Rick Perry And Scott Walker Gone From Presidential Race: Major Rise And Rapid Decline!

Rick Perry led the 2012 Republican Presidential race right around this time in 2011, and then flopped badly with his poor performance in  a debate where he could not remember the third government agency he wanted to abolish.  He came back this year, with nice new glasses, and claiming he had improved his ability to perform in debates, but the polls never showed he could recover from his famous disaster four years ago.

Scott Walker led the polls in Iowa and was seen earlier this year as a major contender for 2016, but he totally collapsed, despite having the backing of the Koch Brothers, and now, like Perry, was a total bomb in debates.

Their being the first two to leave the GOP race shows being ahead in the third year of a Presidential term is often the death knell, and it will be followed soon by the likes of Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal,  Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and other pitiful candidates, including Dr. Benjamin Carson and Carly Fiorina, despite their being high in the polls at the moment, and Rand Paul.

At the end, it looks more than ever that the final four will be Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.

32 comments on “Rick Perry And Scott Walker Gone From Presidential Race: Major Rise And Rapid Decline!

  1. D September 22, 2015 1:56 am

    Scott Walker is the bigger surprise.

    That’s because he didn’t project any kind of image that made him viable.

    This is really good. He’s hasn’t a soul. And he is pernicious.

  2. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 11:25 am

    Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich are the only truly pitiful candidates. Graham is a sleazball, Christie all of a sudden speaks like Goldwater, Reagan and Patton but is just another RINO. Jeb is the establishment RINO par excellence, Huckabee though a social conservative is a big government progressive, and Kasich has screwed the future of Ohio by accepting the expansion of Medicaid. Ohio receives federal funding now, but in a few years the state has to pick up the bill and Kasich didn’t give a damn.
    Of the remaining field, on the politician side only Jindal, Cruz, Santorum and Rubio consistently belong to the conservative wing of the party. With respect to the outsiders, the only consistent conservative is Dr. Ben Carson. Carly Fiorina now speaks like Thatcher but she was and is supported by the Washington RINO establishment. And Trump is also a progressive nutjob who for now is exploiting some of the disgust voters have toward a) The Republican establishment, b) politicians in general, c) Washington DC beltway establishment which includes politicians, bureaucrats, pseudo-intellectuals and the media and d) the media in general. But do not be fooled, Trump is not a conservative, he is simply Trump, a businessman who knows how to sell the goods, not matter what they are.

  3. Princess Leia September 22, 2015 12:10 pm

    I agree with the Professor. The ones he listed are pitiful candidates.

  4. Ronald September 22, 2015 2:54 pm

    WOW, Ariel, you and I have totally different perceptions, as if I did not know that before now! LOL

    You do not like Kasich, but he is the most electable of all, with Rubio as his VP. They would have a real chance to win.

    Jindal, Cruz, Santorum, and Carson are outrageously extreme, and the first three are totally a disgrace, and the GOP would lose massively with any of them as Republican Presidential nominee!

  5. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 3:12 pm

    If liberals see Kasich as electable, then I know he should not be the nominee. Another “moderate” Republican, another Democrat triumph. Been there done that. LOL!

  6. Ronald September 22, 2015 3:17 pm

    Kasich is the most mainstream of all of the candidates, so can cross the aisle and gain support.

    Also, Kasich is the most experienced candidate, 18 distinguished years in the House, head of the Budget Committee, and elected Governor of the swing state of Ohio twice, and by a vast margin the second time.

    Easily the most outstanding choice the GOP has, as Jon Huntsman was in 2012, and still would be if running in 2016, more so than even Kasich!

  7. Ronald September 22, 2015 5:33 pm

    Interesting, Ariel, that you seem to want to hope that the white vote will increase for the GOP, when it is clear that a larger percentage of whites is more open minded and tolerant than the GOP, and apparently, yourself.

    Expecting to win by using the race card is a losing cause, but the GOP seems unable to stop using it, amazing!

