While I do not hold a Rick Perry candidacy as currently viable, it's instructive to understand the more plausible circumstances in which Perry can obtain the nomination and even the presidency. By placing ourselves in the campaign's shoes, we can come to a better understanding of our enemies.
First off, let's state what we need to find out; how does Rick Perry obtain the nomination? While every candidate has a distinct voter ID level, unique personal baggage, and inherent demographic constituency, Rick Perry's route seems surely a bizarre one. But lest anyone forget, our presidents are often bizarre people. Take stock of the steady descent in intellect and style from Nixon/Agnew to Ford to Reagan to Bush I to Bush II to McCain/Palin to... Perry?
What we know is that Rick Perry is one of the longer-serving governors in recent history, and of a politically useful state--Texas. He has the evangelical political community at his fingertips, and is currently a front-runner in a considerable number of polls. We also know that frontrunners do fade, flame out, and get overwhelmed, for reasons having to do with what we call the "median voter theorem."
In a multi-candidate primary, the median voter theorem gets complicated. The basic idea at play is that voters choose politicians who appeal to them. A geographic translation: if there's a lemonade stand on your block, you're probably not going to walk four streets over on a hot day to go to the other lemonade stand. High-profile politicians tailor themselves to the audience, but not necessarily any audience. Even not accounting for basic human ego and American cultural tendency to assert one's opinion, there's the tenet that political evolution in a celebrity can only bend so far without alienating too many people (Pawlenty's attempt at out-righting the field is a textbook example).
From Romney's perspective, his only close ideological competition is Jon Hunstman, who is to Romney's left presently and somewhere near irrelevance. Romney has severe problems with the right-end of the GOP field, but not as long as it remains this crowded. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama successfully brushed off primary losses in some states through the racking up of delegates--but that's the Democratic nomination system, and the Republican one is winner-take-all. This was Romney's bane in 2008; once Mike Huckabee dropped out, he endorsed McCain and the bad blood between Huckabee and Romney contributed to a series of events that eventually helped lift McCain from doldrums to nomination. Once conservative voters consolidated to fewer candidates, Romney was out to dry.
Romney knows this now, and for that reason should and will avoid going after Bachmann and the other right-populists (perhaps not Ron Paul, who has vocal support but is a safe punching bag). As long as Perry's likely potential voters are divided among candidates like Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, et cet., Romney can stretch out a victory. And no heavy-duty dirty campaigning's yet been waged against Perry, but if anyone in the GOP had the war-chest to do so, it's Romney.
As long as Romney stands as Perry's real rival for the nomination (with institutional support, serious money and the ring of the 'electability argument') we know what Perry's route would be in terms of the median-voter-theorem: knock off his ideological cousins and take their supporters. Then, Perry will have enough support to blast away Romney and clear the field.
Like Perry, Bachmann bring a lot of baggage of her own, but with more weaknesses: her fundraising and polling haven't been stellar. Santorum and Gingrich may drop out fairly early in the race, barring some change. But what Perry should worry about more is the timing of the drop out.
Iowa may be looking easy for the Perry campaign at the moment, but he can win New Hampshire. If Romney wins the granite state, the race stays volatile. If Perry beats Romney, he can clear the field rapidly. There's a lot of reward for one prize. And while NH's Republican voters are more liberal, there are plenty of conservatives and moderates. In an Iowa victory boost, Perry could gain a few crucial polling points by taking from the rightward pack. Perry can win close and still get the delegates. And if Romney wins weaker than expected or even close, Romney himself will have to worry about a path forward, because NH is supposed to be one of his stronger states en route to the convention.
Timeline of the early primaries via Wikipedia:
February 6 – Confirmed date of the Iowa caucuses[129]
February 14 – Expected date of New Hampshire primary
February 18 – Confirmed date of the Nevada caucuses
February 28 - Confirmed date of the South Carolina primary
Romney essentially needs New Hampshire (liberals and moderates) and Nevada (strong Mormon and business presence will help him) to be viable: he's not necessarily counting on Iowa. The biggest question remaining is, when can Perry squeeze out his rightwing rivals? It's not hard to imagine a scenario where, on Feb 6, a strong Romney second or respectable third in IA helps Mitt win NH, NV and then the field remains crowded through South Carolina. If Perry loses IA, he may not last. If he loses SC, a southern governor, he's probably toast. If, around South Carolina time, Perry gets rid of Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, et cetera, Bachmann will probably diminish in support rapidly as Perry looks stronger
If nominated, can Perry win the presidency? Of course it's possible. There are too many unknown factors, risks to President Obama, for a Republican to not have some chance of winning. That said, it's not necessarily as likely as casual readers of polls might assume.
Exploiting Obama's weaknesses
Many of the states where Obama's approval ratings are sour will re-elect the president in a heartbeat: think of Vermont and Oregon. National polling can present an over-simplified view of the problems. Furthermore, in some cases the south may actually be competitive for Obama's 2012 campaign:
Public Policy Polling, in June:
Despite Obama's unpopularity only one of his potential opponents for next year has a clear lead over him in the Palmetto State [South Carolina]. That's Mitt Romney, who's ahead of Obama by a 50/41 margin. The only other Republican we tested who leads Obama is Jim DeMint, but the home state senator's margin is a narrow one at 47-44. Beyond that Obama fights Tim Pawlenty to a tie at 42%, leads Newt Gingrich 46-44, is up 43-40 on Herman Cain, and has a 48-43 advantage over Sarah Palin.
Much has been written about the weakness of the Republican candidate field and Obama's competitiveness in South Carolina is very emblematic of that: voters don't like him but in many cases they like the GOP alternatives even less. Romney is the most popular of the contenders likely to run in the state but even he has slightly net negative favorability numbers with 40% of voters expressing a positive opinion of him to 42% with a negative one. Cain's favorability spread is -9 (26/35), Pawlenty's is -17 (22/39), Palin's is -19 (37/56), and Gingrich's is -27 (26/53).
Rick Perry's argument for running entails that he would move the south away from competitive status. That may not sound like a big deal, because Obama doesn't need to win South Carolina. However, a Georgia or a North Carolina (site of the Democratic National Convention, btw) and Virginia will prove very helpful to Obama's chances.
Perry would probably be strong in Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvannia, (although it's not likely Perry could win PA) which were won by Obama in 2008. With this Perry could win the presidency. He would also be favored in Arizona and Missouri, states Obama would want to be competitive in.
Perry's problem is that the president has an institutional advantage through the electoral college, and that Perry appeals most in states that aren't really that competitive:
I assume Colorado will continue its blue status in an Obama-Perry race, even if diminished from 2008 levels due to the presence of liberals in the northeast, (CU Boulder, Denver metropolitan area) and the strong growth of latinos in the Western Slope region (which Obama probably won't win) and in pretty much most of the state. More importantly, Colorado is one of the youngest states: there are few states with a lower percentage of seniors than CO. Young people will be Obama's route to victory. If Obama doesn't win Colorado, he's probably not winning anyway. Colorado is the demographic epitome of to whom Obama will be persuading (black voters have remained almost monolithic in their support):
Colorado USA
5,029,196 308,745,538
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 16.9% 9.7%
Population, 2000 4,302,015 281,424,602
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2009 7.3% 6.9%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2009 24.4% 24.3%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2009 10.6% 12.9%
Female persons, percent, 2009 49.6% 50.7%
White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 81.3% 72.4%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 4.0% 12.6%
American Indians/Alaska Natives, 2010 1.1% 0.9%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.8% 4.8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2010 (a) 0.1% 0.2%
Two or more races, percent, 2010 3.4% 2.9%
Persons Hispanic or Latino origin, 2010 (b) 20.7% 16.3%
White persons not Hispanic, persons, 2010 70.0% 63.7%
...which means that Perry needs states with more conservatives, more working class whites, few latinos. Think West Virginia, once a Democratic stronghold.
I do not assume New Hampshire, the purple rust belt, FL or the southern Atlantic seaboard, but it's easy to imagine Perry taking the south and still losing closely in a volatile election:
Rest assured, 2012 will most likely be one of the uglier campaigns of history.
If Obama has a really good night after a wild election year, he could end up with something like this, especially if Romney is the nominee but also if the two candidates, whomever takes the GOP nod, are damaged:
In short, there is much that is possible next year. But at the end of the day, Barack Obama has strong advantages, including a mammoth, $86 m. fundraising haul (nor are any GOP candidates raising money at Obama or HRC's 2008 levels) and the fortune of incumbency, the passing of the massive Millenial generation into ages 17-27 in 2011, not to mention latino growth. Obama's disadvantages, which the GOP will exploit, are a growing disapproval from white, working-class voters, the growth of the "Former Democrat" demographic, the inexperience of young people with voting (think disenfranchisement and conflicting voter registration information) and the possibility of losing less conservative states like New Hampshire.
For Rick Perry, turning out seniors and religious voters will be key. While Colorado and Virginia have probably moved into the Democratic column, Perry can make strong inroads into swing states, like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Nevada, under the right circumstances. There's no question that Perry can win the nomination, especially in light of the median voter theorem perspective. But I wouldn't bet on Perry's beating the incumbent come November 2012.