The R4’12 staff was asked to gaze into their crystal balls and tell us what they saw in store for us in 2011. Their predictions are printed below…
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Matthew Newman:
The RNC Chairmans race will quickly, after the first ballot, turn into everyone against Michael Steele. The non-Steele alliance will eventually coalesce around Saul Anuzis who will squeak by and become the next Chair. Anuzis will quickly disappear into the background and be a far less visible Chair, except for his continued Twitter presence, which will tone down some of rhetoric.
Superbowl 2011: Eagles vs. Ravens – Eagles squeak by with a victory and Disney asks someone who isn’t Michael Vick to say the, “I’m going to Disney World” line.
At CPAC 11 – the straw poll winners will be, in order – Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin. Cain and Paul will have a lot of supporters present to help boost up his name recognition – though Paul may not actually run in 2012. Cain will be labeled winner for his surprise showing at CPAC.
By the the end of 1Q11 the following people will officially be running for President: Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Fred Karger, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum
George Pataki will create a Presidential exploratory committee in April 2011.
Christine O’Donnell will be indicted on some count pertaining to tax evasion.
Upon failing at his local special election bid, Alvin Greene will announce for President. Once more, no one will pay attention to him.
By early May Romney, Thune, Daniels, and Palin will have announced their bids for the Presidency.
By August 2011, George Pataki will end his exploratory committee and use the remaining money to buy himself / his wife something pretty…just like he did in 2008.
Daniels, Karger, and Gingrich will skip out on Ames.
Ames Straw Poll results: Pawlenty, Romney, Cain, Palin, Gingrich, Thune, Santorum
Santorum and Thune will drop out soon after Ames. Cain will be labeled winner by media for his surprise showing in 3rd place.
A new, currently not yet mentioned candidate will emerge post-Ames – possibly Gary Johnson and John Bolton.
Kratovil will announce rematch with Harris (MD-01)
Allen will announce rematch with Webb (VA-SEN)
Jeb, Petraeus, and Huckabee will not run for President. Time may prove me wrong – but call it a hunch.
Unemployment will, unexpectedly, begin to rebound on its own by years end. We’ll have unemployment in the mid-7%s by years end. Just in time for the 2012 race to begin completely.
Primary polling by years end in IA: Pawlenty 25%, Romney 18%, Palin 15%, Cain 12%, Gingrich 10%, Bolton 10%, Johnson 5%
Primary polling by years end in NH: Romney 30%, Gingrich 17%, Johnson 15%, Pawlenty 13%, Cain 7%, Palin 5%, Bolton 2%
Primary polling by years end in SC: Pawlenty / Romney / Palin: 20%, Cain 12%, Gingrich 10%, Johnson 5%, Bolton 3%
Bob Hovic:
The unemployment rate edges (very) slowly downward, but is still over 8% at year-end. With Obama’s approval rating at about 35%, neither the Democrats nor their friends in the media can hide their panic. In October, Howard Dean announces his candidacy.
The one piece of good news for Democrats is that the Republicans seem unable to coalesce around a challenger. No Republican can break out of the pack – Mike Huckabee is leading the polls, but seems to be stuck in the mid twenties with Palin and Romney following in the high teens / low twenties.
By late summer the field has formed – it consists of John Bolton, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger , Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum. (Note: Some half-wit birther announced this week, but I think I won’t give him the honor of being included on this list, nor of being linked or named).
Although it is often written of Mitt Romney that his support is ‘a mile wide and an inch deep’, it turns out that the candidate who suffers from the most severe case of inch-deepism is Newt Gingrich. His campaign fails to take off when it is discovered that his role as the pragmatic conservative alternative to Mitt Romney is more convincingly played by Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty. Gingrich tries to tack hard right to take the role of chief red meat thrower from Sarah Palin. When this fails, the Gingrich campaign collapses and he withdraws just after Thanksgiving.
Santorum may or may not make it that far; he fares poorly in the Ames poll and is unable to draw any support, or even attention, from anyone outside the hardest core of the socons. Cain has a brief honeymoon with the press and is still around as the year ends. Karger also gets a little attention from the media, mostly those trying to embarrass the Republicans by playing up gay issues, but is otherwise ignored and quickly disappears.
A popular theme in late-year punditry is ‘Will Romney Survive to Super Tuesday?’ Iowa polls by then are showing Huckabee well ahead with Palin a strong second. Romney is a fading third, barely ahead of Pawlenty and Daniels, with the rest of the field trailing. Meanwhile, the race in New Hampshire, the keystone to Romney’s strategy, has tightened, with Daniels close on Romney’s heels and Johnson and Pawlenty running a respectable third/fourth. However, just about the time ‘Romney is doomed!’ becomes the CW, the contrarian view arises, noting that a ‘McCain Effect’ has set in, with contenders no longer sniping at Romney, giving him a shot at revival.
Johnson’s showing in New Hampshire badly wounds Paul’s ego, and he starts attacking Johnson as a LINO, damaging both of them.
Another screw-up/scandal/outrage (probably at TSA, but possibly ICE) finally gets Janet Napolitano fired.
In last year’s predictions I said that Newsweek would go under. I was wrong, but being sold for $1 is pretty close. This might be the year, but probably Sidney Harman has too much ego invested to give up this quickly. The Chicago Sun-Times may be the biggest disappearance of the year in the media business, but it’s possible that in some major city the only remaining paper shuts down.
The Bears surprise everybody by making it to the Super Bowl, where they are again crushed by the Colts, 37-10. The Phillies win the Series in five games over Tampa. The USA women’s team, after a shaky start, wins the World Cup 2-1 over Brazil.
Aron Goldman:
January 10, 2011: Herman Cain forms an exploratory committee, becoming the first presidential candidate of the 2012 cycle.
January 17, 2011: Sticking with Bill Clinton’s successful strategy of triangulation, Barack Obama delivers a State of the Union speech in which he commits to working with fiscal conservatives Tom Coburn and Paul Ryan to implement an increase in the retirement age and means testing Social Security and Medicare. The president also extends the olive branch to moderate GOPers Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Mark Kirk, offering concessions on an Energy bill that would result in investments in new nuclear power plants and clean coal technology. Speaker Boehner is seen shedding tears of joy. Former Speaker Pelosi cries tears of pain.
January 21, 2011: Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum announce plans to pursue the presidency.
January 22, 2011: Mike Pence decides to forgo a shot at the White House; instead, focusing his attentions on taking over for Mitch Daniels as Indiana’s governor.
February 6, 2011: NFL MVP Tom Brady leads the New England Patriots to a 34-21 victory over Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints.
February 25, 2011: In high-stakes game of chicken, Republicans and Tea Partiers responsibly blink first, raise debt ceiling.
April 1, 2011: No joke – Newt and Callista are actually running.
April 15, 2011: As certain as death and taxes, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are once again competing for the Republican nomination.
May 2, 2011: Mitch Daniels, John Thune, and Rudy Giuliani announce their candidacies on the eve of the debate at the Reagan Presidential Library. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, polling at 0.5%, endorses his good friend, Mitch.
June 15, 2011: Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs defeat the Miami Heat in a thrilling seven game series.
July 4, 2011: President Obama makes good on his promise to begin a withdrawal of troops, ordering the redeployment of 10,000 Marines from Afghanistan…to North Waziristan.
August 13, 2011: South Dakota Senator John Thune surprises with a second place finish behind Mike Huckabee in the Ames straw poll. After a disappointing fourth place performance, however, Tim Pawlenty cuts his losses and moves back to Minnesota.
September 11, 2011: On the 10 year anniversary of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani receives a ringing endorsement from John Bolton.
September 26, 2011: Previously covert mission by U.S. Marines in Pakistan (see July 4, 2011) is published by Wikileaks.
September 27, 2011: After nearly four years apart, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and his beloved wife, Benazir Bhutto, are prematurely reunited.
October 31, 2011: Alex Rodriguez leads the Yankees to their 28th World Championship over Cliff Lee and the Philadelphia Phillies. A-Rod, the Series MVP, is spotted celebrating later that night with Sarah Palin’s precocious 17-year-old daughter, Willow.
November 1, 2011: New Jersey voters pass a ballot initiative making the state the second in the nation, besides Nevada, to permit sports betting.
Thanksgiving 2011: Learning that she will soon be blessed with a second grandchild, Sarah Palin announces she will remain a Momma Grizzly to her cubs, putting a presidential run on the back-burner until at least 2016.
Dave Gaultier:
Sarah Palin will run for president. Mike Huckabee won’t.
Newt Gingrich will enter the field and dominate the debates, but get little traction.
Jeb Bush will challenge Bill Nelson for his Senate seat in Florida.
Mike Pence will run for governor of Indiana.
Mitch Daniels will run for president. Haley Barbour will not. Daniels will be highly touted by establishment conservative media but will go nowhere in the polls.
Tim Pawlenty will finish the year in high single digits in most polls of GOP primary voters.
The economy will continue to sputter along for most of 2011.
Troop levels in Iraq will decrease dramatically.
In mid-2011, President Obama will attempt to pull a Clinton by negotiating a major entitlement reform package with Republicans in order to reduce the deficit and establish centrist street cred. The Democratic base will howl and nothing will be passed by Congress.
Hillary Clinton will resign as Secretary of State.
Mitt Romney will crater in polls of GOP primary voters all year.
At least one poll by year end will show Gary Johnson leading the field in New Hampshire.
In late 2011, either Mitt Romney will rebound unexpectedly as GOP voters begin to contemplate a second Obama term and decide to rally around the “electable” candidate in the field, OR a very right-wing dark horse candidate will enjoy an explosion in popular support from the GOP grassroots and jump to the head of the pack in polls of Iowa caucus voters.
Every time I think I have the Huckster’s motives and plans figured out, he does things like this to throw me a curveball:
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has the support of more Republicans around the country than three of his potential 2012 rivals, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday.The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 67 percent of self-identified Republicans were either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to support his candidacy in 2012.
That compared with 59 percent for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 54 percent for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and 49 percent for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
It is the second recent poll to show momentum for Huckabee. A Public Policy Polling survey taken just before Christmas showed the former Arkansas governor overtaking Romney in the pivotal state of Florida.
Huckabee, Palin, Romney and Gingrich — who have routinely finished in the top four of most 2012 Republican presidential polls — were the only candidates whose support was measured by CNN.
A big part me thinks that Huckabee, in the end, won’t run. But comments like this make me think that he’s interested at the very least. Time will tell one way or the other.
_______________________________________________________
CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey on Barack Obama and Congress
Apart from whether you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, what do you think of Obama as a person? Would you say you approve of him or disapprove of him?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
In general, do you hope that Barack Obama’s policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
And in general, do you think it is more likely that Obama’s policies will succeed or more likely that his policies will fail?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Thinking about the major issues facing the country today, who do you have the most confidence in — Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress, or the Democrats in Congress?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Do you think it will be good for the country or bad for the country that the Republican party will be in control of the U.S. House?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Do you think the Republicans will do a better job running the U.S. House than the Democrats did, a worse job than the Democrats, or won’t there be much difference?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Survey of 1,008 adults was conducted December 17-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
The cleanup efforts for the recent blizzard in the Northeast have prompted unexpected criticism of Chris Christie (and, far more so, Michael Bloomberg):
With many streets still unplowed, New Yorkers are griping that their billionaire mayor is out of touch and has failed at the basic task of keeping the city running, while New Jersey’s governor is taking heat for vacationing at Disney World during the crisis.
The fallout against two politicians who style themselves as take-charge guys is building in the aftermath of the Christmas-weekend blizzard that clobbered the Northeast, with at least one New Jersey newspaperman noting Gov. Chris Christie’s absence in a column headlined: “Is Sunday’s storm Christie’s Katrina?”
…Christie, meanwhile, has not been heard from publicly since he left New Jersey on vacation with his wife and four children. His spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said that the governor — who has also been mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate — has been briefed while in Florida, and that the emergency services have functioned well across the state.
…Christie’s absence at the same time his lieutenant governor was also out of state left New Jersey’s Senate president to deal with the storm, which stranded thousands of travelers and left highways strewn with stuck and abandoned cars.
…In the aftermath of the storm, many have noted the contrast [of Christie] with Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker, who has been on the streets with a shovel, clearing sidewalks and freeing stuck ambulances.
While I would hardly venture to call it “Christie’s Katrina”, this developing story represents the first batch of significant negative news about Gov. Christie (his administration’s Race to the Top complications did not garner widespread attention), so we should keep close tabs on it. He has achieved the near-impossible of maintaining, or even increasing, his popularity during a time when he has had to make tough choices and deliver news the public does not like to hear (cutting services and overall spending). Let’s see if he can keep it going.
Pro-Life political action group, the Susan B. Anthony List, has announced that they will be hosting a debate of the top contenders in the RNC Chair race on January 3rd, 2011. According to the SBL press release, the purpose of the debate is to ensure that, “…the next RNC chairman not only be pro-life, but be prepared to use his or her position to advance pro-life values.”
