I fear this too, yet, there is also a lot of contradicting evidence:
-Rubio and Johnson ran their Senate campaigns with a similar attitude towards SS and won
-Perry himself leads in the primary polls and is about even w/Obama
What he can do, IMHO, is explain WHY he used the term Ponzi Scheme. Then appeal to their sensible side, say “Look, we all agree it needs reform. Many of you are uncomfortable with the language I used, but, aren’t we past the point in this country where we need to tone down everything we say?”
What bothers me is that it’s not necessarily the idea of SS being broke that people have a problem with, it’s the words he used to say it. Grow a spine, people!
...and suggested....privatization!!!!!
Public opinion is what it is. SS and Medicare are 3rd rail issues and they need to be addressed extremely carefully. Old people do not want to hear the program that sustains (many of) them, that they've paid into and generally like, is a "monsterous lie" or a "ponzi scheme". Both things are basically true, neither should be said. Perry should have simply stated from the first debate on that he probably shouldn't have characterized SS as a "ponzi scheme" and that he has a plan to save the program. Instead he doubled down on disasterous rhetoric. If he keeps this up, Perry will blow up his campaign.
I know many, many older conservatives who identify or actively support the Tea Party, the minute you start talking Medicare and Social Security changes they begin to shrink and recoil in terror. You can even see it right here on FR. There are countless comments from some of our seasoned citizens arguing the same old "I paid into it and want all my benefits" stuff. Even if you assure old people they will get their stipends and coverage, they still get frightened at any future change as they see it as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.