Christie Wins Re-election in Landslide, 2016 Awaits

An easy win in a blue state makes him a White House contender

  • Share
  • Read Later
Brooks Kraft / Corbis for TIME

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie celebrates his re-election in Asbury Park, N.J., Nov. 5, 2013.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie scored another term in the statehouse Tuesday with a landslide victory over Democratic state senator Barbara Buono, emerging as one of his party’s top prospects to retake the White House in 2016.

Christie’s win has been almost a given since Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore last year, but the scale of the win — he was up 21 points with about three-quarters of precincts reporting — demonstrates significant across-the-aisle appeal. In 2009, he won just 48.5% of the vote.

In his victory speech, Christie said his record of bipartisanship should serve as a lesson for a divided Washington, and said a “dispirited America — angry, angry at their dysfunction in Washington — looks to New Jersey.”

“I know that if we can do this in Trenton, New Jersey, maybe the folks in Washington, D.C., should tune in to their TVs right now,” he said. “You don’t just show up six months before an elections, you show up four years before. You don’t just take no for an answer, you keep going back.”

And in a message that seemed intended to defuse the inevitable criticism that he’ll now turn his focus toward a White House run, Christie added: “I did not seek a second term to do small things. I sought a second term to finish the job. Now watch me do it.”

From the start, the outspoken governor focused his campaign on expanding the electorate, and the payoff is clear. The governor made significant inroads with minorities, a must for Republicans nationally, winning the support of 19% of African Americans and 31% of Hispanics, according to exit polls.

In an interview with CNN before polls closed, Christie said he invested in reaching out to “African Americans, Hispanics, folks who have not normally been in the Republican column.”

“I think you need to go to those folks for four years and include them in the governing process, and then make your pitch during a campaign as to why what you did as a governor is worthy of their support when you come up for an election,” he said.

“I tried this four years ago and wasn’t very successful in attracting those votes, I think in part because they just didn’t know who I was and how I would govern,” Christie added. “I think we will do much better this time.”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, called Christie’s victory proof that “Republicans can compete and win in every state.”

“Governor Chris Christie’s overwhelming victory proves that voters are looking for confident and competent leadership,” Jindal said in a statement. “His tenure as chief executive has placed a premium on achieving results over scoring political points.”

Echoing Jindal, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement that Christie “proved that Republican principles get results — even in a state the pundits like to call a ‘blue state.'”

Christie has repeatedly held up his campaign as a model for the future of the GOP to donors and elites, a not-so-subtle hint at his future ambitions.

In August, in a closed-door speech to the Republican National Committee, he stressed that his focus was on building a winning coalition, taking subtle digs at other potential Republican candidates who he implied are too focused on taking ideological stands.

“For our ideas to matter, we have to win,” Christie said at the time. “Because if we don’t win, we don’t govern. And if we don’t govern, all we do is shout into the wind.”

“I am going to do anything that I need to do to win,” he added.

39 comments
mrbomb13
mrbomb13

I'm a NJ Republican, and would NEVER vote for Governor Christie.  The man is a bombastic blowhard, who nowadays goes with the political windvane, instead of sticking to core principles.  It's disgusting to hear about the policies he concocts in Trenton, and I could not imagine him representing us or the nation as a whole in D.C.. 

He's one elephant to keep confined to the safari for the long-term!!!

EricMKrehemker
EricMKrehemker

  I dont really have a problem with Christie, he seems like a decent man.  But when you are talking presidential politics there are a lot of factors that come into play.  Can Christie win the Republican base?  Does the have a policy agenda that will engage both conservatives and moderates?  He has a couple of years to sort those things out.  

NoLawyers
NoLawyers

How many people will picture themselves barfing all the way to a voting booth if forced to vote for Christie? He is very impressed with himself. I'm not.

LisaMarisa
LisaMarisa

I WOUD NEVER VOTE FOR THIS FRIEND OF THE ILLEGAL ALIENS.................

Thabiti
Thabiti

If Ted Cruz and Santorum are in the Republican primary, there is not a southern state Christy can win. So, I caution all the giddy republicans.  Cruz would not win a national election and Paul will have as much success as his father did.  That is the state of the republican party.

