Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Conas

I know this going slightly off-topic, but I have to make this point. Yes, Fox News is a Republican channel. In Politics you always have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and with Fox News, just look at who owns it, Rupert Murdoch, a lover of right wing politics. Then low and behold the CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes was a political consultant for Republicans during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. They go under the deception of fair and balanced, and it works for most people.

The Bridge Scandal will be drummed up for a while now, wedging it into the public conscience. The main stream media adopt the dominos effect in politics. Take a lot of people down, then leave the one person standing that they've hand-picked that suits their agenda. People have to realise, that this Bridge Scandal is a way of getting Christie out of the picture for 2016.

Now we ask, who will be next?

jank

Black Swan wrote: »

No. I am sick of the polarization between the two major parties in the US. Both party leaders, and many of their supporters, act like selfish children in a sandbox, fighting over the toys. The art of politics is the art of compromise, not what has been happening in America during recent years. Once again, I agree with what John Adams cautioned about America: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Democrats want to win the presidency in 2016, so it's obvious that their leaders (and special interests) are taking advantage of these 2 Christie scandals. It's also obvious that those Republican candidates (and special interests) that want to win the presidency in 2016 have jumped on the bandwagon to eliminate party rival Christie. Both parties are taking advantage of these scandals to thin down the 2016 competition.

If the two party primaries where held today, more than likely Hilliary Clinton would win the Democrat party nomination. In 2016, who knows? Before leaving Secretary of State after only one term, Hilliary looked like a complete burnout, exhausted by the demands of office. How could you expect her to carry the more demanding presidency for 4 to 8 years?

Until these two recent scandals, it appeared that Chris Christie was a moderate Republican that may be able to achieve compromises across party lines, and reduce the absurd and counterproductive 2 party divisiveness. Who's left if Christie is eliminated but those Republicans who have already contributed greatly to the highly emotive and dysfunctional polarization between parties?

I was hoping for both parties to nominate moderates that may have a chance to reduce the divisive 2 party polarization through the art of compromise. Foolish me. Adams was right.

It would also mean that the Democrats fear Christie a lot more than say Rubio, Paul or Cruz. So it would be in their special interest to go after him now before the mid terms so that a run (and more importantly fundrasing) for the GOP nomination is untenable for 2016 anyway. Much easier given the media of the times and the general discourse and narrative about these evil heartless repubicans and point to a Paul or Cruz than say a moderate like Christie.

jank

InTheTrees wrote: »

This story was broken by a local reporter who was curious about the "Traffic Study" that was used as cover for the lane shutdown and phoned the port authority to ask.

That christies cronies were too dumb to add a little more depth to their subterfuge (maybe they really should have had some kind of study?) is entirely their own fault.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88450490&postcount=21

InTheTrees

jank wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88450490&postcount=21

That's an opioion piece not news.

A leak is a leak. Blaming obama for a leak from the justice Dept is a long shot. It may be true but unless you identify the leak it's pretty much nonsense.

But again why do Republicans think Christie should get a break on this because they claim Hillary knows something about the raid on benghazi?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

But again why do Republicans think Christie should get a break on this because they claim Hillary knows something about the raid on benghazi?

They don’t!

All they want is prioritization of efforts and fairness in dealing with problems. The truth is Democrats consider serious outright abuses of power and administrative negligence like the IRS targeting Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Spying on the AP, monitoring of James Rosengate, Justice Eric Holders perjuries, the ATF’s "Fast and Furious" debacle, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius extortion racket, and such, as "phony scandals," yet they treat "Bridgegate" as some symbolic Nero fiddling while Rome burns – requiring vast governmental resources to investigate the crime of the century.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

They don’t!

All they want is prioritization of efforts and fairness in dealing with problems. The truth is Democrats consider serious outright abuses of power and administrative negligence like the IRS targeting Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Spying on the AP, monitoring of James Rosengate, Justice Eric Holders perjuries, the ATF’s "Fast and Furious" debacle, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius extortion racket, and such, as "phony scandals," yet they treat "Bridgegate" as some symbolic Nero fiddling while Rome burns – requiring vast governmental resources to investigate the crime of the century.

It's Chicago politics. I don' t know how the rest of the country is not getting how dirty they are.

