Can Rick Perry Be A Viable Candidate In 2016?
Could Rick Perry recover from his disastrous 2012 campaign to become a viable candidate?
In his announcement yesterday that he would not be seeking a fourth term as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry left any questions about the future, and specifically the possibility that he might be a candidate for the GOP nomination for President in 2016, completely open. Despite Perry’s non-committal response, National Journal’s Tom DeFrank reports that Texas Republicans believe that a 2016 bid is exactly what Perry is aiming for:
Rick Perry is stepping down as the longest-serving governor in Texas history to clear the decks for a 2016 presidential campaign, according to several well-placed Republican sources. They said Perry is stepping down to make sure his declining popularity among Texas Republicans won’t complicate his Oval Office ambitions.
Several Texas Republican sources told National Journal that despite Perry’s insistence Monday that he hasn’t decided on another presidential race, the governor has been passing the word for months he’ll definitely run again in 2016.
(…)
Perry believes he can raise enough money as a former governor to finance a presidential bid despite giving up the huge leverage of incumbency.
“He’s made a terrible miscalculation,” said one prominent Texas GOP official whose ties to Perry have been rocky at times. “He thinks he’s gonna be able to raise money as a lame duck. He’s given up his biggest card.
“A sitting governor can say ‘I’m the friendly incumbent — don’t make me unfriendly.’ That’s how you raise money – you can hold your office over the head of donors,” the official said. Perry, a 1972 Texas A&M graduate who became governor when George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, believes that as the national GOP becomes more conservative, he has a strong chance to rebound from his ill-fated 2012 run. His candidacy self-destructed when he couldn’t remember the third government agency he’d abolish as president during a Florida primary debate.
Frankly, it was a lot more than just the “oops” moment, which didn’t occur until a debate in mid-November, that did the Perry campaign in. He entered the race to much fanfare at a gathering sponsored by the conservative blog Red State that was held on the same day, and largely overshadowed, the Ames Straw Poll in August 2011. Within a month, Perry had rocketed to the top of the GOP polls and raised an incredible amount of money in a very short period of time. Then, the September debates hit, and the new frontrunner started getting hit from all sides on everything from his comments about Social Security, to his stance on immigration, which differed substantially from the rest of the candidates, and, most bizarrely from Michele Bachmann over his support for a voluntary HPV vaccination program for schoolgirls in Texas. In each of these debates, Perry’s performance was, to put it mildly less than stellar, something that was later blamed at least in part on painkillers that the Governor was still taking related to a June 2011 back surgery and the fact that standing for the entire 90 minutes that each of these debates lasted. By the end of September, Perry’s star had faded and Mitt Romney was back in the lead in the polls. By October, he was fading fast while former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain had become the GOP “flavor of the month.” When the “oops” moment finally came in November, it was really just the final nail in a coffin that was already starting to close. The end of Perry’s campaign just before the South Carolina Primary was, in every sense of the word, anti-climatic. As I noted at that time, in a post that goes into far greater detail about how badly the Perry campaign went, Perry’s failings as a candidate were vast and many:
There’s one final reason the Perry campaign failed, of course, and it’s the fact that Perry just wasn’t that good of a candidate. Debate skills aren’t the most important thing in a a President, of course, but if Perry wasn’t able to take on Mitt Romney or such luminaries as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, then what makes anyone think he ever would have been a formidable candidate in a General Election against Barack Obama. Perry reminded me of Rob Ritchie from The West Wing, a popular Southern Governor who ran against Josiah Bartlet in his bid for a second term and who, well, just wasn’t very bright, a .22 caliber mind in .357 magnum world as Bartlet put it at one point. He may be fine for Governor of Texas but he never really was Presidential material, and the primary process revealed that quite clearly.
