Is Chris Christie Too Tainted To Be President?

[Mister Mets]

This isn't a question about electability.

Let's say there's no further proof that Christie ordered the bridge closings. There are paths by which he could win the Republican presidential nomination, and anyone who is a major party nominee has a chance of winning a presidential election. But what would that mean?

Have the scandals hurt his ability to govern effectively in the White House? Would congressional Democrats be less willing to work with him than with a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio? Would he inspire more opposition in general? How much would these things matter?

[MurrayBannerman]

I don't think so. He's proven that he's willing to be civil if the civility is returned.

[Link]

Would congressional Democrats be less willing to work with him than with a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio? Would he inspire more opposition in general? How much would these things matter?

I don't know what Jeb is really like.  I suppose they would work with Jeb as much as with any Republican.

Rubio is an idiot.

Christie is a disaster waiting to happen.  I can't see too many people getting in bed with that guy.  If he is this much of a jerk running a state like NJ can you imagine if he was given the keys to the White House?  There are far humbler more even keeled Republican governors out there.  I can't see DC warming up to Christie.

[Mr. Morden]

No, not at all.  People tend to be too myopic about the scandal of the moment.  Plenty of presidents have had scandals before they were elected, or during their presidency.  Did the 1996 campaign finance scandal make it impossible for Clinton to govern effectively in 1997?  Of course not.  If nothing else were to come out on Bridgeghazi, and Christie were elected president, then what happened with the bridge closing in 2013 isn't going to matter in 2017 or 2018 or 2019, etc.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No, there haven't been any unforgivable scandals and he hasn't been directly tied to any corruption. He's got a stink about him, but it's nothing that won't fade in two years if nothing else pops up.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm going to say that someone who aggressively punishes his political enemies and seeks retribution against those who did not vote for him would be a bad fit for the position of most powerful person in the world.

[hopper]

I probably wouldn't vote for him again since all the deals he made with people to endorse him or over deals he made with Hurricane Sandy money.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hmm. I don't know if he'd still be my top choice in the primaries (although maybe he'd have to be just by default), but I could likely support him in the general.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As much as part of me wants the nominee from the normally-not-Republican state so we can expand the electoral map and all that, I don't think I could in good conscience support someone who's been party to what Christie apparently has done.

[Peeperkorn]

Is Tony Soprano Too Tainted To Be President?

[Deus Naturae]

I don't think so. He's proven that he's willing to be civil if the civility is returned.

What? "Civil" is the last word I'd use to describe Christie...

[Indy Texas]

No, not at all.  People tend to be too myopic about the scandal of the moment.  Plenty of presidents have had scandals before they were elected, or during their presidency.  Did the 1996 campaign finance scandal make it impossible for Clinton to govern effectively in 1997?  Of course not.  If nothing else were to come out on Bridgeghazi, and Christie were elected president, then what happened with the bridge closing in 2013 isn't going to matter in 2017 or 2018 or 2019, etc.

People assume palms will be greased when checks are written to campaigns.

The problem with the Christie scandal is that it's not about doing favors for political supporters. Is it really skin off anyone's nose if a governor, say, gives a state contract to a big donor even though his bid wasn't the lowest? This isn't like that. It's about him punishing everyday citizens in a very direct, tangible way. And an incredibly petty one, at that.

It's the sort of thing you expect in a despotic, developing country in Africa or Asia.

How would President Christie punish the blue states that didn't vote for him for president? What kind of "traffic problems" would he create for California or Massachusetts?

[Likely Voter]

The problem is that Christie may never be "cleared" he may only end up "not indicted" and it could take up to a year before it is known whether he will be or not. With others in his circle being indicted and more discovery there is very likely to be more fishy stuff that may not be smoking gun illegal, but embarrassing enough to keep him out of the race. Even without a single new piece of information, what has come out so far has destroyed his bipartisan "electiblility" cred, which was his whole calling card

[Mordecai]

Have the scandals hurt his ability to govern effectively in the White House?

No, but they're symptomatic of bad governance.

Would congressional Democrats be less willing to work with him than with a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio?

They might be more comfortable working with Bush or Rubio, but I don't see why they wouldn't work with Christie unless he was intentionally being uncooperative.

Would he inspire more opposition in general? How much would these things matter?

Again the problem here is you're looking at Bridgegate as hurting his ability to govern when it's a manifestation of his governance.

Either way you look at it, it is not good. Either he is a bully who resorts to petty and costly stunts to get back at opponents, or he is a terrible judge of character with no control over his staff and is asleep at the wheel.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I don't think, for a single nanosecond, that Christie is going to be indicted or impeached in this scandal.  Indeed, if he were eligible for a third term as NJ Governor, he'd still be the favorite, although he'd have competition. 

Nor do I think that anything he's done makes him "too tainted" to be President.  Not that I would approve of what happened (if true).  But Christie hasn't done anything that folks really believe other Presidential candidates haven't done, in some way, shape, or form.

What this scandal DOES do, however, is give the GOP an out on him.  Many conservative Republicans were preparing themselves to bite the bullet and support Christie as being the most electable.  Now I know that "electability" isn't the main point of this thread, but with Christie, that's what it always gets back to.  And at this point in the game, Christie has forfeited his key advantage over other GOP candidates; the possibility of expanding the map. 

What blue states will flip to Christie now?  Maybe Virginia, Florida, and Ohio, but they are swing states anyway.  Maybe Colorado and Nevada.  Maybe Pennsylvania.  Maybe Iowa and Wisconsin.  Maybe New Hampshire.  But this can be said for any of the other candidates if the campaign is right and events are right.  Christie flipping any of these states, even all of these states, isn't something any other Republican would be less likely to do than Christie?  What advantage in these states would Christie have over John Kasich or Paul Ryan? 

The scandal has robbed Christie of his specialness.  He's now just another pol without any special electoral advantages to offset his unsavoriness (to many) as a candidate.  There is no reason that any major GOP donor or pol with clout would (or should) choose Christie over any number of GOP possibles.  Christie is a guy who now needs to finish out his term, live down the scandal, and reinvent himself, none of which can be accomplished by January, 2017.