With this year’s legislative session in Indiana just days away from wrapping up, the state’s governor, Mitch Daniels, may find that the final stroke of his pen has the potential to make or break his possible presidential campaign. Largely ignored by the national punditocracy until now, HB 1210, which was just approved by both chambers of Indiana’s legislature, would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, or after fetal viability, whichever comes first. This legislation has largely been touted as a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood in the state, and it would do that as well, but the abortion ban, with the only exceptions being a threat to the life or physical health of the mother, seems to make this bill far more significant.

Should Gov. Daniels sign this bill into law, he will immediately become a hero to the pro-life community. And given that the life issue is at the core of the social conservative movement, Daniels will, in one stroke of his pen, negate months of needless damage to his so-con street cred that resulted from his sloppy, and largely misinterpreted, use of the word “truce” when describing how Republicans should approach cultural issues. Should Daniels follow this act with an announcement that he is running for president, perhaps next week once state business is wrapped up in Indiana, he will immediately scatter the field.

Mike Huckabee, who is reportedly under pressure from his employer to fish or cut bait when it comes to the presidency, will have one less reason to jump into the race, given that a piece of so-con dream legislation will just have been signed into law by the race’s latest entrant, Gov. Daniels. At that point, the “serious” candidates in the race, i.e., the candidates who will be viewed by the opinion makers as potential presidents and not sideshows, niche candidates, or washed up former Speakers, will include Gov. Romney, Gov. Pawlenty, Gov. Huntsman, and Gov. Daniels. Of those candidates, it’s difficult to imagine conservative primary voters selecting a former Obama appointee who embraces the green agenda, or the architect of what many GOP voters view as the prototype for ObamaCare, over an equally intelligent, competent, well-spoken executive who designed a conservative version of health care reform while governor, and who will be unabashedly clothing himself in Paul Ryan’s tax and entitlement reform ideas. That leaves Gov. Pawlenty as Gov. Daniels’ only foe. But Daniels’ signature on HB 1210 will remove any rationale for conservatives to support T-Paw, who has been cautious in his approach to Ryanomics, over Daniels, who was in support of Ryanomics before it was cool.

Should Daniels veto this bill, however, he will likely kiss his presidential dreams goodbye. Candidate Daniels will then enter the field as a fiscal conservative and newly minted social liberal. He’ll be Rudy Giuliani without the bombastic personality, or Gary Johnson without the libertarian following. Given the manner in which American politics is aligned and organized, it is unlikely that a candidate perceived to be a social liberal, despite his level of, or prowess pertaining to, economic and fiscal conservatism will be able to win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. Put simply, if Rudy Giuliani couldn’t do it in 2008, it’s something that’s just not going to happen absent a large-scale realignment of the two parties. As such, if Daniels plans to veto HB 1210, he should follow up that veto with an announcement that he plans to stay out of the presidential race.

If he signs the bill, though, Gov. Daniels will stand alone in the presidential field as an electable conservative, with executive experience, with a primary focus on shrinking government, reorganizing entitlements, and flattening the tax code, and with accomplishments that include market-based health care reform, the country’s broadest school voucher program, and possibly the most significant piece of pro-life legislation of our era. He will go from 0 to 60 overnight with the GOP grassroots. He will go from dark horse establishment favorite to likely Republican nominee.

Marist/McClatchy Survey on Barack Obama and the Economy

Do you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 57%

Among Democrats

• Approve 71%
• Disapprove 27%

Among Republicans

• Approve 11%
• Disapprove 87%

Among Independents

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 63%

(more…)

Aaron Blake, of the Washington Post, has offered an alternative, less cynical, view of the Obama administration’s decision to release the President’s birth certificate:

But if you look at the president’s statements at this morning’s press conference, you get an idea of why he decided now was the time.

The president expressed the need for the country to be able to have respectable debate about real issues.

“We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other,” he said. “We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

In other words, the issue only provided more division in American politics, and Obama badly wants to come off as a uniter. This is a message that has worked for him before and can continue to.

So while Obama may seem weak for finally succumbing to the pressure, he makes a strong play for voters in the middle — who are, by and large, not birthers — and comes off as the adult in the room.

This explanation makes sense, as Obama has taken obvious pains to portray himself as “above the fray” – one of the supposed qualities that attracted many Independents to his 2008 campaign.

Depicting the President as a non-ideological, steadfast uniter has its merits: the media, in Obama’s pocket since 2007, have not forced him to answer to the reality that he has now served as President for over two years, with his party controlling both houses of Congress for most of that time, yet has done little, if anything, to address the existential threat the debt and deficit now pose.

Via Hot Air and Process Story, word is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is giving his former South Carolina supporters the O.K. to sign on with other potential candidates.

