Rick Perry and George W. Bush don't like each other

Salon ^ | Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 | By Alex Pareene

[CowboyJay]

People are underestimating Mitt. He's not a huge frontrunner nationally, but he is in the big coastal states where it counts.

Even with the establishment vote split 3 ways last year, Romney/McCain/Giuliani, Mittens ran very well in the north and east.

If Palin/Bachmann/Perry are splitting the anti-Romney vote, Mitt's going to run away with New England.

FL is not part of the southern voting bloc. The only thing that kept Mitt from landing FL last time was Giuliani peeling off 15% of the vote that would have gone to Mitt otherwise.

Then there's the West. The Mormon church has an outsized influence here, and Romney got 60% in a couple states in 2008. If Huntsman made a strong showing, he could peel off enough support to put a couple states in play for one of the non-Romneys, but he'll probably drop before the first primary votes are cast. If Palin's in, she will take AZ and be a dark horse in WY, ID, & MT. Bush and Rove picked fights with quite a few RSC members from this region. A Texas machine politician is not likely to pick up many endorsements. NM is probably the only Perry lean here.

Although the CA GOP leans libertarian, Mitt did well. Perry would be a tough sell. WA & OR are tough calls.

That leaves Mitt holding a solid 30% of the delegates. In a 2-way race, he'll need 40%. If Perry and Bachmann (or Palin) both stay in long enough, he might be able to carry the nomination with 35%.

For anyone to beat him, they'd need to carry nearly the entire South and Midwest. If Perry is in, he will carry the entire South plus OK. If Bachmann or Palin are in, they will carry the entire Midwest, with the possible exception of KS & NE which could go to Perry. In that scenario, it's pretty much impossible for any of the non-Romney candidates to win.

But what if Bachmann & Palin drop out and both endorse Romney? Won't matter. The great lakes states would revert to Romney leans and probably be enough to put him over the top. Bachmann might be the only candidate who can beat him there. Palin would have a puncher's chance with a Bachmann endorsement, but I'd be very surprised if Perry could get over 15% in any of those states.

Perry's only real chance is to surprise Romney on his own turf by taking NY/NJ like McCain did. Neither Bachmann nor Palin will pick up many votes there leaving the entire anti-Romney vote to the next most moderate candidate. The Giuliani connection could come in handy, and Perry has an outside shot if he can downplay his socon stances. That would really take the wind out of Romney's sails and deny him momentum going into the mid-atlantic states.

Anyway, that's how I see it playing out. Bachmann and Palin are not really a threat to each other. One of the two will get early momentum, and the other will drop before super tuesday. Perry can take the entire south, but unless he can pull off the upset in NY/NJ he'll need to do well in the great lakes, and I don't see that happening. With Perry out, either Bachmann or Palin could swing the entire south and midwest, with Bachmann having by far the easier path to the nomination.

2008 Primary Results

[presidio9]

You make some good points here, and I wish I had more time to adress what you are saying more thoroughly. I will try to come back to it later. In the mean time, I will remind you that the financial considerations of running a campaign necessitate that no more than three legitimate candidates will remain on "Super Tuesday" (February 7, 2012). Ron Paul will also still be in the race, but he is meaningless.

The five primaries and caucuses before then are:

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

It is my opinion that Sarah Palin will not enter the race, because she recognizes that her strong negatives will prevent her from winning the nomination, let alone the general election. If she does, she and Bachmann will fight it out for Iowa. Romney will will Nevada, and place second in most of the other states that he does not win. Perry will win Florida, and possibly SC. Bachmann & Palin will split each other's vote here and NH. If Perry lasts until Florida, a big "if" -Rudy failed at this game, he will go into Super Tuesday as the electoral front runner.

If Palin does not run, Bachmann & Perry will split the sizable anti-Mitt vote, but Perry's base will be larger than Bachmann's. No Palin may actually mean an earlier exit for Bachmann.

I've had this conversation with so many people on FR, that I forget if I've already told you this, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself: Of the candidates who are running, I think Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich would probably make the best presidents, but at this early stage it's not about that for me. I made that mistake four years ago, and we got a run-off between McCain, Huckabee & Romney. This time around, I am first looking at the candidate not named Romey who has the best chance of winning. Is Perry Ronald Reagan? Of course not, but he is not Romeny, and he is not Obama.

I personally believe that the only way Palin gets into this race is if she cuts a deal with Romeny as a spoiler. If she ends up in his cabinet, don't say I didn't tell you so.

If Marco Rubio keeps his word and refuses a VP nomination, I favor Bachmann, which would make her the frontrunner next time around.

[CowboyJay]

Thanks for the rational response. It's a rarity on FR during primary season.

