Even if Christie is VP, Obama Wins New Jersey
A new poll finds that adding Chris Christie to the ticket would fail to deliver New Jersey to the Republicans.
A new poll finds that adding Chris Christie to the ticket would fail to deliver New Jersey to the Republicans.
Politico (“Romney-Christie ticket a loser in N.J., poll finds“):
Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) would not be able to deliver the Garden State if he were chosen as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick, a new survey shows.
Without running mates, Romney gets 39 percent to the president’s 49 percent in New Jersey, according to a Wednesday Quinnipiac University poll.
With Christie on the ticket, Romney bumps up to 42 percent, compared with the president’s 50 percent.
“Color New Jersey blue. President Barack Obama beats Gov. Mitt Romney and Christie’s presence on the Republican ticket doesn’t help Romney,” says Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
New Jersey has voted for the Democratic nominee the last five straight elections. They last voted Republican in 1988, the last of a string of six consecutive elections in which they did so. New Jersey has moved left. The Republicans have moved right. Until one of those things change, New Jersey will vote Democrat. (See also: California.)
In an effort to save the Quinnipiac gang some money, let me also advise them that adding Marion Berry to the ticket would not deliver DC, adding Rudy Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg would not deliver New York, and adding Mickey Mouse would not deliver California. Similarly, if Obama were to drop Joe Biden for the ghost of George Wallace, Romney is going to win Alabama.
As you said, no surprise.
For the record, the Christie VP speculation strikes as about as pointless as the Christie POTUS-run speculation. I don’t think he’s going to be asked.
@Doug Mataconis: Don’t underestimate the ability of Republican prez nominees to make astonishingly ill conceived veep picks.
NJ is the ultimate welfare state. O’s message of cradle to grave government dependency does well here.
But it might sway Florida…
@JBJB: Actually NJ sent far more tax revenue to the Fed Govt than it receives in return. There are a lot of other states (AK, NM, MS) that are dependent on the govt.
@JBJB:
Really? Considering the ridiculous* property taxes here, I doubt there is that much welfare. Yeah, there is some … but mostly they drive out the poor/lower-middle-class & elderly with taxes.
* Definition — ridiculous: paying the same in property taxes as it would cost to rent. (See also “New Jersey”.)
Here’s a prediction for you: Romney will not pick anyone more charismatic than him for VP. That’s a pretty small pool and Christie is not in it.
@JBJB: As other’s noted NJ and the rest of the Northeast puts substantially more into the Federal coffers than it gets out. If we were to look at what a Randian might call ‘parasite states’, i.e. ones who take more from the Feds than they put in, that would be basically the entire South, and the most conservative of the Western states plus Alaska. Funny, that.
What planet do these people live on?
Using 2005 data…
84% of the States that take more than they give are Red States.
78% of the States that give more than they take are Blue States.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/
People like JBJB have these very stronly held reflexive views…and my guess is they will never even consider changing their minds…even when confronted with facts that completely undermine their ideology.
I for one would support any candidate, red or blue, who was serious about passing an amendment to the constitution that says states get back exactly what they put in. Some of the states I lived in would be devastated (Louisiana, Georgia) while some of them would be rich beyond their wildest dreams (New York, Connecticut).
@MarkedMan:
What’s the point of making it federal spending to begin with then? Why not just let the individual states do whatever? Morever, since the disparity is largely the result of differences in income, isn’t this rejecting the idea of progressive taxation of income? Thirdly, how is this going to be enforced for things like social security or medicare? Assigning seniors a state that they HAVE to live in?
@Stormy Dragon: Sorry Stormy, I should have put my ‘irony’ flag up on the above post. I never learn. You can’t do irony on the internet, it always comes across as semi-crazed earnestness.
In any case, I don’t really believe this is desirable or even viable. But when I lived in the South it always amazed me at how many people there believed NY State and the libruls were sucking them dry, when it was really the other way around…