Matt Yglesias (one of my favorite columnists) wrote a very well argued piece today about how Chris Christie might not be the saving grace (and only shot at) at the White House in 2016. Conventional wisdom and punditry holds that Christie, a well liked moderate, would be viable against Hillary and popular with independents and right-leaning Dems. He puts it this way: I think this analysis of Christie's electoral strength is far too pat and simplistic. It's after all simply not the case that in the past two presidential elections Republicans have erred by demanding candidates with unblemished records of orthodox conservatism. On the contrary, compared with their major rivals, both Mitt Romney and John McCain were the moderates in the field. But while both Romney and McCain had some major moments of moderation in their records, they didn't have any moderation in their platforms as presidential candidates. And I agree; a moderate candidate alone cannot save the GOP from what they've become. In November of 2016, Christie will still be carrying the banner with the elephant on it and everything that comes along with it.