Judge Refuses Injunction to Stop RI Marriage Law »« Will Russia Arrest Gay Athletes at Olympics?

Limbaugh Thinks Christie Will Run as Democrat

In one of the more bizarre political claims you’re likely to hear, Rush Limbaugh thinks that Chris Christie is going to run for president in 2016 — but as a Democrat. And that he’s going to win the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton, who is clearly the frontrunner at this point.

“I think it’s going to be Chris Christie,” Limbaugh said on his national program Tuesday.

“I think the contest in 2016, the Democrat side, is gonna be between Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie.”

What makes the prediction especially noteworthy is that Christie, the governor of New Jersey, is at present a Republican, and he would have to switch parties to be nominated by the Democrats.

That doesn’t make the prediction noteworthy, it makes it moronic.

“It’s my intelligence guided by experience,” he explained, noting Christie’s decision to have a special election for the Senate seat left open by the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg could be a telling factor.

Would you care to make a bet on that, Mr. Limbaugh? I’ll match reality up against your “intelligence guided by experience” any day.

Comments

  1. Hank Fox says

    Hopefully, the main effect of such media heat is that it will kill Christie’s chances of getting the GOP nomination.

  2. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Well, Chris Christie strikes me as reasonable for a Republican so I hope he does get their nomination.

    I think Hilary Clinton should already be president but her taking over from Barack Obama next time would be my first choice.

    Be nice if the Republicans offered a decent alternative – democracy is better for two good options rather than two most of us hate or one electable and one unelectable as with last time.

  3. Michael Heath says

    I think Rush Limbaugh is onto something here. Chris Christie is a rabid fanboy of Bruce Springsteen, who cringes at Christie’s adulation given Gov. Christie’s conservatism. If Christie converts to the Democrats he might have a chance to kiss Springsteen’s ring and become part of his inner circle.

    I generally like Rahm Emanuel’s service in D.C. I see him as a winner, to a fault sometimes yes, but that’s a quality far too often lacking with Democrats. However, I’d be surprised to see the Democrats nominate a guy who expresses himself as stridently and profanely as Emanuel does; qualities I like but too many people are squeamish about.

  4. John Pieret says

    mx89 @ 3:

    Which makes him no less reasonable than our present president or any likely democratic candidate in 2016. You could, of course, hope than Rand Paul switches parties and gets the democratic nomination …

  5. bahrfeldt says

    Limpbag’s attack, in coordination Ayn Rand Paul’s, is just an early salvo by the wingnuts in the campaign to try and secure the nomination for the Teabaggers’ candidate.

  6. says

    “I like that. Does anyone know why his daddy named him Rand?”

    It’s short for Randal. That of course does not exclude the possibility that it was a tribute to Ayn Rand, which if true, would be grounds for a 40-year retroactive abortion.

  7. cotton says

    I think its pretty clear this is an attempt by Rush to derail the Chris Christie nomination train. A lot of conservatives will think (maybe not incorrectly) that it is a Republican’s turn to win so to hell with a “moderate” like Christie. Here’s what they are thinking:

    1.) Rarely does one party win the US presidency more than twice in a row.
    2.) Obama is a better pol than Hillary, and barely beat McCain despite how weak the Republican brand was at that time.
    3.) Obama limped to victory against one of the worst candidates in history in 2012.
    4.) Hillary is divisive and won’t inspire all the young people / minority voters of 2008 and ’12.

    They may be right :\ I hope not.

  8. dan4 says

    Christie probably won’t win the nomination no matter which party he runs under. He’s a classic “East Coast Republican”-too liberal for the Republican Party and too conservative for the Democratic Party.

  9. Michael Heath says

    cotton writes:

    I think its pretty clear this is an attempt by Rush to derail the Chris Christie nomination train.

    As much as I despise Rush Limbaugh, all humans who support equal rights owe him a debt of gratitude for derailing evangelical theocrat Mike Huckabee’s 2008 nomination. No one was more effective taking Huckabee down.

    While I don’t generally accept the truism, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, this Limbaugh/Huckabee case serves as an illustrative counter it may sometimes apply.

  10. says

    “1.) Rarely does one party win the US presidency more than twice in a row.”

    I’m too lazy to look it up, but Nate Silver had a lengthy blog post debunking this idea. There have been stretches in American history when one party dominated the presidency for decades at a time.

    It’s also not the case that Obama’s margins of victory were razor thin. The margin of victory in ’08 was only slightly less than in ’92 when Bush 1 trounced Dukakis, which everyone remembers as a landslide. And Obama’s margin of victory over Romney was greater than either of Bush 2’s wins (the first of which was of course negative).

