These are the closing moments of the 2010 national mid-term elections. Only hours remain until the voting begins and the tallying takes place.

The dependence of the Old Media on conventional pollsters and polling may have undergone a critical test…..and possibly failed. Private polling (done for candidates’ use) remains in place, but public polling, so easily manipulated and corrupted, may have outlived its day in the communications sun. (Although it is not yet clear what would take its place.) As Sean Trende in Real Clear Politics has perceptively pointed out, so many polls depend on past voting as models for who will turn out this year, and anyone who uses 2006 or 2008 as their model is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that 2010 will create a new model. If polling reveals a widespread understatement of the Republican vote next Tuesday, his diagnosis will be proved correct.

If there is any real suspense this year, it is about the size of the vote to reject or rebuke President Obama and the policies/legislation of his administration with the Democratic congress. Almost 25% of the vote will have already been made by election day due to the new early voting procedures in most of the country.

President Obama, defying every common sense rule of politics, has said, “I’m not on the ballot, but my policies are.” His “Obamacare” legislation is perhaps the most unpopular in modern times (and growing more unpopular every day as medical insurance premium increases arrive in American households), but he has put this and his other policies on the line. He has campaigned energetically in the closing days of the campaign, but there is little evidence that his appearances and exhortations have helped his party’s cause. Democratic strategists say he helps with get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts. We shall see.

Conventional wisdom has the GOP picking up 45-60 seats in the U.S. house and 6-8 U.S. senate seats as well as half a dozen governorships. Anything can happen, of course, but it is difficult to imagine any better result for the party in power. On the other hand, a few observers, including The Prairie Editor, have suggested that the actual results might be a greater rebuke of Obama/Pelosi/Reid, perhaps even an historical record for mid-term elections. We shall see.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Barry Casselman All rights reserved.

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog

Hat tip to Anon for posting this link.

The Democratic National Committee formally has asked the Pentagon for reams of correspondence between military agencies and nine potential Republican presidential candidates

~snip~

The nine Republicans that Democrats are seeking information on are former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.; Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.

I do not believe we should be surprised with who is on the potential list (our community has discussed these candidates at length), but more so those who are absent.

History has shown that we should not underestimate this guy’s viability.  According to Chris Cillizza:

Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has given $440,000 to aspiring 2010 candidate and party
committees via his Haley’s PAC, another clear signal that the Mississippi governor is seriously considering running for president in 2012.

Barbour has contributed to all 37 GOP gubernatorial candidates — directly or through the state party — and has also made a slew of donations to GOP Senate and House candidates.

…Barbour is in the midst of a five day, 13 state tour of governors races from around the country — a trip seen by some as a precursor to a presidential bid.

Haley has shown time and time again that he knows how to win elections.  I remain dubious of his chances for the top of the ticket, as the Democrats could not hope for more favorable optics for their side, with a distinctly Southern former lobbyist (who represented big tobacco companies) squaring up against the first black President in history.

However, Barbour could play a very prominent role as a kingmaker or a VP option amenable to most wings of the party.  No matter what, we should pay close attention to his activities leading up to the 2012 election season.

Dude:

He had a rough go of it last time, but Rudy Giuliani just told me at City Hall at his portrait unveiling that “the door’s not closed” on the possibility of him running for president again in 2012.

He said he won’t think about anything until after the November midterm elections, and that he gets encouraged by people as he travels.

I asked, “So the door’s not closed?” and he replied, “The door’s not closed.”

I’d heard from some Republican donors and insiders that he’s discussed the possibility with them in recent months as well.

I just don’t see him going the distance. His accomplishments, while impressive, also took place a long time ago in political terms, and he’s still pro-choice. He’s no stronger in the early states than he was last time around, and many of his former supporters, such as Yours Truly, are still reeling from Rudy ’08′s lack of an economic blueprint for the nation, something that will be absolutely required of any and all GOP candidates this time around. If Rudy wants to make a serious run for the top job, he’s welcome to do so, but that requires doing all the things that Hizzoner couldn’t do last time: put forth big economic ideas, learn the nuts and bolts of retail politics, and make peace with the pro-life movement.

There is only a bit more than one week to go before election day, 2010, and the last-minute hysteria has, not surprisingly, already begun. Voters everywhere, regardless of whom they intend to vote for, should remain calm in the face of this psychological onslaught. Allegations are everywhere. Some things do not ever change.

Democrats are taking some small encouragement from recent polls showing some movement their way in a few highly contested U.S. senate races. But a close examination of these polls, some of which are Democratic polls, does not reveal any fundamental change in the months-long trend of voters toward Republicans in general. Some Republican senatorial candidates are simply not up to the pressure and scrutiny of a statewide campaign, and they will likely fail. Delaware is the iconic example of this in 2010. An all-but-certain pick-up was transformed into an all-but-certain defeat. As former Congressman, Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said wisely many times, “Run to win, but win to govern.”

One of the signs that the polling ambiguities in senate races may not otherwise be indicating a true countertrend at the end of the campaign in 2010, is that the opposite is generally happening in U.S. house races, especially in contests with long-time Democratic incumbents who hold hitherto regarded “totally safe” seats. One by one, household names in the larger chamber of Congress are learning they are in trouble, or are already behind. Gubernatorial races likewise remain trending to significant GOP takeovers.

Although I have been consistently arguing the high end of overall Republican gains in this cycle, I have also expressed caution about unrealistic expectations that some Republicans may have. or that some Democrats may fear. The Democrats will still win many races, and almost certainly will win a few surprises. Control of the U.S. house very likely will switch, but control of the U.S. senate is problematic, especially since the GOP would have to win almost all the close races. It’s possible; in fact, the Democrats did this in 2006; but no one should consider it “a done deal.”

