Big criticism today of Romney's use of, "I would fire them".

I got Obama, Hunstman, and Paul - but it's because the only issue I weighted was immigration (my other hot-button was not there). When I un-weighted that, I got Paul, Huntsman, and Obama. Funny Obama showed up, considering I refuse to vote Republican because none of them are fiscally conservative enough for me, and I think Obama's a dishonest idiot with his interests elsewhere and not with the US people.

Why would Christie agree to this?

He's seen as a perfectly viable candidate on his own, and the VP -> President pathway is no longer really viewed as important or even viable anymore. Tying himself to Romney's campaign, meanwhile, has the chance to sully his image, connecting Christie to the negatives that will be hung on Romney.

I just don't see any upside for Christie.

He is?

I thought his Republican career was sort of in the dumper over the gay thing.

I think it would depend on how Christie actually performed as the #2. And I'm not sure at all that the VP slot on a losing ticket cannot necessarily have some benefit.

Several presidents have been VP on previous tickets (winning and losing)before ascending to the Oval Office. Nixon in '56, Johnson in '60, Bush(41) in
'80, and (depending on your view of the Supreme Court's involvement in 2000) Gore should have ascended in '00.

Add to that candidates who ran, and were defeated either for their parties nomination or in the general before later becoming president (Nixon
'60, Reagan '76) and the question of "sullied" becomes quite subjective in political circles. While of course it's preferable to win rather than lose, many experts suggests the "name recognition" earned from a previous run can be just as helpful in future efforts.

I don't understand what he would add to Mitt's ticket, either. I think Mitt has to go with eiher a fundie nut or play the identity card (woman, Latino, etc.).

I think Nixon and Reagan were so well known on their own (for good or bad) by the time that they won that you can't compare them to Christie.

By "the gay thing" do you mean when he said he believed people were born gay? I really don't think that's a major issue to electability, and certainly not one that will be remedied by serving as VP candidate under Romney, given his history.

Past that, Christie is anti-gay marriage (but pro-civil union), so he still walks the GOP platform.

Yea, because that worked out sooo well for the last guy who ran against Obama...

:rolleyes:

Never mind.

Write in candidate: None Ofthe Above.

He is viable candidate, in fact if he was running for the Presidential nom I think he would be in the top three right now but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd cinch it. While Repubs love the guy you have to take into consideration that Christie is a relative unknown to middle America. So then why didn't he run? If you look at what he's been doing the past couple of months it's obvious he's prepping for some kind of "something" and since he's not running for the nomination what is it? Maybe a cabinet position or some other type of appointment in a Romney/Republican White House.

McCain didn't fail by picking a woman, he failed by picking THAT woman.

This sort of moves toward my point. Nixon as California (Sen?) and Reagan as Gov had national introductions, even in defeat, which aided the electorate's "comfortability" with them. I think that had to help their subsequent successes.

I'd never heard of Christie before his election as NJ governor and his media flirtation with running for president.

Regardless, I don't think a woman will get him into the White House any more than a man would. The argument that you yourself make here is one based on intelligence, not gender.

Besides, I hate the idea of someone choosing a running-mate based on gender, race, religion, etc. Whatever happened to choosing someone, not because of their ability to (by default) get the "woman vote" or the "black vote", but rather based on their qualifications?

#missingthegoodoldays