Chris Christie's Senate appointment: Why his political future is on the line

With the death on Monday of New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg (D), Chris Christie, the state's Republican governor, now faces the incredibly difficult task of picking Lautenberg's successor.

At first glance, the sudden opening gives Christie a unique opportunity to reshape the state's Senate delegation. However, it could prove very problematic for him personally, since he'll be forced to balance his presidential ambitions with his looming re-election campaign.

The primary decision Christie faces is whom to appoint in a reliably blue state. New Jersey hasn't had a Republican senator since 1979, and President Obama clobbered Mitt Romney by a 17-point margin there in November.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

He could choose an inoffensive placeholder to keep the seat warm until a special election. That would placate voters at home — 69 percent of whom approve of his job performance — and keep him well-positioned to cruise to re-election in November. And if he decides to run for president in 2016, it could shore up his bipartisan bona fides.

However, that would risk further alienating national Republicans, who are already embittered by Christie's buddy-buddy photo-ops with President Obama. Republicans quietly fumed last year that Christie may have cost them a shot at the White House by effusively thanking the president for his handling of Hurricane Sandy.

Here's National Journal's Josh Kraushaar on that point:

Alternatively, Christie could thumb his nose at voters and install a staunch Republican, earning praise from conservatives ahead of 2016. However, that could easily spark a voter revolt that costs him political capital — or even his job.

Complicating the picture is the uncertainty over when a special election will be held. Two state statutes differ on whether Christie must schedule an election this November, next November, or somewhere in between.

This, Politico's Maggie Haberman and Ginger Gibson write, is Christie's real test.

"Barring a dud of an appointee or someone whom the media picks apart, the succession isn't likely to have much of an effect on Christie nationally," they say. "Unlike, say, David Paterson, whose defining act as New York's governor was appointing Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton, this is not Christie's one shot at national definition and fame. Impressions of him are already fairly fixed."

The state's top Democratic official has asked Christie to hold the election this November, the concern being that a Republican appointee, given more than a year to fundraise and appeal to voters, would have a better shot in 2014. In addition, some believe that Christie would do himself damage by scheduling a Senate race alongside his cakewalk of a re-election bid.

Here's Kraushaar again:

Still, there could be some upside for Christie to a 2013 vote. As The Washington Post's Sean Sullivan argues, "Running a GOP candidate alongside a popular Christie in 2013 might also represent Republicans' best chance at an unlikely win."

Christie must soon come up with an answer to each of those looming questions. In each case, he faces a difficult political equation with the potential to either boost or dim his own future.