Chris Christie

Chris Christie is the GOP Establishment Candidate. Does that Make Him the 2016 Frontrunner Too?


credit: The U.S. Army / Foter / CC BY

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is fast becoming the 2016 presidential candidate of the GOP's establishment. If it wasn't clear already, a story in this weekend's New York Times makes it impossible to miss.

Jonathan Martin's story looks at the ways that Christie is modeling his presumed upcoming (and, to be sure, still unofficial) presidential campaign on George W. Bush's first presidential run. Much of the piece is devoted to highlighting the connections between Christie's budding operation and GOP campaigns past.

For example, the New Jersey governor has hired microtargeting experts who worked for the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney campaigns, hoping to build on their technological expertise to appeal to groups that the GOP has recently underperformed with. He's using former Romney adviser Russ Schriefer to put together his campaign ads. He's got Spencer Zwick, who is close with the Romney family, working as his chief fundraiser, and is continuing to rely on strategy leadership from Mike DuHaime, the architect of Christie's 2009 campaign for governor and someone who has been described as having "close ties to Romneyland." Christie is meeting with or reaching out to deep-pocketed GOP donors across the country, including casino-magnate and Romney megadonor Sheldon Adelson. He's having pizza with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Bush White House lieutenant Karl Rove is providing the Times with strategy-centric quotes like, "He's going to emphasize first trying to win a big re-election with a diverse coalition behind him."

This makes Christie the establishment candidate—and, arguably, the party's early frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. Why do they like him so much? Mainly, they emphasize, because they want to win. As National Review's Robert Costa notes in a piece on Christie's establishment darling cred, party bigwigs are keenly interested in the governor's "electability."

Obviously, Christie isn't a surefire hit with every red-state voter. As the Times notes, there's a fair amount of skepticism about Christie within the GOP base, especially given his election-eve praise of the president following Hurricane Sandy.

But there was plenty of base skepticism about the last two GOP nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, as well. Both were early establishment favorites, and both won their primary contests on the strength of persistent establishment support. And both garnered support for their supposed "electability."

This is the way the GOP nomination process typically works: a gang of the party's elites pick a candidate early on, then throw a lot of support his way. The candidate has to fend off a series of challengers preferred by various elements of the base. But since base support is split, the establishment candidate takes home the trophy. 

So is Christie already set to win? Maybe not. With so long to go until the next campaign, it's obviously a mistake to presume anything. And it's not clear that party's familiar patterns will hold. Yes, the establishment is picking its man early, and making it known, as usual. But the party's establishment is having a harder time getting what it wants these days than in the past. Comprehensive immigration reform, a top priority for the party's consultant and business class, is stalled in the House. The party's upstart spending hawks seem to have a small edge on its old-guard defense hawks. There are a lot of ways in which the party's establishment seems to be losing its grip.

The question, then, is who could successfully challenge Christie. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is one possibility, but he's already being sidetracked by pre-silly season nonsense involving Canadian citizenship. Another option is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Christie is already setting himself up as the anti-Paul, singling out the Kentucky senator's critical views on surveillance and national security. The governor has directly attacked the strand of politics that Paul represents as well. "This strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now," Christie said in July, "I think is a very dangerous thought."

That might appeal to a hawkish party establishment. But Americans of both parties increasingly seem to think that the kind of security-state maximalism that Christie represents is what's dangerous.

More than half say that there's not enough oversight of the snooping programs, while just 18 percent say it's well-supervised. If anything, Republicans are actually more worried about privacy violations than their Democratic counterparts; 77 percent of Republicans say that the NSA's mass-surveillance sweeps intrude on privacy rights, compared to 70 percent of Democrats. It's a libertarian moment in America. 

Maybe you can see why Christie is so worried about the GOP's libertarian streak. If it persists, it could be quite dangerous—to his candidacy.

NEXT: Elmore Leonard, Novelist, Dead at 87

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What, we can’t get McCain or Guiliani to run again?

    1. Nice.

    2. Baron Harkonnen / Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen 2016!

      1. I’d consider those two.

        Lower ineptitude levels!