InTheTrees

So a republican gets caught up in a corruption scandal and the right wing response is to point at democrats and say they're doing the same thing?

Do you get how that doesnt really defend christie at all?

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don' t know how the rest of the country is not getting how dirty they are.

Well thats a great question to ask yourself.

Its because outside of the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists at Fox news this story has never gone anywhere despite years of digging and the massive resources poured into the story by the extreme right to try and generate any negativity towards the Democratic party.

Brian?

clairefontaine wrote: »

A lot of democrats also hate Obama. Especially Hillary supporters.

Dislike possibly, but I doubt they actually hate him. Not the way the Tea Party does at least.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

They don’t!

All they want is prioritization of efforts and fairness in dealing with problems. The truth is Democrats consider serious outright abuses of power and administrative negligence like the IRS targeting Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Spying on the AP, monitoring of James Rosengate, Justice Eric Holders perjuries, the ATF’s "Fast and Furious" debacle, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius extortion racket, and such, as "phony scandals," yet they treat "Bridgegate" as some symbolic Nero fiddling while Rome burns – requiring vast governmental resources to investigate the crime of the century.

What about x,y+z..... your answer to every criticism of the GOP.

If you think Christie should be defended, actually defend him. If not, then acknowledge he was wrong.

Brian?

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's Chicago politics. I don' t know how the rest of the country is not getting how dirty they are.

Both sides are dirty.

My own favourite Tea Party darling:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/12/13-outrageous-allen-west-comments-house-democrats-communists-more.html

The Black Oil

Allen West? AKA, troll.

Brian?

The Black Oil wrote: »

Allen West? AKA, troll.

Unfortunately he's not a troll. He's an idealogue.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

If you think Christie should be defended, actually defend him. If not, then acknowledge he was wrong.

Well I’m glad Christie took responsibility for his staff’s action, and either fired or took harsh action against the people responsible, deviating from the democrats usual tactic of promoting their offenders of abuses of power and negligence of duty. And if Christie’s hands are dirty in the matter, then I feel he deserves appropriate punishment. Happy?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Well I’m glad Christie took responsibility for his staff’s action, and either fired or took harsh action against the people responsible, deviating from the democrats usual tactic of promoting their offenders of abuses of power and negligence of duty. And if Christie’s hands are dirty in the matter, then I feel he deserves appropriate punishment. Happy?

Very happy.

I think to be the fairest critic of your opposition you need to have the moral fortitude to criticise your own side when they're wrong.

I actually have a lot of respect for Christie, even though I don't agree with his politics. He's one of the few big names left in te GOO who's rational
and could work in a bipartisan fashion if he ends up in the White House.

I also think he was very smart during the last presidential campaign. He knew Romney was going down and did a fine job of distancing himself while appearing statesman like.

His praise of Obama during hurricane Sandy says a lot about his character, he strikes me as pretty fair minded. There could well be people in te GOP waiting to punish him for that though.

I can't see him approving anything like this "Bridgegate" carry on. He's too good a politician for that. He's not thinking locally anymore, from here to 2016 or 2020 he's thinking nationally.

Black Swan

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

20Cent

Black Swan wrote: »

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

Don't think so. They seem to be in a competition to see who can be the most extreme none of them are shouting stop. Ronald Raygun their so called hero wouldn't have a chance in the modern Republican party

InTheTrees

Its going to be between rubio, cruz, ryan and paul.

I cant wait for the primaries.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

Up to recently I've been convinced Jeb Bush was the candidate. It looks like his mammy won't let him run though. It's all a bit strange.

Amerika

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections. And if they still lose running on true convictions -- then so be it, but at least not lose on the hopes of pandering to the democratic vote and independents who would rather just vote for a democrat than a republican who appears to act like a democrat for political expediency. The press might appear to treat someone like Christie with compassion and fairness at times, but when it really matters this current situation shows they will pounce on someone just because they have an (R) behind their name.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections.

Any republican contraction of support will make their job of winning electoral college votes even more of a struggle and they're already far behind. Republicans need something like 6-8 states to go republican and you'd have a hard time figuring out which those were right now.

