SurveyUSAshowsGOPprospectsbrighteninginGeorgia

Survey USA shows GOP prospects brightening in Georgia

posted at 4:01 pm on August 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Democrats hoped to steal a march on Republicans in Georgia as they continue to assail the GOP’s lock on the South, but the project seems to be going in the other direction. Survey USA took a look at the ballot before the general election starts in earnest after Labor Day, and shows that the GOP has a comfortable lead in both big races. Michelle Nunn’s name recognition was supposed to give Democrats a lift in the Senate race to fill the open seat left by Saxby Chambliss’ retirement, but surprise GOP nominee David Perdue has quickly reached the 50% mark in its poll:

In an election today for US Senator, to fill an open seat vacated by Saxby Chambliss, Republican David Perdue defeats Democrat Michelle Nunn 50% to 41%. (Michelle is Sam Nunn’s daughter.) Libertarian Amanda Swafford gets 3% today. 6% are undecided. Perdue’s lead comes entirely from men, where he leads by 19 points. Atlanta votes Democratic. Northwest GA votes 2:1 Republican. South and East GA votes 5:4 Republican. The contest has national ramifications; Republicans need to hold the seat to have a chance to capture control of the U.S. Senate in the next Congress.

That’s a big shift for Perdue from Survey USA’s June poll, when he led by just 5 points at 43/38. Nunn leads among women, but only barely at 46/44, within the margin of error. She also barely leads among young voters (18-34YOs) by 45/41, while Perdue leads all other age demos by eight or more points, and by 17 in the next youngest demo of 35-49YOs, 54/37. Perdue has more than a 2:1 advantage among independents, 54/26, and leads all income demos above $40K annual income.

This isn’t a big surprise, as Nunn has been struggling even before the Republican primary in which Perdue beat the favored Jack Kingston for the nomination. The RCP average has Perdue up four points prior to this Survey USA poll, but only one poll had Nunn in the lead, and that was within the MOE. The last two polls prior to this had Perdue up six points (before the primary) and seven points (Insider Advantage last week).

The bigger surprise might be the gubernatorial race, where Democrats thought that Nathan Deal was vulnerable against Jimmy Carter’s grandson Jason Carter. That looks less likely now:

In an election today for Governor, incumbent Republican Nathan Deal defeats Democratic challenger Jason Carter 48% to 39%. (Jason is the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter.) Libertarian Andrew Hunt gets 4% today. 8% are undecided. Deal holds 83% of the Republican base. Carter holds 82% of the Democratic base. Independents break sharply Republican. Moderates provide some but not presently enough support for Carter to catch Deal. Libertarian Hunt takes more votes from the Republican Deal than he does from the Democrat Carter.

Democrats really doubled down on the royalty argument in Georgia, huh? How’s that working out for them?

Hunt may be taking away more votes from Deal, but he’s not taking away nearly enough to matter. That’s a problem for Carter, too, because those votes may come back home to Deal when it becomes clear that Hunt won’t stand a chance in the race as either a winner or a spoiler. The fact that Carter is slightly undercutting Nunn in the survey doesn’t bode well for his chances against Deal. Like Nunn, Carter only gets 26% of the independent vote, and unlike Nunn is losing the female vote. Carter had led earlier polls in July, but Deal now leads the RCP average before this poll gets calculated into it. This nine-point lead follows a four-point lead last week and another nine-point lead in July in the CBS/NYT/YouGov poll of nearly 2600 respondents.

Republicans look ready for a state-ballot sweep in Georgia, with double-digit leads in all of the other races. If Democrats wanted to roll back the South from GOP control, they picked the wrong state for the project, it seems.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Georgia, governor, midterms, polls, Survey USA, US Senate

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wisconsingubernatorialpoll:MaryBurke47,ScottWalker

Wisconsin gubernatorial poll: Mary Burke 47, Scott Walker 46

posted at 6:01 pm on July 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Somewhere Chris Christie and Jeb Bush (and Paul Ryan?) are high-fiving.

Dude, I’m nervous:

Gov. Scott Walker and Democratic challenger Mary Burke are in a dead heat heading into the November election, with Walker leading 46%-45% among registered voters, according to the latest Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday.

Among likely voters, Burke led Walker, 47%-46%.

The results were all inside the margin of error.

I was nervous two months ago too, after the last Marquette poll dropped and showed Walker and Burke dead even at 46 among registered voters but Walker up 48/45 among likely voters. Today it’s Burke who leads ever so slightly among likelies. That’s within the margin of error, of course, so you can see this glass as half-full if you like — Walker might still be a tiny bit ahead! — but an incorrigible eeyore like me naturally sees it half-empty insofar as he hasn’t gained any ground since May. The slight shift among likely voters isn’t the only bad trend either:

Among independents: Walker 45%, Burke 44%. In May, among independents, it was Walker 49%, Burke 40%. #mulawpoll

— MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) July 23, 2014

9% say WI is creating jobs faster than other states, 42% say it’s about the same as other states, 43% say WI lags other state. #mulawpoll

— MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) July 23, 2014

In May, it was 13% saying faster, 38% saying the same, and 43% saying WI is lagging. #mulawpoll

— MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) July 23, 2014

His approval and favorable ratings have also dropped by a couple of points. That may be noise, but the bottom line is that he hasn’t established an edge on Burke yet. And needless to say, unlike lots of other state-level Democratic candidates, Burke can count on lots of dough from liberals down the stretch this fall in the name of knocking off Walker before he becomes a 2016 threat. He’s outraised her thus far, partly because he’s a conservative rock star and partly because he’s an incumbent, but Burke’s got a fair chance to catch up if Democratic Senate chances start to go sour and liberals begin focusing on her as their best chance for a big win. In fact, I wonder how much better Burke might be doing money-wise right now if not for Wendy Davis’s lame, futile campaign for governor in Texas. Burke raised $3.6 million in the first half of this year (Walker raised $8.2 million); since February, Davis has raised more than $11 million. Lots of that is due, of course, to the relative sizes of Texas’s and Wisconsin’s populations, but Davis has plenty of financial support from outside Texas too. If you’re a Democrat looking for the most bang for your political buck, you’re far better off trying to nuke a serious Republican presidential contender in a tight race in Wisconsin by sending your money to Burke than you are throwing it into the “yay, abortion!” sinkhole of Davis’s campaign. Let’s hope their stupidity keeps up throughout the fall. It might be the difference between President Walker and President Hillary in 2017.

Exit question: In a blue state, this can only be good news, right?

68% of registered voters say they are “absolutely certain” to vote in November. Before Nov. 2012, election, 89% said that. #mulawpoll

— MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) July 23, 2014

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: 2016, burke, governor, Marquette, poll, republican, Scott Walker, Wisconsin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Poll:ScottWalkerlosesseven-pointlead,nowtied

Poll: Scott Walker loses seven-point lead, now tied in Wisconsin reelection race

posted at 4:41 pm on May 21, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Realistically, Walker’s the best chance conservatives have at a nominee who’s both acceptable to them and capable of stopping the RINO dynamic duo of Jeb Bush and Chris Christie in the primaries. Two months ago, that scenario was right on track: Walker led Democrat Mary Burke 48/41 in his race for a second term as Wisconsin governor. Two months later, the lead is up in smoke. It’s 46/46 among registered voters with Burke’s name-recognition rising.

Granted, Walker leads by three here among likely voters, but nothing’s going to stop me when I’m in an eeyore spiral. Dude, I’m nervous:

In May the gender gap finds Walker leading among men by 52 percent to 42 percent while Burke leads among women by 49 percent to 41 percent. In March, Walker won men by 52 to 37 percent while Burke and Walker tied among women with 44 percent each.

Voters age 18 through 44 support Burke over Walker by 51 percent to 41 percent, reversing a 49 percent to 38 percent Walker advantage in March. Among voters 45 and older, support has been more stable, with Walker receiving 49 percent to Burke’s 42 percent, as compared to Walker’s 47-43 margin over Burke in March…

Approval of Walker’s handing of his job as governor has risen slightly in May to 49 percent, with 46 percent disapproving. In March, 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved.

Fifty-two percent of voters say Wisconsin is headed in the right direction, while 42 percent say it is off on the wrong track, little changed from 54 percent right direction and 42 percent wrong track in March. Forty-eight percent of voters see the state budget as being in better shape now than a few years ago, while 22 percent see it about the same and 25 percent say it is in worse shape now.

I’m tempted to dismiss this as nothing more than a byproduct of a bad sample. In March, when he led by seven among registered voters, the sample was 27D/25R. Today, with the race tied, it’s 32D/24R. Independents favor Walker, so the smaller the margin between Democratic and Republican turnout this fall, the greater the likelihood of a Walker win. And Republicans are capable of beating Dems in turnout even in a blue state like Wisconsin. The exit polls for Walker’s 2012 recall win showed 35R/34D at the polls that day. It’s a truism because it’s true: In this case, it really does come down to turnout. And if I’m a member of the national Democratic leadership, eyeing the inevitability of a Walker presidential run if he wins this race, I’d work very, very hard to turn out Wisconsin Democrats to pull this upset. Walker’s arguably the most formidable candidate in the Republican field — executive experience, midwestern, not prone to easily exploited verbal gaffes, and someone whom both wings of the GOP would line up for. If you want to take this guy out, blowing him up on the launchpad in Wisconsin may be your only chance.

