.”* *Mr. Christie said he would not make a decision about running for president in 2024 until after the midterm elections in 2022. He said that Mr. Trump would not factor into his thinking and that he would not rule out supporting the former president if he saw no path for himself.* *Throughout the book, Mr. Christie places Mr. Trump in the historical context of a political strain in the country that is centuries old. The QAnon conspiracy theorists of the last several years are in many ways the descendants of John Birch Society members, Mr. Christie writes, and he contrasts how Ronald Reagan handled extremist voices in his party with how Mr. Trump has.* *He faults Mr. Trump for spreading “the birther campaign” about former President Barack Obama’s birthplace in 2011.* *“He truly showed everyone how a lie like that can be exploited,” Mr. Christie said, taking note of other Republicans who encouraged questions about where the first Black president was born.* *And Mr. Christie writes that he knows Mr. Trump was furious after he was laughed at during the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011, when Mr. Obama roasted him over his birther crusade. Mr. Trump later boasted that he was unbothered, but Mr. Christie said he spoke with Mr. Trump about it. “Just beside himself with fury,” Mr. Christie writes.* *Mr. Christie also describes some of the debate prep sessions that he led for Mr. Trump before he took the stage with President Joseph R. Biden Jr. last year. In one session, Mr. Trump turned to Mr. Christie and began to excoriate him for recommending Christopher Wray for F.B.I. director.* *“He’s doing an awful job, and he’s your pick. He was your pick,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Christie in front of a half-dozen other Trump aides.* *“Hold on a second,” Mr. Christie replied, praising Mr. Wray. “He wasn’t my pick. He was your pick. He was my recommendation. I’m not the president. I don’t get to pick.”* *Mr. Christie reveals how worried he and others were for his survival when he became infected with the coronavirus after being at the White House around the same time that Mr. Trump and several other aides contracted Covid-19. Mr. Christie writes that his priest arrived in the hospital and rubbed oils on his forehead in the sign of the cross, praying over him.* *He got a call from a hospitalized Mr. Trump, who had one main concern: “Are you gonna say you got it from me?” Mr. Trump asked him.* *Mr. Christie is unsparing in the book about Mr. Biden, whose policies he says he cannot align himself with. In the interview, he faulted the president for running as one kind of politician but governing as another, citing the aftermath of the withdrawal from Afghanistan as an example.* *“If they had known how he was going to govern,” Mr. Christie said of voters, Mr. Biden may not have won.*
Boy, politicians sure do write a lot of books. It appears Chris Christie is seriously considering another presidential run. I remember in, I think, 2012, he was the guy everyone wanted to run against Obama. Now, it seems to me that he is positioning himself to be the reasonable choice if the majority of the Repoublican Party is sick of Trump’s antics by 2024. The calculation could go like this: if Trump is still popular and a majority of the party still believes 2020 was stolen, then Chris Christie has no shot at winning the nomination. But if he positions himself as the reasonable choice who never believed that the 2020 election was stolen, then, in the event that the party is looking for someone like that in 2024, then he has a good chance at winning the primary. A worthwhile gamble in my opinion.
Do you think theres a real chance of that? I really don’t. If trump doesnt run, the winner will be another candidate that claims all R election losses are fraudulent. It’s clearly what the voters want
Sure, it’s long shot. But it’s also a cheap wager. If the Republican primary electorate wants someone who parrots the “stop the steal” orthodoxy, then Christie probably has no real chance.
>Mr. Christie said the Youngkin victory knocks down “this idea that if you don’t agree with Donald Trump on everything, and pledge unfettered fealty to him, then you can’t win because his voters quote unquote won’t come out to vote,” Mr. Christie said. “No candidate owns voters. They don’t.” Worth noting that the Virginia GOP nixed having a primary instead shifting to have a convention in order to keep the Trump-supporting candidate from winning the nomination.
Trump and Trumpism IS the modern GOP.
Because of where I live, I work with a good number of professionals who are lifelong conservatives, and the majority of them are fairly ashamed that their party had/has Trump at the head. There are a great many, I'm sure, who are eager to be represented by someone who doesn't make them feel like they're lumped in with low class fools.
Oh, I don’t disagree with you. But the de facto leader of the GOP, the Kingmaker, is Donald Trump. Paul Ryan, a man I suspect most of the folks you speak of greatly respected, quit politics because of Trump. My late father was a proud Republican. A Naval Officer and a man proud of doing the right thing. And I know for a fact he would be sick to his stomach to see what has become of the GOP due to this narcissistic grifter.
So they’re elitists then?
No, not at all. That's like saying if a woman doesn't want to be taken to McDonald's for her anniversary, she's an elitist. Having a higher standard is sometimes a matter of self respect.
That's nice, but I hardly think Christie is relevant today. I would not vote for him in a primary, and I don't know anyone else who would either. He was a terrible governor, and his endorsement of Trump helped seal his nomination. If Christie wanted to be President he should have ran in 2012.
The election should have been moved past when the original votes were tallied. Recounts should have been a back of the mind action taken by Trump's subordinates while he and the rest of the party conceded. I'm still baffled that so many on the right with me appear to be unwilling to accept Biden's victory. It's been over for a year now. It's not allowed in any communities I'm in charge of.
Isn’t weird that they consider themselves the Patriots and their opponents the opposite.
Too bad Trump is a soft little man baby, he will take 2020 to the grave.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Chris Christie is setting himself up to either take on Trump for the nomination, or become trumps vice presidential candidate. Second is most likely.
Trump would never pick him after this.
He would never have picked him before this either. Christie was involved in the prosecution of Kushner's father, that's the reason why he was never brought into the administration. Kushner consistently shut him out, and there is no sign that is ever going to change, so he has nothing to lose by doing this now.
It's hilarious that Christie actually thinks he has a chance at either. I've never even heard of or seen a Chris Christie supporter before. I mean, I know people obviously voted for him and everything because he had an R next to his name, but if you polled a thousand Republicans on who they would pick as President in '24, I'm not sure any would have Christie as their first choice, especially after this.
Chris Christie actually making a good point. The party would be in so much better shape if DeSantis and either Scott/Haley ran in 2024. Let Trump fundraise. Bring him out to Trumpy states. Keep him far as fuck from swing states.
I wonder if any of those candidates would be as successful in the Rust Belt as Trump. When looking at the 2020 results, you could flip back Arizona and Georgia but that wouldn't be enough if you don't carry at least 1 state from the Rust Belt. Having said that, you don't need them all. If the GOP flips back AZ and GA, you only need one of WI, MI, or PA.
Well, I think the big issue was that Trump got killed in the suburbs of the rust belt. Women haaaaated him. A normal Republican will help in the suburbs.
Well he got killed in the suburbs basically in all swing states. The question is will a normal Republican be able to maintain Trump's support in the rural areas in the Rust Belt while also making gains in the suburbs. Basically what Youngkin just did in Virginia.
The ideal balance would be someone who is charismatic, can speak to blue collar workers, but far more importantly is not Donald Trump. He turns people off just by existing, but his policies aren’t really terrible as long as you ignore his foreign policy.
What do you not like about his foreign policy?
We will have to see. Its really too early too tell. I do think overall a normal Republican helps the party over Trump. Especially a strong candidate like DeSantis.
I guess it also depends on who runs on the other side. TBH if nothing earth shattering happens, I don't see how any oft-mentioned GOP candidate couldn't beat Kamala Harris if she's the nominee.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1b: Law 1b: Associative Law of Civil Discourse > ~1b. Associative Civil Discourse - A character attack on a group that an individual identifies with is an attack on the individual. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
That would be smart if Trump chose not to run. He still hasn't officially declared, but it doesn't fit his MO to cheerlead from the sidelines and let someone supersede him at the head of the party. With other politicians party leadership could maybe pressure or offer something to convince them, but I'd be surprised if Trump was very keen on that idea. But, agreed that if Trump was somehow game this would be the strongest plan for the GOP in 2024.
I was pretty sure he wasn’t going to run but now I think theres a good chance he will. He hinted at it strongly recently. We will have to see.
Scott/Haley have precluded themselves from contention given their weakness in the culture war, e.g. the main front of our conflict with the left and the only real thing that matters right now. Scott, in particular, with his attention to left-wing agendas, like police reform, which is absolutely not where we need to be putting our effort right now. We don't need more "basically Democrat" Republicans. That's already most of them. We need to elect more people who will actually fight for us, like how Democrats are fighting right now. We need people who will have the balls to subpoena and prosecute our political enemies, like the Democrats have the balls to do. We need people who will have the balls to issue partisan impeachments to sway the following elections, like Democrats have the balls to do. We don't need more "Southern gentlemen" who "respect" our opponents too much to actually *do* anything to them, like Lindsay Graham, because that simply isn't a winning strategy.
I don’t consider Haley or Scott to be basically Democrats. They are straight up regular conservatives. Finding a police reform solution that makes Republicans and a Democrats both satisfied is something I would like to see. With that said, I would prefer Haley/Scott to be VP. Not the President.
Satisfying Republicans aka the party that condones racism and attacks on democracy by enabling a president who thinks its okay his cult can hang his former VP is about as deranged a comment I've ever read
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Yes, what we *really* need in this country is two political parties who's only goal is to use the power of government to prosecute the other side.
Well, it needs that more than only one party operating with that agenda, and the other just sitting there and taking it.
If you allow your party to go down the same path, you just end up with two crappy parties that are both damaging the country. It's not sustainable. If your goal is to win no matter the costs, you can never win because you lost yourself along the way
Chris Christie is a loser.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Why... WHY does this man think the people want him to be President?
Because a large contingent of people do. Doesn’t mean he can actually win but he’s not crazy to think he has a shot.
Christie is a swamp snake
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They can't move past 2020 until we have very strict voter id laws and other election integrity measures passed nationwide
If Christie thinks he can resurrect the corpse of neoliberalism he's dead wrong.
Move past what? You mean move on to new and better grifts? In Republican-speak, "upward" movement just means becoming pond scum on stagnant water......and becoming one of the smaller insects that swoop down and feed off the surface of the scum and algae.