They're going to need huge growth in support from people not traditionally associated with the republican party if they want to win.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections. And if they still lose running on true convictions -- then so be it, but at least not lose on the hopes of pandering to the democratic vote and independents who would rather just vote for a democrat than a republican who appears to act like a democrat for political expediency. The press might appear to treat someone like Christie with compassion and fairness at times, but when it really matters this current situation shows they will pounce on someone just because they have an (R) behind their name.

Do you honestly think being too moderate was what sank Romney and McCain? They didn't lose because the base didn't turn out, they lost because they couldn't win the swing voters. Winning elections is about maximizing all available votes, not just turning out your own base. There's a not enough middle aged white men to win the White House for the GOP anymore.

Why couldn't they take those undecided/swing/non affiliated votes? I have a few theories, but not being conservative enough is not the answer.

The Obama machine was actually too good to be beaten in 2008 and 2012 to be honest.

Putting aside the efficiency of the Obama campaign, I think the biggest mistake both McCain and Romney made was their choice of running mates. They both knew they were viewed as moderates to the GOP base and chose running mates that would make the base happy rather that running mates who's win them swing voters. Palin was a complete disaster, I really don't need to go into that. Ryan was the perfect candidate to appease the Tea Party, but his quasi-Libertarian politics on fiscal issues added to his hard right position on social issues seriously put off the swing vote IMO. Ryan also looked like a lost child playing at politics in the VP debate, he may have made a few decent points but the abiding memory for most people was Biden laughing at him.

Ryan, Paul Jnr, Cruz etc. can't win a presidential election IMO. Too polarising.

Brian?

InTheTrees wrote: »

They're going to need huge growth in support from people not traditionally associated with the republican party if they want to win.

Or a candidate who can have a more universal appeal. I honestly don't know who that could be, as I said in the last post it won't be any of the Tea Party darlings.

InTheTrees

Brian? wrote: »

Or a candidate who can have a more universal appeal. I honestly don't know who that could be, as I said in the last post it won't be any of the Tea Party darlings.

Yup. The tea party certainly isnt about universal appeal.

InTheTrees

New problems for Christie. The mayor of Hoboken is claiming she was denied Hurrican Sandy relief funds because she didnt support the govenor. Apparently she has proof of being coerced by Christies cronies. If true it would be even more damaging then the bridge allegations.

Its the end for Christie.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

New problems for Christie. The mayor of Hoboken is claiming she was denied Hurrican Sandy relief funds because she didnt support the govenor. Apparently she has proof of being coerced by Christies cronies. If true it would be even more damaging then the bridge allegations.

Mayor Dawn Zimmer seems to have some serious credibility issues. Didn't she about a week earlier claim something else, with a different storyline? That her loss of Sandy aid was tied to failure to endorse Chrisite, and not some development deal?

But if it is true, why wasn’t the incident immediately reported to the state Attorney General or FBI? Instead after the alleged incident Zimmer tweets: "He (Christie) has done a great job for NJ & Hoboken. We have a non-partisan mayoral election on Nov 5th." And another, "To be clear I am very glad Governor Christie has been our Gov. I am not endorsing bc of Hob's non-partisan mayoral race." Methinks something is rotten in Hoboken.

Sure doesn’t sound like someone emotionally distraught going through a shakedown by the Governor’s office. Or was she an accessory to the crime? So questionable is Zimmer’s actions that MSNBC had to break character and put on a rare display of journalistic integrity.

Its the end for Christie.

Mission Accomplished?

Amerika

Recent events in New York City might give credence to the contention that Chris Christie’s "Bridgegate" is little more than a political witch-hunt.

In a possible politically motivated stunt, the new liberal mayor of New York City (population of 8.3 million – comparable to the population of all of New Jersey at 8.9 million) Bill de Blasio many be involved in road-related retribution against the Upper East Side for not supporting his bid for mayor. Apparently by Tuesday evening, after a major crippling snow storm hit the city, no efforts had been made to open the streets of the Upper East Side from snow. Yet other areas of the city, by the same time, who supported de Blasio in his effort to become mayor, were plowed so extensively that Justin Bieber could have dragged raced on them.

So... will we be inundated, ad nauseam, with reports in the media of "Plowgate," of people lives put in danger because they were stranded, of any deaths because of the inability of emergency vehicles unable to respond or the inability of people to escape, of politicians using their authority to punish adversaries? Will the Attorney General get involved, will there be nationwide reporting of legal investigations initiated into an apparent abuse of power? Or, more likely, will it all be forgotten in a couple of days?

Memnoch

More endless what whataboutry from Amerika.

It's not surprising that Chiritie is a dirty bully, no more surprising than that Blagoiawich was one also. A lot of these political heavy weights seem to be that way. He might not be finished politically but he will never be president now.

Wonder if the GOP can find another moderate to run in 2016 otherwise Hillary will be the first woman to be president of the USA. The tea party darlings haven't a hope.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Recent events in New York City might give credence to the contention that Chris Christie’s "Bridgegate" is little more than a political witch-hunt.

In a possible politically motivated stunt, the new liberal mayor of New York City (population of 8.3 million – comparable to the population of all of New Jersey at 8.9 million) Bill de Blasio many be involved in road-related retribution against the Upper East Side for not supporting his bid for mayor. Apparently by Tuesday evening, after a major crippling snow storm hit the city, no efforts had been made to open the streets of the Upper East Side from snow. Yet other areas of the city, by the same time, who supported de Blasio in his effort to become mayor, were plowed so extensively that Justin Bieber could have dragged raced on them.

So... will we be inundated, ad nauseam, with reports in the media of "Plowgate," of people lives put in danger because they were stranded, of any deaths because of the inability of emergency vehicles unable to respond or the inability of people to escape, of politicians using their authority to punish adversaries? Will the Attorney General get involved, will there be nationwide reporting of legal investigations initiated into an apparent abuse of power? Or, more likely, will it all be forgotten in a couple of days?

Can you cite a source of this story please? It's terrible if it's true.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Can you cite a source of this story please? It's terrible if it's true.

I got the information regarding the story from watching The Morning Joe Show on MSNBC this morning. (yes I admit I watch MSNBC regularly, which I’m afraid would be automatic excommunication from the republican party ). Many contributors on that segment were against de Blasio and the snow removal situation, but it is understandable as most of them live in the Upper East Side. I don’t know if there is a way for you to see the replay of that segment on MSNBC so soon after it aired -- perhaps they will make it available at a later date. I’m sure I could site partisan sources now that both condemn and make excuses for the situation, but I don’t think you would be interested in them.

InTheTrees

Off we go with republicans pointing fingers at other people to try and distract attention. This non story will last about as long as equating bridgegate to benghazi.

The difference with New York is that there isnt any emails saying "time for snow chaos on the upper east side".

Well that and the fact that the mayor has been in office about a week.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-de-blasio-dismisses-claim-plows-skipped-ues-article-1.1587823

Amerika

Notice Chris Christie’s alleged attempts to extort Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer has dropped off the media radar? Why? Well CNN reported that Zimmer denied any Sandy funds were withheld because of political shenanigans just one week prior to her bombshell on MSNBC. Belmar, NJ Mayor Matt Doherty (D), who was present for one of the supposed extortion encounters, stated for the record that Zimmer’s account does not coincide with his. And from a review of NJ grant data, Hoboken has received the same level of aid as 39 other communities of similar size. And suddenly Dawn Zimmer is no longer discussing her allegations... Hmmmm!

I guess if Christie’s administration does use extortion practices, they’re really really really bad at it. But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

How do you know its not his own Republican party members who are behind this?

These allegations are good news for Cruz, Ryan etc. who now have a stick to beat him with in the primaries.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

How do you know its not his own Republican party members who are behind this?

These allegations are good news for Cruz, Ryan etc. who now have a stick to beat him with in the primaries.

You may have something there. But it would make more sense for the Democrats to do these kind of things as I think they see Christie as the only real challenger to Hillary Clinton, and capable of appealing to a sizable portion of Independents and a large enough contingency of disillusioned Democrats. And there are plenty of examples already of things conservatives could beat Christie up on in a primary, like the Obama hug, his moderate stances on immigration and gun control, and his big government ways.

Black Swan

After the Bridgegate scandle, has Rand Paul replaced Christie as Rupublican front runner for 2016? The Atlantic article suggests this.

I doubt that the American electorate is ready for a conservative Libertarian presidential candidate running on the Republican 2016 ticket. The GOP needs a moderate to challenge Clinton successfully.

