Posted on 09/29/2011 7:44:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Although Rick Perry currently remains in the lead in the RCP average for the GOP nomination, Nate Silver* is far from the only person noting that the prime beneficiary of Perry’s current slump is Herman Cain, not Mitt Romney. It appears the political discussion will continue to move back to a Romney vs Not Romney theme, although Silver adds the appropriate caveats:
Mr. Romney has emerged — or re-emerged — as the favorite; I’d give him roughly even odds of winning the nomination. But it’s unlikely to be a smooth and linear path, and the alternate hypothesis that Republican voters are determined to pick someone more conservative than him has some support in this data.
That’s not to paper over the problems of Mr. Perry, who entered the race in a strong strategic position and has failed to make much of it. It’s possible, moreover, that the fallout of the Sept. 22 debate is not yet fully realized in the surveys; Mr. Perry performed somewhat worse in the Fox News and YouGov polls than in the CNN poll, which postdated it by a couple of days.
In general, however, I’d caution against using terms like “momentum” when discussing the nomination race (or polling results under most other circumstances). We’ll be publishing a separate article on this shortly, but there’s not much evidence of serial correlation in polling data: candidates who decline from one period to the next are just as likely to rebound as to see their numbers continue falling.
That finding does not surprise me. As I noted previously, if Romney re-emerges as front-runner, there will be a renewed focus by his rivals and the media on Romney’s weaknesses as a candidate. Moreover, if Cain competes seriously with Perry in the Not Romney category, Cain also will get more scrutiny.
Herman Cain certainly has assets as a candidate. For starters, he’s well-liked (including by me, fwiw), although Gallup has a caveat:
Herman Cain’s image among Republicans familiar with him is more intensely positive than any other Republican presidential candidate’s, but his 51% name recognition continues to rank near the bottom of the field. Among the better-known candidates, Rick Perry has the strongest positive image.
The WSJ’s Daniel Henninger recounts Cain’s success in the business world and long-standing opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare system — noting Cain’s record in both respects compares favorably with that of Mitt Romney. However, Henninger goes further, musing:
Does a résumé like Herman Cain’s add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we’ve fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I’m rewriting my presidential-selection software.
However, the question is whether Cain can convince the electorate to do the same. Henninger’s reasoning seems flawed, even by its own standards. Having noted the lack of serial correlation in public opinion polling, theorizing that polls drive candidate selection is like arguing that thermometers cause fevers. As for slips of the tongue, Henninger seems to have missed that Cain has made his share, notably in foreign policy. Cain first tried to punt on foreign policy in general; since then, he’s given bad answers or made gaffes on Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program, and Taiwan, for starters. Although the 2012 election is unlikely to turn on foreign policy, voters probably would like more reassurance on that front — and the establishment media would undoubtedly play up this weakness in a matchup with Obama. Cain has also apologized to Muslims for comments about their faith. Muslims are a small voting bloc and likely not influential in the GOP primary process, but here again the media would play this sort of material big (much as some elements of the media have been doing with Perry).
Cain also tends to make comments that do not really rise to the level of a gaffe, but raise questions about his strength as a candidate. For example, Cain’s comment that he could not support Perry as the nominee may suggest that he does not understand the Romney vs Not Romney dynamic. If you are Not Romney, you should be trying to consolidate that bloc by going after Romney, not attacking other Not Romneys, whose supporters you want to attract. Tim Pawlenty decided to spend his time attacking Michelle Bachmann instead of Romney; it did not end well for him. Similarly, while many on the right like to point to Cain’s popularity as a rebuttal to the left’s tired resort to the race card, Cain’s comment that “African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view” (and others like this) may ultimately be counter-productive. First, some African-Americans may bristle at that sort of comment and harden their positions, undermining Cain’s appeal. Second, any minute spent in 2012 discussing race is a minute not spent our sluggish economic growth, high unemployment, exploding debt, rising health insurance costs and lost insurance coverage under Obamacare, and so on.
One major reason why parties tend to nominate people who have been governors or senators, as opposed to House members or people who have not held elective office, is that they have demonstrated at minimum a history of not imploding under the pressure of a large-scale campaign. Recent examples of pure businessmen running for president — Perot, Trump — underscore this point. Herman Cain has undeniable assets, but also undeniable liabilities. He may get his chance to unify the Not Romney bloc in the GOP caucuses and primaries; whether he can capitalize on that chance remains to be seen.
*Although Silver is keying off the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, I’ll continue to be the contrarian here. Perry takes a much bigger hit in Florida polls from PPP and Survey USA, which is in line with what “Perry’s eggheads” would say about the importance of local coverage; Perry’s smaller fall outside Florida suggests that his problem is larger than the debates themselves.
headline= Well, duh, that is the point of a primary
I am happy to have that conversation. Cains’ ideas v Perrys’ stammering? Sounds like a great discussion.
“I am happy to have that conversation. Cains’ ideas v Perrys’ stammering? Sounds like a great discussion.”
How about Cain’s INTELLIGENCE versus Perry’s IDIOCY.
All I can say is Cain’s comment that he would not have a muslim in his cabinet that the media thinks was so damaging to him was a big hit with me. I would not have a muslim in my cabinet either, if I were president. The tenets of Islam are incompatible with our Constitution and freedoms.
On foreign policy, what I am looking for is not knowledge of all foreign policy situations in the world but whether his judgment and instincts are in tune with the traditions of the American people, and what experts he would look to for advice. You can’t always predict where a foreign policy crisis will erupt.
If he picked John Bolton as a foreign policy advisor, that would be a smart move.
Who in the heck is Karl?
I don’t have a crystal ball, but put me on the record for saying that Perry has been treated more harshly than any candidate including Obama.
He really ****ed up in the last debate, but his track record on issues stands.
Well sure but I was trying to be nice.
I’ll take Cain over Perry and day of the week, especially November 6, 2012.
Bring it.
RE: he would not have a muslim in his cabinet that the media thinks was so damaging
HUH? Damaging? Did I miss the news or something?
RE: Bring it.
I’d like a realistic scoring of:
1) His 9-9-9 plan.
2) His so-called Chilean Model to reform Social Security (which he hasn’t detailed much yet).
Perry aside, do you really think that this kind of talk will fly when Obama uses it in a campaign commercial before the general election?
Herman Cain: Mitt Romney Can’t Win Because He’s A Mormon (VIDEO)
Obama: "My America is not the America where somebody is disqualified for the Presidency because of his religion or because of the color of his skin."
Perry might stammer but Herman Cain has a severe case of "Foot in Mouth Disease".
“Well sure but I was trying to be nice.”
Understand, but I’ve had 10 years of hell under this claude, I’m through being nice.
I think the question is less whether Cain can compete seriously with Perry than whether Perry can compete seriously...period.
PS: Romney loves you so much, for now.
Oh, I forgot this:
======================================
======================================
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.
America is not ready for a Mormon President.
That is why I say, “bring it”. I want to find out all I can about potential candidates before I make a decision.
I’m intrigued by his 9-9-9 plan, but I think it will be a hard sell to the average voter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.