Obama is hugely unpopular. The Dem base hates him nearly as bad as we do, and have been wishing every day for the past 2-1/2 years that they'd nominated Hillary. He'll raise plenty of money, but that's not going to do him a bit of good if the UE rate is still over 8% next fall. The dems are going to see a situation like the GOP did in 2008 with depressed turnout. Bachmann, Romney, possibly Perry, and in reality any reasonably articulate GOP candidate should have a walk-over. Palin would have an uphill battle, but I'm not entirely certain she couldn't unseat Obama.

Really, what I'm looking for is the most conservative candidate who has enough national appeal to secure the nomination. I believe that's Bachmann.

Perry's ties to Bush and Rove are downplayed by his most fervent supporters here, but those two groomed Perry and put him in the governor's office. The MSM will do everything in their power to turn 2012 into another referendum on Bush, which is exactly what put Obama in the WH, and Pelosi in the Speaker's chair back in 2008. Perry's a shape-shifter who swapped parties out of political expediency. He didn't start banking right until the last primary season when running against Bush became a popular strategy among GOP incumbents. He still probably would have been primaried out if he hadn't had the good fortune of being able to run against Kay Bailey Hutchinson. KBH gave him someone he could actually run to the right of. It didn't hurt that the person attacking from his other flank was a nut job, and that he had Palin's endorsement. Even if you overlook Perry's negatives (I can't), he's still very much a regional candidate. It's early, but generally speaking the primary polling north of the Mason-Dixon line does not look good for him.

Mitt needs the conservative votes and delegates split enough ways to leave him with the biggest piece of pie. Even better for Mitt if Perry jumps in and Palin endorses Perry, as Bachmann looks like the only one who's pulling votes directly from Romney.

I agree Palin's chances of being nominated are slim (probably less than her chances of winning the general election against Obama). She tried the Reagan tack of going over the heads of the press. Only problem is she's not Reagan. What she probably should have done is get in the early debates, and try and pull her negative numbers down. She didn't, and her poll numbers aren't great for someone who's been campaigning for 2-1/2 years. She's probably not going to run. And then there's Bristol's new reality-TV show. I don't think she'd have taken the gig if mom were running. Her best hope to have any real influence would be to back Perry and hope for a cabinet slot. Maybe a cabinet position under Romney if he takes Perry as VP, and she agrees to hold off attacking him in public. Of course, the heads of her supporters would absolutely explode.

I disagree that crazy uncle Ron is a non-factor. It's much worse than that. His chances of being nominated are somewhere between 'none' and 'not-gonna-happen', but he consistently splinters-off 5-10% in every state, making it even harder for a conservative to stitch enough votes together to beat off the RINOs. I think he's entertaining, and find myself in agreement with nearly all his economic views, but his 15 minutes are up. He needs to realize he's being used as a stooge and find better ways to use his cult following.

I don't see Bachmann as a VP pick. Not saying it's beneath her, just don't think she sees eye-to-eye with either the Romney or Perry camps. I'd think Pawlenty, Santorum or Giuliani will be the go-to guys if Perry gets the nod. If Romney wins, we're probably going to see a Romney/Perry ticket. Hard to say who Bachmann might pick. She wouldn't need any help in the midwest, or on domestic policy. Rubio would probably be her best bet politically, but you're saying he's committed to staying out of it. Somebody with a military or foreign-relations background would be nice, but who? I'd say Allen West, but two house reps on the same ticket is probably too much. Condi Rice would make a wonderful running-mate, but Condi's shown no appetite for involving herself in elections. I'd prefer John Bolton, but he'd probably rub too many people the wrong way.

If Perry jumps in, Iowa will be a 3-way dogfight. If he stays out, Bachmann will win by double digits. If Perry and Palin jump in, Mitt wins.

New Hampshire is pretty much a gimmee for Mitt. Open primary, and the democrats will vote early and often. Bachmann is a dark horse, but a Perry candidacy would put it out of reach.

Nevada is hard to explain to anyone from outside the West. A Mitt lean, but not as heavy as New Hampshire. Perry will have a hard time explaining his open-border stances. Bachmann's a Lutheran, but there's a chance she could out-Mormon Romney on family values.

South Carolina is weird to me, as is most of the Deep South. The damndest things will set off a southern temper, while they'll overlook things that would be hanging offenses out here in cattle country. No clue how Lindsey Graham stays in office there. Likely in the bag for Perry if he runs. If he doesn't, it's hard to call. Cain may do well here, and if the conservative vote gets split enough ways, Romney could surprise.

I think we disagree on Florida. It is a Mitt lean, although Bachmann is within striking distance. If both Perry and Bachmann are in, Perry will take the evangelical vote, Bachmann and Cain will split the fiscon vote, Paul will take the moonbat vote, and the sizeable country-clubber/snowbird vote will go Mitt's way. Perry could take Florida with a JEB Bush endorsement, but that would make him radioactive nearly everywhere else.

The rest of the primary season plays right into Mitt's hand. Perry and Bachmann will split middle America roughly along the boundaries of the old confederacy.

Odd you should bring up super tuesday. That is the day IMO when Perry would realize, as Huckabee did, how far he is from being a national contender. Mitt's probably going to bag 500+ delegates. Bachmann and Perry would roughly split the rest. Doesn't matter if Bachmann drops beforehand, because there are another 250 or so delegates that become likely Romney pickups in that scenario. Perry would have to take NY and NJ to stay relevant. If anything, he's probably less of a threat to Romney in those two states than Bachmann. Perry's only saving grace might be Giuliani and/or Christie swinging enough votes his way to matter. Pretty unlikely with he and Bachmann splitting the conservative vote.

After super-tuesday, both Bachmann and Perry will be running for 2nd, and I will be running for the head to vomit.

More evidence that Bachmann is the only candidate with enough of a national following to challenge Mitt for the nomination.

Without Palin, Bachmann wins in the West

Raleigh, N.C. – After a well received debate performance, Michele Bachmann has surged forward. Before the debate, Bachmann garnered 8% nationally; but she has more than doubled this level of support in the three states PPP has polled the primary since the debate. However, if Sarah Palin runs, this isn’t enough to claim the lead in Oregon. Mitt Romney takes the lead with 28%, followed by Bachmann with 18%, Palin with 16%, Ron Paul with 9%, Herman Cain with 8%, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty with 6%, and Jon Huntsman with 0% support. If Palin does not run, Bachmann is the clear choice of Palin’s supporters while Romney picks up an insignificant share. Bachmann leads with 29% to Romney’s 28%, Paul’s 10%, Gingrich’s 9%, Cain’s 7%, Pawlenty’s 6%, and Huntsman’s 2%. Bachmann’s strength lies in her appeal to very conservative voters who make up 44% of GOP voters in Oregon. If Palin runs, Bachmann wins very conservatives with 24% to Romney’s 22%. This margin is expanded to a 37-26 lead without Palin

Bachmann showing strong in the Pacific Northwest

[SharpRightTurn]

“Really, what I’m looking for is the most conservative candidate who has enough national appeal to secure the nomination. I believe that’s Bachmann.”

Amen.

[presidio9]

Nevada is hard to explain to anyone from outside the West. A Mitt lean, but not as heavy as New Hampshire. Perry will have a hard time explaining his open-border stances. Bachmann's a Lutheran, but there's a chance she could out-Mormon Romney on family values.

Again, I don't have much time for this, but I do know Nevada. I lived and worked in Arizona for a couple of years. Spent about 1/3 of my weekends in Vegas. Of course Romney will get the mormons outside of the big cities in Nevada. The rest of Nevada's Republicans can be shoehorned into three basic categories: Sympathetic to the defense industry, evangelicals, or leaning libertarians. Can't tell you which way the wind is blowing for the defense Republicans until the new budget is resolved and these four candidates get a chance to debate it. In person and on the stump. Assuming Palin and or Bachmann get the evangelicals, I'm guessing the lean libertarians don't care as much as you think about immigration (its more of a union issue in places like Nevada), and DO vote for Perry in a big way. Perry's campaign button is going to be a variation of "Perry: JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!"

The philosophical stance on immigration for libertarians is "keep the government out, get rid of entitlements, and let the chips fall where they may (no Vegas pun intended)."

[CowboyJay]

"I'm guessing the lean libertarians don't care as much as you think about immigration (its more of a union issue in places like Nevada), and DO vote for Perry in a big way."

Vegas is not the West. Vegas is Vegas. Politically, it's a piece of greater California, even moreso than Phoenix.

Illegal immigration is a top-3 issue to Conservatives across the West. I also have no clue why you think libertarians would find Rick Perry appealing. FDR dem, like Giuliani, without the appeal of being a social libertine. The big 'L' all-or-nothing libertarians will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, like they always do. Perry's record and political associations in TX scare the daylights out of the small 'l' ones.

The Texas job market isn't really all that hot when you start looking at the details. It can be boiled down to surging prices in energy and ag commodities, and costly corporate subsidies. Hiring had already started to tail-off after the first of the year. Their ag sector is falling off a cliff due to a severe drought. Texas' state finances are in worse shape proportionally than California. If Perry's entire campaign strategy is playing-up the Texas economy, he's skating on thin ice.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Texas' state finances are in worse shape proportionally than California.

