How do you feel about the decline of Rick Perry?

So it seems that Perry is beginning to decline. According to some polls, he no longer the frontrunner.

How do you feel about this?

Although he could still easily win, as a progressive and someone who is more sympathetic to Dems than Repubs, I'm rooting for Perry. I think Obama would beat Perry easily whereas I think Romney is more of a toss up and Obama definitely could lose.

At first, I actually thought Perry would be formidable because of the way he could spin the so-called Texas miracle and my opinion that he has a certain kind of charisma. But looking at these debates, it's becoming clear that the dude is a pretty horrible communicator, and if I had to judge, I'd say that he's not all that smart, and not nearly as aggressive as the media was making him out to be. To be honest, not only did Romney get the better of him intellectually, I think Romney actually seemed more strong and aggressive whereas Perry came across as not knowing how to handle the debates.

If Perry was anything like that in a general, I think Obama would eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On the other hand, Romney could easily go toe to toe with Obama in a debate and would probably be much more fluid on economic matters, if not nearly as likable or personally charismatic.

Unsurprised, yet amused at the rapidity of it.

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

it was doomed to happen for anyhting good he supports the bad far outweighs it. he has very low constitution and fortitude someone shoulda re-rolled their character when they made it XD

jk in all seriousness hes done alot for the interest of others that he really shouldnt have and it was doomed to posion him. even if he got the nomination it would come out at the presidential debate and hed probably lose.

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

coolbeans90

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

coolbeans90

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

GreySeal9

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

The only reason I can see the odds being too overstated is the inherent dynamism in primaries. At the moment, I don't see anyone who can strike a chord with a significant amount of primary voters unless some dropout at the endorsement of others. The Tea Party/evangelical wing is not coalescing around one candidate, yet. They are a fickle crowd, though.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

Frame_Dragger

Romney is polling fairly well in matchups against Obama. Pretty much dead heat.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

coolbeans90

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

The only reason I can see the odds being too overstated is the inherent dynamism in primaries. At the moment, I don't see anyone who can strike a chord with a significant amount of primary voters unless some dropout at the endorsement of others. The Tea Party/evangelical wing is not coalescing around one candidate, yet. They are a fickle crowd, though.

The dynamicism of the primaries is one thing, but the main reason is that Romney is still what is called a "weak frontrunner". He may have the most support out of name recognition and the perception of being electable, but I don't see that Republicans really want to vote for him, and getting people to want to vote for you is pretty important, especially in the general.

So it seems that Perry is beginning to decline. According to some polls, he no longer the frontrunner.

How do you feel about this?

Although he could still easily win, as a progressive and someone who is more sympathetic to Dems than Repubs, I'm rooting for Perry. I think Obama would beat Perry easily whereas I think Romney is more of a toss up and Obama definitely could lose.

At first, I actually thought Perry would be formidable because of the way he could spin the so-called Texas miracle and my opinion that he has a certain kind of charisma. But looking at these debates, it's becoming clear that the dude is a pretty horrible communicator, and if I had to judge, I'd say that he's not all that smart, and not nearly as aggressive as the media was making him out to be. To be honest, not only did Romney get the better of him intellectually, I think Romney actually seemed more strong and aggressive whereas Perry came across as not knowing how to handle the debates.

If Perry was anything like that in a general, I think Obama would eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On the other hand, Romney could easily go toe to toe with Obama in a debate and would probably be much more fluid on economic matters, if not nearly as likable or personally charismatic.

GreySeal9

I'm actually not rooting for something like that to happen. If Obama loses, I want him to lose to a candidate I can remotely stand.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Relieved. Perry's polling has plummeted; Intrade has him a 20% probability of winning the nomination, whereas Romney is sitting right above 60%. Perry wouldn't have beaten Obama, and wouldn't be someone supportable anyway if he could. I thought that this sort of decline might (50/50) happen, though I didn't think his front-runner status would be so shortlived.

