Am I the only one who thinks Christie is toast in a Republican primary?

[Likely Voter]

He is not toast but he does face a dilemma, exemplified by the early front-runners from the last two GOP nominations. How does he win over enough conservatives without destroying his general election chances. Romneys transformation into a 'severe conservative' touting how he was going to 'shut down' Planned Parenthood and get the undocumented to 'self deport' shot himself in the foot with moderate general election voters while trying to get to the right of his conservative opponents on some issues.  On the other side there is the lesson of Rudy Guilliani who didn't pander (at least not as blatantly) and went from front-runner to biggest loser faster than you can say "comeback in Florida".

So Christie needs to come up some new way to thread the needle of winning the GOP nomination without getting the stink of the Tea Party on him

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

How about Christie just says in the primary  he is pro life, then in the general he says he only wants restrictions on the second and third trimester abortions, which is what the majority of Americans believe anyway? I think that could work in the general election.

[Mr. Morden]

Giuliani did pander to the base in 2008, just not on social issues.  His economic platform, for example, involved a full on embrace of supply side-ism that went beyond what he'd done as mayor.

And McCain 2008 is an interesting case.  Early on, he tried pandering to the base like mad, but then his campaign imploded in the summer of 2007.  He tried various things to get out of the hole he'd dug himself, but by the time he started surging back to victory, he was actually focusing on returning to the "straight talking maverick" role, including talking about climate change in his stump speeches and the like.  His ultimate victory in the primaries wasn't really because of pandering, but because his opponents all imploded at just the right time.  Giuliani's implosion, specifically, sent most of his support to McCain, and it hit at just the right moment for McCain.

McCain, oddly, then seemed to worry about protecting his right flank much more in the general election.

[Mr. Illini]

No way, Walker would unify the Republican party, and would appeal greatly to the midwestern swing states.

Not sure why so many people think this. His first election was in 2010, which was a landslide year for the GOP in every state but the solid Democratic voting ones. In the recall, he won a lot of voters over on the very idea that he should be able to finish out his term. He had been in office for a very short amount of time before the recall protests and then the election and most people thought that he ought to have his term.

We'll see how well he fares in 2014, but right now he is only polling a couple of points ahead of a Democrats with almost no recognition.

[pbrower2a]

Some Democrats on this board hold this belief that there really are zero moderate Republicans left, and that's just dumb; we're just not as loud.  McCain and Romney won, both with ease, after going slightly right.  I think Christie is capable of winning without making as significant of an appeal to the base.  Even if he's not their favorite, there are enough Republicans who know that he's easily our best bet to win the White House in 2016.  I'm actually pretty confident that Christie would beat a weak Dem here in Maine.  He has crossover appeal.

There are moderate Republicans, but many have started voting for Democrats. The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans, liberal on almost all social issues other than crime, sympathetic to learning and science, demanding clean government, sympathetic to the need for a strong defense, and having no use for racial or religious bigotry in politics, economics friendly to small business (but not particularly to Big Business) have found themselves out in the cold with a Republican Party that panders to bigots and Christian fundamentalists with which they have no compatibility. They were the moderates who preferred Ford to Carter in 1976 and voted for Reagan twice and the elder Bush once. They voted for LBJ in 1964 because they thought Goldwater too reckless, but came back to the GOP for Nixon.

Although many of the Asian and Hispanic voters or their parents were not in America when the Eisenhower/Rockefeller part of the GOP was large and decidedly Republican they seem to fit the pattern. Such people vote largely Democratic because they distrust the GOP for the adoption of anti-rational demagoguery for which  the old Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans had no use. Map forthcoming.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Hmm... This is interesting..

[Kevin]

Romney, McCain

The idea that Christie can't win the nomination ignores history.

Your correct imo.

People esp. those on the left on this board say that 2016 is when the GOP base will exert it's self and nominate "their candidate".

The big problem with that statement is that the same thing was said in 1988, 2000, 2008, and 2012. For Ex. most predicted that in 2012 a hard core Tea Party base candidate like Bachmann , Perry,or Santorum would be victorious over the "establishment" Mitt Romney. If the Republicans didn't go all the way to crazy town in 2012 then what makes everyone soo sure that they will in 2016

The only way a "base" candidate will end up beating Christie or any other "establishment candidate in the primary is if they can  demonstrate they have the capability to win in a general election head on against a Democratic candidate. Kind of like how Obama was the candidate of of the anti-war anti-Bush left in 2008 but showed that he would be able to build a strong national movement behind him to take back the White House for the Democratic Party. So unless something like that occurs within the GOP in 2016 there is little chance that someone heavily favored by the Tea Party wins the nomination.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Looking thru the hazy crystal ball, just as 2011-2 was the time of the Anti-Romneys,  2015-6 looks for now to be the time of the Anti-Christies.  I hope it stays that way just so I can type "Anti-Christie(s)" many times, with the occasional leaving out of the "ie" at the end.

[IceSpear]

Romney only won because the alternatives imploded one by one.

First it was Bachmann. Okay, realistically, she never had a chance to beat Romney.
Then Perry. Had it not been for him revealing his stupidity, he likely would've won the nomination.
Then Cain. He could've put up a strong fight were it not for the infidelity.
Then Gingrich and Santorum. Had ONE of these two dropped out, and the other actually ran a campaign besides a book selling operation, they likely would've beaten Romney.