A Quote by Chris Christie

Remember, at the end of the day [election] campaigns are always about the candidates. — © Chris Christie
Remember, at the end of the day [election] campaigns are always about the candidates.
If there were two candidates, a Democrat and a Republican, who each committed to the same kind of fundamental reform, then the election would be an election between the vice presidential candidates. It'd be just like the regular election, except it would be one step down.
Election campaigns always have to have colour and excitement and interest. People want to know about the details of politicians, what they like doing in their spare time, about their families. I think that's human.
Favorite-son candidates almost always win their states decisively in presidential elections. But their status as national celebrities can end up breeding fatigue and resentment among home-state voters when the election is over.
There is a lightning quickness to the speed at which candidates can build and accidentally dismantle their own campaigns. If candidates don't figure out their place in the new digital world of politics, they will be destroyed by it.
Ultimately, presidential campaigns are - or at least should be - about the candidates, not their spouses or surrogates.
I worked for a lot of candidates, in tough campaigns that lost. Most of my candidates lost until Bill Clinton. There was always a point where you look in their eyes and they knew it was over. And there was never that point with Clinton. He never quit. He never gave up.
Our [Republicans'] object is to avoid having stupid candidates who can't win general elections, who are undisciplined, can't raise money, aren't putting together the support necessary to win a general election campaign, because this money is too difficult to raise to be spending it on behalf of candidates who have little chance of winning in a general election.
During the election in 1989, there was the first Soviet election with alternative candidates to local government. I myself arranged special training for them.
Here's what I know about political campaigns: no matter what you map out at the beginning, it's always different at the end.
The main influence on voters should be a series of robust debates among the candidates. It's a free country, so this is a tough problem to solve, but I'd love to see an election season with zero political ads, and all voters had to decide based on watching four national debates over the two months leading to election day.
Journalism is one of the devices whereby industrial autocracy keeps its control over political democracy; it is the day-by-day, between-elections propaganda, whereby the minds of the people are kept in a state of acquiescence, so that when the crisis of an election comes, they go to the polls and cast their ballots for either one of the two candidates of their exploiters.
Election campaigns seem to siphon away political anger and even basic political intelligence into this great vaudeville, after which we all end up in exactly the same place.
There is a route to the presidency in this country, and it's called the Electoral College, and both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote. And in that pursuit, Donald Trump won in a landslide or near landslide. And in that pursuit, Barack Obama and his agenda was repudiated. And not just this year. In the 2010 midterms, the 2014 midterms, and this election.
As I have done in every election since I started voting so many years ago, I always like to take my time and examine the two candidates, see not only the two candidates but the policies they will bring in, the people they will bring in, who they might appoint to the Supreme Court, and look at the whole range of issues before making a decision.
I remember a case where I was associate attorney general where 720 dead people voted in Chicago in the 1982 election. I remember in my own election about 60 dead people voted. So I can't sit here and tell you that they don't cheat.
It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected, possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for despotism.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!