In preparation for the debate, all four participants have agreed to a pre-debate interview with SBL leadership. In addition to delving into an issue of critical importance to the conservative grassroots, the interviews are a good introduction to those who may not be familiar with the candidates. The four contenders who were selected to participate are Reince Priebus, Ann Wager, Gentry Collins, and Saul Anuzis. Their pre-debate interviews can be viewed below:
Reince Priebius
Ann Wagner
Gentry Collins
Saul Anuzis
The race for RNC Chairman is slowly becoming more clear – and so with the vote less than three weeks away, here are some ground rules for the election and where the race currently stands.
The RNC Chairman is elected by the 168 members of the RNC at the RNC Winter Meeting. In 2011, the vote will take place on January 15. A simple majority — 85 votes — is needed to win the election. The vote takes place in multiple ballot style until one candidate breaks the 85 vote threshold.
To qualify for the ballot, a candidate has to receive official endorsements of at least two RNC members from three different states (for a total of six endorsements). This rule actually kept one of the candidates, Chip Saltsman, off the ballot in 2009.
There are no rules that force any candidate to drop out of the race after the ballots have been tallied, but most drop out willingly when they recognize they have no chance of winning. Thus, while the horserace tallies prior to the first ballot are fun to watch, the real importance lies in divining where the second-tier candidates’ support will fall once they drop out of the race.
There are currently six officially announced candidates (though one, and perhaps two, appear to be fighting to even make it onto the ballot). Their names, and the tally of their publicly announced RNC member endorsements, are as follows:
Reince Priebus (Wisconsin GOP Party Chairman) – 24 endorsements
Michael Steele (Current RNC Chair) – 13
Saul Anuzis (former Michigan GOP Party Chairman) – 11
Ann Wagner (former ambassador to Luxembourg, chairwoman of Roy Blunt’s 2010 campaign) – 11
Maria Cino (former Acting Secretary of Transportation) – 6
Gentry Collins (former RNC Political Director) – 3
Obviously, even though Priebus has a large lead at this stage in the game, he is well shy of the 85 votes needed for a majority. There remain 100 members of the RNC that have yet to publicly declare their endorsements. In 2009, we saw an onslaught of endorsements the week leading up to the actual vote – so this race, while having a clear frontrunner, also remains potentially very fluid.
It is worth mentioning as well the role the RNC Chairman plays in the party. Up until 2007, the Chairman was supposed to essentially perform two duties: fundraising and organization. They were largely behind-the-scenes workers who didn’t get a lot of face time in the press. This began to change slightly with Howard Dean’s very public ascension to DNC Chair, but really shifted in 2007 with Steele’s election to head the RNC. There may be no return to the “good old days” of behind-the-scenes party chairs now, but in this humble blogger’s estimation the closer we can get to that ideal the better. Let the politicians be the face and mouthpiece of the party, and let the party chair bring in the money and build the infrastructure.
One final note: mark January 3 on your calendars, as Americans for Tax Reform will host a debate for the six declared candidates.
There’ve been a flurry of Public Policy Presidential polling as well as the latest CNN poll. What does it all mean?
The PPP state polls have been all over in the place in regards to the 2012 Presidential campaign with wild shifts occurring without explanation.
There are two possible reason for this. First, Public Policy Polling may just have some lousy sampling method. I could buy that as being part of the problem, but the consistent inconsitency of the polls makes me doubt that as the full answer. The second solution is that most 2 years before the election, most normal voters haven’t focused enough on a potential Presidential primary race to make an actual decision as to who to support. I think there are probably quite a few people who win pressed by a pollster for a Presidential choice, may give different answers at different times. A reminder of how different the average voter is from the average political junkie.
What about the CNN poll? CNN didn’t measure who voters would prefer but who the party members would be likely to support. It’s worth noting that CNN ran an almost identical poll two years ago. The difference in results is remarkable:
| Candidate | 2008% | 2010% | Difference |
| Huckabee | 65% | 67% | +2% |
| Romney | 61% | 59% | -2% |
| Gingrich | 52% | 54% | +2% |
| Palin | 67% | 49% | -18% |
Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich all saw their numbers move, but the movement was within the margin of error. Sarah Palin has had a precipitous and dramatic fall in the number of Republicans who’ll commit to supporting her if she’s the party nominee. This poll is another sign that Palin would be ill-advised to run for President. I’m more than happy to entertain the idea that a single poll is biased. However, poll after poll shows the same thing, it begins to look a lot like evidence.
Palin has huge unfavorables in nearly every recent poll. While we can argue all day about what caused the damage. It has been done and it’s not going to be reversed easily and certainly not in time for Palin to win in 2012.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
Well, things certainly went well for that cheery fellow, didn’t they? Mondale went on to lose 49 states that year as the Democratic presidential nominee attempting to unseat Ronald Reagan. But more to the point, Mondale’s inability to convince the American public that the “Reagan Tax Cut” of 1981 needed to be repealed allowed Republicans to move the goalposts substantially right-ward on issues of federal taxation. Indeed, the modern-day, standard issue Democratic position on federal taxes continues to be well to the right of the standard issue GOP position from, say, the Eisenhower or Nixon years. That’s because the Reagan years created a “new normal” in terms of the tax rates that Americans would accept out of Washington.
As Republicans prepare to face President Obama in 2012, they are tasked with an objective similar to that of Mondale ’84. The GOP nominee must be able to convince Americans that ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Otherwise, like President Reagan’s key first-term domestic achievement, ObamaCare will create a “new normal” in the financing of American health care, and will become unable to repeal possibly as early as the latter part of the current decade.
I hinted around at this last week, but the reality is that Republicans will have a very narrow window during which repeal will be possible. That’s because one big chunk of ObamaCare, the insurance regulations, will always be difficult to repeal, as the attack ads just write themselves, and another huge portion of ObamaCare, the exchanges, once fully operational, will become the financier of health care for millions of people as employers prepare to dump their employees into the ObamaCare system. Once enough Americans are sent packing by their employers into the exchanges, repealing ObamaCare will amount to “taking away your health plan.”
Once all of this takes place, the goal posts on health care will have moved substantially left-ward, just as the Reagan Tax Cut moved the goal posts on taxes to the right. The debate will move from one over whether to repeal ObamaCare, to one over how to reform ObamaCare. Then we will start to see lots of Mitt Romneys pop up and suggest replacing the mandate with a waiting period for pre-existing conditions to be covered, lots of Ross Douthats advocating weakening some of the federal requirements for insurance plans, etc. But the point is that Republicans will be put in a Bill Clinton position, circa 1992, being forced to essentially validate the “new normal” of ObamaCare.
What Republicans have to do, then, is be a tad more convincing than Mr. Mondale in 1984 when he was arguing for repeal of the Reagan Tax Cut. And it wouldn’t be hard to envision the GOP nominee standing at the podium during the 2012 Republican National Convention stating, “Mr. Obama will change ObamaCare. So will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” But as Democrats found out in 1984, it took more than a clever one-liner to take down a president. And by failing in 1984, Democrats ensured that many of Reagan’s policies stayed in place indefinitely.
Here’s a quick roundup of what some of your favorite, lower profile GOP 2012 candidates have been doing lately.
Herman Cain: There are now officially two independent draft movements for Herman Cain. One is headed off by conservative activist / blogger R.S. McCain and has a big announcement / website redesign in 12 days. The second is composed of other conservative activists and has coordinators in at 3 states so far. Cain’s also been generating a bit of buzz among news makers with his hints towards a first quarter 2011 announcement. Cain said, “Right now I’m in the process of contacting people who are very enthusiastic about a campaign…Over the next few weeks, we’ll be seeing if we can tap into the energy we saw [in November for a presidential bid].”
John Bolton: Former UN Ambassador John Bolton made news on Hannity the other night with Tucker Carlson discussing the START Treaty. Bolton, expectedly, opposes it. Bolton felt it was naive to base foreign policy / missile defense strategy based on the cold war mindset of Russia being the enemy, when greater threats come from Iran and North Korea. Bolton also said, “the Obama administration…really believe[s] that it’s America’s nuclear capability that’s the problem, not the source of strategic stability…” when Calson asked if a well armed America was key to “…harmony in this world.”
Fred Karger: Fred Karger, one of if not the first openly gay candidate for President…is still running according to a recent interview with the Laguna Beach Coastline Pilot. Karger is currently running ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that he says are getting a positive response. Here’s a quote from Karger about his progress so far:
I made huge strides this year, since I began testing the waters the end of February. I visited New Hampshire 10 times and Iowa 5! Have spoke to thousands of people at candidate forms and at colleges throughout the U.S. Have made the first two commercials of any possible 2012 candidates for president (which have been very well received). I have hosted Meet and Greets all over New Hampshire and one in Iowa. I have hired a State Director in Iowa, Nathan Treloar, who was the communications director for the Iowa Republican Party during last Presidential elections in 2008 and two part time college coordinators in New Hampshire at U. of New Hampshire and Dartmouth
Each of these potential candidates have been trying to keep their names out there in their own way. Karger through boots on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire; Cain through his boots on the ground and internet buzz; and Bolton with continued public commentary on foreign policy issues. Each of them fills a potential role in the primary and each of them bring some interesting ideas to the table.
_______________________________________________________
CNN/Opinion Research 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Survey
I’m going to read you the names of a few people who might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. For each one, please tell me whether you would be very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not likely at all to support them if they decided to run for the Republican nomination in 2012.
MIKE HUCKABEE
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
MITT ROMNEY
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
NEWT GINGRICH
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
SARAH PALIN
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 470 Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents was conducted December 17-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.
Rep. Mike Castle (R-De.) continues his “Martyrdom Tour 2011″ with a whine that the Tea Party is dividing the Republican Party:
Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., who was taken out in his primary by Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell, expresed alarm at the division the movement had caused within his own party.
“The Tea Party movement really is quite a bit different than the old Republican conservative movementl, ” Castle said. “They’re more than willing to take out Republicans, call us Republicans in name only, or whatever it may be. It was one thing when you were dealing with Democrats and Republicans. Now you’re dealing with divisions within your own party.”
Castle, a known centrist, also said that working with the other party — the Democrats — once seen as the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, has become a punishable offense.
Mike Castle can’t get that Delaware GOP voters just weren’t into him. His charge that working with the other party is now a punishable offense misses the point. No one really has a problem with you working with the other party to further the interests of the American people. The problem with Castle was that he was working to pass things like Cap and Trade.
Castle is right about one thing. The Tea Party is causing tension within the GOP. And it’s something to be thankful. Consider the times of greatest tension within the GOP in recent years. There was the late 1970s heading into 1980 when the New Right rose up and many of the old Rockefeller wing of the Party left along with John Anderson. There was 1994 when folks like Helen Chenoweth and Bob Barr came to Washington, countering the party establishment.
Without creative tension within the Republican ranks, party leaders invariably slide into incompetence and complacency. See the Administration of George H.W. Bush or the George W. Bush’s 2nd term for examples of what happens when the establishment is allowed to have its way with both the party and the government, with no grassroots challenge. The type of Republican Party Mike Castle wants is the type of Republican Party that was in the Congressional Minority for 40 years led by people like Gerald Ford and Bob Michel.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
Herman Cain, the Godfather Pizza former CEO who’s expecting a first quarter 2012 announcement, has written an editorial for North Star National. He asks us not to forget 2010 and not to forget what the Democratic leadership has done to this country. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Don’t forget what President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress did in 2010 – and tell everybody who will listen! And if they do not get outraged, then they are sleeping under a rock and they can’t get out.
Pure politicians have for years depended on voters to forget their misdeeds leading up to the next election. But things are different! Voters are not as stupid and uninformed as they used to be. People are more informed and aware of the arrogance of the current administration and Congress than ever before…Let’s not forget that this administration and Democrat-controlled Congress increased the national debt by nearly $4 trillion in two years. This is the same increase in debt during the Bush administration in eight years.
Let’s not forget that this administration and Congress authorized over $860 billion in stimulus spending, which did not stimulate anything except voter outrage. The president and his economic advisors even said that it would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. It’s been over 9 percent ever since.
Let’s not forget the promises of transparency. Didn’t happen! Let’s not forget the promise of “the most ethical Congress in history” by Speaker Pelosi. Didn’t happen! (Can we say Representative Charlie Rangel and Representative Maxine Waters?)
It’s the right kind of rhetoric for a budding Presidential campaign.
_______________________________________________________
PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 GOP Primary
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 400 Republican primary voters was conducted December 17-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Political ideology: 71% [72%] Conservative; 27% [24%] Moderate; 2% [3%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted November 19-21, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 30-31, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted April 8-11, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 12-15, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 12-15, 2010 are in parentheses.
CNN/Opinion Research Health Care Survey
As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country’s health care system became law earlier this year. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it? (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Now here are a few provisions in the health care bill. Please tell me whether you favor or oppose each one:
Requiring all Americans who do not have health insurance to get it
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Survey of 1,008 adults was conducted December 17-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
PPP (D) Florida 2012 GOP Primary
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 400 Republican primary voters was conducted December 17-20, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Political ideology: 70% Conservative; 25% Moderate; 5% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 30-31, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 16-18, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 5-8, 2010 are in parentheses.
At this early point, with not a single GOP presidential candidacy formally announced, I see three general scenarios that will likely unfold over the next 18 months that will lead to a Republican presidential nominee.
All scenarios include current frontrunner Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. All scenarios also include most of the second and third tier candidates, including Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, John Thune, Rick Santorum, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Pence. (By the time of the Iowa GOP Straw Poll, or soon after it, those on this list who have announced they would run may no longer be in the race.)
Scenario Number 2 includes either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin, but not the other, plus all or most of the above.
Scenario Number 3 includes both Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, plus all or most of the above.
A variation of all three of these scenarios includes a formidable candidate not on any list, but who emerges rather suddenly in the next few months. An example of this would be Jeb Bush who most observers now believe will not be a candidate for president before 2016. I note as a cautionary that very late-emerging candidacies (such as Wendell Willkie’s in 1940) are quite rare and even more unlikely in today’s TV-internet-blog new environment.
I suggest that each of the three scenarios has a specific and contrasting character. Both Mr. Huckabee and Mrs. Palin were major figures in the 2008 presidential campaign, although only Mr. Huckabee went through the primary season. Each of them registers very high on virtually all pre-campaign season polls, and each of them has national bases. With both of them in the race, the primary season is very crowded, and the outcome very much in doubt from the perspective of December, 2010.
If only one of them is in the race, the field is less crowded. but the other could play a role in selecting the nominee by throwing his or her support behind any of the other candidates.
If neither of them is in the race, the field takes a different shape after the Iowa straw poll and subsequent Iowa caucus, followed soon after by New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The nomination may not be settled by then, but is likely to be over after Super Tuesday. In this scenario, Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich and one of the “darker horses” (Pawlenty? Daniels?) will soon become the finalists.
In short, I think all early speculation about who will be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee needs to take into account these possible political permutations. Initially, the field could be very large (10-14 candidates), but history and experience tells us such a field will narrow very quickly.
Paul Krugman took a shot at lousing up the Christmas Carol.
The Christmas Carol is the most timely story at Christmas with its clarion call for personal charity and kindness. However, Krugman sees it as a support for statism:
Hey, has anyone noticed that “A Christmas Carol” is a dangerous leftist tract?
I mean, consider the scene, early in the book, where Ebenezer Scrooge rightly refuses to contribute to a poverty relief fund. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” he declares. Oh, wait. That wasn’t Scrooge. That was Newt Gingrich — last week. What Scrooge actually says is, “Are there no prisons?” But it’s pretty much the same thing.
Anyway, instead of praising Scrooge for his principled stand against the welfare state, Charles Dickens makes him out to be some kind of bad guy. How leftist is that?
Krugman then proceeds on a somewhat rambling lazy columns that you can get away with as an experienced columnist.
Of course, Scrooge didn’t argue against the Welfare State. He argued that his paying for the British Welfare State covered any duty of kindness to the poor. This neither affirms nor supports the Welfare State. As for Government workers, transferring Dickens’ sympathy for the 19th Century British underclass to 21st Century Government workers with generous pay, benefits, and vacation packages is pure conjecture. This is the case any time we speculate as to what the opinion of the long dead might be on a modern political issue.
Ann Coulter, while referencing Scrooge in her title, “Scrooge is a Liberal” she didn’t offer a conservative deconstruction of the book. Instead, she listed how Americans who tend to be more conservative are statistically more personally generous as well which after all was what the Christmas Carol was about. This would seem to give lie to Krugman’s theory of the cold and hard conservative.
In a larger sense, both columns attempt to diminish the larger point of the Christmas Carol. Any time, we take scripture or a great piece of literature and we declare, “It’s about those other people,” we innoculate ourselves against the power of the story, because it doesn’t apply to us.
The message of the Christmas Carol is clear. In our lives, we should be about the business of helping others and alleviating the suffering that pervades so much of our Earth. Not only that, we’ll be held accountable in the next life for how we use the gifts that God has given us.
No wonder some would rather talk politics.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
It’s been a long time since I’ve posted over here at Race42012, having written some over at other sites, but having scaled back political writing as I finished my first novel.
My political ideas haven’t changed, and tactical views haven’t changed that much either. Ladies and Gentlemen, let the games begin.
The man with the infamous mustache, John Bolton, is seriously looking into an exploratory committee for 2012. National Review has an article on the topic, that Bolton reposted to his Facebook page. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Two summers ago, National Review took one of its cruises, this one to the Eastern Mediterranean. We had several hundred passenger-readers aboard, and a slate of speakers. One of them was John Bolton, the lawyer and foreign-policy official. On the platform, he was really wowin’ ’em, with his hard-hitting foreign-policy analyses. Over the next couple of days, our passengers kept murmuring, “Bolton is really fantastic. He’s just the kind of man we need. Wouldn’t it be great if he ran for president?” The next time we were on the platform, I said to the audience, “I’ve been hearing a lot of ‘Bolton for President’ rumbles. We know he’s rock-solid on foreign policy. But what about his domestic views? For all we know, he’s a socialist — as some of the best hawks have been.” Bolton, with a glint in his eye, leaned into his microphone and said, “I don’t think you have to worry about that.”One doesn’t. On Election Day 1964, John Bolton, 15, got permission to be absent from school: in order to pass out leaflets for Goldwater. “That was my formative political experience,” he says, the Goldwater campaign. Unlike his fellow Goldwaterite, Miss Hillary Rodham, he remained a Goldwaterite, unalloyed. His favorite line from The Conscience of a Conservative, the senator’s 1960 book, is, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” Bolton says, “Individual liberty is the whole purpose of political life, and I thought it was threatened back then” — in 1964 — “and I think it’s threatened now.”
Moreover, the Bolton groupies aboard that ship may get their wish: Bolton is thinking about running for president in 2012, and he’s thinking about it hard. He first thought about it in 2008, during the general-election campaign. “I was watching what was happening in 2008, and I thought, ‘How can this be?’” What he meant was, How could vital issues of national security be receiving so little attention? Then Barack Obama was elected. And, “as I followed his obsession with restructuring our entire domestic way of life, it became completely clear to me that our willful ignoring of national-security policy was going to cost us.” Someone, Bolton felt, had to raise the vital issues. “I write, I give speeches, I appear on television — but the only way in contemporary American circumstances to make those issues as salient as they should be is to run for president.”
The idea of a Bolton presidential run seems implausible, fanciful, odd. Other people have used stronger words: “preposterous,” “ridiculous,” “cuckoo.” Bolton has never held elective office, and has never run for office. But he thinks these are unusual times, in which an unusual candidacy might have a place. He himself uses the word “unorthodox”: an unorthodox candidacy, an unorthodox campaign. And he could not be more serious about the idea. In our recent interview, he was mainly careful to use the conditional: If I ran, I would . . . But sometimes he slipped into tenses more certain. And he has no interest in a symbolic, quixotic, or selfish run. “People have said to me, ‘Well, if you ran, you might get more speaking appearances, and you could sell another book.’ Frankly, that’s the last thing on my mind. If I get in, I’ll get in it to win.”
Now, in 2012, he’d be the foreign policy credentials candidate and would make an interesting case. His background is impressive to say the least and he is definitely an intellectual heavyweight who could readily prove himself a debate setting. While I would like to see him run for US Senate here in Maryland instead, I’d be very interested in hearing what he had to say on the stump.
_______________________________________________________
Mitch Daniels was interviewed by an Indianapolis radio station, with most of it being pretty boring: “I’m thinking about running … I’ll decide after the legislative session … campaigns are tough on families … I’ll be looking at the field and their views on dealing with the debt … yada yada yada …”
Pretty much the standard stuff — of course he’ll consider his family (one hopes all candidates do); saying he’ll look at whether someone else is dealing with his issues is what they all say, whether they’ve already decided to run or not; and we already knew he was planning to make his announcement, whatever it is, after the Indiana legislative session.
The interesting nugget was buried halfway through the article:
Daniels has said he tried to recruit four other Republicans into the race before agreeing to consider running himself. But he says that doesn’t mean he’s dissatisfied with the current field — he notes no one’s officially a candidate yet.
First, I’d say it probably does indicate that he’s not happy with the field — why else recruit other entrants?
But the really interesting question to me is: Who are the four potential recruits? Barbour is of course a friend, so he’s likely one of them — but any other speculation? And since the wording indicates that they turned him down, is it another indicator that Barbour is out?
And, if I don’t get another chance to say it: Merry Christmas!
The man who became famous for repeating over and over and over again that the Rent is Too Damn High in his multiple bids for Governor of New York, Mayor of New York City, Jimmy McMillan, has announced that he’s coming for Obama in 2012. His exact wording, “Tell Obama I’m coming after his black ass.” The fact that the people at Politico refer to Jimmy McMillan as semi-coherent is generous. McMillan made national headlines with his ridiculous comments including at one point saying that if someone wanted to marry a shoe, he’d marry them. McMillan is nothing more than a distraction in politics, but an amusing one nonetheless.
Want to learn more about why the rent is too high? Check out his official website here.
_______________________________________________________
The withdrawal of a candidate few have heard of from a race few have given much thought to could be very significant for a number of presidential candidates.
Becky Skillman has withdrawn (for health reasons, she says) from the race to succeed Mitch Daniels as governor of Indiana. Ms. Skillman is currently the lieutenant governor and was considered a strong contender for the position, though probably an underdog if Mike Pence got in the race. Skillman’s withdrawal, combined with Evan Bayh saying he will not seek the Democratic nomination, means that Pence becomes pretty much a lock if he decides to run. Considering that he’d be an extreme longshot (to put it kindly) if he were to seek the presidency, it seems extremely likely that he’ll opt for taking the lowhanging fruit.
So how would that affect the race? Jim Geraghty discusses it here:
I usually agree with Geraghty, but here I think he’s gone 0-for-3. Huck might or might not run (I think he will), but I don’t think he’d stay out because of Palin’s sharp elbows.I’ve never seen any sign that Huckabee is shy about mixing it up (Rombots — that’s your cue).
Another development with major implications is Haley Barbour tripping over his tongue in regard to the Citizen’s Councils. My guess is that he likely took himself out of the race (if he was in anyway). Barbour was already, fairly or not, practically a Hollywood caricature of a 1950s southern pol – with this gaffe he made the MSM’s job almost too easy.
If Barbour’s out as well as Pence, who gains and loses?
Huckabee: The big winner. Pence would not have been a huge factor, but he would take more from Huckabee than anyone else – he won the straw poll at the Value Voters conference. I don’t think Pence would have made it far, but he might have drawn enough support in Iowa to trim Huckabee’s margin and cause a few raised eyebrows (“Having won last time, Huckabee was expected to take Iowa easily. Thus his narrow victory yesterday …”) And Barbour, if he ran, would have been a significant threat in South Carolina.
Daniels: While I don’t think Pence being out means that much to Daniels, Barbour is another matter. I’ve thought for quite a while that they would likely be a tag team – one would run, the other would be his chief campaign advisor/strategist, and probably the chief of staff in the White House. If Barbour’s out, then Daniels is more likely to be in.
Romney: If Barbour were in, he would get a lot of establishment money and support, so Romney might benefit a bit, but probably not that much if it just means Daniels runs instead.
Palin: Geraghty seems to think Pence would draw from the same pool as Palin. I don’t (see Huckabee), but Geraghty’s a smart guy, so maybe Palin is helped.
Pawlenty: Pence’s withdrawal means one less Midwesterner in the race, so Pawlenty (and Daniels) might benefit a bit. Barbour being out might also help Pawlenty, since some RGA support might go his way.
As an aside: One commenter on Geraghty’s article may win the prize for Most Delusional Comment of the Year (Palin Division): “Pence and Daniels combined would NOT have the intellect or experience that Sarah Palin has.”
Sarah Palin has many fine qualities, but I don’t think experience is her strong point – especially when comparing her to the combined resumes of a five-term congressman, member of the House leadership, two-term governor, president of a major company, director of OMB …
And intellect … let’s not even go there.
CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Do you think the policies being proposed by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Do you think the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Congress has passed and President Obama has signed into law a bill that would extend tax cuts for all Americans, reduce the estate tax, extend unemployment benefits, and reduce the Social Security tax that workers pay. Taking into account all of those provisions, do you favor or oppose that bill?
In your view, is Barack Obama doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans in Congress, or not?
In your view, are the Republicans in Congress doing enough to cooperate with the Barack Obama, or not?
Do you think the Democratic party or the Republican party is more responsible for the lack of cooperation between the two parties in Washington?
If the two parties can develop bipartisan solutions to the country’s problems, which party do you think should give up more of the proposals it supports — the Democratic party or the Republican party?
As you may know, over the past few weeks Congress has been meeting in what is sometimes referred to as a “lame duck” session to consider issues including tax cuts, unemployment benefits, government spending, gays in the military, and nuclear arms. Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following have handled those issues under consideration during this session:
Barack Obama
The Republicans in Congress
The Democrats in Congress
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Survey of 1,008 adults was conducted December 17-19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Amid the spate of prattle from Palinites and Huckanuts and whatever passes for a Gingrich supporter, I thought I would excise a moment to look at the ubiquitous PPP polling over the last month and see what other facts can be gleaned. Todays perspective from this Democratic polling organization went on and on about Romney’s problems with Conservative Republicans in the last 9 states they surveyed, including 5 in the Midwest ( Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri and ohio ) , 2 in the South ( North Carolina and Virginia ) and 1 each in the West ( Montana ) and the Northeast ( Massachusetts ). And, according to PPP’s headlines, Mitt has a serious problems with a GOP base that is over 73 % conservative in these 9 states. Notwithstanding the fact that I think these numbers are dramatically skewed, in the Midwest especially, let’s look at some other polling data from the very same polls.
The average GOP percentage in these 9 states, according to the PPP polling, is 34 %. Of these 34 %, 70 + % are indicated by PPP as Conservative . Of the remaining 66 %, 38 % were Democrats and 28 % were Independents (who can frequently vote in GOP primaries in many of these states.) Let’s take a look at how the candidates and Romney fare among the majority of the voters in the often abused ” Favorability ” category.
INDEPENDENTS
Huckabee……… + 3 % Favorable
Romney………… + 1 % Favorable
Palin…………….. – 26 % Unfavorable
Gingrich……….. – 27 % Unfavorable
DEMOCRATS
To examine the potential Democratic vote, I used the simple inverse expedient of looking at the ” Not Negative ” or Undecided vote. Accordingly
Huckabee……….+ 56 % Undecided or ” Not Negative ”
Romney ……….. + 51 %
Gingrich……….. + 33 %
Palin……………. + 22 %
The upshot of this ” assessment” is that Huckabee and Romney are statistically tied in these 9 states in terms of favorability assessments from the 66 % of general election voters who are Independents or Democrats and Palin and Gingrich are overwhelmingly negative.
It’s very early and PPP is one Democratic polling outfit, but interesting anyway
Magellan Strategies (R) Nebraska 2012 Senatorial Survey
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
As you may know, Congress passed a law to change the health care system. Based on what you know, do you favor or oppose the new health care legislation signed into law by President Obama?
As you may have heard, Senator Ben Nelson was the key vote to pass the Democrat health care bill. Now I am going to read to you two statements about this bill. Please tell me which one comes closer to your point of view. Some people say Ben Nelson did the right thing for Nebraska by getting additional federal funding for his vote. While, other people say that the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” is just another example of what is wrong with Washington.
Do you believe that Ben Nelson deserves re-election, or is time for someone new?
Survey of 1,789 likely voters was conducted December 15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.32 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 54% Republican; 34% Democrat; 12% Independent. Political ideology: 29% Very conservative; 20% Somewhat conservative; 39% Moderate; 5% Somewhat liberal; 4% Very liberal.
As of December 2010, a lot of observers are gleefully writing Mitt Romney’s political obituary. A year from now, however, the narrative may be that of his comeback. Last night I analogized Huckabee ’12 to McCain ’00. But an equally valid comparison may end up being that of Romney ’12 and McCain ’08. And like McCain, who was left for dead at this point in the last presidential cycle, Romney may find yet another lease on life once the Regular Republicans have their say.
The Regular Republicans are the voters that I discussed about three years ago at this time as I was predicting and analyzing McCain’s comeback. These are the folks who, like good Republicans, go out and vote for the candidate whose “turn” it is during each and every presidential election cycle. They are unmoved by the passionate candidate of the base, the insurgent in the center, and pay no heed to all of the candidates who look great “on paper” as far as the nomination is concerned.
During my analysis of the Regular Republicans last time around — and I am paraphrasing myself from memory here — I cited an interview with conservative pundit P.J. O’Rourke, who was also charged with explaining the McCain comeback, and who did so by distinguishing between the conservative base voter and the average Republican voter. O’Rourke evoked a sort of silent majority of Republicans who largely keep to themselves, go about their rather apolitical lives, but vote early, and often, and primarily vote for the candidate who will keep their taxes low, keep their community safe, and otherwise make sure that they are left alone to continue to live their quiet, unassuming lives. Their main concern is that their wife might get mugged on the way to the grocery store, or that their property taxes might go up, or that someone might tell them that they can’t light up on their own front lawn. These are the Republicans who voted Nixon/Ford/Bush/Dole/McCain, and who could easily vote Romney in 2012.
Indeed, today’s Clarus poll shows the stealth power of the Regular Republicans. Even as his campaign is being pronounced DOA, Romney still leads the field among GOP voters with a 19% plurality. Further, out of the Big Four, Romney best fits the description of what Republicans claim they want in 2012, with large majorities claiming to prefer a moderate-conservative, a pragmatist, someone with private sector/business experience, and a current or former governor. If these voters don’t sound like Palin’s throngs, it’s because they are not. These Regular Republicans are too busy with life to show up at a rally, but they will show up at the polling place, like they always do.
Additionally, polls out of two Bush ’04/Obama ’08 swing states today showed Romney and Huckabee faring best against Obama, with Huck doing better in light red North Carolina, and Mitt doing best in purple Florida. These sorts of polls could assist Romney’s comeback as well. Mitt is never going to do particularly well in the red states, for the same reason that John McCain was often shown tied with Barack Obama in states like North Dakota during Campaign 2008. Conservatives miffed that they aren’t able to vote for one of their own are probably responsible for the woes of both McCain and Romney in some red states. But at the end of the day, Republicans may decide that wavering conservatives can be won over with a strong veep selection, while swing voters in Florida (and in Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio) are the keys to the White House. If Romney is the only candidate out of the Big Four who swing voters in purple and light blue states will consider voting for, Mitt’s stock will go way, way up.
I was pretty hard on the Mittster back in 2008, and a lot of that was due to my chips being thrown in with Rudy, of course. But this time around, I am neither a RomneyBot nor a RomneyNot. Still, I can’t shake the feeling that, from what I’ve seen of Romney thus far, he is a better executive than politician. In many ways, Nominee Romney might be a lot like John Kerry, who pretty much made sure that he checked all of his party’s boxes, in a lackluster manner, and made the election entirely a referendum on the incumbent president. That may work if Obama’s approval rating is, say, 42 percent. But the latest polls have Obama moving back into the upper 40s. In an election where Romney is simply running as, “The Competent Alternative to Obama,” as opposed to a truly stand out nominee with novel, innovative ideas about how to turn America around, the GOP will suffer the same sort of enthusiasm gap that the Democrats were on the wrong side of in 2004, and Republicans will basically be at the mercy of Obama’s approval rating, i.e., if it ticks up to 50%, Romney would be done. Of course, it is certainly possible that Romney is hiding his inner Bill Clinton somewhere deep down inside, and if he is, this might be the time to bring it out.
At the end of the day, though, Romney’s potential for a comeback may depend on whether the Big Four continue to dominate the race. And thus far, they have. Perhaps it’s only a matter of time until Thune-mania takes off. Or perhaps not. Time will tell. Until then, the Regular Republicans need someone to vote for, and Romney may be sitting pretty in the McCain ’08 position for 2012.
Whoever said the holidays are the slow time of year was obviously not talking about politics. First, there is the lame-duck Congress, which just needs to go away. Secondly, there is always a slew of polls to keep us junkies happy. Then, there’s this… per Politico.
If you don’t want to read the article, basically on this week’s Sarah Palin’s Alaska, the former Alaska Governor took a shot at Michelle Obama over the First Lady’s anti-obesity campaign; she mocked the First Lady saying that desserts are not a right among other things. Palin asserts that the First Lady’s campaign is some kind of attempt to establish a nanny-state that is trying to tell our children what to eat.
Well, Mike Huckabee has responded to Palin on this issue, saying “Michelle Obama’s not trying to tell people what to eat or not trying to force the government’s desires on people…She’s stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country.”
“With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she’s misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do.”
If you’ll recall back during the 2008 campaign, Huckabee brought up the obesity problem when he discussed healthcare. Basically, the former Arkansas Governor said we should be trying to find ways of keeping people healthy before they become sick, thus reducing overall health-care costs. Given that position, and the Governor’s own struggle with obesity, his position is not surprising.
Now, on this issue, I agree with both Huckabee and Mrs. Obama; this isn’t like Michael Bloomberg’s outright ban on trans-fats or some-such nonsense. This, at least to me, seems to be an educational and awareness campaign more than anything.
Also, from a purely political standpoint, this is a very stupid fight for Palin to be taking. Is she now pro-obesity or pro-unhealthy living? Further, bashing the First Lady is about as diminishing as… I don’t know, going camping with Kate Gosselin. It certainly doesn’t make her look better to the national audience. And it especially doesn’t make her look Presidential.
On this issue, it appears that Huckabee is right and Palin is just wrong.
The latest Clarus Research Group poll (which Aron has posted below) has some interesting results to ponder, as the 2012 Presidential campaign is set to emerge as a bigger story in 2011. The most unfortunate finding is the fact 85% of Americans believe America is in decline. The poll found the sentiment cut across all political lines and respondents were looking for “strong, competent leadership, to get us back on track.” According to CRG:
“The public mood is bigger than the sum of its parts,” said Faucheux, president of Clarus Research Group. “Regardless of how voters feel about specific issues or personalities, there is a shared sense that the nation is in decline and needs strong, competent leadership to get it back on track. Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree with this sentiment.”
That sentiment is also strongly reflected in what Republican respondents are looking for in a leader for 2012. Per the Clarus results, what GOP voters are seeking a presidential candidate who:
With that wish list in mind, it’s not surprising the roster of preferred GOP candidates is dominated by current or former Governors. While there is no clear frontrunner, based upon the criteria the respondents are looking for, Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney appear to be the best positioned to capitize on these themes.
Despite Romney’s top spot and Daniels near bottom finish, both candidates most closely match the respondents preferences, so either one has the potential to break away, in a wide open race. Albeit, Daniels would have a more arduous task, considering his low name recognition, but his skill at retail politics could offset Romney’s advantages at fund-raising and organization, as well a highly successful business career as a problem solver and turnaround specialist. Daniels is the highly popular Governor of Indiana, who resolved many of the states financial woe. He was previously the Director of OMB under President George W. Bush and had a very successful career at Eli Lily & Co, where he also rectified negative business conditions.
Mike Huckabee, who through his TV and Radio appearances, is not thought of as a polarizing figure, lacks the impressive private sector experience Romney and Daniels provide. He his best known for his Social Conservative positions and not for experience with problems solving.
Sarah Palin’s profile and qualities seem to be favored by a smaller segment of the GOP. She has in 2010 carved out a niche as the most red-blooded conservative bar none, via her Twitter and Facebook updates. However, as President Obama continues to struggle to solve the nation’s problems, being just a conservative clarion may not be what a nation, plauged by soaring deficits and stubbornly high unemployment rates, may be looking for.
Clarus also looked at potential three match-ups between President Obama, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg and potential GOPers Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. In both cases, Obama was the winner and Bloomberg took third, with Romney and Palin taking second. Noteworthy however was Romney kept Obama to a slim 3-pt lead, 39-36, while Obama trounced Palin by 11 points, 42-31. Palin’s problems with Moderates and Independents led Clarus to observe:
In a 2012 race which promises to be thisclose, it will be interesting to see how the GOP selects it’s standard bearer and how they will approach winning over Americans who are currently feeling very pessimistic.
“In a three-way race with Palin as the Republican nominee, the GOP loses major support to an independent alternative,” said Faucheux. “Against Obama and Palin, Bloomberg gets 24 percent of Republicans, 10 percent of Democrats, and 22 percent of independents.”
Clarus Research 2012 Presidential Survey
Because of term limits, Bill Clinton cannot run for President again. But, just suppose for a moment, that he could run again––in that case, would you prefer Barack Obama or Bill Clinton to be elected President?
Even though the President before Obama––George W. Bush––also cannot run for president again because of term limits, just suppose for a moment that he could run again––in that case, would you prefer Barack Obama or George W. Bush to be elected President?
I am now going to read to you a couple of statements about government and politics… please tell me whether you agree or disagree with each one––
In many ways, America is in decline and we need strong, competent leadership to get us back on track.
It would be good for the country to elect a nonpartisan President who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ONLY OF REPUBLICANS…
As you may know, there are a number of Republicans who are considering running for president in 2012. Please tell me which ONE of the following would you most likely vote for if the presidential primary were held today… Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or Mitch Daniels…
Thinking more about the 2012 election…
Would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone with legislative experience in Congress …or… someone with management experience as a governor?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone with experience in government …or… someone with experience in private business?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be someone known for clear and consistent philosophical principles …or… someone known to be intelligent and competent?
If you had to pick between the two––would you prefer the next Republican presidential candidate be a moderate conservative who has a good chance of beating Barack Obama …or… someone who is an outspoken conservative who has only a fair chance of beating Barack Obama?
Do you think someone in his or her early 40s is too young to be President?
Survey of 1,000 registered voters, including a sub-sample of 365 registered Republicans, was conducted December 10-16, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 5.1 percentage points among registered Republicans.
