Romney's not wierd as much as he is a throwback. even george bush can relate to younger audiences even bill clinton still can. watching romney is like watching a politician from the fifities. he's so stiff and "perfect" for that time. he's just out of place.
I agree he's stiff, but I disagree that he's not completely weird. Romney reminds me very much of a good friend of mine that just can't stop making weird jokes that nobody gets. That's not stiffness or being like a politician from a bygone era; it's just being weird. The jokes he tells or comments he makes when he's off script would have been equally weird in the 50's. He's not telling old jokes, he's telling weird jokes. Americans don't want a weird president. I almost think they'd rather have an atheist. eek I think I've said this here before, can't remember, but I sincerely believe this will be his greatest hurdle (of many) to winning a general if he somehow gets through the primary.
This is my summary of the GOP field: Palin - Not-very-smart and crazy Bachmann - Politically brilliant crazy Ron Paul - Dangerously crazy Cain - Just crazy Gingrich - Has-no-campaign-staff-or-money crazy Perry - Secessionist crazy Pawlenty - Really wishes he was crazy Gary Johnson - Who? Thinks-he-can-win crazy. Huntsman - Sane and rational, so he's polling at 1% Romney - Does it matter? Seeing the above, life seems good for him!
He's tried his best to act crazy, from superhero campaign ads to $11 trillion tax cuts. But at the end of the day, he's just boring and can't seem to get any traction with it!
Great post. LOL Seriously, how can Perry get any real run when he talked about leaving the Union? Herman Cain and Gingrich talked about "loyalty to the United States" in order to serve in their cabinet, shouldn't "willingness to secede" immediately disqualify from you being elected PRESIDENT in people's minds?
Chris Wallace lambasted him on this issue and Pawlently looked like a complete idiot as he tried to explain why he had no role in this.
As I see it, Pawlenty's goal is to last as long as possible this time around and just try to make a credible run. Then he might become the Romney of 2016. The problem is he's not even close to what Romney was in 2008. Plus, in 2016, I expect the GOP field to be a lot tougher. His only chance this time is for Romney to implode, which isn't likely.
I don't even think Romney imploding will help him. As far as I can tell he's behind Bachman and Perry (if he runs) without any surprises.
Bachmann has no chance to win the nomination. Her upside is giving a keynote address at the convention. Indeed, if Perry can actually connect with Republican voters around the country on the stump, he will vault past Pawlenty like he didn't exist.
"Certainly, you are not going to see a great philosophical difference between Rick Perry and George Bush." - Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), quoted by the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, in December 2000. "I've never met George W Bush, I've never liked him, I don't believe in his politics and I'm nothing like him!" - Gov. Rick Perry (R), On the campaign trail, Sept 2011
Perry already has a ready answer for this (I read it yesterday but can't remember where) and it's just persuasive enough for him to avoid real problems in this area. I doubt it's an issue that will stick or damage him too badly. I feel certain there are other things that will threaten his candidacy but I don't think this will be the worst of them. And, as these things go, every candidate (always) has some problem as bad as the secession thing at least. Usually a considerably worse one, and more difficult to navigate. Right now, I'd predict he'll be the nominee.
It may not help him to be Texan but I don't think it will be a deciding factor by any means. And GWB is still pretty popular in the GOP. Remember, they'll be the ones doing most of the voting. I favor Perry by process of elimination. Who do you think will (even could) get it instead? Gingrich, Pawlenty and Huntsman are walking dead. If they're not gone by NH, they will be after. I guess Huntsman could come to life in NH, but it seems very unlikely. The other two are already done. Actually, the only way that the results of the poll I posted yesterday for GOP'ers here have any resemblance to the actual polling being done on this race is that these three guys come in pretty much last. Paul, Johnson and Cain just aren't serious candidates. Paul might go all the way to the convention (the other two won't) but everyone knows he has 0% chance of winning. I predict, though I am not certain, that Bachmann will also be judged by the GOP power-brokers (if not the rank and file) to be too radical to have a reasonable chance in a general and that, though she might make a good run, she won't be able to make it through. I read that her campaign was emulating Howard Dean's and I expect it to have a similar outcome. That leaves Romney and I'm just not feeling it. I don't think the GOP is either. He is a very weak frontrunner by any measure. There is a real opening here, because the party is very dissatisfied with the current roster of candidates and, I think, particularly with the idea of Romney as frontrunner or nominee. And Perry ought not to be underestimated as a candidate. He is charming, good-looking and a tireless campaigner. Retail politics are his specialty and I think that will make him a force in Iowa (he only needs 2nd or 3rd to come out strong). I don't expect he'd win NH. Neither did Bush. I expect his southern roots will make him a force in South Carolina. I also think he will get a lot of the Palin vote -- and that she will endorse him (again) -- and some of the Bachmann vote. He is a candidate that the GOP elite and the rank and file and the tea party could get behind. I don't see anyone else having that kind of potential coalition. Romney is running ahead in NH but when your polling is in the 30's that's not a reliably strong position -- even if your current opponents can't break 11. If Romney gets to Nevada he will do well there, unless he's already become an obvious also-ran. But I just don't see his path to the nomination if there is a single credible challenger. Right now I think there isn't. If Perry gets in, there is. And, when Perry does likely get in, the field is probably set. I don't think most reasonable observers expect Palin or Giuliani or Ryan to get in and Christie and Jeb Bush are definitely out. "Not that it matters but" I expect Christie would not be as successful as people predict and he probably knows it; Jeb I think would probably be the GOP's strongest candidate, but he's smart enough to wait for a no-incumbent race in 2016. In my estimation, that leaves Perry as the last person standing. I further expect that his myriad conversations with top GOP Iowans and others have not been about determining whether he could mount a credible challenge but whether he is likely to win. If he gets in, take it as a sign that the info he's been so thorough in collecting suggests he likely would.
