Why Perry Can't Win

[mudwhistle]

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.

You have a very biased and jaded opinion of the GOP.

The Tea Party is an outsider when it comes to the GOP.

Besides....Republicans aren't like Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives. They don't have to change their stripes to become palatable to the public. They don't have to appear to be moderates to get their foot in the door. All they have to do is be themselves. The only weapons the left has against them is false stereotypes and smear tactics and making sure that the public is misinformed.

 

[Greenbeard]

You have a very biased and jaded opinion of the GOP.

The Tea Party is an outsider when it comes to the GOP.

Not really:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.​

Which was pretty obvious from the start.

Besides....Republicans aren't like Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives. They don't have to change their stripes to become palatable to the public. They don't have to appear to be moderates to get their foot in the door.

Nonsense. There are dozens of examples one can point to, large and small. For example, Paul Ryan scrubbing use of the word "vouchers" from his Medicare issues page last year and re-branding it as "premium support" this year. Branding is at the heart of politics--there isn't a party or a person who doesn't do it.

 

[yidnar]

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.

we shall see Indefensible Logic we shall see....

 

[JoeB131]

The entire OP is based on the premise that because Perry sounds kind of like Bush-43, people will react negatively to him.

Forget about the fact that Bush-43 won in 2004 and although his victory in 2000 has more hair on it than meatball rolling through a cat's bad, he still became president. And neither time did he run against an unpopular president defending a dismal economic record and a double dip recession.

Funny thing about Americans. We love Cowboys. It's one of the endearing American Characters, despite liberal attempts to dissaude us with the whole White Guilt thing.

Reagan and Bush-43 were ersatz cowboys, but Perry is the real deal.

I think Perry would kick Obama's buttocks, for the same reason Ronald Reagan mopped the floor with Jimmy Carter. Beyond policy and idealogy, Obama appears feckless at this point. He looks indecisive and weak. Perry looks like a guy who will kick ass and take names. When things get tough, people want the latter sort.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

You have a very biased and jaded opinion of the GOP.

The Tea Party is an outsider when it comes to the GOP.

Besides....Republicans aren't like Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives. They don't have to change their stripes to become palatable to the public. They don't have to appear to be moderates to get their foot in the door. All they have to do is be themselves. The only weapons the left has against them is false stereotypes and smear tactics and making sure that the public is misinformed.

I find your post quite amusing. First you say the other person is biased against Republicans and then you show overt prejudice against everyone on "the other side". This you follow up, with blindly devotional statements that half the politicians in the country are sweet and pure in every way, simply because they are members of "your group".
It's cool though, I've seen Libs do the exact same thing. It is ever so easy to prove that you are as wrong as they are.

 

[IndependntLogic]

We'll be playing musical chairs with both clown parties if the economy stays the same for the next few election cycles.

That won't happen if the Republicans take back the White House and the Senate. An entire generation just needs to be taught the lesson about what works and what doesn't all over again, this time led by a truly conservative president.

Aside from the radical left, only those who don't know what works and what doesn't would fret or not know to pull the Republican lever in 2012.

For example, since 2012 circumstances have improved in virtually every state governed by Republicans against the tide, while circumstances have worsened in virtually every state governed by Democrats.[/QUOTE]

Would you say drastically increased spending & debt, and lower average wage is what you mean by "improved"? I wouldn't. I mean, when did racking up mountains of debt, not become an issue with you guys?

In any case, I was just looking at this from a different perspective. I still like Rick Perry but have no fear of criticizing him or pointing out potential campaign weaknesses. This was not meant to be a "Our guy is better than your guy" post as I think Obama just plain sucks.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think he can win.

I think he has a very good shot at the nomination. And I think Obama is very vulnerable, which means that the GOP candidate can win. Because of Obama's vulnerability, I think most of the Republican candidates have a real shot. Perry is not as good of a general election candidate than Romney, but he still has a real shot.

Okay, given Obama's extremely poor performance, I guess it was a bit strong to say that Perry "Can't win". Fine he has a shot, albeit a long shot. I think the GOP would be better off with Paul than Perry - and that's saying something because Paul seems unelectable. But at least he wouldn't be perceived thus: W was horrible. Obama is W part II, Here comes Perry - W Part III.

Many of the states Obama won he won by 2-3%. Those same states are hard-hit with high unemployment. They are not going for Obama again. Especially against a guy with a record of job creation like Perry has (never mind the leftist spin--no one is listening).
Perry looks and sounds convincing. He will do well both campaigning and governing. He looks like the adult in the room next to Obama.
But if even dumbshit leftists like you don't like Obama, who is left to vote for him?

 

[IndependntLogic]

I think he can win.

I think he has a very good shot at the nomination. And I think Obama is very vulnerable, which means that the GOP candidate can win. Because of Obama's vulnerability, I think most of the Republican candidates have a real shot. Perry is not as good of a general election candidate than Romney, but he still has a real shot.

Okay, given Obama's extremely poor performance, I guess it was a bit strong to say that Perry "Can't win". Fine he has a shot, albeit a long shot. I think the GOP would be better off with Paul than Perry - and that's saying something because Paul seems unelectable. But at least he wouldn't be perceived thus: W was horrible. Obama is W part II, Here comes Perry - W Part III.

Many of the states Obama won he won by 2-3%. Those same states are hard-hit with high unemployment. They are not going for Obama again. Especially against a guy with a record of job creation like Perry has (never mind the leftist spin--no one is listening).
Perry looks and sounds convincing. He will do well both campaigning and governing. He looks like the adult in the room next to Obama.
But if even dumbshit leftists like you don't like Obama, who is left to vote for him?

Uh yeah. See my signature below. Then read the OP where I state clearly I like Perry, I'm just commenting on some campaigning problems he'll have. And that Obama sucks and is doing an extremely poor job. And then see my signature below...

 

[GWV5903]

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.

IL how did you avoid the "Quarters" when you lived in Sugarland, TX? Did you just get on 59 and ignore everything? By your own admission, you were not paying attention, but you would have to live in a cocoon to miss the poor / lower middle class in SW Houston...

Well then perhaps we did. We went out there to take care of my brother when he was diagnosed with cancer. We lived in Greatwood off 59 and Grand Parkway. Had a 4500 sq ft home and I worked from the house, when we werent traveling (took my brother on a poor man's Bucket List). So I don't even know what "The Quarters" is.

I know the area well, cancer sucks, sorry to hear, you didn't see "Tara Colony" it was adjacent to Greatwood, south on Crabb River Rd., defiantly middle class, now Greatwood was or is about $25k to $35K less than First Colony, and today New Sugarland, is very much in demand....

The "Quarters" is right behind the old sugar factory, it was the factory housing project on the north side of HWY. 90, the south side was management, both very old and very middle class...

The one thing about most of Texas (excluding DFW) very straightforward, un-pretentious, hard working and pro growth / pro business, it can offend some types...

 

[Unkotare]

I voted for Bush. I was floored when he lost! .

The problem wasn't his body language. You can thank the mediocre campaign he ran and, more significantly, Ross Perot for his defeat.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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...

 

[Unkotare]

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. ...

You just admitted that he did. Come on kid, you finally stopped being stupid for a moment, even if just by accident, don't ruin it now.

 

[JoeB131]

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. ...

You just admitted that he did. Come on kid, you finally stopped being stupid for a moment, even if just by accident, don't ruin it now.

Guy, if we counted votes instead of the ridiculous Electoral College, Al Gore would be President.

If the SCOTUS had actually followed the law instead of being Partisan, Al Gore would have been president.

Had Jeb Bush not purged black people from the voters rolls in Florida, Al Gore would be President.

Had their been an honest recount of the votes in Florida, Al Gore would be president.

Bush became president. He didn't "win". More Americans wanted Al Gore. Now, I voted for Bush in 2000, but the simple fact remains, Al Gore got more votes.

We should be ashamed to have won the presidency in such an underhanded, dishonest manner. If a Democrat won in such a manner, you'd be screaming bloody hell, and rightfully so.

George W. Bush lost the election. He was selected, not elected.

Republicans need to reconnect with middle America, not foist another silver spoon trust fund baby on the country and then be surprised when he loses.

 

[Unkotare]

No, Bush didn't win the election. ...

You just admitted that he did. Come on kid, you finally stopped being stupid for a moment, even if just by accident, don't ruin it now.

Guy, if we counted votes instead of the ridiculous Electoral College, Al Gore would be President. .

Obviously he wouldn't now be President in any case. But your "if this" and "if that" nonsense is just childish. If we decided the election by who could throw a baseball further Bush would have won, if we decided by who could eat more hot dogs in a minute Gore would have won, blah, blah, blah. Guess what democrat? There is only one way we DO decide elections and according to the laws of the United States of America Bush WON the election and Gore LOST the election. Get the fuck over it already, it's been more than a decade.

And you are trying waaaay too hard on the populist bit. Your fakeness is glaring. I don't know what the DNC is paying you, but they are getting ripped off.

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously he wouldn't now be President in any case. But your "if this" and "if that" nonsense is just childish. If we decided the election by who could throw a baseball further Bush would have won, if we decided by who could eat more hot dogs in a minute Gore would have won, blah, blah, blah. Guess what democrat? There is only one way we DO decide elections and according to the laws of the United States of America Bush WON the election and Gore LOST the election. Get the fuck over it already, it's been more than a decade.