KevinRogers
KevinRogers

When republican talk to each other about various politicians, Chris Christie has such a level of vitriolic feelings directed at him by the party in general, that there is little likelihood he will win the nomination, unless the democrats engineer some primaries where the democrats are able to cross over and vote for him as is the case for Romney.    The level of malevolency directed at Christie from within the Republican party is unmatched, and is on a level with Obama.  In other words, Chris Christie has about as much chance of becoming a republican president as Obama has of becoming a republican president. 

nexor.kyron
nexor.kyron

Congrats to Mr. Christie. Considering the CPAC ignored him last time, this should be a pointer to the ideologues and vindicates Mr. Christie.

Hopefully, the Republican party will take the right lessons from this. Republicans don't lose because they weren't seriously conservative enough.

Funny observation however that Mr. Christie chose to spend millions of dollars extra to have a separate election away from the Cory Booker Senate election ... I don't fault him for the tactic ... but just saying ... tax payer money abuse knows no bounds.

KevinRogers
KevinRogers

Two elections ago, around this point in time, Time magazine said the same thing about John McCain.  Last election, Time told us the Republican whose nomination it was to lose was Mitt Romney.  Thanks, but no thanks, we've seen enough when the press selects our nominee for us.  We do know you do it for two reasons: 1) You want us to select a candidate whom our base will stay home for on election day and 2)  Just on the outside chance he wins, he is the most palatable choice for you, who are journalists/democrats.  

Here's a novel concept:  Why don't you stick to reporting politics in an unbiased manner, and not always attempting to influence elections to your wishes.  Perhaps if you had been doing your jobs, we could have avoided this housing meltdown that has devastated our economy.  If you had investigated how the democrats were using Fannie Mae(which was run by the boyfriend of the congressional committe charged with their oversight) to socially engineer people who had bad credit into being able to buy houses.  The republicans warned of it, for years before it happened, but the democrats, who had control of congress and were the only ones who could have reigned it in. were asleep at the wheel.  Perhaps if you had investigated the republicans allegations have as zealously as you investigated Sarah Palin's wardrobe, we might have had a different outcome than our economy almost collapsing.  Do your jobs, and investigate and report in an unbiased manner, and leave picking the republican nominee to the republicans.

drtox06
drtox06

Romney should campaign with Christie and then endorse the Democrat three days before the election.

LEAFSFAN202
LEAFSFAN202

He supports the NSA and NDAA so he didn't have my vote

trojaniam
trojaniam

Definitely works in New Jersey.  Try it in most Southern and interior Western states--and see what happens. 

JackKennedy1
JackKennedy1

This fat tub of lard won't be able to stop stuffing his face long enough to run........either for the presidency or even just down the block

DarleneRitterGoodfellow
DarleneRitterGoodfellow

Exit polling has him losing to Hillary by six - he's without a doubt their best chance, but I can't see him winning the primary. It's also funny the voters rewarded such an obnoxious bully on the same day the NFL suspended one.

barneydidit
barneydidit

So now we get to watch half a dozen "true conservative" Republicans take turns beating Christie in every other primary during 2016, until each one falls by the wayside after an "oops" moment during a debate, or an "I didn't fondle her, I just demonstrated to her that my wife is about the same height as the top of her breasts" moment, or a "women can't get pregnant during a rape" moment, after which Christie will win the nomination, then lose to Hillary in the general.  After which we get to listen to Republicans everywhere tell us that he lost because he "failed to energize the base". 

AlphaJuliette
AlphaJuliette

Congratulations Governor Christie.  Your message is very encouraging.  Bi-partisanship is desperately needed in this country now.  Your solutions oriented style definitely trumps ideology every single time.

We the People are watching with interest.

ViableOp
ViableOp

The problem is that paralyzing political polarization does not just exist at the federal level.  As shown here, polarization at the state level is endemic with more than half of states being more polarized than Washington:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2013/06/political-polarization-at-state-level.html

For voters, this means that state governments are more likely to pander to special interest groups that do what is in the best interest of all.

paulejb
paulejb

Very impressive, Governor. It will be hard to argue against you in a Republican party yearning for a victory in national elections.

jmac
jmac

"While state surpluses nationwide are growing, New Jersey's has shrunk to it's lowest percentage in a decade.  The state's bond rating is among the worst in the country."