Even putting aside the well-placed questions about the ability of a lame duck/former Governor of Texas to raise the kind of money that he did in the 2012 cycle, one has to wonder why we should expect that a 2016 campaign would, in it’s fundamentals, be any different. As more than one political observer noted at the time, the 2012 Presidential run was the first time that Perry had really faced serious sustained political opposition, and the first time that he was forced to engage in the kind of free-form debating that has become common in Presidential primary races. Even without the twin problems of back pain and painkillers, there’s really no reason to believe that the same issues wouldn’t crop up again in a 2016 run for the White House. Perhaps more importantly, though, Perry would be entering the 2016 race as the guy who flamed out four years earlier rather than the superstar that he was the first time around, and he’ll be facing a far more formidable field than he did the first time around:
With political stars like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz in the mix, retreads from the failed attempts to stop Barack Obama have no reason to assume they start with an advantage over newcomers. More than that, the constituencies that seemed most likely to boost Perry in 2012 now have stronger claimants on their support. Santorum is a more natural candidate to support for social conservatives while Tea Partiers are far more likely to embrace fellow Texan Ted Cruz or one of the other conservatives. With Christie and potentially Walker in the race, Perry will also have strong competition for the title of most successful governor.
Perry may be a better candidate if he runs for president again, but the point is that his first try was so bad that anything would be an improvement. Second tries only lead to victory if the first impression a candidate makes on the national electorate is not as dismal as the one Perry made in 2011 and 2012. There are no absolutes in politics, but pegging him as a long shot for 2016 would probably be giving him more of a chance than he actually has.
Anything is possible I suppose, but there really isn’t any contemporary record of a candidate who flamed out as badly as Perry did making a comeback and becoming a candidate capable of winning a party nomination in the subsequent, or any future, Presidential cycle. Losing the nomination is one thing, losing before the fight even really began because you were such a bad candidate is a completely different animal entirely. Perhaps Perry could be the one to do it, but it would not be easy, and it will be even harder running as a lame duck/former Governor than it would have been as a sitting Governor.
Never. He is even dumber than McCain. I don’t know how the Air Force even had these guys flying jet planes. My greatest concern though is that as the first mixed race/black Pres, Pres Obama’s historical legacy now will be that in his presidency the rich got richer andd the poor and middle class got poorer and poorer. That’s not good especially when I voted for him. As a retired person my lot has gotten very worse so too many of my friends too. He needs to take at least one decisive step to stop his slide into the group of least effective presidents
Can Rick Perry Be A Viable Candidate In 2016?
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Nooooooooooooo
Really? This is what passes for “stars” nowadays? The only one there I would give a shot to is Christie, and conservatives only like him because he’s as asshole.
Rick Perry believes he can….ummm…. well…. ummm…. uh… well… uh… Ooops.
By “Rick Perry” you mean “Ric Santorum”, and the answer is “it doesn’t matter because he’s next in line.”
(Someone ‘splain why the GOP is lousy with Scotts and Rics?)
@Facebones: Yes, that’s the “bench” the GOP has after the 2012 elections. So the answer to Doug’s question is actually a 2-parter:
-Yes, Rick Perry _will_ be in the 2016 GOP running, and he has as good a chance as anyone else at this early date to take the nomination, and
-No, Rick Perry would lose the general election against pretty much anyone the democrats wanted to run. He’s a clown. When the GOP insiders were moaning “won’t someone come and save us from voting for Romney”, and guys like Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels knew they were all full of crap, Perry didn’t – he thought he would actually get support from the party as anything other than a male version of Bachmann (which they wouldn’t have supported anyway) – and he jumped in, expecting to be seen as a literal “savior”. He became a joke, and never even realized it. That’s why he’s still running – he’s too thick to see the power players in his own party won’t support him.
He got his arse kicked by the weakest Republican Presidential field in history. What happens when he faces the Jersey Fat Man and W’s brother?
Add to that the fact that Perry is like all things Republican…the closer you look…the more it is revealed to be nothing more than a bunch of hokum.
