Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

November 29, 2013 - 7:19 am

The analysts at CNN attribute a 7 point jump from their last poll in Governor Chris Christie’s support to all the publicity surrounding his landslide win earlier this month.

That’s logical, although three years out you might expect a beauty contest. What’s interesting is that Christie’s margin came at the expense of support for Rep. Paul Ryan:

Twenty-four percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP questioned in the survey say they’d be likely to support Christie for the Republican nomination, up seven percentage points from a CNN poll in early September. Back then, Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget chairman and the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, were virtually tied at the top of the GOP list, with Christie at 17% and Ryan at 16%.

But Ryan, who’s stayed mostly away from the political spotlight the past few months, has dropped to 11%, putting him in third place, slightly behind Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, at 13%. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who like Paul has made multiple trips this year to the states that kick off the presidential primary and caucus calendar, like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, stands at 10% in the survey, the only other Republican White House hopeful to get double-digit support.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is at 9% in the poll, with longtime Texas Gov. and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry at 7%, and former two-term Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into last year’s primaries and caucuses, each at 6%.

The poll suggests a wide divide over income among Republican voters.

“Among Republicans making more than $50,000, Christie wins 32% support, 20 points higher than Cruz, Ryan, or Marco Rubio, all of whom get 12% among higher-income GOPers, and 23 points higher than Paul,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But among Republicans who make less than $50,000 a year, Christie’s support drops 19 points, only good enough for second place behind Paul.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary is the choice of 63% of party members. But what if she doesn’t run?

If that’s the case, the poll suggests that 43% of Democrats would support the Vice President, with Warren at 17%, Cuomo at 15% and O’Malley at 6%.

Warren’s popularity is pretty much with the internet left. She has little name recognition outside of Massachusetts. That may change, but it’s not likely she could challenge Clinton, who is going to have more money and a bigger organization than she had in 2008.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
No, YOU got what YOU deserved when YOU nominated candidates conservatives could not, in good conscience, support. Nominate another candidate like Romney (such as Christie), and you'll get the same thing. Stop blaming conservatives because the Republican Establishment thinks it can take us for granted.

46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you like Christie, fine. But don't expect him to solve any of the real problems in Washington, like crony capitalism, corruption, excessive taxation, excessive government spending, government overreach, or the degradation of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Conservatives aren't trying to "run the country", but we certainly would like to see the principles on which the country was founded, preserved. I oppose Christie because I don't like his political policies and believe they are ultimately harmful to the country. I will NOT support Christie under any circumstances and my vote will be cast for the candidate that reflects my political views. If the Republicans have a problem with that, they can nominate a candidate who oes reflect my views.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let the Stupid Party go the way of the Whigs! Tea Party and Palin 2016!
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (80)
All Comments   (80)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
As long as we have a country where most of the voters are happy with business as usual, nothing will change. The two major parties will continue to be Democrats (the far left) & Dems Lite (blue dogs masquerading as Republicans...the center left). True conservatives are now in numbers not sufficient enough to support a True Conservative Leader who can steer the Republican Party back onto the right track. We need to figure out how to attain our own country; the US is lost to us.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
I just got paid $6784 working on my laptop. Since I started freelancing over this site, with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to $85 per/h! This is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 8 months ago and this has totally changed my life. Source……. http://www.Day35.com
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Crap. Fight. What are you, French?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
What are you, a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with war on its mind? I am not French, just realistic.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
NONE OF THE ABOVE! The Tea party! You have been warned establishment. One name ROMNEY! Loser!
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Romney is a fine man who would have made a good president.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
He was OBAMAS twin on all of the issues! Not one bit of difference other than skin color!
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is why! Who’s Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates (Full Version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZgoz5Vu3p0
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sure RINO Rick Moran is just ecstatic about a potential Christie nomination. I've tried to make a concerted effort to avoid Moran's drivel but I failed to do so on this occasion. I need to be more cautious.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
i'll be honest. I didn't even read this story. I'm a political nut, and we all know this is true, but I wanted to say it anyway...we are almost THREE YEARS out, and any poll in this particular landscape we have, which WILL be different in three years, with people who have not even ENTERED any race as a candidate, is completely and totally useless and pointless. Why did they even do this poll? Boredom? http://freedomlinks.wordpress.com/
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Christie has way too many close connections to Muslim Brotherhood people for my taste.

