Christie Endorsement is Small Beans....Right Now

The news outlets went into a frenzy yesterday when Donald Trump secured the endorsement of former rival, presidential candidate, and 'Establishment' governor, Chris Christie. All sorts of articles came forward exclaiming that there are 'cracks in the Establishment', 'GOP finally embracing Trump', and other feel-good or -bad stories, depending on your perspective, but I need to put this out there.

Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump just isn't a big deal.

I have always been curious about Governor Christie's establishment label. It doesn't make sense how a liberal Republican in one of the most liberal states and who acts far outside the mainstream is able to take the label of establishment. Personally, the only true establishment candidates in this race have been Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, maybe Lindsey Graham, and maybe Bobby Jindal. (Which brings me to the side tangent that the 'Establishment' field has never actually been that crowded, but that's a teaser for another article.)

Here are some facts about Chris Christie for your consideration.

1. Governor Christie was ranked as the 23rd most conservative governor our of 31 Republican governors, per the linked Huffington Post blog. That's far below fringe Establishment candidate John Kasich (12th) and former candidate Scott Walker (2nd). Not arguing for or against the merits of his philosophy, but ranking that low amongst Republicans arguably places him outside of the mainstream and thus outside of what is largely considered the Establishment


2. As of November 2015, Chris Christie had the fifth lowest approval rating for any Governor in the U.S. Breaking that down just a bit further, he had the fourth lowest approval rating for a Republican governor. Arguably, even if he was in the GOP mainstream, this is a candidate that is disadvantageous to have in your corner anyway. If their state can't get behind them, how can a nation? Moreover, how does that support bolster another candidate's credentials in any way? Perhaps it could help Trump appear even more counter-establishment than he already does?


3. According to Real Clear Politics national polling, at no point in time has Chris Christie eclipsed 4.8 percent of the support. The only early state he ever reached double digit support in was New Hampshire, and since that race is over there is no true impact that his presence or support would have within another state. This has about as much impact as Rick Santorum endorsing Marco Rubio.


4. This is going to sound a little bit personal, but hear it out. Apologies to APN's New Jersey readers, but a YouGov poll in 2015 ranked New Jersey as the most disliked state in the entire country. Moreover....New Jersey was the ONLY disliked state out of 50. How does that apply here? In nearly every case, consciously or subconsciously, we will associate our feelings about a state with a candidate. The more credibility a state has, the more credibility the candidate has. I think a lot of us would find that we're placing more credence towards arguments and stances from a GOP candidate from Texas vice a GOP candidate from Idaho (sorry, Idaho). It just happens that way.

So, what is the liklihood that an unpopular presidential candidate, with one of the lowest approval ratings, from the only disliked state in the Union, and is rated outside of the mainstream will have any sort of tangible impact on Trump's momentum or ratings going forward? This endorsement only matters to three people/entities right now: Chris Christie, Donald Trump, and the media.

The media has fueled the impact of the endorsement, in what must be a slow news cycle, and given it more attention that what it actually deserves. This just is not as important as it would be made out to be.

I think that if you want to get to the ground truth of this, Chris Christie is still fighting for second place. After Christie won re-election in New Jersey in 2013, he ostensibly began his campaign for President. To have that all never really get off the ground, even after three years, is a hard pill to swallow. So, he hasn't given up on the prize yet. Granted, that prize may come in the form of Air Force 2.

Donald Trump was recently quoted as saying that he would look to a political insider to be his running mate. Take that into consideration with the 'long phone call' that Trump said on Morning Joe after the NH Primary, he had with Christie that night. Of course, one cannot forget that the two are very familiar with each other, given all of the real estate and business deals that Trump has in New Jersey. That then leads us to the endorsement.

Christie never had a shot at the presidency in 2016 (maybe in 2012), but maybe again in 2024 if he can land on the ticket as the running mate to Trump. Christie could very well be playing the long game here, and that, to me, is the much larger story in play here. With his term ending soon and no other political prospects on the table, Christie may have made the biggest play yet. Of course, that pure endorsement is not truly all that helpful to Donald Trump for the abundance of reasons listed above, but the play for Christie is an interesting one to watch.