        1. Well, you’re getting the Baron, whether you want him or not. Now, give him a solid running mate!

          1. Christie just doesn’t look malevolent enough to be thought of as the Baron. Christie just looks petulant like Stilwell in a “A League of Their Own”


      2. Still preferable to Christie and whatever luke-warm VP candidate they would groom for him.

  2. Him?

  3. If this New Jersey jackass is the best the Rethuglicans can come up with, then I might as well give up and marry Matt Damon and then move in with Alec Baldwin.

  4. Fuck no. I can’t pretend to claim that Paul or Cruz will win–both have long hills to climb–but Christie burned too many bridges. He’ll not even make it through the primaries.

    1. You don’t understand. It’s been decided.

      1. Yeah, yeah, we hear that every election. And it’s almost always wrong this early on.

      2. It really hasn’t. The only reason Romney won was because every other candidate self destructed. That is unlikely to happen this time. Cruz and Paul both are more formidable candidate than Romney defeated. The only way anything is “decided” is if he wins by default.

        What is more likely, is that he will lose and go third party to make sure the guy who wins doesn’t win the election. The establishment is that vindictive. They would rather see Hillary win than Cruz or Paul.

        1. The only reason Romney won was because every other candidate self destructed.

          Sorry, John, but no. Paul’s campaign didn’t self-destruct. He had a strong campaign until the end. The Republican electorate *chose* Romniac.

          That is the problem that the Stupid Party has top overcome: The Stupid Party members.

          1. Paul had a campaign that because of his views on foreign policy and his insistence of saying them rather than finessing them was never going to get more than 30%. Once Paul came out and told the world how the US had it coming on 911, he was never going to win. It wasn’t GOP that was stupid there. It was Paul. He just couldn’t help himself and kept saying stupid and offensive shit that had nothing to do with the issues at hand.

            1. Romniac is everything the modern GOP stands for wrapped in a neat little country club republican bow. He represented the status quo in spades. Respectable guy, family man, good hair, never rocked the boat, the kind of guy you want selling you insurance.

              Paul was none of those thing and yes, a risky bet, especially for the stasis field republicans. I won’t argue with you over the minutia of his campaign and what did or didn’t sink his campaign, mostly because that type of thing bores the living shit out of me, but Romniac was chosen by the GOP base and every other alternative was soundly rejected. Full stop.

              They could have chosen someone different, something a little sporty with livelier steering and suspension, something that made you feel alive but had some risk, like a older Aston Martin or even a modern Ducati, but instead went with the Buick Roadmaster. Safe and dull.

              1. This idea of “electability” needs to go out, because it gets us really shitty candidates. Here’s the metric people should use: Do you believe this candidate will make a decent president? If not, do not vote for him.

                1. Do you believe this candidate will make a decent president? If not, do not vote for him.

                  “But how can we know if he’ll make a decent president if we don’t know if he can win?”

                  It’s monkey cages all the way down.

                  1. Only if you let the monkey into your brain. If no candidate is worth your vote, do not vote.

                    1. If no candidate is worth your vote, do not vote.

                      I prefer to write someone in. That way they know I wasn’t just lazy and they could have had my vote had their candidate not sucked.

                      I know they don’t care, but it makes me feel better.

                2. And I have yet to see an “electable” candidate get elected.

                3. I think most voters think most people would make a decent president. Most voters are not all wrapped up in policy, morality, philosophy, or anything else the way people here tend to be. Most voters just want someone they think is a decent guy who could stand for anything as far as they care.

              2. Paul wouldn’t have won the general election because a ton of GOP voters would have stayed home. They just would have been a different set than stayed home for Romney. His son is a lot smarter than he is and understands that. Paul never did. He wants to tell 70% of his potential base to go fuck themselves, that is his choice. But you can’t call it smart politics or consider him a threat to win anything after he does it.

              3. You are wrong buddy, Romney got 47% in the national election, and he lost because he was too “free market” to the electorate. The majority of the voters wanted the free stuff that BO would provide. Those are the current times. RP would have gotten MUCH LESS votes than Romney did, thats why he wasnt elected by the GOP.
                Im really sorry that Romney didnt win, because the economy would be growing at 5% if he were in the White house right now.

            2. It’s funny how one of Ron Paul’s consistent criticisms of U.S. foreign policy was the C.I.A.’s supposed role in the 1953 Iranian coup (something for which he was labeled a crackpot) actually turned out to be true.

