I take the idea for this chart from
Nate Silver's article at NYT. looking at how Rick Perry measures up.
I have modified Silver's perspective by exchanging the "interested in running" consideration in favor of "nominatability." Buckley advised to nominate the most conservative person who was electable. I think electability is the strongest current we have in this election cycle, our desire to be rid of Obama is so great. I'm looking for your feedback on the chart. Does it properly position each candidate? Does it help us to understand the race better?
Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us
here.
7 comments:
I would be curious to know how Paul, who wants to cut such a large portion of the military, legalize gay marriage, and revert to a gold standard, is found to be "Reliably conservative" by modern standards. Between his blame-america-first view of the war on terror and his fringe economy policies, he belongs well outside the modern view of what it is to be a conservative Republican.
I'm also curious as to why Romney is places just barely in the "conservative column", despite his support for all the Conservative positions, which the exception of his endorsement of an individual health insurance mandate - a position that was popular among conservatives until Obama incorporated it into his plan.
You're right, mburn16. I plotted Congressman Paul incorrectly. I've updated the chart.
Unfortunately, Perry doesn't play well outside of Texas, and I don't think he's inside the electable circle of your Venn Diagram (yet).
I'm surprised to see Huntsman and Giuliani in the Electable circle. It's possible, I guess, and they really don't fit in any of the other circles...
I think I'd have to agree with all of the other placements, except Paul may be on the other side - potentially nominatable, but I don't think he's electable. Good job.
I find this graph interesting. Thanks.
mburn16, Romney has NOT endorsed the mandated health insurance in the same way Obama has. Romney has repeatedly spoken of it only in the context of Massachusetts--his state. According to the constitution of Massachusetts, the mandate to buy health insurance is arguably constitutional. It may not be in other states, although states do have different constitutional powers than the federal gov't. It is pretty questionable for the FEDERAL gov't to mandate a purchase of health insurance. Romney has never argued for a FEDERAL mandate, I believe. Please post if you have ever heard Romney argue in favor of a FEDERAL mandate to buy health insurance; I would like to know.
AZ
I have two brothers who live in Texas. I asked one of them what he thinks about Perry. He told me that he has voted for Perry twice because he was the "lesser of two evils." He also believes, as I do, that nominating another Texas Governor for POTUS would be a huge mistake so close on the heels of George W. We both like George W. well enough, but the mood of the country regarding George W. should signal caution to people trying to nominate someone who looks or sounds remotely like him for POTUS. Mitt does not look or sound like G.W., although I suppose you could say that for many of the other candidates on the Republican side; most of all Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
My mother told me that my other brother said that there is nothing to Perry. Apparently, he's not a big fan, either. It appears that Perry is pretty weak in Texas, which should say something to anyone willing to listen.
AZ
The thing is Paul is reliably conservative and has the voting record to back it up. He is more of a Goldwater kind of conservative and in some cases it is the GOP who has strayed. Is he my first choice for President? No but to say he is not reliably conservative would be a lie.
Post a Comment