GOP Presidential Race Now and Four Years Ago

A CNN poll out today has Texas Governor Rick Perry far out in front of former MA Gov. Mitt Romney. This is too bad in my view. Perry looks good now, but President Obama’s political machine will destroy him in the general election. With his Ponzi scheme descriptions of social security alone, Perry has wounded himself severely. Healthcare, and education in Texas are not selling points and even his jobs record will wither under scrutiny. Factor in the praying for rain in the worst Texas drought on record and his associations with the New Apostolic Reformation and he will start to look pretty scary to moderates, even compared to Obama.
It is still early. In fact, it is comforting to me to look at the situation four years ago. The Real Clear polling results for today look like this:

Perry has a substantial lead over Romney. Note that the other tea party candidate Michele Bachmann has faded from the top tier.  Palin is a wildcard. Palintologists would probably go more to Perry and Bachmann than Romney if she declines to run.
Now look at the situation four years ago:

 
Fred Thompson?
Anyway, it is early.  Good to remember. A lot can happen.
I wonder if Mitch Daniels might reconsider…

10 thoughts on “GOP Presidential Race Now and Four Years Ago”

  1. Ken, my comment was directed more towards Warren.
    Mitt Romney who has received at least a million in campaign donations from mysterious corporations, doesn’t want unions to have that same right.

    Speaking to reporters after touring a Boeing plant in South Carolina Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pledged to pursue legislation that would prohibit unions from contributing dues to political campaigns. “We have a very unusual circumstance in this country,” Romney said, “and that is that we allow union bosses to collect dues from union members and then to use that money as the union boss sees fit to elect people who might do their bidding. It’s unseemly at best.” “I will pursue and hopefully enact legislation which inhibits taking money in the form of dues and putting it behind political campaigns. That should not happen.”

    Evidently corporations are to be allowed the rights of persons, but persons who band together for a specific cause cannot then have bestowed upon their singular endeavor that which they claim as individuals. Wait a second! Isn’t that also the definition of a corporation?

  2. I’m saying that the election is over a year away and many things are likely to change in that time. Further, that the only name I (and I suspect anyone) can predict with any certainty will be on the ballot in Nov 2012 will be Barack Obama.

  3. “… and he will start to look pretty scary to moderates, even compared to Obama.”
    I think it’s worth remembering that, to many outside the USA, President Obama is regarded as the epitome of ‘moderation’ – perhaps too moderate in some ways!

  4. Ken, my comment was directed more towards Warren.
    Mitt Romney who has received at least a million in campaign donations from mysterious corporations, doesn’t want unions to have that same right.

    Speaking to reporters after touring a Boeing plant in South Carolina Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pledged to pursue legislation that would prohibit unions from contributing dues to political campaigns. “We have a very unusual circumstance in this country,” Romney said, “and that is that we allow union bosses to collect dues from union members and then to use that money as the union boss sees fit to elect people who might do their bidding. It’s unseemly at best.” “I will pursue and hopefully enact legislation which inhibits taking money in the form of dues and putting it behind political campaigns. That should not happen.”

    Evidently corporations are to be allowed the rights of persons, but persons who band together for a specific cause cannot then have bestowed upon their singular endeavor that which they claim as individuals. Wait a second! Isn’t that also the definition of a corporation?

  5. I’m saying that the election is over a year away and many things are likely to change in that time. Further, that the only name I (and I suspect anyone) can predict with any certainty will be on the ballot in Nov 2012 will be Barack Obama.

  6. So are you saying it is going to be #3? Sarah Palin? Or Romney because like McCain he had to overcome 12 points in the polls?

  7. So are you saying it is going to be #3? Sarah Palin? Or Romney because like McCain he had to overcome 12 points in the polls?

  8. Perry is new and shiny. That accounts for much of his appeal. Granted being more conservative does have an advantage in the republican primary, but whomever wins is going to have to move towards the center in the general election. And despite the fact that the press has a hard time seeing more than the top 2 people in the polls, there are several other contenders in the race. And as I recall, Clinton didn’t do so well in the early democrat primaries.

  9. Perry is new and shiny. That accounts for much of his appeal. Granted being more conservative does have an advantage in the republican primary, but whomever wins is going to have to move towards the center in the general election. And despite the fact that the press has a hard time seeing more than the top 2 people in the polls, there are several other contenders in the race. And as I recall, Clinton didn’t do so well in the early democrat primaries.

  10. “… and he will start to look pretty scary to moderates, even compared to Obama.”
    I think it’s worth remembering that, to many outside the USA, President Obama is regarded as the epitome of ‘moderation’ – perhaps too moderate in some ways!

Comments are closed.