Posted on 09/20/2011 10:11:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A good poll for Romney, a mediocre one for Perry, and pure devastation for Bachmann. She was at 13 percent in early August, shortly before Perry jumped in, and 10 percent in late August. Now she’s tied with Cain and Gingrich for fourth place, a good eight points behind, um, Ron Paul. Game over.
Perry is stronger among Republicans and independents who lean Republican, the voters who settle nominations. In a head-to-head race, 49% say they would vote for Perry, 39% for Romney…
In the poll, 44% say they definitely would not vote for Perry; 35% say that of Romney. Looked at another way, 62% say would either definitely vote for Romney or consider doing so; 53% say that of Perry.
Perry has increased his standing a bit, compared with results from Gallup’s daily poll in late August, but Romney has narrowed the gap between them. Then, Perry led Romney, 29%-17%. His 12-point margin is down to 7 points…
In the poll, 53% say they would prefer the nominee with the best chance of beating Obama; 43% say they want the candidate who agrees with them on almost all issues.
The boldface bit tells you why this is a good poll for Romney and only a mediocre one for Perry. (That plus the fact that Romney’s gained ground since last time, natch.) Head to head, Mitt leads Obama by two but Perry trails by five; the more numbers like that we see, the more Romney can capitalize on the majority of primary voters who are leaning towards electability in their desperation to oust Obama. The other takeaway from this, I think, is that Perry’s window to steamroll the rest of the field is now closed. If he had had two monster debate performances and widened his lead over Romney, you might see more big donors starting to shake loose and fall into his camp as the inevitable nominee. As it is, Palin must be watching his backsliding and Bachmann’s collapse and feeling more encouraged to run than ever. Still plenty of tea-party votes in play, and who knows how much of Perry’s support is owed not to his jobs record or any personal attribute but simply to him being a “true conservative” alternative to Romney. Palin, having a stronger brand, can pull some of those votes and make it a three-way race. Even if she falls short against Romney on electability grounds, by topping Perry she’d preserve her status as America’s most prominent tea-party pol.
One other point about electability. I’ve been meaning to post about this since last week but might as well toss it in here. How much do Democrats fear a Perry presidency? Maybe this much:
[G]iven these growing fears that Obama may lose in 2012 to any Republican with a pulse, maybe it’s time for Democrats to stop hoping that Perry will be the next Barry Goldwater. There’s admittedly not much they can do to shape the outcome of the presidential primaries, but they might wish to think twice before using their rapid-response teams to help Perry bury Romney.
One party operative close to these decisions told me there have been a “lot of conversations” about the dilemma, with some labor and environmental groups arguing for easing up on the anti-Romney message machine out of a belief that he would be the “lesser of two evils.”
Good thinking. If Obama is doomed, who would Democrats rather have in possession of the nuclear suitcase: the technocratic Romney, or the coyote-shooting Perry?
That’s practically a campaign ad for Perry in the primaries, not only according to “they’ll tell you who they fear” logic but as a knife in Romney’s electability argument. If Democrats are so desperately worried about The One losing to Perry in the general that they’d ease up on Romney to help him win the nomination, how unelectable can he be? Right, Perry ad team?
Here’s the sadly obligatory “Paul Gigot thinks Christie is still thinking about running” clip, which as far as I know is completely unsupported by any evidence that Christie really is thinking about running. In fact, in the entire course of the months-long “Christie for president” saga, I can’t recall a single syllable uttered by the man himself encouraging people to believe he might consider it. Ah well. The filing deadline to get on the ballot is next month, I believe, so this’ll all be over soon. Just a few more stories here and there to endure about Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan moping about the state of the field and then we can concentrate on the race as is.
Yes, I agree. I don’t really like Perry very much but this may be an image thing because of his “TV preacher hair.” He comes across as a little on the phony side, although I don’t really think he is.
Back in the 80s, Reagan also often struck me as a phony, although he was not. It was simply because of his actor’s voice and manner.
At that point, there were enough people who liked this image to vote for him and get him into office. I don’t know whether Perry has this crowd or not .
You never know what is going to appeal to voters. Obama keeps trying to find it, which is why his accent goes from whiney Chicago university adjunct to boyz in da hood in no time at all.
Perry needs a few cosmetic touches. He’s got to get his hair cut a little shorter, look a little more modern, and actually attack the Dems, presenting the image of small government in contrast to their ugly vision of the government sitting in your kitchen, your bedroom and your bank account.
I ain’t voting.
______________________________________________________
Granted, we have a paltry selection to run against Obama, but choosing any of these candidates, even Huntsman, would be better than not voting. If we are to survive as a country, he must go, and that means voting, for someone! If you stay home, you can never complain about 4 more years of our current POTUS. And you will wake up 4 years later to a country you won’t even recognize. You think he wants to “fundamentally change” our country? Just give him 4 more years and see what he does.
Not really.
I’ve held my nose and voted for sucky candidates...and they never win. Romney won’t win because he sure as heck doesn’t have any support among people who will actually go out and work for a candidate (at least here in Florida).
When I was sitting at the phone banks during the McCain candidacy, I begged people to go out and vote for McCain because it was our only chance, and in any case, he was elderly and Palin was his VP.
He’s still with us, still an Obama supporter, and Palin has flaked off.
For once, we have to find a candidate people don’t have to hold their noses to vote for...or not vote at all, which is exactly what I would do if Romney were the candidate.
It would be nice if we could replace Boehnor.
I still support Bachmann. Perry is a compromise candidate with a deal-breaker position on illegal immigration.
Well I am encouraged that Cain is polling as well as Bachmann. Would be nice to have just Cain with Bachmann throwing him her support.
Then it would be interesting to see what happens when Palin doesn’t announce.
I have almost no doubt that I will not be voting at this point.
The good-looking big-corporate men, Perry and Romney are what most Republicans are falling for.
Either one of them will allow the Feral government to grow and grow and grow... only a little bit slower than Obammy did.
Government-mandated this, government required that, that’s all I see coming from them.
They are no more conservative than a Blue-dog democrat.
Getting all kissy-huggy with mooslimbs, allowing the sodomite agenda to quietly keep developing more power, forgetting to get the government off the backs of small business, it will be infuriating politics as usual, even if Repubs take over both Houses. Because the President won’t be as conservative as the Congress. And Dems and liberals and commies know this, which is why they want those guys in office. They can still rile up the far-left base, because the guy has an R by his name, calling them fascists, etc. But, all the while, in truth, it’s “let’s make a deal” in all the backrooms - or coffee shops - of washington.
COMPLETELY DISGUSTING.
The small business owner can go __________ I guess.
That’s nice, thanks Perry and Romney. Thanks Republican county committees. Thanks for doing the “sensible” thing and selected a good looking guy with nice hair who is “electable”. I’m sure they’ll stand real strong on principle when it counts. When Europe goes bankrupt, when some “other military power” starts throwing their weight around in a bigger way. Keep makin’ deals. Nice...
Maybe we should nominate Sam Malone. Can we convince him to be a Republican ?
In theory, healthcare costs shouldn't go up because of Gardasil if it eliminates the far more expensive need for cancer treatments. Premiums would go up regardless. Prevention savings don't seem to be realized when it comes to premiums. There's always a new excuse found for needing more money.
Complicating the picture is that not every case of HPV caught results in a cancer case, let alone a death. Remember how syphilis used to be such a frightening venereal disease because there was no way to combat the bacteria — then penicillin put a screeching halt to that problem? Why did HPV related cancer seize the limelight as a venereal disease of concern only after Gardasil and similar products saw the light of day?
I’d say better to permit insurers to give a discount to women who have had an HPV immunization at their own cost.
Is Romney better, even in claimed principle, on the immigration and national sovereignty issue than is Perry? That’s the chief way that Bachmann outshines Perry.
I think Bachmann will support Romney, although it’s really a pity. I saw her speak once and she was great, but apparently she hired a consultant who told her all the wrong things. That said, she should have had enough vision on her own to tell the consultant to go jump in a lake.
One thing I didn’t like about her was that I felt she (like Palin) was waiting for “permission,” although I wasn’t very clear on where this permission was going to come from. When I saw her speak in DC, she had great ideas and seemed to be speaking from what she knew. But more and more, she’s turned into a “candidate,” but since she never had her own program very clear, exactly what she was running on got a little blurry and obviously lost the public interest.
That said, Romney has bunches of bucks and he can buy this election. Perry has some monied backers, but I think people like Palin, Cain and Bachmann have none, and there was probably little chance that they would emerge as candidates.
Will be much more comfortable when the third tier candidates start dropping out if their votes do not go to Romney.
There’s third-tier then there’s third-tier. Bachmann’s votes will most likely go to Romney (except those who just cannot get over the Gardisil affair). So will Cain’s, Newt’s and Santorum’s. That’s probably around 10% all put together. Huntsman and the fool from Michigan together have probably less than 2% which will go to Romney.
I meant Bachmann’s and the others will most likely go to Perry.
Would you be better of today under McCain/Palin? I don’t know the answer to that.
Apparently many libs, including my step-daughter, have got it in their heads that southern, non-Mormon Pubbies won’t vote for Romney (against Obama) because he’s a Mormon. Now, I’m not a Romney fan, but if it comes down to Romney or Obama, there is no choice. I would assume most southern Pubbies feel the same.
Romney is not my favorite either, but if it comes down to Romney or Obama there is no choice. Sometimes life is not about making the best choice but the least worst choice.
Romney is by far our best bet in 2012
Perry is a less likable, less restrained, less intelligent GWB, plus all the NWO bs.
Romney's nomination would permanently destroy the Republican Party for all of the foregoing reasons since his nomination would signal GOP capitulation on all of the foregoing issues which are far more important than whatever pittance of issues on which he MIGHT be neutral or verrrrry mildly positive. The conservative movement has come a very great distance, too much of one to sit still for an elitist quisling like Mittens.
BTW, I have not chosen a candidate but I absolutely know that my candidate will NOT be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or John Huntsman. I don't have to vote until March, 2012 in a primary and I can take my time on the rest.
#38 was directed to you. I pinged the others for their info.
Are you freakin' serious?
He's a closet liberal. He's a gun-grabber who supports socialized healthcare. And those are only two of his flaws.
Romney and Paul are the two liberals in the field and Huntsman comes close.
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.