@Facebones:
My thought too. I see fundamental problems with each of them. Chris Christie a NE Republican could never get nominated by today’s GOP no matter how conservative he actually is and it isn’t going to change by 2016. Marco Rubio’s political career within the GOP is fast going down in flames do to his support for immigration reform. Paul Ryan, well, he’s Paul Ryan with all the charisma dog poop. Rand Paul is a guy who can’t get certified to practice medicine by anyone but himself, thinks discrimination is a civil right, and once filibustered about drones or something or other but stopped when Eric Holder gave him the most rhetorical reply ever. Scott Walker the Great Dicktator? Question: Who here really believes he will be re-elected? As Gov. of Wisconsin? He might be, but if I were a betting man I wouldn’t put any money on that horse. (the recall was a special one-off that can not be repeated in a General election) If he loses he will become just another failed one term Governor.
Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz??? If Christie is an asshole, Cruz is an asshole on steroids. He makes John Bolton look positively diplomatic. By and large, American’s don’t like assholes for their Presidents.
Of the whole bunch, Walker is the only one I see as a viable national candidate. I also see him as too far to the right for the avg American voter tho I might be wrong. I would see Christie as one too but I just don’t see how he gets past the GOP base in the primaries.
@legion:
I agree with you that he will run and that he’s not very bright, but I’m not sure he’s so thick that he thinks he will actually win. Many people, I think, who run for President do it as a way of selling themselves and never expect to win. They can do it so long as they have enough of a core of donors who are willing to finance their run that the campaign at least comes close to paying its bills.
In this case, of the mentioned “stars”, including Santorum, I think Perry has the most appeal to the traditionalist religious conservatives. Running for President can turn him into a de facto leader of that bloc of voters, giving him much more power than merely being the chief executive of Texas. I think that’s his real goal, and it’s doable. He flubbed big time in the spotlight in 2012, but even morons can learn from their mistakes.
I believe the republican presidential nominee in 2016 will be one of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush. I don’t know much about Scott Walker so I don’t know if he’ll be a strong candidate. The ticket of Christie/Rubio will be a strong one. They’ll not necessarily win but they’ll be strong.
I guess that depends on how much we want to stretch ‘contemporary’. I’m thinking of Richard Nixon. Off course, Nixon had the benefit of being intelligent. And the base of the GOP had not yet become a road-show version of Marat-Sade.
@sam:
Nixon came within 112,827 Popular Votes and 51 Electoral Votes of becoming President the first time he ran, I’d hardly call that a “flame out.”
I was thinking of his reaction to his defeat for the governorship of California, mostly.
Typically, Democrats are more willing to gamble on a newcomer, and Republicans go for somone who’s run before. That’s why a lot of the shooting stars in 2012 didn’t last. Perry will be going into the next race with name recognition, and that’s not a bad thing. I notice that list of stars for 2016 includes a lot of new faces, and you’ve got to figure that some will flame out, some will get caught with a hooker, and some will have health problems. Maybe two of those remaining will run.
Now, for all of that, there’s one thing that might prove me completely wrong: the Tea Party hates incumbents. They’re a lot friendlier to someone with less experience in the system. If one of the newcomers on that list (or Rick Perry) can capture a decent amount of non-Tea Party attention along with the natural Tea Party interest in an outsider, he’s got a decent chance.
So it’s a balancing act. The old party machine wants experience; the Tea Party wants freshness. Bush didn’t spend a lot of time cultivating new talent, and it will have been eight years anyway since he left office, so there’s not a lot of candidates to appeal to the old guard. Kasich, Ryan, Perry, Jindal I’d guess. The new faces appeal to the Tea Party side, but they’re untested. Guys like Rubio, Paul, and Cruz haven’t put in the hours on the big issues yet. But the US Senate over the next few years may be the perfect time/place to do it.
@sam:
Fair point, but that was before the days of mass-media coverage of politics like we had today. I’m not sure it had much of an impact nationally
I don’t see why not, the Republican party will vote for anyone who is not a Democrat. It shows too, what a group of crap they have.
I thought Pat Toomey would run, he at least looks the part.
As a Democrat I really hope he runs.