Amerika

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

Again, it wasn't because the candidates were "too moderate" as you seem to think. I'm going to quote myself here as you never responded to it last time:

Brian? wrote: »

Do you honestly think being too moderate was what sank Romney and McCain? They didn't lose because the base didn't turn out, they lost because they couldn't win the swing voters. Winning elections is about maximizing all available votes, not just turning out your own base. There's a not enough middle aged white men to win the White House for the GOP anymore.

Why couldn't they take those undecided/swing/non affiliated votes? I have a few theories, but not being conservative enough is not the answer.

The Obama machine was actually too good to be beaten in 2008 and 2012 to be honest.

Putting aside the efficiency of the Obama campaign, I think the biggest mistake both McCain and Romney made was their choice of running mates. They both knew they were viewed as moderates to the GOP base and chose running mates that would make the base happy rather that running mates who's win them swing voters. Palin was a complete disaster, I really don't need to go into that. Ryan was the perfect candidate to appease the Tea Party, but his quasi-Libertarian politics on fiscal issues added to his hard right position on social issues seriously put off the swing vote IMO. Ryan also looked like a lost child playing at politics in the VP debate, he may have made a few decent points but the abiding memory for most people was Biden laughing at him.

Ryan, Paul Jnr, Cruz etc. can't win a presidential election IMO. Too polarising.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

McCain and Romney may have been Republican moderates, but as Brian? noted, both their VP running mates were not. Rather, Palin and Ryan were very polarizing and far from a moderate position, which may have contributed to the two repeated GOP losses.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

McCain and Romney may have been Republican moderates, but as Brian? noted, both their VP running mates were not. Rather, Palin and Ryan were very polarizing and far from a moderate position, which may have contributed to the two repeated GOP losses.

So now the GOP not only needs a moderate presidential pick, but also a moderate vice presidential pick? Heck, just vote the Democratic ticket then! The choice of vice president does little more in the overall scheme of things than capitulate to the section of the party who might not feel representated enough in the presicential pick, and create short term fodder, buzz and discussion for a starved media. It might in some miniscule manner contribute to the results of an election, but I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines. Joe Biden is seen by many to be little more than a symbolic smiling old Ken Doll who has been given little responsibility other than to promote the administration’s agenda, and has even been kept from the microphone in recent years because of his tendency to go off the reservation. What important stuff has he been tasked with or accomplished? Gun control didn’t work out so well for the administration. Yet his baggage didn’t seem to hurt Barack Obama in either of his two runs. Dick Cheney was the only vice president of any importance in modern history and he did little to appeal to Independents and nothing to draw Democratic votes, yet George W Bush won twice. Presidential choices matter, not the vice presidential choice.

IMO what will matter in the 2016 election if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem's nod is... how many low information voters will make their decision in the voting booth simply becasue all that resonates with them are pithy slogans like "People Died, Hillary Lied?"

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So now the GOP not only needs a moderate presidential pick, but also a moderate vice presidential pick? Heck, just vote the Democratic ticket then! The choice of vice president does little more in the overall scheme of things than capitulate to the section of the party who might not feel representated enough in the presicential pick, and create short term fodder, buzz and discussion for a starved media. It might in some miniscule manner contribute to the results of an election, but I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines. Joe Biden is seen by many to be little more than a symbolic smiling old Ken Doll who has been given little responsibility other than to promote the administration’s agenda, and has even been kept from the microphone in recent years because of his tendency to go off the reservation. What important stuff has he been tasked with or accomplished? Gun control didn’t work out so well for the administration. Yet his baggage didn’t seem to hurt Barack Obama in either of his two runs. Dick Cheney was the only vice president of any importance in modern history and he did little to appeal to Independents and nothing to draw Democratic votes, yet George W Bush won twice. Presidential choices matter, not the vice presidential choice.

IMO what will matter in the 2016 election if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem's nod is... how many low information voters will make their decision in the voting booth simply becasue all that resonates with them are pithy slogans like "People Died, Hillary Lied?"

Are you ever going to directly address the points I made?

2 disastrous VP picks in a row. Both to appease the far right.

If you think Palin only cost McCain 1%, you have a very low opinion if the electorate.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Are you ever going to directly address the points I made?

I believe I did.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I did.

You didn't. But if you don't want to I will consider the point ceded.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You didn't. But if you don't want to I will consider the point ceded.

