Big night tonite for Rep Ryan. Should his ticket lose he can continue to build his reputation for 2016.

10000% incorrect. Every moment of the convention is now about selling the candidate. You could not be more wrong.

 

Mr Christie sold Mr Christie for 2016.

 

Clyde you sure do value your own opinion. Christie did exactly what he needed to do. He set the tone for the rest of the campaign. The bottom line is this isn't about, as Christie said "being a rock star" this is about leading the nation out of the mess it is currently in. Now it's up to Romney and Ryan to lay out their plan.

 

Clyde, the convention nor the campaign ended with Christie's speech.

So the Republicans said last night they want to prohibit online poker and sports betting. So they are all about less government and free market except when it comes to poker and sports? It's fine to gamble on horses online where the house rake is 28% but it's not ok to bet on sports or poker where the house rake is less than 10%? How is that free market and less government? Guns don't kill people, people do. At the exact same time problem gamblers aren't to blame for their actions we have to make sure they can't gamble on sports or poker online, but they can do that in a building. Got it. Idiotic doesn't even describe it good enough.

 

Renewing American Values - GOP

 

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.

He was heading that way and I thought he was building up to "and here's how Gov Romney is going to do it and here's how he did it in MA."

 

Missed opportunity.

 

Candidate Romney wants to lead a nation. He already led a state.

 

It will be instructive to see how that is referenced in his own speech.

I thought Christie was ok. He is good, but he is better in debate, town hall, one-on-one interview scenarios. That is where he steals the show.

 

Ann looked a little nervous but she was solid. That has to be a tough situation for a spouse not accustomed to big time speeches being thrown out there. Beautiful lady.

 

I am not investing much in to when Governor Romney's name was mentioned. If you do not know who the nominee is or who said speaker is stumping for, well, you have other issues. While conventions are looked at as campaign rallies, they are more than that. Establishing platform is every bit as important. That is what Christie was doing.

To me the Republicans have an impressive list of Governors that are doing well for their states. It is hard to disagree witht their collective plea to have the federal Government stay out of their hair.

 

Thought Ann Romney was decent, but actually agree with the post speech comments of MSNBC's Al Sharpton that Ann Romney spoke of love and then Chris Chritie followed that up with the Respect is greater than love speech. Disjointed at best.

 

This election must be framed as the record of the incumbent vs. the potential of the challenger. Anything else will be a disservice to the country and an obvious distraction from the fundamental issue of leadership.

I thought Christie was ok. He is good, but he is better in debate, town hall, one-on-one interview scenarios. That is where he steals the show.

 

.

 

Agreed. He needs to speak extemporaneously.

I'm going to read through this thread later today, but I watched Christie's speech. We then spent the next 20 minutes going back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, absolutely ridiculous how polar opposite the analysts opinions were of his speech. But I'm not sure why I find that surprising.

 

I know some disagree, but I'm a big fan of Gov. Christie.

I

 

I know some disagree, but I'm a big fan of Gov. Christie.

 

Should Gov Romney lose , Ryan and Christie will be the early leaders in the clubhouse for 2016.

I'm going to read through this thread later today, but I watched Christie's speech. We then spent the next 20 minutes going back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, absolutely ridiculous how polar opposite the analysts opinions were of his speech. But I'm not sure why I find that surprising.

 

I know some disagree, but I'm a big fan of Gov. Christie.

 

I find both painful to watch.

I more or less agree with bugatti on the number of mentions of Romney last night. Looking over the list of speakers last night and listening to Ann Romney’s and Governor Christie’s speeches I came away with the sense that rehabilitating the image of the Republican party was the main objective. The Republican brand isn’t polling well these days and the party has gotten hammered over being a predominately white male group that caters to those interests. The recent Akin controversy is an example.

 

Many of the speakers were disproportionately minorities and women considering the demographics of the party, which will continue throughout the convention (which is interesting from the party that typically abhors this kind of thing). Ann Romney’s speech was a direct appeal to women (Christie's speech had similar overtones about his mother and immigrant story). I think Christie’s speech, rather than being a direct endorsement of Romney, presented the image of a competent policymaking Republican that the party would rather be associated with than many of the louder voices that make the news.

 

Even Obama was mentioned rarely in those speeches, perhaps to counter the image of Romney’s campaign being especially nasty. Specific references to Romney or policies seemed to be the weakest parts of the speeches anyhow. Romney isn’t a particularly endearing or likeable candidate and he’s struggled with defining himself with policies (mainly because he’s been all over the place with them), thus making it difficult for speakers to attach specific policies to him without blowback. Christie’s line about not being governed by the polls is basically the opposition’s line against Romney.

 

So, I think the main goal wasn’t so much to bolster Romney, he’ll do that himself and these first days lay the groundwork, but to attempt to rehabilitate the Republican image. The list of the remaining scheduled speakers supports this as well. It will be interesting to see if speakers begin to get more specific with regard to Romney and his policies and whether they get more derogatory toward Obama.

I find both painful to watch.

 

No doubt about it. Cable TV news is nearly unwatchable and should be consumed only as a last resort.

Christie definitely sold himself for 2016 if Romney loses, but I think it would be really hard no too in that situation. However, I also don't think its his job to 100% sell Romney, I feel its more about selling the Republican's views...or basically just steer the undecided away from Obama. I felt like he did a pretty good job of that.

 

One of MSNBC's biggest complaints was he looked angry.

I more or less agree with bugatti on the number of mentions of Romney last night. Looking over the list of speakers last night and listening to Ann Romney’s and Governor Christie’s speeches I came away with the sense that rehabilitating the image of the Republican party was the main objective. The Republican brand isn’t polling well these days and the party has gotten hammered over being a predominately white male group that caters to those interests. The recent Akin controversy is an example.

 

Many of the speakers were disproportionately minorities and women considering the demographics of the party, which will continue throughout the convention (which is interesting from the party that typically abhors this kind of thing). Ann Romney’s speech was a direct appeal to women (Christie's speech had similar overtones about his mother and immigrant story). I think Christie’s speech, rather than being a direct endorsement of Romney, presented the image of a competent policymaking Republican that the party would rather be associated with than many of the louder voices that make the news.

 

Even Obama was mentioned rarely in those speeches, perhaps to counter the image of Romney’s campaign being especially nasty. Specific references to Romney or policies seemed to be the weakest parts of the speeches anyhow. Romney isn’t a particularly endearing or likeable candidate and he’s struggled with defining himself with policies (mainly because he’s been all over the place with them), thus making it difficult for speakers to attach specific policies to him without blowback. Christie’s line about not being governed by the polls is basically the opposition’s line against Romney.

 

So, I think the main goal wasn’t so much to bolster Romney, he’ll do that himself and these first days lay the groundwork, but to attempt to rehabilitate the Republican image. The list of the remaining scheduled speakers supports this as well. It will be interesting to see if speakers begin to get more specific with regard to Romney and his policies and whether they get more derogatory toward Obama.

 

I agree completely. Last night was about principles and ideas and the stark contrast between the two camps. It wasn't intended to pit Romney vs. Obama. The message I got was you have two distinct choices and the decision you make will have long lasting and profound effects.

 

Now the ball is in Romney and Ryan's court to deliver their message and sell their plan.

Christie definitely sold himself for 2016 if Romney loses, but I think it would be really hard no too in that situation. However, I also don't think its his job to 100% sell Romney, I feel its more about selling the Republican's views...or basically just steer the undecided away from Obama. I felt like he did a pretty good job of that.

 

One of MSNBC's biggest complaints was he looked angry.

 

Clyde disagrees 10,000%.