More money will start shifting to Perry now.
Romney wears magic underpants.
Perry is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-jobs and pro-God.
I have never heard of Perry wearing any magic underpants.
YES!!!!
The Democrats sure seem to think so. They are usually pretty right in who they work hardest to destroy.
I think Perry would win a higher popular vote total, but I think Romney may put another state or two in play that Perry may struggle in, PA and MI perhaps.
I think either would beat Obama, which is why it is important to make sure we nominate the more conservative candidate.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Was Obama more electable than Hillary?
of course.
romney still cannot spin himself out of romneycare.
Facing a terrible and deteriorating economy and falling approval ratings, President Obama has only one strategic choice: Use his massive financial advantage to go negative -- to make centrist voters fear or hate the Republican nominee.
This would be harder to do against Romney than Perry, so in the end, I think Romney would have a somewhat better chance of winning states like Michigan, PA, WI, MN, NJ, or anywhere in the Northeast...
Perry, OTOH, for several reasons (including those not as popular on FR) would perform strongly enough among Hispanics compared to Romney, that most of the western states that went Blue would go GOP again in '12, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and performs better the South overall, putting VA and NC back in the GOP column (although Romney probably performs better in N VA, Perry would motivate the "real" Virginia to the polls better, and make it a wash or net benefit).
The R establishment needs to ask if Mittens can carry Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. It would be a close run thing.
The R establishment needs to ask if Mittens can carry Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. It would be a close run thing.
I think so.
I could vote for Perry and probably not feel the need to wear more than one or two bags over my head when I went to the polls.
I’d need to start saving grocery bags TODAY if I wanted to have enough to wear on my cranium to go vote for Romney in 2012.
But are either of them more electable than Palin?
Just wait till the time comes when the three of them have to sit down together in debate.
Somewhat of a hard question to gauge. Perry is more vibrant, a better fighter, but I also think he’ll get the full Palinized wrath of the media, who will hammer in on a few things with a vengeance. And seeing Perry for years (including up close), he does sometimes lend himself to a somewhat hokey “Fred Flintstone” quality, which I have a feeling might not wear too well over the long haul, especially outside the south/west.
Romney is so plastic, bland and incapable of connecting, I think he’ll more likely do himself in, as opposed to being on the end of a relentless media assault. The media will go after him a bit, but they’ll still consider him ‘one of them.’ It will be his empty blandness that will probably resuscitate Obama as some kind of media-contrived “Comeback Kid.”
Eh, so it looks like a bit of a wash to me. Always ‘better’ to have a fighter though, regardless. Bush, McCain, Dole, etc., we haven’t really had any all-out fighters in a while. And it is really imperative in these new media times. I still have a great admiration for the assymetrical approach Palin takes, driving the media in circles. I really hope she gets in for just that reason.
Obama cannot win period. He is toast done stick a fork in him. So we should elect the most conservative candidate and not worry about it. If you do the electoral math he cannot win period.
In a word, yes.
Romney's record has been exposed on FR for the last 4 years. Yet it only took a few months staring in early 2007 for conservatives to conclude that Romney is a phony and fraud and to reject his candidacy. Willard has never embraced conservatism. Nothing but rhetorical lip service for the dumbbells to gravitate to. For Romney expediency has always trumped principle.
Romney ran for the US Senate in 1994 as a liberal Republican and was rejected by Massachusetts voters. In 2002 Romney ran as a liberal Republican and was elected Governor of Massachusetts. Romney came in third behind McCain and Huckabee in 2008 to be the GOP nominee. And now in 2011 Romney has turned up again with another attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting him
Perry is not the ideal conservative candidate but his record indicates he is a pretty solid conservative. Perry's Achilles heal is the immigration issue. While Texans have accepted Perry's opposition to a full border fence/wall and his support for in-state tuition for children of illegals. The big question is, will conservatives nationally reject Perry for his immigration stance.
Matt says he opposed Perry last year in his primary? Wonder who he supported?
I’d agree with Mattino’s main premise, though - Perry is more electable than Romney and is far more likely to secure the GOP nomination next year, “objectively” speaking.
Only a socialists thinks a governor and/or a government create jobs. The government has no money until they take it from someone else.
Romney's stand on anything is a roll of the dice from one year to the next.