The laughable claims of desperate campaigns and candidates are now in high dudgeon. An incumbent 18-term Democratic congressman from northern Minnesota attacks his own voters during a debate, the Democratic nominee for U.S. senate in Illinois outrageously attacks his GOP opponent for “economic treason,” and the Republican nominee for U.S. senate in Delaware gets hung up in alleged witchcraftery.

Fortunately, the finish line is in sight. We will likely have a two-party government again after November 2. Both sides will need to evaluate these renewed circumstances. Tom Ridge’s advice will not ever be more pertinent as the winners figure out how to govern.

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog

Sarah Palin’s new TV show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is scheduled to debut on November 14th. A great little sneak peak of the show can be seen here.

The show is not quite what I expected it to be, but I am pleasantly surprised. I was expecting a nature documentary narrated by Gov. Palin. Instead, it appears that the program will feature members of the Palin family engaging in adventures in the beautiful Alaskan wilderness. I am intrigued by what I have seen so far and will be setting my DVR accordingly.

You can check out more content on the show at TLC’s official site, here.

Mitch Daniels’ recent suggestion that the federal tax code be replaced with a combination of a flat income tax and a value-added tax (VAT) has raised the ire of the GOP’s conservative base, which fears that the stealth nature of the VAT would remove from public opinion any downward pressure on government growth, and which associates the VAT with the stagnant economies of Western Europe.  Interestingly, Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s foremost “ideas guy” in Congress today, both opposes and supports the value-added tax, depending on the manner in which it is implemented.  Here’s CATO on Ryan’s tax proposal:

Rep. Ryan would radically simplify today’s hopelessly complex, cumbersome and bureaucratic tax code. He would give filers a choice: They could pay their taxes under existing law, or they could choose a new simplified code, with just two tax rates (10 percent on the first $100,000 for joint filers; $50,000 for individuals, and 25 percent above that).

His plan would offer virtually no deductions or exemptions, except for an increased standard personal deduction and exemption of up to $39,000 for a family of four. He would also replace our current anti-competitive corporate income tax – the world’s second-highest, at 35 percent – with an 8.5 percent business consumption tax (essentially a value-added tax), and eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends. Although not everyone agrees with this particular approach to business taxation, Rep. Ryan understands that we must bring our corporate taxes in line with those of our competitors if we want to increase economic growth and create more jobs.

So a quasi-flat income tax and a VAT — a plan that sounds a heck of a lot like Daniels’ tax plan.  Yet Ryan is deemed Jack Kemp 2.0 by conservatives, and rightly so, while Daniels is a raging RINO who likely spends his evenings sipping cocktails with Mike Castle, David Brooks, and David Frum.  What gives?

The answer is that Ryan has been much better at the politics of the issue.  First, he has never referred to his consumption tax as a value-added tax or VAT.  Instead, Ryan touts his “business consumption tax” that would replace the corporate income tax.  Secondly, Ryan has come out strongly against a VAT on numerous occasions, blasting the Democrats for their suspected desire to impose such a tax on the nation in addition to the current tax code.  In so doing, Ryan is both politically savvy and intellectually consistent.  Substantively, Ryan supports a value-added tax as part of a sweeping overhaul to our nation’s tax code, as does Daniels, and opposes a VAT if introduced in addition to the current tax code.  But by using the term “business consumption tax” to refer to the “good” sort of VAT, which, in Ryan’s view, is the kind that replaces much of the tax code, and by sticking with traditional VAT terminology when discussing the “bad” sort of VAT, the kind that adds to the current tax burden, Ryan avoids any psychological connection in the minds of voters between his conservative tax plan and the left-wing economic policies of Western Europe with which the VAT is generally associated.

All of this suggests to me two things.  First, if Mitch Daniels actually got to be president, he’d probably be the most economically conservative POTUS since Reagan, if not Calvin Coolidge.  His actual policy ideas, when divorced from tonal considerations and political word association games, are definitely in Ryan territory, which is essentially modern-day Kemp territory.  Secondly, this whole ordeal proves that politics is still politics.  This is not the board room, where concepts are evaluated on substance by a room full of MBAs.  Politics requires prospective leaders to effectively communicate their ideas to the teacher, the doctor, the brick layer, and the plumber, all of whom have far too little spare time to spend it poring over the intracacies of public policy.  Daniels opponents have already begun transforming him into the latest incarnation of Nelson Rockefeller and there’s far more to come unless the Indiana governor gets serious about the political realities of the nation he seeks to govern.  Otherwise he will find out what Mitt Romney discovered in 2008 — that Power Point skills are meaningless in politics, and what voters really want is a leader who can feel their pain.

As of now, Daniels has managed to garner two major strikes against him — he’s a modest fellow during times when modesty is confused with moderation, and his policies sound liberal, even though they are not, because he does not dress them with the ornaments of contemporary right-wing politi-speak.  His chiding of Tea Partiers for their “pessimistic” and “statist” rhetoric isn’t very astute either, given that the Hayekian governor should be their natural ally.  Let’s hope Daniels’ gets his political antenna back from the repair shop soon.

Earlier this week, Indiana Governor and potential presidential candidate Mitch Daniels sent the conservative blogosphere chattering with suggestions of implementing a Value Added Tax and tariffs on oil imports.  Though he suffered some scathing criticism and endured reports that his 2012 prospects had been ruined, Mitch had his heart in the right place when he said those things.

Mitch, like many conservatives, feels concern that America has become a land of consumption without production.  He watches as we consume efficiently-manufactured goods from China and other Asian countries, while we sell nothing in return except for our increasingly suspect paper IOUs.  He wants America to stand up on its own two feet and start making things again, rather than just plunging further and further into debt.

However, Mitch must keep in mind that government solutions can only strike at the symptoms.  Real solutions must come from the free market.

I’m sure that when Mitch proposed a VAT and oil tariffs, he had in mind a revenue-neutral rearrangement of the tax system.  He would know better than to think that slapping such measures on top of all the other taxes and tariffs we already have wouldn’t further cripple our lumbering economy.  But he must realize that when the government imposes itself upon the market in order to solve one problem, it inevitably creates other problems elsewhere.  In fact, oftentimes the government solution has the exact opposite effect of that which was intended, and actually makes everything worse all around.

Mitch feels that by taxing consumption rather than production, Americans will stop buying things they don’t need and will start building up the lifeblood of savings that our capital starved productive sector desperately requires.  However, we must remind ourselves that when the government taxes our money, the money doesn’t go into a spending-proof savings box.  The money goes into the government’s coffers.  Now, the savings rate of the American public is indeed an anemic 5% (the Chinese save around 50%), but the savings rate of the American government is, well, non-existant.  Negative, in fact.  Extremely negative.

So a tax on the American people’s consumption, in this political environment, basically amounts to a transfer of money from a group of individuals who save very little to a group of individuals who save nothing and spend every penny they get on consumption.  It may seem counterintuitive that a tax on consumption could actually increase consumption, but we take this risk when we entrust an institution as profligate and undisciplined as the State to try to tell us how we ought to manage our pocketbooks.

We must also keep in mind that, even if government could save our money better than we could ourselves, saving still only represents one side of the coin.  The necessary flip-side of “saving” is “investing”.  We save so that we can invest.  How would government, an entity far removed from the intricate market processes that created all that wealth to be saved in the first place, know where to invest that money better than the wealth-creators themselves?

As for oil tariffs, while they may cause us to produce more of our own energy, there lie many potential perils here as well.  Not only would it risk sparking a trade war, but it would certainly cause prices at the pump to skyrocket for American consumers (and this would not help the shortage of savings).  Furthermore, the law of comparative advantage tells us that some products should just be left to other countries to produce, and that we should not feel compelled to produce every single thing for ourselves.

We ought not to blame Mitch for agreeing with Bill Simons that a nation should “have a tax-system that looks like it was designed on purpose,” but Mitch ought to also bear in mind the words of one of his professed intellectual heroes, F.A. Hayek, who said:

“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

In other words, freedom can often be much more purposeful than any designs of government.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

For more of my writings, visit my blog at JosiahSchmidt.blogspot.com, or send me an email at josiahschmidt@gmail.com.

First a “truce” on social issues, now this (referenced in Kavon’s piece below):

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax and a tariff on imported oil, bold proposals that could cause trouble for him with conservatives as he flirts with a long-shot bid for the presidency….

Daniels recited from Kahn’s book: “It would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment. One obvious possibility is a value added tax and flat income tax, with the only exception being a lower standard deduction.”

“That might suit our current situation pretty well,” said Daniels, who served as George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget director and was a senior adviser in Ronald Reagan’s White House. “It also might fit Bill Simon’s line in the late ‘70s that the nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.”

Leaving aside the wisdom of this policy, it’s a non-starter politically.  The Fair Tax has gone absolutely nowhere in part because conservatives have complained that any consumption tax, even if revenue neutral initially, is a recipe for further government growth without repealing the 16th amendment.  What insures that the flat income tax stays flat?  What insures that it stays at anything like initial rates?  The optics of this kind of proposal are dismal and while it might set wonky hearts aflutter it’s yet another sign that Mitch Daniels doesn’t have national political instincts.  That’s maybe OK if you’ve got other indispensable qualities.  Does Daniels?  T-Paw’s more fiscally conservative, Romney’s as wonky, everyone is less dry.

Politico‘s James Hohmann sees potential trouble ahead for Gov. Daniels with the conservative base in advocating such policy:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax and a tariff on imported oil, bold proposals that could cause trouble for him with conservatives as he flirts with a long-shot bid for the presidency.

The Republican, staying mum about his 2012 plans, was the guest of honor at a dinner sponsored by the conservative Hudson Institute. He received an award named for Herman Kahn, the legendary nuclear theorist who founded the respected institute 49 years ago and helped inspire the character “Dr. Strangelove” in the movie by the same name.

Daniels, once the Hudson Institute’s chief executive, described himself as an acolyte of Kahn’s and marveled at the creative thinking evident in his 1982 book, “The Coming Boom.”

Daniels recited from Kahn’s book: “It would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment. One obvious possibility is a value added tax and flat income tax, with the only exception being a lower standard deduction.”

“That might suit our current situation pretty well,” said Daniels, who served as George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget director and was a senior adviser in Ronald Reagan’s White House. “It also might fit Bill Simon’s line in the late ‘70s that the nation should have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.”

Read the rest here.

Jindal has been traversing the country and yesterday stopped in NH to campaign for Republican Gubernatorial candidate John Stephen.  The American Spectator’s Andrew Cline has a glowing review:

In New Hampshire, retail politics is king. You cannot win the first-in-the-nation primary if you are bad at winning over small crowds of voters, if you haven’t the personality to make a room full of people think, “I like that guy.” Granite State political operatives size up candidates on how well they can work a room, tell a story, make people smile. Before yesterday, the New Hampshire scouting report on Bobby Jindal was that he was sharp as a whip, but very wonky, and policy wonks tend to lack the social skills needed to thrive in the primary. After yesterday, the scouting report is very different.

What Bobby Jindal did at the 100 Club on Thursday afternoon was to swiftly, deftly, and without the slightest hint of insincerity or effort, make a few dozen important and seasoned New Hampshire Republicans say to themselves, “I like that guy.”

Jindal warmed up the crowd with jokes about being a politician from a state famous for its corrupt politicians. But his jokes weren’t barbed or insulting. Mitt Romney jokes a lot about being a Republican from Massachusetts. The jokes work with Republican crowds that aren’t from Massachusetts, but to some they come across as insulting to his home state. They can be taken as expressing the general thought: “Can you believe the fools I have to put up with back home?” There is none of that in Jindal’s jests. They are directed at politicians, not the people who elect them. So they not only break the ice, but they instantly establish him as a political outsider, a normal person thrust into a corrupt world by the calling of public service.