              Ron Paul was probably the only Republican in the last election cycle to have anything useful to say about foreign policy. Not to say Democrats, or the Bomber-In-Chief, had anything useful to add to the the discussion.

              1. First, he said a lot more than that that wasn’t right. Second, even if he was right, so what? He lost his shot at the nomination because he wanted to score points an event that happened 60 years ago.

                1. Ron Paul has said NOTHING that wasn’t right. You suck.

                  1. And you are hereby BANISHED from the inter-webs-tuubz-thingys. Because you suck, and Ron Paul rocks.

              2. Um was he really labeled a crackpot for thinking the CIA was involved in the coup? It hasn’t really been a secret for a while.

        2. I’m not buying the vengeful establishment line of thinking. They’ve been out of the White House for 8 years, and the prospect of another 4-8 in the wilderness is going to be too much for them. If Paul or Cruz survives the primary, the establishment will fall into line.

          1. I hope you are right. But they are real scumbags. They are as wedded to the status quo as the Dems and won’t be happy to see it change even if it does put someone from their party in power.

      3. He’s not the front-runner because the establishment GOP says so, he’s the front-runner because the NYT says so.

        The media is going to plump for Christie because he’s a reasonable moderate – right up until about 8/10ths of a second after he gets the nomination when he will suddenly become a right-wing extremist who makes Attila the Hun look like Mother Teresa.

        1. Hear hear !

      4. It may have been decided by the Repub “leadership”, but very few real conservatives will vote for fat boy.

        That worked real well with Romney, didn’t it?

    2. All Christie has to do is say the magic words: Ag subsidies!

    3. Those bridges weren’t burned, they collapsed.

  5. See, they’re already pushing that “most electable” bullshit based on early polling against Hillary, but my response to that is, Hillary is leading Christie, so she’s clearly more electable. Just vote for her, if that’s your priority, instead of principles.

    1. I’m sure I’ll be saddened and disappointed after the next election, but I really doubt either of them will get the nomination.

      1. I’m all-in hoping against hope Rand Paul gets the GOP nod, but you don’t think Hillary Clinton is a lock for the Democratic nomination? Who else is a contender? Joe “macaca” “stand up Chuck” “buy a shotgun” etc etc etc Biden?

        1. Hillary is the Democratic Romney. She’s obviously a weak candidate, being old, controversial, and neck deep in scandals and blatant incompetence, but since the rest of the field is so terrible, she might win the nomination. She’ll be there just in case the GOP screws up massively, but realistically, if she’s the candidate, the Dems are probably on their way to losing already.

          1. I think they know that. They’re probably hoping that the GOP will fuck up when they likely take control of both houses. They’ll have the better part of two years to do so, after all.

            1. They have to hope the GOP nominates someone like Christie who pisses off a good portion of the base and gets them to stay home. It is no surprise at all the Dems and their media operatives are concern trolling for Christie right now just like they did for McCain and Romney in the past.

          2. Hey, I’m no fan of Willard, but that’s way too harsh.


          3. realistically, if she’s the candidate, the Dems are probably on their way to losing already

            Holy shit have you ever misjudged the amount of Kool-Aid true believers are willing to swallow. Hillary Clinton could choke to death on a horse cock next week and she’d still be the favorite in 2016.

            1. Hillary Clinton could choke to death on a horse cock next week and she’d still be the favorite in 2016.

              You’re probably right. Although that would probably cost her the equine lesbian vote.

          4. Please, Democratic McCain is a lot more accurate. Romney was unusually competent at governing, but a terrible campaigner, wasn’t following an increasingly unpopular incumbent but was attacking a moderately popular incumbent, and was mostly dismissed as an out of touch elite. Romney was the Republican equivalent of 2004 Kerry, not 2016 Clinton.

          5. I would like to agree with you but can’t. The Dems love Hillary and don’t care about any of the things you list. They flat don’t care.

            She is a woman you know and it’s time for a woman President and she is a liberal Democrat and that justifies her RIGHT to be President and that is all they care about.

            If Weiner could lead his primary for even a second that should demonstrate my point.

        2. Hillary loses to Gov. O’Malley in a romp. The liberals have gone too far left to give Hillary a second thought when there’s a genuine socialist in the race.

          1. But are there enough white liberals for O’Malley? Hillary is going to get Obama to back her and get the black vote and the feminist vote. I can’t believe many Dem women won’t feel the duty to vote for Hillary. O’Malley is a bigger disaster than Obama. Unlike Obama he actually has a record as governor. And it is fucking horrible.

