Skip to comments.Perry, Bachmann lead in July Daily Caller/ConservativeHome Tracking Poll
Posted on 07/14/2011 2:49:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and the as-yet-undeclared Texas Gov. Rick Perry have unseated Mitt Romney as the front-runners in the latest Daily Caller/ConservativeHome Tracking Poll.
This time the survey asked five questions: Who is your top pick for president? Who is the most electable? Who is your second choice? Who would do the best job handling the economy? And who would do the best job reducing spending in Washington?
Having finally conceded that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are actually serious when they say theyre not going to run, we removed them from the ballot. We added Rudy Giuliani, who looks to be heading in the opposite direction.
Perry and Bachmann have set a new bar for the poll, garnering support in the range of 25 percent in the categories of electability and top pick.
This suggests that more Republican voters are becoming engaged in the race as they find candidates who actually excite them, as opposed to voting for the best option in a fairly unexciting field.
Its indicative that while a large margin has consistently considered Romney to be the most electable candidate (a pragmatic metric), he has never particularly caught fire as voters top pick (a more idealistic metric).
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
They’ve led in quite a few polls, since Bachmann announced.
Obviously the Daily Caller and Conservative Home have Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Who is your top pick for president?
Who is the most electable?
Who is your second choice?
Who would do the best job handling the economy?
And who would do the best job reducing spending in Washington?
Any other questions?
Why isn’t Sarah Palin the most electable?
That’s my list too.
I think if you were outside of Texas you would understand better how excruciatingly Perry looks and sounds like a parody of W. And you might understand how unelectable that still is in 2012.
They use some goofy handpicked ‘panel’ from yougov.com participants.
Perhaps voters will look at his record of job creation in his 10 years as governor of the most productive state in the union and his message of States rights over his accent.
If you ever saw Perry standing next to Bush you would know how silly your comment is.
Bush is only 5’11 and has a sort of silly look about him with a halk type nose.
Perry is MUCH taller and looks like a hollywood leading man.
Perry looks about as much like Bush as Richard Gear looks like Adam Sandler
If they looked that carefully they’d see that he had less power in his state than practically any other guv in the country and that most of the growth-friendly environment in Texas predated his tenure.
It’s unfortunate and unfair, but his manner of speaking and gestures were associated with mental slowness in other parts of the country from before W’s time in office. And in another loop of bias, it feeds into his vulnerability for having governed as part of a God Squad when such is also not a positive association for many other parts of the country.
My beef with him is not the above so much as his globalist/amnesty/TTC tendencies, but I don’t think that’ll get through to most of the voting public.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Perry looked like Bush at all. I was referring to his gestures and manner of speaking. Close your eyes, listen to Perry, and you might think you were listening to a Bush impersonator from SNL.
You are correct. Our economy is in the tank and we are looking at facts and figures not mannerisms and accents.
Perry was born and raised in Texas, and even went to Texas A&M ! He is Texan through and through, and once he becomes president you will soon see the difference.
In Texas we have a saying about guys like Bush... “all hat, no cattle”
opps, Bush wasn’t a lawyer, but the rest stands.
I give him as good a chance as Romney or Palin to get the nomination at this point and I think they are the only three with a chance for it. But Obama couldn’t be happier than to face an echo of W in the general election.
Because the RINO wing of the GOP seems to hate her as much as the Democrats do.
Perry has enough RINO in him to get the support of the "moderate" wing and enough Tea Party in him to get the support of the conservative wing. Plus, he's the only one running with a 10-year history of successful executive experience in office, something that will sell extremely well when contrasted with four years of Obama.
The only thing Palin has over him is name recognition and she's more steadfastly conservative (if you overlook her campaigning for McCain) - which is why she's my first choice. But, in terms of who is the surest bet in the field to be sworn in come January 2013, I think it is Perry.
Palin bachmann! Taking out the trash!
Since the Texas Governor has no power (which is what the outsiders keep telling us, and no doubt Obama's team will too) and since the Lt. Governor has all the power, the next logical leap would be the always Democrat Lt. Governors until Perry won, actually started the Texas economic boom.
Perry has been Governor for 10 years and was Lt. Governor before that yet deserves no credit for anything. See how weakly that argument will fly when Obama tries it too?