Frame_Dragger

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

I don't think Romney will result in a divided Republican vote. Both the Tea Party and the Republicans (and a huge chunk of Tea Partiers are Republicans anyway) are so opposed to Obama that I doubt they'll have any trouble uniting for the common purpose of defeating them. If Romney wins, I'm sure Tea Partiers will throw out their alleged principles and hold their nose for Romney.

That being said, the lack of enthusiasm could hurt him quite a bit, but I doubt there'll be any Tea Party candidate taking votes from Romney.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

GreySeal9

The only reason I can see the odds being too overstated is the inherent dynamism in primaries. At the moment, I don't see anyone who can strike a chord with a significant amount of primary voters unless some dropout at the endorsement of others. The Tea Party/evangelical wing is not coalescing around one candidate, yet. They are a fickle crowd, though.

The dynamicism of the primaries is one thing, but the main reason is that Romney is still what is called a "weak frontrunner". He may have the most support out of name recognition and the perception of being electable, but I don't see that Republicans really want to vote for him, and getting people to want to vote for you is pretty important, especially in the general.

Considering that the primary focus of his campaign is Obama, I think turnout from the base will be adequete. The only reason why I think the dynamism in the primaries could affect Romney's current status is, as you put it, his "weak front-runner" status.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

So it seems that Perry is beginning to decline. According to some polls, he no longer the frontrunner.

How do you feel about this?

Although he could still easily win, as a progressive and someone who is more sympathetic to Dems than Repubs, I'm rooting for Perry. I think Obama would beat Perry easily whereas I think Romney is more of a toss up and Obama definitely could lose.

At first, I actually thought Perry would be formidable because of the way he could spin the so-called Texas miracle and my opinion that he has a certain kind of charisma. But looking at these debates, it's becoming clear that the dude is a pretty horrible communicator, and if I had to judge, I'd say that he's not all that smart, and not nearly as aggressive as the media was making him out to be. To be honest, not only did Romney get the better of him intellectually, I think Romney actually seemed more strong and aggressive whereas Perry came across as not knowing how to handle the debates.

If Perry was anything like that in a general, I think Obama would eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On the other hand, Romney could easily go toe to toe with Obama in a debate and would probably be much more fluid on economic matters, if not nearly as likable or personally charismatic.

Serraph105

I'm actually not rooting for something like that to happen. If Obama loses, I want him to lose to a candidate I can remotely stand.

I feel you on that. I just don't really trust any Republican, except someone like Hunstman, to not try to reverse things like the repeal of DADT. I think that Romney .vs. Obama is such a toss up that Romney could easily win. I think the chance of Perry actually winning are very slim. I don't think he'll be able to seriously compete outside of red states. Romney can definitely "expand the map" if you know what I mean.

While I think he would have made a fool of himself in debates against Obama, I'm still glad Romney has overtaken him. I prefer not risking a George W. Bush 2.0.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The only reason I can see the odds being too overstated is the inherent dynamism in primaries. At the moment, I don't see anyone who can strike a chord with a significant amount of primary voters unless some dropout at the endorsement of others. The Tea Party/evangelical wing is not coalescing around one candidate, yet. They are a fickle crowd, though.

coolbeans90

The dynamicism of the primaries is one thing, but the main reason is that Romney is still what is called a "weak frontrunner". He may have the most support out of name recognition and the perception of being electable, but I don't see that Republicans really want to vote for him, and getting people to want to vote for you is pretty important, especially in the general.

Considering that the primary focus of his campaign is Obama, I think turnout from the base will be adequete. The only reason why I think the dynamism in the primaries could affect Romney's current status is, as you put it, his "weak front-runner" status.

Yeah, turnout will definitely be adequate, but the campaigns also need enthusiasm.

That being said, the enthusiasm Obama's base has for him will be dampened, so maybe it will be a wash. Still, I can't imagine that any progressive will be holding their nose as much as some Tea Party/Tea Party sympathetic Republican voters will be as far as Romney is concerned.

