Bloomberg/Selzer & Co. Survey on Sarah Palin

• Very favorable 9%
• Mostly favorable 24%
• Mostly unfavorable 24%
• Very unfavorable 33%

National survey of 1,000 adults was conducted December 4-7, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

McClatchy-Marist 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mike Huckabee 43%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Sarah Palin 40%

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 47%
• Barack Obama 39%

• Barack Obama 42%
• Mike Huckabee 40%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Sarah Palin 35%

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 87%
• Barack Obama 6%

• Mike Huckabee 86%
• Barack Obama 7%

• Sarah Palin 78%
• Barack Obama 12%

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 53%
• Mitt Romney 38%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Mike Huckabee 31%

• Barack Obama 68%
• Sarah Palin 26%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 50%

Among Independents

• Approve 39%
• Disapprove 52%

Among Moderates

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 38%

Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party Movement?

• Strongly support Tea Party 10%
• Support Tea Party 19%
• Do not support Tea Party 62%

Among Republicans

• Strongly support Tea Party 21%
• Support Tea Party 34%
• Do not support Tea Party 34%

Among Independents

• Strongly support Tea Party 12%
• Support Tea Party 18%
• Do not support Tea Party 62%

Survey of 873 registered voters was conducted December 2-8, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% Democrat; 28% Republican; 33% Independent. Political ideology: 46% Conservative; 34% Moderate; 19% Liberal.

Earlier this week, Michael Bloomberg (Nanny Stater-NY) released his own economic blueprint for the nation that supposedly has nothing to do with any prospective presidential run:

“The economic policies that we have pursued to drive this growth have been neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. Despite what ideologues on the left believe, government cannot tax and spend its way back to prosperity, especially when that spending is driven by pork barrel politics. Federal spending to stimulate the economy had a temporary, positive impact – but we are two years past the economic meltdown of 2008, and unemployment is still too high, the underlying economy is still too weak and the federal deficit is still rising too fast.

“At the same time, despite what ideologues on the right believe, government should not stand aside and wait for the business cycle to run its natural course. That would be intolerable, given the enormous unemployment we face, and the worsening job prospects for the 15 million people who are trying to find work.

“Government is not an innocent bystander in the marketplace, and it should not pretend to be. In the face of the current economic weakness, government must act: decisively, responsibly and immediately.

“For New York City to continue our growth, we need our federal and state governments to chart a middle way – between a government that would wash its hands of the problem and one that seeks to supplant the private sector; between a government that would stand on the sidelines and one that would take over the game.

“This is not to say that we should try splitting the difference between Democratic and Republican positions – that’s thinking too small. While it’s true there are no simple solutions to complex problems, fortunately there are solutions that can get us out of this mess, that can be embraced by those across the political spectrum, and that can start us on the road to long-term sustainable recovery.

“Common sense solutions that are straight-forward and relatively cost-free: things we can do together, to put people on private payrolls and encourage new investment; things that increase personal opportunity, instead of dependence on taxpayer bailouts and taxpayer handouts; things that encourage entrepreneurship and attract global talent and capital.

In what is most certainly a primer to his imminent third-party bid for the presidency, Bloomberg goes on to argue that America must become the world’s innovator again, but that innovation is only possible with the appropriate sort of government intervention in the economy. Bloomie proposes that we marry free trade and tax cuts to job training and incentivizing certain economic behaviors. That’s essentially the old D.L.C. message, and one that has been in exile for about a decade now. Bloomberg appears poised to resurrect the Third Way by running as a Clinton Democrat in 2012.

In so doing, Bloomberg is well positioned to become the Perot of the Left, siphoning away centrist and left-of-center voters who are unhappy with Obama but who can’t bring themselves to vote Republican. Bloomberg is in many ways the perfect candidate for the role of the Anti-Perot. Perot, a Texan, a veteran, and a plain-spoken individual, was a culturally appropriate candidate for right-of-center voters who were disenchanted with Bush 41. Similarly, Bloomie, an effete New Yorker with a wonkish style, would be a good fit for left-of-center voters who want to vote for a liberal, just not the liberal in the Oval Office. Perot attracted a wide array of disaffected Republicans, including deficit-hawks, Buchananites, and many old school moderates who liked Ross’ pre-Reagan detachment from social issues. Meanwhile, Bloomberg would be ideal for attracting the various strains of disaffected Democrats, including pro-Israel Dems, Clintonian budget-balancers, and perhaps very socially liberal Democrats who are frustrated with Obama’s disinterest in issues like DADT and gay marriage.

We all know how that story ended. Perot won about a fifth of the vote nationwide and almost certainly elected Bill Clinton to the presidency. So would Bloomberg likewise elect, say, Sarah Palin?

The answer is a resounding, “It depends.” Bloomberg will absolutely take the vast majority of his voters out of the Obama column. He might also win the Bush ’04/Obama ’08 voters, but even if the GOP is denied those voters, the Republican candidate will still garner most of the 46% of the vote that went to McCain in 2008. So theoretically, all Bloomberg has to do is grab 10-15 percent of the vote in order to make Sarah Palin President-elect.

I think this is all very likely, but with one caveat. The centrist and center-left voters who are planning to cast protest votes for Bloomberg will be aware that their votes are essentially helping to elect a Republican president. This was almost certainly the case in 1992 as well, when it was clear by Election Day that a vote for Perot was a vote for Bill Clinton. But my guess is that most Perot voters decided that they could live with a President Bill Clinton if it meant getting rid of President George Bush without actually pulling the dreaded “D” lever at the polling place. Similarly, in 1980, most John Anderson voters would have almost certainly cast ballots for Carter had the liberal independent not been in the race, and again, no serious observer thought Anderson had any shot of winning by Election Day. Anderson voters knew they were enabling a Reagan win, but they decided that a President Reagan was something they could live with.

But that hadn’t always been the case. Carter led Reagan for most of the campaign, even with Anderson in the race. Reagan only broke into a lead once he got the chance to make his case to the American people directly, through the debates and such. At that point, Americans realized that a Reagan presidency wouldn’t be the end of the republic, and may actually end up ushering in morning in America.

So how does this all tie into an Obama/Palin/Bloomberg race? Like Reagan, Palin can’t simply rely on Bloomberg to elect her president. If a Palin presidency is simply unfathomable to the Clinton Democrats, they’ll vote strategically and pull the lever once again for Obama. In that event, Bloomberg will be almost a non-factor. But if Palin is able to convince Americans that she is up to the job of being president, then many of those Clinton Democrats may decide to take a chance on Bloomberg, even if they are fully aware that they are helping to elect Palin.

Of course, there’s always the outside chance that Bloomberg could actually win the presidency, but such a result would be extremely unlikely, and would basically involve Bloomberg becoming the de facto Democrat in the race. In order to assemble an Electoral College majority, Bloomberg would have to win most of the Kerry states, plus a New Yorker-friendly red state like Florida. That’s because it’s nearly impossible to imagine Bloomie winning anything in Middle America. And if Obama were to become so marginalized that he essentially wasn’t even being treated as the Democratic nominee, he would probably pull an LBJ and “choose not to run” early on in the cycle so that the Democrats would have a shot at holding the White House with another candidate.

Gallup: In U.S., 67% Support Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Gallup: In U.S., Majority Supports Ratification of START Treaty

PPP (D) 2012 Michigan GOP Primary 

• Mitt Romney 22% [30%] (37%)
• Mike Huckabee 22% [14%] (12%)
• Sarah Palin 18% [17%] (24%)
• Newt Gingrich 15% [16%] (16%)
• Ron Paul 10% [8%] (6%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 7%

Among Conservatives

• Mitt Romney 23% [27%] (32%)
• Mike Huckabee 22% [15%] (13%)
• Sarah Palin 20% [19%] (29%)
• Newt Gingrich 17% [19%] (19%)
• Ron Paul 7% [9%] (6%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 6% 

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 22% [36%] (56%)
• Mike Huckabee 20% [11%] (14%)
• Ron Paul 15% [7%] (8%)
• Sarah Palin 12% [14%] (8%) 
• Newt Gingrich 11% [12%] (11%)
• Mitch Daniels 4%
• John Thune 2%
• Tim Pawlenty 0%
• Someone else/Undecided 10% 

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 22% [29%] (31%)
• Newt Gingrich 18% [17%] (24%)
• Sarah Palin 18% [17%] (26%)
• Mike Huckabee 16% [16%] (8%)
• Ron Paul 11% [9%] (9%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 8%

Among Women

• Mike Huckabee 27% [13%] (17%)
• Mitt Romney 22% [30%] (45%)
• Sarah Palin 17% [17%] (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% [15%] (7%) 
• Ron Paul 8% [7%] (3%)
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• John Thune 0%
• Someone else/Undecided 11%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 66% / 18% {+48%}
• Mike Huckabee 63% / 20% {+43%}
• Sarah Palin 64% / 28% {+36%}
• Newt Gingrich 52% / 26% {+26%}

Among Conservatives

• Mike Huckabee 73% / 14% {+59%}
• Sarah Palin 75% / 17% {+58%}
• Mitt Romney 72% / 15% {+57%}
• Newt Gingrich 60% / 19% {+41%}

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 53% / 27% {+26%}
• Mike Huckabee 38% / 35% {+3%}
• Newt Gingrich 32% / 43% {-11%}
• Sarah Palin 35% / 56% {-21%}

Survey of 400 Republican primary voters was conducted December 3-6, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.  Political ideology: 71% [67%] Conservative; 27% [31%] Moderate; 2% [2%] Liberal.  Results from the poll conducted September 17-19, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 25-27, 2010 are in parentheses.

Gallup: Majority of Americans Support DREAM Act

Redstate’s Dan McLaughlin has requested we “file & save” his prediction:

If you’ll permit me, I’m going to go on record with a very early prediction about 2012. Sarah Palin has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning endorsing Paul Ryan’s Roadmap as a good plan for rescuing the nation’s fiscal solvency. It’s far from the first time that former Gov. Palin has spoken warmly of Congressman Ryan and his ideas.

~snip~

But I will predict this now: if Sarah Palin is the nominee, she will pick Paul Ryan as her running mate. Ryan has a few things in common with Palin – he’s relatively young, telegenic, and a workout fanatic – but my guess is that Palin recognizes that the biggest knock on her is that she’s not regarded as a policy-details person, and Ryan of course is precisely that, a sharp communicator with a mastery of the details.

I will not be making any predictions anytime soon. But I will say that if Sarah Palin were to win the Republican nomination, she could do far worse than selecting Paul Ryan. Of course, having “45″ add “46″ to the ticket would be a terrific choice as well.

Read the rest of McLaughlin’s piece here.

Staff has confirmed that Sarah Palin will be traveling this weekend to Haiti along with Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham. They will be visiting a cholera clinic among other stops on their visit to Haiti. Sources have also confirmed that Palin is considering trips to Israel and the United Kingdom in 2011. These appear to be done in order to help build up her foreign policy credentials and, with Franklin Graham in tow, to help reach out to Evangelical voters. In addition, working with Franklin Graham serves as a direct, albeit subtle and passive aggressive, attack on Obama since he was recently removed from a Pentagon prayer circle. Here’s a quote from the Politico article:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is heading to Haiti this weekend with evangelist Franklin Graham, a Palin source confirmed to POLITICO. Palin and Graham will visit a cholera clinic in addition to other stops, as was first reported by CNN. The Haiti visit was the second foreign trip to surface Thursday. Palin is also planning possible visits next year to Israel and Britain. The Haiti trip could serve two distinct political purposes for Palin.

First, it provides an opportunity to expand her image and policy portfolio beyond her limited image as a darling of the tea party movement.

Second, she’ll be able to better establish her claim to evangelical voters if she chooses to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, one of Palin’s potential 2012 rivals, in the early 2008 GOP primaries and caucuses

_______________________________________________________

Matt Newman blogs at Old Line Elephant

Dude:

In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America’s Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.

On health care, it would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit—the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.

The Roadmap would also replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission’s proposals). Beyond that, Rep. Ryan proposes fundamental reform of Medicare for those under 55 by turning the current benefit into a voucher with which people can purchase their own care.

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap’s proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs. The current Medicaid system, the majority of which is paid for by the federal government but administered by the states, would be replaced by a block-grant system that would reward economizing states.

So far Palin is the only presidential candidate to endorse the Ryan plan, which would enact painful yet necessary changes to our tax code and entitlements in order to spur economic growth and return the nation to fiscal sanity. Ryan’s plan is complex, but it can essentially be boiled down to a two-pronged approach to federal economic and fiscal policy: 1) raise revenue via the flattest system of taxation possible (i.e., end most middle class tax deductions) and 2) personalize and means-test most domestic spending (i.e., end giveaways to middle class Americans who don’t need them). This allows government to continue to provide a safety net that avoids a tragedy of the commons while ensuring that everyone pays into the system, thus putting downward political pressure on the growth of government and providing for the most efficient allocation of capital. What this means in a nutshell is that the middle class gives up its free lunch. And any honest observer who understands economic and fiscal policy will tell you that the free lunch has to go in order to get this nation back on track. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

So good for Sarah for endorsing Ryanomics. If only our many other GOP presidential hopefuls had the courage to do so as well.

The draft movements have already begun to take form for candidates – some formal, some less so. Draft Jim DeMint is a more formal organization – with organizers in over 25 states. Here’s the site’s goal:

This site has been created to serve as a rally point for citizens interested in drafting US Sen. Jim DeMint for President in 2012. We are not affiliated with the Jim DeMint for Sentate campaign or his senatorial staff. This is an independent movement to energize the presidential primary electorate and to show our support for Jim DeMint. Through our combined effort we hope and pray that Sen. DeMint will seriously consider seeking the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

One of our goals at DraftJimDeMint.com is to allow our community to decide how we should grow. We are very much interested in hearing from you and any feedback you may have. Please contact us if you have any questions, ideas or suggestions.

God Bless,
Draft Jim DeMint

It’s interesting to see who’s getting the base excited enough to generate independent draft movements. It’ll be more interesting to see where these groups go in the coming months.
_______________________________________________________

Matt Newman blogs at Old Line Elephant

2010 makes the third year in a row in which Sarah Palin has made Barbara Walters’ list of the 10 most fascinating people of the year. Here’s a snippet of tonight’s feauture interview, which will air on ABC at 10pm EST:

Rasmussen Presidential Approval Daily Tracking Poll

• Strongly Approve 27%
• Approve 19%
• Disapprove 12%
• Strongly Disapprove 41%

Total Approve: 46% – Total Disapprove: 53%

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error-for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis.

Already?

Draft Marco Rubio

To beat Obama, Republicans must find a candidate who inspires us like Ronald Reagan did and can withstand the inevitable attacks of the Obama machine.

Every current Republican presidential candidate either has substantial baggage that makes them an inviting target for Obama or simply fails to inspire America to be great again. That’s why we must draft Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio scares Barack Obama. That’s why Obama sent Bill Clinton to beg the Democrat to drop out of the race in order to use Charlie Crist to end Marco Rubio’s career. It didn’t work. Marco Rubio beat back Obama’s candidates and won by 20%.

Not convinced? Take the Marco Rubio Challenge. Listen to Marco Rubio’s story in his own words. We don’t need to wish for Ronald Reagan’s return anymore: we have Marco Rubio.

I don’t know… “45″ sounds a bit early. But “46″ sounds just about right.

PPP (D) Minnesota 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 42%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Tim Pawlenty 43%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Mike Huckabee 40%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Newt Gingrich 38%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Sarah Palin 36%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 42%
• Mitt Romney 40%

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mike Huckabee 35%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Tim Pawlenty 38%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 31%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Sarah Palin 31%

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 62%
• Mitt Romney 26%

• Barack Obama 68%
• Tim Pawlenty 25%

• Barack Obama 68%
• Mike Huckabee 22%

• Barack Obama 68%
• Newt Gingrich 21%

• Barack Obama 73%
• Sarah Palin 19%

Among Conservatives

• Mitt Romney 79%
• Barack Obama 8%

• Tim Pawlenty 81%
• Barack Obama 11%

• Mike Huckabee 77%
• Barack Obama 10%

• Newt Gingrich 73%
• Barack Obama 12%

• Sarah Palin 71%
• Barack Obama 14%

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 50%
• Barack Obama 40%

• Tim Pawlenty 50%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Mike Huckabee 45%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Newt Gingrich 44%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Sarah Palin 43%

Among Women

• Barack Obama 54%
• Mitt Romney 36%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Mike Huckabee 35%

• Barack Obama 58%
• Tim Pawlenty 35%

• Barack Obama 58%
• Newt Gingrich 32%

• Barack Obama 59%
• Sarah Palin 30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Huckabee 37% / 40% {-3%}
• Mitt Romney 32% / 42% {-10%}
• Newt Gingrich 30% / 52% {-22%}
• Sarah Palin 35% / 60% {-25%}

Among Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 64% / 16% {+48%}
• Sarah Palin 70% / 23% {+47%}
• Newt Gingrich 58% / 21% {+37%}
• Mitt Romney 53% / 23% {+30%}

Among Independents

• Mike Huckabee 39% / 37% {+2%}
• Mitt Romney 37% / 35% {+2%}
• Newt Gingrich 28% / 51% {-23%}
• Sarah Palin 32% / 62% {-30%}

Among Men

• Mike Huckabee 41% / 41% {0%}
• Mitt Romney 38% / 41% {-3%}
• Newt Gingrich 38% / 45% {-7%}
• Sarah Palin 39% / 56% {-17%}

Among Women

• Mike Huckabee 33% / 38% {-5%}
• Mitt Romney 27% / 43% {-16%}
• Sarah Palin 31% / 63% {-32%}
• Newt Gingrich 22% / 58% {-36%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Tim Pawlenty’s job performance?

• Approve 43% (43%)
• Disapprove 53% (50%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 56%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 49% (43%)
• Disapprove 46% (49%)

Among Independents

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 44%

Survey of 949 Minnesota voters was conducted December 4-5, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% (36%) Democrat; 34% (31%) Republican; 29% (33%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 41% (43%) Moderate; 39% (37%) Conservative; 20% (21%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 27-29, 2010 are in parentheses.

Hat tip: Kristofer Lorelli

PPP (D) Minnesota 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Amy Klobuchar (D) 53%
• Tim Pawlenty (R) 43%

• Amy Klobuchar (D) 54%
• Norm Coleman (R) 40%

• Amy Klobuchar (D) 56%
• Michele Bachmann (R) 39%

• Amy Klobuchar (D) 56%
• Tom Emmer (R) 38%

• Amy Klobuchar (D) 52%
• Erik Paulsen (R) 34%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Norm Coleman 43% / 42% {+1%}
• Erik Paulsen 22% / 22% {0%}
• Tom Emmer 37% / 49% {-12%}
• Michele Bachmann 37% / 51% {-14%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Amy Klobuchar’s job performance?

• Approve 59%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Al Franken’s job performance?

• Approve 45%
• Disapprove 42%

Survey of 949 Minnesota voters was conducted December 4-5, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% Democrat; 34% Republican; 29% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 41% Moderate; 39% Conservative; 20% Liberal.

PPP (D) Massachusetts 2012 GOP Primary

• Mitt Romney 47%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Mike Huckabee 10%
• Tim Pawlenty 4%
• Ron Paul 3%
• John Thune 2%
• Mitch Daniels 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 9%

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 39%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Mike Huckabee 10%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Ron Paul 4%
• John Thune 4%
• Mitch Daniels 0%
• Someone else/Undecided 10%

Among Women

• Mitt Romney 55%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Mike Huckabee 11%
• Newt Gingrich 7%
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• Ron Paul 2%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• John Thune 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 7%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 73% / 20% {+53%}
• Sarah Palin 60% / 31% {+29%}
• Mike Huckabee 56% / 27% {+29%}
• Newt Gingrich 53% / 27% {+26%}

Among Conservatives

• Mitt Romney 82% / 14% {+68%}
• Sarah Palin 70% / 19% {+51%}
• Newt Gingrich 65% / 16% {+49%}
• Mike Huckabee 67% / 20% {+47%}

Among Moderates

• Mitt Romney 62% / 26% {+36%}
• Mike Huckabee 42% / 36% {+6%}
• Sarah Palin 45% / 47% {-2%}
• Newt Gingrich 35% / 43% {-8%}

Survey of 300 Republican primary voters was conducted November 29 – December 1, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5.7 percentage points. Political ideology: 58% Conservative; 39% Moderate; 2% Liberal.

According to the polling average over at Real Clear Politics, President Obama currently sports a 46% approval rating.

According to a recent poll that asked Americans to rate the performance of past presidents, former President George W. Bush now has a 47% approval rating.

Given that the embattled former POTUS is essentially edging the current POTUS by a 47%-46% margin, doesn’t the case for Dubya’s younger, smarter, more accomplished, more conservative brother jumping into the race simply write itself? Oh, and did I mention this particular sibling was twice elected governor of Florida, the nation’s largest swing state? And that he’s a southerner who doesn’t give off Dixie’s often polarizing cultural cues?

If there were any candidate that I could imagine bringing North Carolina and Virginia back into the fold while also having a real shot at Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, it would be Jeb. I think Huck would have a real shot at the former, but I’m not so sure about the latter. I think Romney would be great at the latter, but not necessarily the former. And Palin is simply poison among Independents everywhere. But Jeb could play well throughout both Red and Purple America, and could run a conservative campaign that also appeals to swing voters. Go, Jeb, go?

We’ve heard that quote a lot from the right; that Obama’s sheer incompetence is rivaling that of our 39^th President. However, the source of my most recent encounter with this idea will come as a bit of a shock; a liberal academic.

I was talking today with one of my history professors. He is an admitted liberal, who has a pretty good grasp of what is going on, and I respect his opinions and he respects mine. Anyways, we were talking about the tax-cuts for unemployment benefits deal that the President has reached with Congress. My professor was lamenting the utter failure of the President and the Democrats to frame the debate in their favor. He said that he has no respect for the President’s political skills, because my professor doesn’t believe the President has any. Then he said the above-quoted phrase.

Not only that, but my professor called the President “tone-deaf”, particularly for his failure to focus on jobs and the economy and instead go off on the health-care tangent that we all remember so well. My professor also said that he feels that the President talks at people instead of talking to people. This is where the Jimmy Carter comparison came in; the “malaise speech” seems to be the best example of this.

Now, one professor does not a consensus make, but it is very telling that without being prompted, the first person he compared the President to was Jimmy Carter. We all know how well Carter was at turning his Presidency around and how successful he was in getting re-elected. It is interesting to know that now even members of the left are calling this President a failure. Whether the Democratic Party is willing to dump Carter 2.0 remains to be seen. But nonetheless, the cracks in the Obama Coalition are becoming more like much deeper rifts.

PPP (D) Michigan 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 43%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Rick Snyder 38%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mike Huckabee 39%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

• Barack Obama 56%
• Sarah Palin 35%

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 42%
• Mitt Romney 41%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Rick Snyder 35%

• Barack Obama 52%
• Mike Huckabee 31%

• Barack Obama 55%
• Newt Gingrich 28%

• Barack Obama 62%
• Sarah Palin 26%

Among Moderates

• Barack Obama 59%
• Mitt Romney 29%

• Barack Obama 61%
• Rick Snyder 22%

• Barack Obama 65%
• Newt Gingrich 20%

• Barack Obama 67%
• Mike Huckabee 20%

• Barack Obama 72%
• Sarah Palin 17%

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 50%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Mike Huckabee 44%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 44%
• Rick Snyder 43%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Newt Gingrich 43%

• Barack Obama 50%
• Sarah Palin 39%

Among Women

• Barack Obama 52%
• Mitt Romney 36%

• Barack Obama 54%
• Rick Snyder 32%

• Barack Obama 59%
• Mike Huckabee 33%

• Barack Obama 59%
• Newt Gingrich 29%

• Barack Obama 61%
• Sarah Palin 31%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Snyder 48% / 26% {+22%}
• Mitt Romney 39% / 37% {+2%}
• Mike Huckabee 37% / 40% {-3%}
• Newt Gingrich 28% / 50% {-22%}
• Sarah Palin 34% / 60% {-26%}

Among Republicans

• Rick Snyder 68% / 7% {+61%}
• Mike Huckabee 66% / 18% {+48%}
• Mitt Romney 63% / 21% {+42%}
• Sarah Palin 65% / 24% {+41%}
• Newt Gingrich 57% / 19% {+38%}

Among Independents

• Rick Snyder 52% / 24% {+28%}
• Mitt Romney 43% / 34% {+9%}
• Mike Huckabee 29% / 43% {-14%}
• Newt Gingrich 20% / 59% {-39%}
• Sarah Palin 28% / 68% {-40%}

Among Men

• Rick Snyder 53% / 28% {+25%}
• Mitt Romney 46% / 41% {+5%}
• Mike Huckabee 39% / 44% {-5%}
• Sarah Palin 38% / 57% {-19%}
• Newt Gingrich 34% / 54% {-20%}

Among Women

• Rick Snyder 42% / 26% {+16%}
• Mitt Romney 33% / 32% {+1%}
• Mike Huckabee 34% / 35% {-1%}
• Newt Gingrich 21% / 46% {-25%}
• Sarah Palin 31% / 62% {-31%}

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 45%

Among Men

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 51%

Among Women

• Approve 56%
• Disapprove 39%

Survey of 1,224 Michigan voters was conducted December 3-6, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 35% Democrat; 35% Republican; 29% Independent/Other.  Political ideology: 45% Moderate; 38% Conservative; 17% Liberal.

The 2012 presidential election campaign will be somewhat shorter than the last one, but that may be one of the few aspects of it we might be grateful for in the next 23 months.

Media discussion of 2012, and endless polling about it is, of course, well underway, and many if not most of the candidates have already privately made their decisions about whether they will run or not. Instead of a flurry of announcements immediately following the 2010 mid-term elections, or waiting even until the early days of 2011, however, the major candidates appear to be holding back until March, April or May to declare their intentions publicly and formally organize their campaigns.

The overwhelming inclination, of course, is to try to rate the odds of the various potential contenders on the Republican side, and to assume that incumbent President Obama will be renominated. I will do neither here. To the latter assumption, I will point out what I have suggested in the months preceding the 2010 midterm elections, that is, Mr. Obama may not be chosen again by his party to lead its ticket in the next election. This would be historically quite a remarkable outcome for a first-term chief executive, but his performance so far has been notably unimpressive, and as we already saw at the end of the 2010 campaign, a number of his own party’s candidates openly criticized him and his policies, a phenomenon that continues as 2011 approaches. This would be mild compared to the mood of Democratic candidates in late 2011 and early 2012 if it appeared that the president has not righted his ship and achieved an economic turnaround. As happened in 1968, 1980 and in 1992, a first-term incumbent president in trouble will eventually be challenged for renomination.

A number of pundits, however, are assuming that within 18 months a clear economic recovery is virtually a certainty, and that in spite of present circumstances, Mr. Obama will be easily re-elected. They, of course, are assuming that this downturn, like downnturns in the past, will be normally cyclical and relatively short-lived. I would suggest, however, that historically presidents have acted in such a way as to help the natural cyclical forces put the economy back in order. Furthermore, previous recent recessions have occurred when the U.S. was the world’s clearly dominant economy and market. By exacerbating economic weakness with continued bailouts, federal deficit spending and proposed higher taxes, and particularly by undermining the huge health care sector with an unworkable program of healthcare reform legislation, I have been suggesting that President Obama and his administration are, in reality, prolonging the economic downturn and making a turnaround in employment, return of solid consumer confidence, and a general across-the-board increase in corporate earnings quite difficult if not improbable in the short-to- intermediate term (here defined at the next 18-23 months).

Yes, if by the spring of 2012, U.S. unemployment has dropped to 5-6%, if the stock market is soaring because corporate earnings are clearly up, and if we are back in a boom economy here and abroad, Barack Obama’s political fortunes will likewise recover and he would probably win re-election by a clear margin. But in order for that to happen, the economy’s natural and organic market forces need to be allowed to work. Higher taxes, larger deficits, and constant government interventions are no prescription for an economy to become healthy. I point out one more time that incumbent Democratic presidents Kennedy and Clinton in very recent times understood this, and acted with conservative principles in their economic policies. This is not, nor should it be a partisan ideological issue. It is an issue about how a modern democratic capitalist economy works.

Who the Republican nominee will be in 2012 may depend on whether Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee or not. If he is not the nominee, the whole contest is a different one. But let us, for the moment, assume that the economy, while not fully recovered, is at least arguably improved, and that, as the incumbent, Mr. Obama is able to prevail at his party’s convention in early autumn, 2012.

I said I would not handicap the potential Republican contenders, but it might be useful, even at this early moment in the campaign, to discuss the field.

Conventional wisdom has former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the early frontrunner. Few would dispute this, but as most observers of national politics know, such a designation means little before the actual campaign takes place. More often than not, frontrunners do not make it to the finish line in presidential politics. Mr. Romney does have the advantage of being the runner-up in 2008, he has already run a full-scale campaign for the nomination, he has unlimited personal funds, he has a successful life experience to talk about, and Republicans already know who he is.

Two other major candidates from 2008 are also thought to be likely candidates for president in 2012. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee leads in many GOP polls. He won the Iowa caucus last time, and was a player throughout the campaign. Some think he may have waited too long to concede that year, but his subsequent career as a popular TV host and commentator have kept him in the public eye. Of the major four potential candidates, however, he is probably the one most likely not to choose to run, but his popularity in the polls should not be underestimated.

Former Alaska Governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a political phenomenon often misunderstood in the media. The most polarizing major potential candidate, her rapport with the GOP base, especially its conservative populist base is powerful and growing. The one-sided treatment of her by many in the media during the 2008 campaign, and subsequently to the present time, has perhaps hurt her politically in the short-term, yet she shows a public resilience that should not be overlooked. In a knock-down and grueling GOP primary/caucus campaign, she could emerge the strongest of all. She may not run, but the signs are that she will.

Perhaps rated by many as the least likely major candidate to win the prize is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Generally agreed to be the “brains” of the GOP field, Mr. Gingrich is also generally believed to be “fatally” weighed down by his past “baggage” that includes issues involving his marriages and his term as speaker. The assessment of his mental capacities is correct, but the assessment of his “baggage” may not be. One of the few true “Lazaruses” in American politics, for the past 12 years, Mr. Gingrich has created a remarkable track record of speaking to and innovating in major public policy issues, writing popular books about American history, and in solidifying his personal life. Gingrich in 2009 was a well-known GOP figure registering low single digits in all the polls. Today he is usually in the top four, and some states, leads the field. He has carefully avoided criticizing his rivals, and it should not be overlooked that he is the most experienced strategist in the GOP field.

The next tier of candidates includes current and successful Republican governors. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Governor Mitch Daniel of Indiana, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey have each already demonstrated considerable executive skills. Mr. Barbour has the most experience of the four, and Mr. Christie the least, but both of them are genuinely charismatic. Mr. Pawlenty, without being charismatic, is nontheless a remarkably effective communicator, and has showed much grit in his two terms in Minnesota, not raising taxes or public spending, with a hostile legislature dominated by the other party pressuring him to do both. Mr. Daniels’ record in Indiana may be the most impressive of all, although so far he has not shown a memorable public personality. (Neither did another governor named Woodrow Wilson.) Any of these four men are seriously prepared to be president, and could emerge in a hard fought nominating campaign.

The other serious Republican potential presidential candidates include Senator John Thune of North Dakota, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylania. Mr. Giuliani, of course, is the most well-known in this group, but any of them, in the right circumstances might become major candidates, although I doubt that any of them will be finalists in this contest.

Finally, there is always the possibility of a late entrant, not named here. Yes, but considering the field listed above, this is not very likely with less than two years to go. Senator-elect Marco Rubio is sometimes mentioned, and if he performs in his new office, he would clearly be a major player in presidential contests beyond 2012. So would former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is still weighed down by the family name.

Not all of the twelve listed above will run. Of those who do, the most serious contenders will emerge by the end of 2011, and then be tested in the early primary and caucus battles of 2012. So many circumstances and conditions will determine who the finalists will be. Not the least of which will be the interaction of their personalities with the GOP voters. Perhaps, as is often the case, “charisma” will be the difference. Or the seriousness of the times may make ideas and track records more important. As I suggested at the outset, the state of the economy, the state of the world and any now unpredicted circumstances will even more likely play the largest role in the selection of the person to run for this, the most important role of all in American public life.

Race42012 is officially back online. Please check back frequently throughout the day (every day until election day!) for breaking news and commentary on the 2012 presidential race.

The former Godfathers Pizza CEO and current talk show host told FOX News’ Neil Cavuto that he is “prayerfully considering” a potential presidential run:

“We could be talking about an exploratory committee real soon,” Cain, a Republican, told Fox News host Neil Cavuto.

When first asked by Cavuto if he plans to run for president, Cain, a favorite on the Tea Party circuit, repeated his often-used answer that he’s still “prayerfully considering” a campaign.

During an interview with The Daily Caller in October, Cain acknowledged that he would face significant hurdles, considering he’s not nearly as well-known as other potential candidates. But Cain, who hosts a radio show, suggested he could use that to his advantage, arguing voters are “ready for a non-establishment candidate.”

Hat-tip: The Daily Caller (who has the full story and video)

The race for RNC Chair gets more crowded by the day, but the pool of candidates still seems to lack that special someone who really embodies the Tea Party spirit, while at the same time knows his or her way around the political establishment, and who has successful electoral experience.

I suggest drafting Barry Goldwater, Jr. to run for Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Why?

1. Goldwater has run seven successful campaigns.

After working on his father’s presidential campaign, Barry Goldwater, Jr. went on to run successfully for Congress seven times, serving for fourteen consecutive years.  Goldwater has learned from the mistakes of lost campaigns, and he knows what it takes to win.  Furthermore, he won his House races as a conservative Republican in the state of California.  Granted, it was during a time when CA was more purple than the deep blue it is today, but it was certainly no Idaho.

Moreover, he’s not just a political strategist who’s spent so long inside political campaigns that he’s lost touch with average Americans.  He’s been a business executive, a stockbroker, a philanthropist, and an academic.  During the worst economic environment since the Great Depression, we will need a Party that can assure struggling Americans that we know what it takes to create jobs.

2. Goldwater can represent the Tea Party voice.

Love or hate the Tea Party, it has become an integral segment of the conservative movement.  Some might even say it is the conservative movement.  While many GOPers are disappointed with some of their picks (Angle, Buck, O’Donnell), it has to be said that Tea Party energy and fundraising played a huge role in giving us some really great wins (Brown, Paul, Toomey, Rubio, Haley, Kasich).

If we want to keep Tea Party energy working primarily to elect Republican candidates (as opposed to third party candidates), then we need an RNC Chair who can really claim to be a voice for the movement.  Who better than someone who actually is a Tea Partier?  Goldwater has been a consistent voice for free markets and individual liberty, having earned the American Conservative Union’s “Conscience of the Congress” Award.  Even based on his name alone, Tea Partiers know he is someone who can be trusted.

3. Goldwater knows how to navigate the establishment.

As someone who supported both John McCain and Ron Paul for President in 2008, Goldwater is respected by all flanks of the GOP, from the most mainstream center-right, to the most hardcore libertarians.  The real task for the next RNC Chair will not be to ensure that Republicans have a favorable year in 2012.  That is pretty much already guaranteed.  All the RNC Chair in 2012 needs to do is stay out of the way and let the second wave happen.

What the next RNC Chair will need to do is successfully unite the libertarian/Tea Party faction with the centrist/establishment faction and get them working together on the important issues.  He or she will need the respect of, and working relationships with, both the Ron Pauls and the John McCains of the Party to make that happen.

Having played an integral role in two of the most seminal national campaigns of the modern era (Goldwater and Reagan), and having spent two decades inside the Beltway, Goldwater has the connections and knowledge to successfully guide the Republican Party into 2012 and beyond.

If you too would like another option in the race for RNC Chairman, please join me in calling upon Barry Goldwater, Jr. to throw his hat into the ring.

PPP (D) Missouri 2012 Republican Primary

• Mike Huckabee 27% (32%)
• Sarah Palin 25% (28%)
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Mitt Romney 14% (22%)
• Ron Paul 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• John Thune 2%
• Mitch Daniels 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 9%

(more…)

It seems everyone and their brother wants to take on Michael Steele for the job of RNC Chair. By my count, there are now 4 announced candidates for the job: Saul Anuzis of Michigan, Ann Wagner of Missouri, Mike Duncan of Kentucky, and the newest person to join the chase Reince Priebus of Wisconsin. Priebus made his announcement today.

So, now there are 4 candidates for the job of RNC Chair. This shows, I believe, the great dissatisfaction with the tenure of Michael Steele. Priebus’s decision in fact, is a blow to Steele. Priebus was one of Steele’s main backers during the last RNC Chair race and a member of Steele’s “kitchen cabinet”. The fact that he is challenging Steele is an indication about how bad Steele truly is as Chairman.

Simply put, Michael Steele needs to go. He simply is not up to the job of being RNC Chair and it showed in the 2010 election. The RNC did not raise enough money, it encountered a lot of bad press, and the vaunted 72-hr GOTV program did not operate. It’s impossible to say, but we might be looking at Governor-elect Brady or Senator-elect Rossi or Senator-elect Buck if there had been an RNC that could aid these candidates.

What else is interesting to me is where these potential Chairs are coming from. Depending on how you classify Mike Duncan’s Kentucky, and Michael Steele’s Maryland, all the announced or soon-to-be announced candidates (including Marie Cino of NY and Chris Healey of CT) come from outside of the South. Three of them are in fact from the Midwest. It seems to me that the RNC Race for Chair is showing that the GOP is trying to consolidate our gains in the Midwest that we made in 2010. In 2012, places like OH, MI, WI, IA, MO and MN are going to be battlegrounds and possibly where the election will be decided. The RNC, and the Republican Party in general, need to focus like a laser on the Midwest and build the organization we need to win the Midwest and the Presidency in 2012.

The race for RNC Chair is very fluid right now, with more candidates probably jumping in soon and Steele’s decision yet to be disclosed. What is clear though is that there will a wide variety of candidates and visions for the RNC that the 168 members of the Committee will have to sort through and decide upon when they vote in January.