Not only was there the comedy gold of the debates but he managed to flame out across multiple media platforms – rambling press conferences, the “Strong” video, his “Fed Up” book – and a skill like that should not be denied wider appreciation.
I have high hopes that with his Palin-like grasp of world affairs he can even improve on Herman Cain’s “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy” interview.
And on the Democratic side, the two big names are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Perry has a very successful history of accomplishments, while those two.. not so much.
And Joe has to be the dumbest guy in DC in ages.
@Pinky:
I’m don’t think they hate incumbents so much as incumbents with a track record of governing. What I mean by that is that ‘governing’ for any length of time means compromising with Democrats and the Republican base (Tea Party) has come to a point where anyone who does that is automatically a RINO.
It has led to such ridiculously extreme policy positions such as in the last debates, NONE of the candidates would take a 10-1 spending cuts-tax increase deal
@Jenos Idanian:
As governor of Texas, his only accomplishment is getting out of the way. Seriously, a potted plant could have done as well.
@OzarkHillbilly: As governor of Texas, his only accomplishment is getting out of the way. Seriously, a potted plant could have done as well.
Yes, a potted plant might have done as well. But not a Democrat, because such as we have today can’t handle things like “getting out of the way.” They have this overwhelming compunction to meddle. to control, to try to “fix” things and “make them better.”
So yeah, I’d prefer a potted plant over most Democrats.
@rudderpedals: Hey, I resemble that!
The trouble with Rick Perry, is that he’s from Texas and only from Texas. It is pretty insular here. In his imagination, he thinks the US is or can be just like Texas. Unfortunately, he will always be a regional character and cannot expand beyond his bubble. In other words, he doesn’t travel well. The Bushes had the advantage of experiencing the outside world and were able to talk to other parts of the country.
@OzarkHillbilly: That’s a superficial analysis. As for the 10:1 thing, after such a deal is made, the tax hikes happen but the spending cuts rarely do.
Of course Perry has a chance. If Perry were running against the ideal Republican candidate that’s one thing, but he will be running against the list of possibles Doug has identified. All of these are vulnerable, and Ozark’s analysis is spot on.
Perry could be a formidable candidate if he boned up on the issues over the next two years, but then he wouldn’t be Rick Perry. My expectation is that the old dog will not learn new tricks, and that Rick Perry will run in 2015 as he did in 2011-with the same results. But I don’t know this, and it’s quite possible that somehow he might prevail.
i doubt it, he’s not the smooth talking charismatic type. plus, he’s the guv of a state that does well with whoevers’ in there. unless something really goes downhill in the USA in the next few years I doubt that will change.
@Jenos Idanian:
Ah, for Christ’s sake, c’mon. The GOP too has an overwhelming compunction to meddle. to control, to try to “fix” things and “make them better”, just different things. Like vaginas and wombs, for instance.
We can stop talking about Rand Paul now, at least as far as him being a viable national candidate goes.
Oops, I don’t know what I’m talking about Perry! Are you kidding me? This guy is not qualified to be president of Sesame Street let alone the USA! He was a joke in 2012 and he’d be an even bigger one should he decide to run in 2016. He won’t be the only fool out there of course. All the crazy gang will show up no doubt. Still, they’ll all be fun to watch even though the rest of the world will think, what the hell is wrong with America!!
What a friggin’ joke.
The idiots with tea bags hanging from their tricorns want 3 things: send all the immigrants back to where they came from…get that colored feller out of the White House…and keep the gubmint out of my Social Security.
There ain’t nothiing fresh about being old white and well off.
@Pinky:
This from the person who said,
Which is not only superficial but an over simplification.
Yeah, just like in 2001 and 2003 when tax cuts came but spending increased? I have been hearing this crap for decades and it is also an over simplification as it completely ignores the GOP’s role in the dynamics.
@Scott: No worries, present company’s excluded.
@OzarkHillbilly: “As governor of Texas, his only accomplishment is getting out of the way. Seriously, a potted plant could have done as well. ”
That’s not fair. He also executed several demonstrably innocent people, making him the only known serial killer to hold high elective office. That’s got to count for something.
@Doug Mataconis: And Kennedy may have cheated too…..
@ Doug
Paul Ryan is a “star”? After getting punk-slapped from one end of America to the other?
@OzarkHillbilly: Fair enough; I was simplistic. But look at Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint. Palin had very little top-of-the-line experience, but she worked with both sides (and against both sides) on her way up. DeMint has experience but, as far as I recall, never compromised or worked with anyone on anything. Both have been active in the Tea Party movement, and given endorsements to primary candidates. Which has carried more influence, the experienced or the inexperienced one?
As for your comment about the 10:1 thing, it doesn’t really address my point. I don’t remember the Bush tax cuts being tied to a spending-reduction deal, but if they were, it only shows that such deals don’t work. I’m not talking about blaming a particular party for that. I’m saying that deals in Washington get broken, even ones encoded in legislation.
@sam: Ah, for Christ’s sake, c’mon. The GOP too has an overwhelming compunction to meddle. to control, to try to “fix” things and “make them better”, just different things. Like vaginas and wombs, for instance.
I know what you were trying to say, but by definition an abortion is “meddling” with a womb.
Jenos…you idiot…when it’s your own womb it’s not meddling.
When you are a 65 year old white legislator denying critical healthcare to women it is meddling.
Jenoslogic:
If a law is passed outlawing condoms, you can’t complain about the legislature meddling with your putz because when you put on a rubber you’re meddling with your putz, too. So there.
@David D. from Philly: True, but the GOP already has guys like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump… I just don’t see what he thinks his career path is after the Governor’s mansion. He makes a fine “Texas Politician”, but I don’t see him going toe-to-toe with Louie Gohmert or Ted Cruz for a seat in Congress, and he’s not broadly-appealing enough to land a 1st- or 2nd-tier talking head job on Fox, either. Unless he goes to full-on evangelism & tries to become the new Pat Robertson, I’m just not sure what he thinks he’ll do after the 2016 primaries.
@anjin-san: The bar is set very low in the GOP…
@OzarkHillbilly: I don’t think Walker will be all too viable nationally. His two most recent pieces of legislation signed into law were an unaccountable school voucher program and abortion restrictions which would reduce the number of clinics in the state down to two. Add to that his horrible handling of Wisconsin’s economy dropping to 44th in job production and 49th in economic outlook, his WEDC council that is just hemorrhaging tax payer money with out results, and his recent upper class tax breaks which stiff the middle class and the largest cuts ever to the state’s public education system. After those things come to light it is hard to see him winning reelection against a strong candidate or the Republican nomination against anyone who has even a less disastrous record.
@Dave D: I also forgot to add his rejection of the Medicare expansion which is estimated to cost $120 million more to insure 85,000 less people. The problem with Walker and Ryan are one in the same, these are two career politicians who have never had any private sector experience. They have drawn every paycheck they have ever taken home from the government and then complain about that very same employer.
@Sam Malone: Time to call “Mayday” on you, Cliffy.
I said that abortion is, by definition, “meddling” in the womb. Whether or not it is an acceptable form of meddling is another whole discussion, but it is “meddling.”
And why the hell is it when, the left needs to cite an area of personal freedom they support, they always bring up a sexual freedom? Why is that the only place where they don’t feel it needs to be encroached out of some kind of responsibility to The Collective? Are you that obsessed with your wee-wees and hoo-hahs?
But back to the topic at hand… anyone who helped put Joe Biden in the vice-presidency has absolutely no grounds to complain about stupid politicians. You but a certifiable moron one heartbeat away from the presidency. Stand up and take a bow!
Meddling with your own body…OK…whatever you say, fool. Has your mommy told you that you will go blind if you keep meddling with yourself???
Actually Jenos Biden’s work as VP has been excellent…on China, on Israel, on the Republican manufactured fiscal cliff crisis, on gun safety…and you saying different only shows your ignorance.