Cruz Off Into the Sunset?

The day before the GOP's Nevada Caucus, we have a brand new race (sort of). Of course, Donald Trump is sitting well-positioned to be the party's eventual nominee, and Marco Rubio is rapidly gaining momentum and endorsements to be the top challenger to Trump. That being said, where does that leave Ted Cruz? John Kasich is virtually a non-factor, outside of Michigan and Ohio, and Ben Carson does not even exist in this conversation. Does the TrustTED candidate live in the middle-ground no-man's land? Though the poll numbers have yet to catch up, Cruz is slowly slipping down the ladder and does not have much hope for climbing back up.

Let's peel both sides of this apart a little bit.

Addressing the negative of this argument, Cruz has already won a state, sits in second in the delegate race, and stands to win perhaps dozens more delegates in Texas. He has a substantial funding apparatus between cash-in-hand by the campaign and by Super PACs like 'Keep the Promise'. He's running second in total votes for thus far and even beat out Donald Trump in a national poll in mid-February (run by NBC/Wall St. Journal). This all reads like the making of a top contender for the GOP nomination. On paper, this isn't far from the truth. The Cruz campaign has accomplished some very significant things on paper.

But does this really feel like Ted Cruz is in power here? Arguably, not so much these days.

Cruz has slipped from fighting Trump for first to fighting Rubio for second, with Rubio on the quick ascent up the GOP food chain. Cruz only stands to win one more state in his broader pursuit to the nomination, has shown no signs of growth in his standing, continues to create enemies within the GOP, and has the lowest favorability ratings of the remaining top-tier GOP candidates.

Long story, short, Cruz is running out of capital and may have peaked in Iowa.

Cruz has had been embroiled in what seems to be scandal after scandal, whether it be the 'Voter Violation' notices, Carson campaign suspension rumors, or misleading videos about Marco Rubio. He has been at the center of one of the dirtier primary campaigns run in years, and that's turned so many moderate and independent voters off to him. That is the exact base that Cruz is going to have to appeal to in a general election, and is potentially the most untouchable base for him.

Going forward, as we saw in South Carolina, Cruz has capped in support and is blocked from
avenues to pull in support from other candidates' base. However, both Trump and Rubio have the capability to pull support from Cruz, whether it be the Tea Party base or Evangelicals. So, as Trump maintains his current levels and Rubio continues his 'Marcomentum', we come full-circle to Cruz's sustainability.

If Cruz continues to stay in the race, he will likely find himself running third in the delegate count behind Trump and Rubio by the end of March. This is certainly an unenviable position to find himself in after starting the race off with so much promise. So, to what end does Cruz even staying in the race serve at this point? Of the three top-tier candidates, he is the only one that lacks a meaningful path to the nomination.

Therein lies the rub.

Could the best thing for the GOP be for Cruz to suspend his campaign prior to Super Tuesday? This makes the race a true two-man race and could finally propel a candidate like Rubio over the top against Trump as the anti-Trump alternative. The Rubio camp needs to take a hard look at what it might take to lure Cruz out of the race. Obviously a long shot of epic proportions, but the GOP is otherwise stuck in a rut for the remainder of the primary season.

This rut leads to one of two conclusions: Trump winning the necessary amount of delegates or pushing the race into a brokered convention that best serves Marco Rubio. Regardless of the scenario, Ted Cruz isn't in it, and there is nothing he can do to change that fate at this point.

Of course, Cruz and his supporters value their role as the insurgency against the GOP establishment, and there is no certainty that a good portion of his supporters would even go to an establishment candidate. This then begs the bigger question. While Cruz's camp is hard-pressed to find a victorious scenario, who does his persistent presence in the primary truly benefit?

I believe there is great uncertainty in the fallout of a Cruz suspension, but both the Trump and Rubio campaigns ought to be thinking very hard about courting Ted Cruz, his potential endorsement, and his supporters.

As the dominoes continue to fall, the single greatest wildcard left in the race may actually be Ted Cruz's endurance for the remainder of the primary season. This viewpoint may be well unpopular at the moment, but the long-view shows no good prospects for Ted Cruz, and he simply is not in control of his own destiny.