On the other hand, it’s possible that a generally Democratic electorate has reverted to form lately, which would make the sample more legit. The gender split also suggests growth by Burke as the public gets to know her better. Two months ago, her favorable rating was 19/22 with 59 percent saying they don’t know her well enough to have an opinion. Two months later, 51 percent say they don’t know her well enough and her favorable rating stands at 27/22. And before you say “that’s only because there are more Democrats in this poll,” know that this isn’t the only survey out there showing the race tied. A Republican poll taken a month ago also had it tied, as did a Rasmussen poll taken in March. And although the right track/wrong track numbers here look good for Walker, Obama’s job approval in Wisconsin is working against him. Nationally, The One is stuck at a dismal 42/52; in Walker’s state, O’s at 48/45. If that holds, expect to see a bunch of big-name Democrats, including Obama himself, campaigning in Madison this fall.

One other tidbit: Wisconsinites don’t like the idea of Walker running for president (27/67) and don’t think he can do his job as governor properly if he’s running nationally at the same time (31/65). I remember Christie’s opponent in New Jersey trying to make that an issue in his reelection run, pointing out that he was using the election as a stepping stone, but his lead was too big for that to matter. Walker’s isn’t. The more attention he gets as a potential GOP nominee, the more of a jam he’ll be in before fall.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: burke, governor, Marquette, poll, reelection, Scott Walker, Wisconsin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Most negative presidential trait, according to the public: Atheism, of course

Mostnegativepresidentialtrait,accordingtothepublic:

Mustsee:America,meetyournextpresident

Must see: America, meet your next president

posted at 12:41 pm on May 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

•  Share on Facebook

Via David Freddoso, every minute of Harley Brown is worth watching here, but if you’re too lazy to skip around, at least watch the bit that begins at 19:40 and his closing statement at 52:20, when he reveals that God has indeed ordained that he’ll occupy the Oval Office someday. It’s not that far-fetched, really. As I recall, Lincoln wore biker gear throughout his debates with Stephen Douglas and also had a master’s degree in “raising hell.”

Believe it or not, there is a brilliant strategy at work here. But it’s not Brown’s.

Idaho Republican Gov. Butch Otter (no relation) is facing a primary challenge this year from Russ Fulcher, a conservative state senator. Idaho is a really conservative place and Otter has angered his party’s base by supporting the Common Core math and science standards, so the incumbent isn’t taking any chances. When it came time for Otter and Fulcher to debate, the governor insisted on opening up the floor. He argued that all candidates should be allowed on stage, which sounds nice and democratic in theory, but in practice meant that Fulcher had to split time with two people who will never be governor—also-rans Haley Brown and Walt Bayes.

Otter wanted the debate to be a circus, knowing that most of the coverage the next day would be about Brown and the Jasper Beardly to his left, not Fulcher. Right now, Jeb Bush and all the other “safe” establishment choices for 2016 are watching this clip and having the very same thought about the upcoming GOP debates: Alex Jones, moderator.

Exit question: Brown would probably stand a chance in Minnesota, wouldn’t he? (Sorry, Ed.)

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: butch otter, governor, harley brown, Idaho, jokes, politically correct

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

AnnCoulteron2016:SecondlookatMitt

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

posted at 3:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via MofoPolitics, which is responsible for the clip, and Free Republic, where the Romney 3.0 movement is, shall we say, off to a bad start in the comments. I’m 90 percent sure she’s joking but there’s no way to be sure: Any conservative willing to offer three cheers for RomneyCare qualifies, indisputably, as a true blue Mitt fan. I didn’t think they existed, but they do. Even among people who knew all along that, if nominated, he would lose.

Why Romney instead of someone else, though? One big reason, she says, is immigration. He was the guy who hammered Rick Perry in the debates for supporting in-state tuition for illegals; he was also the guy who made attrition through enforcement — a.k.a. “self-deportation” — the foundation of his immigration policy, despite endless bleating from the media. Call him a squish on other matters if you like but on amnesty he was rock-solid. But see, this was the whole problem with Romney: Was he rock-solid on immigration or was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear? You never really knew with Mitt. He already had one gigantic, potentially fatal political liability with health care. He likely reasoned, correctly, that he couldn’t afford another one by taking a centrist line on immigration. So he became a staunch conservative on legalization and citizenship and it worked for him — for awhile.

How about after the election, though, when he no longer had to worry about offending voters? Here’s what he told a WaPo reporter for a book on the 2012 campaign that came out last year:

On his plan for self-deportation, Romney said, “I still don’t know whether it’s seen as being punitive in the Hispanic community. I mean, I know it is in the Anglo community … I didn’t recognize how negative and punitive that term would be seen by the voting community.”…

When Romney started to trail Gingrich in polls ahead of the South Carolina primary, the book explains that his advisers want to run immigration-themed ads against Gingrich — but Romney refused to “run an immigration campaign.”

Balz also reports in Collision 2012 that Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, thought that the immigration attacks on Perry were “both damaging and unnecessary.”

“Looking back, I think that’s right,” Romney told Balz. “I think that I was ineffective in being able to bring Hispanic voters into our circle and that had I been less pointed on that in the debates, I would have been more likely to get more Hispanic voters.”

That sounds to me like a man who regrets having taken such a hard line. Here he is again in November 2013, months after the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate:

Another issue — immigration — is something the Republican Party must deal with, Mitt Romney said. Asked if there should be a pathway to citizenship put forward, he said, “I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so.”

It’s not entirely clear what he means there. Does he think illegals should be allowed to stay, with legal status, while they get in line to apply for citizenship, or does he think they should be removed and then try applying for a visa while back in their own country just like every other aspiring American in the world? Come to think of it, that’s not the right question. The right question is, how would President Romney, having just won a squeaker over Obama but having lost 70+ percent of the Latino vote, respond to a concerted push by congressional Democrats for immigration reform? Would he have held firm to “self-deportation” or, having been chastened by the Latino reaction to “self-deportation” during the campaign and with Republican leaders breathing down his neck about changing demographics and 2016, would he have tried to broker some sort of deal involving legalization? Which seems truer to the Romney ethos to you? Reagan signed an amnesty but Mitt the Unconquerable wouldn’t have?

I do think she’s right that it’ll probably be a governor in 2016, though. Are there any of those on the Republican bench who are as firmly opposed to amnesty as Romney 2012 was?

Tags: 2016, amnesty, coulter, governor, howie carr, immigration, republican, romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Charlie Crist: I think Republicans got mad at me for hugging Obama because he’s black

CharlieCrist:IthinkRepublicansgotmadat

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on January 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

The number of Republicans who think New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has a “strong future” in the Republican Party has dropped significantly in the wake of allegations members of his staff ordered lane closures leading to the George Washington Bridge as political payback…

A new Fox News national poll finds that the number of self-identified Republicans who believe Christie has a strong future in their party has dropped 22 percentage points since December 2012. Sixty-three percent of Republicans felt Christie had a strong future a year ago, while 41 percent feel that way now…

Among independents, he’s dropped from 52 percent to 32 percent now thinking his future’s bright in the GOP.

***

Therein lies the cost to Christie in the stories emerging when they have. Christie’s head start is now lost in a fog of investigations and careful answers that figure to consume at least the first half of this year.

Others will lay claim to the Christie mantle of no-nonsense problem-solvers from outside of Washington; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who hopes to win his own big re-election this fall, springs to mind, and more than a few Republicans are talking up former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush all over again…

The key to Christie’s appeal — what makes Christie potentially different than any of a dozen Republicans with eyes on the big prize — is his proven ability to appeal to the nonideological middle.

That is gone, at least for now. Independent voters who just a month ago broke 47-32 for Christie in a hypothetical match-up against Hillary Clinton are now splitting just about evenly, 41 percent for Clinton to 40 percent for Christie, in the new poll.

***

In a subsequent conversation I had Monday, the same Christie aide told me that after delivering the State of the State address, Christie privately addressed his cabinet and senior staff, vowing to meet the challenge ahead of them, and expressing his gratitude and love — yes, love — for his team.

“No one’s looking to jump ship,” the aide told me. “We’re all on the same team. We believe in this guy. We will defend him to the end.”

I’m not suggesting that the absence of such sabotage within Christie’s inner sanctum is proof alone of his innocence. It could mean he engenders a rare kind of devotion. It could mean he’s surrounded by sycophants.

But in today’s rough-and-tumble world of political payback (especially potent, we’re told in New Jersey), it’s notable how little payback is coming out of Christie’s office.

***

On CNN last night, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli suggested that Christie quit as head of the Republican Governors Association. It was easy, perhaps, to write that off as the bitterness of a defeated candidate, one for whom Christie never found time to campaign in his close 2013 race.

But yesterday, when I was talking to Republicans, I heard the same concern, totally independent of personal affinities. Katon Dawson, the former South Carolina GOP chairman, wondered whether Christie’s problems could trickle down to governors or candidates. That would be unacceptable.

“To most folks in my profession, it’s governorships we pay attention to,” said Dawson. “This all has the potential to affect the RGA and governor’s races if it grows any more legs, like it has with the Hoboken mayor. Mark Sanford is a guy who resigned and didn’t want any of his scandal embroiled around the RGA. Now, nobody’s called for that from Christie. But if we’ve got two, three more scandals, that’s the concern I’ve got.”

