East Valley Tribune

May 19, 2013 | 02:05 pm
East Valley Tribune Facebook East Valley Tribune Twitter East Valley Tribune Mobile Version East Valley Tribune Facebook
Best of East Valley 2013

Is Perry more electable than Romney?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Matt Mackowiak is a Republican consultant and president of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC. He can be reached at matt@potomacstrategygroup.com

Posted: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:10 pm | Updated: 10:39 am, Tue Sep 20, 2011.

GOP regulars claim the "electability argument" will deliver the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney. They say things like, "Mitt Romney can win the general election by appealing to the middle. Rick Perry can't win in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Milwaukee."

Simple enough -- but wrong. Romney's no stronger on this front than Perry, the frontrunner in the polls. The core reasons: Perry's support among the party's base, and his strength on the key issues of the economy and job creation.

Based on what we know today, next November's election will be decided on the economy and as a referendum on President Obama's first term. The recent debates have confirmed the GOP nominee will be either Perry or Romney. Significant late entrants into the field are extremely unlikely -- the field is set.

Full disclosure: I recently personally contributed to Perry's campaign, though I opposed him on last year's Texas gubernatorial primary -- and will readily support whoever wins the presidential primaries.

That said, I believe he's objectively the stronger general-election nominee. The GOP primary electorate seems to agree, according to a CNN-ORD national poll released on Monday. Asked which candidate "had the best chance to beat Barack Obama in the general election," registered Republicans gave Perry 42 percent and Romney 36 percent, with the rest of the field (including Sarah Palin) taking 27 percent.

How can this be? Consider what the general election will look like.

Facing a terrible and deteriorating economy and falling approval ratings, President Obama has only one strategic choice: Use his massive financial advantage to go negative -- to make centrist voters fear or hate the Republican nominee.

This path will depress independent turnout, as negative campaigns always do, increasing the power of both party's bases. For a recent example, look no further than 2004. Facing similarly low approval ratings, the Bush-Cheney campaign immediately branded their opponent a flip-flopper and outside groups ran the damaging Swift Boat advertisements. The result: President George W. Bush won re-election -- by a margin of only 60,000 votes in Ohio.

In other words, Obama's strategy increases the general-election importance of the fact that the GOP base trusts Perry -- and decreases any edge Romney would have with independents.

Then there's the jobs issue. Romney certainly has a deep understanding of international markets and how the private sector works. But as governor his private-sector job-creation record pales next to Perry's 10-year record.

And Perry can present two models to the country:

• A Texas model with 1,000-plus people moving each day to the state has created more private-sector jobs than the other 49 states combined since the economic recovery began. Texas also plugged a huge biennial budget deficit earlier this year without raising taxes, while protecting its $6 billion rainy-day fund.

• A Washington, DC, model with 9.1 percent unemployment and 25 million people either unemployed or underemployed -- and more Americans on food stamps than ever before. Plus, discretionary spending has jumped 30 percent, creating the two largest single-year deficits in history and leading to trillion-dollar annual deficits for the next decade.

He can ask, "Which model do you want?" This sharp contrast can cut through the president's diversionary attacks.

Romney, meanwhile, will have to spend precious time and energy explaining RomneyCare, dealing with unfortunate and bigoted questions about his Mormon religion and trying to energize a depressed Republican base that views him suspiciously.

Perhaps in a normal year, the more moderate candidate would be the more electable one. But in these times, the GOP needs bold colors, not pale pastels, to win.

Matt Mackowiak is a Republican consultant and president of Potomac Strategy Group, LLC. Hecan be reached at matt@potomacstrategygroup.com.

 

 

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

6 comments:

  • Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:40 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Leon Ceniceros Posts: 2531

    Folks, Arizona Voters have a choice for the Republican Presidential Candidate in 2012.
    Someone like Rick Perry who says "what's on his mind" or someone like Mitt Romney who "minds what he says".
    Someone who went to public schools and was an Eagle Scout and played football like Rick Perry or someone who when to "Cranbrook Prep School for Boys" and played golf, tennis and la crosse and cross country track like Mitt Romney.
    Someone who joined the Texas A & M Corps of Cadets (ROTC) and was a Cheer Leader (wouldn't it be nice to hear some cheerleading for America coming out of the mouth the President of the United States for a change instead of "apologies") and who enlisted in the US Air Force after graduation and trained to be a pilot.
    or some one who went to Stanford University in California (#1st deferrment from serving in the US Military) and then went to Paris, France as a Mormon Missionary for 3 years (#2 deferrment from serving in the US Military this time the excuse was "minister of religion) then came back and attended Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, Utah (#3 US Military Service defferment using "student" again) after BYU, Mitt didn't need to use deferrments anymore to avoid US Military Service, his Draft number was so old that he would never be called up.
    Someone who as been in Public Service since 1984 (he worked as a cotton farmer in Texas after his Service to our Country) and won every single one of his elections (Texas Congressman 3 times, Texas Agricultural Commissioner 3 times, Texas Lt. Governor elected 1 time, then Texas Governor re-elected 2 times) or
    someone like Mitt Romney who "lost" his first election in 1994 for the US Senate (spent $7 Million dollars of his own money), finally getting elected to be the Governor of Massachuesetts for 2 terms and then "lost" the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Election to our very own (?) John McCain.

    So Folks, you can choose to elect some one who has won every single election since 1983 (Rick Perry) or who has lost 2-out-of-3 elections like Mitt Romney.

    Someone like Rick Perry who served in the US Military or someone who avoided serving in the US Military.................Arizona Voters..........it's your choice.
    I want a Commander-in-Chief who learned how to salute serving in the US Military not out of a "Book" on US Military Protocol.

     
  • RationalHuman posted at 6:07 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    RationalHuman Posts: 514

    Leon is this the same demented Rick Perry that spent over 34 million taxpayer dollars to rent a stadium so they could stage a Prayer for rain?

    Yep, same whacko...no thanks, I'll vote for a SANE candidate.

     
  • Rich posted at 9:24 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Rich Posts: 1862

    "Someone who as been in Public Service since 1984..." You had me interested until then Leon. The reason we are in the mess we are in now is because of people "who has[have} been in Public Service since 1984..." And we need to promote another one like we all need a terminal case of anthrax.

     
  • samkat posted at 5:19 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    samkat Posts: 1163

    Perry and Bachmann are raving right wing evangelicans who would force their religious convictions on everyone. Beware.

     
  • Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:03 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Leon Ceniceros Posts: 2531

    Excuse me for endorsing Governor Perry who was proud and willing to "SERVE" his Nation and Protect his fellow Citizens first......instead of some one who "SERVED" his Church first.
    Excuse me for endorsinga fellow American who put his Love of Country before his Love of Religion.
    Excuse me for endorsing some who believed in the Good Book that quoted our Lord when he said............RENDER UNTO CEASAR WHAT IS CEASAR'S AND TO GOD WHAT IS GOD'S.

    W.W.J.C.H.D = ENLIST

     
  • Rich posted at 8:07 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Rich Posts: 1862

    Having religion is just fine. Imposing it on others is tyranny. For example, abortion isn't right or wrong, and unless you're pregnant about all you can say it definitely is, is none of your business. If someone wants to marry someone else, unless you are one of the two, again, it's just none of your business. When people start using religion and God to make it their business, they are kooks and you don't need them in politics. You don't need politicians to tell you how to live. You need them to handle the (any word I put here will probably be called profanity) so you can live as you choose to.

     

Rules of Conduct

Welcome!
|
Not you?||
LogoutMy Dashboard
Loading…