romney has right words, but delivery sucks

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

watching him live...almost painful...he has a good speech writer though

[angus]

watching him live...almost painful...he has a good speech writer though

I had exactly the same thought about George Bush on several occasions. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

don't see any way for him to beat Perry

[Paul Kemp]

don't see any way for him to beat Perry

Probably because you aren't looking.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

dude, the dude is done, stick a tea bag in him

[Paul Kemp]

dude, the dude is done, stick a tea bag in him

McCain was done summer 2007, Kerry summer '03, etc. These things have peaks and valleys. The GOP system favors Romney's nomination.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

there is no way the jmfcst's of the gop are going to vote for romney

[Politico]

there is no way the jmfcst's of the gop are going to vote for romney

Then there is no way the jmfcst's of the GOP are going to see Obama lose re-election next year. Have you thought about that yet? If you think Perry or Bachmann is the best chance against Obama, if you think they're going to make the GOP competitive in Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you. Do you want to win the election next year, or lose it to Obama?

I know a lot of Republicans in Florida, and NONE of them will vote next year if Perry is the candidate. They consider him George W. Bush Part II, and they would rather have nothing to do with next year's election than choose between two poison pills in Obama and Perry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I want to continue to confound and blow your mind in 2012

[angus]

dude, the dude is done, stick a tea bag in him

McCain was done summer 2007, Kerry summer '03, etc. These things have peaks and valleys. The GOP system favors Romney's nomination.

Actually, the GOP has fewer of the superdelegate and PLEO type gimmicks at their convention than the DNC does, if I recall correctly.  Sure, it has some built-in croneyism, but overall, it's going to be a slugfest in the primaries that determine the winner.  Let's look at the calendar:

Iowa:  28 delegates.  I could see Perry taking at least 14 of those pretty easily, if polls are to be believed.
New Hampshire:  20 delegates (10% threshold).  I could see Perry taking at least 5 of those.  
SC:  47 delegates.  Perry gets at least 20 of those.
Florida:  99 delegates, 81 based on results.  Perry could easily take 40 of those.

Then, with LA, WV, ME, and AK he gets maybe 100 more altogether.  This heads him into the first mini-superTuesday with around 200 of 450 delegates.  Probably ahead of Romney, Paul, and Bachmann at that point.  

Of course, the public is fickle, and I'm just basing this on current polling data, and it's sort of hard to peg primary voters anyway, but I don't think you can say that the process favors Romney unless you mean in the Bobdole sort of way.  Bobdole thinks that Bobdole deserves the nomination, so go ahead and give ol' Bobdole the nod, okay?  

But Mitt Romney is no Bobdole.  Unless he starts referring to himself as Mittromney, of course.

[Politico]

I want to continue to confound and blow your mind in 2012

What...by nominating a guy who ends up winning the same states McCain did, and picking up VA, NC, IN and NV? That guy will still lose the election...

The nation is not going to elect a guy who walks and talks like George W. Bush a mere four years later. It makes the most sense to give Romney a chance in 2012, and if he fails, go with Perry in 2016.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why would I go with perry in 2016 when I don't even want him in 2012?  but Romney isn't getting the nomination unless Perry drowns a bunch of puppies

[angus]

why would I go with perry in 2016 when I don't even want him in 2012?  but Romney isn't getting the nomination unless Perry drowns a bunch of puppies

and praising Clinton's medical service initiative, eighteen years ago, as Commissioner of Agriculture, isn't going to derail him.

I agree that Romney doesn't seem to be the one to ensure his undoing.  

It is also worth noting that the previous comparison to George Bush is not very well informed.  Their politics are very different, as well as their styles.  Perry doesn't seem quite as humorous as Bush, for one thing.  And he doesn't even give lip service to the "compassionate," as Bush did.  Also, Bush never blasted the Fed the way Perry did.  He may appeal, on some level, to some subset of the same constituency because his swagger is a bit cocky like Bush's, but he really doesn't walk the same walk or talk the same talk as George ("Humble foreign policy") Bush.  They're miles apart, substantively and stylistically, as far as I can tell.

That said, I think that Perry is unlikely to defeat Obama unless Obama starts drowning puppies.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

perry doesn't self destruct...he is a very god campaigner...perry is not going to scare independents 

[Politico]

why would I go with perry in 2016 when I don't even want him in 2012?  but Romney isn't getting the nomination unless Perry drowns a bunch of puppies

and praising Clinton's medical service initiative, eighteen years ago, as Commissioner of Agriculture, isn't going to derail him.

What about if pictures come out showing Perry and Clinton looking like best buddies of the 1980s? Who knows what is out there from Perry's days as a Democrat? How many people even know right now that he voted for a multi-billion dollar tax hike on Texas back in 1987? Or that he was one of Al Gore's top guys in the 1988 presidential race?

People can say many things about Romney, but they cannot say he has ever voted for a multi-billion dollar tax hike and supported Al Gore for president. People can, amazingly, say that about Rick Perry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"yes, I left the dem party, just like reagan did..."

perry could turn this into a plus

[Politico]

"yes, I left the dem party, just like reagan did..."

perry could turn this into a plus

How is that going to work if people can say that Perry supported Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter instead of Ronald Reagan? And how is he going to defend his multi-billion dollar tax hike in 1987, right at the tail-end of the Reagan Revolution? And his desire to see Al Gore succeed Ronald Reagan in 1988?

[angus]

What about if pictures come out showing Perry and Clinton looking like best buddies of the 1980s? Who knows what is out there from Perry's days as a Democrat? How many people even know right now that he voted for a multi-billion dollar tax hike on Texas back in 1987? Or that he was one of Al Gore's top guys in the 1988 presidential race?

