In Recent Cycles, What's the Latest Someone's Entered the Nomination Race and Strongly Contended?

[RTFirefly]

This is indirectly about Rick Perry, of course: given that it's July and he's still deciding whether to jump in, I'm wondering what the track record is of candidates who waited this long to become an active candidate for the nomination.

By 'entered the nomination race' and 'become an active candidate,' I mean doing the things candidates do, even if they haven't necessarily declared yet: forming an exploratory committee or other legal doohickey that allows them to raise money for forming a de facto campaign staff and whatnot, making multiple public appearances in early primary states, that sort of thing.

By 'strongly contended,' let's say either winning or finishing a strong second in a marquee pre-Super Tuesday primary or caucus, or doing well enough on Super Tuesday to boost the candidate's fundraising and popular support to a level where s/he was the frontrunner, or could clearly compete the rest of the way.

By 'recent,' let's say 1988-present.

And one final word: this thread is strictly about this one aspect of political horse-race analysis. To the extent that the OP's opinion matters in such things, this thread is NOT a forum for debating political issues. Let's stay on topic, please.

[Recovering Republican]

Why do you want to limit it to "recent cycles"?

In 1968, RFK didn't get in until after the NH Primary forced LBJ out of the running, and he'd have gotten the nomination of the Democrat Party if Sirhan hadn't killed him. (Ah, the "Religion of Peace" strikes again.)

In 1976, Ronald Reagan got in fairly late, but had an incumbant president looking over his shoulder.

While you have cases where you knew who the candidates were going to be fairly far out (2000, we knew it would be Bush v. Gore, and it was) most people aren't thinking about it this far out.

Keep in mind, at this point in 2007, everyone assumed Hillary had the Democratic nomination locked up, while Obama was running behind her and Edwards. Everyone assumed Guiliani would be the Republican nominee, while McCain was written off as dead.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

(Ah, the "Religion of Peace" strikes again.)

Christianity?

As an adult, he changed church denominations several times, joining Baptist and Seventh-day Adventist churches, and also allegedly dabbling in the occult.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Why do you want to limit it to "recent cycles"?

Because the method and style of presidential campaigns has changed. Hell, it used to be that presidential candidates didn't even go to the convention; it would seem that they wanted it too much.

... if Sirhan hadn't killed him. (Ah, the "Religion of Peace" strikes again.)

Sirhan is Christian.

Keep in mind, at this point in 2007, everyone assumed Hillary had the Democratic nomination locked up, while Obama was running behind her and Edwards. Everyone assumed Guiliani would be the Republican nominee, while McCain was written off as dead.

That's true. Yet every single one of them were performing actions that made it clear they were running for President. As much as I hate the length of campaigns these days, it is a fact that they are longer than they were in the 60s and 70s.

Why can't you ever just go along with the flow of a thread, instead of insisting on somehow finding a way of shoehorning your fetishes into every thread you enter?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Why do you want to limit it to "recent cycles"?

I think you answer your own question when you note:

In 1968, RFK didn't get in until after the NH Primary forced LBJ out of the running, and he'd have gotten the nomination of the Democrat Party if Sirhan hadn't killed him.

Because a candidate jumping in that late in any election cycle nowadays wouldn't have a prayer. As Frank points out, things have changed.

Keep in mind, at this point in 2007, everyone assumed Hillary had the Democratic nomination locked up, while Obama was running behind her and Edwards. Everyone assumed Guiliani would be the Republican nominee, while McCain was written off as dead.

Which has nothing to do with the question.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Why do you want to limit it to "recent cycles"?

In 1968, RFK didn't get in until after the NH Primary forced LBJ out of the running, and he'd have gotten the nomination of the Democrat Party if Sirhan hadn't killed him . . . In 1976, Ronald Reagan got in fairly late, but had an incumbant president looking over his shoulder.

You might want to brush up on your political science history if you don't immediately know why any nomination process up to 1980 has very little bearing on the modern process. That was the last time there was any serious dissent from the major candidate going into the convention, i.e., Ted Kennedy of the Democrats. These days, the whole idea for both parties is to present a united front at the time of the convention, which means things need to be hammered out earlier.

[RTFirefly]

An example of a guy who entered the race fairly late by contemporary standards but failed was Fred Thompson in the 2008 cycle. Per Wikipedia, he formed an exploratory committee on June 1, 2007, which raised a reasonable amount of money over the summer, but he wasn't particularly active as a campaigner until after he declared on September 5, 2007. His best finishes were third in Iowa and South Carolina, after which he dropped out.

[Captain Amazing]

I've made this argument before, but I don't think RFK really had much of a chance at the time, even if he wasn't shot. He had, for how late he came in, done really well in the primaries, but this was before the reforms of the McGovern-Fraser Committee, and in the Democratic Party, only like 13 states held primaries, and most of the delegates were chosen by party leaders, and Humphrey, who hadn't even competed in the primaries, had managed to get the support of the party establishment. RFK's only chance of getting the nomination was to win the remaining primaries by large margins, and then try to make some sort of moral argument to the party leadership that that gave him the legitimacy to become the nominee. The thing is, this is the exact argument in the actual 1968 that Gene McCarthy tried to make, and it didn't work. I can't see that RFK would have had any more luck.

[Captain Amazing]

Bill Clinton didn't declare his candidacy until October of 1991. In comparison, Tsongas declared in June of 1991, the first to do so, and Jerry Brown declared in September.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I've made this argument before, but I don't think RFK really had much of a chance at the time, even if he wasn't shot. He had, for how late he came in, done really well in the primaries, but this was before the reforms of the McGovern-Fraser Committee, and in the Democratic Party, only like 13 states held primaries, and most of the delegates were chosen by party leaders, and Humphrey, who hadn't even competed in the primaries, had managed to get the support of the party establishment. RFK's only chance of getting the nomination was to win the remaining primaries by large margins, and then try to make some sort of moral argument to the party leadership that that gave him the legitimacy to become the nominee. The thing is, this is the exact argument in the actual 1968 that Gene McCarthy tried to make, and it didn't work. I can't see that RFK would have had any more luck.

Robert Kennedy was counting on the fact that the rules were different for him. And he was probably right. If he looked like he had a decent chance, a lot of Humphrey's delegates would have jumped ship for another Kennedy. Ted Kennedy was counting on the same thing in 1980 but the times had changed.

[Captain Amazing]

Maybe. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but as unpopular as LBJ was among the college students and anti-war activists who made up McCarthy's and Kennedy's supporters, and as much as people blamed him for the Vietnam War, he still had a lot of support among the Democratic leadership, and he would have done his damnedest to keep Kennedy from getting the nomination.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Frank

Why can't you ever just go along with the flow of a thread, instead of insisting on somehow finding a way of shoehorning your fetishes into every thread you enter?

Well, I guess I had the wrong idea about these boards.

I thought they were about discussion.

I think now that they are about liberals doing "self-affirmation". "Obama's a good President". "Rick Perry isn't getting in". "That 9.2% isn't a total career ending disaster."

Maybe they should drop the name Straight Dope and go with the name "Happy Place".

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

An example of a guy who entered the race fairly late by contemporary standards but failed was Fred Thompson in the 2008 cycle. Per Wikipedia, he formed an exploratory committee on June 1, 2007, which raised a reasonable amount of money over the summer, but he wasn't particularly active as a campaigner until after he declared on September 5, 2007. His best finishes were third in Iowa and South Carolina, after which he dropped out.

You make the mistake of thinking Fred Thompson was actually a serious candidate.

Fred Thompson was a stalking horse for his good buddy John McCain.

His whole purpose in the campaign was to keep hard right votes from coalescing around Mitt Romney while McCain and Guilliani fought it out for the Super-Tuesday moderates.

But then Mike Huckabee upset the apple cart by appealling to social conservatives without paying homage to economic conservatives.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I thought they were about discussion.

Perhaps you might care then to discuss your comment about "religion of peace" and its inaccuracy and its relevance to the thread.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Frank

Perhaps you might care then to discuss your comment about "religion of peace" and its inaccuracy and its relevance to the thread.

Well, okay, assuming we aren't talking about Wiki Vandalism here, I guess he was a Palestinian Christian and not a Palestinian Muslim....

So what?

That whole area of the world is pretty fouled up. Reminds me why I'm an agnostic.

You seem awfully focused on an aside than you are about the main point, that people have gotten into races late and made an impact.

but let's talk about what you are really worried about. You are ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED Rick Perry could jump in and beat Obama. Actually, my cat could beat Obama at this point.

Which is horsecrap. No one is going to think much about who they are going to vote for until the primaries. All Perry has to do is win Iowa (doable) and make a strong showing in NH and he can be the instant frontrunner.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Well, okay, assuming we aren't talking about Wiki Vandalism here, I guess he was a Palestinian Christian and not a Palestinian Muslim....

So what?

How was that comment relevant? Just had to attempt to get in a pointless, inaccurate, and irrelevant dig, didn't you?

You are ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED Rick Perry could jump in and beat Obama.

I am? Huh. If your cat could beat Obama, why should I care what Republican does it? Perry's probably better than some. But, if he's going to run, he needs to get started. It's not 1968 anymore, nor even 1976. Times have changed.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

my cat could beat Obama at this point.

You may be right about that. It's possible that this country cares more about beating that socialist, Kenya-born, Mau-mau-bred, unemployment-encouraging darkie than they do about electing a President with a brain larger than a marble. It's sad, but it's possible.

I doubt it very much, but that's what your argument boils down. Now that we've heard it, and dismissed it as "Only mathematically possible," would you do us the kindness of not repeating it again? We've heard you. What part of "You're boring" don't you understand?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

You may be right about that. It's possible that this country cares more about beating that socialist, Kenya-born, Mau-mau-bred, unemployment-encouraging darkie than they do about electing a President with a brain larger than a marble. It's sad, but it's possible.

I doubt it very much, but that's what your argument boils down. Now that we've heard it, and dismissed it as "Only mathematically possible," would you do us the kindness of not repeating it again? We've heard you. What part of "You're boring" don't you understand?

Nobody's putting a gun to your head. I usually breeze past most of your posts because yours really are boring.

Also, beat that straw man really good, man. Keep attributing racial stuff to my argument I didn't say, because you can't face what I am saying.

I don't think Obama was born in Kenya or studied Mau Mau. I think he's an inept boob who doesn't know what the eff he's doing. So whatever Warm Body has a "R" after his name- even one that starts late- will probably beat him.

[Ichbin Dubist]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Well, I guess I had the wrong idea about these boards. ...I thought they were about discussion.

Omnipresent left-wing censorship is apparently deleting your great ideas before you even have them. Pernicious.

Wikipedia isn't helping me find too many examples of serious candidates who entered the primary field late. In 1988, Gary Hart actually re-entereed the race in December '87 after a long layoff, ultimately winning no states, but he had his own particular monkey business at that time.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Frank

How was that comment relevant? Just had to attempt to get in a pointless, inaccurate, and irrelevant dig, didn't you?

I don't know, man. You seem focused on a throwaway line I admit was wrong. I mean, I don't know how I could have drawn the conclusion that a man from the middle east commiting a cowardly act of violence was a Muslim...oh, wait, maybe it's all those other cowardly acts of violence they've committed.

I am? Huh. If your cat could beat Obama, why should I care what Republican does it? Perry's probably better than some. But, if he's going to run, he needs to get started. It's not 1968 anymore, nor even 1976. Times have changed.

Actually, not really. Most people aren't thinking about it right now, except for the junkies like ourselves.

You see, the thing is, I'm not happy about a lot of stuff going on in the GOP. I'm not happy that the religious nutters hold too much influence. I'm not happy that both parties are tools of the wealthy, and we're just being played.

But at the end of the day, votes aren't going to be cast for six months.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Ichbin Dubist

Wikipedia isn't helping me find too many examples of serious candidates who entered the primary field late. In 1988, Gary Hart actually re-entereed the race in December '87 after a long layoff, ultimately winning no states, but he had his own particular monkey business at that time.

Meaningless and pointless, really.

Again, I go back to 2007, and the supposed Hillary vs. Guilliani race everyone promised us.

Perry can enter the race late because he has more stature than anyone else running. (A three term governor of the second largest state vs. a few congressmen, one term governors and cranks.)

If Perry jumps in, he'll quickly co-opt all the far right energy currently circulating around Bachmann and Palin.

Remember, right now, the supposed "Front-runner", Mitt Romney really only has the support of about 20-30% of the GOP base. There's a lot of room to get in for someone with stature.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Most people aren't thinking about it right now, except for the junkies like ourselves.

Party leaders, key supporters and major donors are thinking about it right now, I'll bet you. The play may not start for six months, but it's being decided right now what actors are going to get up on the stage.

[Ichbin Dubist]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Meaningless and pointless, really.

]

Sorry if this doesn't conform to your vision of the thread as a compilation of the three things you like to talk about.

The fact that no one has pulled this feat off in recent memory might lead one to believe that even a candidate with "more stature" needs time to build an organization and raise enough money.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Party leaders, key supporters and major donors are thinking about it right now, I'll bet you. The play may not start for six months, but it's being decided right now what actors are going to get up on the stage.

But these movers and shakers are the ones pushing Perry.

Perry I think is credible now because Mitch Daniel and Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee, all of whom were expected to get in, aren't. (And probably neither is Sarah Palin).

And Mitt Romney is pretty much unacceptable to much of the base. So there is a big gap he could fill.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Ichbin Dubist

]

Sorry if this doesn't conform to your vision of the thread as a compilation of the three things you like to talk about.

The fact that no one has pulled this feat off in recent memory might lead one to believe that even a candidate with "more stature" needs time to build an organization and raise enough money.

No, not really.

At this point in 2007, John McCain was broke, most of his staff had quit and the pundits were writing him off as dead. It wasn't until he rebooted his staff he became credible.

Oh, yeah, and he had that stature thing going for him of being a senior senator, a war hero and the guy who almost beat Bush in 2000.

Perry would also have the advantage is that all the major factions of the GOP like the guy- The religious right, the TEA Party, the establishment, the Neo-Cons and Wall street. He's someone people could reach concensus on pretty quickly.

Oh, yeah, and he's got a bullet-proof argument against Obama. His state is one of the few that has actually ADDED jobs in the last few years.

[beartato]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I don't know, man. You seem focused on a throwaway line I admit was wrong. I mean, I don't know how I could have drawn the conclusion that a man from the middle east commiting a cowardly act of violence was a Muslim...oh, wait, maybe it's all those other cowardly acts of violence they've committed.

You could just admit that to you (and people like you), brown = Muslin terrarist. It'd save us all a lot of time.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by beartato

You could just admit that to you (and people like you), brown = Muslin terrarist. It'd save us all a lot of time.

Guy, you can't play the race card with me.... I don't accept it. (Especially since you don't know what my racial background is, and it might surprise you.)

[beartato]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Guy, you can't play the race card with me.... I don't accept it. (Especially since you don't know what my racial background is, and it might surprise you.)

But you're going to tell us one day, correct? When the time for someone to play the race card is right?

[C3]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Guy, you can't play the race card with me.... I don't accept it. (Especially since you don't know what my racial background is, and it might surprise you.)

You've already told us that you're of Cherokee and German ancestry.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by C3

You've already told us that you're of Cherokee and German ancestry.

Aaaah, but is that the whole picture or just part of the picture.

And just to screw with people, since Homo Sapiens and other pre-humans evolved in Africa and then spread out across the world, doesn't that make us all African Americans?

[Chronos]

If you recognize that, then why do you continue to put forth racist ideas?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Aaaah, but is that the whole picture or just part of the picture.

And just to screw with people, since Homo Sapiens and other pre-humans evolved in Africa and then spread out across the world, doesn't that make us all African Americans?

Maybe. But most of us didn't join the Broederbond.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

If you recognize that, then why do you continue to put forth racist ideas?

It's NOT racist to point out a culture has a problem.

Just like denying a problem because you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings isn't doing anyone any good.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Maybe. But most of us didn't join the Broederbond.

I just wanted Print Shop. I didn't think there was anything political about it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by dropzone

I just wanted Print Shop. I didn't think there was anything political about it.

And I just want to serve Carmen Sandiego with a court summons.

[twickster]

Recovering Republican, enough is enough.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Why do you want to limit it to "recent cycles"?

Because the OP gets to set the terms of the question.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

In 1968, RFK didn't get in until after the NH Primary forced LBJ out of the running, and he'd have gotten the nomination of the Democrat Party if Sirhan hadn't killed him. (Ah, the "Religion of Peace" strikes again.)

Stop dragging anti-Muslim digs into threads where they don't belong. The topic is presidential primary cycles of the last two decades.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Well, I guess I had the wrong idea about these boards.

I thought they were about discussion.

I think now that they are about liberals doing "self-affirmation". "Obama's a good President". "Rick Perry isn't getting in". "That 9.2% isn't a total career ending disaster."

Maybe they should drop the name Straight Dope and go with the name "Happy Place".

We are about discussion. These discussions take place in separate threads where people stay on topic. You pointedly refuse to do so.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Well, okay, assuming we aren't talking about Wiki Vandalism here, I guess he was a Palestinian Christian and not a Palestinian Muslim....

So what?

That whole area of the world is pretty fouled up. Reminds me why I'm an agnostic.

You seem awfully focused on an aside than you are about the main point, that people have gotten into races late and made an impact.

You are the person who is trying to derail the conversation with an aside, then denying it when you are called on it. As I said above, we try to stay on-topic in our conversations, but do allow people to correct egregious misstatements of fact.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Nobody's putting a gun to your head. I usually breeze past most of your posts because yours really are boring.

We also have a rule against insulting other posters.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I don't know, man. You seem focused on a throwaway line I admit was wrong. I mean, I don't know how I could have drawn the conclusion that a man from the middle east commiting a cowardly act of violence was a Muslim...oh, wait, maybe it's all those other cowardly acts of violence they've committed.

And once again, you try to get back into that sidetrack.

I am not issuing a warning yet -- but consider this a shot across your bow. Stay on topic; stop with irrelevant jabs against religions, ideologies, and politicians you dislike; stop insulting other posters.

I encourage you to start paying more attention to our rules now.

twickster, Elections moderator

[Recovering Republican]

Seems to me the rules are selectively enforced, since I get insulted about 10 times a day here... and no one seems to ever get a 'warning' about it.

I should also point out that most of the posts I added to this thread ARE on topic. Other folks are the ones who are going nuts over throwaway lines.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Bill Clinton didn't declare his candidacy until October of 1991. In comparison, Tsongas declared in June of 1991, the first to do so, and Jerry Brown declared in September.

But were they, or weren't they, doing other activities indicative of running - for instance, the exploratory committee, the public appearances in Iowa or New Hampshire, etc.? The date that they declare is really only relevant per the OP if they haven't been actively running prior to their declaration of candidacy.

[Bryan Ekers]

I guess the real question is "when why and how did all this 'exploratory committee' crap get started? In the old days, a potential candidate might talk it over with his family or send up a trial balloon, now it's this big process hullabaloo! God, I miss the Cold War."

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

But were they, or weren't they, doing other activities indicative of running - for instance, the exploratory committee, the public appearances in Iowa or New Hampshire, etc.? The date that they declare is really only relevant per the OP if they haven't been actively running prior to their declaration of candidacy.

I found a New York Times Article from August, 1991, that says Clinton "is nowe testing the waters for a campaign" and "could announce the formation of an exploratory committee soon"

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/14/us...clinton&st=nyt

and he looks like he did that at the end of August. Before that, there was a lot of "will he or won't he" speculation by the Times. So, I think it's probably safe to say that while he was thinking about it, and letting people talk him up (and, it looks like he made a speech attacking Dan Quayle), he wasn't actively running, and, in fact, was promising he'd finish his term as governor.

But then, in that race, most of the Democrats got in late, in part because Bush looked really strong...certainly later than the Republicans are this year. When everyone gets in late, getting in late doesn't hurt you as much.

[Koxinga]

I wonder if being a sitting governor gives one a bit more leeway in timing, since there's already a natural political base, active donor contacts and a national profile (more so than a senator or ex-governor).

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I guess the real question is "when why and how did all this 'exploratory committee' crap get started? In the old days, a potential candidate might talk it over with his family or send up a trial balloon, now it's this big process hullabaloo! God, I miss the Cold War."

I think that allows them to save face if they choose not to run.

"Well, we did an exploratory committee and the primary voters are happy with the people already in. Sorry. Come back and talk to me in four years when these other losers get washed out."

I think Perry is unique in that so much of the ground has changed in the last couple of months.

Haley Barbour opted out.
Trump opted out.
Huckabee opted out.
Daniels opted out.
Gingrich imploded.
Pawlenty has gained no traction.
Bachmann, who makes a lot of people in the GOP nervous, has surged ahead.

So there is a slot for him to move into. My guess he jumps in just before the Iowa Ames poll, where if he finishes ahead of Pawlenty, he can force Pawlenty out.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Seems to me the rules are selectively enforced, since I get insulted about 10 times a day here... and no one seems to ever get a 'warning' about it.

I should also point out that most of the posts I added to this thread ARE on topic. Other folks are the ones who are going nuts over throwaway lines.

And yet you continue to post those "throwaway lines," which suggests you're about as interested in annoying people as you are in a serious discussion. From now on you'll be warned for trolling when you do it. If you feel you're being insulted, report the post and let the mods handle it.

[Chronos]

I think Perry is unique in that so much of the ground has changed in the last couple of months.

Still, though, is he waiting for the ground to change even more? What's the advantage to waiting until just before the Ames poll, rather than officially jumping in now?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Still, though, is he waiting for the ground to change even more? What's the advantage to waiting until just before the Ames poll, rather than officially jumping in now?

He gets in now, there will be expectations over this largely meaningless event. He gets in just before it, no matter where he places, that will be the story.

Furthermore, it's actually in his best interest if he sits Ames out. Romney isn't competing, and Bachmann is coming on strong. Will probably outdo and elimnate Pawlenty. So essentially, he can point to Ames, say, "Look, Bachmann beat Romney, so you really want to take the risk she'll take it all?"

[Chronos]

Furthermore, it's actually in his best interest if he sits Ames out. Romney isn't competing, and Bachmann is coming on strong. Will probably outdo and elimnate Pawlenty. So essentially, he can point to Ames, say, "Look, Bachmann beat Romney, so you really want to take the risk she'll take it all?"

But for that tactic to work, he needs to be able to present himself as someone who can beat both Bachmann and Obama. And it'd really help his case if he could point to some hard data like the results of a well-respected poll to support that idea.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

But for that tactic to work, he needs to be able to present himself as someone who can beat both Bachmann and Obama. And it'd really help his case if he could point to some hard data like the results of a well-respected poll to support that idea.

Right now, polls put him ahead of Bachmann, and he isn't even running yet.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-1452.html

Two of these polls put him ahead of Palin as well, and very close to Romney even though Romney has obscene advantages in money and name recognition.

Now, as for beating Obama, the thing is, Obama does very poorly against "Generic Republican", but beats named people right now because a lot of people haven't thought about a specific name yet. That's what a campaign is for.

I've discussed a lot of what I think Perry's advantages are on other threads so I won't repeat them here. I think he could contend very well just on comparison of records alone.

[Chronos]

Generic <party member> always does better than any specific candidate from that party, because people fill in the blank with whomever they like best. Some people like Perry best, and so when a pollster asks them "Obama or generic republican?", they choose Perry. And once Perry officially enters the race (if it happens), he will of course continue to have the support of those folks. But then there are also some folks for whom "generic Republican" is Romney, or Bachmann, or Ron Paul, or Fred Karger, or whomever, and those folks may or may not support Perry (or any other specific person) who gets the nom.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

....You see, the thing is, I'm not happy about a lot of stuff going on in the GOP. I'm not happy that the religious nutters hold too much influence. I'm not happy that both parties are tools of the wealthy, and we're just being played.

But at the end of the day, votes aren't going to be cast for six months.

Are you happy that Your Boy Perry will probably kick off his campaign at his August 6 Prayer-A-Palooza in Houston's Reliant Stadium? His backers at the event are the narrow-minded types who only regard certain Christians as good enough....

Sure, Obama has problems. But we look at the Republican "hopefuls" & ask--Is that the best you can do? Close scrutiny of Perry's actual record in Texas shows he has covered himself in something other than glory.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Are you happy that Your Boy Perry will probably kick off his campaign at his August 6 Prayer-A-Palooza in Houston's Reliant Stadium? His backers at the event are the narrow-minded types who only regard certain Christians as good enough....

Sure, Obama has problems. But we look at the Republican "hopefuls" & ask--Is that the best you can do? Close scrutiny of Perry's actual record in Texas shows he has covered himself in something other than glory.

Bridge, I'm 50 years old. I've lived through ten presidents, three wars, and by my count about six recessions.

For the life of me, I've not seen someone as inept as Obama is. So, yeah, there's going to be a lot of times when I'm gritting my teeth when I hear a president talking about Jesus like he really existed.

You know what, though, I kind of don't care that much. What I care about is that we are nearly three years after the recession hit, and we haven't bounced back yet, nor are we likely to on this guy's watch. Texas has been able to produce jobs and economic growth. Perry might be doing something right.