            1. That horrible record only plays to his loser base. He went after the evil rich and that’s what matters, not the results.

              1. For sure. I was thinking more in the general election.

            2. You’re rihgt, for a hardcore leftie having a record as governor is the worst thing, the failure of his policies become too evident. Imagine if Obama had been governor of Illinois or mayor of Chicago before being president. Detroit would be Switzerland in comparison!

        3. I’ve think that Cory Booker is gonna play a big part in the Dem race, beyond him, maybe Elizabeth Warren? They really don’t have a lot of depth, so to speak.

          1. Booker is a huge problem. If he becomes a serious candidate, what will they do? If he doesn’t win, they are unlikely to get the black turnout they need. If he does, the feminist butt hurt over Hillary being passed over will be epic. I don’t think the Dems want Booker running. They want him staying in the back ground as the promise of the future so they can get blacks to come out for the white person they are going to nominate.

            1. Right, they ideally would save Booker for 20 or 24, but unless they want to just throw away a cycle by trotting out Hillary a la Kerry in 04 or Dole in 96…they really don’t have any other options. It’s gonna be hard as hell for DWS and the rest of the DNC to talk him out of it if he wants to go.

              1. I don’t think the feminists are going to tolerate Hillary being passed over again. She is a cult figure to them. If she doesn’t win the nomination a ton of suburban liberal women will stay home or vote green. There is a whole generation of liberal women who all vote and vote reliably D who would never get over Hillary not getting the nomination.

                1. I don’t think the feminists are going to tolerate Hillary being passed over again.

                  You’re delusional.

                  Feminists will vote their party identity just to keep the other team from winning.

                  1. Not if they pass over Hillary Rob. You don’t understand how much they love her. They will never get over it. They will stay home or vote green.

                    1. No way. Modern feminism is all about self-hatred. They’ll bitch and moan about having to vote for the male candidate, but they will because they are lapdogs at heart.

          2. Cory Booker is the best candidate the Dems could possibly come up with. His views on school choice and the WoD put him a few tiers above the rest.

            1. I don’t think the feminists and the public employee unions will see it that way. Obama is a crook who promised to bring home the pork. If Booker is an honest man, that will not go over well with the free shit base.

              1. Don’t worry, Bokker is not an honest man. He’s just not as corrupt as his predecessor, Sharpe James.

            2. Brian Schweitzer is the best (D) candidate possible.

            3. Cory Booker is the best candidate the Dems could possibly come up with. His views on school choice and the WoD put him a few tiers above the rest.

              Yeah….just like Barry O was concerned about your civil liberties when he was a candidate.

  6. I don’t think the establishment wants to win. It is too much hassle being in charge and their lefty friends say bad things about them when they win. Romeny lost primarily because the Dems got better turnout than the Republicans. So these people’s solution is to shove Fatso down the party’s throat thinking that is going to improve turn out. Fatso doesn’t have a base. Romney never offended the base the way Fatso does. Fatso would be lucky to equal McCain’s vote totals.

    1. I don’t think it’s that. I think they’re not convinced that a sufficient number of Americans are opposed to total statism and socialism. They’re wrong, at least for the moment, because enough of us are suffering in this moribund economy (not to mention the scandals that are showing just how unaccountable our government is to us) to want serious change from the status quo.

      Frankly, the really big problem in the GOP is the few of the old guard who are, really, just right-of-center socialists. Which means they aren’t “centrists” at all, unless your spectrum only includes socialists. They need to be ignored and, wherever possible, discarded.

      1. Frankly, the really big problem in the GOP is the few of the old guard who are, really, just right-of-center socialists.

        Yes. And they have been in Washington a long time and like the culture. It is good to be a powerful socialist. It is nice to have the various idiots in Washington like you and accept you. Rubio went to Washington and immediately decided socialism was the thing for him. It is for some a very enticing culture. The GOP establishment is very much a part of it.

        1. The GOP establishment is very much a part of it.

          Might as well punish them again for that stance.

          I look forward to not voting for Candidate Fatass. And of course Candidate Cankles is a non-starter as well.

        2. Rubio was convinced by the rhetoric of small government, but not by its principles. That’s also a pretty good description of much of the libertarian movement in the GOP. We might get a Rand presidency out of 2016, but what’s likely to play better with the GOP base is a candidate who talks a good game without threatening the military contractor/agricorporate/southern conservative/evangelical alliance they’ve spent so long building up. That’s not going anywhere until the majority of the GOP is convinced it’s no longer working.

        3. Yeppers. If GOP voters want to rebel, the place to do it is in the voting booth. Just one scary election could right many wrongs. They need to fear the consequences. That’s one thing that’s wrong with the Democrats–there are no consequences within the party for their politicians, who will be supported no matter what.

      2. I’m afraid there could be a lot of voters who know what the problem is, but figure the best solution for them is to grab the last of the loot before they die.

  7. But Americans of both parties increasingly seem to think that the kind of security-state maximalism that Christie represents is what’s dangerous.

    And the Democrat’s are thus going to capitalize on this by nominating a clear defender of civil liberties?

    Get real. Christie is a viable candidate. And his strengths (security state, outspokenness, cost control) play well to the GOP base. As does his pandering to the gimme gimme gimme crowd (oh Sandy…the Horror!).

    1. play well to the GOP base

      But his love of gun control won’t. By supporting gun control at least 60% of the GOP base will refuse to even consider him. His ceiling is 40%. If some other left leaning governor decides to run, his vote is split and he is done.

      I have a hard time seeing how Fatso wins anywhere but the Northeast. No Republicans in the South or Midwest are going to support him.

      1. But his love of gun control won’t.

        I sense a seismic shift on that issue in the next year or so.

        1. You think the GOP base is going to all of the sudden support gun control? How do you figure that. I don’t see anything changing on that issue. Gun owners are single issue voters. And they vote and vote on that issue. What could possibly make you think gun control is going to get popular?

        2. How about a shift this week?…..-c-w-cooke

          1. Exactly. I wasn’t talking about a GOP shift. Just a Christie repositioning based on pandering.

            1. Gun owners will never buy it. They never forget.

          2. I am sure Tubbie is going to backtrack. But gun owners have long memories. They won’t buy it. Too many politicians have sold them down the river for them to believe this bullshit.

            1. But gun owners have long memories. They won’t buy it. Too many politicians have sold them down the river for them to believe this bullshit.

              The RKBA crowd does not give second chances. You’re either right always or you’re wrong forever. There’s no middle ground.

            2. Too many politicians have sold them down the river for them to believe this bullshit.

              It be nice if they were a little less selective in their ability to recall being screwd by politicians.

          3. Uh oh….looks like a certain potential GOP presidential wannabe be realized he just crossed that uncrossable line.

            Sorry Christie, enjoy New Jersey….and after…you could always apply at Goldman Sachs again.

        3. I sense a seismic shift on that issue in the next year or so.

          Respectfully, you are batshit crazy.

          1. Or did you mean a shift from Tubby?

            1. I think he meant that. And as Peter points out above, Fatso is going to do his best to backtrack. But it won’t work.

            2. Francisco, you beat me to the seismic fat joke – nice one!
              BTW, what happened to his stomach bands or whatever to help with weight loss? It looks like he’s actually gained weight. Apparently there’s still lots of Mickey-D’s getting through.

        4. Or, do you think Christie will change his tune right after he is re-elected in NJ? He certainly hasn’t been pro-2A so far.

        5. It has already happened. he just vetoed a gun bill that he supported a few months ago.

    2. Christie is a guy who made his bones by shouting down a teacher or two. He said nothing to cops or other public union workers and the only difference between him and Romney is that he’s a Catholic. This, of course, means that Fox and the religious wing of the GOP can adopt him, ignoring his views on things like AGW, radical Islam, and the surveillance state.

      1. The religious wing is not going to accept Fatso’s abortion views. He denies life begins at conception and is pro choice up until viability. Also, he once donated to planned parenthood. That is to those people like giving to the KKK. And more importantly, culturally Fatso is just not one of them. He will never connect with them or get them to trust him.

        1. I think that is an important distinction between Christie and Romney. Even though Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he had Utah roots, which gave him better chances with other sections of the GOP electorate. Romney was also a businessman, while Christie is just a sleazy lawyer.

