Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktDespite the fact that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is ahead of Gov. Rick Perry (ditto) in two recent polls, WaPo political blogger Chris Cillizza writes about the latter today instead of the former. Again. Poor Paul don’ get no respect, I guess.
I get why. Paul is not considered a viable Romney alternative. At least not now. But Perry is. Ergo, the blogpost on Perry. Cillizza opines that “a failure to perform in the coming quintet of debates could close the window of opportunity for Perry to stage a comeback.”
Just for fun, I went back to check his ‘winners and losers’ articles from recent GOP debates and checked the number of times various candidates’ names appeared. I scored a simple +1 if he named a candidate as a ‘winner’ and -1 if he named the candidate as a ‘loser.’
Totals: Romney +4; Perry -3; Santorum +2; Gingrich +1; Cain 0; Huntsman +1; Johnson +1; Bachmann -4; Paul -1
If debates are as critical to winning the nomination as Cillizza seems to think they are, then:
–Bachmann is a blip away from falling clear out of contention. Well, that’s pretty close, although she did poll one point ahead of Perry in the last Iowa survey.
–Perry would be a half-blip behind Bachmann. While it’s clear debating isn’t Perry’s strong suit, it’s quite fixable. Team Perry has the cash and the advisory team to hire a good political debate coach and prepare some zinger talking points.
–Gingrich, Huntsman and Johnson would be worth a serious look. Of the three, only Gingrich is getting any attention.
–Santorum would be a viable alternative to Romney. Hmmm. I think we can safely cross of Santorum’s name from the short list.
–Cain would be trending somewhere in the middle. At the moment, he’s polling rather well, though his ground-level campaign organization needs a boost to build and sustain momentum in key states.
–Paul would be irrelevant. While that may ultimately be the case, Paul’s recent polling means he’s probably worth a bit more ink at present than Cillizza’s willing to give him.
My point is that lots of factors will impact who wins the GOP presidential nomination. Yes, Perry needs to step up a bit in the debates, but not by as much as Cillizza would have us believe. Ad blitzes and handshakes have the potential to offset mediocre debate performance, and Perry can excel at both.
Filed under: 2012 | Tagged: Rick Perry |
All Things in Moderation 
At dinner this evening, MrJS remarked that all Perry needs to do in the debates is "make sure his pants are properly zipped." Few will care about the candidates until about 2-3 weeks before the primary season, if then.
LikeLike
I still expect the R race to become Romney v. Perry, unless:Perry's back is very bad and he is on pain meds all the time.Paul will stay in after the other minor candidates run out of money.Paul will support the R nominee.————-Corzine is screwed. MF Global apparently commingled customer assets, according to PBS.————-
LikeLike
Hi, MsJS. Hope all is well in your world.MrJS has a welcome sense of humor. 🙂 In the meantime, since you seem to be on the Perry trail, have you seen much credible discussion of his apparently bizarre speech in NH last Friday? I've seen the video, but discussion of it by "pundits" of either bent seems to be rather lacking other than a few jokes/dismissals. Any explanations offered? Do you think he was advised to be more animated and this was his attempt?
LikeLike
IMO, the NH speech reaction is a news cycle blip. If Perry focuses on defining his creds vs. Romney, works the crowds and flushes out his jobs/flat tax plans, this'll be forgotten quickly.
LikeLike
Is there another debate this week? I won't be watching but for some reason I like seeing the horse race "after the fact" comments. I'm not worrying about who's running against Obama yet. I assume it will be Romney.I do think it's interesting that Ron Paul just doesn't get much media love. I wonder why that is.
LikeLike
Per ABC News, Perry is on a roll today in IA. Says he wants to "take a sledgehammer to Washington," and has numerous other pithy ideas. Also says "I will veto any budget that contains earmarks, period. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s Republicans or Democrats." Certainly he's not going down without a fight.
LikeLike
Just checked the Plumline Happy Hour, I only check the morning and evening anymore. They're talking about us again. Jeff Bailey (Brigade) at 4:58 pm PDT. I've been staying away from these comments as it only seems to make matters worse, just thought I'd let you guys know.
LikeLike
lms, I went to PL and read that thread. LOL. I'm wondering if brigade has been reading this site or has at least visited? We are public now and the site address has been published in comments at least once (and maybe more) at PL. And I have seen a couple of strangers here.
LikeLike
okie, I think if brigade visited he would probably post, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure a few other people check us out periodically though. Brigade doesn't quite have it right. I didn't leave because people on the left attacked me, I left because of the technical problems and people attacking posters of value, because they didn't happen to agree with them. It made it very difficult to have a debate with someone I disagreed with.I think what's happening over there now is even worse, maybe because some of the more reasonable people are gone, so brigade may be right about that. Either they've all become more radical, right and left, or now that I've stepped back, I see it for what it always was.
LikeLike
Poor Greg–he can't get no love. I tried to go see what was going on and the "Blogs & Columns" home page won't link to PL. It just keeps cycling back on itself. . .I do think it's worse, lms. I noticed the couple of times that we went on strike or just disappeared because we were busy ("we" being the moderate-to-left posters on ATiM) the comment threads went downhill. It wasn't that "our" conservatives were contributing to the mess, it was that for whatever reason the absence of regulars led to an infestation of drivebys. Even our conservatives couldn't carry on a reasonable conversation without poo-flinging happening to them in the middle of a thread.
LikeLike
Paul has a fixed ceiling. He never gets beyond his fanatical core following. He only looks good in large multi-candidate fields where the rest of the vote is split. Perry has to get his act together. That New Hampshire speech was the moral equivalent to riding a tank in an Elmer Fudd hat.
LikeLike
MichiHere you go, from Brigade. The responses were mostly nonsense I thought.Things have really gone to seed around here. When I started posting at Plum Line, it boasted diverse groups of both intelligent conservatives and liberals sparring and debating. Now the more enlightened liberals and most all of the conservatives have abandoned the site. Quarterback1, ScottC3, SkipSailing, Troll McWingnut, Tao, NoVa, et al all gone. Kevin Willis rarely posts. And liberals like Imsinca, 12BarBBlues and John/Banned have all but quit coming around, largely as a result of the constant scorn heaped upon them because they just weren't quite orthodox enough in their liberal ideology. Now we have two posters who claim to be lifelong Republicans yet never make a single comment that isn't mocking of the GOP and supportive of liberalism. One guy posts propaganda all day and night and links to other left wing hate sites. However, the real dirty work is left to the troll who shall not be mentioned and his pathetic sidekick, who lacks the wit and intelligence to post anything but youtube links, which he evidently things are funny. Show of hands—how many people actually ever take one of his links?
LikeLike
I finally did leave a comment at the end of brigade's comment. They finally pissed me off.
LikeLike
I don't have a scorecard. Does jeffbailey1=brigade? How many other split personalities are around?
LikeLike
Mark:Corzine is screwed. MF Global apparently commingled customer assets, according to PBS.I heard about that this afternoon. Yes, it is a big deal. Some customers are going to lose a lot of money that was supposed to be segregated and therefore safe. Corzine is in trouble, but he's not the only one. I want to know how an audit didn't pick it up, segregation being a very fundamental and important aspect of their business. (BTW, my firm used MF as our exchange clearer until about 6 months ago when we dropped them. Good call.)
LikeLike
Scott: I heard that story on NPR, also (or a similar story if you heard it elsewhere). Co-mingling clients' money which is evidently against every rule in the book. . . he is most definitely screwed.I finally found a way to get to PL, lms, and I have to say that the only part of that thread that I found surprising was cefly's comment. What did we ever do to him???
LikeLike
btw michi, my comment there was meant to be snarky for us but I wanted them to sort of be uncertain about how to take it. I doubt anyone will get it though, I'm not very good at being snarky. Yeah, cef's comment bothered me too, that's why I finally jumped in.Corzine sure looks to be in trouble. Hey, if he screwed up he deserves it. I doubt he was alone though. It should make an interesting read. Good move on your bank scott to separate yourselves.
LikeLike
You're too nice to be snarky, lms. Takes much, MUCH more of a bitchy edge to do it. . . although MsJS is excellent at it and I've never heard her say something truly bitchy.Maybe that could be our next "meme" post (in the vein of the "Teleprompter Meme" post that yellojkt put up. . . ). But we'll save that for a ways down the road.I, also, thought that the discussion generated was a good discussion and one that should happen in a forum where people can choose whether or not to participate and to disagree to disagree, as Kevin put it to qb. The spark that started it may have been too incendiary, but at least it didn't turn into a forest fire like it would have elsewhere. All in the comment thread made good points as far as I'm concerned.I don't think that much of anyone in the US inclined to automatic racism nowadays. Maybe I'll do a post down the road on what I think it means to be a Conservative, and let them have at me. . .
LikeLike
Mich:What did we ever do to him???I think he made it pretty clear when he left….qb and I were allowed to be here.
LikeLike
"Maybe I'll do a post down the road on what I think it means to be a Conservative, and let them have at me. . ."Michi, I thinks that's a good idea. I'd also suggest that in addition, or on a different day, maybe QB or Scott would put up a post about what they think it means to be a liberal. An interesting comparison I think.
LikeLike
McWing:maybe QB or Scott would put up a post about what they think it means to be a liberal.Am I not unpopular enough already?
LikeLike
Well, I figured it'd put the cherry on top! Plus, you two are exponentially more articulate than I am. Doesn't mean I wouldn't ad my two cents.
LikeLike
Scott, I know that you and I (and qb and I, and to a lesser extent McWing and I) have our differences, but I just don't get–honestly–why shrink, bernie, ruk and cefly just can't deal with you guys. It doesn't make any sense to me. But, in fairness, you guys don't deal well with them, either. I shall chalk it up to testosterone and the general exasperation it occasionally causes for those of us with the XX persuasion.McWing: I'd love to see something like that! Maybe what we should do is agree to develop our posts in private for a couple of weeks (working on my Veterans' Day one right now when I get a chance) and then unveil them on a Saturday and Sunday, with whoever goes second agreeing not to alter their post based on the first one. I think that would generate some VERY interesting discussions about what we get right and wrong.
LikeLike
McWing, they aren't more articulate than you, they're just, um, more vociferous than you most of the time. You certainly made your opinions known on the teleprompter thread well. Put it down to your innate charm and gentlemanly demeanor that they have been known to peeve us leftie tree-hugging Commie libs to a greater degree.Although I'll never believe, deep down, that Scott prefers Fredrich to Selma Hayek.Scott:Am I not unpopular enough already?Who said you're unpopular???
LikeLike
Michi, you're too kind, and I'd never call you a commie-lib. The correct form is Pink Commie-Lib. We'll have to flesh out the what a lib thinks a con believes and vice verssa posts. Your idea's a good one though.Stay warm and g'night.
LikeLike
Pink should be Pinko. Sorry, I know the shortened version is considered offensive. 🙂
LikeLike
Mich:But, in fairness, you guys don't deal well with them, either.To be perfectly honest I don't think that is at all fair. I don't deal with them in anything like the manner that they deal with me. Or, rather, refuse to deal with me. I really hate to dwell on this kind of stuff, but I confess that I hate it even more when I see this seeming need to qualify condemnation of their bad behavior by claiming some kind of equivalent behavior on my part. There is no equivalence. Nothing even close. Go back and read the threads leading up to shrink's departure from ATiM. Specifically, read the thread about bank deposits on Sep 17, and then the following couple of threads after, and tell me if I reacted to his baiting at all, much less in the over-the-top way in which he reacted to me simply labeling something he said as being "cynical". You will also notice, on the same bank deposit thread, the very last interaction I had with cef (Earl). I defy you to identify a single thing that I said to him that was even remotely offensive or aggressive. All I did was pose a single, straightforward question about deposits to him, and he responded by announcing that I was no longer worth talking to. Then a day later, on the Tax on Millionaires thread, out of the blue and unrelated to anything that was said on the thread, he launched into his farewell condemnation of qb and I, calling us "irredeemable" and accusing us of chasing any opinion other than our own away. (How very ironic given the current state of his favored posting site, PL, eh?). Did I respond in kind? No, I didn't respond at all.I will say (for the very first time…I have graciously kept it to myself until now) that if it were up to me, I would never have invited shrink, cef, or ruk to post here in the first place. Not one of them has demonstrated the capacity for the kind of discussions envisioned here, and I knew it from the start. But I neither expressed objections nor did I take my leave when they were invited. I can deal with both opinions and personalities that aren't to my liking. Another striking contrast between them and me. So, in all fairness? No, I don't think so. I'm sorry to say that I think your observation about how react to them is extremely unfair. Finally, I like Selma Hayek just fine, but there are lots of beautiful actresses on par with Selma to be found. There are precious few economists on par with good old F.A.
LikeLike
Scott! I never said that their and your reactions to each other were equivalent. I said that you guys don't deal well with each other.The examples that you've laid out are why I've been surprised and disappointed at their departures. Their reactions to what was said seemed disproportionate to me–I never expected them to hand you a bunch of roses and tell you that you were right and how could they ever, ever have disagreed with you–in fact, I expected them to argue with you–but I didn't think that they'd just stomp out of here and go home in a snit.And I disagree with you about whether or not they should have been invited. You may have been prescient enough to know they wouldn't work out, but I know I wasn't. And I never in a million years would have pictured myself having pleasant interactions with you when we were commenting on PL, nor would I have imagined that I ever would have (shudder) liked you and qb when we were over there. Fairlington's song from his post about his boys kind of describes what we're doing here, too: Into the Mystery. . .Or, as qb puts it, mass hysteria. Here we are, a bunch of relative strangers (not family) who have mutually agreed to put up with each others' foibles, shortcomings, and godawful political views and not call each other names while we discuss things that we feel passionately about. The kids have gone off to their own table and the adults are left; we will probably eventually find other adults to join us, but for now we're making our own way and I think we're doing a pretty good job.So no false equivalence. You don't like them, they don't like you. You've handled it better. I don't know why they got their panties in a twist so easily, but I'm sorry that they did because I thought a couple of them were people that I'd really like to get to know better.(Don't have enough knowledge to have an educated opinion, so can't make a conclusion about F.A.'s worth, but yeah, beautiful actresses are a dime a dozen. I'd have a hard time picking one that I really like right now–Sigourney Weaver is the last one I can think of that struck me as something special.)
LikeLike
Mich:I never said that their and your reactions to each other were equivalent. I said that you guys don't deal well with each other.Fair enough. But I still disagree. I think I deal with them pretty well, particularly given the types of personal attacks they (shrink being the exception) tend to engage in and of which I have been a primary target.And I never in a million years would have pictured myself having pleasant interactions with you when we were commenting on PL, nor would I have imagined that I ever would have (shudder) liked you and qb when we were over there.I've always liked you. And now that I've seen the boots pics, I finally know why. 😉
LikeLike