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 they’re 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.
It’s 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 ...
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 don’t 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.