Posted on 08/29/2011 10:24:14 AM PDT by AAABEST
Until a few weeks ago, the race for the Republican presidential nomination seemed wide open. There was a presumptive front-runner, Mitt Romney, but he held first place mostly because he was a familiar face; his support among Republican voters appeared broad but not deep.
Many conservatives at the party's core weren't happy with Romney, and a line of would-be champions has auditioned for their support, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. But none of them succeeded in knocking Romney off his perch.
Until now. Only two weeks after entering the race, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has abruptly leapt to the top of nationwide polls.
First, the polls. Last week the Gallup Poll showed Perry leading the field with support from 29% of Republican voters, with Romney at 17% and Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 13%. (Other surveys came up with similar results.) Perry's 29% was a stronger showing than Romney had enjoyed in most polls all year.
Though Perry is running strongest among conservatives, who make up a big majority of the GOP electorate, he has attracted a wider range of Republicans as well: high income and low income, college educated and blue collar, Northern and Southern. Some of Perry's support came from former Bachmann voters, but much of it came from voters who once preferred Romney — an ominous finding for the former front-runner, who still has a slight edge among moderates in the party.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Would a Perry/Romney or Romney/Perry ticket work? I have no way to know but if Perry were to choose a RINOesque balance to the ticket, I hope it doesn’t work out like when eight years of Reaganism were largely watered down by Bush 41.
Just as Reagan chose Bush to unify the party and make sure they were on the same page in beating Carter, i would not have a cow if a Perry/Palin/Bachmann chose somebody like Romney as a Veep to get the “establishment” RINOs on board. Beating Obama has to be the primary goal.
We can infer that conclusion from available data. Both have top tier fundraising abilities, so their abilities to remain in the race is sound.
Perry is in his fourth term as governor of a state that's red, but has significant blue factions. He's 61 and never lost an election, ever. His ability to win over red states and purple states is pretty much a foregone conclusion. His jobs messages is simple, and will resonate in 2012.
Romney was governor of a very, very blue state, but he's not going to carry any blue states in the general. It's not really clear he has much of an appeal to purple states, and there's no measurable fervor for him among the red base. He has business experience, which is important, but a lot of it is as a corporate raider.
Perry and Romney both have their faults, but comparatively, RomneyCare is an order of magnitude worse than the TTC. There's really no comparison between the two on abortion, guns, global warming hysteria or a lot of other basic issues. There's just no meat to a Romney candidacy, other than his 'business' appeal, and that is negated by the business killing ObamneyCare record.
If there is an advantage that Romney has over Perry, I have a hard time discerning what that might be.
Romney is like Al Gore without the charisma.
When Perry threw his hat in, I figureed that was the end of Romney. He beats Romney at every “Romney Strength”. And I don’t believe anyone talks about “PerryCare”.
You said it well, and it sums up how I feel about this. Also, I remember an article about how Perry is running his election. IIRC, he’s got a grip on the social networking stuff that sort of trumps the costly stuff. I remember something about shunning yard signs, TV ads, etc.
Can you imagine a presidential election where the winner spent very little on advertizing? The media would come unglued. It would be like the impact on retailers of cancelling the Christmas Buying season.
I just got my Palin 2012 t-shirt in the mail today. Sarah Palin IS the tea party candidate without a doubt. I don’t have time for “second best”.
Sarah is the candidate he fears most.
She can actually think and talk at the same time.
Ubama can only read a TelePrompTer.
She will eat him alive in the debates, and he knows it.
Don't be surprised if there are no debates.
He cannot go against Sarah head-to-head.
Take a hike Romney.
You never, ever stood for anything nor any ideal of America.
You continue to treat your campaign like a business objective and are just plain uninspiring.
Sadly, you have potential but your record is also lacking.
All of those are oldies-but-goodies. I particularly love the “30 seconds to rebut yourself”.
IF Romney takes NH, Bachmann has lost two states. If it's a contest between Romney and Perry for SC, Perry wins. It could be a horse race in FL, but then, maybe not.
The scenario looks good for Perry.
I was appalled when Romney compared his sons campaigning for him with serving the country. "Their serving by trying to help their dad get elected". He is an idiot.
(The question was an unfair one. What does Romney have to do with whether his five grown sons join the military? Still, his answer was ridiculous).
I thought he was preferred by the TP more so than Romney. Not correct?
She needs to declare her candidacy first, and we’re not even sure if that’s going to happen.
Welcome to FR. It IS obvious that you have not been here long.
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.