He's not yet declared, but if former NJ (?) governor Chris Christie opts in, Biden may be toast.
1. Chris Christie left office with an approval rating of 14%. I'm not sure how that's even possible in the modern political context, but it happened. 2. His last presidential campaign was cut short after his sixth place finish in the 2016 New Hampshire primaries so I'm not seeing Christie as the electoral juggernaut you seem to. Could you explain why the Blockader of Fort Lee is such a threat to a second Biden term?
(Numbers added by yours truly).
Point 1: Christie was a Republican governor of a Democratic state. (How he pulled off getting elected in such a circumstance, I'm not sure, but he did). Not sure what his approval rating was at its highest point in that office, but given the party divide, it probably started dropping about 2 weeks post-election and never recovered. .
Point 2: 2016 -- pre-Trump, pre-pandemic, pre-Fox-lies-domination of the media sphere, etc. -- was another universe. These days, with Christie's weekly appearances on a TV news magazine (on which he presents as reasonably thoughtful, of at least average intelligence, and occasionally moderate in his views at least by contrast with the current presumed, God- alone-knows-why presumed front-runner Trump), he may look like an attractive alternative to Republicans weary of the Trumpracket.
Point 1: Christie was a Republican governor of a Democratic state. (How he pulled off getting elected in such a circumstance, I'm not sure, but he did). Not sure what his approval rating was at its highest point in that office, but given the party divide, it probably started dropping about 2 weeks post-election and never recovered.
Christie was elected twice. The first time he got 49% of the vote and the second time he got 60%, so obviously there was some recovery of his popularity. But by the time he left office he was less popular than any governor in New Jersey's history. I have not seen any evidence that he's more popular now, either in New Jersey or nationally, then he was then. He may be less unpopular simply by virtue of fewer people remembering who he is now that he's out of the spotlight, but that's not the same as being popular enough to get people's vote.
Point 2: 2016 -- pre-Trump, pre-pandemic, pre-Fox-lies-domination of the media sphere, etc. -- was another universe.
But it's a universe from which some records survive. Given how much video exists of Christie enthusiastically endorsing Donald Trump in 2016 the political ads tying the two together practically write themselves. (This one where Trump speaks on Super Tuesday while Christie looks on from behind like Trump just ran over his dog was a meme for a while.) Among Republicans this would make Christie look unreliable. Among independents it speaks to a glaring naïveté about Trump's nature, something that's unattractive in a political leader.
These days, with Christie's weekly appearances on a TV news magazine (on which he presents as reasonably thoughtful, of at least average intelligence, and occasionally moderate in his views at least by contrast with the current presumed, God- alone-knows-why presumed front-runner Trump), he may look like an attractive alternative to Republicans weary of the Trumpracket.
I'm not sure how many Republicans are actually weary of "the Trumpracket". It seems like a fairly slender minority within the party. I'm also not sure why such Republicans would be enthusiastic about a former Trump lieutenant.
DeSantis will officially announce his run for president tomorrow at a Twitter event with Elon Musk. Musk is saying that this does not imply any endorsement on his part. DeSantis will be interviewed on Fox News later that day.
No spoilers I promise, but all of this has echoes of the last couple of episodes of Succession.
Did we overlook Senator Tim Scott's announcement? Senator Scott is the only Black Republican in the Senate. I wonder our overlooking him says something about how we view his chances.
I have to say up to now, he is the only Republican candidate who is promoting a hopeful future.
Did we overlook Senator Tim Scott's announcement? Senator Scott is the only Black Republican in the Senate. I wonder our overlooking him says something about how we view his chances.
I have to say up to now, he is the only Republican candidate who is promoting a hopeful future.
The latter is probably why he has no chance. The GOP faithful thrive on persecution fantasies, on imagining a grim future where they defend the last redoubt of (white, straight, cis, Christian) civilisation against the brown people, Muslims, gays, drag queens and assorted Others with only their trusty AR-15. The idea that they can achieve a positive future through democratic means doesn't have the same attraction.
Did we overlook Senator Tim Scott's announcement? Senator Scott is the only Black Republican in the Senate. I wonder our overlooking him says something about how we view his chances.
I have to say up to now, he is the only Republican candidate who is promoting a hopeful future.
Is Tim Scott promoting a hopeful future? I'd say he's mostly promoting a hopeful (and fictional) present, where there's no racism in America and anyone can become a U.S. Senator. Here's an incident from Scott's past that the GOP has been furiously trying to scrub from the internet.
Back in 2017, as Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, they trotted out Scott to try to sell Americans on their regressive tax plan that immensely favored rich people. Someone seems to have had the brilliant idea for Scott to appear in a promotional video for Senate Republicans — and for him to deploy a catchy hashtag to misleadingly tout the tax plan as beneficial to nonwealthy Americans.
"I like to put it very simply: We want to help you #KeepYoMoney." – @SenatorTimScott
#TaxReform
[ video deleted ]
#KeepYoMoney
"Tax reform is really about two things: helping the average American take home more of their pay by taking less out of their pay, and growing our economy, long-term." – Sen. Tim Scott
These days, finding the original video is not easy: Senate Republicans deleted the embedded video from the tweet amid the criticism, and it doesn’t appear to be on any official GOP websites.
Elsewhere in the linked article Ja'han Jones refers to this as "political minstrelsy".
Oh, I agree. At best, Tim Scott comes across as an
Uncle Tom
(A derogatory term for an African-American individual who doesn't stand up for racism, esp. about their own race.)
I know you’re trying to be the opposite of racially insensitive by calling attention to the fact that we’ve mostly ignored Sen. Scott’s candidacy, but it’s best to not call anyone by that term. It’s deeply, deeply offensive - and Republicans actually use it as a recruiting tactic (the Dems take your vote for granted! They say you have to vote for them or else you’re an Un*** T**! They don’t let you think for yourself!) Even relatively liberal African Americans with dissenting views on some of the current liberal politics of online and campus speech, such as John McWhorter, are at risk of being called that term as a means of shutting down discussion. It really doesn’t advance any discussion in a positive direction to criticise people with that term.
I don’t think you were trying to be offensive in any way by using that term. I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin in high school. It’s certainly a historically important book as part of the 19th century abolition movement. But the term when used to criticise people is just not a good idea.
Also Senator Scott is extremely enthusiastic about such things as a near total abortion ban, which is both deeply unpopular with most Americans and not exactly based on hope.
It is not surprising Tim Scott is against abortion. He has strong evangelical roots.
Part of what amazes me is that, given the Republican positions on many cultural issues, they think they have a shot at winning the presidency ever again.
That term has been offensive for a long time. The main incident in which I was aware of its being used was in the lead-up to the Fight of the Century when Muhammad Ali applied it to Joe Frazier. That was the early 70s (and it wasn't Ali's finest hour).
Also Senator Scott is extremely enthusiastic about such things as a near total abortion ban, which is both deeply unpopular with most Americans and not exactly based on hope.
"Enthusiastic" is pitching it a bit high. Given his difficulty in answering any actual questions about his stance on the issue I'd describe his support as furtive and secretive, much like federal judicial nominees who favor total bans but don't want to come right out and say so because they know it's an intensely unpopular position with most Americans. Senator Tim Scott (have to use his first name to distinguish him from Senator Rick Scott) seems to want credit from fellow conservatives for holding a draconian position on legal abortion without actually saying so and losing popularity with moderates.
I was listening to the BBC’s Americast (link may not work outside UK - available on the BBC Sounds app). They were suggesting he’d been enthusiastic about it as part of his look-at-conservative-me-getting-things-done shtick, and only after it was fully launched realised how badly it went it down with voters, so the actual signing into law was done very quietly.
I was listening to the BBC’s Americast (link may not work outside UK - available on the BBC Sounds app). They were suggesting he’d been enthusiastic about it as part of his look-at-conservative-me-getting-things-done shtick, and only after it was fully launched realised how badly it went it down with voters, so the actual signing into law was done very quietly.
Do you mean DeSantis pushing for and signing into law the Florida abortion ban? The earlier posts were about Tim Scott’s enthusiasm for abortion bans.
I love thinking about the fact that his wife is a real Disney adult, and he got married at DisneyWorld 😁
This is a pretty normal thing in Florida. At least in central Florida. Disney World is absolutely enormous and although there are a lot of other tourist sites in the area, whether Universal with its Harry Potter stuff or particularly beachy places, since Disney World isn’t near the coast (and South Florida, which in many ways is a different state, is a huge tourist draw in its own right), Disney is such a juggernaut that the reaction to hearing that people got married at Disney isn’t “ Wow, you must really like Disney” but rather “Wow, you must have a lot of money.” It’s sad how unaffordable Disney Parks have become in my lifetime and how the experience within them has become even more stratified than before.
I do mean that. My bad for missing that the conversation is about Tim Scott.
No worries. It’s certainly time that Gov. Ron “I Broke the Internet” DeSantis became part of the discussion.
I’m not sure if the glitchiness of DeSantis’ campaign launch on with Musk on Twitter Spaces is that damaging with the Republican base, given that a lot of them wouldn’t have even known how to watch it. But Fox News, angered that they were DeSantis’ second media appearance of the day, certainly made hay of it. I think DeSantis can rely on the “I want a Republican, but anyone but Trump if possible”, who might be sitting on the sidelines at the moment and answering polls as undecided. But I don’t know if that is enough to beat Trump, seeing that the primaries are largely winner take all in terms of delegates so Trump can sweep them as he did in 2016 without anywhere near a majority.
I’m not sure if the glitchiness of DeSantis’ campaign launch on with Musk on Twitter Spaces is that damaging with the Republican base, given that a lot of them wouldn’t have even known how to watch it.
It certainly takes the wind out of the sails of those pitching DeSantis as "Trump, but competent".
I love thinking about the fact that his wife is a real Disney adult, and he got married at DisneyWorld 😁
This is a pretty normal thing in Florida. At least in central Florida. Disney World is absolutely enormous and although there are a lot of other tourist sites in the area, whether Universal with its Harry Potter stuff or particularly beachy places, since Disney World isn’t near the coast (and South Florida, which in many ways is a different state, is a huge tourist draw in its own right), Disney is such a juggernaut that the reaction to hearing that people got married at Disney isn’t “ Wow, you must really like Disney” but rather “Wow, you must have a lot of money.” It’s sad how unaffordable Disney Parks have become in my lifetime and how the experience within them has become even more stratified than before.
My point is more about the fact that DeSantis has declared war on Disney...? I'm familiar with how huge and dominant Disney is in central Florida (and how huge the resort is), it's just funny to me in the context of his personal beef with Disney.
Sorry for the double post
Five ways De Santis has shot himself in the foot,
1) Signing a don't say gay bill.
2) Taking on Disney
3) Signing a very strick anti-abortion bill.
4) Signing a bill restricting the feedom of libraries
6) Signing a bill banning diversity classes in schools.
An interesting question is whether Disney could simply shut down all its operations in Florida for, say, five years and just wait it out. They have plenty of other amusement parks and exhibits and movie-making elsewhere.
Well, Disney did pull out of a new $1billion campus in Florida.
In De Santis oops file, turns out he was having his governor staffers call major corperations that have been doing business with the governor asking them to make contributions to his presidential campaign. While it may not be against Florida law, I am pretty sure it is against Federal Campaign Laws. More to follow.
Well, Disney did pull out of a new $1billion campus in Florida.
In De Santis oops file, turns out he was having his governor staffers call major corperations that have been doing business with the governor asking them to make contributions to his presidential campaign. While it may not be against Florida law, I am pretty sure it is against Federal Campaign Laws. More to follow.
Given his behaviour towards companies that cross him that looks indistinguishable from a protection racket.
Well that did cross my mind briefly but really, surely it is too humiliating even for Pence to run for VP after the whole "hang Mike Pence" business? Surely? And why would Trump want him as VP after his "not-quite-as-utter-a-sycophant-as-Trump-would-like" performance?
I am thinking Pence wants to use the campaign platform to tell his version of what happened in the Trump administration. Will anyone believe him? Probably not.
Hmm. That would at least be understandable and worthy of (a limited amount of) sympathy. It seems completely misguided though. It's just painting a massive target on himself and giving Trump yet another chance to do what Trump does by traducing him with six months worth of campaign misinformation.