 Christie's good at juggling the math.    Next month NJ will allow online gambling.   "Analysts expect it to bring in $40 million in it's first 12 months; Christie's budget is counting on it  bringing in $180 million in just seven months."   (NY Times)   Lots of creative math going on in NJ. 

jmac
jmac

"I am going to do anything I need to do to win."  Like wasting a lot of money on a second election so Booker wouldn't be on the ballot with him.

Paul,nnto
Paul,nnto

As a Democrat I haven't feared a candidate as much as Christie since... Willard.

Fake "moderate" republican waiting to be exposed. Add his foul temperament and he doesn't get to Florida in the republican primary.


shepherdwong
shepherdwong

I know Jersey and New York and Jersey folks love an @sshole even more than New Yorkers. I know, hard to believe but... 

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

I was born and raised in New Jersey and even though it is a reliably Blue state in national elections, having a Republican Governor is nothing out of the ordinary. They have traditionally been the more traditional Republican, not the fire breathing tea party type who are poised to take over the party. I suppose Christie has done a few good things but nothing earth shattering, and the state still has higher unemployment than many others. I think his popularity rests more in his in your face style, something for which the State is known for. He's a very good retail politician, good at identifying the issues that drive resentments, and making modest changes around them. He can be a likable character when he holds his temper. My sense is he not a natural intellectual, or a person who ponders big things. Should be interesting seeing how he morphs into national candidate and has to address global foreign policy issues in his expected run for the GOP nomination. 

OGLiberal
OGLiberal

Christie's celebration party is at Convention Hall in Asbury Park, right next door to my town.  So nice that he's celebrating his win in a town where it's likely that virtually nobody voted for him.  Still milking the Springsteen (pretty sure he didn't vote for him) and Sandy (where he basically took the money the feds/evil FEMA offered up...so small government) angle.

AmandaBlankenship
AmandaBlankenship

Which leads to a curious condrum for Republicans: Nominate a RINO, and possibly win the Presidency. Nominate a person who actually holds Republican ideals and values - lose for sure.  I'm betting on the sure loser.

drtox06
drtox06

@trojaniam Christie would lose NJ in a presidential race by 15-20 points. Apples and oranges.

drudown
drudown

@doriangrey_grey

Gee, you Koch Brothers/Tea Party/"new" GOP robots seem to "know a lot about current events." 

Did your puppeteer coin the term "Freedom Fries" or know what the fake 9/11/Iraq connection meant? 

Because I really don't think the Decider spying on law-abiding Americans is at all legal, and the notion you idiot propaganda sock puppets litter this site and, indeed, the entire web with divisive racist junk with an eye toward (drumroll, please) deflecting attention from the FACT the Tea Party-controlled GOP Congress is trying to turn our system of government on its head. Give me a break, already. Enough of this "conservative v. liberal" blah blah blah. Our leaders in Congress have no "self-perceived" discretion to "not raise taxes on Corporations" [see, e.g., 'We're Not Broke' documentary on Netflix] and, what, put the streamlined functioning of our World's Most Powerful Military in some fabricated state of uncertainty? What, the GOP can unilaterally "cut" into programs (e.g., a well funded and competently staffed EPA, SEC, FDA, FBI) put in place for the People's own benefit by just refusing to follow the Constitution in the first instance? 

(sigh.)

Stop playing games and grab &%$ reading Dr. Seuss when the CONSTITUTION requires the GOP House (i.e., Paul Ryan's Committee) to get a commercially reasonable Budget to the President.

"waaa, the ACA website…was not delivered on time"

Stop thwarting Federal law.

Stop spreading hate.

Stop trying to WEAKEN my country with this lobbyist-driven, "no new taxes, ever" party line.

You think "divide and conquer" and creating Gattica/James Woods diversions makes you clever?

Who gives a &*%$ about Rand Paul's plagiarism- it is the shopworn propaganda that America is now, what some Nation of "groups v. groups" or "liberals are others". We are ONE Nation under God. We are all sisters and brothers. All cultures, all races, immigrants of every shape and color call America home- and nearly EVERY nation invests here in a myriad of ways for a reason.

Your "new" GOP refusal to follow Article I, Section 8's revenue raising function is nothing short of Treason.