We’ve been told that former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a rumored candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is giving his former S.C. supporters the nod to seek work on other presidential campaigns. The word is that he’s told South Carolina staffers that they have his blessing for them to peddle their wares elsewhere.

These rumors come on the heels of reports of Fox News putting pressure on Huckabee to come to a decision:

Bill Shine, the network’s executive vice president for programming, told The Daily Beast that “like we did with Gingrich and Santorum, we are continuing to monitor the situation and will take action if and when we think it is necessary.” Fox has planned a meeting with Huckabee in the near future to discuss the matter, said Shine.

Whether the rumors hold up or not, these certainly are not the kind of process stories that a fledgling campaign would like to see.

UPDATE: Huck’s team contests the report.

Conventional wisdom has it that, in a presidential election year, control of the house and senate will depend on who wins the presidential race, if they flip at all. Even the most optimistic Democratic projections put a house take-over as highly unlikely, so all eyes will be on the senate. Here again, the assumption has been that senate control will depend largely on the presidential race.

But, it’s worth asking: is this necessarily the case? An argument can be made that Obama could win reelection, and lose effective control of the senate, even on a very good night for him. The argument rests on three premises: Democrats have few if any offensive targets, Republicans have at least a few targeted seats that they can win even if Obama has coat-tails, and a close senate will put immense pressure on the party loyalty of Joe Manchin, and other red state Democrats.

First, what seats can Democrats really reasonably target? Some seats–Wyoming, Idaho, Tennessee, Mississippi–can probably be eliminated; Democrats will be fortunate to field candidates in WY, ID and MS at all, at this point. Texas can probably be written off, and even the fact that Democrats are thinking of playing Charlie Brown to the Texan electorate’s Lucy is a sign of Democratic desperation. Texas might–possibly–be a swingier state in ten to fifteen years, assuming Democrats maintain a very dominant share of the Latino voters in the state (about which I’m somewhat skeptical given Republicans’ slight over-performing of their national numbers with Latinos in Texas), but 2012 is not likely to be their year. Environmental factors would favor Democrats in Massachusetts, but Scott Brown has proven to be an exceptionally effective politician, and his war chest and polling strength have thus far deterred most serious challengers. Maine could be competitive for Democrats if Olympia Snowe is not the Republican nominee, but even a full-court-press from the Tea Party Express hasn’t scared up a viable challenger. Indiana is the exact opposite situation: Richard Lugar has drawn a very strong challenger, but even if Rep. Joe Donnelly runs for senate, Democrats’ chances here against Richard Mourdock would be less than optimal. This leaves Democrats with two reasonable pick-up opportunities, Arizona and Nevada. Democrats realistically probably only have one candidate who can win in AZ, Gabrielle Giffords. If Giffords recovers fully, then decides to instantly pivot to a senate race in loo of running for reelection, this one could be close. If not, the race is–as it stands–probably Jeff Flake’s to lose. Nevada will likely be a closely-fought contest, determined at least in part by the environment. That said, Dean Heller is likely to be a better statewide candidate than Shelley Berkley. While Heller has run and won statewide, Berkley’s Las Vegas area seat has been the most solidly Democratic of the three house districts, and Berkley herself has a reputation as a weak debater. Add to this the likelihood that governor Sandoval will appoint Heller to the seat once John Ensign retires, and it seems likely the edge goes to the GOP here (for a contrasting take, the liberal blog Swing State Project argues that Heller’s numbers have declined–particularly with Democrats–as he has become more well-known, and that incumbency could be a double-edged sword for him). I think Democrats could probably–if the stars align perfectly–make serious bids for two or three of these seats. On the other hand, a lot of DSCC resources are going to be spent on the defensive; Democrats, after all, have a lot of seats to defend.

There are a grand total of 23 seats for Democrats to defend in 2012, compared to ten Republicans. Numerically, therefore, the playing field heavily disfavors Democrats. It would not be surprising for a Democratic incumbent or two to under-perform Obama in 2012, even in states he wins. I won’t go into detail about most of the competitive races, because they are almost all in either swing states or states Obama won last time. However, Republicans need four pick-ups for an outright senate take-over, and it just so happens that four Democratic seats are sitting in seats Obama lost in 2008: ND, MT, NE and MO. Democrats can (and probably will) write off North Dakota, and with Republican office-holders in the state making a super hard sell to Rep. Rick Berg, he’ll probably get in, and win with relative ease. Ben Nelson recently told a home state audience he was still undecided on a 2012 run, and with Nebraska AG John Bruning running well ahead of him in lots and lots of polling, and with a tricky healthcare vote to defend, his prospects don’t look great. Montana is one case where, even in victory, Obama could hurt the incumbent. John Tester and Rep. Denny Rehberg are neck and neck in almost all polling thus far, and Tester just barely beat scandal-tarred Conrad Burns in the Democratic blow-out year of 2006. I’d still call this race a toss-up, but the environment doesn’t look great for Tester. Finally, there’s Missouri. Claire McCaskill has had recent “unpaid taxes on privately owned jet” type issues, and if Rep. Todd Akin–as now appears likely–jumps into this race, he could make it a contest. The biggest concern for Republicans here would be a bruising primary between Akin and treasurer Sarah Steelman, but given Steelman’s enemic fund-raising and the cold shoulder she’s gotten from local tea party groups, the path for Akin looks easier than it first appeared. If Republicans can manage to avoid taking any losses, and pick up these four senate seats in rough territory for Obama, it’s very plausible they could take the senate, while winning the exact same number of electoral votes they did in 2008.