How's he going to explain his acceptance of Trump's offer. Will he say that Trump was pretty old and he thought the Republicans would be well served to have a younger office-holder in place ready to step in?
How's he going to explain his acceptance of Trump's offer. Will he say that Trump was pretty old and he thought the Republicans would be well served to have a younger office-holder in place ready to step in?
My guess would be some version of making sure there was an adult in the room.
I am thinking Pence wants to use the campaign platform to tell his version of what happened in the Trump administration.
I am thinking there are several grand juries that would give Pence the same opportunity and yet he's been reluctant to take advantage of those opportunities.
Nixon had 2 terms as VP, but Eisenhower kept himself in good health........
In September of 55 Ike had a heart attack that landed him in the hospital for seven weeks. We were lucky he did not die then.
That is very interesting. So Ike was re-elected in 1956 despite what must have been question marks over his health?
Apparently, there were some in the Republican party who wondered if he should stand a second time but the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, did not use it against Ike. I believe the battle was over the women (housewife) vote. Adlai was calling for higher taxes and more spending. Not a winning combination.
And the Republican horse race is getting real muddy. Trump poked fun at Christie's weight, Christie told Trump to look in the mirror. In New Hampshire, the New Hampshire GOP Women's Luncheon has turned into a political food fight. Trump had been the invited speaker, but DeSantis scheduled a campaign rally nearby, causing the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women, the group sponsoring the luncheon, to criticize DeSantis, but it has lead to a couple of key resignations from the women's group. Sounds like the rule of speak no evil of a fellow Republican. Story here
Comments
(Numbers added by yours truly).
Point 1: Christie was a Republican governor of a Democratic state. (How he pulled off getting elected in such a circumstance, I'm not sure, but he did). Not sure what his approval rating was at its highest point in that office, but given the party divide, it probably started dropping about 2 weeks post-election and never recovered. .
Point 2: 2016 -- pre-Trump, pre-pandemic, pre-Fox-lies-domination of the media sphere, etc. -- was another universe. These days, with Christie's weekly appearances on a TV news magazine (on which he presents as reasonably thoughtful, of at least average intelligence, and occasionally moderate in his views at least by contrast with the current presumed, God- alone-knows-why presumed front-runner Trump), he may look like an attractive alternative to Republicans weary of the Trumpracket.
Christie was elected twice. The first time he got 49% of the vote and the second time he got 60%, so obviously there was some recovery of his popularity. But by the time he left office he was less popular than any governor in New Jersey's history. I have not seen any evidence that he's more popular now, either in New Jersey or nationally, then he was then. He may be less unpopular simply by virtue of fewer people remembering who he is now that he's out of the spotlight, but that's not the same as being popular enough to get people's vote.
But it's a universe from which some records survive. Given how much video exists of Christie enthusiastically endorsing Donald Trump in 2016 the political ads tying the two together practically write themselves. (This one where Trump speaks on Super Tuesday while Christie looks on from behind like Trump just ran over his dog was a meme for a while.) Among Republicans this would make Christie look unreliable. Among independents it speaks to a glaring naïveté about Trump's nature, something that's unattractive in a political leader.
I'm not sure how many Republicans are actually weary of "the Trumpracket". It seems like a fairly slender minority within the party. I'm also not sure why such Republicans would be enthusiastic about a former Trump lieutenant.
No spoilers I promise, but all of this has echoes of the last couple of episodes of Succession.
I have to say up to now, he is the only Republican candidate who is promoting a hopeful future.
The latter is probably why he has no chance. The GOP faithful thrive on persecution fantasies, on imagining a grim future where they defend the last redoubt of (white, straight, cis, Christian) civilisation against the brown people, Muslims, gays, drag queens and assorted Others with only their trusty AR-15. The idea that they can achieve a positive future through democratic means doesn't have the same attraction.
Is Tim Scott promoting a hopeful future? I'd say he's mostly promoting a hopeful (and fictional) present, where there's no racism in America and anyone can become a U.S. Senator. Here's an incident from Scott's past that the GOP has been furiously trying to scrub from the internet.
Elsewhere in the linked article Ja'han Jones refers to this as "political minstrelsy".