Google both definitions and reconcile the pre-meditated GOP "shut down" of the government. The People DEPEND on the FUNCTIONS of our government. You Tea Party traitors treat the State as some company to loot- as you "outsource" the jobs and act like you can "frack" people off their land and give them the boot. [see, e.g., 'Gas Land' documentary on Netflix.

I say: Don't Tread On Me.

The 4th Amendment and precedent has worked fine until Bush/Cheney's regime "hijacked" the GOP.

Tell me, is not the larger issue the fact that the GOP Congress has used the Filibuster device in a manner than (literally) subverts Democracy and, as such, the People's Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights? Namely, how is the GOP Senate's refusal to bring the most fundamental functions of our Founding Fathers' system of government (e.g., "Advice and Consent" Power; advocating we "abolish" the IRS or EPA)- not to mention WEAKENING the State by doing so. This too, is a subversion of Due Process because it circumvents proper State Action that must advance a Compelling State Interest. [see, Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327; Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438]

The checks and balances within the three separate branches of government are not subject to such deprivation under the (enter Halloween screech) auspices that the "terrorist boogeyman" is coming to get us. Get real. You didn't even look, much less seek revenge, from the OPEC states that fund terrorism and sent the 9/11 attackers.

Yes or No.

Simple hackers can thwart the ACA.

Your refusal to COLLECT taxes from 1 out of 4 major Corporations is a breach of duty to this very day. The "new" GOP pronounces Federalism no better than a code for thieves.

Read: the Federal government cannot "unilaterally suspend" the necessary and proper REVENUE required by the Several States to ensure Due Process to the People as our precedent would typically do.

And now you GOP crooks claim the very New Deal "entitlements" our progenitors fought and died for is, what , subject to arbitrary cuts? How is that not a "deprivation" of life, liberty or property? [see, Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 U.S. 344] Sorry, an immediate investigation must be performed to ascertain if Foreign money is behind this contrived, self-imposed fiscal starvation.

Why would the State deny "entitlements" to its own People? Abolish the EPA and Social Security? There is no other explanation.

O Angel, why does the GOP Senate think it has some, what, magic Filibuster wand to deny the People the Appointment Power reposed in the Executive branch after an election?

Simply on account of some cheap parlor "partisan gimmick" never "reported" on or even given proper reflection (i.e., if State Action is unlawful or violates the Constitution, if performed under the aegis of 'I hate Obama" or "DC has just changed", the prejudice to the People and our Democracy is less real)? Paul's "quasi-plagarism" is just a pretext to deflect attention from the real lawlessness: the GOP Congress abrogating the express FUNCTIONS of Article I, Section 8, as if, in the end, the Tea Party base simply invoking the "Founding Fathers' way" entitles such elected fiduciaries to disregard what the document says. It clearly says "RAISE REVENUE" for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and People's "GENERAL WELFARE"…there is nothing about the Decider having any "discretion" to have Dr. Seuss read on Taxpayer time much less subvert the rule of law (i.e., promulgate a commercially reasonable Budget) or engage in dilatory tactics with no Legitimate State Interest in mind.

"When what is right and true is forced to tremble, it condemns the despot, such that justice must be made right through the law's proper handle." -Publilius Syrus, (1st Cen. B.C.) 

cgodfrey585
cgodfrey585

@DarleneRitterGoodfellow And yet Ted Cruz's temperment is lauded?  I'll take Christie's bullying anyday.  His gets results at least.

Cruz's just gets embarassing

pennnovelboy
pennnovelboy

@AlphaJuliette Interest is right. Interesting to note that liberals are ideologies and Constitutionalists believe in a philosophy called Conservatism.

Ideologues never waiver from their fanatical views, not matter what new set of facts or data is before them.  No matter what evidence shows them or what their constituents say, they will not stop doing what they know is better for you.

garygnj
garygnj

@AlphaJuliette That is exactly why I voted for him yesterday.  I"m a Democrat and I don't agree with him on most issues but his style of bi-partisanship needs to be rewarded now more than my political beliefs need to be served.  I hope this sends a message to the frothing right wing nuts who have hijacked the Republican party.

drtox06
drtox06

@paulejb Yes. If the election were only held in NJ, then he'd be our best bet.

drtox06
drtox06

@Paul,nnto Fake? Christie is about as "severely conservative" as Mitt and half as charming.

drudown
drudown

@doriangrey_grey

From whence comes the unseasonable notion that THIS Congress has any self-perceived "discretion" to deviate from precedent and the rule of law? Do you really believe that the State's actions are not limited by the Bill of Rights? The People cannot have their civil liberties "contracted away" in sham laws written by Market Players purporting to grant carte blanche "immunity" for damages proximately caused, despite your dirty paws all over the 4th Amendment, sorry- you don’t get to be the Big Brother.

