November 4, 201312 yr Mitt Romney's infamous "47%" remarks were a despairing message to the Republican Party: only a bare majority of Americans are interested in anything other than a government handout. Republicans can forget about landslides. Their best hope is to line up nearly all of the non-taker voters to win by a slim majority. As Gov. Chris Christie ® prepares to romp to a landslide re-election in New Jersey on Tuesday, he has a message for Republicans everywhere: There's no need to limit yourself to 53% if you stop despairing and follow my lead... "Let me tell you, if you're looking for the candidate that you agree with 100% of the time, then I want you to do something for me tonight: Go home and look in the mirror, because that's the only person you agree with 100% of the time. But sometimes we make political candidates feel like that's what you want. Like you want us to agree with you 100% of the time or you won't vote for us. You know what happens then? If you make politicians believe that, you know what they'll do, they'll just lie to you. They'll just look you in the eye and they'll say 'hm, I wonder what she wants to hear.'... That's why we have the political system we have in Washington now, because we have people who have become convinced that they have to be 100 percenters." Chris Christie Is About To Win A Landslide, And He Wants Every Republican To Understand Why - Yahoo Finance
November 4, 201312 yr Author Been a fan of Christie for a while. I'll probably contribute to his 2016 campaign.
November 4, 201312 yr Like this dude more and more. It'll be interesting to see how his downfall is plotted.
November 4, 201312 yr He'll be called a RINO and subsequently dismissed. Yep because history doesn't show Republicans nominating moderate people for the last two presidential elections. Let's not let facts get in the way.
November 4, 201312 yr I like Rand's idea's more and Christie's leadership more. Still a lot to be decided for me as of now between the two.
November 4, 201312 yr Christie has the kind of appeal to the middle class that will give him a landslide in 16. A vote for Rand is a vote for another democrat in 16. He is unelectable on a national level.
November 4, 201312 yr Yep because history doesn't show Republicans nominating moderate people for the last two presidential elections. Let's not let facts get in the way. True but do you think the GOP is looking at the results of those two elections and wondering if the party really wants to throw another moderate/centrist into the ring? I thnk some will say they want a more traditional conservative who looks more like Bush or Reagan who will excite the conservative base who may have just stayed home the last two elections. Me personally, I don't think it was McCain's or Romney's moderate/centrist ways that cost them the election, I think it was Obama's persona and energy versus their somewhat bland persona and energy. A problem with the voting public is I think too many people vote for the personality rather than that person's views and leadership. I sometimes think the only thing that got Bush elected was how Gore can put people to sleep and how he got reelected was how Kerry also can put people to sleep.
November 4, 201312 yr Yep because history doesn't show Republicans nominating moderate people for the last two presidential elections. Let's not let facts get in the way. George W wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative. GOP hasn't really had one of those since Reagan have they?
November 4, 201312 yr Author George W wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative. GOP hasn't really had one of those since Reagan have they? A nominee or a sitting President?
November 4, 201312 yr I can't argue with what he's saying; there's a reason why he's winning landslide elections in the Northeast. It's because he's a centrist. One of the few Rs on the national scene that is electable in '16. And that's why the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world will profess to hate Christie during the primaries; then do an about-face during the general. Best I can remember, Romney was neck-and neck until the 47% speech came out. Nail in the coffin. It wasn't the fact that he was a centrist that cost him the election, it was that he was forced to pander to the hard-core right.
November 4, 201312 yr Author Papa makes good points about why Romney lost. Clizzy believes the same, if memory serves me right. I have a much more shallow explanation, but I believe it to be true: Romney was the lesser candidate in terms of charisma. Obama was ripe for the picking, just as Bush was in 2004, but they both won re-election because the opposition ran robots against them. America always goes for the more personable/charismatic candidate. If Christie can get the GOP nomination, he'll be our next President.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.