I mean…he didn’t invade Iraq, or out a covert spy, or give billions of taxpayer $$$ away to his cronies…but otherwise…excellent.
@ Dave D.
Actually Ryan worked for McDonalds….
@Dave D: Interesting that it is the same with Perry, a career state employee who never met a payroll. Also, he spent his last term double dipping a governor’s salary and a state pension.
@Dave D:
“His two most recent pieces of legislation signed into law were an unaccountable school voucher program and abortion restrictions which would reduce the number of clinics in the state down to two. Add to that his horrible handling of Wisconsin’s economy dropping to 44th in job production and 49th in economic outlook, his WEDC council that is just hemorrhaging tax payer money with out results, and his recent upper class tax breaks which stiff the middle class and the largest cuts ever to the state’s public education system.”
Whether or not these would be popular positions with swing voters in the general election, which of these (adding in rejecting the Medicare expension you added later) do you think hurts him with Republican primary noters? I think these are selling points in a Republican primary, that he’s already done what the other candidates are only promising to do.
@ Moosebreath…
What’s his name in Minnesota did the same thing…and got the same lousy results.
At some point even Republicans have to begin to realize that their economic theories are complete bunk.
@Sam Malone:
“At some point even Republicans have to begin to realize that their economic theories are complete bunk.”
You clearly have not been reading the comments by most of the resident conservatives.
Sure I read them…but they are delusional…like Dougs posts about Un-Employment that never bother mentioning the loss of public sector jobs.
Austerity in the face of recession…BRILLIANT!!!
Like I said…complete bunk.
@Sam Malone:
I’m not arguing that Republicans’ economic views are not bunk. However, you said “At some point even Republicans have to begin to realize that their economic theories are complete bunk.”
Whether or not such a day will come (and I strongly doubt the likes of bithead will ever reach such a point — he’s still fighting against the New Deal after all), it certainly is not here yet.
@ Moosebreath…
Youcould be right. They could be too dumb to ever realize it.
@Jenos Idanian: Oh fer christ’s sake, it’s HER womb!
@Dave D: I totally agree. I was trying to say that superficially he is a viable candidate (during a primary), but that once people actually look at his record (during a general election?) Crash and burn.
I also said that I could be wrong. I never underestimate the American electorate.
@Sam Malone:
I see the light of reality brightening yon horizons! 😉
@Pinky:
Pinky, you are confusing the ability for picking winners with the ability for making winners. The rooster crows. The sun rises. Did the rooster’s crowing make the sun rise?
No.
@Pinky:
Ok, you weren’t around in ’01 or ’03. I don’t blame you. In ’01 it was “the people’s money”, not “the people’s debt”. In ’03 it was “Tax cuts increase revenues!” both of which proved to be full of sh!t, especially as they were running 2 wars off the books and added a completely unfinanced expansion of Medicare.
Fish in a barrel.
Of course not…Republicans explode debt…it’s what they do.
I hope he has a great chance of winning the 2016 Republican nomination – the entertainment value is enormous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines
So the answer is no.
@OzarkHillbilly: Ozark & Sam, you realize that you’re shooting down the “10:1” argument yourselves, right?
@OzarkHillbilly:
No, I’m pointing out the Tea Party’s attachment to less-experienced candidates.
@rudderpedals: They cain’t spel fanci namez.
@legion: The voters elected another Texas ‘clown’ to the Presidency. Given enough money and the proper ‘handlers’, this one could win too. After all, most voters vote for who they like, not who would serve them best. Automatically, this one has the votes of the extreme Right-Wing.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Better. A potted plant could have done better.
Imagine a field of candidates in which Gov Perry is the liberal. Could happen. Actually, I guess it sort of did. Wonderful to have the Repub party to keep us entertained.
@ Jenos
No, it’s just that we use them, and that can have consequences. You would not understand.
“So yeah, I’d prefer a potted plant over most Democrats”
New slogan of the GOP, “Vote for potted plant” since they reflect quite well our collective IQ