That needs to be exposed and discussed.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
One thing is very clear, the candidates supported by the Tea Party are first-term Senators. It will also be very clear to the majority of the entire electorate that the bumbling inexperience of another candidate who was plucked from the Senate during his first term has, in less than five years, brought our country to degradation and near-collapse. It will be decades before another first-term Senator becomes president. Next time it will be a governor. Take note: Hillary, Biden and Warren have not been governors and, if my theory has any validity, they are probably unelectable in this Obama-created climate.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary is not unelectable if she has the Democrat machine behind her. I'll see you Christie and raise you Walker.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your theory would be much more convincing if Obama hadn't won re-election in 2012.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Except that most voters don't know the difference between a governor and a senator, and they automatically agree that change is good. Voters will believe that the experienced person is the one the media declares is experienced, if they even care about it, which most don't.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you're describing the Democrat base and young voters. The deciding factor is always the independent voters. These people are not stupid and they look out for their own self-interest. They fell for Obama's narrative of deception in '08 but I believe that the '12 election was rigged and Romney probably actually won. In '16 I think even young voters will wise up enough to know that we need an experienced grown-up - a governor - to repair the damage.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is always voter fraud but what actually put Obama over the top, IMO, is a combination of the hard work out in the field done by the well-oiled leftist campaign machine & all those conservative purists who could not stomach Romney so they did not vote at all.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
They are not purists any more than my three-year-old is a purist when he won't eat his carrots.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, they're not "purists", they're CONSERVATIVES!! You want their vote, DON'T nominate Christie or any of his ilk.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
They didn't vote; that is what really matters.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's right, a lot of conservatives didn't vote because Romney didn't appeal to them. I'm a conservative, and I voted -- for Romney. But it's the last time I'll ever vote a for a candidate, I don't like.

So if a lot of conservatives don't vote for some Establishment Republican candidate this time around, don't start whining about "purists", you've been warned. If the Republicans want my vote, DON'T nominate Christie or anyone like him.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am in accord with you on Christie but I do think that Romney would have at the very least been a decent POTUS. Certainly a far cry from the disaster we have right now in the WH.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree Bobcat, but for whatever reason, he didn't win the election. He wasn't my first choice, but I voted for him, anyway.

Maybe not enough conservatives voted for him, but I doubt that was the reason he lost. I do know there was massive voter fraud, and the Republicans said nary a word about it. I wonder why that was?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I hope you are right, but your analysis is incomplete. It assumes that there is a substantial number of fence-sitters, i.e., real independents. That may have been true at one time, but with the uber-politicalization of everything, I just don't buy it anymore. Either people are thoughtful about it or they aren't. If they are thoughtful, their minds have been made up for a long time and it will take a very significant event to change it. Maybe obamacare is significant enough, but really, if a communist con man can hide in plain sight for six years, I'm skeptical that the implementation of his handiwork will change voting patterns more than a hair. And if they aren't thoughtful, they are fodder for pravda, and they will be harvested by the best liars....at least when the best liars deem it important enough.

Moreover, the Marxist aren't sitting still is stewing in the obamacare juices. If they cheated for 5% in 2012, they will crank it up to 8% in 2016. They seems to have a nearly limitless ability to use the system to their advantage, including pravda, ballot stuffing, teachers, fear mongering, overt lying, and dozens of other tactics they have mastered for decades.

It seems likely that the GOP will increase its margin in the House, and maybe even take a small majority of the Senate, but the masters of propaganda have plenty of time to poison the well by 2016, and the election for Preident isn't going to depend on experience or the prior job of the final candidates.

If the Republicans want to win the presidency, which is evidently a very low priority for them, then they need to increase the vote % from the Tea Party, and the only way to do that is to nominate a person who vocally espouses Tea Party principles. That's the Republicans only shot to win the presidency, but there isn't the slightest indication that they are working toward that goal...in fact, the opposite.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't really believe that the country has become a Marxist totalitarian state in which idiotic people are willing to surrender their freedom and worldly goods to help design a new utopia.

I think Obama's election was a fluke that happened because the left (including the MSM) had eight long years in which Bush's image was reconfigured to represent all that was wrong with Republican leadership - evil, uncaring, greedy, stupid, war-mongering - and in the end he was even abandoned by most in his own party. Obama appeared on the scene without a resume and with cheerleaders who were able to convince most people that he was, against the actual evidence, a great orator, charismatic and a brilliant problem-solver. To vote for Obama was to feel virtuous and feeling personally virtuous in a country awash in cultural rot was irresistible to too many people, even some Republicans.

It's been five years and the truth about Hope and Change is painfully evident. Forget the incompetence and corruption and look at the economy, sluggish before Obamacare and in free-fall after its chaotic implementation. I don't think voters are looking for more philosophy or pride-inducing constitutional references - they've had all the high-flown emotionally-driven propaganda they can handle. They want realistic leadership, honesty and someone who can fix what's broken.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I don't really believe that the country has become a Marxist totalitarian state in which idiotic people are willing to surrender their freedom and worldly goods to help design a new utopia."

True, it's not a totalitarian state yet, and the idiotic people aren't designing the new utopia; they are simply selling their vote.

"Forget the incompetence and corruption and look at the economy, sluggish before Obamacare and in free-fall after its chaotic implementation. I don't think voters are looking for more philosophy or pride-inducing constitutional references - they've had all the high-flown emotionally-driven propaganda they can handle."

More than 50% of the potential voters aren't looking at anything other than their smart phones (which amazingly enough, they can all seem to afford even though they can't afford health insurance). And if you think they are actually tired of emotionally-driven propaganda, what evidence do you have of that? Do you actually think they have suddenly become thoughtful pragmatists?

You've got your own version of hopenhange. I prefer to look at the world as it is. The marxists have built a powerful coalition based on graft and wealth distribution. It isn't going to crack. Frankly, obamacare will strengthen it because the obamacare redistribution will flow to them.

The Republicans don't get it, because all they really want is to benefit from the DC graft, and to control as much as they can. And there isn't time to form a viable third party by 2016 either. So what is the solution? Probably, there isn't one; but the best chance is for Tea Party sympathizers to send a crystal message to the Republicrats that we will NOT, under any circumstances, support them unless they change direction and begin to vocally advocate for Tea Party principles. That approach has a small chance to win the presidency, particularly since there is now a candidate who is actually willing to risk his career to promote it. Ted Cruz.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Best of luck to Cruz for getting the vital funding he would need in order to be a real player; chances are that won't happen. Instead, we will get a panel of squishes to choose from because that is what the Deep Pockets really want.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
How is Scott Walker not in their poll? He seems like the clear consensus candidate that people not only like, but are excited about.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cruz's funding will have to come from the grassroots organizations. If he is able to pull that off, and I think he may, then the more traditional funding sources will open up for him.

But I think you are correct, the Republican Establishment won't contribute a cent to Cruz. And it's certain the crony capitalists won't chip in. In a way, that's a good thing and to Cruz's credit.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, but he's been fatally damaged by the left's demolition machine ... oh,wait.
Yeah, but he has no foreign policy experience like Hillary ... oh, wait.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dole and Romney were fine, HONEST men. Either surpasses Obama,
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
That may be true of both men, but it's irrelevant. The problem with both Dole and Romney was they could not articulate a more compelling reason they should be elected, than it was "their turn."
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The same is true of Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. The bottom line compelling reason to vote for any candidate is to keep out the other guy- unless one is some sort of utopian who eschews any candidate who does not ... oh, wait.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most "political purists" realize that voting for a poor choice just to "keep out the other guy" merely encourages more poor choices in the future.

So it's extremely stupid to vote for someone because they're the lesser of two evils.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...unless one is some sort of utopian who eschews any candidate who does not....."

Let me finish that thought: toe their particular, narrow party line. #purists
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
In Christie's case, it's not that he doesn't "toe a narrow party line". Christie's completely adverse to most conservative principles including limited government, reducing spending, and strict observance of the Constitution, not to mention he's anti-Second Amendment.

No way he will ever get my vote, I don't care what label you slap on him.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
He won't ever get mine either. As much as I hate to say it, the best way to rid the party of blue-dog Dems masquerading as Pubs is to allow them to lose to the Democrats time & again. Eventually the party will get the message & stop supporting them. In the meantime though, I'd like to see the party follow these five suggestions listed in an article here: http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/21721-5-things-republicans-absolutely-must-do/2/

The party would be best served to stick to the small-gov't, fiscally conservative, job-promoting agendas while it leaves the social issues alone. Gov't really has no place imposing its will in that arena.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I like Christie. He came up with the right mix to attract Independents. Nothing will please some of the conservatives. Their candidate would never get the support of much of the country. The Bible Belt seems to be trying to run the country and I think many of that group have feet of clay and/or unrealistic. They cannot bring back bygone days just because they want to. The US was a "nicer" country in the 50s but wishing won't make it so and it won't change overnight.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent recitation of the con that opened the door for Obama in 2008 and 2012. What again is the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare? Oh yes, Romney wan't cramming his scheme down the throats of the entire country. He would never do that.

This hocus pocus isn't going to work again. Either the Republican party will separate itself from the Democrats/Marxists, or there will be no more Republican party. In the first case, the country will have a chance to survive. In the second case, we'll be no worse off than we are now.

Everybody who hates what is happening today should simply refuse to accept the Republican con job again. If you buy into the same old same old but-we're-better-than-the-devil line again will get the devil again.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In the second case, we'll be no worse off than we are now."
BS Not even close. Simplistic reasoning- heck, not even reasoning, feelings. You are doing what you accuse the Republicans of doing- attacking your own side with more vigor than you attack the opposition. Hey, if it 'reasons' like a liberal troll and suppresses the conservative vote like a liberal troll it might as well be a liberal troll.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
And yours is the reasoning that led to two victories for obama, many other victories for the Dem/marxists, and has led the country to the brink of oblivion.

It is beyond obvious that establishment Republicans are perfectly satisfied with their approach. Now they are pushing for the 6th or 7th replay with Christie.

But some people never learn. A lot of them, like you, champion their proven losing strategy on this website.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"......suppresses the conservative vote....."

No one put a gun to all those Republican voters' heads & said "No way are you to support Romney in any way, shape, matter or form." Obviously, just a vote against the other guy did not cut it with enough people in 2012; it was apparent that enough people figured the country was no better off with Romney than it would have been with Obama to make the proverbial difference on election day. BS? Not to them.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fiscally responsible, demanding that we be constitutionally bound, and an advocate of only reasonably regulated free markets. Someone who lives by those values are "Bible Belt" zealots in your book. Right?

Those who are just lukewarm on those principles are called RINOs. Just better managers of the welfare state. Is that your kind of guy or gal that you think we need for the challenging task of undoing the travesty of the Obama administration and to make for a better future for the present and the next generations? One might assume that it is. Easy to understand why Christie would be your man for the job .... while the media will be all too happy appeal to your "let's not rock the boat with those hard-right conservative Bible thumpers and scary people who long for a Reagan" wishes and set the stage for a Progressive victory.

No doubt the folks in the MSM agree with you. I'll bet they like Christie, too. But for reasons entirely different than yours. Just as they "liked" Dole, McCain, and Romney. Big fat targets (no pun intended) to be shot down in the general election.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you like Christie, fine. But don't expect him to solve any of the real problems in Washington, like crony capitalism, corruption, excessive taxation, excessive government spending, government overreach, or the degradation of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Conservatives aren't trying to "run the country", but we certainly would like to see the principles on which the country was founded, preserved. I oppose Christie because I don't like his political policies and believe they are ultimately harmful to the country. I will NOT support Christie under any circumstances and my vote will be cast for the candidate that reflects my political views. If the Republicans have a problem with that, they can nominate a candidate who oes reflect my views.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
What a man.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary-Christie is the ticket, not the race.

"The unification ticket".

I could see Hillary going for that if Christie would. I don't really see Hillary taking the Democratic nomination otherwise. Yes, I suppose it would run as a Democratic ticket to take advantage of the legal and financial infrastructure.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All