Why Rick Perry is staying in the GOP race

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is shooting for a South Carolina win. For Perry, New Hampshire's primary isn't likely to mean much, says DCDecoder

Rick Perry campaign
Texas Gov. Rick Perry sent this photo with his tweet Wednesday that he was still running for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Rick Perry’s decision Wednesday to remain in the race (which he made by tweeting the above picture of himself, with the words “Here we come, South Carolina!”) seemed to surprise everyone, even members of his own staff.

The conventional wisdom is that Perry’s move will ultimately help Mitt Romney - ensuring that the conservative vote will continue to be fractured, and possibly even allowing Romney to win in South Carolina, where he has been trailing in the polls. But - playing devil’s advocate here - we can think of at least a few ways in which having Perry in the race could actually be a negative for Romney.

Obviously, if Perry should manage to pull off a win in South Carolina, that would be bad news for Mitt. And while that seems highly unlikely, given Perry’s struggles throughout the campaign, it’s not totally impossible.

As Nate Silver writes in Thursday’s New York Times, there are two plausible explanations behind Perry’s decision: Either it was based on emotion and his desire to end his campaign with a less ignominious finish than his fifth-place showing in Iowa. Or it was a strategic decision based on an analysis that he could still conceivably win. (Most likely, it was some combination of those two.)

Perry is effectively skipping New Hampshire, putting all his efforts into South Carolina, which votes Jan. 21 (though he’ll be in the Granite State for this weekend’s debates). He still has money to run ads, and his profile - Texas governor, evangelical Christian, served in the military - is a better fit for South Carolina than any other candidate’s. With Newt Gingrich now making it his mission to tear Romney down at all costs, Perry has the opportunity to be a third-party beneficiary of that spat.

Moreover, New Hampshire’s results are unlikely to have much of an impact on Perry. If Romney wins, as expected, it won’t change the political calculus for Perry at all. Ditto if Ron Paul wins. If Santorum should somehow pull off a win or even a surprisingly strong second, it could give him a boost heading into South Carolina, which could make Perry’s path there harder. But if Santorum does well enough to weaken Romney (with some help from Jon Huntsman) but not well enough to become the clear sole alternative, it could actually wind up indirectly helping Perry.

And even if Perry doesn’t win South Carolina, his presence in the race for the next few weeks isn’t necessarily to Romney’s advantage. Yes, the conservative vote is split. But there’s a good argument to be made that Romney might actually benefit at this point from having the field winnowed to him and a sole conservative alternative - since those alternatives have all been pretty weak candidates. Romney could potentially pick up more conservative support with fewer candidates in the race, which would make him look stronger. 

None of this is meant to argue that Romney is in any real danger. If Perry doesn’t win South Carolina (or come as close as Santorum did in Iowa), then he’s probably officially done. Still, it’s not a given that his presence in the race for the next few weeks will be entirely to Romney’s advantage.

Like your politics unscrambled? Check out DCDecoder.com

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Rick Perry is staying in the GOP race
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today