Could've Chris Christie beaten Obama in 2012?

Could've Chris Christie beaten Obama in 2012?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 26.0%

  • Nah

    Votes: 57 74.0%
  • Total voters
    77

Shadow1080

We all know how 2012 election went, but what is a realistic chance of NJ Governor Christ Christie beating Obama in 2012 had he been the Republican nominee? Personally, I think he would've managed to do it. All he needs to do is to pick states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia compared to Romney's results OTL which had a close margin. That would leave him with 266 electoral votes. With him being a governor of New Jersey, he'd probably win his state's 14 electoral votes considering the fact at that time he was pretty popular especially after his response to Hurricane Sandy and an impressive support he got from minority groups OTL which would leave him 280 to 258 Obama's. So wouldn't he actually manage to do it, if not, then why?

(P.S. this isn't current politics since it's about only 2012 election campaign and not the discussion to how his presidency in our current time be).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 140587

I think so. I remember during 2012 a lot of people were turned off by his staunchly Republican platform (which I find funny because he is fairly moderate in today's Republican Party) and by his VP pick. Romney did well with Republicans but Obama had something like a 15% lead with moderates. Christie, I worry, would have the exact opposite problem. He would be popular amongst moderates and independents but would be disliked (if not loathed) by evangelicals and hard core conservatives. That said, I could see him carrying the aforesaid mentioned states including Pennsylvania (it borders New Jersey after all). No matter what, if Christie wins in 2012, I'd favor him for re-election over Hillary or Bernie (the only Democrat who I think could see beating him is Biden but I don't think he'd run because Beau would still be ill).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Whanztastic

Obama would’ve had to do something else to lose which is hard to imagine. As much as we flatter political operations and campaigns, they’re really just playing with the margins usually. So yes he could but not much more likely than Romney. Christie himself has a lot of negatives politically.
 

dw93

No, but he might've made it closer (flipping Florida possibly). 2012 just wasn't the right time or the right environment for Christie. A 2016 where he kept his nose cleaned and Trump doesn't run is the year I see Chris Christie becoming President.
 

1940LaSalle

A lot would hinge on his running mate. Biden already had the reputation of an amiable, means-well-feebly bumbler in 2012, and people were not exactly comforted by the thought of him in the Oval Office were anything to happen to Obama (oh, the irony). Had Christie chosen well-say, Nikki Haley, in her second year as governor of SC-I think he might have been able to squeak by. Haley was young (40 in 2012--but remember Nixon was only 38 in 1952), on the conservative side of moderate, had something of a track record in governing a modest-sized state (but remember Clinton was governor of Arkansas, not exactly a heavy hitter), and reasonably personable and able to work with both sides of the aisle, all of which would be assets if she had been called upon to step in as president.

OK, Christie was not all that popular among evangelicals and the hard core right, but faced with a choice between Christie and Obama, they probably would have gritted their teeth and gone with Christie (and the modestly more conservative Haley wouldn't have hurt). At the time, there was no potentially viable candidate to make a suicidal third party run, and the irreconcilable right would recognize that any such move would hand Obama re-election anyhow.

I'm from NJ, and while Christie wasn't perfect, I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.
 

DAv

Nope. Obama was much too strong and Christie has a lot to pick at. VP's don't really make much of a difference in a Presidential campaign so I can't see that opening a path for him.
 

Deleted member 109224

Christie would have a good shot at flipping NJ, considering he won in by 22 points in 2013. But plenty of states elect GOP Governors but won't touch them for President or Senate.

His popularity in NJ might boil over into a strong performance in the Philadelphia suburbs though.

Christie would likely need a running mate who plays to evangelical republicans like Pence helped Trump out.

According to Double Down, Romney's 2012 VP List, was:
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Kelly Ayotte
John Cornyn, Bill Frist, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Bob McDonell, Chris Christie

Huckabee would probably be good for Chris Christie. He'd play well to the base. Downside is he'd defend Murdoch and Aiken.
Portman would be good as he'd secure Ohio. He might help to flip PA because of being a neighboring state, and perhaps FL as well (midwest retirees).
Pat Toomey wasn't on the list, but he'd be a very conservative guy that makes the base happy who knows how to play to moderates.
 

Deleted member 140587

DAv said:
Nope. Obama was much too strong and Christie has a lot to pick at. VP's don't really make much of a difference in a Presidential campaign so I can't see that opening a path for him.
Click to expand...
How? A lot of 2012 wasn't so much Obama's genius as much as it was Romney's mistakes. Romney was LOATHED on the East Coast. Christie, not so much. In addition, Christie would not made the same mistakes Romney did with his 47% comments and by not going to areas hit by Hurricane Sandy and commiserating with the victims.
 
Tresckow

Tresckow

Gracchus Tiberius said:
How? A lot of 2012 wasn't so much Obama's genius as much as it was Romney's mistakes. Romney was LOATHED on the East Coast. Christie, not so much. In addition, Christie would not made the same mistakes Romney did with his 47% comments and by not going to areas hit by Hurricane Sandy and commiserating with the victims.
Click to expand...
He probably would've gone to Sandy. After all, Obama did too. Christie leaving the campaign to take charge of the situation would be a major boost in the week leading up to election day. His VP would probably act as his surrogate in the final days of the campaign.
 

Thomas Jefferson

It depends on whether you think elections are more about personality or the overall state of the country. Personally, I think any Republican would have been an underdog in 2012 due to the economic recovery and lack of major scandals or foreign debacles.
 

Deleted member 140587

Roosevelt said:
He probably would've gone to Sandy. After all, Obama did too. Christie leaving the campaign to take charge of the situation would be a major boost in the week leading up to election day. His VP would probably act as his surrogate in the final days of the campaign.
Click to expand...
Thats what I meant to say, forgive me I must have worded it awkwardly. (My house flooded during Sandy and I remember tons of Republicans who lived near me saying they were going to vote for Obama because of the way he handled Hurricane Sandy. Chris Christie was also a favorite because of the work he was doing to rebuild New Jersey. Romney stayed in New Hampshire and Ohio and didn't even address it. He ran for the hills.) Christie going back to his state and working to rebuild (perhaps even posing with Pres. Obama and looking as if he was putting the well-being of his state over politics, would be a public image godsend)
 

Amadeus

Could? Yes. Would? Probably not. It's conceivable that Christie could've beaten Obama, provided he avoids Romney's gaffes and gets a bump in public approval from his handling of Hurricane Sandy, but I find it unlikely. Obama was a charismatic incumbent running during an economic recovery. Not even four years after GWB left office, many voters still associated the economic crash with the Republican Party and Obama exploited this very well. The fact is that no matter who the Republicans nominated, Obama had the edge and the election was his to lose. Christie could've done better than Romney, but Obama would likely have still been re-elected (albeit more narrowly). I only see Christie winning only if he performs substantially better than Romney as a general election candidate, and if the Obama team makes major mistakes that they didn't in OTL.
 

DAv

Gracchus Tiberius said:
How? A lot of 2012 wasn't so much Obama's genius as much as it was Romney's mistakes. Romney was LOATHED on the East Coast. Christie, not so much. In addition, Christie would not made the same mistakes Romney did with his 47% comments and by not going to areas hit by Hurricane Sandy and commiserating with the victims.
Click to expand...

As pointed out, the 47% didn't change a great deal. Obama was a charismatic incumbent with a recovering economy, no major scandals and a good campaign machine ready to exploit any mistakes that Christie may have made. It was a mountain too high to climb. Obama would been at New Jersey just as OTL, if not more so as well.
 
Anarcho-Occultist

Anarcho-Occultist

I think it's also worth asking if Christie could actually win the primaries. Republicans who are capable of winning by large margins in Dem states tend to be far more moderate than the Republican Party base nationally is-at least while running in that state. Sure, Romney got away with it, but in order to do so he had to run noticeably to the right of how he actually governed-something that would be far harder for Christie as an incumbent governor to do.
 

FellowTraveller5

Shadow1080 said:
He pretty much became unpopular after 2013. I mean look at how big he won in a typical blue state: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election
I mean, wouldn't he have been able to carry his homestate in 2012?
Click to expand...
Speaking from New Jersey, no. Christie did a decent job on Superstorm Sandy, sure. But he also did some things very wrong. I don't see him carrying NJ in 2012. He'd be better than Trump in 2016, but so would a chimpanzee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top