Why Chris Christie may be doing the *one* thing he said he would never do

On primary math.

(Chris Christie and Donald Trump)

My operating assumption — as I have written in this space many times before — is that Donald Trump is on a glide path to be the Republican presidential nominee.

I still believe that.

But, if you want to believe that the possibility exists that Trump won’t be the nominee, the only path to that happening is that someone other than the former president wins either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.

There’s simply NO evidence that a clear frontrunner nationally who secures wins in those first two voting states can be stopped — in South Carolina or anywhere else.

Which brings us to the state of play in those two states — and a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to where Trump is comparatively weaker.

In Iowa, Trump’s average lead — according to Real Clear Politics — is more than 30 points. His leading rival in the state appears to be Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who clocks in, usually in the mid-teens in polling, but whose broader campaign seems to be, in a word, lost.

In New Hampshire, Trump’s average lead is slightly smaller — 28 points — and his main rival is former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who, all things considered, appears to be on the upswing nationally.

So, in sum, if you are picking where Trump is more vulnerable (although he is not terribly vulnerable in either one), I think the smart choice is New Hampshire.

To that end, there’s a new poll out in the Granite State today that — unintentionally — poses a VERY interesting theoretical question about the race.

First, the results — via CNN and the University of New Hampshire:

Donald Trump 42%

Nikki Haley 20%

Chris Christie 14%

Ron DeSantis 9%

Vivek Ramaswamy 8%

Do you see it yet?

Yes, obviously, Trump is doubling up the rest of the field. And, yes, Haley is clearly the momentum candidate of the non-Trumpers — up 8 points in the state since the last CNN/UNH poll in September.

But, to me, the REAL story is sitting in 3rd place. Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, is getting 14% of the vote.

Which, on one level is not surprising. Christie has centered his entire campaign on New Hampshire, believing that the makeup of the GOP electorate — more moderate Republicans, more independents — might give him a fighting chance.

He has also not been shy about the fact that the sole reason he is in the race is to keep Trump from the nomination. In announcing his campaign, which he did in New Hampshire, Christie went right after Trump.

As the New York Times reported at the time:

[Christie] called [Trump] “a bitter, angry man,” said his record in office was a failure and, in an unusually personal attack, accused Mr. Trump and family members of profiting off the presidency, referring to an investment from the Saudi crown prince.

“The grift from this family is breathtaking,” Mr. Christie said. “It’s breathtaking. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Kushner walk out of the White House and months later get $2 billion from the Saudis?”

“That’s your money he stole,” he continued, adding, “That makes us a banana republic.”

Christie hasn’t diverged from that message. To hear him tell it, Trump represents an existential threat to the party (and the country). And no one except him in the Republican field gets that — or is talking about it regularly.

Now, back to the poll. Because of Christie’s outspoken anti-Trump stance, I think it’s safe to say that very, very few of the 14% of New Hampshire voters who are currently with him would migrate to Trump if Christie decided to get out of the race. The VAST majority would, in fact, go to the most viable anti-Trump (or at least Trump alternative) in the race, which is quite clearly Haley.

Let’s for the sake of argument, re-allocate 75% of Christie’s current support in the CNN/UNH poll to Haley. That would make the top two look like this:

Trump 42%

Haley 31%

Which is a hell of a lot more of a race than we have right now!

And, just because, if we allocate all of Christie’s vote share to Haley, we get this:

Trump 42%

Haley 34%

Which is really something!

(Sidebar: For the moment, I am not considering what New Hampshire would look like without DeSantis or Ramaswamy on the ballot. But, obviously, it would be good for Trump.)

That math raises an interesting question: If Christie is REALLY committed to beating Trump (and not just running a vanity campaign to get more attention and maximize his earning power), wouldn’t he look at the CNN poll and realize it was time for him to get out of the race?

Well, for that to happen it would take a major recalculation — rhetorically and otherwise — by Christie.

Here’s what he told the New York Times in mid-September:

“I can’t see myself leaving the race under any circumstances before New Hampshire. If I don’t do well in New Hampshire, then I’ll leave.”

Which seems pretty definitive!

Now. Before we go too far down this road, it’s worth noting that we are talking about one poll here. And this poll shows both Haley and Christie with more support in New Hampshire than their averages so far in the state.

But, the trend lines do seem clear. Unlike in virtually any other state on the early slate, there does seem to be a not-insignificant chunk of New Hampshire voters who are ready to vote for someone other than Trump.

Split that vote up between two candidates — as Christie would assuredly do if he stays in the race all the way through New Hampshire — and Trump wins. Unite that vote and, well, now we have a little bit more of a race.

Christie himself, in a trip to New Hampshire this fall, correctly set the stakes for the coming primary vote.

“The future of this country is going to be determined here,” he said. “If Donald Trump wins here, he will be our nominee. Everything that happens after that is going to be on our party and on our country. It’s up to you.”

That’s right. But what Christie decides about his candidacy in the next few months could well be the most important moment of the race — in New Hampshire and nationally.