31% of "SELF-IDENTIFIED LIBERALS" voted for CHRISTIE.

[bullwinkle428]

Does Charlie Pierce have something to say about this, you ask? Why, YES, he certainly does!

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/new-jersey/exit-polls.html

"That's the number of the night, people.

That's the percentage of self-identified "liberals" that voted for Chris Christie, essentially endorsing the idea that he should run for president of the United States, since that was the real purpose of the New Jersey gubernatorial election yesterday. It certainly wasn't about who's going to be the governor of New Jersey, since Big Chicken is eighty-eight-and-out-the-gate as soon as the dust clears from next autumn's midterms, if not sooner. (All that talk about "Washington" in his acceptance speech was a pretty clear indication that the man has his travelin' shoes on already.) No, as soon as it was determined by the strategic geniuses in the Democratic party that Barbara Buono would be fed to the woodchipper -- and good on her for calling the duplicitous bastards on it last night -- the only issue in the election became whether or not you think Chris Christie should run for president. And 31 percent of the liberals who voted assented to that proposition. How the hell did that happen on a night when the state also kicked him squarely in the nuts by overwhelmingly reversing his veto of an increase in the minimum wage, a veto that is the perfect expression of everything Chris Christie stands for as a politician? If you want to know why actual liberalism continues to be a dead parrot in our politics, and why the only real political dynamic in the country revolves around a choice over whether we will drift slowly to the right or stampede headlong in that direction, look to that number.

There is no reason on god's earth why a self-identified liberal would vote for Chris Christie. He's a tool of the ascendant oligarchy, awful on women's rights, terrible on infrastructure, very high on union-busting, and a short-tempered, thin-skinned bully into the bargain. If you're a New Jersey Democratic legislator who needs a little somethin'-somethin', I can see why you would support him. But 31 percent of liberals? Please. Because of that number, and because he also got 32 percent of the overall Democratic vote, the Christie '16 narrative is now set in stone. He's the Obamist candidate who can bring folks together. He can end the "divisiveness" in our politics, which will be a way for us to anesthetize ourselves to the reality that one of our two major political parties determined that the nation would not be governed by a black man. We will all move on to glory together because of Chris Christie's healing hand.

It is to wonder."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/chris-christie-re-election-110613


Read more: Chris Christie Re-election - Big Chicken In Excelsis - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

[librechik]

1. If Christie runs for President he will lose. He'll never get enough regional conservatives

to put him over the top, and Hillary will take all the real Blue states. It's a win win for the Dems, so I'm just getting out the



yup, liberals are nowhere welcome in US politics. That's just a fact. The electorate is a quivering sham of cowardice and ignorance. That's why I can't take it seriously. It's just a horrible and comic performance art I watch from the sidelines.

[Ninga]

2. Just substitute Bush for Christie and it's 2000 all over again. Yeah, I know. It was stolen, but

wouldn't have been if it wasn't so close to begin with....

[bullwinkle428]

3. It's shameful how many have fallen for this guy's act, including those

supposedly on our side.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Pretty sobering.

His decision to work with the Feds on getting disaster relief is a big driver in these people re-electing him, I think. But that same record may come back to haunt him when he has to make it through the Teapublican primaries. A lot depends on what happens in 2014...if the country rallies around Obamacare and Democrats in that election cycle, I think Christie can make a case that his Party needs him...but the morons still might not care and may be quite happy pushing for a more radical extremist like Rand Paul to carry their banner.

[Zorra]

5. The real time definition of liberal Democrat is "a Democrat who would never even consider

voting for a republican. Ever."

If you support and vote for republicans, you are a centrist. Barry Goldwater Democrats are calling themselves liberals these days.

They are not liberals.

That is all.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Exactly. Anybody who claims to be liberal and voted for Christie yesterday

doesn't know the meaning of the word.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. That explains some of the polls I've seen around here

saying that 80% of liberals are in favor of this or that. Obviously, a whole bunch of people who call themselves liberals aren't liberal at all.

[AgingAmerican]

11. That's pretty obvious

nt

[bowens43]

7. No liberals voted for Chistie.

[JoePhilly]

8. Charlie is over thinking this one.

After Sandy, the people in NJ needed a government that worked. Christie embraced the President, and responded effectively.

In NJ, that's going to be enough for people. Including many liberals.

Unless there is a Hurricane that hits the entire US, and to which Christie somehow saves the day, he's never going to be President.

Charlie is right that the politicians in NJ supported Christie to get "a little somethin'-somethin'" ... that IS NJ politics, the people in NJ know that, and even willingly participate in that corrupt system if they think they'll get some too ... and that includes the liberals who live there.

To get anything, you'll need to be on Christie's side. And every body wants some.

[NuclearDem]

10. Uh, New Jersey, what the fuck?

That guy you voted for isn't a liberal. Vetoing bills to raise the minimum wage and enact marriage equality does not make a liberal. In fact, it makes them an asshole.

[ancianita]

12. They couldn't possibly be political trolls, eh. I'm not believing this; it would make NJ an anomaly,

statistically, given CC's past actions against gays, unions, teachers and other liberal causes.

I think this claim compels a closer look at that "population." I wouldn't be too quick to conclude that "liberalism" is any flawed culprit within the national party. Liberalism harbors way more civil rights voters than this article implies.

I'm going to keep my eye on New Jersey "liberals". Something's amiss, and it's not the inherent behavior of liberals as "misguided," "beguiled" or racist "just like the other side."

[ProSense]

13. Most Democrats didn't vote.

When it says "31% of "SELF-IDENTIFIED LIBERALS" voted for CHRISTIE" that's likely a small and confused bunch of people.

The sellouts and media hype helped to depress Democratic turnout. Christie didn't get that many more votes than he did in 2009, but Buono got about 300,000 fewer than Corzine. Look at the numbers.

<...>

So the Governor wins a landslide victory, but can only turn 1 assembly seat?! So did a bunch of Democrats vote for Christie but no other Republicans? It really doesn't look like it.
Here's the governor's results from Christie's first victory in 2009 over an extremely unpopular Democratic governor.

Christie 1,174,445
Corzine 1,087,731

And here's the numbers from yesterday.

Christie 1,242,568
Buono 781,710

So in 4 years, Christie increased his voting numbers by roughly 5.5%, while Buono dropped the Democratic numbers by a whopping 28%!!

That 5.5% increase by Christie is slightly better than the population growth rate, while Buono's numbers, for whatever reason, were just a disaster.

So did the people of New Jersey turn out in big numbers for the great 2016 Republican hope from New Jersey? It sure doesn't look like it. Did Democrats cross over in huge numbers to support Christie, Nope! They may not have voted for Buono, but it sure doesn't look like they jumped ship for Christie.

We'll have to look at some exit polling and some of the numbers for turnout from the New Jersey Secretary of state to get a better idea, but for now I think this boils down to christie picking up a few more Independent voters, but in reality, he barely improved his position from 2009. These numbers certainly don't look like the grand victory the press is making it out to be, and if I were a betting person, and I am, I wouldn't be putting any money down that Christie can carry New Jersey in the 2016 presidential election.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/06/1253515/-Wow-Christie-Won-Big-Or-Did-He-A-Look-At-Some-Numbers

In 2009, Corzine got nearly 20,000 more votes in Middlesex than Buono did this year.

In Essex County, which Buono won 62 percent to 37 percent, she got about 92,000 votes to Christie's nearly 55,000. In 2009, Corzine got about 120,000 votes to Christie's nearly 50,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/new-jersey/map.html

http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/new-jersey.html

[progressoid]

14. Liberals my ass.