1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rick Perry: By The Numbers

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    I covered a team where that would happen almost every week. It was a college team that had a work-horse back and otherwise, they'd throw. So he'd rush 20 times for 100 yards and the quarterback would be sacked three times for 20 lost yards and they'd finish with about 23 rushes for 80 yards and they'd throw 40 times.

    This is what I love about political discussions on a sports journalism board...
  2. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    They aren't covering Bachmann? That's news to me.

    If you look at the motivations for why coverage of the GOP race would revolve around Romney, Bachmann and Perry and you think it's because they are "after" Perry, then your name truly is apropos.

    I mean, if you're covering Cowboys camp, are you breaking down every move by Tom Brandstater the way you are with Tony Romo?
  3. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    I'm not talking about the media coverage. I'm talking about what the White House is saying about potential opponents. Big difference. They're going after Perry because they're afraid of him capturing the vote of every white male in a swing state who goes to church on Sundays other than Easter. And, they are especially, worried about the female voters who - time and time again - prove they will vote for the smoother talker in every election. (Reagan. Reagan. Clinton. Clinton. Gore. Obama. I am not counting the 1988 nor 2004 elections because both major party candidates were uninspiring speakers. Those were toss-ups. :) )

    Perry's a smooth talker. That terrifies Obama, who cornered the market on "political pillow talk" three years ago.

    The media *is* covering Bachmann -- but the White House isn't attacking her and probably won't - as they don't want to appear "anti-woman" to the delicate Soccer Moms and their precious swing votes.

    In fact, they would prefer she wins nomination. No way she wins a general election. No way she gets more than 38% of the vote vs Obama.

    I also think the White House knows that Romney is the "Hillary Clinton of the Republicans". The safe choice that can hold the base (Clinton in 2008) but won't "expand the base" (Obama in 2008).

    2008: "Ain't no minorities gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Hillary Clinton."

    2012: "Ain't no megachurchers in IN/OH/NC/VA gonna stand in the rain for three hours to vote for Mitt Romney."

    There's your difference. The White House knows Perry can galvanize the base and create enthusiasm, like Obama did on the Left in 2008. Obama's team wants the Republicans to nominate the "next man up", as they usually do...when they lose (Dole 96, McCain 08). Romney is the 2012 next man up.

    Look back at 2008. Even with the badly-damaged Republican brand, would Hillary have beaten McCain? Maybe to "more than maybe". But not by the tail kicking Obama gave McCain.
  4. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Yup, I wouldn't disagree with any of this. I was assuming because most of the criticisms I've seen on here were media-oriented -- or at least appeared to be -- that's what you meant.
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Because they are smart enough to know what a disaster it would be.
  6. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Romney seems remarkably under the radar right now, which at this point, I'm guessing makes him very happy.

    It will be interesting to see what happens with Ryan, Christie, Palin and now Pataki...

    I'm guessing none will enter the race.
  7. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Re: Rick Perry, complete fraud

    Nate Silver says there's room for more GOP contenders:

  8. RalphWaldoHenderson

    RalphWaldoHenderson New Member


    As a Democrat, with friends in Democratic political circles, lemme let you in on their actual thinking:

    Rick Perry is a redux of George W. Bush, and the country still won't be in the mood next year to elect another religious Texas governor. Secretly, Dems will take Perry over Mitt Romney any day. The attacks on Perry aren't coming because anyone is scared of Perry. It's just the natural push-back when a newcomer on the political scene announces.

    Personally, I'm scared of a Perry presidency. Not Perry being nominated, but becoming President. We've seen this before, from '01 to '09, and it wasn't pretty. I'm not sure I'd be scared of a Romney presidency. And that's why, as someone pointed out before me, Romney and Huntsman are really the only candidates that give Dems "night sweats." No matter how bad the economy, the country isn't going to be ready to go back to a hard-right presidency. Maybe in '16, but not '12, so soon after Bush. But they'd be amenable to a more moderate GOP candidate, a la Romney, Huntsman, or Pawlenty.

    So far, it appears Huntsman won't be that guy. Pawlenty's already out. Romney, well, I'm guessing most Dems would be very happy if Perry beat him for the nomination.

    And if it were Bachmann, or even Palin, well I'm not even sure Obama would bother to campaign.
  9. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Bush won reelection when everyone was sick of him, too.

    I'm not saying it's likely, but it doesn't matter what the country is in the "mood" for, because in the end they'll only have two choices.
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I hope that people can see in the rapid-fire vetting of Perry that Palin wasn't "picked on." She was just a governor. And this is what happens when governors thrust themselves onto the national scene.
  11. RalphWaldoHenderson

    RalphWaldoHenderson New Member

    I'm not sure they were sick of Bush after only four years. Iraq hadn't really taken a bad turn yet, and the economy hadn't collapsed. But after six, and definitely eight years, they were sick of Bush. Four years after he left office, the memory will still be too fresh for a lot of people.
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The attacks on Palin -- and especially the rumors -- were much more vicious.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page