I feel you on that. I just don't really trust any Republican, except someone like Hunstman, to not try to reverse things like the repeal of DADT. I think that Romney .vs. Obama is such a toss up that Romney could easily win. I think the chance of Perry actually winning are very slim. I don't think he'll be able to seriously compete outside of red states. Romney can definitely "expand the map" if you know what I mean.GreySeal9

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I think Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination, and doomed in the general election. Too many people, especially the evangelical crowd will stay home instead of voting for a mormon, even if they won't say it. Meanwhile, Obama may not be popular, but he has strong support from his base. .LJS9502_basic

The thing about a close election is that a close election will probably be more favorable to the President because the inherent advantages of incumbency, Americans not liking to kick out their President, and other factors like money and some major foreign policy/nation security successes.

I think that if Romney wins, it will have to be by a good margin (which is possible). I think a nail biter contest will go to Obama.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think Romney does have the highest chance of winning, but I think Intrade is overstating Romney's advantage somewhat.

Romney is polling fairly well in matchups against Obama. Pretty much dead heat.

If Perry was anything like that in a general, I think Obama would eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On the other hand, Romney could easily go toe to toe with Obama in a debate and would probably be much more fluid on economic matters, if not nearly as likable or personally charismatic.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]I feel you on that. I just don't really trust any Republican, except someone like Hunstman, to not try to reverse things like the repeal of DADT. I think that Romney .vs. Obama is such a toss up that Romney could easily win. I think the chance of Perry actually winning are very slim. I don't think he'll be able to seriously compete outside of red states. Romney can definitely "expand the map" if you know what I mean.TransFishers

Yeah, I suppose that's true. It's just that there is going to be a certain amount of Tea Party pressure on any Republican that wins. But you're probably right and I'm probably being a little paranoid.

Herman Cain is the only non-politician in the running, he is who I am leaning for. I wish there were a good moderate libertarian, Ron Paul is just a nut. I will have to settle for Cain, even though I don't like the social conservative crap.vfibsux

good, but i'd say that about everyone in the race but paul, as i have seen nothing but more of the same from everyone. paul, like my self, is seen as the dick on the wall by his peers, they are just jelly they cant get forecasts right as often.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I think Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination, and doomed in the general election. Too many people, especially the evangelical crowd will stay home instead of voting for a mormon, even if they won't say it. Meanwhile, Obama may not be popular, but he has strong support from his base. .LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If Perry was anything like that in a general, I think Obama would eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. On the other hand, Romney could easily go toe to toe with Obama in a debate and would probably be much more fluid on economic matters, if not nearly as likable or personally charismatic.

topsemag55

I think that is true, which is all the more reason why Romney would be a much better choice for the Repubs than Perry.

However, if Perry could just be a sort of neutral loser (meaning he doesn't win but he doesn't get damaged by not coming off better in a debate), that would be fine, but he has shown that he fumbles the debates so bad that he a) damages himself and b) makes other look better.

He's making Romney look better right now and I'm sure he would have the same effect on Obama.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I think Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination, and doomed in the general election. Too many people, especially the evangelical crowd will stay home instead of voting for a mormon, even if they won't say it. Meanwhile, Obama may not be popular, but he has strong support from his base. .Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not sure I believe that. The evangelical crowd isn't as big as most make out but for the Republican Party...they'd rather a Republican president over a Democratic one. And historically Republicans vote in larger numbers than Democrats. Taken with the disenchantment and novelty of the first Obama Election and I see the first time Democratic voters sitting it out this time. So it might be closer than you think.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I think Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination, and doomed in the general election. Too many people, especially the evangelical crowd will stay home instead of voting for a mormon, even if they won't say it. Meanwhile, Obama may not be popular, but he has strong support from his base. .GreySeal9

The thing about a close election is that a close election will probably be more favorable to the President because the inherent advantages of incumbency, Americans not liking to kick out their President, and other factors like money and some major foreign policy/nation security successes.

I think that if Romney wins, it will have to be by a good margin (which is possible). I think a nail biter contest will go to Obama.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] They're big, just not numerous. They form a lot of the "grassroots" oranization that gets the vote out, and in increasingly narrow elections they matter in key states like Florida. I really wouldn't underestimate just how prejudiced people willl be when it comes to the prospect of a mormon in office, and that is going to be VERY quiet until we're well out of the primaries.Frame_Dragger

I think you underestimate how much these people dislike Obama.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Their alternative is a ANTI-CHRIST MUSLIM.....which they don't like. So I see them voting party if not candidate.TransFishers

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Their alternative is a ANTI-CHRIST MUSLIM.....which they don't like. So I see them voting party if not candidate.TransFishers

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Their alternative is a Democrat.....which they don't like. So I see them voting party if not candidate.GreySeal9

I think you underestimate how much these people dislike Obama.

I think you underestimate how paranoid people are about having someone in office who isn't a christian male. This country elected a black man before it has put a women or anyone who isn't strictly christian in office. Even JFK had to reassure people that, as a catholic, he wouldn't be taking orders from the pope. This is a WEIRD country. I think if these religious folks get desperate, they'll take that leap of faith and pin their hopes on a third party candidate and make a "principled stand" rather than vote for either R or D.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not sure I believe that. The evangelical crowd isn't as big as most make out but for the Republican Party...they'd rather a Republican president over a Democratic one. And historically Republicans vote in larger numbers than Democrats. Taken with the disenchantment and novelty of the first Obama Election and I see the first time Democratic voters sitting it out this time. So it might be closer than you think.LJS9502_basic

The thing about a close election is that a close election will probably be more favorable to the President because the inherent advantages of incumbency, Americans not liking to kick out their President, and other factors like money and some major foreign policy/nation security successes.

I think that if Romney wins, it will have to be by a good margin (which is possible). I think a nail biter contest will go to Obama.

I wouldn't bet the house on it either and I'm straight up puzzled by the Dems/libs/Obama backers that do. This President is extremely vulnerable.

Republicans might typically come out in higher numbers than Democrats, and Obama might not have the enthusiasm that he did, but he does still have craploads of money and a very good ground game, which increases turnout.

And yeah, dissatisfaction is going to hurt Obama (last election, he was a blank slate), but if it comes really close, if you go down the list of factors that might turn the election in either direction, Obama probably has somewhat more powerful factors, and more of them.

But yeah, one would have to be oblivious to the political climate to think Obama has this sealed.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]I think you underestimate how paranoid people are about having someone in office who isn't a christian male. This country elected a black man before it has put a women or anyone who isn't strictly christian in office. Even JFK had to reassure people that, as a catholic, he wouldn't be taking orders from the pope. This is a WEIRD country. I think if these religious folks get desperate, they'll take that leap of faith and pin their hopes on a third party candidate and make a "principled stand" rather than vote for either R or D.TransFishers

[QUOTE="TransFishers"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]I think you underestimate how paranoid people are about having someone in office who isn't a christian male. This country elected a black man before it has put a women or anyone who isn't strictly christian in office. Even JFK had to reassure people that, as a catholic, he wouldn't be taking orders from the pope. This is a WEIRD country. I think if these religious folks get desperate, they'll take that leap of faith and pin their hopes on a third party candidate and make a "principled stand" rather than vote for either R or D.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] it will be interstig to see how it plays out, but I suspect in that situation you have a low voter turnout from key groups for the R's. Yeah, they're not voting for Obama, but they may well stay home which is almost as good for Obama.Frame_Dragger

I think you underestimate how much these people dislike Obama.

In a constest of paranoia and outright contempt, I think contempt wins.

All ready the Republican talking heads/pundits are out there trying to put a "If Obama wins, we lose the country" message out there. Considering the way the Republican base views Obama, I can see them taking that kind of message seriously.

It's somewhat telling that the departure from the norm was skin color, not gender, not religion, not sexual orientation. I suspect that gender would be the next move, not religion... this country is all kinds of cwwwaaaazzzyyy about religion. Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="TransFishers"] Ha! No religious litmus test my rosy red butt, eh?LJS9502_basic