Do with what you want. I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Do with what you want. I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

You didn't really.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

If Christie were to run as a moderate and be selected in the Republican primary as their candidate, it would not make any difference who his VP running mate was in real terms of the outcome during the 2016 presidential election; e.g., Sarah Palin, Howard Stern, etc.?

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines.

It would be interesting to review such studies (i.e., "studies," not opinion pieces or news articles) in terms of how they support your position here. Such studies should include an analysis of the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign and loss to be relevant to our discussion in this thread, given that both Brian? and I mentioned Palin as a case in point. You also said studies, suggesting that there were several in agreement providing a consensus. Can you cite these studies please that include McCain-Palin?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Notice Chris Christie’s alleged attempts to extort Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer has dropped off the media radar? Why? Well CNN reported that Zimmer denied any Sandy funds were withheld because of political shenanigans just one week prior to her bombshell on MSNBC. Belmar, NJ Mayor Matt Doherty (D), who was present for one of the supposed extortion encounters, stated for the record that Zimmer’s account does not coincide with his. And from a review of NJ grant data, Hoboken has received the same level of aid as 39 other communities of similar size. And suddenly Dawn Zimmer is no longer discussing her allegations... Hmmmm!

I guess if Christie’s administration does use extortion practices, they’re really really really bad at it. But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

Actually, no, it hasn't 'dropped off the media radar'.

What an odd world one must live in to have to constantly make things up out of thin air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/nyregion/powerful-allies-pushed-a-project-in-new-jersey.html?hp&_r=0

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If Christie were to run as a moderate and be selected in the Republican primary as their candidate, it would not make any difference who his VP running mate was in real terms of the outcome during the 2016 presidential election; e.g., Sarah Palin, Howard Stern, etc.?

Sarah Palin was a rising star at the time and one that appealed to conservatives. Now I think Howard Stern might play a heavy hand in voter opinion, but do you really honestly think a presidential candidate from one of the two major parties would pick the likes of Howard Stern?

It would be interesting to review such studies (i.e., "studies," not opinion pieces or news articles) in terms of how they support your position here. Such studies should include an analysis of the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign and loss to be relevant to our discussion in this thread, given that both Brian? and I mentioned Palin as a case in point. You also said studies, suggesting that there were several in agreement providing a consensus. Can you cite these studies please that include McCain-Palin?

Here's one to start that you might be interested in (not an opinion piece). Doesn't it origniate from your backyard, so to speak?
http://www.mwpweb.eu/1/76/resources/publication_522_1.pdf
(edit: And why would they "need" to include McCain-Palin... you don't get to make the rules.)

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

(edit: And why would they "need" to include McCain-Palin... you don't get to make the rules.)

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

...cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be “contaminated” by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

A far better response than anything I could craft. So I'll leave it there.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

I didn’t list another one that I read at one time from the New York Times due to your requirement of it being a "study," although it did list empirical information from a study. Although more directly targeting on the VP effect on the home-state effect, it lead me to conclude that a VP choice had minimal effect on an election - so shoot me. Not a study - but you might give it a perusal purely for entertainment purposes. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/the-overrated-vice-presidential-home-state-effect/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 I also didn’t list the studies of the effect of the Vice Presidental selections of Adkison (1982), Wattenberg (1995) or Romero (2001) because I honestly didn’t read them, but feel free to investigate them if you so wish (caution: some are pre-"devil woman," and might not interest you )
　
And you beg caution because of the exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices but not for president/VP, sampling errors, etc. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to use these factors to insinuate that the data is suspect regarding their assertion of the negligible effect of the VP selection? What numbers do you think would cause a true skewing of the data? I don’t believe any of those factors, alone or taken together as a whole, are enough to cause one to scream "Caution the Study is Suspect." And I think one could make an even stronger case that some of those factors might have been more influenced because of things like the weather conditions on voting day, Mitt Romney’s religion or ties to Wall Street, Barack Obama socialistic tendencies or the color of his skin, people don't give a rat's ass of a care about the national election and are more concerned with local politics... or if they were showing a rerun marathon of Gilligan’s Island on television -- rather than the VP selection. And when talking about sampling errors as a generalization, we could use that excuse to discredit just about any survey I guess (if we don’t like the outcome that is).

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?