Whatever it is that you are drinking or smoking to arrive at that delusional statement...I WANT SOME!

[CowboyJay]

Just for you:

"From 2001 to 2010, state debt alone grew from $13.4 billion to $37.8 billion, according to the Texas Bond Review Board. That's an increase of 281 percent. Over the same time, the national debt rose almost 234 percent, with two wars, two tax cuts and stimulus spending.
Texas state debt grew at a faster rate than the federal debt under Perry

Texas' public debt has more than doubled in the past decade, but people often say it's different from federal debt. Most of the money pays for facilities, roads and other infrastructure, not social programs.

Here's one exception: In November and December, the state's public finance authority sold $2 billion in bonds for unemployment benefits, and it's authorized to sell $1.5 billion more if necessary.
Texas' debt practices contradict Perry's rhetoric

There's also a fiscal time-bomb ticking in Texas due to book-cooking. Several billion in FY 2011 spending was hidden by delaying the payouts a day.

Even adjusted for inflation and population growth, Texas state spending grew a good deal faster under Perry than Bush. If you need more proof that Perry's all hat on fiscal issues, I could give you dozens more sources but I don't feel like wasting more of my morning. Perry = another borrow-and-spend poser.

I suggest you google: Texas budget crisis

[RVN Airplane Driver]

How about addressing your statement: Texas' state finances are in worse shape proportionally than California.

Don't change the subject...tell me how your statement has any element of credibility. Granted Texas isn't perfect but compared to California...come on...get real!

[CowboyJay]

Once again, just for you:

California state/local debt $13,386 per citizen

Texas state/local debt $13,637 per citizen

[RVN Airplane Driver]

You are grasping for straws.......those links tell nothing...about anything relevant. My advice is that you worry about your home state of Colorado...I do believe you have enough to keep you busy straightening out the folks there and we Texans will take care of our business. Fair enough?

[CowboyJay]

Those links paint a very clear picture. Texas has more public debt per-capita (not even counting the outsized portion of federal funds that go there) than California. What part of that can you not wrap your brain around?

Pointing out that I’m from Colorado may not help you. We passed TABOR (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) into law quite awhile ago, and have some of the strictest constitutional fiscal restraints in the country. Much less gov’t debt both per person and as a percentage of GDP than Texas. We have a slightly higher unemployment RATE than Texas, but a lower percentage of people actually on unemployment and public assistance. Our paychecks are quite a bit fatter on average as well.

I’ve got a deal for you. Keep your feckless, vote-buying, borrow-and-spend governors to yourselves. If you’re willing to do that, we Coloradoans will quit embarassing you by pointing out your politicians’ actual records, and your total ignorance on the subject.

The tooth fairy’s not real, and Perry’s not a fiscal conservative. IMO, he knows he made a mess, and he’s trying to get out before ya’ll catch on.

[presidio9]

Illegal immigration is a top-3 issue to Conservatives across the West. I also have no clue why you think libertarians would find Rick Perry appealing.

Again, the libertarian position on illegal immigration is that it takes care of itself with entitlement reform. The Conservative position on illegal immigration is that it is destroying the American culture, but Sin City stopped caring about that a long time ago. The top political issue in every state is going to be the economy. Nevada's economic health is the most closely tied to the nation's overall economic health. Nevada leans left on every social issue. That's what makes you think its part of California. But Nevada is down the line libertarian on economic issues. Pro-immigration is a social issue to the liberals, and an economic/small government issue to libertarians. Only Conservatives see it as a national security issue.

The Texas job market isn't really all that hot when you start looking at the details. It can be boiled down to surging prices in energy and ag commodities, and costly corporate subsidies. Hiring had already started to tail-off after the first of the year. Their ag sector is falling off a cliff due to a severe drought. Texas' state finances are in worse shape proportionally than California. If Perry's entire campaign strategy is playing-up the Texas economy, he's skating on thin ice.

This is exactly the strategy I would try, if I were campaigning for one of Perry's competitors, but you have to know it won't work. Perry's message of jobs growth accurate enough, and simple to understand. He will compare his gubernatorial record favorably to Romney's. He will accurately point out that Bachmann has no executive record. Palin's abrupt departure from the Alaska state house will hurt her with independent voters.

I am aware of your rebuttal points, but they are irrelevant. I've already pointed out candidates who I think would do a better job as president. That, too, is irrelevant. The conversation we are having here is about not getting stuck with Romney. Or, worse, Obama. I think we both agree that Bachmann is the loser if Palin enters the race, but that Palin has the worst shot of the four to win the general election. That brings us back to Perry and Romeny at the moment.