r3volution 3.0
07-11-2014, 10:34 AM
hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/07/11/an-open-field-for-2016/
Politics is never static. Someone who is up one day is down the next. Yesterday’s goat is today’s comeback kid. We’re seeing some of this in the lead-up to the GOP presidential primary.
On the upswing, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s approval numbers at home have stabilized (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/christies_job_ratings_stable_months_after_bridge_s candal_poll_finds.html). In New Hampshire the most recent WMUR/UNH poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2014/WMUR_NHGOP_2016_0710.pdf)has him leading the pack at 19 percent, up from 9 percent in January, when the bridge scandal broke. He’s also set a fundraising record (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/10/christie-led_rga_breaks_fundraising_records_123259.html)for the Republican Governors Association.
This is not to say Christie is “ahead” in New Hampshire, and certainly not the “favorite.” But it does suggest that the bridge scandal may not be an impediment to him beginning a presidential run. Whether he decides to run and whether he can win in New Hampshire and elsewhere depend on what kind of campaign he runs, who runs against him and how events play out in New Jersey.
The real wild card remains Jeb Bush. Despite howls from anti-immigration and anti-school standard right-wingers, his popularity has steadily built (from 3 to 7 to 11 percent in the WMUR/UNH poll). Nationally he remains at or near the top of the field. Like Christie, Bush does not to seem weighted down by any disqualifying factor (in his case, his last name). And like Christie, whether he decides to run and, if so, how well he does depends on himself, his opponents and world events.
By contrast, despite his near-constant presence in free media, there has been no Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) breakout. Nor has Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker moved out of single digits. If one or more of them decides to run, they’ll have their chance to prove themselves, but a risk-taking candidate will have to bet on wider support and a bigger donor base coming later.
She implies that Rand is losing to Christie and Bush in the polls, though the exact opposite is true.
She implies that Rand is polling in the single digits, though he's been in the double digits consistently for months.
At what point does this become libelous?
:mad:
Politics is never static. Someone who is up one day is down the next. Yesterday’s goat is today’s comeback kid. We’re seeing some of this in the lead-up to the GOP presidential primary.
On the upswing, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s approval numbers at home have stabilized (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/christies_job_ratings_stable_months_after_bridge_s candal_poll_finds.html). In New Hampshire the most recent WMUR/UNH poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2014/WMUR_NHGOP_2016_0710.pdf)has him leading the pack at 19 percent, up from 9 percent in January, when the bridge scandal broke. He’s also set a fundraising record (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/10/christie-led_rga_breaks_fundraising_records_123259.html)for the Republican Governors Association.
This is not to say Christie is “ahead” in New Hampshire, and certainly not the “favorite.” But it does suggest that the bridge scandal may not be an impediment to him beginning a presidential run. Whether he decides to run and whether he can win in New Hampshire and elsewhere depend on what kind of campaign he runs, who runs against him and how events play out in New Jersey.
The real wild card remains Jeb Bush. Despite howls from anti-immigration and anti-school standard right-wingers, his popularity has steadily built (from 3 to 7 to 11 percent in the WMUR/UNH poll). Nationally he remains at or near the top of the field. Like Christie, Bush does not to seem weighted down by any disqualifying factor (in his case, his last name). And like Christie, whether he decides to run and, if so, how well he does depends on himself, his opponents and world events.
By contrast, despite his near-constant presence in free media, there has been no Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) breakout. Nor has Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker moved out of single digits. If one or more of them decides to run, they’ll have their chance to prove themselves, but a risk-taking candidate will have to bet on wider support and a bigger donor base coming later.
She implies that Rand is losing to Christie and Bush in the polls, though the exact opposite is true.
She implies that Rand is polling in the single digits, though he's been in the double digits consistently for months.
At what point does this become libelous?
:mad: