The "I know this candidate" (recognition) MATCHED TO "I will contribute money and crawl over broken glass to vote for them" (intensity) numbers.
Perry's intensity numbers have held steady as his recognition numbers continue to rise.
Posted on 08/26/2011 11:16:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
………..There have been a slew of polls showing Gov. Rick Perry of Texas surging to double-digit national leads. He leads across demographic groups — among educated Republicans and less-educated ones, among upscale and downscale. Most impressive, he’s winning over the Republican activists who pay the closest attention and wield disproportionate influence with primary voters.
A poll by the conservative political Web sites, The Daily Caller/ConservativeHome, surveys these activists. When asked this week which candidate was most electable, 46 percent named Perry, while only 20 percent named Romney. When asked who would do the best job on the economy, 27 percent said Perry and 14 percent said Romney. When asked who would do the best job controlling Washington spending, 20 percent chose Perry, 17 percent said Representative Paul Ryan (who isn’t running) and only 8 percent chose Romney.
……..Nationally, the events of 2009 and 2010 moved voters to the right. In 2008, Democrats had a 12-point party identification advantage among families earning between $30,000 and $75,000. That advantage is gone, according to a July Pew Research poll. In 2008, Democrats had a 7 percent advantage among white voters under 30. The Republicans now have an 11-point advantage with those young voters, according to the poll.
Within the Republican Party, the rightward shift has been even more vehement. In 2008, roughly 63 percent of primary voters called themselves conservative, according to Public Policy Polling. Now it’s roughly 73 percent. The number of moderate Republicans has withered. The events of 2009 and 2010 also concentrated the Republican mind. It used to be that there were many themes in the Republican hymnal. Now there is only one: Government is too big, and it needs to be brought under control……
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If you think the crony capitalist with the macho Texas swagger has a better chance than Palin, I think you underestimate our country.
(And Perry is backed by the GOP Establishment.)
Do yourself a favor and get a hold of a copy of his book and read it!
It’s and easy read and quite revealing about the author!
We do not troll Palin threads and make silly statements.
Wow!
So there were 25,000,000 doses or Gardasil administered to all Texans?
I went to my library...their are so many books people can’t buy all of them. Once, I’ve read the book if it is worth it then I will buy it.
All of the "pollsters" - left, right, non-partisan etc. - are conspiring against Palin?
You're either some "shrill troll" trying to build a stereotype that Palin supporters are delusional neurotics or you actually are a delusion neurotic.
I don't know which is worse.
The "I know this candidate" (recognition) MATCHED TO "I will contribute money and crawl over broken glass to vote for them" (intensity) numbers.
Perry's intensity numbers have held steady as his recognition numbers continue to rise.
I will do so, and thanks for the link. I have reservations about the man, but see some good things too. Also his stable of enemies speaks well for him at some level.
Like I say, he is my second choice right now, but I like him far better than any of the nominees in the past six cycles, and better than any of the other announced candidates.
He’s definitely the flavor of the month. Cain had the highest intensity, then Bachmann. But most people hardly know him at this point. Polls in August 2011 mean little for predicting victory in 2012.
I could live with a Perry/Bachmann ticket.
I could live with a Perry/Romney ticket. (Mitt would never do that.)
I could live with a Perry/Palin ticket. (Sarah would never do that.)
Folks, I really believe we need a former governor and/or businessman in the Executive branch. Legislators vaulted straight to the Oval Office just don’t cut it.
I know there is a danger in oversimplification...but there are some things we can glean from looking at a broad picture of the men who have been there:
Let’s study:
Washington: Farmer/General: Two term prez.
Adams: Lawyer...middling President (great man, but rejected after one term)
Jefferson: Governor of Virginia, 2 term President
Madison: 2 term president w/little executive experience (exception to rule), but educated like no other previous president: he is the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Monroe: Governor of Virginia, 2 term President.
Quincy Adams: Lifelong diplomat, no executive experience...1 term President. (see: Buchanan)
Jackson: Military governor, army general. 2 term President.
Van Buren: Governor of New York, but for only 2 months...he quit to become Jackson’s SecState. So really, no significant executive experience...1 term President.
WH Harrison: negligible Presidency due to early death. BUT he did serve as governor of Indiana for 12 years.
Tyler: Governor of Virginia. succeeded Harrison, but quickly broke with Harrison’s allies. Every member of his inherited cabinet resigned, except one. 1 term. Tyler was called “His Accidency”.
Polk: Governor of Tennessee. A one term presidency, but he PROMISED to serve only one term. His presidency could be considered a success...we expanded our borders during his short tenure.
Taylor: General. President for barely 16 months.
Fillmore: little executive experience...comptroller of New York, but as the last man to be President who was neither Democrat or Republican (he was a Whig), his Presidency merely finished the term of Taylor. He was not even asked to run for re-election by the party.
Pierce: no executive experience, though he was a general. 1 term.
Buchanan: lawyer/diplomat. no executive experience. began his career in politics about age 23. Considered by many as the worst President in the 1800s. IMHO, the 2nd worst of all time, next to Obama.
Lincoln: no executive experience...a lawyer, for anyone who doesn’t know. I won’t fight the states rights/slavery issue here. Lincoln was the first Republican President, and insomuch as his goal was to keep the union intact, he did that. Elected twice. I would say that is success.
Johnson: governor of Tennessee. 1 term President, a bad term, too. (Exception to the rule?)
Grant: General. 1 term President...though I think the criticism fired at him may be a bit overblown. Mediocore, maybe, but not disastrous.
Hayes: Governor of Ohio. 1 term President after the most disputed election before the 2000 contest. But he, like Polk, promised NOT to run for a second term.
Garfield: the last President to be a SITTING member of the House of Representatives elected to the Presidency. He did serve as a general in the Civil War. only served six months before he was assassinated.
Arthur: little executive or business experience. served out the remainder of Garfield’s term...like Fillmore, not nominated by his party for the next election.
Cleveland: Sherriff, Mayor, Governor. Elected twice to the Presidency.
Harrison: no executive experience...1 term.
Cleveland: see above.
McKinley: Governor of Ohio. Elected twice to the Presidency, but assassinated early in his second term.
T. Roosevelt: Governor of New York. succeeded McKinley, elected in his own right in 1904 in a landslide, and decided not to run in 1908...a decision he would later regret, as he considered Taft a disaster.
Taft: executive experience in the Philippines and Cuba...but only 1 term Presidency. Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft in 1912, splitting the Republican party.
Wilson: Democrat governor of New Jersey. Elected twice to the Presidency.
Harding: business experience, but limited executive experience. He died after a little more than 2 years. So we don’t know how he would’ve fared in re-election.
Coolidge: Reagan’s hero was governor of Massachusetts. Succeeded Harding and was elected in his own right in 1924. He chose not to run for re-election in 1928.
Hoover: Successful businessman, diplomat, etc. Only elected once, as every Democrat hack will spew out his name with vitriol at every opportunity.
F. Roosevelt: Governor of New York. Elected four times to the Presidency.
Truman: No executive experience, little private sector experience. Succeeded Roosevelt, and pulled off one of the biggest upsets in political history. Republicans of today must remember that—and not allow Hussein to do that. Of course, we have the advantage that Hussein is not Truman. Still, we must be aware—and on our guard.
Eisenhower: General of the Army. Elected twice.
Kennedy: No real executive or private experience. His campaign dropped a lot of money in Chicago precincts, though. Sound familiar? To be fair, he only served a couple of years before being assassinated. Whatever his personal failures, Kennedy tried to boot the Commie Castro (he should not have pulled the plug, though!) and JFK understood lower tax rates would fuel the economy. Wait a sec: anti-Communist AND pro-lower taxes? JFK would not be in the Democrat party today.
Johnson: Public school teacher, politician. He rose to power, took a “back seat” to Kennedy in 1960, then used his power as President to expand the welfare state. Elected once as President in his own right, he dropped out of the race in 1968.
Nixon: Lt. Commander in WWII, but no real executive experience. An embattled presidency, but elected for two terms.
Ford: no executive experience. not elected president ever.
Carter: Farmer, naval officer, governor of Georgia. Won one election as President...until
Reagan: Governor of California. Elected twice as President. A great man...not perfect. (I often wonder why we sometimes demand perfection in our candidates....)
GHW Bush: Business experience in the oil industry, diplomat and head of the CIA. Won one election.
Clinton: Governor of Arkansas. Elected twice to Presidency.
GW Bush: Governor of Texas: Elected twice to Presidency.
Hussein: community organizer, Alinsky disciple, friend of Bill Ayers. Elected one time to Presidency.
I hope as you look these names over, it will become apparent that the occupants of the Executive branch who have seen the most success (meaning WINNING election and/or re-election—NOT THEIR POLICIES) comes from men who have been GOVERNORS.
Thanks.
RD
Let me just say that I am a native Texan and long time political activist who has watched the political career of Rick Perry from it’s infancy. As such, I can tell you that Rick was more conservative when he was a democrat legislator in Texas than most of the folks currently running for president as republicans!
Beware of the Paulbots on FR and do your own research!
Why don’t Perry haters have anything positive to say about their favorite? Maybe because you’re ashamed of Obama’s record in office so you have nothing positive to say about him.
Bingo! My sentiments exactly. Palin will never accept the #2 spot. She's been there, has worked too hard, has a massive ego for success and winning, and will not succumb to playing second fiddle. If I were in her shoes, I wouldn't either.
PERRY & RUBIO IN ‘12
(And Perry is backed by the GOP Establishment.)
1. Please produce ANY poll that substantiates this.
2. Perry is backed by grassroots republicans and conservative independents. Look at the most recent Rasmussen poll for proof. Mitt Romney is backed by the GOP establishment. Must you lurk another 9 years to understand this???
Polls don’t show who the GOP Establishment is backing.
But when you’ve got the likes of Haley Barbour backing you, yes the GOP Establishment is behind you. They’d have been happy with Mitt or one of the other guys they tried to get to run, but that wasn’t working and so they got someone who goes along with the program but could be passed off as a tea party conservative to run. That would be JR “Rick” Perry.
No reason to insult me due to your ignorance.
One mistake/omission
Gerald Ford was a naval officer in WWII and a very good one at that, if the writings about him are correct. He might actually have been a middling-to-good President under other circumstances. Yes, I know he wasn’t a rock-ribbed conservative, but he certainly would not have been the disaster that Carter was or Obama is. If nothing else, Ford put what he thought was the good of the country as a whole before his own political career. He had to have known that the Nixon pardon was the end for him.
You might note that US Grant was a TWO term President, he won elections in 1868 (72.8% electoral vote) and 1872 (78.1% electoral vote).
In fact,Rick Perry scares the HELL out of the establishment!
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.