          1. Yeah. Romney was obviously a religious guy and believed in the SOCONs values. Fatso doesn’t seem to believe in much of anything, other than the holy trinity of a burger, fries and a shake.

    3. Viable- other than cardiovascular issues.

  8. Hmmmmph. Another Dem-lite from the brain trust running the GOP.

    Dont they ever get tired of getting their asses handed to them?

    1. the establishment keeps hearing that a conservative can’t win, so they go out of their way to make sure one isn’t nominated and, surprise, they lose. And by conservative, I don’t mean so-con.

  9. The other thing about fatso is that he is a total loud mouth and lose cannon. I can’t see him going through a entire primary race without becoming a gaffe machine. He will self destruct.

    1. The question is if that happens before or after the primaries.

  10. I just want to see the Christie 2016 blimp crisscrossing the nation.

    1. fueled by burgers and guido power.

  11. I cannot believe election after election that simple piles of donor money make that much of a difference in who voters follow.

    1. Just wait until a Christie-hired Lee Atwater/Karl Rove ratfucker takes aim at Rand Paul.

  12. It ain’t over until Christie suckles the SoCons down at Bob Jones U.

    1. CHRISTFAGS!!11!!BUSHPIGS!!11!!!

  13. I’m not buying it. After tubby’s public fellating of the chosen one? Are republican’s memories THAT short?

    1. They are not. The establishment is just stupid. I just can’t see Fatso getting any votes. Once his opponents start talking about his actual record in New Jersey, the spending, the gun control, his petty corruption, he will be done.

      He has really been a shitty governor. Fatso likes to talk a good game. But he really hasn’t changed shit in New Jersey. He is nothing like Scott Walker.

      1. Yet he is by far the best Governor we have had since I moved to NJ in 1995.

        1. I didn’t vote for a relatively good MA governor, and I’m not voting for a relatively good NJ governor either.

        2. But that is only because his competition is people like Jon Corzine. That is a pretty low bar.

          1. Yep – I include Whitman in that list of even shittier Governors.

    2. On top of this, who he really needs to win is the libertarian vote within the party (isn’t there some sort of libertarian movement going on?) and he managed to declare war on them.

      Fuck this fatass!

      1. Yes there is. Remember the establishment lives in a bubble. They have no idea what is actually going on in the country.

        1. that could be said of either side’s establishment, though the GOP tends to be far more tone deaf.

      2. Yeah, pretty much. You’d think a Republican candidate would have the brains to at least pay lip service to freedom, limited government and libertarian principles. Fat Bastard came out of the gate opposing it.

        1. By the way, the official Chris Christie campaign portrait?


  14. the New Jersey governor has hired microtargeting experts who worked for the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney campaigns, hoping to build on their technological expertise to appeal to groups that the GOP has recently underperformed with.

    Spamming the soccer moms with gun control promises is the key to Republican success!

    Good luck with that, Tubby.

  15. That Bloomberg guy is going to need a new hobby, soon.

    Maybe, if the RNC goes to him on bended knee and asks nicely, he might consent to run. Because he would be an excellent candidate.

  16. I think people should look at the RNC vote to essentially limit the debates to Fox as a way to put a thumb on the scales for Chris Christie (and against Rand Paul). Recall how nice Fox was to Rand’s father Ron? Exactly.

    Fox may appear nice to Rand right now, but just wait until the debates. He will be hit with questions about Aqua Buddha, Jack Hunter, and other meaningless stuff. Chris Christie will be asked which one word best describes his awesomeness.

    1. That is a good point. I hadn’t thought of that. But it wouldn’t surprise me if that were so. Fox is not conservative and anything but Libertarian. They are mostly establishment hacks these days. And it seems to be getting worse.

    2. the Catholic Channel was practically drooling over Christie last time, while doing its best to marginalize or ignore Romney. Not Ailes’ finest hour.

  17. Well, the logical choice for the Republicans is either a Paul/Cruz ticket or a Cruz/Paul ticket. Essentially, either puts one guy from the libertarian wing of the party who is acceptable to the traditional conservatives up with a guy from the traditional conservative wing who is acceptable to the libertarians. In effect it unites the party with a broad national appeal.

    That means they’ll toss out Christie or Rubio. The truth is they don’t want to win as much as they want to squash the Tea Parties into submission.

    1. Nope. Paul-Christie. Like Reagan-Bush.

      1. Well, if that happens, I hope Rand has the wisdom to just give Christie the keys to the refrigerator and tell him to have at it for the next eight years.

      2. Joking aside, I don’t really think this is an apt comparison. Remember, in 1980, the Rockefeller Republicans were still a major part of the party. There were a lot of Republicans who still pretty much bought into the post-war consensus. Now? Not so much. That consensus has been pretty much shown to be illusory and the only Republicans under the age of 60 I’ve ever met really eager to buy into it are Republicans in the permanent political class. That is to say, George H. W. Bush could seriously claim to speak on behalf of a significant segment of normal people who identified as Republicans in 1980. Chris Christie? Not so much.

  18. Looks like I’ll be choosing between the LP and Green nominees, if the major parties give us CC and Hillary.

    1. Just follow my simply voting rules:
      1) Vote Libertarian
      2) If no Libertarian candidate, vote for any other third party
      3) If no third party candidates, vote against the incumbent
      4) If only one candidate, don’t vote

      1. At least those other choices will be running on principles, CPUSA included.

  19. I still see John Kasich becoming the establishment candidate. Christie’s baggage is a little too heavy.

    1. Why not Scott Walker? Walker would be a threat to win. And why wouldn’t he be just as acceptable to the establishment?

      1. I think you might be right. Walker has a lot of good will because of what he did against the unions. My nephew, a very good barometer of rank-and-file conservative zeitgeist, likes him quite a bit, so I could see his profile rising over the next couple years.

        1. I think Walker would be acceptable to most Republicans. Maybe there is something about him that I don’t know. But I think he would be a lot more attractive candidate than Tubby. I think he would be a force in the general election. People really hate Washington. If the Dems run Hillary, who pretty much symbolizes Washington over the last 30 years, a successful governor from a middle of the road state like Wisconsin would be a pretty strong opponent.

          1. Plus, if he could bring Wisconsin and a few surrounding midwest states into the red, that would be a pretty major pickup.

      2. God forbid the establishment ruin Walker for me. But I guess you’re right, there’s little in Walker to upset establishment sensibilities.

        1. Walker is a more successful Mitch Daniels without the curious baggage regarding his wife. Most people think Daniels could have won the nomination in 2012 had he ran. I am not sure if Walker is looking into it or not. But if he decides to run, he would cut tubbie off at his fat little knees. What possible justification would Fats have for running if Walker were an available choice?

          1. Good point. Too bad Walker kind of sucks. Wisconsin spending is going up and up.

            1. He cut spending in 12. But as soon as he had a surplus, he wanted to spend it all again.

              1. But as soon as he had a surplus, he wanted to spend it all again.

                Then you’re saying he’d be perfectly acceptable to the republican establishment.

          2. It’s not the kind of baggage that will make people vote against him. His smoking hot crazy wife left him and the kids and later he took her back. I can see why he doesn’t want to rehash it but it doesn’t make him look bad.

  20. nonsense involving Canadian citizenship

    It will sure be amusing to watch all the right-wingers, who were 100% certain that being born in Kenya would disqualify Obama from the presidency, as they now perform triple-backflips.

    1. Yeah, because every “right winger” was a birther. You might want to get your news from somewhere besides the voices in your head.

    2. Except, I’m sure you know that birtherism was an invention of the Clinton campaign, right?

    3. As I understand how the law was at the time, if he were born in Kenya he wouldn’t be a natural born US citizen because his mother hadn’t spent enough time in the US after 18 to confer citizenship at birth.

      Even apart from the fact that Democrats raised the issue with Obama, his being born in Kenya would have disqualified him but being born in Canada doesn’t disqualify Cruz and holding both of those positions doesn’t require any backflips.

  21. This is ridiculous. It’s still 3 years until the campaign even starts, and if Gandolfini didn’t make it past 51 there’s no way this fat fuck does.

    1. You would be surprised. Arrogance and stupidity can be the fountain of youth. I bet that fat fuck lives to be 80 long after his knees are gone and he is riding around in a scooter.