  11. dingojack says

    Let’s see since 30 April 1789:
    a) Republican-Democratic 4 March 1801 to 4 March 1829 (29 years)
    b) Democratic 4 March 1829 to 4 March 1841 (12 years)
    c) Demo cratic 4 March 1853 to 4 March 1861 (8 years)
    d) Republican 4 March 1869 to 4 March 1885 (16 years)
    e) Republican 4 March 1897 to 4 March 1913 (16 years)
    f) Republican 4 March 1921 to 4 March 1933 (12 years)
    g) Democrat 4 March 1933 to 3 March 1953 (20 years)
    h) Democrat 20 January 1961 to 20 January 1969 (8 years)
    i) Republican 20 January 1981 to 20 January 1993 (12 years)

    So in the 224 years since 1789 there have been 133 years where one party has ruled consecutively but with differing leaders (excluding Vice-Presidents finishing their President”s term due to death in office, assassination, resignation and etc. who never faced a presidential election themselves).
    That’s about 59.375% of the time.
    Yep a rare bird indeed!

    Dingo

  12. dingojack says

    Just for shits and giggles: –
    The Australian Prime Ministership has been going for 41123 days (as of 4 August 2013) – of those one party or another has ruled under differing leaders for 24905 of those days, or about 60.5622% of the time8*.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * 2.9473% Protectionist, 11.2589% Nationist, 20.3414% Liberal, 26.0146% Labor.

  13. JasonTD says

    In one of the more bizarre political claims you’re likely to hear, Rush Limbaugh thinks that Chris Christie is going to run for president in 2016 — but as a Democrat. And that he’s going to win the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton, who is clearly the frontrunner at this point.

    Hillary is simply the default frontrunner, because no one has actually declared for it, as far as I can tell, and all of the early media speculation is surrounding her. That speculation is based solely on her brand rather than accomplishment, just as it was in 2008. Her tenure at State was wholly unremarkable for any diplomatic accomplishments, while the stature of this country was continuing to drop around the world.

  14. Michael Heath says

    JasonTD writes:

    Her tenure at State was wholly unremarkable for any diplomatic accomplishments, while the stature of this country was continuing to drop around the world.

    Do you have some cites to back that up?

    Pew’s Global Initiative Survey empirically finds otherwise. When asked:

    Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States.

    In 2008 only 6 countries out of 20 had 50% or more of their respondents answer favorably; a 30% success rate: http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/9/

    In 2013 28 of 38 countries had 50% or more of their respondents answer favorably; a 74% success rate: http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/15/.

    A remarkable 50% of the countries whose people didn’t have a favorable view of the U.S. in 2008 now do. Those are: Russia, Australia, France, Indonesia, Spain, and Germany; all of whom are also key countries on the global stage with the exception of Spain.

    I ignored results by U.S. citizens in the above results since they’re not relevant to this topic.

    Hillary Clinton’s earned her reputation, in spite of all the bullshit out there about her.

  15. slchonda says

    As I have stated previously, Ms. Clinton was the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the 2008 campaign in 2006/early 2007. How did that work out? Therefore, despite her apparently insurmountable position, it’s a little early to rule out other possibilities. The big problem for Cuomo, O’Malley, Warner, etc. is money raising. If Hillary chooses not to run, that really opens up the field, bringing in Gillibrand and Warren as viable candidates. At this point, the Democratic bench seems a whole lot deeper then the Rethuglican bench.

  16. JasonTD says

    Michael,

    Diplomacy isn’t a popularity contest, it is how well one can do at influencing other nations to act in our interest. That is what I meant by “standing”. Did Hillary lead any diplomatic victories on major international goals, like slowing/stopping Iran’s or North Korea’s nuke programs? Getting Assad out of Syria, as Obama claimed to want two years ago? Progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks? How did relations improve with Russia and China, key figures in our ability to push our agenda through the U.N. because of their veto power?

    Regarding your links: Again, it is favorable/very favorable views of the people in those countries, not a measure of how friendly the governments are going to be. Besides, your data doesn’t include very many countries that are even on both list, but let’s take a look anyway.

    Russia went from 46%-51%, hardly a dramatic change, and Russia isn’t exactly on our side on many important issues.
    France went from 42% to 64%, nice jump, now how is France helping us with our priorities?
    Indonesia – 37% to 61%, nice jump again, but I’m not hearing much in the news about them.
    Germany – 31% to 53%, handy, if it translates into tangible help.
    You dismiss Spain, so I will to.

    As for the some other important countries:
    China – 41% to 40% – It is hard not to notice the lack of change there and the clear importance of China
    Eqypt – 22% to 16% – An important regional power dropping in contentment with us.
    Pakistan – 19% to 11% – Drone strikes take a toll a population’s view of us, that’s for sure
    Turkey – 12% to 21% – A NATO ally looking us slightly more favorably, but still in the dumps.

    Notice a pattern here? Majority Muslim countries continue to look at us unfavorably, with some even dropping in their view of us, despite Obama’s big speech in Cairo early in his 1st term.

    Basically, I don’t see the Obama-Clinton diplomatic team as having done much of anything good for our relations with Russia, China, or the Middle-east. All crucial areas of interest for us. Maybe there’s something I missed in the news that you remember or can find.

  17. Michael Heath says

    JasonTD,

    That’s the whoosh of the day.

    If you want to make a case against Hillary Clinton, base it on facts. Otherwise it appears you’re just pulling shit out of your own ass.

  18. JasonTD says

    Michael,

    What exactly are you looking for? I’m not some international relations policy wonk, but a typical voter. I follow events that make the news and sites like this one that I read. I don’t understand what other ‘facts’ you think I should have at my fingertips to base my opinions on, as developing my opinion of Hillary Clinton from what I read in major news outlets (like most voters do) is hardly “pulling shit out” of my own ass.

    If Hillary does run in 2016, she is going to need to talk about her accomplishments and experience as part of the job interview that a Presidential campaign is. What is she going to be putting on her resume from her tenure as Secretary of State? The questions I asked in the first paragraph of #20 above are key questions along those lines. As someone that seems to be a Hillary fan, maybe you can answer for her.

  19. colnago80 says

    Re JasonTD

    Jason is neglecting the fact that Ms. Clinton was a senator from New York for 8 years. That also goes on her resume. Interestingly enough, her successor would jump to close to the head of the pack if she chose not to run.

  20. Michael Heath says

    JasonTD writes:

    What exactly are you looking for? I’m not some international relations policy wonk, but a typical voter. I follow events that make the news and sites like this one that I read. I don’t understand what other ‘facts’ you think I should have at my fingertips to base my opinions on, as developing my opinion of Hillary Clinton . . .

    I responded to your making factual claims without any evidence at all. I presented some facts that directly contradicted one your factual assertions; I didn’t address the other though it’s almost as idiotic, and arguably more so. You’re making conclusions, and promoting those conclusions here, based on no facts at all. In spite of the fact facts exist that rebut your position as we observe from my citation.

    It’s the obligation of the advocate to present an argument that’s based on a sufficiently framed set of facts, in this case facts that Sec. of State Clinton was, wholly unremarkable for any diplomatic accomplishments, while the stature of this country was continuing to drop around the world.

    To make a coherent argument, you need to promote a position based on a set of sufficiently framed facts. In this case all we got from you was pulling shit of your ass where I easily found facts that directly and empirically contradicted your assertion. This is introductory level critical thinking I’m arguing for here.

  21. colnago80 says

    Re jason TD

    At least the Obama Administration has thus far avoided the types of disasters he inherited from the Dubya Administration. Ms. Clinton also has to receive some credit for that.

  22. JasonTD says

    Michael,

    I could believe that you are just being the guardian of critical thinking here, except for this in #13:

    As much as I despise Rush Limbaugh, all humans who support equal rights owe him a debt of gratitude for derailing evangelical theocrat Mike Huckabee’s 2008 nomination. No one was more effective taking Huckabee down.

    Where are your facts to back that claim up? Nice to know that you are holding me to a standard you don’t hold yourself to.

    I presented some facts that directly contradicted one your factual assertions; I didn’t address the other though it’s almost as idiotic, and arguably more so. You’re making conclusions, and promoting those conclusions here, based on no facts at all. In spite of the fact facts exist that rebut your position as we observe from my citation.

    You say that as if I didn’t already address your citations in #20.

    I’ve spent some of my time the last couple of days looking up various articles summarizing her time at State. There are too many to list them all, but this one stuck out. It is generally a glowing review, referring to replacing her as a “daunting task even for someone with Senator Kerry’s impressive foreign policy credentials.”

    There was this: “Clinton also rejuvenated U.S. engagement in the Middle East by brokering a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel earlier this year.” And this: “Her active diplomacy was critical to securing United Nations Security Council authorization of the Libya mission and maintaining strong European and regional support for it.” Those two are the major wins, in my view, from this top five list. Though it detracts from the seriousness of the rest of the article that they wasted a spot in its top five for the “texts from Hillary” meme.

    After all of this more detailed reading, I suppose she did a better job that I had thought, but I still don’t see the major breakthroughs that justify the kind of star power attributed to her.

Leave a Reply