What Happened to Perry’s Ratings?

Published by

Clarissa

October 13, 2011

Rick Perry looked like a really viable Republican candidate for a while. He had a good lead and seemed like the only candidate who could threaten Obama’s chances for a reelection.

And then something happened, and Perry’s ratings evaporated. Now, we are back to Romney as the leading candidate. (Cain’s recent popularity is a fluke, in my opinion.)

I admit that I kind of snoozed in September and stopped following the election drama. Does anybody know what Perry did to destroy such a good lead so fast?

Rate this:

16 responses to “What Happened to Perry’s Ratings?”

Patrick

October 13, 2011

Like anything else – it’s extremely fluid, without much substance. The only real take away is that Romney is the only candidate (currently) with a legitimate solid base of support. The other 70% of republicans are searching for a favourite – kind of like shopping of new shoes. Just take another pair off the shelf, see if they ‘feel’ right, put them back, try again. . . . lather, rinse repeat.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 13, 2011
  
  This is going to be one strange election.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Patrick
    
    October 13, 2011
    
    Voter turnout will be everything. Or a surprise, middle of the road candidate. Right now, I would be very concerned about either side winning. Warning to both the ‘progressives’ and the “Tea Partiers” – careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      October 13, 2011
      
      I don’t feel any real enthusiasm for any of the candidates either.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Patrick

October 13, 2011

Does that include the sitting president?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 13, 2011
  
  Yes, of course. I’ve been disappointed by his very populist speeches on the economy that he’s been making recently. He inherited the economic crisis, that’s true. But his economic policy the first 2 years in office was a direct continuation of Bush’s economic policies. So all of this talk about millionaires and their secretaries is not extremely honest on his part.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Helena Suess

October 13, 2011

Well there was all that batshit stuff he said and did.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 13, 2011
  
  I thought that for the party he represents, the more batshit the better. 🙂 Was it really about his social security gaffe?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Helena Suess
    
    October 13, 2011
    
    “I thought that for the party he represents, the more batshit the better.”
    
    Usually that seems the case, but some of the stuff goes strongly against his base. Like he said he would oppose the repeal of a law granting tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (gasp illegals!!), and he’s supported that mandatory HPV vaccine for adolescent girls (gasp sex!!!). The bad publicity surrounding the name of his daddy’s ranch probably didn’t help either. On the national scene at least, the GOP seems to prefer to keep its racism a little less blatant.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      October 13, 2011
      
      “Like he said he would oppose the repeal of a law granting tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (gasp illegals!!), and he’s supported that mandatory HPV vaccine for adolescent girls (gasp sex!!!).”
      
      – It starts to feel like whenever the Republicans find a candidate, some really “bad” stuff about him surfaces. Imagine, we thought he was one of us but there are rumors he helped an old lady across the street once! And he rescued a sick puppy! That jerk!
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
anon

October 13, 2011

I think there was also a republican debate that he just tanked in- like he couldn’t put together a coherent sentence. Which was especially bad since he was then the front-runner, so all the other candidates were on the attack…(at least that’s what I picked up from news outlets). But I mostly agree Patrick’s shoe analogy, and have thus resolved to not pay any attention to Republican candidates until we have results from a couple of primaries (I fear it may take more than a few to really focus in on the real candidate).

LikeLike

Reply
1. Patrick
  
  October 13, 2011
  
  Jon Stewart did a great bit the other night on the possibility that the Primaries have already happened. Certainly puts the entire thing in (humourous) perspective
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Dingle

October 13, 2011

Why do you think Cain’s popularity is a fluke?

He’s put a tingle in the dingle of a lot of Republicans I know. Why not you?

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 13, 2011
  
  I’m not a Republican.
  
  I thought about writing a post on Cain’s momentary success but I think his ratings will drop before I finish the post. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Melissa

October 14, 2011

The news about his hunting camp with the racial slur in its name also broke recently–he probably lost some people due to that. And just in general…he’s pretty open about his extreme views, which is probably attractive to some Republicans, but probably turns others off. (They can’t ALL be that extreme, can they?) Plus Cain’s in the middle of a major publicity surge, which is probably helping his popularity.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  October 14, 2011
  
  The hunting camp was completely disgusting. And the attempts of the folks at Fox to talk the issue away were extremely ridiculous.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply