Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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 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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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.