Sorry, but if Perry could say that Texas used to do things that way until I was responsible for making things done this way which caused all of this directly attributable economic growth, he’d had something. All his “Texas boomed, I was guv” narrative does is give him a boost in the present, super-early polls, when he’s simply known as the governor of Texas.
"Citizens of (insert state) while the Obama economy was busing losing millions of job across America, in Texas we were adding jobs. In fact since Obama took office Texas has added almost 50% of the jobs created in the U.S.A. How did we do it? We didn't spend all the money, we passed tort reform and we keep regulation simple and predictable, making Texas an attractive state for job creators. We have a balanced budget and billions in the rainy day fund and we don't even have a state income tax. This is what happens when Conservative legislature and a Conservative Executive branch apply Conservative principles to government."
That would be a speech Perry could give and you're telling me people in Ohio are going to say "He sounds like Bush, I think I'll vote for Obama". Like the boys on NFL Countdown say "Come on man!"
I’m not a man and I submit you don’t understand the sensibilities of most people in the Northeast and the Coasts if you think Perry is going to fly with them. He’d be “God Squaded” out of their consideration before they had to even contemplate why they were so distrusting of and put off by him.
That's right, you gotta keep these people in line. If somebody's answer to a (good) question isn't automatically "Sarah Palin," then they need to be called out on it. Take them to the mat for being anti-Sarah haters!
Guess it's a good thing for Perry that he wouldn't need the Coasts and the Northeast to win.
I think a States rights platform by Perry, extolling the virtues of local control over massive Obama control from thousands of miles away will resonate.
By the way, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota will all be in play. The Northeast and California are generally lost causes anyway, plus if you look at the governors of those states you see they already know Perry, have a working relationship with him and will campaign for him. I could even see Chris Christie campaign for him in New Jersey. Throw Marco Rubio on the ticket and you take Florida and probably New Mexico and Colorado again.
by “those states” I mean Ohio,Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, not the Northeastern liberal states.
Well, there's your problem right there. The gay-loving, tax-loving, union-loving Northeast aren't going to love Perry because they're a bunch of liberals and - if you haven't noticed - their numbers are shrinking by the month. That's why they are losing congressional districts and the South is adding them.
The GOP spends way too much time kissing liberal ass because of "the sensibilities of most people in the Northeast". The way you win a general election is to politely tell the Northeast to go screw themselves.
How many electoral votes did the GOP win in 2008? In 2004? In 2000? In 1996? Other than New Hampshire and half of Maine, the answer is probably "zero". And yet we won the White House in 2000 and 2004 without their help. It will be even easier in 2012.
How many times does the Democrat Party worry about offending the sensibilities of people in Texas or Utah or Alabama? I'm guessing they don't.
I see you take half my statement and try to respond to that alone. I said the Northeast and the Coasts, but let me make it simpler for you, outside of the Bible Belt. The majority of Americans do indeed live outside of the Bible Belt and much of Perry’s shtick won’t fly with them.
you dont understand the sensibilities of most people in the Northeast and the Coasts if you think Perry is going to fly with them.
Does the electoral votes in the ‘Northeast/Coasts’ go GOP in the general election? If so then you may have a point but if they go to the democrat then it doesn’t make a dime’s difference.
I think you underestimate how many people are vested in that they voted for that nice black man—and don’t want to give up their big pile of open-minded, tolerance chips for some Southern white guy who talks about God and guns and so, they presume, is a bigot.
Anyone that stupid would consider all Republicans bigots, even Herman Cain. There’s no sense trying to appease them and, in the process, alienate the base. That’s seems to be exactly what Romney is doing now.
You Texans (maybe within the Perry administration?) have your view and I have mine.
I give your guy at least a 30% chance to win the nomination.
I'd say that's probably about right.
When asking about "electable", there's really TWO equations.
1) Who can win the nomination and 2) Who can beat Obama after they win the nomination.
On the first question, I'd rank them Palin, Perry, Romney. On the second question, I'd rank them Romney, Perry, Palin.
On the first part, I wouldn't currently put odds on anyone at 50% or even 40%. Clearly, Palin entering the race will change the equation a great deal. If Palin stays out but Perry goes in, that's one equation. If Perry stays out but Palin goes in, that's another. If neither go in, then it will probably come down to Romney vs. Bachmann.
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.