***

The big problem for Christie, on the other hand, is that the scandals driving his brutal media coverage—most famously Bridge-gate, but also his alleged attempt to withhold Sandy relief funds from the city of Hoboken unless the mayor backed a project for a powerful developer, to say nothing of a series of older scandals, like ostentatiously abusing his expense account as a U.S. attorney, funneling fat federal contracts to key backers, etc.—all cut in the wrong direction ideologically. They sound like a Tea Partier’s nightmare of big government. As much as conservatives might have a soft spot for victims of the liberal media, once the dust clears, it’s hard to imagine them feeling very sympathetic to a candidate who’s been attacked for a litany of sins that aren’t just morally suspect in their eyes, but ideologically damning. As it happens, Giuliani’s own media-bashing officially jumped the shark when he deployed it during a scandal that was similarly off-message ideologically—a Politico report that he’d billed New York City taxpayers for tens of thousands of dollars of security expenses that he ran up while visiting his mistress…

As Chait has pointed out, Christie’s only path to the nomination is to persuade GOP elders he’s the most electable candidate, then hope they have the juice to deliver for him. That electability case has obviously taken a hit of late, but it’s still his best hope, as his generally centrist inaugural speech suggests he understands. Unfortunately, in order to make a plausible electability case, Christie’s going to have to prove he can still get his message out through the mainstream media. And that’s not something you accomplish by starting a blood feud with the people who made you.

***

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell were the first victors in the Tea Party wave, riding fresh conservative enthusiasm–and outrage over Obamacare–to victory in November 2009. The left, predictably, is trying to link Christie’s bullying scandal and McDonnell’s corruption indictment to that Tea Party support. The truth, however, is that they dumped their Tea Party principles and supporters long ago.

There were several minor scuffles between these governors and the conservative grass roots, including a fight over some of Christie’s judicial appointments, and McDonnell’s tax hikes. Yet the major falling-out occurred over Obamacare–specifically, the decision of these two governors (among others) to renege on their promises not to expand Medicaid in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (and its generous federal handouts)…

No political party or faction is immune from corruption or abuses of power. The high ideals of the Tea Party are no guarantee that loyal conservatives will be any more honest than other politicians (though their commitment to small government would give them fewer opportunities for plunder and retribution). Regardless, McDonnell and Christie are no stain on the Tea Party. In fact, their isolation from the movement is to the Tea Party’s credit.

***

“I think this whole thing is helping Christie with precisely the people who were most skeptical of him, at least in terms of Republican primary voters,” suggested former New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen. “Last month, Scott Brown headlined a fundraiser for the New Hampshire GOP and Brown got picketed by a large group of gun activists. They and other conservative activists would give Christie a hard time because of his ideology, too. But if the media is going after him this hard on something so peripheral to Christie himself, he can’t be all bad, right?”…

One problem with this: Sanford never really irritated GOP primary voters the way Christie did when he praised President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy. Limbaugh called it “the fatal blow” to a possible national campaign for the New Jersey governor. The few Mitt Romney donors who’ve gone on the record against Christie have cited the Sandy “embrace” as the reason. Media bashing can help sell Christie to conservative voters, but they have so many reasons to distrust him.

“I don’t think it will be possible for the man that almost singularly ensured Obummer’s re-election to generate conservative sympathy via shared media disdain,” said Iowa conservative radio host Steve Deace. “Most of the conservatives I talk to in Red State America view the GOP establishment and the liberal media as one in the same—united against us. Now, I certainly think there’s a lot of conservative enthusiasm for putting Christie and the liberal media together on the same raft for a simultaneous Viking funeral.”

***

***

Via the Daily Rushbo.

Tags: bridge, bridgegate, Chris Christie, governor, media, New Jersey, republican, rga, scandal

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Six New Jersey residents have filed a federal lawsuit against Gov. Chris Christie, the state of New Jersey, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and others over traffic jams in September…

The plaintiffs want it certified as a class action.

***

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said there was a lot still to unravel regarding communications between the parties and how the decision to disrupt traffic was made.

“That question will be very important for Paul Fishman,” Toobin said of the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey…

Fishman’s office is working with the FBI’s public corruption unit to see if any federal laws were broken, a law enforcement source told CNN.

***

Chris Christie is a favorite among deep-pocketed Wall Street donors for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. But the New Jersey governor’s involvement in a major scandal over lane closures on the world’s busiest bridge could threaten to cool some of that support…

The concern, as one donor who’s supported Christie put it, is that the actions by the Christie aides “is environmental. He created an environment where that could happen.”…

One senior financial services industry executive said support is not yet wavering for Christie but could if the scandal is not cleaned up fast.

“Everyone is looking at how he handles it,” said this person, who declined to be identified by name in order to speak candidly about Christie. “They are not as concerned about the scandal itself, assuming he didn’t actually know anything about it, but about the management of it. Can he tidy it up neatly and decisively. If he can, great. If not you will see people waver.”

***

Here’s the problem with that tack (with the acknowledgment that given Christie’s ambition, it’s the only approach he could possibly take): If ANYTHING comes out that suggests that he had any sort of involvement in ANY way with the closures of the lanes, he is done for. He left no wiggle room for himself. None. He also insisted that this episode was anomalous in his administration — repeatedly rejecting the idea that he was a bully or fostered a bullying atmosphere within his senior staff…

This is in the early stages, not the late ones, and Christie’s strong denials on Fort Lee and broader dismissal of the idea of a bullying culture mean that if incidents come to light that contradict those denials, they are even more problematic to Christie and his future than they would have been a week ago.

***

By admitting that he didn’t know anything about it, the governor admits to allowing a rogue political operation to operate underneath him. Given how cavalier these aides were about this infraction and how small the political stakes, it’s hard to imagine that in bigger instances at least some other gambits weren’t tried. If you are caught firing your six-shooter willy-nilly around the house at fruit flies, there’s a pretty good chance you’re behaving recklessly because you’ve become habituated to the recklessness and it isn’t your first time. This offered another moment in which Christie’s story seemed ripe for puncturing. He seemed confused at how on earth anything like this could be possible. That would be a hard posture for any politician to maintain, especially one with Christie’s reputation for political fortitude.

As this story unfolds, we’ll see if this was an isolated incident that grew in a culture that was otherwise hostile to such low behavior or whether this was a part of a broader pattern. At the very least, this will complicate Christie’s efforts to sell himself in the future as a hands-on manager.

***

Democrats predictably condemned the New Jersey governor after a bombshell report Wednesday tied one of his top staffers to a burgeoning scandal that’s already been dubbed “Bridge-gate.” More notable was the dearth of Republicans who rose to Christie’s defense — and, privately, the schadenfreude expressed by some of them that a man who’s never been shy about taking shots at others was suddenly on the receiving end…

“All these people who feel like he’s bullied and he’s put them in a horse-collar hold … will feel free to say, ‘See, I told you so,’” said one Republican who has worked with Christie.

That sense of glee from detractors “is going to be worse than they anticipate,” said the Republican, adding that local critics but also detractors in some of the early presidential states might now feel emboldened to take shots at a man who 24 hours ago was seen by many as the most likely GOP standard-bearer in 2016.

***

Republican media strategist Rick Wilson, who worked on Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign, argued that Christie “goes out of his way to be a dick to other Republicans” — and will reap the payback if his fortunes start to head south.

“You’re going to see conservatives returning the favor he gave them over the last year. There’s no love lost between Chris Christie and conservatives. I don’t expect them to be in love with him, and he doesn’t want their love,” said Wilson. “But if you want to win a GOP primary, you better find a way to get there.”…

Added one GOP strategist: “He has gotten way, way ahead of his supply lines in terms of national exposure. His straight talk reputation now runs the risk of slipping into a bad place where voters grow tired of his style and this kind of drama.”

***

I’m ambivalent on his run for the Presidency. But I don’t see him getting that far for the very reasons underlying this issue — he and his staff operate as divas.

I have had Congressmen, Governors, and the staffers of Congressmen and Governors tell me horror stories about dealing with Christie’s people. All of them seem to dread it…

This was always going to be Christie’s problem. People want a winner. And they want an a**hole. But they want the person to be their a**hole, not an a**hole who tries to make everyone else his whipping boy.

***

It’s a grotesque Jersey version of the ugly truth that underlies all electoral politics: The primary goal is to win re-election. There’s a reason that the same people who work on political campaigns then work for important jobs in government—it’s largely the same job, with the same boss, and the same goal…

Think of these kinds of careers, and of the callous disregard these people can have for voters and insufficiently loyal politicians (Stepien’s reaction to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich’s public complaints about the traffic jam was “The mayor is an idiot”), the next time you hear someone describe politics as public service. When you give politicians power—such as the authority to appoint leaders to bi-state public bodies that control basically all the infrastructure in and around New York City and New Jersey—you are handing over tools that they and the many plausible deniers that work for them can and will use to get the boss man re-elected. It is disgusting, and it is predictable. If you want less corruption, give politicians less power.

***

Speaker of the House John Boehner said he believes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is still a serious contender for 2016 in spite of the scandal surrounding the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge last year…

Asked if Christie could still be a top contender if he were to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, Boehner said he believes Christie could.

“I think so,” he said. “I think so.”

***

***

***

Tags: 2016, bridge, Chris Christie, fired, fort lee, governor, jersey, kelly, nomination, President, republican, resign

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

“WalkingDead”grumblethread:AllofAmericanow

“Walking Dead” grumble thread: All of America now rooting for the Governor to liquidate the main characters

posted at 7:51 pm on November 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Am I right or am I right?

Always a curious sign when a show starts getting more interesting when it stops being about its main characters. #walkingdead

— James Lileks (@Lileks) November 25, 2013

Not that curious. The Governor’s a monster but he has some depth of character, unlike the stiffs in the core group. A day later, I still can’t decide whether last night’s cliffhanger is proof that the writers recognize that or whether they’re oblivious to it. I hope he pulls the trigger and blows Michonne and Hershel away, just because … why not? What’ll be lost if they’re gone? A few new cut-out “good guys” will be written in and added to the core group and life will go on. The fact that you’ve got people in the audience rooting for a one-eyed psychotic who machine-gunned a bunch of innocents last year to kill two of the heroes should be evidence of excellent writing. How many shows could pull that off? I think it’s likelier, though, that they’re oblivious to it and that they meant to leave viewers terrified with concern for the two main characters, even though neither one would be much missed. The title of last night’s episode was “Dead Weight,” presumably an allusion to the do-gooding camp members whom the Governor murdered. When it comes to dead weight on the show, though, Pete and Martinez are the least of the problems. Do they get that or not?

Either way, last night’s episode was the best in ages. The Governor killing Pete because he wasn’t ruthless enough to protect the kingdom was Shakespearean; the scene at the end where zombie Pete is left to struggle in the lake endlessly is one of the best set pieces they’ve ever done. Even the pacing has been stronger in this little two-part digression about the Governor. If they dragged it out any further just to showcase a few more examples of his ruthlessness, it’d be redundant. Bringing him back to the prison now seems right. Plus, I feel like there have been more changes in setting over the last two weeks than there were in two seasons of following the main cast, a major problem in a show about a global apocalypse. It’s one thing to have a core group that’s dull, it’s another to have them be dull and perpetually stuck in the same spot. Looks like that’s going to change now that the Governor’s on his way with a tank. Fire at will.

Tags: AMC, governor, megan, Walking Dead, zombie

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

“WalkingDead”grumblethread:Notedpsychoticemergesas

“Walking Dead” grumble thread: Noted psychotic emerges as show’s most sympathetic character

posted at 8:31 pm on November 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Spend too much time around the Governor and he’ll try to kill you. Spend too much time around Rick and you’ll want to kill yourself.

You’re better off taking your chances with Eyepatch, no?

@NumbersMuncher @BruceCarrollSC @allahpundit @JayCostTWS The Gov progressed more in one episode than Rick did in several seasons.

— Ben44 (@BenK84) November 18, 2013

@allahpundit @NumbersMuncher @BruceCarrollSC @JayCostTWS I'm actually rooting for the governor now. He's more likable at this point.

— Ben44 (@BenK84) November 18, 2013

Any episode that strays from the main group is a good episode, ergo last night’s was a good episode. Lots of nice touches — the “Brian Heriot” stuff on the side of the barn, the pathos of the nursing home zombies, and the Governor’s roll in the hay with one of his new wards, a rare concession to the fact that there’d probably be a lot of carpe-diem nookie in a world as lonely as Zombie Earth. (As I recall, the only spur-of-the-moment sex on the show that didn’t lead to something more was Andrea’s afternoon delight with Shane in the car.) I can’t decide, though, whether his backstory is too cliched and underdeveloped to make him truly sympathetic or not cliched enough to spoil a character who, unlike most of the others, seems to have more than one emotion. Nearly everyone on the show is damaged or crippled from having lost a loved one, yet only the Governor became a warlord because of it, for whatever inexplicable reason. (My sense of him is that, before the zompocalypse, he was probably an executive at an insurance company or something.) His absolute power over Woodbury drove him mad, but that was a fait accompli; that’s always what happens in drama when someone attains absolute power. He’s basically following a Darth Vader story arc — starts off good, is seduced into running an evil empire by his rage and grief over the death of a beloved, then redeems himself by rescuing his (or “his”) child. At least it’s an arc, though, which is more than the stiffs in the main group can say.

I figure we’re destined now to see the Governor die either by sacrificing himself to a zombie horde in order to save the little girl (“Megan, help me take this patch off”) or being impaled by a revenge-minded Michonne Skywalker. He’d have to turn bad again for the latter to happen, though. In this show, much like in pro wrestling, “good guys” don’t fight each other.

Tags: AMC, governor, morrissey, Walking Dead, zombie

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on November 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

In an era of wrenching economic and social change, voters bet their hopes on a little-tested leader who a) echoed their disillusionment, b) pledged to end polarization, c) defied his party’s extremists, d) embraced the task of tackling big problems, e) and seemed authentic.

And so it happened in 1992, 2000 and 2008 that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama became president. Judging by his rhetoric after a landslide re-election Tuesday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hopes to package himself as the “Perfect Candidate for Troubled Times,” version 4.0.

Voters crave – and the nation needs – a transformational president to lead America into the post-industrial era, just as Theodore Roosevelt reset U.S. political and social institutions for the post-agricultural era. But after three less-than-promised presidencies, voters may not be inclined to buy the hype.

And yet, it begins. Interviewed on four Sunday news shows, Christie pushed all the familiar buttons.

***

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, fresh off a lopsided re-election victory propelling him to the front ranks of 2016 presidential contenders, has problems at home that could complicate his ambitions—the economy and the budget.

Among the headwinds for the Republican as he sets an agenda for 2014: a state unemployment rate of 8.5% in August, compared with 7.3% nationally (and among the 10 highest of all states); a slower recovery from the recession compared with the nation; and a budget with a slimmer surplus than those in most of the rest of the country…

“New Jersey is lagging. If you want to lead the country, you have to want to lead, not lag,” said former Gov. Tom Kean, about the state’s economy.

