Posted on 09/17/2011 1:31:07 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Two weeks ago, it was Perry 44, Obama 41. Today, this. What happened? Oh … right.
Although…
Perry trails Obama by 15 percentage points among women and barely leads among men. Perry trails among voters under 40, runs even among 40-somethings and leads among those 50 and older. It’s worth remembering that most voters over 40 voted against Obama in 2008.
Perry currently attracts just 71% of the Republican vote, while the president wins 85% of Democrats. Among voters not affiliated with either party, the race is a toss-up.
His numbers among Republicans will soar if he’s the nominee, as they would for any other candidate in the field, but I’m not sure what to make of the fact that he leads O among the over-50 crowd. Like Ras says, that’s to be expected given Obama’s track record in 2008, but maybe it’s also anecdotal evidence that Social Security isn’t hurting Perry as badly as we think. Could be his numbers are down simply because his overall performance at the debates has been lackluster, especially given the high expectations that accompanied his “big hoss”/white knight persona when he jumped in. In fact, Rasmussen’s crosstabs reveal that Perry leads Obama 49/38 among voters aged 65 or over. In 2008, McCain won that demographic 53/45. Perry’s outperforming him — for the moment.
Another data point from Gallup. Note the line on independents:
(CHART AT LINK)
Worse than this, perhaps, is that pluralities of both Republicans (37 percent) and independents (40 percent) think Perry’s views on Social Security will hurt his election chances. That’s a potentially deadly liability, especially in a long primary race where electability may become more important the closer we get to the general campaign. If Romney and Perry are roughly even in delegates after two months and umpteen debates, undecideds may try to break the stalemate by looking to the most basic qualification of all — viability against Obama. And unless I’m missing something, there’s no obvious way for Perry to undo this perception that he’s less electable because of his Social Security views. Voters have heard for decades that it’s the “third rail of American politics”; they know Bush was routed when he tried to engage on privatization in 2005. Even if Perry comes up with his own reform plan — which may be in the works, as he’s now talking to Paul Ryan — the mere fact that this became a major issue early on may influence the public’s image of Perry going forward.
One more piece of bad news for Perryites:
The unemployment rate in Texas rose a bit in August to 8.5%, its highest rate since 1987.
That leaves the Lone Star State in the middle of the pack nationally, but it’s jobless rate remains below the national rate of 9.1%. The uptick, reported Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is worth noting since Texas Gov. Rick Perry has based his presidential campaign on his state’s ability to create jobs while much of the country is stuck in the economic doldrums.
Mr. Perry’s campaign blamed President Barack Obama. “Texas is not immune to the effects of the national recession,” Mr. Perry’s spokesman, Mark Miner, said in an email. “And even during this national economic downturn, which the president’s misguided policies have only worsened, Texas remains the nation’s top economy.”
That’s neat spin, but Texas’s economic record is the pillar holding his entire campaign up. If it starts to crack as the race wears on, his chances could collapse. Especially given the other electability concerns. Late poll tonight, just out as I write this: Perry 23, Romney 16, Gingrich 7, Bachmann 7.
Update: Yet another liability: Did Perry support TARP? The AP covered the letter [dated October 1, 2008 and co-signed by the RGA and DGA] with the headline, “Governors, Business Up Pressure for Bailout Bill.” It’s very hard to read otherwise.
“We strongly urge Congress to leave partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package,” they wrote. “It is time for Washington, D.C. to step up, be responsible, an do what’s in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy.”
Perry, later that day, released a statement that seemed aimed at countering the impression left by his letter without clarifying what he was calling for: “[G]overnment should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporate America. Congress needs to take off its partisan gloves and work together to bring both short and long term stability to the credit markets….”
Perry maintained in the 2010 primary that he hadn’t supported the bailout, something his spokesman Mark Miner reiterated to me today.
He opposed a “bail out” but publicly supported an “economic recovery package” on the day Congress passed TARP. Essentially, he punted.
Heh——not nice to say bad things about New England.
Time for some perspective here. Being within striking distance of a sitting President over a year away from the election is a good sign. It shows an incumbent President in serious trouble. The challenger always begins as the underdog.
The 4-point increase in the margin is just as likely statistical noise as it is a trend. Even if real, it is likely to be temporary. Rick Perry had a bad week with him on the defensive. He'll rebound.
Doing the math, this only adds up to 85%. That means there are 15% who are either going to vote for another candidate, or are undecided. Most undecideds, according to the pundits, go for the challenger. So, if only 12% of the undecideds go for Perry, he still wins.
Mortars? Roving bands of counter-revolutionaries? What countries have successfully driven the left out once they have achieved their take over? Nicaragua, for a decade, but then the Sandanista scum came crawling back. Argentina? Chile is probably the most successful. Perhaps we need a General Pinochet type of figure??
It does seem more and more obvious that some sort of poltical cleansing is needed.
They won’t vote for Obama if there is a serious-minded, credible right of center alternative. So far none of the Tea Party candidates seem to fit that bill. And there isn’t going to be a revolution. I would stop bashing all the so-called “established” (but just as conservative) candidates and get behind a sure winner as early as possible.
You don’t beat the first black President with someone from a religion that banned blacks from joining until about 30 years ago. IMO, a Republican Mormon has very little chance of ever becoming President because of all the exposes 20/20 and Dateline will run on the religion that will creep people out. From a personal standpoint, my beef with Romney and Huntsman is that I believe they are the two most liberal candidates running for the nomination. You can’t possibly tell me there is anything Reaganesque in the way either man carries themselves.
What do you mean by a Texas demeanor. It’s not exactly my style, either, but it’s hands down better than the East Coast arrogance and bluster of Chris Christie.
-—The Tea Party is only half of the Republican party and a third of the country (at most).
Your numbers are off, or perhaps you got them from the DNC.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
—Huntsman has absolutely nothing in common with McCain that are not hard core Republican positions.
Except that he likes to cr*p on the Tea Party because they have conservative ideas.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/jon-huntsman-anti-tea-party-candidate/39130/
You don’t become an ambassador to China without being a s(ckup. These are dangerous times, we don’t need an Obama false flag in our race.
Yeah, Romney is a closet liberal and old style Mormon. Huntsman is less strict religiously in addition to being the ONLY candidate running with both successful political and corporate experience who has done great things for the state of Utah and equally great things for America. He is the ONLY candidate that understands the challenges of International Trade, and even more importantly, he understands how to introduce low tax, high growth business friendly, job friendly policies.
People are going to vote for their jobs and lives - not whether a candidate walks like Reagan or was born into a different religion. At least make the case for a different candidate instead of bashing to death the most promising one already in the race.
How can he be a good general election candidate when the base hates him? How can he run against an administration that he was a part of? Why would a Marxist like Obama pick Huntsman for any position if he is supposedly such a good conservative?
The base hates Huntsman and could cause him to lose for whatever irrational emotional reason but it doesn’t have anything to do with him not being a fiscal conservative. There is no arguing with the record and plan which reads like a free market manifesto on every level.
Obama packed him off to China like you would a most feared rival that could potentially contest against you. If there was any ‘sucking up’, it was the president to his Ambassador challenger and the Ambassador to his country. Huntsman has made abundantly clear the failure he believes Obama has since become.
I think that is because they vote party first and issues second.
With all his boasting of creating so many jobs it was a fair comment. It wasn’t whiny, YOU are whiny. As for the border, perhaps if Perry did something about that border it wouldn’t be such a mess. To suggest that he can’t because others before him didn’t, doesn’t cut it. Someone needs to stand up and be the first to DO something and letting illegals know that if they come and manage to stick it out for 3 three years they can get in state tuition, doesn’t seem to be a big deterrent from even more illegals coming.
I agree. The field is looking dismal, AGAIN. Not because we have no good candidates, but because the good candidates honestly don't stand much of a chance winning the nomination. There's still time though so who knows what may happen. Look at 2008. A lot of us weren't going to vote for McCain, then he picked Sarah, but even that wasn't enough to get the dem light (business as usual) elected, which just goes to show that attaching Bachmann, Cain or Palin to another dem light might not be the best way to go.
From your link:
With help from the U.S. Census Bureau, we learned that about 635 people come to Texas every day, on average. A census official based that number on average daily net migration from other states (393) plus average daily net migration from other countries (242).
Ah yes, other countries. Too bad they don’t tell us how many of those are here illegally from across the southern border. (cough, cough)
Howard Dean even said that Huntsman is in the wrong party. The guy just comes off as arrogant and effeminate.
He is a very conservative Republican businessman with the best chance to beat Obama in the general. Howard Dean has his own agenda I’m sure. There is nothing in Huntsman’s record to indicate that he is a Democrat. In terms of their governing records, Jon Huntsman is more conservative than Romney ever thought of being. To me, Mitt is the phoniest man in politics and way more full of himself. But like I always say “A leftist that espoused fiscal conservative principles, cut taxes and unemployment down to historic lows, signed 3 pro-life bills into law, while in office is a leftist I would vote for.” :)
Constantly hating on someone like that is just stupid and self-defeating. I could care less how he comes off unless you have a more outstanding and electable candidate in the offing.
They need an alternative that isn’t actively demonizing them and scaring away even Independents or moderate Republicans. Obama is only a fallback candidate and could end up with a share of the vote anywhere from 30-60/70% depending on his opponent.
That's a good point. Spain drove them out but they crept back in under a "moderate" guise after the death of Franco, and then suddenly they were back in full flush with the loony Zapatero (who is basically responsible for driving Spain into the gutter).
That’s true. But it’s actually because they don’t think at all. They never really even consider the issues, they just vote Dem.
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.