Examining 2008 and 2012 from the Republican side, John McCain and Mitt Romney ended up winning their respective nominations based upon the conventional wisdom that they were the “most electable” of their field. Obviously their candidacies resulted in failure as Barack Obama won in both cases.

In 2016, conventional wisdom is holding that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is the “most electable” Republican to run against Hillary Clinton. Based upon the last two presidential elections, will Republican primary voters buy-in to the “electability” argument in 2016?

Report from PolicyMic:

It’s no secret that Christie’s relationship with his affiliated political party has been on thin ice since he decided not to attend a Mitt Romney rally last November. After all, it was just a short 15-minute drive from his headquarters in Trenton, N.J. Although he claims he was busy in the Hurricane Sandy recovery effort, the snub happened right before the 2012 presidential election, and it hasn’t been forgotten.

According to a Monmouth University poll, Christie is the most threatening Republican opponent to the former secretary of state if a presidential election were to take place today. He only trails her by four points, while all his party adversaries trail by double digits. Although he’s likely the better choice to run against Clinton, Christie’s favorability rating among GOP primary voters is worse than his rivals.

Considering that Christie is the “hottest” leader in the U.S., measuring 53.1 degrees in this Quinnipiac University poll, he still lags behind his potential primary opponents when it comes to Republican-base voters. However close he seems to beating out Clinton in the polls, it’s still uncertain if the GOP voters will even allow him to get the chance to try in 2016.

Is it a question of GOP voters “allowing” Christie to beat Hillary Clinton or is that a pipe dream given how 2008 and 2012 turned out with regard to “electability?”

14 COMMENTS

    • Both McCain and Romney are dems when it comes to social issues. If the Republicans don’t get off their social issue platform they will never win an election. I like Christie and Cruz, and I think both will stay on mission and not let the media trip them up. Repub need to get to the common person (total diversification)…the everyday Joe and opportunities the Repub provide. Get out of the bedroom and stop making your value system my value system.

    • Can’t. Not eligible. But he could do the country a great service by stepping up and admitting it and ending the speculation about his 2016 POTUS plans, completely clearing the way for Rand Paul or others (not Rubio or Jindal, as they have the same eligibility issue).

      • Neville — Ted Cruz won’t run for President (that would be silly since he’s a newbie).

        But as a running mate to Rand Paul — that could be a winning combination (for obvious reasons).

        Your take on this?

  1. Most ‘electable’ only works for Democrats. Democrats are really a popularity contest, who’s the coolest, who looks the best, not policy related at all…otherwise Obama would never have gotten elected much less re-elected. Republicans its about values, its always been about values. Whoever can articulate conservative and libertarian values, with the street cred, will win.

    The problem with the republicans last time around was that none of them really had enough street cred. Look back to history since Roe v. Wade. The influence of the democratic party has been failing ever since. The only time that democrats have done well since 1973 was Carter. Clinton never got much above 40% in popular vote, plus he lost the house and congress within 2 years of getting elected and never got it back. Bush even ‘increased’ the majority in the off-year election of 2002.

    The only time democrats did well in elections is when conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals stayed home – in varying degrees. 2006 and 2008 moderation in the republican party caused the loss of majority and presidency. Those are the only 2 elections since the 70’s that democrats did well. 2012 was a stalemate – uninformed voters kept Obama in, Senate and House basically stayed the same.

    Electability is something the press likes to talk about, but it doesn’t really move the republican base…values move the base and that’s how they’ll get elected.

  2. ….and as for this quote: “Christie is the most threatening Republican opponent to the former secretary of state if a presidential election were to take place today. He only trails her by four points, while all his party adversaries trail by double digits.

    PPP shows Clinton pretty much neck and neck with other republican candidates, not double digit difference.

    If it comes down to policy and values, Clinton will lose, if it goes to pop-culture related things, who knows. the levers of pop-culture are held be liberals. if another Obama comes along, they’ll dump her again like last time.

  3. Stop the Neo-Cons — they are no different than the Democrooks!

    Rand Paul and Ted Cruz is the ONLY ticket to SAVE AMERICA!
    ———————————————————————————-

    Now, on Barrack’s Syria’s wannabe attack! — SUPERB POST by Doug Wead:

    http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/syria-what-would-reagan-do/#comment-37379
    —————————————————————————————
    HERE is the full text:

    *Syria – What would Reagan do?*

    The word is that the regime of Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against its own people. Reportedly 1,500 have died, including 400 children. It is a heinous crime. Some are calling for America to invade Syria and put down this regime. So I pose this question. What would Ronald Reagan do?

    The answer?