Of course, this scenario is not likely. McCaskill and Tester (and Nelson if he opts to run again) will doubtless do all in their power to differentiate themselves from Obama, and it’s quite plausible at least one of them will be successful. More likely, in the event of an Obama victory in 2012,  is a tie senate, or a narrow, one seat advantage for Democrats. But, how much is a one seat advantage really worth to Democrats, if the seat in question is held by, for example, Joe Manchin? Manchin is the ultimate conservative Democrat from a state which likes local Democrats to be basically conservative in orientation. How far can Manchin really afford to vote with Obama in his second term? This goes double for some of the red state Democrats up in 2014. Will Mark Pryor, Mary Landreu, Mark Begich or Tim Johnson really want to cast the deciding vote for the Obama agenda, with the prospect of staring unhappy voters in the face two years later looming over them? What about centrist-governor-turned-reliable-liberal-senator Mark Warner of Virginia? And, in a narrow Democratic majority, particularly a one-seat majority or one in which Joe Biden casts the deciding vote, the NRSC will have an absolute field day tarring every one of these conservative Democrats as the “deciding vote for Obama’s agenda”. Thus, even if the president’s party holds the senate in 2012, it is likely–perhaps almost certain–to take losses, meaning Democrats in red to red-leaning states will have the choice of voting with the President and harming their reelection chances, or voting their constituent’s desires.

Naturally, my hope is that Obama does not win reelection. Even if he does, however, and even if his coat-tails are sufficient to maintain a narrow Democratic edge in the senate, Obama’s second term is likely to be a very frustrating one. Without control of the house, and with a functional majority opposing him in the senate, Obama is likely to find that, even more so than most second-term presidents in recent history, he is unable to accomplish anything, a virtual lame duck on day 1. That’s not the ideal outcome for Republicans, and certainly less than optimal for a country facing real crises. Of course, the far better outcome, on both counts, would be for Republicans to control both branches of government in January, 2013. But it’s also not the worst outcome in the world. America has survived bad presidents before, and if circumstances hamstring them, this becomes easier to do. Ultimately, the 2012 electoral playing field is simply not that good for Democrats, and there isn’t a whole lot they can do to make it better.

Update: Politico is reporting that NV governor Brian Sandoval has officially appointed Dean Heller to Ensign’s senate seat. I suspect this helps Heller in the long-run, though incumbency can be a bit of a double-edged sword. One thing this makes virtually certain is that Heller will be heavily courted–and will receive serious fund-raising help–from any Republicans looking to win Nevada in a primary.

PPP (D) Nevada 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46% (46%)
• Barack Obama 43% (47%)

• Barack Obama 45% (51%)
• Mike Huckabee 43% (41%)

• Barack Obama 46% (51%)
• Newt Gingrich 42% (40%)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Donald Trump 41%

• Barack Obama 50% (52%)
• Sarah Palin 39% (39%)

(more…)

Fox News is apparently pressuring former presidential candidate and current cable news personality Mike Huckabee to put up or shut up with regard to 2012:

Fox News is pushing Mike Huckabee to hurry up and decide whether he’s going to run for president again. The network already suspended two likely candidates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, for their electoral ambitions, but it’s waiting on Sarah Palin and Huckabee to make up their minds. The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz reports that Fox has planned a meeting sometime soon to talk the issue over. “It’s getting uncomfortable,” a Fox source told Kurtz.

How is it getting uncomfortable? The former Arkansas governor is the keynote speaker at a National Rifle Association event in Pittsburgh this weekend, and he’s met with Donald Trump as he listens to potential campaign donors. But Huckabee denies it’s crunch time: “No pressure at all. Fox has been very understanding and they know and I know that if I take steps to be a candidate (ask for money, support, or set up a committee), then I will step aside. That’s been understood from the beginning,” he told Kurtz via email.

Recently Huckabee battled fallen Fox star Glenn Beck over whether Huckabee is too “progressive” to be a good GOP candidate. The term “Nazi” was thrown around. Nevertheless, Huckabee polls well among conservative Republican primary voters. But the Republican has taken so long to decide because of one major factor: money. He makes $500,000 a year hosting his weekend show for Fox. “If I run, I walk away from a pretty good income,” he’s said.

My guess is that Gov. Huckabee has been positioning himself to potentially be a sort of white knight who could ride into the nomination contest closer to Labor Day should the field be in shambles. I also continue to suspect, with no actual evidence for any of this, that Rep. Ryan, Gov. Christie, and perhaps even Gov. Jindal also view themselves as white knight material, with no decisions necessary until the fall. Whatever the case, it appears that the former Arkansas governor may be forced into a decision sooner that he would have preferred, which is only fair, given the treatment by Fox of former contributors Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who were shown the door upon taking actions that appeared to constitute preparations for a presidential run. Interestingly, Sarah Palin appears to continue to enjoy a healthy relationship with Fox, which may indicate that the Alaskan has already privately decided against a run.

With summer around the corner, the GOP field is becoming more and more clear, with a few surprises still shaking things up.

Mitt Romney retains his front-runner status with another strong month.  Romney posted another solid fundraising quarter and continues to expand his political machine.  The early polling has Romney at the top or tied in most national surveys, while maintaining huge leads in the key early states of New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida.  The governor has also moved into statistical ties in recent Iowa and South Carolina polling.  No other candidate has this kind of broad polling strength across all of the early states.  On top of the primary polling, Romney continues to poll the best against Obama, topping him this month in both non-partisan and Democrat-leaning polls.  With the departure of Gov. Haley Barbour from the field, Romney is well positioned to solidify his strength among the top donors and activists in the party establishment.

Tim Pawlenty is another beneficiary  of Barbour’s decision to leave the race.  The former Minnesota governor has built an impressive team so far, with the biggest get being GOP wunderkind Nick Ayers as campaign manager.  Pawlenty has built the second best organization to date behind Romney, and with Barbour out of the way, he is well positioned to be the establishment alternative to the current front-runner.  However, despite his hard work, Pawlenty still posted a less-than-stellar fundraising quarter after announcing his exploratory committee and continues to struggle in the early polling.

Mike Huckabee continues to produce solid poll numbers, and for the first time, began putting out feelers in financial circles about a run in 2012.  Gov. Huckabee has maintained strong popularity in the polls for years now and could finally be ready to begin the tough work of building a big time organization.  His delay to date has cost him some key staffers, but were he to get in soon he would be able to make up for the loss and then some.  Next on deck for the former Arkansas governor is a meeting with his bosses at Fox News, as rumors are swirling that the network wants to force a decision out of Huckabee due to the increasingly uncomfortable feelings surrounding his flirtation with presidential politics.  Were Fox to take a strong position, they could force Huckabee to move his decision date up by several weeks, if not months.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour stunned political insiders when he announced he would not seek the GOP nomination in 2012.   Barbour was thought highly of by insiders due to his unmatched rolodex and his political savvy.  However, Barbour suggested he didn’t have the ‘fire in the belly’ for what he called a ‘ten year commitment’. Some have suggested his family vetoed his run while others say the legendary operative couldn’t see a path to victory next fall.  Regardless of the reasoning, Barbour leaves behind a team of top activists who candidates are already aiming to pick up.  The former RNC and RGA Chairman has instantly gone from potential king to king-maker, and I imagine quite a few candidates will be making their way down to Jackson in the near future.

Decision time nears for Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who pledged to decide about a presidential run at the end of his state’s legislative session, which comes to a close next week.  Daniels has been vaulted back to center stage with the departure of his close friend Haley Barbour from the race.  Many predict that were Daniels get in now he’d have Barbour and the full force of his connections behind him.  However, some are convinced that Daniels will follow his old friend’s lead and stay out of the race, to the great relief of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.

Sarah Palin has seen her already terrible numbers only get worse this month, and the chance of a run from the former Alaska governor seems to be lessening.  Palin hasn’t made any real moves towards a 2012 bid and has been greatly overshadowed in recent weeks by both Rep. Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump.  With both Bachmann and Trump doing more towards building a campaign, the Alaska governor’s 2012 outlook is only getting bleaker.  On top of the bad numbers, an avalanche of anti-Palin books are set to hit the stores soon, and will likely only continue the downward slope in Palin’s polling.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has saturated the media this past month with his attacks on President Obama and the speculation about his candidacy in 2012.   Trump has used the ‘birther’ issue to launch himself to the top of many polls and to endear himself to a GOP base that would otherwise be skeptical of the brash New Yorker.  Trump’s tough talk has dominated the media, so much so that President Obama was finally moved to release his birth certificate in an attempt to quiet down the hysteria.  With the controversy out of the way, Trump has signaled a shift towards issues that make his candidacy more compelling; populist stances on China, trade, taxes, and foreign policy.  The master marketeer has teased a presidential bid several times before, but could finally take the plunge in 2012.