  8. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 6:16 pm

    Excuse me? Race card? Are you sure of what you are saying? It’s Democrats you constantly use the race card. Just go to the Democrat party webpage, you got a link for every single race/minority in America. It’s Democrats who divide us by race. Now, that said, all I am pointing out is that all those pundits and political analyst, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, who say that Republicans are doomed if they don’t win the Hispanic vote really don’t know what they are talking about. Republicans who have to win more than 70% of the Hispanic vote to win, while with just 6% more (66%) of the white vote they win even if Democrats win 90% of the Hispanic and 95% of the black vote! I am just using the race argument that every single Democrat uses, that is if Republicans don’t win the Hispanic vote they lose, and that is simply not true. For example, during the Reagan administration amnesty was passed, correct? Now did that transform itself in more Hispanic votes for Republicans? Of course not! As a matter of fact Republicans got less Hispanic votes after amnesty in the 88 election than before! So all this talk about catering to this and that group, if Republicans don’t support amnesty they will never win the Hispanic vote is BS, Do you actually believe that if Republicans supported amnesty they would receive more than 70% of the Hispanic vote? Of course not. Finally just because I do not support amnesty or “pathway to citizenship” does not mean I am intolerant. It simply means I support legal immigration. And I ask this final question. If amnesty is passed favoring 11 million illegal immigrants. What should we do in 2035, 20 yrs from now, with the new 11 million illegal immigrants more or less that will cross our border in the next 20 yrs? Grant amnesty again? Yes or No?

  9. Ronald September 22, 2015 6:23 pm

    Amazing how you do not see, Ariel, that the GOP self destructs by its refusal to relate to Hispanics, blacks, and even Asian Americans by their actions and rhetoric.

    We need tighter enforcement of immigration, no question, but as long as there is no criminal activity, America is a land of immigrants, and I would not deport those who have come here for economic opportunity. They are a strength and a positive force long term, and the GOP refusal to recognize that is a long term mistake.

    America is becoming less Anglo White, and nothing will change that, no matter what Republicans do to entice more racial divide by their tactics!

  10. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 6:44 pm

    Relate? What on earth are you talking about? My wife is Argentinian/Jewish with family also in Israel, I am American/Argentine descent, how on earth would anyone relate to us? You know how? Not by treating us ‘special” because of our heritage but by treating us just like anyone else, whether they be white, black, asian, hispanic or what have you. I actually detest it when I listen to politicians pander to any of the “sub” groups they “balcanize” us into. Why is it assumed that all Hispanics, all Asian, all Black , must think the same way? Why is it assumed that all poor are good and all rich people are evil? How about judging everyone individually and not by the color of their skin or income level? When I was in school back in the 70’s in Los Angeles, as a kid , I really detested filling out forms that had me check the box of my “race”. Who the hell cares whether I am white, black etc! And they even put Hispanic? WTF is that? There is no “Hispanic” race. There might be a culture but not a race. Anyway it is truly sickening all this racial divide imposed on us by politicians and I refuse to play along.

  11. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 6:46 pm

    So let me get this straight, you would grant amnesty again to all the millions of future illegal immigrants. Correct?

  12. Ronald September 22, 2015 7:03 pm

    Ariel, I said we need to enforce the border much better, but if immigrants come in undocumented, and do not commit crimes, they should be given amnesty over time. In the long run, it benefits our nation long term, since it increases the working population, a problem in many European nations and Japan.

  13. Princess Leia September 22, 2015 7:17 pm

    Millennials are up for grabs in 2016. Polls and surveys show that they are more socially liberal than previous generations, making them more likely to vote for Democrats.

  14. Ronald September 22, 2015 7:56 pm

    Yes, Rustbelt Democrat, the GOP is dying out, and yet, Ariel thinks it is going to win in 2016! LOL

  15. Southern Liberal September 22, 2015 8:07 pm

    Good to see her making the right decision! 🙂

  16. D September 22, 2015 11:23 pm

    Ariel Leis writes,

    “All Republicans have to do in 2016 is win just 4% more (64%) of the white vote they had in 2012 and Democrats lose, even if Democrats 72% of the Hispanic vote and 95% of the Black vote.”

    No.

    First of all, that’s not “4” percent “more” than the 2012 result.

    The share of the U.S. Popular Vote is going down for the whites. It’s going up for the Hispanics. And it’s steady for African-Americans.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney received 59 percent nationwide from whites. So, 72 x 0.59 = 42.48 percent. In the U.S. Popular Vote, Romney received 47.16. So, 42.48 divided by 47.16 is 90.07 percent of Romney’s support having come from white voters nationwide.

    The Republican Party, which Ariel prefers, is depending on whites nationally for 90 percent of their support in the U.S. Popular Vote.

    This means, to clear winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and for the whites’ share of the U.S. Popular Vote likely to go from 77 (from 2004) to 74 (from 2008) to 72 (from 2012) to very possibly 70 (come 2016) percent … the 2016 Republican nominee would have to hit 65 percent from whites nationwide.

    That’s 6 percent more than what nominee Mitt Romney received in 2012.

    70 x 0.65 = 45.50. Take the 45.50 and divide by 90 and you get a winning 50.55.

    Will that happen?

    We’ll see.

    If 2016 is a Republican pickup, all the racial demographics will shift Republican and, as a result, the Republican pickup winner will need to hit those numbers. But, if there isn’t a shift of the minority voting groups … then, for a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote, that 65 percent will have to be reached.

    The last time a Republican received 65 percent from whites nationwide was with Ronald Reagan’s 49-state re-election in 1984. That year, Reagan received 58.77 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote (to Walter Mondale’s 40.56 percent). In 1984, whites were 86 percent of the share of the vote. From that pool, 66 percent voted for re-electing Reagan. 86 x 0.66 = 56.76 percent. That 56.76 divided by the 58.77 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote meant that whites were good for 96.57 percent of Reagan’s national support.

    Ariel decided to get controversial and slam the Democratic Party for courting voters who are not white. Well, the Republican Party is dependent on white voters. And the language we hear from numerous Republican presidential candidates demonstrates that. So, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge this … and Ariel did not mention this.

  17. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 11:27 pm

    Good grief, why don’t you just use the interactive map from the ultra leftist New York Times and tell me what results you get?

  18. Ronald September 22, 2015 11:28 pm

    Thanks, D, for your intelligent discussion and objective analysis.

    But, of course, Ariel will not accept reality, but as I see it, you knocked him to the wall with the truth! LOL

  19. Ariel Leis September 22, 2015 11:40 pm

    Fact of the matter is that in 2012 the Republicans had to get 73% of the Hispanic vote to reach 288 electoral votes and win if all other factors stayed the same. An impossibility. While with just going from 60% to 64% of white votes and reducing the white vote towards Democrats from 40% to 36% would have given Republicans 296 electoral votes and a win. So what was easier? That’s all I am saying. Republicans need not to pander to race, they need to go out with a clear conservative message based on liberty, individual rights and free market capitalism to win. By the way who was the last one to do that? Oh yes Ronald Reagan. Again no need to pander to race.

  20. D September 23, 2015 8:30 am

    Ariel Lewis writes,

    “Fact of the matter is that in 2012 the Republicans had to get 73% of the Hispanic vote to reach 288 electoral votes and win if all other factors stayed the same.”

    No.

    2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney received 27 percent support from Hispanic voters nationwide. And he received 47.16 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote. To win Hispanics nationally with 73 percent of their vote would have produced the following results:

    Whites (72): Romney 59% (Total: 42.48)
    African-Americans (13): Romney 06% (Total: 0.78)
    Hispanics (10): Romney 73% (Total: 7.30)
    Asians (03): Romney 26% (Total: 0.78)
    Others (02): Romney 38% (Total: 0.76)

    Totals (100): Romney 52.10%

    To hit exactly 50.00 percent, from these nation exit-poll numbers, Mitt Romney would have needed to win over Hispanics with 52 percent. But, when you combine the percentages received by President Barack Obama (51.02 percent) and Mitt Romney (47.16 percent), they were 98.18. Take half that and add a little more for Romney, it would have 49.10 percent for Romney and 49.08 for Obama. So, subtract a little more and comes to 43 percent of Hispanics what was Mitt Romney needed. Here are the revised numbers:

    Whites (72): Romney 59% (Total: 42.48)
    African-Americans (13): Romney 06% (Total: 0.78)
    Hispanics (10): Romney 43% (Total: 4.30)
    Asians (03): Romney 26% (Total: 0.78)
    Others (02): Romney 38% (Total: 0.76)

    Totals (100): Romney 49.10%

    The 43 percent of Hispanics would have nationally been enough for Mitt Romney to win a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote. He lost nationally by 3.86 percentage points. To win nationally by just 0.02 would have uniformly shifted and then flipped Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), and Virginia (13) to give him 60 more electoral votes for 266 electoral votes. Playing it safe with the 52 percent of Hispanics, a pickup there, would have delivered at least one or the following (in order of percentage margins closer to reach): Colorado (9), Pennsylvania (20), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6).

    You, Ariel, are advising me to refer to that “New York Times” map. I know about. I knew about it when it released. It’s a … guide. An estimate of what “New York Times” figures. It doesn’t mean it’s gospel. It can’t be. That’s because sheer uniformity in how people vote, one election after the next, is not fully predictable.

    By the way: If you want to talk about pandering, as if you think you’re nailing the Democratic Party on some sort of dirty tactic, make sure you refer to the fact that your preferred Republican Party panders to white people nationally. The party relies on white voters at a rate of approximately 90 percent of whatever their candidates’ received percentage from the U.S. Popular Vote in presidential elections. The rate it is going, with whites’ share of the vote in decline and Hispanics’ and Asians’ share on the rise, a Republican nominee cannot receive less than 90 percent of their national support from whites. So, given that, it cannot be too surprising that we get a Donald Trump or a Ben Carson talking to their party’s base as if white voters are a monolithic group nationwide. (They’re not.)

    Your statement, although with much effort, is incorrect.

  21. Ronald September 23, 2015 8:56 am

    D, I applaud you for your challenge to Ariel, BUT realize, like Fox News Channel and all right wing ideologues, he will never give up his views or concede anything. Facts do not matter, when one has an agenda!

  22. D September 23, 2015 9:16 am

    Ronald writes, “D, I applaud you for your challenge to Ariel, BUT realize, like Fox News Channel and all right wing ideologues, he will never give up his views or concede anything. Facts do not matter, when one has an agenda!”

    I understand. But, at the same time, I don’t generally concern myself with “Ariel Leis.” (No offense.)

  23. Southern Liberal September 23, 2015 9:26 am

    Being anti-woman and anti-science is another strike against the GOTea!

  24. Ronald September 23, 2015 9:41 am

    HAHA, D! I love your comment! LOL

  25. Ariel Leis September 23, 2015 10:15 am

    Good grief D! I was just using the interactive map. That said, lets take your numbers. What easier for the Republican party, to get a couple of more percentage points among white or the get 20 more percentage points among Hispanics? Why don’t you calculate and tell us exactly how many more percentage point Republicans needed among whites to win in 2012? All I am saying that Republicans do not have to pander to any race, just stay focused on a clear message of individual rights, constitutional government and order, and economic freedom in a free market capitalist economy which is the only system devised by man that has elevated the standard of living of everyone because the essence of a free market capitalist economy is social mobility. They should go with that message and make the case. This is all I am saying. We haven’t had that since Reagan.

  26. Ronald September 23, 2015 10:20 am

    Ariel, I guess you applaud “free market capitalism” regarding that hedge fund crook, Martin Shkreli, right?

  27. Ariel Leis September 23, 2015 11:23 am

    The guy is an ass, but what on earth does that have to do with free market capitalism? I believe he bought a patent, and patent protections are given by the federal government. That said, he is an ass, just like there are assholes everywhere, including government and any other organization or system. Now I can give you thousands of examples of greedy corrupt bureaucrats and politicians in government but does that mean government has to disappear or that it is an evil institution? Of course not. Same with free market capitalism. It’s benefits far outweighs any disadvantages. Finally even this jerk’s actions though bad affect a minimum number of people and that is unfortunate, but when you have jerks with governmental power their actions affect every single one of us. Yet we still have governments, don’t we?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.