Republican Undercard Debate: Live Coverage

I think Nate and I are on the same page. If you look at the subjective odds we did on Monday, I wasn’t exactly high on Christie. He has problems. But if you want to give Christie a better chance of winning the primary than Romney of winning the 2012 general on the eve of the election, I think he’ll take it.

I don’t think I’m any more skeptical than Harry about the possibility of Christie having a “surge” at some point, or potentially becoming a factor in New Hampshire. He’s certainly having a very good night. But I’m skeptical about how sustainable it might be. Christie has lots of problems, as you’ve pointed out yourself, Harry. In fact, they’re not so different from Jeb Bush’s problems; Christie’s track record is fairly moderate, but he also has middling ratings among independent voters. And if he’s a considerably more dynamic personality than Bush, he’s also seen as a loose cannon and not as much of a party guy. I could buy an argument that Christie is as likely to win the nomination as Bush, but that’s sort of damning with faint praise.

I think we have chaos in the primary. With chaos, the most important thing is to win one of the first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire.

1. Christie’s net favorability rating has risen in New Hampshire. In a field of 15, it’s conceivable he could win there with support in the low 20s. (Huntsman won 17 percent of the vote there.)
2. A social conservative unacceptable to the party overall could win in Iowa (like Ben Carson who is leading there currently).
3. If you can get the fight down to an arch-social conservative and Christie, Christie could win that fight. It’s not a probable outcome. It’s a long shot, but less of a long shot than I think most people think.