    2. Well that’s a pretty good reason to vote FOR him then.

  22. I finally found an article that explains Christie the hutt to the T

  23. *Readies tomato shield*

    Christie…sucks…but he’s a huge improvement over the other establishment and even many non-establishment candidates to date. Bush, Romney, Guiliani, etc. Fact is, he’s the best NJ could get and still one of the better governors out there. Not saying anyone here should support him but we should see the deference the establishment has for Christie as a huge, almost paradigm-level victory for us. The baseline-the worst case scenario for GOP nom-has been shifted a great deal. Not long ago, we would have or should have taken President Christie as a gift from God.

    1. I wouldn’t have. His position on guns renders him unfit for polite company much less public office.

    2. Sure would be nice if a candidate that didn’t suck ran.

    3. *two pronged tomato attack…prong one diverts attention from flank…shield shifts…second prong successfully beans Cyto in the side of head with runny rotten tomato fruit*

    4. Chris Christie 2016: A newer suck. A better suck.

    5. I haven’t forgotten, Cytotoxic. Just a few years ago, Christie was a great libertarian hope, someone who could transcend the party paradigms and be on the libertarian side in the plane of the left-right line.

  24. Chris Christie is the GOP Establishment Candidate. Does that Make Him the 2016 Frontrunner Too?

    Along with Joe Biden, yes.

    1. Watching Chuckles have a debate with Hillary may actually be entertaining enough to sit through the blatant lies and self-aggrandizement. Seeing progressives turn their condescension on each other always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

  25. How is is Christie has stayed so fat after surgery? If he’s like other people I’ve known who have had that, he can’t eat an entire banana in one sitting. How can he stay so fat like that?

    1. How can he stay so fat like that?

      He’s a Gastronaut of near super human capabilities!

      1. Is it okay for me to use “Gastronaut”? I like.

  26. Paul and Cruz would make better VP than Presidential nominees, because they have no executive experience. A good ticket would be Daniels/Walker/Haley with Paul/Cruz/Demint.

  27. FrontRUNNER? Front-waddler is more like it. The only thing that guy could RUN for would be a gravy sandwich or something.

    1. “Front-waddler” Hahaha

  28. Mainly, they emphasize, because they want to win.

    That’s the attitude that gave us Obama, and worse, Obamacare. Maybe they should rethink that, though they won’t.

  29. “Christie hates/ is against the teachers”

    That’s the lib talking point in Jersey. I hear it every time his name comes up.

    Neither libs nor conservatives (due to the Obama BJ) like him, which makes him the obvious choice for the Stupid Party.

  30. like Albert responded I am amazed that a single mom able to profit $8568 in 1 month on the internet. have you read this web page… & my classmate’s sister-in-law makes $73 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her check was $17103 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

  31. How can he be the establishment candidate when all the Republicans are pissed at him for snuggling with Obama?

    1. The establishment GOP is go-along get along. Thats why they really weren’t too upset at all about Lord O winning twice.

      They got what they wanted mostly:

      Crony Capitalism
      Massive Big State nannyism overall
      An increased pace in the assault on liberty
      An even more aggressive foreign policy

  32. YES!!!

    This is what America needs,

    A transition from the skinny, effeminate, stupid super statist to

    The morbidly obese, presumably genital-free angry super statist!

    Big Big (F-ing enormous) or go home.

    1. Well said sir.

      First POTUS fupa since Taft.

  33. Looks like he’s just one Philly cheesesteak away from the great smorgasbord in the sky.

  34. Mitt Romney and John McCain, as well. Both were early establishment favorites, and both won their primary contests on the strength of persistent establishment support.

    Not so fast. Rudy Giuliani was the establishment candidate in 2008, with McCain being left for dead in the summer of 2007 after his campaign went bankrupt. McCain finished 4th in Iowa and didn’t get a big win until Florida, after the Rudy machine imploded.

    IMHO Huckabee would have slaughtered Romney in the 2012 GOP primary had he run. Not something I would have been happy about, but it is the truth.

  35. Who’s the goofy looking old fart in the picture with el Blimpo?

  36. like Thelma responded I am startled that a mother can make $6821 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this web sitego to this site home tab for more detail—

  37. Only seriously intrested people will be warmly welcomed,Thanks,,you have to work and use the computer and internet, and if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem. I have been working with this for a month and have made over 2,000 dollars already. let me know if you need go for home site then tab for detail “~ BAR17.?O?

  38. Lets be clear here, to refer to Jumbo as the front runner is erroneous. He should be referred to as the front waddler, running is not his strong point.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.