    Absolutely nothing. At least for now. For eight years Ronald Reagan tolerated a tyrant far more malevolent than Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

    If we prove that Assad did indeed use chemical weapons then the whole world should condemn this act and such condemnation will likely, eventually, lead to action. Syria’s wealthy Arab neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia, who arm themselves with our latest jets and weapons may have a moral obligation to respond. But don’t hold your breath. Americans like to do these things. And the rest of the world is smart enough to let us shed our blood to keep things in order.

    The fact is that the atrocities of the Assad regime cannot compare to the reign of Cambodian leader, Pol Pot, who may have killed as many as 3 million of his own people during the Carter-Reagan years and he was never brought to justice, nor was it seen as America’s responsibility to do so.

    The Pol Pot regime practiced true genocide against helpless civilians. Marked for execution were Cambodian doctors, nurses, teachers, journalists, college graduates and people who could read, including children. Even people who wore eye glasses were marked for execution. It was rationalized that if they wore eye glasses they could probably read. Pol Pot wanted his regime to start over again without any taint of the past.

    I personally appealed to both presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan for help. Carter, who had made human rights a major part of his foreign policy agenda, told me that Pol Pot had driven all of the fork lifts into the sea. There was no means of unloading aid at the ports. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were starving to death. At a dinner with the Reagan’s in their home in Pacific Palisades I described images from a recent trip I had taken to the Cambodia border and Ronald Reagan appeared heart broken. Meanwhile, in Cambodia, the bleached bones of the dead piled up. It was called “the killing fields.”

    Pol Pot led the Kymer Rouge from 1963 to 1998. They took over in Cambodia in 1979. I met some of the survivors who fled the country and entertained the Cambodian Prince, son of Norodom Sihanouk, in my home during this ongoing massacre. Pol Pot was eventually placed under house arrest by his own people. He died in 1998. At no time throughout the Carter-Reagan years was there any substantial political movement calling for military action against Pol Pot nor were any public figures calling for the capture and trial of the worse tyrant since Hitler.

    Why?

    Because our founding fathers never envisioned that we would rule the world. Nor does the U.S. Constitution make provision for that futile and arrogant exercise.

    Because there were and still are many evil regimes doing evil things to its people and America could not rid itself of evil within its own borders, let alone throughout the whole world. What kind of justice would now take out Syria but leave North Korea standing?

    Because the U.S. president did not have the authority to go to war without the nation’s duly elected representatives debating and then making such a declaration. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, needed the U. S. Congress to make a declaration of war.

    Because corporations did not yet have the powerful lobbies in place to make sure their companies got the contracts and profited from such wars and in return gave part of the money back to the politicians who supported it.

    Because the corporations who owned the national media were not yet subsidiaries of other corporations who profited from such wars and were financed by banks that gave them preferential interest rates on loans, nor were they yet fully compromised by corporate advertisers who were beneficiaries of the same system. In other words, some measure of journalism, real journalism, still existed in the Carter-Reagan years.

    So why is it likely that America will now take action against Syria? Cruise missile attack perhaps? Drones? What has changed? Why should America be installing governments all over the Middle East with unintended blowback such as governments that kill their own Christian citizens?

    Since 9-11 some parts of the American form of constitutional government have been weakened or abandoned altogether. This in the name of security. Some departments and agencies of the Federal Government operate without laws, with only a self imposed sense of ethics limited by their interpretation of popular will which is in turn influenced by a compliant, uncritical media.

    The presidency is now a virtual dictatorship limited only by fifty unelected men and women who run the television industry. This is not the creation of Barack Obama, the process has been ongoing for years and took a great leap forward with George W. Bush and 9-11. It is the price we paid for security. It is a process dictated by events as well as the unquenchable thirst for power.

    The president’s personal reputation is on the line since he warned Syria not to use chemical weapons. He said that this represented a line they could not cross. Now, given his personality, and the need to uphold his personal honor, he will likely use the newly won dictatorial powers of the American presidency to take action.

    We have come a long way from the ideal of Thomas Jefferson who dealt with the Barbary Pirates, the Islamic terrorists of his day. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The more you use your power, the less you have.” American may wake up soon to find itself very weak indeed. Strong with weaponry but abandoned by a world who has grown tired of our arrogant rule.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    My take:

    Impeaching Obama NOW will go a long way in returning our nation back to its original principles!

  4. I just don’t see why the Republicans shouldn’t get together and just plain take out Clinton, Benghazi alone can do it, and flooding all media’s + a true Congressional investigation for the “stand down” order and lack of adequate protection support when pre-warned for months as well as a the Drown being a warrior type instead of a observer. “Deep Throat” leaker that the Liberal media wouldn’t ignore with the true debacle that B.O. & Clinton colluded on to create “Benghazi”.

    Have another RNC and agreeing to new “platform” as close to a Libertarian as possible and have debates later JUST over the finer points instead of cutting each other’s throats. Learning to put the nation back on a Conservative track vice a Socialist track and who the real political competition is for the GOP.

