Why Perry Can't Win

[bigrebnc1775]

Look useful idiots you can take perry obama McCain palin bohner romney bush pelosi reid mix them in a tub of water and blind fold your eyes and pick one you are still going to get the same bullshit.

wake the fuck up

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree he was a good campaigner. Name one memorable phrase from any speech he ever gave. Name one inspiring moment in his campaign.
He had numerous screw ups with the lapel pin, redesigning the presidential seal and other infelicities that should have been a warning about his terrible judgment.
He won because 1) people were tired of GW Bush and 2 wars, 2) they were afraid of being called racist if they didnt vote for him, 3) they wanted to be part of a historic moment in US history (first black president), 4) McCain sounded pretty much like Obama but without the media support.
Polls consistently showed McCain gaining on Obama's lead until the economy went to shit. That played to McCain's weakest area, where the difference between what he proposed and Obama needed a micrometer to measure.

I would say the very fact that he won by the largest margin a Democrat has won by since LBJ is a testement to the fact he was an effective campaigner. He beat not only the GOP Nominee, but he beat his own party's establishment by besting Hillary Clinton.

Did McCain and Clinton make a crapload of mistakes. Absolutely. But sometime you have to stop asking why Custer lost and just admit the Indians won.

Believe me, I want to get rid of this guy, bad. But even with the economic problems, he's going to be a formidable opponent, and you have people in the GOP establishment who would rather lose with Romney than win with Perry. The Republicans historically have not been a party where the "Grass Roots" overgrow the Establishment Garden.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree he was a good campaigner. Name one memorable phrase from any speech he ever gave. Name one inspiring moment in his campaign.
He had numerous screw ups with the lapel pin, redesigning the presidential seal and other infelicities that should have been a warning about his terrible judgment.
He won because 1) people were tired of GW Bush and 2 wars, 2) they were afraid of being called racist if they didnt vote for him, 3) they wanted to be part of a historic moment in US history (first black president), 4) McCain sounded pretty much like Obama but without the media support.
Polls consistently showed McCain gaining on Obama's lead until the economy went to shit. That played to McCain's weakest area, where the difference between what he proposed and Obama needed a micrometer to measure.

I would say the very fact that he won by the largest margin a Democrat has won by since LBJ is a testement to the fact he was an effective campaigner. He beat not only the GOP Nominee, but he beat his own party's establishment by besting Hillary Clinton.

Did McCain and Clinton make a crapload of mistakes. Absolutely. But sometime you have to stop asking why Custer lost and just admit the Indians won.

Believe me, I want to get rid of this guy, bad. But even with the economic problems, he's going to be a formidable opponent, and you have people in the GOP establishment who would rather lose with Romney than win with Perry. The Republicans historically have not been a party where the "Grass Roots" overgrow the Establishment Garden.

I think Hillary actually had more delegates. She was pressured by party elders because she had such high negatives.
Obama's campaigning was not effective. The circumstances surrounding him were in his favor.

I would bet his campaign this time around, without all the media fawining, will not be nearly as good. And no, I dont see him as formidable given his record. Remember that he took many states by 1-3% margins.

 

[JoeB131]

I think Hillary actually had more delegates. She was pressured by party elders because she had such high negatives.
Obama's campaigning was not effective. The circumstances surrounding him were in his favor.

I would bet his campaign this time around, without all the media fawining, will not be nearly as good. And no, I dont see him as formidable given his record. Remember that he took many states by 1-3% margins.

Obama earned more elected delegates (1763 to 1640 for Clinton) but it was the Superdelegates who put Obama over the top (438 to 256). Hillary DID get more votes in the primaries, but her edge was due to states like Michigan and Florida which held primaries that they allocated no delegate for the convention.

Whether you want to attribute his success to luck, skill or the media, the point is, the same could happen in 2012. What works against him is the bad economy, to be sure, but a fawning media will blame everyone but him.

He will also have the advantage of having no primary fight, which will allow him to store up reserves while Perry and Romney duke it out.

As my history teacher once said, "Respect all adversaries, fear none!"

 

[The Rabbi]

I think Hillary actually had more delegates. She was pressured by party elders because she had such high negatives.
Obama's campaigning was not effective. The circumstances surrounding him were in his favor.

I would bet his campaign this time around, without all the media fawining, will not be nearly as good. And no, I dont see him as formidable given his record. Remember that he took many states by 1-3% margins.

Obama earned more elected delegates (1763 to 1640 for Clinton) but it was the Superdelegates who put Obama over the top (438 to 256). Hillary DID get more votes in the primaries, but her edge was due to states like Michigan and Florida which held primaries that they allocated no delegate for the convention.

Whether you want to attribute his success to luck, skill or the media, the point is, the same could happen in 2012. What works against him is the bad economy, to be sure, but a fawning media will blame everyone but him.

He will also have the advantage of having no primary fight, which will allow him to store up reserves while Perry and Romney duke it out.

As my history teacher once said, "Respect all adversaries, fear none!"

It could not happen in 2012 because circumstances are different. He loses the cachet of being the first black president, he loses the ability to run on crap like hope n change. He has lost the respect of the Left. And his policies are clearly responsible for the high unemployment,w hich will be the major issue this election.
Perry and Romney have the advantage of honing their skills in primary fights and getting press.

 

[dblack]

quite right. Look at Obama. Great Campainger, awful president.

That said, Perry has run the second largest state in the Union for12 years, longer than any other person in history and longer than any other state governor. So there is a leadership record to be examined there, and despite the attempts by some to run him down, it looks like a pretty good one.

I guess it all comes down to what you consider good leadership. I don't see any value in trading out one corporatist for another, regardless of party affiliation. Add to that the concerns I have over Perry's neo-con sympathies, his religious nuttiness, and the general 'smarmy Bush III' persona, and I'd rather just 'stay the course' with Obama. Which is a pretty pathetic concession. The only silver lining i can see in a Perry candidacy would be an opportunity for a third party to make some headway.

 

[JoeB131]

quite right. Look at Obama. Great Campainger, awful president.

That said, Perry has run the second largest state in the Union for12 years, longer than any other person in history and longer than any other state governor. So there is a leadership record to be examined there, and despite the attempts by some to run him down, it looks like a pretty good one.

I guess it all comes down to what you consider good leadership. I don't see any value in trading out one corporatist for another, regardless of party affiliation. Add to that the concerns I have over Perry's neo-con sympathies, his religious nuttiness, and the general 'smarmy Bush III' persona, and I'd rather just 'stay the course' with Obama. Which is a pretty pathetic concession. The only silver lining i can see in a Perry candidacy would be an opportunity for a third party to make some headway.

Do you think we can really avoid a "corporatist" at this point?

We don't have candidates that the corporations don't approve of at this point in our history. They've become more powerful than nations.


"Neo-Con". Are you guys still on that kick? If anything, most of the GOP is moving away from interventionist attitudes at the moment. No one is saying, "We really need to stay longer in Afghanistan".

 

[Cecilie1200]

The GOP / Tea Party / Libertarians have a real quandry on their hands with this guy. I really liked him when we lived in Sugar Land, TX but we were pretty insulated from the poor / lower-middle-class there. I have to admit, I was not paying attention to a lot that was going on. I thought all was fine.

So the biggest debacle the Conservs have had recently (in the eyes of everyone but themselves) was the debt ceiling. Polls ranged anywhere from 65% - 78% of people thinking the GOP handled it disastrously. Doesn't matter if they were right or had a point, elections are won based on perception - and the perception was overwhelmingly poor. This was one of the few areas in which Obama (although he too had poor ratings) came out looking WAY better than the GOP. So debt is a key issue.
What's Perry's record on debt? Oops. What will the Dem sound bite be? "A vote for Perry is just like a vote for bringing George W. Bush back to the White House!" Oops.
Then there are those things about his highway and giving the government land and power? Oops. Big Government guy eh? More Bushlike.
Owned by Big Oil? Of course. More Bushlike.

But here's what's worse for him. Subliminal Psychology. The stuff we don't even notice, that effects our decision making.
I voted for Bush (the good one, not the idiot). I was floored when he lost! He was the first incumbant president in history to decisively win a war that the whole nation was behind - and then lose re-election.
I used to lecture on Pyschological Profiling at USD and decided to make him a case study. Bush was a long-time spook. One of the things you learn in the biz, is misdirectional body language. Shaking your head no, while you say the word "yes", for example. Bush was a master of this and it killed him. In one speech he held his thumb and forefinger an inch apart. What does that mean to our subconscious? Small. What was he actually saying at the time? "The Hispanic community is very important to me." What was the message sent to Hispanic voters? He's lying.
In another speech, he held his hands together and then motioned them outwards. What does that mean? Pushing apart. What did he say? "I'm here to bring us together. To work as a non-partisan." Again, the subconscious message that he was lying.
Now I think he actually meant those things but he had so much training in misdirectional body language, he couldn't help himself. So whether or not he was genuine, at the subconcious level, he wasn't perceived as genuine. That cost him.
So now we come to Perry. I've been watching and listening. There are three things that make impact: Visual appearance, Vocal tones and patterns, Choice of words.
Perry dresses and moves a lot like Bush (the idiot, not the good one). He's very "down home" and Texan. Even likes cowboy boots. This is bad.
Perry's vocal tones and patterns are a LOT like W. I heard him on the radio and thought it actually was W for a second. He speaks slowly, with a Texan drawl. He pauses a lot. He laughs just a bit, here and there. He speaks in a tone that is mostly light-hearted and then varies to anywhere from serious to mildly angered. This is all classic W.
Finaly, Perry's choice of words come straight from the Texas Handbook of Politics. It works wonders at home and worked wonders for W in both elections. And if it wasn't for W, it might make a fantastic contrast to Obama. But because of the spectre of The False Texan Conservative of Elections Past, it will be a killer for him.
Add to that, the actual, legitmate challenges he faces with issues such as spending and he's cooked. It's not that people would move toward Obama, it's that hoardes of Independents, Moderates (yes, there is a difference!) and others would move away from Perry.
So like I said, I liked Perry when I lived in Texas. I think Obama sucks. But for reasons beyond the recognizable, Perry would almost definitely lose a general election. A lot of people will "just have a bad feeling" about him and not even be sure why. Remember, most people don't research candidates, couldn't tell you if the 2nd amendment has to do with guns or ice cream, and vote based on the impressions they get from 30 second sound bites. It won't be hard for the Dems to gather sound bites that make Perry seem like a virtual clone of W.

It's amazing that you can use so many words and say so little of any real substance with them. Could you vague this up for us a little more?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't believe I read this whole page full of pure horse shit...

On THIS board? What's hard to believe about that?

 

[dblack]

Do you think we can really avoid a "corporatist" at this point?

I'm not sure, but I'm convinced we should try. In my view, corporatism is the single most dangerous trend in government. If we're throwing in the towel on that one, I see no point in voting at all. I'm hoping it's not yet the case, but if we're really that far gone, we should just hunker down and start planning for the revolution.

"Neo-Con". Are you guys still on that kick? If anything, most of the GOP is moving away from interventionist attitudes at the moment. No one is saying, "We really need to stay longer in Afghanistan".

I'm certainly 'still on that kick'. Political agendas don't just go away because the press grows tired of talking about them.

I've heard nothing from Perry to indicate he supports a non-interventionist stance. On the contrary, all indications are that he'll offer more of the same neo-conservative, pro-active foreign policy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Forget about the fact that Bush-43 his victory in 2000...

Well, well, well - lookee here. Someone just finally admitted that Bush won the 2000 election. Congratulations and welcome to reality.

No, Bush didn't win the election. Gore got more votes... You left out the part where I point that out.

But go ahead and nominate someone like Romney who can't tell you how many mansions he owns, that'll go over really well with the working class...

Ah, that old canard. "Gore won the popular vote, and never mind that legally, there IS no such thing in our elections, Gore should have been President based on a standard that applies to nothing!"

At least there's ONE thing in the world these twits are consistent about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny how the voting machines always have problems when the democrat loses but work perfectly when the democrat wins. Huh...

Walden "Wally" O'Dell was chief executive officer and chairman of the board of Diebold, a US-based security and financial products company.

He was an active fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election campaign and wrote in a fund-raising letter dated August 13, 2003, that he was committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."​

Trust but verify...

Oh, that'\s the smoking gun all right. One employee of an enormous company supported Bush so the entire company was just a conspiracy to elect Bush.

Wow are you dumb.

Well, you see, if a Democrat had been in a position to, HE would have cheated, and Democrats always project their own venality onto others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I loathed Bush as President. He was the first Republican I did not support for President. I thought he was the worst. But I believe he was fairly elected and was the rightful President.

I voted for the guy, but he should have conceded to Gore once it was obvious he lost the popular vote.

The Popular vote is the only one that counts, ethically.

There is no real good reason for the electoral college to even still exist.

Yeah, Bush should have conceded an election he won by the legal standard because he lost by a standard that applies to nothing at all. You might as well say he should have conceded when it was obvious that he lost the left-handed-people vote. It's every bit as relevant.

Thanks for trying to impose your personal "ethics" on everyone else as an objective standard, though. I do so love people who think their viewpoint is the only valid one in the world, and I like them even more when they try to pretend to be Republicans.

YOU, and people like you, are the reason the Electoral College exists. See, in America, we don't like it when the little guy gets trampled, so we arranged our laws to protect them. Maybe YOU want our federal government run by a handful of huge metropolitan areas to the exclusion of everyone else - I'm sure you do, because then you could just impose everything you want on others without ever having to listen to their complaints - but once again, your opinion is NOT universal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Finaly, Perry's choice of words come straight from the Texas Handbook of Politics. It works wonders at home and worked wonders for W in both elections. And if it wasn't for W, it might make a fantastic contrast to Obama. But because of the spectre of The False Texan Conservative of Elections Past, it will be a killer for him.

I tend to agree that this is a serious negative for him. After all the work the Republican base has done over the past 3 years re-branding itself as the Tea Party in order to distance itself from George W. Bush, to turn around and nominate a guy whose mannerisms and speech patterns immediately evoke visceral associations with Bush is risky. The fact that Perry attained his office by virtue of being Bush's lieutenant governor when W. departed for the White House probably won't help dispel the mental association.

When I'm tempted to give the average voter more credit, I think of how many folks can no longer distinguish Tina Fey's Sarah Palin from the actual Palin (granted, the distinctions between the two weren't as pronounced or exaggerated as some other spoofs, like Chevy Chase's Ford falls, which is alarming in and of itself).

Would be an interesting experiment, though.

Agreed--his loose canon mouth is going to keep him in trouble with independents in this country--and as we all know you need independents if you're going to win the general election.

Plus Perry--being from Texas is going to be painted with a G.W. Bush paint brush. There is no escaping that. And simply the name G.W. Bush is still toxic to millions of Americans.

I'm glad someone has stated so clearly what a pile of nothing and bullshit "independent" and "moderate" political decisions are built on. And people wonder why I view those groups with such suspicion and contempt.

Never mind his policy proposals or his record. What counts is whether he mouths enough nice words and the fact that he comes from the same state as that bad old GWB. Sure they don't object to his haircut, too? We want to be sure we elect a President on the important things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Gore won the election. This is fact. .

No, that is factually incorrect. Are you under the impression that if you repeat this nonsense often enough it will become true?

You win the most votes, you win the election.

Anything else is legal trickery.

So Bush's (S)election is to democracy what O.J.'s Trial was to criminal Justice...

Just so you get it in the proper perspective.

This isn't high school, dipshit, so no matter HOW many times you repeat it, it's not going to become true.

Presidential elections in the United States are not based on "popular vote". They never have been. Therefore, "you win the most votes, you win the election" is not and never has been the case here.

Just because YOU, in your all mighty wisdom, have decided the only ethical and pure way to run an election is on individual votes doesn't make THAT so, either. You really need to get over your megalomania and God complex.

American Presidents are intended to be elected by the states, rather than by individual people, hence the Electoral College. Like it or don't. Trust me, no one gives a shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You win the most votes, you win the election.

Anything else is legal trickery.

So Bush's (S)election is to democracy what O.J.'s Trial was to criminal Justice...

Just so you get it in the proper perspective.

He did win the most votes--the votes of electors in the Electoral College. That's all that counts.
Do you think that somehow the constitution is unimportant here?

No, I'm sure that it was technically correct constitutionally...

And so was the Dred Scott Decision.

So was the decision to send 110,000 Japanese Americans to concentration Camps. (Koramatsu v. Unisted States).

So was Roe v. Wade.

But saying that a gross injustice was legally or constutionally correct doesn't make it right.

Conservatives rightly have complained about Judicial Activism, but Gore v. Bush was the worst kind of judicial activism.

Insofar as the Constitution says nothing about slavery for or against, Dred Scott had fuck-all to do with the Constitution. Comparing execrable Supreme Court decisions about state law issues to the election process is . . . about on par for your other bullshit posts, actually.

Japanese internment wasn't even vaguely Constitutional, fucknut. What planet do you live on?

Roe v. Wade also had fuck-all to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with Black's fevered imagination.

The Supreme Court's rather mild decision that the laws of the state of Florida should be upheld most certainly does NOT constitute "judicial activism". And it has shit to do with the Electoral College one way or the other. Gore wanted to do a reprise of the debacle surrounding the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to steal the election, and he was forced instead to respect the laws Florida enacted precisely to prevent that very thing from happening. The ignorance of history evidenced by you and so many other retards has no bearing on that fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As a centrist/independent, I don't care for extremes on either side. As for Perry, he's too religious for my tastes. In the last election when Huckabee ran, he announced that he wanted to change the Constitution to more closely reflect the bible. I tossed him out as a choice immediately. Past history and even present day clearly shows the evil of overt influence by religions on govermnents. The last good republican we had was a Progressive Republican named Theodore Roosevelt. Conservative (conservative in this sense, meaning greed) Republicans, unfortunately side with the uber-rich, who would like to get rid of unions, have no real benefits for the workers, eliminate social security and medicare and pay poor wages, much like the workers in the third-world. Just use the employee up until he/she can no longer work, toss the old worker out and replace him/her with a younger one, then complain if they see the poor starving ex-employee sitting outside the property with a tin cup, begging for handouts.

"Never mind his record, never mind his stance on the issues, he's too religious, and anyway, everyone knows that conservative Republicans hate poor people, so I'm not voting for him."

Yeah, I'm respecting moderates and independents more by the second. What brilliant, in-depth political analysis comes out of these "free thinkers" now that they're unhampered by "party rhetoric".

Are you SURE you don't want to object to his haircut while you're at it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since the five most populated states have the most people in them, if they could all agree on who to pick for president, that is who we should have as president.

You are a stone-cold idiot. Our Great Experiment would have ended in 1787 if we had more people like you and fewer people like Hamilton.

What, you mean kindergarten concepts of "fairness" that would lead to a civil war are BAD things? It's like you don't think the country should be run by the stupidest and most brain-damaged among us, or something.

 

[Greenbeard]

American Presidents are intended to be elected by the states, rather than by individual people, hence the Electoral College. Like it or don't. Trust me, no one gives a shit.

"Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice. All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors..." - Publius

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unless things actually get a lot worse, Obama is going to be incredibly tough to beat.

I think you've got that backwards. Unless things get A LOT better VERY soon, obama is going to have a tough time getting reelected no matter how much money he raises.

No amount of campaign money or desperate rich Democrats is going to make Obama's Presidential record stink less.