Rick Perry and US Constitution

[Simon_Jester]

Fringe candidates tend to discredit themselves over time- witness what happened from Sarah Palin, who went from "asset for the Republican base" to "liability in the general election" in a matter of months.

Every time she opened her mouth on camera, the average American voter became less convinced she was the right person to run the country. The Tea Party lapped it up, but basically, the more famous she became the worse her chances of winning the election became. The same thing happened to a number of Tea Party candidates in 2010, with the highest-profile examples I can remember being Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Someone like Perry or Bachmann or Ron Paul will have this problem too- the constant risk of saying things that are stupid, or convincing people that they want to destroy social security, or things like that. The one thing you don't want to do during times of economic crisis is convince everyone that your ambition in life is to make the crisis worse in pursuit of some hare-brained scheme.

Someone like Romney or Huntsman will not have this problem; they're a much more credible threat to Obama if they play their cards right. But even there, a lot depends on how far those candidates will have to tack to the right to secure the nomination, and whether they can then tack back to the center.

[D.Turtle]

Wow a poll from 14 months before an election. That's relevant.

The poll was to refute the untrue statement that Obama is soundly defeating everyone except Romney. That is simply no longer true.

Now, is the poll predictive of the results in 14 months? Only to an extremely limited degree.

But tell me: Do you think the economy will get better by 2012? Do you think the fundamental situation will improve for Obama as we get close to the election?

snip

Except they don't have to tack back to the center if they just scream "jobs, jobs, jobs" loudly enough. You are assuming a lot more sophistication of average voters than is warranted. It might make for a nice story line, and you might wish it to be true, but that doesn't make that the reality. The reality is, that mid-term elections in a two-party system are pretty much dominated by voters using the election as a referendum on the current office-holder. And the most important factor leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the current office-holder is the state of the economy.

So, yes, on the fringes, the question of the nominee will move a few percentage points here or there. In a close election, that can make the difference between victory and defeat. If the economy gets bad enough, you will have to have an extremely bad opposition politician running against an extremely good incumbent.

Now, it is quite possible that Bachmann vs Obama could be such a pairing.

However, it is no longer a given that nominating an extreme Republican will lead to an Obama victory.

And thats what my point is. For a long, long time it was pretty safe to say that if the Republicans nominate an extreme fringe candidate, they would be handing Obama his second term on a silver platter. This is no longer the case. If the economy gets worse, then an extreme candidate like Bachmann could win. A candidate like Romney would be more likely to win, but the difference might not be big enough to make a difference in the actual election results.

[Flagg]

Wow a poll from 14 months before an election. That's relevant.

The poll was to refute the untrue statement that Obama is soundly defeating everyone except Romney. That is simply no longer true.

Now, is the poll predictive of the results in 14 months? Only to an extremely limited degree.

But tell me: Do you think the economy will get better by 2012? Do you think the fundamental situation will improve for Obama as we get close to the election?

Doesn't need to, the Rethuglican field is so weak and/ or batshit crazy that Obama wins in a walk once the general election spotlight is turned on the GOP nominee.

[D.Turtle]

Doesn't need to, the Rethuglican field is so weak and/ or batshit crazy that Obama wins in a walk once the general election spotlight is turned on the GOP nominee.

Wow, I guess this clear pronouncement by a random internet idiot invalidates decades of research by political scientists in numerous peer-reviewed studies.

[Flagg]

2012 will be different. Why? Because the Republicans have no strong candidate. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen in the future. Or do you honestly believe Rick Perry can beat Obama?

[Crossroads Inc.]

So less then two weeks after Perry came out saying that New York passing Gay marriage was a "States rights" issues and that he "approved" of New york passing it on their own, he comes out signing the pledge to pass a constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Rick Perry has signed a pledge to back a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage — a reversal from a month ago when the Texas governor said he so supported individual states' rights that he was fine with New York's approval of same-sex marriage.

The pledge by the National Organization for Marriage states that, if elected, Perry will send a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification, and appoint U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution."
Others vying for the Republican presidential nomination, including Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, have also signed it, according to Brian Brown, president of Washington-based National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage.

While far from a surprise, Perry's decision raised some eyebrows because it appears to contradict his previous position that this is an issue that should be left up to individual legislatures.
Perry won applause at a Republican conference in Colorado on July 22 when he said of New York's same-sex marriage law, "that's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me."
Those comments alarmed some conservatives, however, and Perry moved to soothe fears the following week when he said during a broadcast interview with Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council, "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'It's fine with me.'"

"Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed. I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman," Perry told Perkins.
His signing of the pledge reiterates that clarification. Perry spokesman Mark Miner did not return phone messages seeking further comment Friday.

Perry has not always been so sanguine about the Supreme Court's ability to help him oppose gay marriage. In his book released just nine months ago, "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington," the governor strongly defended states' rights, saying the high court overstepped its bounds by overruling a Connecticut law banning birth control pills and a Texas law prohibiting sodomy. He also predicted that its justices would eventually issue a ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

"Gay marriage will soon be the policy of the United States, irrespective of federalism, the Constitution, or the wish of the American people," Perry wrote then.
In an earlier book, 2008's "On My Honor," Perry likened homosexuality to alcoholism.

"I can sympathize with those who believe sexual preference is genetic. It may be so, but it remains unproved. Even if it were, this does not mean we are ultimately not responsible for the active choices we make," he wrote. "Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink. And even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender."

In that same book, Perry wrote, "I do not believe in condemning homosexuals that I know personally. I believe in valuing their lives like any others, as our God in heaven does.
"Tolerance, however, should not only be asked of the proponents of traditional values," he continued. "The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. I respect their right to engage in the individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the rights of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior."

SO... Not exactly surprising, after all virtually everyone else has signed the pledge on the GOP field. But it is worth noting if only to reaffirm the notion that the Right Wing only care about "states rights" when it suites their interests.

[D.Turtle]

2012 will be different. Why? Because the Republicans have no strong candidate. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen in the future. Or do you honestly believe Rick Perry can beat Obama?

Ah yes, the famous "this time will be different" defense ...

Let me ask you this: If there was a world-wide depression with unemployment hitting 20% in the US, do you think Obama would win reelection? Do you think anyone would give a shit about who is running against Obama?

Now, that is unlikely. But it is quite possible that the US could enter a double-dip recession. It is quite possible that the unemployment rate could rise even further. A strong recovery on the other hand is quite unlikely.

If the economy does not recover - and especially if it gets worse, I honestly believe that even someone like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann would have a good shot at defeating Obama.

And the data supports it.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not quite that simple, Turtle.

The US economy was still in the shitter in 1936, but Landon got his ass kicked. To be fair, he was going up against a dynamic president who was widely understood to be working on the economy, and reducing the size of the problems America faced. But you simply cannot reduce electoral politics to "incumbents always lose during recessions."

Challengers to the incumbent have a lot of ways to fuck up and cancel out any advantage they gain from being able to blame the incumbent for everything wrong with the country. Careless challengers, or challengers with big skeletons in their closet, can do this almost without trying.

Someone like Bachmann or Perry has a huge problem with this that they are not going to be able to dispel by just yelling "JOBS!" at the top of their lungs. The general election process will force them and their supporters to explain a lot of other issues, and address exactly how their program will create jobs, and in general present them with difficulties they are not well prepared to face.

That can't be handwaved away, though it's not inconceivable that they could overcome it.

[Flagg]

Lets also not forget that a majority of the electorate don't blame Obama for the economy, they blame Bush.

[D.Turtle]

It's not quite that simple, Turtle.

snip

That can't be handwaved away, though it's not inconceivable that they could overcome it.

Read what I wrote again. And read what you wrote.

And then stop addressing a strawman, and address the actual argument I am making, which isn't far off from what you are saying.

[Surlethe]

Lets also not forget that a majority of the electorate don't blame Obama for the economy, they blame Bush.

Let's stop making retarded arguments. Even supposing I believe you (since you haven't, you know, linked to a poll or anything), blaming Bush is not the same as approving of Obama's (mis)handling of the economy or being unwilling to vote for replacing Obama.

[D.Turtle]

Let's stop making retarded arguments. Even supposing I believe you (since you haven't, you know, linked to a poll or anything), blaming Bush is not the same as approving of Obama's (mis)handling of the economy or being unwilling to vote for replacing Obama.

He is probably referring to the latest AFP-GfK poll, which says exactly what you think it does:

51% blame Bush, 36% blame Obama for the economic situation.
36% approve of Obama's handling of the economy, while 63% disapprove - 48% strongly.
47% think Obama deserves to be reelected, while 48% think he deserves to be voted out of office.

As for the state of the economy:
11% describe the nation's economy as good, while 86% describe it as poor - 42% as very poor.