(ETA Hidden tested slur, DT Admin)
I know you’re trying to be the opposite of racially insensitive by calling attention to the fact that we’ve mostly ignored Sen. Scott’s candidacy, but it’s best to not call anyone by that term. It’s deeply, deeply offensive - and Republicans actually use it as a recruiting tactic (the Dems take your vote for granted! They say you have to vote for them or else you’re an Un*** T**! They don’t let you think for yourself!) Even relatively liberal African Americans with dissenting views on some of the current liberal politics of online and campus speech, such as John McWhorter, are at risk of being called that term as a means of shutting down discussion. It really doesn’t advance any discussion in a positive direction to criticise people with that term.
I don’t think you were trying to be offensive in any way by using that term. I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin in high school. It’s certainly a historically important book as part of the 19th century abolition movement. But the term when used to criticise people is just not a good idea.
It is not surprising Tim Scott is against abortion. He has strong evangelical roots.
Part of what amazes me is that, given the Republican positions on many cultural issues, they think they have a shot at winning the presidency ever again.
"Enthusiastic" is pitching it a bit high. Given his difficulty in answering any actual questions about his stance on the issue I'd describe his support as furtive and secretive, much like federal judicial nominees who favor total bans but don't want to come right out and say so because they know it's an intensely unpopular position with most Americans. Senator Tim Scott (have to use his first name to distinguish him from Senator Rick Scott) seems to want credit from fellow conservatives for holding a draconian position on legal abortion without actually saying so and losing popularity with moderates.
This is a pretty normal thing in Florida. At least in central Florida. Disney World is absolutely enormous and although there are a lot of other tourist sites in the area, whether Universal with its Harry Potter stuff or particularly beachy places, since Disney World isn’t near the coast (and South Florida, which in many ways is a different state, is a huge tourist draw in its own right), Disney is such a juggernaut that the reaction to hearing that people got married at Disney isn’t “ Wow, you must really like Disney” but rather “Wow, you must have a lot of money.” It’s sad how unaffordable Disney Parks have become in my lifetime and how the experience within them has become even more stratified than before.
I’m not sure if the glitchiness of DeSantis’ campaign launch on with Musk on Twitter Spaces is that damaging with the Republican base, given that a lot of them wouldn’t have even known how to watch it. But Fox News, angered that they were DeSantis’ second media appearance of the day, certainly made hay of it. I think DeSantis can rely on the “I want a Republican, but anyone but Trump if possible”, who might be sitting on the sidelines at the moment and answering polls as undecided. But I don’t know if that is enough to beat Trump, seeing that the primaries are largely winner take all in terms of delegates so Trump can sweep them as he did in 2016 without anywhere near a majority.
It certainly takes the wind out of the sails of those pitching DeSantis as "Trump, but competent".
My point is more about the fact that DeSantis has declared war on Disney...? I'm familiar with how huge and dominant Disney is in central Florida (and how huge the resort is), it's just funny to me in the context of his personal beef with Disney.
Nicky Haley is right in pointing out all of De Santis' gestures are copies of Trump's gestures. See for yourself.
Five ways De Santis has shot himself in the foot,
1) Signing a don't say gay bill.
2) Taking on Disney
3) Signing a very strick anti-abortion bill.
4) Signing a bill restricting the feedom of libraries
6) Signing a bill banning diversity classes in schools.
In De Santis oops file, turns out he was having his governor staffers call major corperations that have been doing business with the governor asking them to make contributions to his presidential campaign. While it may not be against Florida law, I am pretty sure it is against Federal Campaign Laws. More to follow.
Given his behaviour towards companies that cross him that looks indistinguishable from a protection racket.
Maybe he's hoping to be VP again?
I am thinking there are several grand juries that would give Pence the same opportunity and yet he's been reluctant to take advantage of those opportunities.
In September of 55 Ike had a heart attack that landed him in the hospital for seven weeks. We were lucky he did not die then.
That is very interesting. So Ike was re-elected in 1956 despite what must have been question marks over his health?
Apparently, there were some in the Republican party who wondered if he should stand a second time but the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, did not use it against Ike. I believe the battle was over the women (housewife) vote. Adlai was calling for higher taxes and more spending. Not a winning combination.
Fixed code - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host