Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