  5. If my party picks a RINO for the presidency a third time in a row, I KNOW rgw conservative base is going to start another party! Christie would be the suicide of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, what a disgrace. It would be much more beneficial for my party to select someone like a Governor Mike Pence of Indiana or even a patriot like Rand Paul, someone with a proven conservative spinal column. I guess we will find out over the next few years whether or not the GOP really wants to survive based on how they manage or mismanage the presidential primaries next time around. As a forty year Republican voter, it grieves me to think the party of Lincoln and Reagan could soon be going over, but the nation deserves better than what has been offered for the Presidency over the past eight years and the conservative base of the party will simply take upon itself a different name to start over again.

  6. You don’t have to be a logician, to see what’s going on:

    Obama drew a “red line” to attack Syria because he thought it was a given (since English Prime Minister Cameron was all gung-ho to war on Syria on “evidence” that has NEVER been verified that dictator Assad used the chemical weapons … and not the rebels themselves). So, the wannabe US Dictator, Hussein Obama, felt sure his English counterpart was in line. And based his comments on that assurance.

    But then, the imaginable to Obama happened — the British Parliament had the guts to say NO to Lil’ Cameron’s warmongering!

    Thus, Lil’ Hussein found himself in a quandary — he had stated that he believes that he needs NO Congressional authority to attack Syria, but now he was left dry by his schooled British counterpart. And on top of that, polls showed that 90% of Americans don’t want another war started by this administration.

    So what does this US “president” do — who speaks and acts without thinking — but toss his miscalculation to the US Congress and Senate (a desperate move since Lil’ Hussein is now left with no other options).

    Now, his hope is that he, and his pet Kerry, and the rest of the sycophants that surround him, will be able to bully the House into submission…and give him the War he wanted in the first place!

    His attempt to bully both Houses is usage of disturbing videos of horrific images *shown only to a select group of senators in closed-door briefings* — meaning, Lil’ Hussein is gathering the leadership to be on board…and hoping they’ll advise their underlings how to vote!

    How despicable is such abusive propaganda, by what is supposed to be the US President!

    And then, he sicks his pet, Kerry, again, and Senate “Intelligence” Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (another Obama sycophant) to use THE UNVERIFIED chemical attacks by Assad (according to NBC: “NBC News has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of these videos”) as “proof” to START ANOTHER WAR that will bankrupt the USA to the point of no economical recovery possible!

    Read this article by NBC News: “White House showed gruesome videos to senators in case for Syria strike”

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/07/20377556-white-house-showed-gruesome-videos-to-senators-in-case-for-syria-strike

    When will the American People finally wake up, and demand Obama’s Impeachment — how long must we suffer this Usurper of the White House that lords it over us!

  7. Putin checkmated Obama (and his barking-only dog Kerry)! WOW!!! That was such a simple finesse that any decent Chess Player would have foreseen — but, obviously not the mental defects that are Obama and Kerry.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    How did these two clowns (Obama and Kerry) embarrass our nation, making us the laughing stock of the world? Here is the chronological order of their stupidities:

    Obama draws a “red line” if Chem weapons are used — and states USA will bomb Syria to stop this.

    Chem weapons are used — Obama declares (without positive proof that it was Assad, and not the terrorists themselves), along with British Prime Minister Cameron’s acceding, that the World’s Opinion must be respected and the USA will start bombing Syria along with the “International Community”….

    Cameron is ready to bomb along with Obama, but then British Parliament says NO!

    Now Obama is IN SHOCK, and on his own — he still pushes for bombing Syria — but is afraid to do it on his own volition (for the obvious political backlash)! So, NOW Obama (who had previously declared that he does not need Congressional approval to start a ‘limited’ War) NOW BACKPEDALS AND asks Congress to approve his war desires, and sends Kerry to Europe to muster some support for his Bombing Syria right away!

    Kerry arrives and makes a fool of himself in France — when asked: “What would stop the US from bombing Syria” he answers: “Assad must turn over all his Chem Weapons”.

    The Russians pounce on it immediately and state they will assure this!

    Then, poor idiot Kerry says it was a “rhetorical answer” and not one he, and Obama, were willing to accept.

    Too late — Obama’s rep, Kerry-the-idiot, opened his mouth and played right into Putin’s hands.

    Now, Putin (the swine) won and Kerry and Obama look like the village idiots that they are!

    Obama, and his toothless barking dog Kerry, have achieved what no other Administration since Jimmy Carter has done — make US look weak and STUPID!

    p.s. forgot to add —

    Impeach Obama, and put Kerry next to Lil’ Hussein’s prison cell…so the two can play the simple game of Chinese Checkers… with each other…..

Comments are closed.