There’s more at the link.  I still think, with grassroots support, Jindal’s re-election bid wouldn’t be much of a hindrance to a Presidential run.  He’s going to win re-election.  George W. Bush, a less popular politician in a bluer state, won re-election in 1998 despite the fact that everyone and his mother knew he was running for President.  Despite the fact that he’d made very obvious moves in that direction.  He won easily, historically.  Jindal could gradually ramp up out of state events, avoiding Iowa and NH, staying mum on his future plans, and then leap into the fray in mid-November with a skeleton operation if none of the major players had closed the sale.  It’s worth thinking about.

David Brody recently sat down with Tim and Mary Pawlenty for an hour-long interview.  Today, he doles out the first of the clips, along with a paragraph or two of his thoughts:

My impressions? Well, let me just say that Tim Pawlenty doesn’t typically talk much about his faith even though it’s a central part of his life. Yet in this interview he appears relaxed and very comfortable talking about his faith journey. When Evangelicals hear him, The Brody File thinks they’ll find him authentic. The fact that he has a wife who speaks from the heart and is so eloquent about her Christian faith will be a bonus.

Also, I’ve been with him a number of times and the one thing that always shines through is that he comes across as a regular guy. He’s not the slick politician looking to have cocktails at the next fundraiser. Believe me, he’s done his share of fundraisers but Pawlenty is the type of guy who would rather lace up the skates and go play some hockey with the boys. Put it this way: If Pawlenty runs for President (and there’s every indication he will) the biggest thing going for him will be his humble, blue collar, working class family roots. He not only has the life story of being a regular guy, he has the authenticity that goes with it. He’s believable because he’s lived it.

So an “A” from CATO, evangelical appeal, a background in the region where Democrats are currently being handed their hats, and blue-collar cred when the incumbent Democrat is almost historically weak with blue-collar whites.  In a sane world these would be bolded, neon billboards reading “nominate me and walk to glory”.  Unfortunately T-Paw hasn’t slain any RINO’s lately and is therefore barred from being a conservative hero.

I’m not sure if a Pawlenty boomlet could truly be called a “comeback” given that the Minnesota governor never actually gained traction the first time around, but it’s certainly plausible that T-Paw could end up being the last man standing in a complicated presidential field, made all the more convoluted by the presence of the, er, T-Pawty.  It recently occurred to me when analyzing the field’s strengths and weaknesses that Pawlenty is probably the only candidate in the prospective motley crew of candidates that absolutely no one would veto.  While winning the nomination for that reason wouldn’t exactly be a ringing endorsement by primary voters, it’s probably better to have a milquetoast Pawlenty who offends no one in the coalition as opposed to a candidate who excites some but drives others bonkers.  Hopefully Republicans won’t have to make that choice, but in the event that they do, Pawlenty will be waiting.

So how would T-Paw go from zero to hero?  Basically, all of the other candidates would have to flame out over the course of 2011, leaving Pawlenty to pick up the pieces in Iowa and New Hampshire in early 2012.  Pawlenty is a natural for both states, given that Minnesota sits adjacent to Iowa, given that Iowa is dominated by Pawlenty’s fellow evangelicals, and given that New Hampshire has an affinity for Northern Reagan Democrat types in the mold of Pat Buchanan.  Pawlenty could win both, but right now would win neither, largely because pretty much every wing of the party presently prefers multiple other candidates to Pawlenty.  Again, Pawlenty’s claim to fame is that he has the potential to be the last man standing if everyone else self-destructs during the primary season.

But how could the entire GOP field crash and burn?  Well, it happened in 2008, didn’t it?  McCain, after all, was left for dead as late as Fall of 2007, but only came back because the party couldn’t agree on any of the other candidates, all for different reasons.  The same thing could plausibly happen this time around, only on a much grander scale.  The chain of events that lead to a Pawlenty nod would probably go something like this.

First, the Big Four would end up disappointing the broader primary electorate.  Romney would collapse over RomneyCare, Huckabee would continue to be typecast as a candidate only for evangelicals and Southerners, Palin would either refrain from running or would run and be eviscerated during the debates, and Newt’s new culture warrior schtick would seem too cute by half.  In search of a new candidate, voters would begin to search the deeper bench, only to fail to find a consensus nominee.  Under this scenario, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan stay out of the race, as both would likely bring to the table the ideas and the gusto to win over the electorate.  Jindal also decides not to run, and to instead focus on 2011, and Jeb stays out as well because of his surname.  Either Haley Barbour OR Mitch Daniels gets in.  If it’s Haley, the lobbyist creds and the Foghorn Leghorn schtick do him in (he would, after all, have to face the first African-American president).  If it’s Daniels, under this scenario, the Indiana governor brings to the table a series of superb ideas and a killer list of accomplishments, none of which the primary electorate will even consider due to Daniels’ CPA style, which lacks the charisma and showmanship required of modern politicians.  Even less visible than Daniels is John Thune, whose nickname becomes “John Who?”  Mike Pence tries his hand at a run and does quite well amongst conservative activists due to his stellar communication skills, but the fact that he’s only a congressman is just a bridge too far for most voters.  Meanwhile, John Bolton, Gary Johnson, and Rick Santorum are dismissed as niche candidates.

That leaves Tim Pawlenty as the only candidate in the field acceptable to everyone in the party.  His status as a non-threatening economic conservative, a non-abrasive cultural conservative, and a governor with actual accomplishments but who hails from outside the South would make Pawlenty a nice, safe, dull choice for a party that can’t seem to find anyone else to appeal to its ideologically-diverse electorate as well as to Independents, without whom President Obama cannot be beaten.  To be sure, it’s still far more likely that someone other than Pawlenty becomes the nominee.  Either Romney will bludgeon his way to the nomination, or Daniels will use 2011 to consolidate the establishment behind him, or Palin will go all in and use the power of the Tea Party to storm the palace, or Chris Christie will take advantage of a perfect storm that’s calling his name.  But in the event that none of those things happen, the GOP will still need a nominee.  And that could allow Pawlenty, like Carter in ’76, to emerge from the governor’s mansion of a mid-sized state and wrest the nomination from a myriad of party superstars.

Mike Allen reported this morning that Obama advisors expect Obama to run against Huckabee:

Peter Baker revealed in a cover story for this Sunday’s NYT magazine that–Obama advisers expect to incorporate the reelection campaign around March and think the Tea Party ultimately will reelect him by pulling Republican nominee to the right. They doubt Sarah Palin will run, figure Mitt Romney can’t get nomination because of his Massachusetts health care program and guess that Obama may end up running against Mike Huckabee.

Perhaps that is why Huckabee has continued on with his message of attacking Obama’s policies while refraining from attacking him personally.  Huckabee has gone on record stating that Obama is a good family man, a good speaker and a good campaigner.  But Huckabee has used his opening monologues to repeatedly attack Obama and his administration on policy.

With Sarah Palin’s negative poll numbers, Romney’s healthcare mishap, and Gingrich’s explosive rhetoric, Huckabee may be the best one to defeat Obama.

Huckabee has a proven track record of improving education in his state, he has a proven track record of reaching out to African American voters, has a proven record of defending Israel and argues against a two state solution, and while not creating a new healthcare program in his state, he got healthcare for kids who slipped through the cracks.

Initially, the title of blog was going to be “Will the 2012 Nominee be Bold?” but somehow that didn’t seem to fit the tone very well……

One theme I keep returning to in my mind regarding the dynamics of the upcoming 2012 primary is the role that boldness and specificity might play.  Politicians are of course famous for telling sweet little lies and whispering sweet nothings into the ears of voters.  Even their “outrage” tends to be well calculated and focus group tested.  We routinely hear promises of cutting spending and maybe even reforming entitlements, somehow, maybe with a commission that will study the matter, after the election.  That kind of “courage” has gotten us $13 trillion in debt now, and voters may be starting to wake up to the fact that when they let their candidates promise something for nothing, with only the vaguest calls for sacrifice (usually borne by someone else), things go badly after a while, sort of like a weight loss plan centered on lots of sodium and processed meat.

2010 has been so historic in part because many new faces with less than stellar resumes are toppling their more pedigreed opponents in large part because they are speaking in a  bolder fashion.  Indeed, the well documented flaws of candidates like Angle, Paul, O’Donnell, etc…, could only be compensated by an earnestness, sincerity, and conviction that convinced voters that these people “get it” and might actually change things in Washington.

So might this theme spill over in 2012?  Could 2012 also favor the bold and punish the timid?  Chris Christie has quickly transformed himself from boring, fat, establishment moderate to Richard the Lionheart and an icon of both Tea Partiers and concerned independents.  There are myriad ways that a candidate might throw caution to the wind in 2012 and lay it out there for voters; a detailed plan to overhaul entitlements (like Ryan’s Roadmap), calls for specific cuts in education and defense, a VAT tax or the elimination of favored deductions, etc…

But will any of our first or second tier candidates respond with the sort of moral courage that our perilous times demand?  Huck has spoken passionately and unapologetically for the right to life, and has gone out on a limb with the Fair Tax, but he still hasn’t served up any widely unpopular or easily demonized specifics in regard to spending or entitlements.  Palin’s gusto is usually limited to vague themes of “socialism” or “corruption,” but for all her reputation as a straight shootin’ mama grizzly, she hasn’t shown an appetite for the more bitter vegetables our country requires.  Gingrich is erratic, and for all his “wonkishness” still can’t name any meaningful programs or entitlements he’d cut.  Mitt Romney?  He didn’t invent the pander, but he’s worked long and hard to perfect it.

So perhaps a growing yearning for the unvarnished truth will be an opening- maybe THE opening- for second tier candidates like Pawlenty, Daniels, Barbour, or Thune to break through.  After all, they don’t have much to risk and quite possibly have much to gain.  Ideally, this sort of moral courage is the product of virtue, but failing that (we are talking about politicians here) perhaps the cost/benefit analysis of boldness will entice someone to take the plunge.  Every politician has their own schtick and their own assets; Huck has SoCons and a loyal “army,” Palin is mavericky and adored by conservatives who want the opposite of “Washington elites,”  Romney has great hair and a lot of money.  Maybe one of the second tier will make brutal, unvarnished honesty their identify?

In this environment, it just might work…

I have received a little criticism from my fellow Rombots for pointing out this obvious reality, so let me back it up with numbers (via First Read):

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg

*** The GOP’s weak 2012 front-runner: Over the past year, the political world has operated under the assumption that Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. After all, he has a wide fundraising network and a deep roster of potential campaign talent. What’s more, Republicans almost always nominate their runner-up from the previous cycle (though both Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin might also claim that status). But if Romney is the front-runner, he’s starting out at a much weaker position than Bob Dole or John McCain ever did at this point in the ’96 and ’08 cycles. According to our latest NBC/WSJ poll, Romney’s national fav/unfav is upside down at 21%-30%, compared with Dole’s net-positive 38%-25% in Sept. ’94 and McCain’s 40%-16% in June ’06. Intensity is a problem, too, for Romney. Just 6% view him VERY positively, versus 14% for Dole in ’94 and 11% for McCain in ’06.

*** Romney’s weak GOP support: And then there are Republicans’ views of Romney. His fav/unfav among GOPers and conservatives is, respectively, 38%-17% and 30%-19%. For Dole in ’94, it was 65%-9% and 58%-14%. And for McCain in ’06, it was 47%-16% and 40%-17%. So Romney right now doesn’t appear to be exciting conservatives, Republicans, or the public at large. And it’s not like he’s an unknown political entity after 2008. What has to especially concern Team Romney is that he’s starting — among Republicans and conservatives — at a weaker position than McCain was in ’06, and the ’06 version of McCain was hardly adored by the right. Bottom line: While you can’t write off Romney, the GOP’s 2012 field has the potential to be wider open than Team Romney is hoping.

This is why I don’t cry into my pillow at night. I am simply not obsessed with Romney. I like him. I think he would make a great president. I will vote for him. But I don’t participate in psychopathic, cult-like followings of candidates.

By the way, it is really quite relieving when you don’t let all of your hopes and dreams fall an individual that you have probably never even met in your life.

Well, I’ve done two posts on the fight for control of the U.S. Senate. Now, I’d like to do one on another very important part of this year’s elections; the fight over the various Governorships that are up for grabs. This is especially important this year because of redistricting. In most states, the Governor plays a key role in how the new districts are drawn in states that are gaining more congressional seats (Texas, Florida, etc.) and those that are losing seats (New York, Michigan etc.), controlling the Governor’s mansion is vitally important. So, without further ado, here is my map:

Grey states either do not have the Governorship up this year, or are going to stay with their respective Party no matter what (this is true in North Dakota and West Virginia). Blue states are Democratic holds. Light red states are Republican holds, and dark red are Republican pickups. Yellow states are the toss-ups. The Green state (Rhode Island) is where Independent Lincoln Chafee is winning.

Two things struck me as I was completing this map. First, there are going to be lots of Republican Governors after 2010. Secondly, if you look at the battleground states, notice how blue most of them should be. It is a telling sign of how awful the Democrats are doing this year that the most competitive Governorships are for the most part not in purple states, but in deep blue states. It’s also rather odd, but 6 out of 9 of the toss-up seats have Republican Governors: California, Vermont, Minnesota, Florida, Connecticut, and Hawaii (I thought we were supposed to be a regional party?). The other three: Massachusetts, Oregon and Illinois are Democratic. I did not include Maryland and New Hampshire as toss-ups because most polls show the Democratic incumbents with relatively comfortable leads.

Now, if this is truly a wave election (and every poll is indicating that it is), this is what the Governor’s map could look like:

This stark illustration shows just how dire things are for the Democrats. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the Democrats could end up with only 12 Governorships. Also, notice how many Midwestern Governorships could change hands. The only states in the Midwest that could be left with a Democratic Governor are Missouri and Kentucky (if you count Kentucky as a Midwestern state).

I’m not a Pollyanna; I certainly don’t expect the GOP to take every close race. Some of them, like California and Oregon, are moving away from us, but the fact that the U.S. could end up with as many as 37 Republican Governors ought to be something that gives us hope. Governors’ Mansions are the places where future Presidents are trained.

Gov. Pawlenty spent this weekend on the road in Iowa and has released a “you are there” style video which nicely illustrates what being on the campaign trail in the “First in the Nation” state is like:

When supporters of one particular candidate start talking with each other, they start feeding each other the notion that “our man’s got it locked up” or “after the first few states, our guy will have an unstoppable lead.” All of this is encouraging to the followers of one candidate or another. It’s reassuring and confidence building. It’s also total horse manure.

The title of this post does specifically mention the former Massachusetts Governor only because his supporters seem to have bought into this line of thinking. Their logic goes something like this; Huckabee (or some other Tea Party/socon) wins in Iowa, Romney blows them out of the water in New Hampshire, then wins Nevada and finishes them off in South Carolina. After this, Romney glides to the nomination then to the White House carried on the backs of a grateful nation who elected him President by acclamation. (That last part was supposed to be sarcasm for the record).

Kidding aside, this idea is following the 2008 model, where the primaries were stacked on top of each other and came in ultra-rapid succession. 2012 will not be like that. The plan adopted by the RNC was adopted specifically because it lengthened the primary process. After seeing the success of the Democrats in their long primary, Republicans have decided to try and copy that effort. Sure the first four states will all be within one month, but the rest of the calendar is scheduled (at least according to the desires of the RNC) to have to wait until the next month to kick off, and the way delegates will be apportioned (March will be proportional, after that, if the state wants, winner-take-all) will ensure that more than one candidate will want to stay in the running.

Another, even more important reason is another key difference between 2008 and 2012. In 2008, two wars, an economy starting to slide into recession, and a President as popular as a cold sore, made the Republican nomination of dubious value. When candidates start announcing for President early next year, after the Republican blow-out only 20 something days from now, the Republican nomination will be worth something. Right now, we have at least 7 or 8 serious, potentially viable contenders gearing up to throw their hat in the ring. To think that all of them but one will be gone after 4 primaries is a fantasy. Last time after 4 primaries, there were still four viable candidates. Only one of the Big Five had been knocked out. Right before Super Tuesday, there were three. Like I said earlier, the calendar makes another Super Duper Tuesday less likely, so candidates will have more time to hang around.

The point of this is not to disparage the Romney supporters or their enthusiasm for their man. In fact, if the Palinistas or Hucakbee supporters were more fervent (or more prominent), then I’d have put their name in the title. However, this whole idea that after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina the nomination will be locked up is a naiveté. The supporters of all candidates should steel themselves for a long, drawn-out primary process. What’s more important, that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

I know, I know.  He won’t run.  He’s given Shermanesque statements.  It’s too soon.  He needs to be re-elected first.  And so on.  But still, his recent wins in two separate polls of conservative activists as to their preferred presidential nominee in 2012 has to be giving New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie second thoughts about taking an especially large knee on 2012.  In any case, here are some reasons that a Christie nod deserves at least a look.?

First, he’s got a blue-state base: New Jersey.  Now, it’s true that if Republicans win New Jersey, they won’t really need it, as it will be the icing on the electoral cake of a GOP blowout.  But New Jersey’s electoral votes are the least of the benefits that Christie’s regionalism brings to the table.  Indeed, it’s highly possible that New Jersey will take a pass on a Christie presidency as suburban women recoil at the thought of any Republican president appointing the replacement for Anthony Kennedy on SCOTUS, and as center-left, Garden State independents fear the impact of Christie’s budget slashing prowess as applied to federal entitlements.  But even if that does turn out to be true, Christie would almost certainly win the neighboring state of Pennsylvania, where he should increase Republican numbers enough in the eastern part of the state to take the state outright.  In close elections, Democrats usually squeak by in Pennsylvania.  Bush lost it to Kerry by 2 points, and a less Dixie-fied GOP nominee probably would have won the Keystone State that year.  Christie fits the bill, and without Pennsylvania, Obama’s electoral math becomes challenging at best.

Secondly, and relatedly, Christie’s Yankee status ensures that the GOP won’t be tarnished with the sins of Bush & DeLay, Inc., come 2012.  The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of politics is tribal and superficial.  The sorts of voters who don’t pay all that much attention to politics, and who often decide elections, are going to associate any southern nominee with the gang of brush-choppin’, g-droppin’ bumpkins that gave us the neverending Iraq war, pork-barrel politics, and on whose watch the economy collapsed.  Is it fair that, say, Haley Barbour, who has by all accounts been a good governor, will be lumped in with Bush/DeLay/Frist just because of his accent?  Of course not.  But neither is life.  Add to that the reality of putting a nominee who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn on stage across from the first African-American president and the necessity of a nominee from outside the South becomes even more apparent.

Third, not only is Christie a non-Southerner, he’s from the tri-state area of the Northeast, which is also the area that tends to produce Republicans who have the best chemistry with the media and who are best at sparring with and combating the MSM.  This is one of the reasons I was a Rudy fan the last time around.  Whenever I watched Rudy take questions from reporters or get all chummy with Sean Hannity and the rest of the Fox crew, it was apparent that he was simply more comfortable and more natural in these settings than were the other candidates in the race.  Romney carried with him the aura of a Boston Brahmin, George Allen, who was a leading contender at the time, was just another slow-talking southerner who seemed more interested in being folksy and deliberate than in answering the questions at hand, and McCain seemed distant.  And that’s not a Rudy-specific dynamic.  Former New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato always seemed to have great chemistry with the media as well from what I remember.  As does Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a Fox News contributor.  There’s just something about the combative, pugnacious culture of the tri-state area that gives its politicians the ability to rule the media the way that proper New Englanders, genteel Southerners, polite Midwesterners, and spacey Westerners simply cannot.  Christie has already schooled the media a dozen times in his first year in office.  He would be the first GOP president since Reagan who was a media natural.

Fourth, Christie would keep the base of the GOP organized around principles of small government and fiscal conservatism, and would avoid the temptation to snag the security blanket of the 2004 election, complete with its focus on foriegn policy and/or social issues.  As readers know, I have a lot of issues with the Tea Party base.  I often view them as too purist, and I think they’ve primaried out a lot of inoffensive Republican politicians and officeholders.  That said, the 2010 iteration of the GOP — a big tent based in small government and economic growth, with Tea Partiers manning the phone banks — is winning voters who haven’t gone Republican since 1994, or since 1988, or perhaps ever.  Traditionally isolationist Midwesterners and Northeasterners are casting ballots for the GOP, as are educated urban and suburban voters.  The Reagan Democrats have come home, as have the Obama Republicans.  Essentially, the broader middle class is voting for this version of the Republican Party, and there’s no reason to screw that up by nominating, say, John Bolton, who will re-organize the GOP around a Neo-Conservative foreign policy, or Alan Keyes, who would proceed to discuss how the nation is slouching towards Sodom and Gomorrah.  Christie is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage and would probably stick a flagpole up the rump of Ahmadinejad if the two were in a room alone together, but the fact remains that the New Jersey governor is first and foremost a small government/fiscal issues/fix the economy kind of guy, which would keep the GOP with that orientation going forward.

Last, but certainly not least, Christie actually brings to the table the ideas and the policies that the country needs, as well as the skills and the fortitude with which to implement them.  In an era of perpetual economic stagnation, ever-expanding debt, and where Southeast Asia is about to eclipse the Trans-Atlantic nations as the foremost economic powers of the world, that has to count for something.

It is for these reasons that I am open to a Christie 2012 run, even though the governor has not even finished his first term, and I am hoping that Gov. Christie is open to a run as well.

The votes have not yet been counted, and no one should take the American voter for granted. It is not a certainty that Republicans will win control of one or both the U.S. house and senate, but laws of gravity tell us that Democratic losses will be great and significant in any event.

Should the GOP win control of the house of representatives, there will be a most interesting interval between the first week of November, 2010, and the first week of january 2011, when the new Congress is sworn in. This interregnum allows for critical opportunities and very high risks for both parties. This interval will happen no matter what the election results are, but if there is a changeover in control of one or both houses, there will be extraordinary temptations laid before both winners and losers.

Some Democratic leaders and many in the media have speculated that there will be a “lame duck” session of Congress in November and December in which Democrats will try to enact radical legislation they could not pass before. Republicans should only be so lucky to have their opponents try to do this. The negative reaction in the country would be enormous, and the opportunity for the Democrats to recover by 2012 would be irretrievably lost. Not only that, the effort would fail because no sane surviving Democratic member of Congress would dare to vote for such an effort. It would be political suicide. As for the many losers, Speaker Pelosi no longer would have the power ot enforce her will, nor would such losing members risk such a vote if they have any desire to run again. So forget about a lame duck session.

The Democrats would be well advised to take the results to heart, and move back to the political center as fast as they can before 2012. New leadership in both houses of Congress would be in order, and a new approach from President Obama the only viable course.

But if victorious, Republicans would be well advised to take a deep breath, tone down any gloating or promise of revenge in the new session, and put the onus on President Obama to work with them in the new year and session. After all, the voters will be sending a message, and it is the obligation of any American elected official to pay attention to the voter. Barack Obama will still be president in January, 2011, and no one is predicting that, even if a landslide in November for the GOP, that either house would be able to override his veto.

It will be a tricky chess game, then, in the period after the mid-term election, and both sides will need their best players in the game. It’s not too soon for either side to think out and plan for this possibly historic interregnum ahead.

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog

Newt Gingrich was in Minneapolis on Wednesday to campaign for the Republican candidate for governor, and to try out his new slogan for the 2010 mid-term national elections, “Food Stamps Or A Paycheck.”

Actually, he had formally introduced the slogan in his national e-mail newsletter a day earlier, and it had already provoked a response from Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who accused Gingrich of going after the poor. Judging by her response, and that of local Minnesota Democratic (DFL) politicians after Gingrich’s remarks received wide TV and radio coverage in the local evening news, the slogan is working as the former Republican house speaker intended.

Pundits Stu Rothenberg and Michael Barone were in the Twin Cities the past week to tell their audiences that the 2010 elections are going very badly for President Obama and the Democrats. As readers of this page know, The Prairie Editor has been broadcasting a similar message early and often. The election of 1994 is often cited as the precedent for 2010, but there are significant differences between that year and this one, including the important fact that the party in power has been amply forewarned they are in trouble. On the other hand, as Barone points out, the economic statistics are much worse this year. Barone suggests that 2010 may be more like 1894 than 1994. That was the year the turnover in the U.S. house was well over 100 seats, and more than one-third of number of house members at that time.

It isn’t very complicated. Unemployment is high, the value of most Americans’ net worth is way down, the international situation is rife with danger, insecurity and threats. The Obama administration has created a radical and very unpopular healthcare program that will exacerbate most of our other problems.

When Mrs. Pelosi and other Democrats attack the “Food Stamps Or A Paycheck” slogan as an attack on the poor, they actually play into their opponents hands. Mr. Gingrich is not saying that there should not be food stamps, but he is saying that getting a paycheck is better than depending on food stamps. Virtually every American voter knows that, and when a political party seems more interested in defending welfare than in finding a way to create more jobs and to get the nation out of its economic doldrums, they are in more trouble than they realize.

This year’s election is not yet over, although most observers are saying to themselves “This pie is baked.” What everyone is expecting now is that the Democrats will lost lots of seats, and perhaps control of one house. That is the new conventional wisdom. What few are expecting, however, is an utter rout of the dimensions of 1894.

If Mr. Gingrich’s “Food Stamps vs. A Paycheck” get to the nub of the voters’ concerns, as I think it does, the conventional wisdom will prove wrong one more time on election day.

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog

The most accurate polls in an election are those which are published just before election day. That makes common sense. Before that time, the most reliable polls are the internal polls which candidates pay dearly for from pollsters, and which are rarely published. Their purpose is to inform campaigns how they are doing and where their weaknesses are. Occasionally, campaigns reveal internal polls if the news is exceptionally good, and publication can help fundraising and media attention. This is particularly true of campaigns where the challenger is believed to be far behind and has no chance of winning.

An example of this is the just-revealed internal poll of GOP nominee and challenger Chip Cravaack who is running against one of the icons of U.S. house, the powerful 18-term Democratic incumbent Jim Oberstar in the Minnesota 8th district. According to this poll, Mr. Cravaack is only 3 points behind Mr. Oberstar (45-42), and within the margin of error. The pollster, Public Opinion Strategies, is a Republican firm, but generally respected. However, the poll only interviewed 300 voters, and the margin of error is at least 6%. (To be fair to Mr. Oberstar, I think at least one more poll with these kind of numbers will be necessary before his opponent’s challenge is convincing.)

Congressman Oberstar usually wins with about 60% of the vote, and is known to deliver lots of federal “groceries” to this conservative Democratic northern Minnesota district which has lots of union members, high unemployment and a severely diminishing population. The district is heavily Catholic and pro-life, and Oberstar has usually been a reliable pro-life vote in Congress. However, he not only voted for Obamacare (considered by the pro-life community as a pro-choice vote), he heavily promoted it. Another pro-life Democrat, Kathy Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania’s 3rd congressional district, also voted for Obamacare, and saw her initial double-digit lead evaporate. She is now several points behind her GOP challenger.

But this is far from the only “shocking” new polls signaling Democratic “safe” incumbents now in trouble. If history is a fair instructor, other incumbents who are “sure winners” will now discover they have a race on their hands. This will include not only many other members of the U.S. house, but senators as well. However, there are currently only five or six Democratic incumbent senators remaining who are usually considered “safe.” Of those, I sense that Senator
Wyden of Oregon and Senator Gillebrand of New York could be the next to receive unexpectedly bad poll news. Two-thirds of U.S. sentators are not up for re-election this year (and for that they should thank their political stars).

One of the reasons “safe” incumbents often ignore a wave election is that they have weak opponents. This is reasonable, but when the voters are as upset as they are this year, the qualifications and character of the challenger are often much less important than the powerful desire of voters to throw the incumbent out.

If incumbents such as Jim Oberstar lose this year, the magnitude of the GOP victory will be a whole level above the worst-case scenarios now being suggested.

It is less than four weeks to election day. The polls will now likely bounce like a ping-pong ball in a lottery number machine. The watchword for this election is “Caveat Incumbent!”

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Test