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan has become the de facto national leader of the GOP with the passage of his 2012 budget proposal.  Ryan’s budget pushes for major reforms to Medicare and Medicaid as well as tax reform, helping to cut spending by $6.2 trillion.  Already, the Democrats have attempted to seize on Ryan’s budget and use it to smear both the congressman and the GOP.  With Ryan taking center stage in this budget fight with Obama, rumors are swirling that Ryan has privately not ruled out a run for president.  With many conservatives unsatisfied with their 2012 choices so far, the mere rumors of a Ryan bid are generating excitement throughout the party.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich posted a poor fundraising quarter, especially when compared to the big totals hauled in by his 527 group.  Ambassador Jon Huntsman took a hit when letters he wrote praising both President Obama and former President Clinton leaked on the internet, with many in Huntsman camp blaming Team Romney for the discovery. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson officially announced his candidacy for president, bypassing the exploratory phase.  Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced the formation of an exploratory committee, as well as former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.  Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will participate in Ovide Lamontagne’s house party series in New Hampshire and former New York Gov. George Pataki announced the formation of an advocacy group to pressure White House candidates to tackle the national debt.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Mike Huckabee
4. Mitch Daniels
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Michele Bachmann
7. Sarah Palin
   
8. Donald Trump
   
9. Jon Huntsman Jr.
10. Paul Ryan

Honorable Mention: Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Herman Cain, George Pataki, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer

Remember in CPAC last February when Ann Coulter made the statement, “If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose”?

Well…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7MNsujCxc8[/youtube]

It’s not exactly the most ringing endorsement you’ll ever hear, but it’ll do.

*h/t Bosman @ RightSpeak*

After years of avoiding it, quite probably to make his opponents look foolish, Obama will be releasing his “long form” birth certificate to the press.

What effect do you think this will have on the “Birther” movement? Or Donald Trump’s potential candidacy? Feel free to discuss.

UPDATE- Here it is:

John Bolton, who received a burst of speculation several months ago, but whose name has since evaporated from all media talk and all 2012 opinion polls, is apparently still here, and still a possible entrant to the presidential race.  With the presidential field lacking in foreign policy focus and war experience, it becomes increasingly likely that Bolton may throw his hat into the ring.  He’s been slow on the organization front, and hasn’t been writing or speaking as aggressively in recent weeks, but the American Spectator maintains he’s not out of the game.  As someone who is a foreign policy realist, rather than a Wilsonian neo-conservative, he probably wouldn’t satisfy the hawkish tastes of Giulianites or Cheneyites, but his bringing foreign policy back nearer to the forefront of the debates might cheer up some of the neo-cons who are unhappy with the intellectual collapse of the Bush Doctrine within the GOP’s ranks.

What do you think?  Whom would Bolton steal the most support from, if he entered the race?  When do you think he’d announce?  How needed is his voice in today’s dialogue?

Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Donald Trump 14.3%
• Mike Huckabee 14.1%
• Mitt Romney 13.5%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Tim Pawlenty 6%
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• Undecided 23%

Survey of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents was conducted April 25, 2011.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

USA Today has released a poll where they bring up the birther question. Just be fair, they asked it about Donald Trump as well as about Barack Obama. The results are…enlightening:

So Obama and Trump have very similar numbers of people who think they were born in the USA. Perhaps most amusing is the fact that more people are unsure of Trump’s country of birth than are unsure of Obama’s.

I will be glad when the silly season is over.

He will make a formal announcement regarding an official presidential campaign in May:

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 48%
• Mike Huckabee 47% 

• Barack Obama 47%
• Mitt Romney 44%

• Barack Obama 49%
  
• Newt Gingrich 45%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Donald Trump 39%

• Barack Obama 52%
  
• Sarah Palin 40%

(more…)

USA Today/Gallup 2012 Presidential Survey

I’m going to ask you about some people who may run for president in 2012. For each one, please tell me whether you will definitely vote for that person, whether you might consider voting for that person, or whether you will definitely not vote for that person?