“The whole focus on New Jersey and the weak spots are going to be there,” added Mr. Kean, a Republican who is one of Mr. Christie’s close advisers. “If he neglects New Jersey at all, and things get out of hand, that’s going to be a problem.”

***

If Christie is not careful, he might come across as a repeat of both Giuliani and George W. Bush. Like Bush, Christie will be running on his ballot-box and bipartisan successes, his impressive-for-a-Republican showing among minority voters, and the contrast between himself and the bickering divided government in Washington.

Bush failed to replicate much of his Texas experience nationally, a real possibility for Christie as well. It is easier to run against a polarizing incumbent governor or a sacrificial-lamb challenger abandoned by the Democrats, as they both did in state politics, than to best a fully invested national challenger.

In an effort to distinguish himself from Cruz and especially Paul, Christie has also at times sounded like Bush-Giuliani 2.0 on foreign policy and civil liberties. This is an abandonment of the more nuanced approach he took in his 2011 speech at the Reagan Library, which didn’t break with neoconservative orthodoxy in any of its particulars, but at least paid lip service to the concerns of less interventionist conservatives in the party.

If a vote for Christie is seen as a vote for bluster at home and bombing abroad, he won’t live up to his potential to grow the Republican Party as much as some of his Tea Party opponents might.

***

That goes to show that the old one-two punch of people-versus-the-powerful and cultural demagoguery just does not work on certain candidates, those whose mere presence somehow reveals the entire schtick to be as vacuous as it truly is. Christie is just that sort of Republican. He is pro-life, but nobody was ever going to tag him as a dangerous Holy Roller. He went after the labor unions with vigor, but Democrats did not even try to tag him as an enemy of the common man. He has his fair share of friends at the corner of Wall and Broad Streets, but he never gives the impression that he’s in their pocket. The Democrats could have given Buono $50 million to run the Clinton playbook against Christie, and she still would have lost.

Those are the sorts of qualities the Republican nominee must have to take on Clintonism in three years’ time. But that is not to say Christie is the man for the job, at least not yet. His problem is that—so far—he looks to be a divisive figure within his own party. Many conservatives are suspicious of him. Whether their reasons are legitimate or not is beside the point. One of the (many) causes of Cuccinelli’s failure in Virginia was that his own coalition was divided between the “grassroots” (who loved him) and the “establishment” (who did not). This sort of division, if taken into 2016, will prove crippling. Alienate the grassroots, and watch the base stay home. Alienate the establishment, and watch the big-money donors withdraw. The party must find a candidate who not only is immune to Clintonism, but also does not exacerbate existing divisions within the GOP coalition. All hands will have to be on deck in 2016.

Whether Christie is that candidate is still to be seen. A lot of questions remain. Can he reassure the base? Can he appeal not simply to the Northeast, but also the Midwest, where elections are won and lost? Can he stand up to Clintonism when it is actually being administered by a Clinton and funded by half a billion dollars (or more)?

***

Steve Elmendorf, who served as deputy campaign manager for then-Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid, said Christie has “a conflict between appearing authentic and becoming unhinged.”

“People like the fact that he gets angry and yells at people sometimes. But they don’t want their next president to be unhinged.”…

“He is very loose with what he says, and he comes across as blunt and outspoken,” Paul Swibinski, a New Jersey-based Democratic strategist said. “It plays really well in New Jersey, the kinda Tony Soprano, Bill Parcells, Chris Christie thing of being big, tough, straight-talking Jersey guys. But how well it plays in the rest of the country remains to be seen.”

***

In coronating the rotund governor as the next sure-fire GOP presidential nominee in 2016, none of the mainstream media pointed out his stances on issues that they no doubt hate: Mr. Christie vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage, vetoed several “gender parity” bills and was for abortion until he was against it. Of course, the same media played up his support of gun control and a Dream Act-like immigration overhaul. And they noted repeatedly that the governor had not followed through on a threat to appeal New Jersey’s top court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

The kingmaking certainly has shades of the media love affair with Sen. John “Maverick” McCain. The MSM loved his battle with the conservative wing of the Republican Party and lauded him as a true moderate, capable of bridging partisan gaps to work for the betterment of all. Sound familiar?

Once nominated, though, that same MSM lashed Mr. McCain as nothing more than a vicious right-winger in moderate’s clothing. Sure, the Arizona senator was forced to move right to get through the party’s primaries (as Mr. Christie likely will be), but gone was the love for their “maverick.”…

[T]he media love affair will end the second Mr. Christie wins the nomination. And you always have to wonder: If the media loves him so much, just what’s wrong with him?

***

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***

Via NRO.

Tags: christie, conservative, GOP, governor, New Jersey, nomination, primary, republican

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair