December 24, 2015

The NYT plies Chris Christie with its guilt-trip theory and gets results.

The article, by Jonathan Martin, is "In New Hampshire, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie Add Guilt Trips to Campaign Stops":
"Are you trying to imply that an Italian from New Jersey would use guilt?... I think what I’m saying to them is, it would be a shame for the country if New Hampshire makes the wrong choices. Guilt was a frequently used weapon of my mother. So some of it just comes out naturally."

But Mr. Christie did not deny that he was in effect telling New Hampshire voters not to send their reputation for discriminating tastes in candidates down the drain.

“Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying,” he said, again invoking how much the “country is counting on them” and noting their “huge responsibility.”
The article cites Christie and Jeb, but it's Christie who's providing the material:
There are differences in the subtle shaming Mr. Bush and Mr. Christie employ. Mr. Bush is far more explicit about targeting Mr. Trump, while Mr. Christie, who would like to win some Trump voters, tends not to mention him directly. (“I’m not as judgmental about it as Jeb is,” Mr. Christie said.)
Well, you're judgmental about Jeb, calling him judgmental. As for this idea of shaming people into voting for you, I predict that, like everything else used against Trump, it will backfire. It's such a beta game.  You're supposed to pick Jeb or Christie because it's shameful or embarrassing to be for Trump. If only the ballot weren't secret, they might have a shot with that.


Jim Gust said...

As times goes on, Scott Adams' perspective on Trumpism is growing more persuasive.

LYNNDH said...

I would be embarrassed to support Hilary. And ashamed.

rhhardin said...

What used to happen when a company received a hostile takeover bid is that the management would send shareholders an urgent overnight letter saying under no circumstances tender your shares to his filthy group who are offering much less than the company is worth.

The filthy group are usually offering twice the market price, and everybody tenders their shares. The letter never, ever works.

The filthy group then buys the shares at the double price, takes over and replaces the old management.

It could happen here.

n.n said...

Social indemnity clause: I will vote for Trump, despite that I think he is ...

Sebastian said...

"it will backfire." It might. It could. Perhaps it should. But NH GOPers like to think of themselves as more enlightened than the yahoos out there, so there's a point to the shaming. It speaks well of Christie as a rational politician that he is making this play this way.

traditionalguy said...

Christie appears to be beta female compared to the alphaTrump Man who is schlonging them all.

Which probably explains why Trump is popular with the legal

Michael K said...

The GOPe is still trying to figure out something that works with Trump voters. If they really get desperate, the truth might work but it is definitely a last resort.

Big Mike said...

How many Italian-American mothers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Never mind, dear. I'll just sit alone in the corner in the dark."

Limited blogger said...

No one who likes Trump is paying attention to the NYT or Chris Christie.

The few republicans who are paying attention to the NYT or Chris Christie will now be converted to Trumpians by the NYT and CC.

Chuck said...

It's not shameful and embarrassing to be for Trump. It is stupid to be for Trump.

D. B. Light said...

This is a very bad tactic for them to use. It makes them sound like Democrats, and this election cycle that is a bad thing to be.

Bay Area Guy said...

Christie is all right - winning the Governorship of NJ as a Republican requires some decent skills.

Jeb though is a bit clueless. Why is NYT even writing about him?

cubanbob said...

Chuck said...

It's not shameful and embarrassing to be for Trump. It is stupid to be for Trump.
12/24/15, 12:19 PM"

Let me guess, you're voting for The Grifter.

Big Mike said...

As I've said before, I can understand Chris Christie palling up to Obama in order to help his constituents. I can also understand why Obama forgot all about his "no red tape" promise the instant the photo-op was over. What I don't understand, and cannot forgive Christie for, is his failure to follow up and force the Obama administration to cut the red tape. My information is that the red tape surrounding the recovery from Sandy was as bad as ever, maybe even worse than the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"It's not shameful and embarrassing to be for Trump. It is stupid to be for Trump."

It is sooo stupid! So stupid! Why would anyone vote for Trump? It is stupid. Don't look over behind that curtain!

That about sums up the GOPe.

Next up we will have the democrats trying to convince Americans to stick with the aristocracy. They might even do a better job than the GOPe. God knows democrat voters are actually stupid enough to go for it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bay Area Guy said...12/24/15, 2:08 PM

Christie is all right - winning the Governorship of NJ as a Republican requires some decent skills.

Jeb though is a bit clueless. Why is NYT even writing about him?

Newspapers like to anticipate the future, so if they think somebody might win, they write about him.

But I do not understand how the aricle described Christie and Bush as "the two leading Republican candidates not named Donald Trump" Chrstie is 4th in New Hapshire, and Jeb Bush is 5th, 6th or 7th everywhere.

Now this is the New Hampshire Republican Presidential primary ARG poll (Dec 23) as collected on the Real Clear Politics website:

Trump 21,
Rubio 15,

(the top two here have not been concentrating on New Hampshire and have made relatively fewer personal appearances)

Kasich 13, (Kasich has thrown everything into New Hampshire, and that's his whole campaign)

Christie 12, (Christie has also been concentrating on New Hampshire)

Cruz 10,
Bush 7,
Carson 6,
Fiorina 5,
Paul 4,

Huckabee 0,
Pataki 0,
Santorum 0

In Iowa, Garvis poll, it's

Cruz 31, (Cruz has been advertising heavily in Iowa. And also organizing, and contacting voters)

Trump 31,

Rubio 9,
Carson 7,
Bush 4,
Huckabee 4 *Huckabee has some leftover support from 2008. He didn't run in 2012.
Fiorina 3,
Christie 2,
Kasich 2,

Paul 1, (rand Paul is not strongg in Iowa at all)

Pataki 1,
Graham 1 (before he withdrew. Graham actuakkly was spending a lot of time in New Hampshire but he got dropped from the poll when he withdrew

Santorum 0, (it looks like people prefer Huckabee to Santorum)

Nationally, CNN ORC, it's:

Trump 39,
Cruz 18,
Rubio 10,
Carson 10,
Christie 5,
Paul 4,
Bush 3,
Kasich 2,
Huckabee 2,
Fiorina 1
Graham 1,
Santorum 0,
Pataki 0

Sammy Finkelman said...

The New York Times article really isn't talking about guilt, except, possibly, in the sense of guit for not voting.

It cites the two candidates talking about responsibiluty or how important New Hampshire is, and they don't wnat people to lose respect for the results.

StephenFearby said...

ARG (American Research Group) polling gets a C- rating (based on past performance) from Nate Silver's 538:

Which is why the latest Real Clear Politics average of New Hampshire polls between 12/6 and 12/20 (which includes the ARG results) earns greater credence. (Kasich is 9, vs ARG 13, Rubio 12.8 vs 15.)

In a recent 538 discussion on New Hampshire, Harry Enten continues to see something stirring in the Christie tea leaves:

"Well, I don’t want to spoil something I’m writing for next week, but I have reason to think Christie could do better in New Hampshire than we think at this point."

Enten's Guide to 2016 Election Polls includes:

"9. Beware polls tagged “bombshells” or “stunners.” Outliers are usually wrong. “Surprising” polls are usually outliers. Anyone remember when Gallup called for a Mitt Romney victory in 2012? That was wrong.

10. Instead, look at averages or trends in polling. There’s a reason we aggregate polls at FiveThirtyEight: The aggregate is usually better than any individual pollster. That’s especially the case in general elections. In primaries, the trend line can be more important, as a candidate with momentum heading into a contest often outperforms his or her average."