And you are trying waaaay too hard on the populist bit. Your fakeness is glaring. I don't know what the DNC is paying you, but they are getting ripped off.

It isn't about hotdogs, guy. It's about who got the most votes. Al Gore got the most votes. Bush was selected by a court, not elected by the people. History will not be kind to Bush at all.

But you clowns will nominate Romney and wonder why Joe Working Stiff won't vote for him when they find out he has five mansions and hires illegal aliens to do his yardwork because Americans want too much money. It's like you guys never learn. You think you can keep pulling this stuff of nominating out of touch rich guys and people will go along with it.

 

[Unkotare]

[

It isn't about hotdogs, guy. It's about who got the most votes.

NO numbskull, no. I told you before to educate yourself on our electoral system. Not the one you wish we had, not the one your handlers at the DNC want you to promote, but the one we DO have. Is this too fucking hard for you to understand, kid?


And just FYI, Hillary pretending she always drinks boilermakers in a bar in Philly after obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" accidental honest opinion didn't work for her because it was so obviously put on, just like your populist theatrics. Do you really think you are slipping some class warfare nonsense in there under the radar, democrat? You democrats still don't really understand why Kerry lost.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It isn't about hotdogs, guy. It's about who got the most votes.

NO numbskull, no. I told you before to educate yourself on our electoral system. Not the one you wish we had, not the one your handlers at the DNC want you to promote, but the one we DO have. Is this too fucking hard for you to understand, kid?

Oh, I understand that we have a profoundly stupid system created by slaveholders who didn't like or want real democracy. These people also counted blacks as 3/5ths of a white person and thought bleeding people was a good cure for what ailed you.

But usually it isn't a big deal because in most cases, the guy who wins the popular vote (Morally the only one that counts) usually wins the electoral vote, too.

In 1960, Richard Nixon could have sued to win. He only lost by 100,000 votes and there was enough suspicious activity in Texas and IL to turn the electoral his way. But he didn't. He accepted the will of the people.

So George W. Bush was less ethical than Richard Nixon. Are you really proud of that. (Frankly, I don't think Bush was worthy to Carry Nixon's briefcase, but the same can be said of most of our modern politicians.)

And just FYI, Hillary pretending she always drinks boilermakers in a bar in Philly after obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" accidental honest opinion didn't work for her because it was so obviously put on, just like your populist theatrics. Do you really think you are slipping some class warfare nonsense in there under the radar, democrat? You democrats still don't really understand why Kerry lost.

Actually, Hillary got more votes in the primaries. Obama was put over the top because the Superdelegates didn't want the Clintons back, and probably because they thought that a weak president would be one that they could have their way with. I mean, why not. The way things looked in 2008, the GOP wasn't going to ever be a factor again after Bush's disasterous run.

And I understand exactly why Kerry lost. Because America has voted out an incumbant president during wartime. But let's look at that for a minute-

Point 1- Bush despite the war, a good economy, only beat Kerry 51-49. It shows that most Americans don't trust republicans. They've lost touch.

Point 2- If Kerry had gotten 80,000 more votes in Ohio, he'd have won the election. (And oddly, your great love of the Founding Slave-Rapists and their "wisdom" of not trusting the people would evaporate in a heartbeat.) Thankfully, there was a homophobic measure on the ballot that brought out just enough people to put Bush over the top.

So in 2000, he cheated and in 2004, he played on hate. Are you really proud of this? I'm not. This is why Obama gets away with blaming his failures on Bush.

The ironic thing is that he so poisoned the GOP brand that when the GOP nominated the guy they should have nominated in 2000- John McCain, (war hero, statesman, etc.) people were having none of it. Let's elect the community organizer because he talks really purty.

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." The GOP is its own worst enemy. It might pull out a win in 2012 if they nominate Perry, but probably not if they nominate Romney. But after that, as the country gets browner, and if the middle class continues to vanish, they'll probably go the way of the Whigs.

The GOP needs to change. It needs to stop being the party of Polo Ponies.

 

[Seawytch]

While the similarities between Bush and Perry are eery...I don't think just the fact that he is a Texas governor who thinks god wants him to be President is going to keep people from voting for him...

The fact that he thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional is what is going to turn most people off.

 

[Seawytch]

Point 2- If Kerry had gotten 80,000 more votes in Ohio, he'd have won the election. (And oddly, your great love of the Founding Slave-Rapists and their "wisdom" of not trusting the people would evaporate in a heartbeat.) Thankfully, there was a homophobic measure on the ballot that brought out just enough people to put Bush over the top.

Or maybe if the maker of the voting machines in Ohio hadn't come out and said they could guarantee Ohio for Bush...