2008 deja vu Hillary ? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...n-poll-after-benghazi-hits-christie-s-up.html the phone rings at the State Department : aide -"Hillary it's Benghazi" Hillary - "take a message"
I really can't tell who's more liberal between the two but I think I'd give the edge to Christie. Christie's popularity is soaring among Democrats only because Democrats love what Republicans hate. That said, you might as well get used to "Madam President".
It didn't occur to you that when Benghazi was in the news her numbers were better, and now that it's passed into the dustbin of history, her popularity has fallen from the impossible to sustain high levels it was during the Benghazi hearings that you thought were going to destroy her. I would venture that when a person is out of the news, like Hillary is now, her numbers will taper off. While when someone is in the news, like Christie is now, his numbers will rise. It's a little soon to start predicting the exact vote on November 8, 2016. Considering there is a real good chance that neither of them will be on the ballot.
Christie might catch up to Clinton... in some distant future. But at least the GOP has one horse in the race... a horse that can't run very far, but it's better than nothing.
Chris Christie. I've been thinking about his magnanimous decision recently to allow an election to fill Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat. The Democrats elected an 80+ year old with full knowledge of life expectancy and the presumed allowance of the governor to fill the seat until the next election with an appointment. The impartial in me didn't care at first. However, lard ass is doing a severe disservice to the Republican party. All seats in the Senate matter and one vote could make the difference of a majority in 2014. Furthermore, dunce boy Obama visited Christie shortly before Lautenberg's death. The presumed talking points were "Hurricane Sandy". However, was there an inside deal to allow Booker to get the Senate seat with Christie's approval? The fat boy will be costing the state money with an election (i.e. 20+ million dollars reported). Is Christie really anything more than a politician? Does he stand for anything other than self-interest?
Are we seriously doing this? Obama still has 3 years to go and we're talking about who's coming after him?
Yep, no one likes talking about Obummer anymore. I never thought the Executive Department could get any bigger until I considered Christie winning the Presidency.
I would not want to see Chris Christie as President. Because with him has their standard bearer he might be able to pull the Republicans out of their self destructive spiral. I don't want that. I want them to be relegated to the dustbin of history where they belong.
I don't think the Republicans are going to be happy if either candidate gets it. Christie is too moderate for most "modern day" Republicans. He's basically a conservative Democrat.
Hillary or Christie... ??? ...ugh... ...just... ...ugh... endless... stupidity... upon... endless... ugh... I've ran out of energy... Damn my two astigmatisms that keep me from that Mars-One project...
As a former Republican, I love these nominations and Republican Fox New inspired love affairs with liberals. First Romney, now this. Go ahead. Nominate him. Spare me the effort of bothering to pay attention for another Republican Presidential election turn out meltdown.
The GOP litmus test (besides abject fealty to the corporate elite and, especially, the military-industrial complex) is, "Who's the guy who would evoke the loudest groan if he walked into a neighbourhood bar that featured Blatz beer?" Last time it was Willard "Mr Individual Mandate" Romney, hands down. For 2016, I'd say that Newie and Trump would appear to be the favoured contenders at this stage. .
I like Christie and he would be a good GOP candidate, but the flaming right will never let him get the nomination. Cause they are a really smart group of Loons. - - - Updated - - - Not to worry, his embrace of Obama killed his chances with the brain trust of the GOP.
I know right! I actually believed some of those stupid polls in the last election. I really thought Romney had a chance. I lost a lot of respect for Karl Rove, because I watched his predictions for hours as I've always thought he was a smart guy. Turns out he wasn't as smart as I thought. To be honest I did not like Romney, but the alternative was far worse. If the Libertarian party had a legitimate shot at winning, I'd probably go with them because the other two parties don't really match my beliefs and interests anymore.
I followed Nate Silver's savvy analysis, and never had any doubt as to the President's re-election. Silver's reputation for accuracy was all he had on the line, and he nailed it. Partisan "polls" by anyone with vested interests such as those by Turndblossom are merely cheerleading and wishful thinking masquerading under the guise of objectivity. That's how FoxNews captivates. Clinton will be even more difficult for the Repubs to defeat, no matter how intense their scandal-mongering, if Boehner's dementors breathe death on the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration overhaul. It won't matter who their latest version of McCain or Romney is. The legislation is overwhelmingly popular. No matter who the GOP nominee, if he sports the party label of the impediments to a comprehensive immigrtation package, is wobbly on his support for Roe v Wade, and regressive on ending gender discrimination in marriage law, he's got a fundamental problem with the American electorate. Playing the nostalgia card with a platform custom-fit to 1972 is not promising. Clinton's evocation of the millennial spendour of 2000 would put it to shame. ([E]ven if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.) Ah yes, those were the days.
Latino voters will be huge in 2016, they are stacking up on the Democratic side, and forming loyalties, they will be hard to lure away from the Democratic side, especially when the message from the GOP is "Hey, we changed our mind, sort of, and now we'll hold our nose and vote for this immigration bill, if you'll come over to our side, and BTW that stuff about mining the border and shooting Pedro as he came across, that was just a joke, seriously we love you, I gave my gardener a $100 bonus at Christmas, please vote for us....."