I have no intention of supporting either Romney or Perry in the upcoming caucus, as I'll vote for Ron Paul just as I did last time, but Perry's flavor seems to be leaving a nice taste in the mouths of Republicans lately being polled.  Sure, Perry has skeletons in his closet, as we all do, but those you bring up are more ancient and no worse than Romney's.  I also think you're over-rating Romney as a General election candidate.  I'd consider voting for him.  Then again, I'd also consider voting for Obama.  I'm just saying, as a swing voter who supported Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008, that you make a mistake to assume that Romney is more appealing to me than Perry.  

Consider this:  recent head-to-head general election polls between Romney and Obama put Obama ahead by an average of 3%.  A similar comparison of Perry and Obama put Obama ahead by about 6%.  I'm taking the average of five recent polls.  There's not a huge difference, there, and Obama is marginally ahead of both candidates.  And Romney is someone lots of folks have heard of.  Something like 86% of likely general election voters have heard of Romney.  It's around 67% for Perry.  (Gallup, August 23)  So Romney's ceiling may be lower than Perry's.

Your suggestion that Romney is a more likely win than Perry in November 2012 is not certain.

[Politico]

What about if pictures come out showing Perry and Clinton looking like best buddies of the 1980s? Who knows what is out there from Perry's days as a Democrat? How many people even know right now that he voted for a multi-billion dollar tax hike on Texas back in 1987? Or that he was one of Al Gore's top guys in the 1988 presidential race?

I have no intention of supporting either Romney or Perry in the upcoming caucus, as I'll vote for Ron Paul just as I did last time, but Perry's flavor seems to be leaving a nice taste in the mouths of Republicans lately being polled.  Sure, Perry has skeletons in his closet, as we all do, but those you bring up are more ancient and no worse than Romney's.  I also think you're over-rating Romney as a General election candidate.  I'd consider voting for him.  Then again, I'd also consider voting for Obama.  I'm just saying, as a swing voter who supported Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008, that you make a mistake to assume that Romney is more appealing to me than Perry.  

Consider this:  recent head-to-head general election polls between Romney and Obama put Obama ahead by an average of 3%.  A similar comparison of Perry and Obama put Obama ahead by about 6%.  I'm taking the average of five recent polls.  There's not a huge difference, there, and Obama is marginally ahead of both candidates.  And Romney is someone lots of folks have heard of.  Something like 86% of likely general election voters have heard of Romney.  It's around 67% for Perry.  (Gallup, August 23)  So Romney's ceiling may be lower than Perry's.

Your suggestion that Romney is a more likely win than Perry in November 2012 is not certain.

There is a huge difference between a statistical tie in the case of Romney/Obama and a clear-cut lead for Obama over Perry. A majority of people are not going to vote for a Texas Governor, especially one who is gaffe-prone (did you hear his comments about Bernanke?) and served as George W. Bush's Lt. Governor. It's just not going to happen unless the economy nosedives, and even then it would probably be a race until the very end.

[J. J.]

there is no way the jmfcst's of the gop are going to vote for romney

OMG*!


*Obama Must Go!

[Paul Kemp]

there is no way the jmfcst's of the gop are going to vote for romney

Just like how they wouldn't vote for McCain?

[redcommander]

There is no way Perry, Bachmann, or Palin could beat Obama unless the stockmarket crashes, or some sort of Watergate style scandal breaks out involving Obama, and even then the three of them would probably only beat Obama by a Bush 2004 margin because they are that scary. The only possible candidates who could beat Obama under normal conditions are Romney, Huntsman, Paul, and Christie if he gets in. I will say that Romney does need to come off more energetic and less uptight though. It was holding him back in 2008, and he should make himself more warm and compassionate as a campaigner.

[redcommander]

there is no way the jmfcst's of the gop are going to vote for romney

Just like how they wouldn't vote for McCain?

Well you could argue that enough Republicans didn't turn out and vote for McCain to swing Indiana and North Carolina to Obama, but Romney is definitely more acceptable for Republicans than McCain was.

[angus]

There is a huge difference between a statistical tie in the case of Romney/Obama and a clear-cut lead for Obama over Perry.

Actually, there's not.  Even without propagating the error statistically, the +/- 3% that most polls claim leave room for a 6% difference to be a statistical tie.  And, propagating the errors properly, we need to take the square root of the sum of the squares of the errors given in the five polls I cited.  To keep it simple, let's assume that they're all 3%.  Then the square root of 5*(0.03)^2 is equal to 0.067.  So that's about a 7% margin of error for the average of the polls I averaged.  Both Romney and Perry are within 7% of Obama, on average.

But who cares about all that, really?  The only poll that really matters is the election.  Americans are out of work and nervous.  And they're fighting.  And they're weary.  Yes, I heard the remarks against Bernanke, which I precisely referred to in an earlier post when I suggested that Perry is stylistically and substantively unlike Bush.  He said that the Fed would be treated "pretty ugly" in Texas.  Ron Paul makes the same point, by the way, although with more nuanced language.  And it's a point that should be made.  Frequently.  And one that Romney will no doubt make as well, on the general election campaign trail, should he become the nominee.  But it'll take more than attacks on the Fed to defeat Obama.  And Romney doesn't even seem to be able to stay ahead of Perry.

[Guderian]

How many people even know right now that he voted for a multi-billion dollar tax hike on Texas back in 1987?

Do you people even know any average Joe voters or do you hang out only with political junkies? Stuff like that just doesn't interest 90% of voters