I don’t think we have enough data to know that Perry can stick above Romney in the polls.
It does seem that some people are upset that Perry looks at the moment like he could be Romney. Not because they want Romney, but because they liked the situation where none of the existing candidates could beat Romney — it helped them argue for another candidate not yet in the race.
I think a lot of the vitriol toward Perry and his supporters are driven by a belief that if Perry maintains his lead over Romney, it obviates the need for another candidate who is a perrenial also-ran.
On the other hand, most of Palin’s supporters are certain she is coming into the race no matter what, and they are certain that when she doesn, it won’t matter where Perry is in the polls. So I don’t understand why they feel it so important to tear Perry down, maybe hedging their bets.
Apologies in advance if these are dumb questions, but would there be any advantage in a Perry/Romney ticket?
Would a “former” “front-runner” deign to be VP?
Are the candidates’ values mutually exclusive?
Do we want to prevent a hand-off to Romney in 8 years like Reagan/Bush?
Palin-haters and trolls aside, could she take Perry in a primary?
Any one who is in this presidential election cycle better have deep pockets they can tap in...Perry does...a few others do...so yes, Romney vs Perry both have those deep pockets...
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.
It’s fear, really. In their heads, they know she doesn’t have the funding or the infrastructure or any of the other necessities needed to run, and they are also coming to grips all too quickly with the fact that she’s going to endorse Perry, for an appointment. Not that she’s selling out. She genuinely likes Perry and he genuinely likes her. But these are die-hard supporters that have never considered another candidate since 2008. The truth is going to be devastating when it’s held in front of their faces. For now, maintaining denial requires a whole lot of vitriol.
It doesn’t seem logical to me that Palin would enter the race, not now that Perry is in. Perry is likely to push the same policy’s that Palin would, and Perry does not have the 2008 baggage.
This is expensively true in the face of democratic criticism that Perry is simply riding an oil boom. I say that because not only is their criticism not founded, Texas cut its budget and did not raise taxes.
It is also true that much of the Success in Texas is indeed due to an Oil Boom and that in itself is part of the problem democrats are forcing upon the rest of the Federation.
You see Texas CAN have an Oil boom precisely because Texas unlike most every other western State(including Alaska) still owns most all of its own lands and therefore is drastically less effected by Federal mandates.
If perry is successful in turning their short sited argument on its head, and freeing up the States. Palin’s own State of Alaska will benefit big time.
So Palin has no driving political reason to get involved other then to support and push Perry in this direction.
Palin also only stands to loses by getting involved cause her support would be much diminished from the 2008 high. It’s not that shes a bad canadit(we all known shes good) its just that the democrats have invested too much in demonizing her too recently.
She would at best end up running distraction(drawing their fire away from our real canadit), which may or may not be a good thing.
I don’t see Palin seriously getting in, she knows theses things.
Well, we now have 4 national polls showing Perry with double digit leads over Romney:
PPP: Perry 27, Romney 17; Perry +10
Rasmussen: Perry 29, Romney 18; Perry +11
Gallup: Perry 25, Romney 14; Perry +11
CNN: Perry 27, Romney 14; Perry +13
It will be interesting to see how the next batch of polls look. The first three polls all were from the week after Perry announced. The CNN poll was from the week after that, and appears to show more movement toward Perry and away from all of the other major candidates (Romney, Bachmann, Palin and Paul).