Not THIS group at the NSA or any other.

In Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383, the Court was careful to acknowledge that:

"The history of this fourth amendment is given with particularity in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616. As was there shown, it took its origin in the determination of the Framers of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution to provide for that instrument a Bill of Rights, securing to the American people, among other things, those safeguards which had grown up in England to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, such as were permitted under the general warrants issued under authority of the government, by which there had been invasions of the home and privacy of the citizens, and the seizure of their private papers in support of charges, real or imaginary, made against them.

Resistance to these practices had established the principle which was enacted into the fundamental law in the Fourth Amendment: that a man's house was his castle, and not to be invaded by any general authority to rummage through his goods and papers. The maxim that every man's house is his castle clearly part of our constitutional law and the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, as always been looked upon as of high-value to every citizen. This principle is to be jealousy insisted upon.'

In Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 723, This court recognize the principle of protection as applicable to letters and sealed packages in the mail, and held that, consistently [232 U.S. 383, 391] with this guarantee of the right of the People to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures, such matter could only be open and examine up on warrants issued on oath of Affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, 'As is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household.'"

And to think the Decider tried to “scold” purported “activist judges” as the GOP Congress tries to nullify the Appointment Power, with no regard for the need to fill the hundreds of judicial vacancies with cases piling up by the hour…so tell me, robot, why is there no (once mighty) media coverage on this subversion of Justice that touch and concerns the most important places?

Who cares if a 757 actually hit the Pentagon. It is the Bill of Rights the NSA claims it’s alleged “need” erases.

The Bill of Rights belongs to the People and exists for OUR protection. Away with this “nothing can be done” GOP talking point misdirection.

Just this: no amount of self-perceived "partisan posturing" (i.e., you robots keep bringing up ‘the President’ or ‘Obama this, Obama that’ when the threshold PROBLEM is squarely the REFUSAL of the Congress to FOLLOW THE LAW: the express language of Article I, Section 8) can “undo” the law and its weight.

Please, robot.  “Circle back” to your legal department.

Show the People where ANY law or Constitutional text supports what YOU all seem to claim: that the GOP Senate can just eek out a few token Appointments by the Executive branch in some subversive game.

Every elected official, every Jurist and EVERY officer of the Court took an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution- and the plain meaning of the Constitution BINDS the Congress. They can't just "make up" their own "new" laws or "refuse to fund" whatever the Decider decrees. This is NOT anything new and it is exactly what it seems, i.e., Legislative Veto power is per se UNLAWFUL. [see, INS v. Chadha, (1983) 462 U.S. 919].

Just this: Procedural Due Process is required for intentional acts of DEPRIVATION by the State and/or its employees [see, Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 U.S. 344]. It defies all credulity for you to even intimate Congress is absolved of DUTY to the constituents its serves. THAT is how blinded by corrupt “groupthink” the Tea Party-led GOP is by its own misstatements of applicable law.

What, NOT ONE MEMBER OF THE GOP CONGRESS can step out Grover’s shadow and say, “I love my Country…and this is wrong. We have to raise taxes and do our duty?

“Do your duty and leave the rest to the gods.” – Corneille

Here, the “new” GOP asserts even a single GOP Senator (see, e.g., Sen. Graham) can unilaterally “shut down” government functions until “he gets the answers about Benghazi”. What a farce. Taken into the logical conclusion, going forward the GOP’s puppeteer can just directly or indirectly “blow up” some chaos…and there goes Democracy.

All by design? I fancy.   

“If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” – Bible, Matthew: 15:14

DarleneRitterGoodfellow
DarleneRitterGoodfellow

@cgodfrey585 @DarleneRitterGoodfellow Not by me - Christie just seems reasonable compared to the rest of the TP crazies. Not sure what results he has gotten, their unemployment is still ahead of the national average and most of his policies are as bad as the rest of the R governors, including mine who will hopefully be pink slipped next year by the newly minted D Charlie Crist.