To be fair, nothing that Chris Christie is saying is wrong, except that he’s acting like his election was due to revolutionary campaigning when he had the backing of Obama and the media… and was running against a non-candidate.
A non-candidate he outspent 10 to 1 in order to buy himself this landslide and the status of most electable candidate.
“If you want to triple your African American vote you need to show up. You need to go to those neighborhoods. You need to campaign in those places. I’ll give you a perfect example, Chris. I did a town hall meeting in the city of Irvington, New Jersey in Essex County. I got 4.7% of the vote there in 2009. There were more people in the church than voted for me in 2009. That’s the way the Republican Party will make themselves more relevant to a much broader group of folks. And the fact is that is exactly what Ronald Reagan would have done.”
Reagan would have done that. But Reagan also appealed to the base, something Christie doesn’t bother with. That makes Christie more Huntsman than Reagan.
Christie says that he tripled the black vote. But he neglects to mention that he went from 9 percent to 21 percent. That’s not technically tripling. It’s more like doubling. Still impressive, though hardly that much of a blowout. Nobody thinks he would have even gotten that going up against Cory Booker. Or if he had been running on the same ticket at Lonegan.
But if the GOP is in the market for a Liberal Republican who can break the 20 percent mark on the Black vote… while running against a Black candidate… they can look toward…
… New York City Mayor Bloomberg who scored 23% of the black vote in 2009 while running against a black opponent. He also got 43 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Christie isn’t doing as well with black women as black men and based on the exit polls, they appear to be the ones who actually vote.
If Christie wants to brag about something a bit more relevant, he won the Hispanic vote 51 to 45. That’s not something Rubio ever managed with the non-Cuban vote.
On the other hand, Christie somehow managed to lose voters 18-29 to a boring political establishment hack who hardly ran any ads and wasn’t even a serious candidate.
But let’s not pretend that 2013 was a real test of Christie’s capabilities. This was a non-race.
Going back to 2009, Christie had fairly typical successful Republican numbers among minorities. He won 9 percent of the black vote and 32 percent of the Hispanic vote. He won 45 percent of the female vote and 56 percent of the white female vote.
By 2010, his numbers were terrible and his approval rating was at 33 percent. Obama and Sandy were major gamechangers for Christie. How will those translate after a second term in a national election when the media hates his guts and his opponent is running on her gender?