Six reasons why a Mitch Daniels-Chris Christie ticket works in 2012

Ryan Streeter

Chris Christie won rounds of praise for his speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday. Quintessential Christie, he talked tough on unions and the left, spoke frankly about entitlement reform, and threatened once again to “commit suicide” to prove how serious he is about not running for President in 2012.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has also been the subject of wide praise since his speech last Friday at CPAC. George Will (who introduced Daniels at the event and has lauded him in the past) highlights in his column today the originality and clarity in Daniels’ ideas and language.

Both of these speeches have gotten significant national coverage that has reflected well on both men.

So now seems the time to say out loud what some portion of observers have to be thinking: why not a Daniels-Christie ticket in 2012?

Christie has been about as direct as he can be about not seeking the nomination himself. He’s not exactly a dissembler, so we should take him at his word. But this doesn’t mean he couldn’t join the ticket as the VP candidate. He'd get to continue governing for awhile and would only have to join the campagin a couple months before the election.

Daniels has yet to declare his intentions and has said we should all know at some point in the spring.

So let’s reflect on this for a minute:

The anti-Obama/Biden ticket. Daniels and Christie are about as anti-Obama/Biden as they come - in every way. They are governors who have shown they connect well with voters, while the President and Vice President are deliberative senatorial types. Their combined appearance – Daniels at 5’7” and Christie in all his rotundity – would be a dream for late-night comedy, but if there’s a time to test the hypothesis that voters really only want the telegenic candidate, it is now. The Daniels/Christie unconventionality on this front could  end up as an asset. More substantively, they are 180 degree opposites of Obama/Biden on fiscal discipline. Some will try to remind voters that Daniels was at the OMB helm when “Bush-the-spender” was in the White House, but those critiques have already fallen short in light of his record as Governor.

Independent appeal. Even if the economy ticks up before 2012, the public – and especially independents – will be looking for disciplined cost-cutters they can trust. In poll after poll, independents tend to side with Republicans on fiscal discipline issues. This will still be on people’s minds in 2012. Both Daniels and Christie speak devoid of ideological jargon, choosing instead (imagine!) to use their own phrases and turns of art. This will also matter when reaching out to the middle.

Reform versus interests. Both Daniels and Christie have earned reputations as tough reformers, unafraid of unionized interests and utterly intolerant of the excuses that state-protected entities put forward to defend themselves. Daniels does this in a way that’s less strident, to use George Will’s term, than Christie, but his record (and there’s more to observe than Christie’s) is as tough as they come. Obama and Biden are not reformers. That’s become clear to most level-headed voters. And America wants reform.

Middle American appeal. Daniels and Christie could win the states between the coasts as well as any potential GOP combo out there. Obama may be from Chicago, but that’s not the Midwest like Indianapolis is. And New Jersey may be the northeast, but it’s not coated with the coastal elitism that’s more at home in Delaware (remember how Biden spent all that time in 2008 talking about how he was from Scranton despite the fact that he had represented Delaware since 1973?). Miles of Harley rides, hundreds of diner lunches, and many overnights in people’s homes have made Daniels a “man of the people” in his own state, and once his name recognition rises nationally, that same appeal will likely hold throughout middle America (though I can't see him continuing the practice of staying in people's homes....but who knows?). He and Christie would be as “regular guy” as you can get in the GOP field, with the exception of Tim Pawlenty.

Solid debaters. I don’t have just the official debates in mind, though both men would both perform very well in them. I’m thinking more of the ongoing public debate during the campaign: what you say in town hall meetings, what you say when the cameras are trailing you, how you stay out ahead of your opponent in the 24/7 news cycle. Daniels has proven himself very adept at providing on-the-spot rebuttals to charges that get thrown his way or when he meets an upset constituent. People who think Obama would out-class Daniels in the public arena haven’t watched enough Daniels.  And I’d put my money on Christie over the gaff-prone Biden any day.

Beyond Reagan. Neither Daniels nor Christie seems especially eager to prove he’s the most like Reagan. Daniels worked for the 40^th president and has nothing but the highest regard and affection for him. But he, like Christie, knows that voters want to look beyond past greatness to future possibility. They are very Reaganesque in their views on many if not most things, but they are fundamentally problem-solvers, applying lofty ideals to the gritty pavement of today’s problems.

The downsides to a Daniels/Christie ticket would be two-fold, in my view. First, social conservatives would be wary. Daniels’ truce comments have made them uptight, and it will be the presidential candidate who matters most on this front. Christie, for his part, has been bolder on these issues than he gets credit for (being the first pro-life governor in NJ since Roe v. Wade says something, and he's been quite public about his pro-life views), but his leadership is really in other areas. So the social cons would feel like they have an uphill climb (I personally think they are both fully capable of keeping any promise they would make to social conservative groups, but those discussions would need to TLC to work out right).

Second, the flipside of their originality simply means they will say things that at times “make news” and get in the way of campaign objectives. Daniels’ truce comments are a case in point, and Christie’s “suicide” comments yesterday, for example, will surely provoke charges of insensitivity.

But the upsides far outweigh the downsides in my view.

So who’s on board with Daniels/Christie in 2012? Who thinks it a bad combo and why?

Comments

[Marcus]

I'm in love with Daniels/Christie, but the big drawback is the social conservatism, or lack thereof. I think Daniels will have to start courting social cons and fast. Which I doubt he will, given he doesn't pander like Romney et al do.

[Right On]

It's not a bad combo, but Daniels would risk being overshadowed by his VP pick (he'd look small in appearance and personality) and would like have have a lot of people wishing for a ticket reversal!

Daniels (if he won the nomination) would have to secure the base and that would point to the likes of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback.