Why Perry Can't Win

[JoeB131]

So you can't answer what Romney is going to hit Perry with. Got it. Romney's electability is much higher, and the NH and the FL primaries and debates are going to force Perry much further toward the center.

I don't think it matters what Romney is going to hit Perry on for the following reasons-

1) Mitt Romney isn't likable on a personal level. Weird religion, looks like the guy who lays you off, kind of comes off as stiff and doesn't connect with voters.

Most elections are won by the guy who you'd want to have a beer with, and Romney's weird cult doesn't even let him drink beer.

2) Romney's "electability" is based on the notion that he never actually wins elections unless all the wind is blowing in the right direction. Perry has won under difficult circumstances, such as his own party trying to knock him off.

I don't worry about Perry going to the "Center" because I think he's a lot closer to it than Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, et al. I think he's probably at the median location of where his party is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mitt's electability will ovecome Perry's personality, which turns many millions off already.

Religion may be a problem for Romney, but Perry's demand that all teenage girls get the HIV vaccination may mitigate that.

That Perry is more to the center than others than Romney is the correct thing you hae posted. He will shift further to the center as the primary campaign continues.

 

[JoeB131]

Mitt's electability will ovecome Perry's personality, which turns many millions off already.

Religion may be a problem for Romney, but Perry's demand that all teenage girls get the HIV vaccination may mitigate that.

That Perry is more to the center than others than Romney is the correct thing you hae posted. He will shift further to the center as the primary campaign continues.

Guy, there is no "HIV Vaccination". At least get your facts right. He proposed a vaccination for HPV, which the legistlature put an opt-out on.

Romney isn't electable. The guy actually LOSES elections. (I've done a whole thread on this).

 

[JakeStarkey]

My facts are correct, and your misinterp isn't. Perry mandated and the lege kicked him in the ass over the vaccine, son. Don't spin that which is flat on the ground; can't be done.

 

[Dot Com]

Perry aint electable in the general election. Winning the repub primary is a far cry from winning the general. All you got to do in the Repub primary is talk about the 3 G's.

 

[JoeB131]

My facts are correct, and your misinterp isn't. Perry mandated and the lege kicked him in the ass over the vaccine, son. Don't spin that which is flat on the ground; can't be done.

Guy, you said it was an HIV vaccine. (That's the virus that causes AIDS). It wasn't. It was an HPV vaccine (the disease that causes cervical cancer.) Given what a terrible disease it was, I think his heart was in the right place.

Of course he was caught between Libs who didn't ever want a company making a profit and Conservatives who want to pretend girls arent' having sex as teens. Nothing admirable about the opposition on this one, either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, I give you that (HPV, not HIV, my bad), but the point is correct in principle. Whenever Perry stray from the social values, he gets stomped. That is his major weakness as well as his major strength, the social values crowd.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, I give you that (HPV, not HIV, my bad), but the point is correct in principle. Whenever Perry stray from the social values, he gets stomped. That is his major weakness as well as his major strength, the social values crowd.

Well, no.

I think that there were a few things in play. Three reasons why his mandate was opposed.

1) The Pharmacuetical company made way too much of a hard sell on the benefits.

2) Religious Right people who felt that any kind of medical treatment for minors related to their reproductive systems is an endorsement of sex.

3) Libertarians who really don't like the notion of the government telling you to do anything. The "anti-Flouride" wing of the GOP.

Now, on Perry's side of the argument, this is a terrible disease, their is no cure, only a vaccine, and infection is pretty widespread in the population. (Although for most people, it's harmless.)

I also don't think that either Obama or Romney, guys who think the Government should be a lot more involved in your health care than just one vaccine, really are on the high ground with this one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not word about Romney on this issue because it is not his issue. It's Perry, and he is weak.

 

[JoeB131]

Not word about Romney on this issue because it is not his issue. It's Perry, and he is weak.

Romney's been running for President for five years, and he's trailing a guy who just jumped in a month ago by double digits...

If you think that anyone is going to beat him on, "He wanted to immunize girls against cancer", that's a silly position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perry is ahead because of the buzz and because he is the new guy. He will begin falling in line with the Florida debate and he has to explain himself more carefully as more and more folks listen. Ponzi scheme? Please.

 

[oreo]

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.

I am a fiscal conservative--tea party member and you're right. We have a candidate in Rick Perry that jumped into this race--and immediately shot up ahead of the leaders without ever seeing him in a debate.

This is national irrational behavior--and is exactly the same reason why Barack Obama is in the oval office today.

What may thrill conservatives and tea party members with loose canon one line speak--will turn off millions of independent voters--and now seniors--with his statement that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. While I agree with what he says--you don't say that to millions of social security receipiants without a major back-blow. They VOTE too.

With Rick Perry's mouth and radical statements--I do not see him winning in the general election against a very smooth professional campaigner in Barack Obama. As we all know if you can't win the independent vote and the senior vote in this country--you can't win elections.

In my opinion Rick Perry is a walking--talking--self imploding disaster--should he win the GOP nomination for President. What may work on a Texas stage--doesn't necessarily work on a National Stage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think Perry would be a great Veep candidate providing he toes the line Romney's managers give him.

I don't know if he can do that.

 

[oreo]

I think Perry would be a great Veep candidate providing he toes the line Romney's managers give him.

I don't know if he can do that.

Just judging from what I have heard come out of Rick Perry's mouth--and AGAIN I stress that I agree with him--that Romney would not pick him simply--because he wouldn't want to get hurt by any of these one liners---that are appearing to be a constant steam of WTF did he just say--

You can't have a Presidential looking candidate in Romney--and then add on your ticket someone who is capable of taking you both down.

So I doubt Romney would pick Perry as a VP.

 

[JoeB131]

I am a fiscal conservative--tea party member and you're right. We have a candidate in Rick Perry that jumped into this race--and immediately shot up ahead of the leaders without ever seeing him in a debate.

This is national irrational behavior--and is exactly the same reason why Barack Obama is in the oval office today.

What may thrill conservatives and tea party members with loose canon one line speak--will turn off millions of independent voters--and now seniors--with his statement that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. While I agree with what he says--you don't say that to millions of social security receipiants without a major back-blow. They VOTE too.

With Rick Perry's mouth and radical statements--I do not see him winning in the general election against a very smooth professional campaigner in Barack Obama. As we all know if you can't win the independent vote and the senior vote in this country--you can't win elections.

In my opinion Rick Perry is a walking--talking--self imploding disaster--should he win the GOP nomination for President. What may work on a Texas stage--doesn't necessarily work on a National Stage.

We've had three presidents from Texas in my lifetime. Texas seems to do pretty well in working on the national stage.

And Obama is not all he's cracked up to be. He beat McCain. He beat Crazy Allan Keyes. Big whup. Of course, that's one more election than Mitt Romney (R-Kolob) has ever won, but still.

 

[JoeB131]

Perry is ahead because of the buzz and because he is the new guy. He will begin falling in line with the Florida debate and he has to explain himself more carefully as more and more folks listen. Ponzi scheme? Please.

Funny, I thought you said the Reagan Library Debate would be his waterloo, and he did pretty well there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You better go back and find out where I said that, JoeB. Please post it with the thread and the post #.

 

[JoeB131]

Why should I bother to do that? Frankly, you've talked out of both sides of your mouth ever since Perry got in, threatening your hero...

 

[Cecilie1200]

(edited out non-arguments). You read the parts that reenforced your beliefs, but left out the message. I have never been to a church that left anything out. As a matter of fact, in the third grade I was well aware that God had a body count of around 10,000 +.(edit out more whining)

guy, God has a MUCH bigger body count than 10,000 plus.

Here's someone who actually bothered to crunch the numbers..

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

The numbered deaths in the bible are over 2.4 million. The estimated deaths are close to 24 million.

Oh, and how many people has Satan killed in the Bible.

10. (the Children of Job.)

Now, refresh my memory again, which one was evil?

How many people did Hitler and Stalin kill? Seems like many more.

What kind of stupid fucking comparison is this, anyway? God IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. Trying to apply human moral standards of behavior to Him is like trying to apply human moral standards of behavior to Mother Nature. Why would you even talk to someone so arrogant and childish as to say, "I expect God to behaver according to MY idea of right and wrong" in the first place? It's like arguing quantum physics with a three-year-old.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am disappointed. You appeared to be one of the posters with more than 3 functioning brain cells. But I see I was mistaken. You cannot create an argument so you deflect, name call, change the subject--do whatever you can to cover over your lack of debating skill and poor knowledge level.
A shame. I blame public schools and the system.

You're the one deflecting. A simple question was put forward to you and this is what you bring up.

I'm not wasting my time making a moral argument against slavery, just like I'm not wasting my time making a moral argument against why Jews are subhuman with some POS anti-semite like USAR. It's the same frickin' argument.

No, I asked you specifically to frame an argument against slavery as to why it is sooo bad. Your first response was an economic argument. I won't buy that. If it's soooo bad then it should be easy as all get out to make a moral argument.
But you've failed every time. You deflect. You waffle. You call names.
I thought you were smarter than this. Clearly not. You conflate anti semitism with slavery, as though they had anything to do with each other.
You're just the intellectual equivalent of a Happy Meal.

And he's a few fries short.