Learning from history

I'm a bit bemused, hearing commentary looking at the results from last night. I keep hearing people saying that Christie's solid victory last night is a big boost for his (acknowledged) presidential aspirations, but I don't see it. There are two problems I see, with that.

One is that he's moderate. He's shown that a moderate Republican, especially one who gets things done, can win in a blue state. I think that's a strong plus for him, but I don't think it is for Republican primary voters (most of them, anyway). I think most people in "red" states will say something along the lines of, "Who cares if he can win in NJ, I want someone more conservative".

And also, he particularly goes against Tea Party and libertarian followers, because of his effectiveness. He's showing that government does actually work, which those people don't want to acknowledge.

So I see his greatest strengths (as a liberal, I'd strongly consider voting for him. And probably would, if he were running against Hillary. Nothing against either Bill or Hillary, but I think one president in the family is enough.  Although I hear that exit polling of NJ voters show that most of them disagree with that, to the point that Hillary would beat Christie, head to head, in NJ) as being detrimental to a large swath of Republican primary voters. I think he'd do fine in the general, but I just don't see him being able to get there.

I guess we'll see.

No comments:

Post a Comment