Barack Obama

• Will definitely vote for 31%
• Might consider voting for 23%
• Will definitely not vote for 46%

Mitt Romney

• Will definitely vote for 6%
• Might consider voting for 42%
• Will definitely not vote for 45%

Mike Huckabee

• Will definitely vote for 7%
• Might consider voting for 39%
• Will definitely not vote for 46%

Donald Trump

• Will definitely vote for 7%
• Might consider voting for 28%
• Will definitely not vote for 64%

Sarah Palin

• Will definitely vote for 8%
• Might consider voting for 26%
• Will definitely not vote for 65%

(more…)

PPP (D) Nevada 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Dean Heller (R) 47% (51%)
• Shelley Berkley (D) 43% (38%)

Among Democrats

• Shelley Berkley (D) 76% (64%)
• Dean Heller (R) 13% (20%)

Among Republicans

• Dean Heller (R) 86% (85%)
• Shelley Berkley (D) 8% (12%)

Among Independents

• Dean Heller (R) 56% (56%)
• Shelley Berkley (D) 29% (28%)

(more…)

Recently, columnist David Frum stated:

2012 is shaping up as an all-out battle between big donors and local activists, with the big donors coalesced around Romney and the local activists increasingly desperately shopping for somebody – anybody – else.

Others have phrased it differently . . . that Romney’s become “The Establishment” candidate, while many strong conservatives are looking for an “Anti-Establishment” candidate to rally around.  Having seen this narrative develop over the last couple years has been both interesting and confusing to me, especially in light of what transpired in the 2008 GOP primary.

John McCain was the Establishment candidate last cycle, with Mitt running as a Washington outsider.  Mitt even was viewed by most as “the Conservative Alternative” to McCain.  Mitt garnered the endorsements of most conservative pundits, power-brokers, and politicians.  Just a preliminary list included Sen Jim DeMint (SC), Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), Ann Coulter, James Bopp Jr., Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), Judge Robert Bork, Sean Hannity, David Keene (Chariman of the American Conservatives Union), Paul Weyrich (founder of The Heritage Foundation), Bay  Buchanan, Bob Jones III, Sen. Thad Cochran (MS), Laura Ingrahm, Sen. Wayne Allard (CO), Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Rick Santorum, Mark Levin, Rep Connie Mack IV (FL), Hugh Hewitt, Jay Sekulow, William Bennet, Lars Larson, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R-AZ), Dennis Prager, Ross Perot, and Glenn Beck.  An impressive list that could serve as a “Who’s Who” of the conservative community.

By most accounts, McCain was not a good nominee for the GOP and did not run a particularly effective campaign.  Others argue that no GOP nominee could have beat Obama under the circumstances of “Bush Fatigue” and a crashing economy.  Whatever the reason, “The Establishment” woke up after the terrible losses of 2008 and realized that running a moderate DC insider with “get along” politics is no way to win the presidency (a la Bob Dole, John Kerry, and Al Gore to name just a few).  There was quite a bit of “wish we would have nominated Romney” feeling going around at the time.

What happened is that “The Establishment” wisened up and moved it’s support for this cycle to the right of McCain by gravitating towards DC-Outsider Mitt Romney.   But in a knee-jerk and rather childish reaction to mounting establishment support for Romney, many anti-establishment types (I’m looking at you Talk Radio and conservative blogsites like HotAir and RedState!!) have thereby rejected Romney due to said establishment support.  It’s as if they’re saying:

“We cannot support any candidate that has the support of ‘The Establishment.’ We don’t care that he’s never worked in DC, that he’s too rich to be bought by lobbyists, that he’s the strongest candidate to match up with Obama (as poll after poll shows), nor that we supported him in 2008 and that he hasn’t done anything since that time to become ‘less conservative.” By darn, if ‘The Establishment’ likes him, we cannot accept him and we KNOW that SOMETHING must be wrong with him! (we’ll get back to you when we finally figure out what that ‘something’ is.)”

Now, some will be quick to say that the big differnce this time is “RomneyCare” . . . that Mitt proved that he’s no true conservative because that legislation included an “individual mandate” on purchasing health insurance.  Oh, you mean that law that was crafted in 2004-5 and passed in 2006 with the support of The Heritage Foundation and loads of conservatives and was the topic of discussion in the debates leading up to the 2008 election?  The RomneyCare that didn’t seem to hamper your support and endorsement of him last time?   Excuse me while I scratch my head  for a while . . .

Observers have seen this anti-establishment community jump around in their preferred candidate between Sarah Palin, Chris Chirstie, and have even seen some flirtations with Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, and Mitch Daniels (the latter is ironically much more of a DC insider and “establishment” guy than Mitt ever was).  Tim Pawlenty hasn’t seemed to catch on with hardly anyone, but many have him at the back of their minds just in case none of these other “anti-establishment” candidates pan out.  It’s almost as if they know that broad-based support will eventually coalesce around Romney, but that they just can’t bring themselves to get on board yet because of pride.  That they’re instead pimping and pumping up ANYBODY else they can think of in order to put off the inevitable time when they’ll have to swallow their pride and get back on the Romney train.

Yes, there’s no doubt that the needle has been moved to the right over the past four years.  But there is no logical reason that Romney should not have the strong support from the conservative community that he enjoyed last time.  Those orchestrating these machinations are being both prideful and disingenuous.

__________________________________________________________________

-Dr. Fuller also blogs at Mitt Romney Central.

Suppose the Presidential nominee race for your party is currently boils down to a two-man race. Two candidates are essentially in a statistical tie in the national numbers. These two candidates happen to be leading in the four earliest states, and each one of them happens to leads in exactly two.

• Most polls find that Candidate ‘A’ leads one state by around 10% and his other state by less than 5%. One recent poll placed the margin of his second state at 1%.
• Most polls find that Candidate ‘B’ leads one state by more than 20% (some even peg the lead at more than 30%) and his other state by about half of that  — around 10%.

Now suppose you are currently one of the “also-ran” candidate. You are in competition with these two candidates. You know that for you to have any chance at all of obtaining the nomination, you have to break through in at least one of those states because waiting to make a splash until after the first four states is an almost guaranteed losing strategy.

Remember, these two men are in a virtual tie nationally. Your primary concern is to get on the board somewhere in the first four contests. If you can’t do that, you will fail.

Your resources are limited. You’re not broke by any means, yet you know that you only have so much money, so much time, so many people.

So do you:

1. Concentrate most of your resources upon the man (Candidate ‘A’) with a 10% lead in one state, and little better than a statistical tie in his second?
2. Concentrate mainly upon the man (Candidate ‘B’) with a 20-30% in one state and a double digit lead in his second?
3. Let Candidate ‘A’ and ‘B’ have their early wins and concentrate on their secondary states, especially ‘A”s where he only holds a one or two point lead?

What’s your strategy? Is it one of these three, or a different one?

PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) Political Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 46%
• Unfavorable 49%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 81%
• Unfavorable 14%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 9%
• Unfavorable 88%

Among Independents

• Favorable 38%
• Unfavorable 53%

(more…)

PPP (D) West Virginia 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Donald Trump 24%
• Mike Huckabee 24% (28%) {22%} [27%]
• Sarah Palin 13% (23%) {25%} [24%]
• Mitt Romney 11% (10%) {15%} [13%]
• Newt Gingrich 9% (17%) {15%} [16%]
• Tim Pawlenty 4% (5%) {2%}
• Michele Bachmann 3%
• Ron Paul 3% (6%)
• Someone else/Undecided 9% (8%) {17%}

(more…)

Rep. Paul sat down with Sean Hannity last evening to discuss the upcoming announcement of his presidential exploratory committee, a balanced budget amendment, Sharia Law, and other issues:

“I hope he runs, come on in, the water’s fine,” says Mitt.

Mitt Romney said Monday that he hopes Donald Trump will run for president — even after the real estate mogul dismissed him as a “small business guy.”

“He’s a terrific guy and I wish him the very best,” Romney told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren when she asked him to compare his business record to Trump’s. “I hope he runs, come on in, the water’s fine.”

Romney ducked questions about Trump’s business career. “I’m going to spend my time talking about what I’ve done,” he said. “I’m probably not going to be the guy that inspects everybody else’s track record but I can tell you about my own.”

That’s not exactly Trump’s style — and Monday marked the first time Romney’s been asked to address Trump’s attacks. In an appearance on CNN over the weekend, Trump denigrated Romney’s business experience by calling him a “small business guy.”

Be sure to read the whole piece here.

Winthrop University South Carolina 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 17.8%
• Mitt Romney 16.1%
• Donald Trump 9.9%
• Sarah Palin 8.6%
• Newt Gingrich 8.1%
• Chris Christie 6.2%
• Michele Bachmann 3.8%
• Ron Paul 2.5%
• Herman Cain 1.7%
• Tim Pawlenty 1.7%
• Haley Barbour 1.5%
• Rick Santorum 1.4%
• Jon Huntsman 0.8%
• Mitch Daniels 0.6%
• Gary Johnson 0.0%
• Other 1.0%
• Not Sure 16.9%

(more…)

The Hill has the story:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) is scheduled to make an “important announcement” about his political organization on Tuesday in Iowa, according to his political action committee.

The two-time presidential candidate is scheduled to make his announcement during a press conference in the state capital of Des Moines at 4:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, his political committee, LibertyPAC, said in a release.

The move signals that Paul is likely to make a formal move regarding his likely presidential campaign. On Monday, Paul said he expects to make the decision whether to run “within a month.”

Read the rest here.

Via CNBC’s John Harwood.

Given that this information is being leaked just moments after longtime Daniels ally Haley Barbour took himself out of the race, one has to wonder whether a coordinated effort is afoot. When Gov. Barbour began flirting with a run, at least a few pundits suspected that he may simply have been acting as a stalking horse for Gov. Daniels, attempting to reserve key talent for the Indiana governor once Daniels was ready to take the plunge. That view initially seemed conspiratorial. But given today’s events, it may also turn out to have been true.

Gov. Gary Johnson, answering questions on Twitter for two hours today, revealed a trove of beliefs and issue positions, including his support for drilling in ANWR, pardoning those who are in prison solely for marijuana, selling overseas military base land, abolishing the TSA, and stopping the printing of any new money.

Johnson also made clear that he is not a Birther, not a 6-Day Creationist, is an Austrian Schooler and not a Supply Sider, and ruled out an independent or third party bid.

Here’s the full list of revelations:

• Johnson would cut at least some amount of funding to the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, with abolition being an option.

  http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson/status/62577579231686656

• Johnson believes we should allow more off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.

  http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson/status/62577831506489344

• Johnson believes gay marriage should be a state issue rather than a federal issue, and he supports gay civil unions.

  http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson/status/62578561105661952

• The three things Johnson condemns most strongly about the George W. Bush presidency are: Bush’s spending, the Iraq War, and not ultimately withdrawing from Afghanistan.

  http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson/status/62578676247691264

  (more…)

This breaking news was just tweeted by Politico. Stay tuned….

Update #1: FOX News is also reporting that Barbour is out. No details yet…

Update #2: Here is Barbour’s statement:

“I will not be a candidate for president next year. This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided.

“Hundreds of people have encouraged me to run and offered both to give and raise money for a presidential campaign. Many volunteers have organized events in support of my pursuing the race. Some have dedicated virtually full time to setting up preliminary organizations in critical, early states and to helping plan what has been several months of intensive activity.

“I greatly appreciate each and every one of them and all their outstanding efforts. If I have disappointed any of them in this decision, I sincerely regret it.

“A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else. His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate. I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.

“This decision means I will continue my job as Governor Mississippi, my role in the Republican Governors Association and my efforts to elect a new Republican president in 2012, as the stakes for the nation require that effort to be successful.”

ARG South Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 20%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Donald Trump 13%
• Sarah Palin 10%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Rudy Giuliani 4%
• Haley Barbour 2%
• Rand Paul 2%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Mitch Daniels 1%
• Ron Paul 1%
• Herman Cain 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Fred Karger 0%
• George Pataki 0%
• Buddy Roemer 0%
• Undecided 11%

(more…)

Erin McPike at Real Clear Politics asks a question that sounds silly, but could actually be important in the eyes of the public – by what title will we be referring to Jon Huntsman? Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Everything about Jon Huntsman lately has labeled him as U.S. Ambassador to China, but when he becomes a private citizen on May 1, he’ll shed that title in formal correspondence. His scheduled return stateside this weekend, then, begs the question: “Mr. Huntsman, are we supposed to call you Governor, or Ambassador?”

The likely GOP presidential contender will be returning from 20 months of service in China, which followed five years as governor of Utah. A general rule of thumb in politics is that the title for the highest office reached is appropriate, so for Huntsman, that would be governor. Etiquette experts, though, say it’s the most recent. It could get a little confusing, because he was also the ambassador to Singapore during the first Bush administration. And of course, there’s politics.

Senate Historian Donald Ritchie said that while most officials are known by the highest rank they attained, others simply stick with a label they like. How Huntsman should be addressed, he said, “probably depends on what he wants to do.”

“It’s usually a matter of personal preference,” Ritchie said, adding that he figures Huntsman would likely prefer “Governor.” He added: “Some of the doctors in the Senate prefer to be called ‘Doctor’ rather than ‘Senator.’ They go with the title they prefer.” Dwight Eisenhower would forever be “General Eisenhower” to some of his old U.S. Army buddies, even after he served two terms in the White House, and Ronald Reagan answered to “Governor” when in the presence of some of his old California friends even while he was president…The way Huntsman is identified in the media could go a long way to brand him. So the marketing for and against him will have an impact on how he performs, and his advisers certainly won’t let “ambassador” get dragged into derogatory territory, even if it’s not the first thing they highlight.

To date, he hasn’t gotten criticism for the actual work he’s done in China. On the contrary, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping lauded his efforts last week, and an award-winning documentarian has been trailing him to collect footage for a movie that alludes to how much he was able to contribute to U.S.-Chinese relations.

So if his opponents — both Democrats and Republicans — refer to him as an ambassador, and his supporters address him as a governor, Huntsman’s two titles could suggest to the electorate that he’s among the most experienced in the GOP field where public service is concerned. And that may mean he could wind up with the last laugh.

An interesting point made there at the end of the article. Of those candidates currently considering a bid for President, Huntsman alone has very detailed foreign policy credentials – and a bipartisan attitude which may be appealing to independents. Add on to that his specific accomplishments as a Governor and he could be a formidable contender.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.