Well, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is now pretty much in the race for the Republican nomination. The Governor starts out with some strong advantages. First, he’s got a record in business that’ll be a good talking point in an election about the economy.  Secondly, he’s run for President before, meaning amateur mistakes are less likely and slip-ups less damaging. Finally, he starts out as one of the two (or three or four) frontrunners and Republicans like to nominate their frontrunners. But, for all these advantages, there are several big hurdles that Romney has to overcome  if he wants to accept the GOP nomination in Tampa. Some of these are pretty well known; Romneycare, perceived (or real) flip-flops, a lack of appeal in some of the GOP’s base states (the Solid South), and the danger of another candidate robbing his votes. However, Romney has one more big hurdle to overcome, one that could decide whether or not the Governor even gets to addressing most of these issues. This last hurdle comes with 2 Congressional Districts, is in New England, and is probably the most important pre-general election race in the country. I’m talking of course about the New Hampshire primary, which will be Mitt Romney’s most dangerous state in 2012.

But wait says you. “Romney is ahead by 50 points in New Hampshire. He’s crushing the entire field.”

That’s true says I. He’s leading everyone big at this point, which is where the danger comes in.

New Hampshire voters are notoriously ornery and flinty. In a state where the motto is “Live Free or Die” these folks don’t like to be told what to do or do what they’re “supposed” to do.  New Hampshire is tailor-made for upsets, insurgents and surprises. Think of some of the folks who have done really well in New Hampshire in previous primaries, most specifically Pat Buchanan and John McCain. Both were mavericks in their own right; men who flouted party orthodoxy and instead appealed to a disaffected group of voters that propelled them to victory.

Romney does not flout party orthodoxy; in fact, he’s been spending the last few years trying to make himself the embodiment of everything Republican. Not saying this is good or bad just that it is what it is. New Hampshire and her voters don’t follow the conventional wisdom, they live (and vote) to upend it. If you’re the man who conventional wisdom says is going to win the New Hampshire primary, then you have my sympathies.

Now of course if the situation was reversed and my candidate, Mitch Daniels, was up by a lot in one of the most important primary states in the nation, I’d be pretty happy. Romney supporters are justifiably happy that their man is winning big in New Hampshire and it’s certainly better to be 50 points ahead than 50 behind. But, the real danger for Romney is if the expectations game says he should win by a huge margin. Remember Paul Tsongas? He won the New Hampshire primary but Bill Clinton became the Comeback Kid because of expectations. A Romney win that is deemed particularly unimpressive won’t help the Governor that much in later states.

The biggest danger from New Hampshire of course is if Romney loses the state. In 2008 he at least had an excuse; he was facing John McCain, “New Hampshire’s Third Senator”. It still hurt pretty badly when Romney lost the state, but it wasn’t fatal. This time he has no such cover. There is no John McCain to soften the blow of a New Hampshire defeat. Romney has to win New Hampshire or his campaign is finished. The former Governor of Massachusetts can’t dismiss a loss in such a critical primary state right on his backdoor.

The absolute necessity for Romney to win the New Hampshire Primary will probably shape his campaign. Iowa will take a backseat this time. So will Nevada and even Florida. In fact, everything will take a back seat to winning the New Hampshire Primary. Romney just can’t afford not to.

Chris Cillizza has provided some additional insights into Mitt Romney’s unveiling of his presidential exploratory committee:

The video was shot at the University of New Hampshire, emphasizing Romney’s plan to put the Granite State at the center of his blueprint to win the GOP nomination.

…Those close to Romney insist that while he has retained many of his senior strategists from the 2008 race for this return engagement, he has learned the right lessons from his unsuccessful bid three years ago.

Notably, the Romney announcement did not leak to the media prior to it being posted on his website — a sign of a very disciplined inner circle reminiscent of the way then-candidate Barack Obama ran his operation in 2008.

And, the tone of Romney’s announcement video — serious comes to mind — is a break from the at-times antic image Romney gave off during the last presidential race.

It’s clear that Romney will do everything he can to run as the adult in the GOP contest, avoiding some of the early political scrums in hopes of portraying himself as the sort of “big” figure who not only can take on President Obama but can step into the office ready to lead on day one.

Cillizza’s noting of the Romney group’s tight-lipped nature led me to extend the analogy even farther: Mitt’s 2012 campaign strategy to date has, ironically, made him resemble the very man he hopes to challenge: President Obama. Think about it: the laser-like organizational discipline, the massive fundraising, and, most of all, the intent to position the candidate as “above the fray” and able to forgo trivial partisan squabbling in favor of the big issues at hand.

I don’t mean to classify this connection as a negative, I just considered it intriguing and valid.

For what it’s worth, my take on Mitt’s video mirrors that of many others: it accomplished his team’s goal of portraying him as the serious adult and “grown-up” in the race. If Romney can successfully weave together this approach with a continued emphasis of economic and budgetary issues and a healthy dose of optimism, he may find a combination that can overcome his weaknesses as a candidate (we’ve heard them all before – Masscare, South Carolina, insufficient authenticity, etc.).

All in all, an impressive opening act for the Governor.

PPP (D) New Hampshire Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s job performance?

• Approve 50% (41%) {44%} [45%] (42%)
• Disapprove 36% (46%) {49%} [44%] (48%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Kelly Ayotte’s job performance?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 34%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Charlie Bass?

• Favorable 30%
• Unfavorable 45%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Frank Guinta?

• Favorable 25%
• Unfavorable 42%

If there was an election today for the state legislature would you be more likely to vote for Democratic or Republican candidates?

• Democrats 49%
• Republicans 41%

(more…)

According toThe Hill, Fox will be announcing the requirements this afternoon for anyone who wishes to participate in their South Carolina debate next month. The following things must be accomplished before April 29th:

— 1 Must register a presidential exploratory committee or have announced a formal campaign for president;
— 2 Must file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC);
— 3 Must file all necessary paperwork with the South Carolina Republican Party;
— 4 Must have paid all federal and South Carolina filing fees;
— 5 Must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; and
— 6 Must have garnered at least an average of 1 percent in five national polls based on most recent polling leading up to April 29.

Tim Pawlenty and Buddy Roemer have accepted invitations and have met the first requirement. The following have accepted invitations but have not yet announced:

• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Rick Santorum

Will those three now move to fulfill requirement #1

Mitt Romney has now announced. One must assume he will be there.

Will any others? Daniels, Palin, or Barbour for instance?

From the official release:

Today, Mitt Romney formed the Romney for President Exploratory Committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as a first step in a campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination for President of the United States. While this step does not constitute a formal announcement of candidacy, it allows Governor Romney to be in compliance with the requirements of federal election law as he begins to raise the funds necessary to explore a potential candidacy.

Gov. Romney announced his plans in an online video at www.mittromney.com which was made public via Facebook and Twitter. The video was taped at the University of New Hampshire following a meeting this morning between Gov. Romney and students who said they are worried about getting a job after graduation. The transcript for the video is as follows:

Hello, I’m Mitt Romney. This morning I spoke with a number of students here at the University of New Hampshire. Like young people all over the country, they wonder whether they’ll find good jobs when they graduate.

Last week, in Nevada, I walked through a neighborhood with homes vacant or in foreclosure. Unemployment there is over 13%. Across the nation, over 20 million Americans still can’t find a job, or have given up looking.

How has this happened in the nation that leads the world in innovation and productivity? The answer is that President Obama’s policies have failed. He and virtually all the people around him have never worked in the real economy. They just don’t know how jobs are created in the private sector.

That’s where I spent my entire career. In 1985, I helped found a company. At first, we had ten employees; today there are hundreds.

My work led me to become deeply involved in helping other businesses, from innovative startups to large companies going through tough times. Sometimes I was successful and helped create jobs, other times I was not. I learned how America competes with companies in other countries, why jobs leave, and how jobs are created here at home.

Later, when I served as governor of Massachusetts, I used the skills I had learned in 25 years in business to streamline state government, balance the budget every year, and restore a 2 billion dollar rainy day fund.

From my vantage point in business and in government, I have become convinced that America has been put on a dangerous course by Washington politicians, and it has become even worse during the last two years. But I am also convinced that with able leadership, America’s best days are still ahead.

That is why today I am announcing my Exploratory Committee for the Presidency of the United States.

It is time that we put America back on a course of greatness, with a growing economy, good jobs and fiscal discipline in Washington.

I believe in America. I believe in the freedom and opportunity, and the principles of our constitution, that have led us to become the greatest nation in the history of the earth – and I believe that these principles will confirm American’s future as well.

This effort is not about a person, it is about the cause of American freedom and greatness. I’d like to ask you to join with us – volunteer, donate, or just pass this along to a friend. Thanks so much.

CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 50%

Among Democrats

• Approve 87%
• Disapprove 12%

Among Republicans

• Approve 15%
• Disapprove 84%

Among Independents

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 62%

(more…)

Sachs/Mason-Dixon 2012 Florida Presidential Survey

Republican Nomination

• Mitt Romney 23%
• Mike Huckabee 18%
• Donald Trump 13%
• Newt Gingrich 11%
• Tim Pawlenty 8%
• Sarah Palin 5%
• Mitch Daniels 4%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Michele Bachmann 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Haley Barbour 0%

General Election

• Mitt Romney 48%
• Barack Obama 43%

• Mike Huckabee 49%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 48%
• Donald Trump 40%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Sarah Palin 39%

President Obama Job Approval

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 56%

Among Independents

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 56%

Survey of 800 registered voters, including a subsample of 400 Republican primary voters, was conducted April 4-7, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points among all registered voters; +/- 5 percentage points among registered Republicans.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

One of the long-standing pleasures of the American culture I grew up with was the reading on Sunday of the heavy-to-hold New York Times. (It should be noted that its weight was achieved without any insert ads.) The Times had been the leading U.S. newspaper for many years because of the sweep of its reporting, especially of international news, and for the quality of its writing and editorial commentary. In my family, there was the added incentive of the crossword puzzle in the Sunday Times Magazine, an object of enormous conflict between my mother and myself over who would get to it first. I think my pattern of psychological interpersonal strategies may have been largely formed over this weekly interfamilial skirmish. In any event, it probably ruined a perfectly normal Oedipus complex.

That was in the the 1950’s and 1960’s. By the 1970’s, I was no longer at home and the price of the Sunday Times began to rise precipitously. Nontheless, I usually managed to find a copy and do the crossword puzzle. At the same time, my political bearings were shifting from the Roosevelt-Truman-Stevenson admirations of my youth — and of my parents. I first noticed a serious decline in the quality of the Times on its editorial pages where the observations became increasingly left wing, inaccurate and predictable. The Sunday edition remained a treasure, however, especially the magazine, the book review, the arts and travel sections. The Times even began to innovate beyond its old formality, publishing irreverent and often hilarious wedding notices notable for their pretension-shattering candor. And there always was the crossword puzzle, still the highpoint of difficulty, urbanity and verbal challenge.

After my college educations, and some international travel, I settled into a life of literary, and later journalistic, writing. I published a small newspaper in Minnesota for many years, and began writing freelance about politics and food for publications outside Minnesota. Thanks to supportive editors, mostly in Washington, DC, I began to be a regular op ed writer about national politics. My columns were widely distributed in major publications, although I did not appear in the New York Times. Meanwhile, the decline of this newspaper rapidly continued, and at some point in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s I realized that I no longer enjoyed reading most of it, nor did I want to write for it. Other publications drew my attention, particularly the Wall Street Journal (although it had limited international coverage, and very little cultural coverage). The decline of the Times had now severely infiltrated its Sunday edition, as fewer and fewer sections seemed worth reading. The Sunday price now rose precipitously. (It is currently $6.00 outside New York City.) At the same time, two other national newspapers began to publish weekend editions, and they were increasingly excellent, and much less editorially narrow and predictable than the Times. The Wall Street Journal began its Saturday-Sunday edition of WSJ Weekend in three regular sections and once-a-month magazine section. Its Review Section is simply superb, including book reviews, arts coverage, articles on culture, science, language, technology, commerce, humor, and art. The “Off Duty” section covers food and cooking, fashion, design, adventure, travel, and it has excellent columnists.

Financial Times, a British export, began to publish FT Weekend with three or four sections, including House & Home, and Life & Arts. The writing is first rate, the coverage is contemporary and inclusive. Its food cooking and dining writing is especially outstanding. It also includes in both the aforementioned sections, some delightful and incisiveweekly columnists. While not as thick as the Times, it is only $2.50, and much more interesting. Likewise, WSJ Weekend is only $2.00, and equally provocative and fascinating to read. I also read the Journal during the week. For my money, it provides the best daily editorial commentary in the U.S. today, and is increasing its national political and international coverage while still providing its incomparable business coverage.

But when I’m in a coffeehouse during the weekend, I must admit shuffling through the piles of Sunday papers and looking for the Sunday Times magazine. They recently abandoned some of their weekly columns on language and other interesting subjects (William Safire’s language column every week in the Sunday magazine was worth the whole price of the newspaper) and been replaced with a bunch of politically-correct themes. Nontheless, the crossword puzzle is still there, and on occasion, a formidable acrostic as well. It’s still the best crossword, and I still enjoy doing it, and the travel section remains interesting but I think the oversized, overpriced Sunday edition cannot hang only on those slender threads.

The Journal leans to the center-right, FT leans to the center-left, but both offer thoughtful, intelligent, provocative, well-written articles for the weekend reader to savor and digest. I wish I could say the same for the New York Times, but I cannot. I frankly don’t think it’s worth the paper it’s printed on. It no longer contains, dare I say, much of what’s fit to print.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

Deseret News/KSL 2012 Utah GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 69%
• Jon Huntsman 14%
• Donald Trump 5%
• Sarah Palin 2%
• Mike Huckabee 1%
• Other 7%

For which of the candidates would you vote for U.S. president if the primary election were between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump?

• Mitt Romney 83%
• Donald Trump 11%

Survey of 247 Utahns was conducted April 7, 2011, by Dan Jones & Associates. The margin of error is +/- 6.3 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Hotline on Call is reporting this morning that Tim Pawlenty is set to announce Nick Ayers as his campaign manager. Ayers is the former director of the Republican Governors Association, and considered one of the brightest rising stars in the Republican campaign firmament. It was widely expected that Ayers would end up in the inner circle of his former boss at the RGA, Haley Barbour, or at a high position within the RNC (where he is very highly regarded). Ayers is a huge get for Pawlenty, and his signing on with T-Paw raises the question: what is Haley Barbour’s next move?

President Obama appears to have heard the numerous calls for him to respond to Paul Ryan’s and House Republicans’ unprecedented show of leadership with his own vision for addressing the U.S.’s perilous fiscal condition:

Much will be revealed at midweek, when the House and Senate are expected to vote on a budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and Obama reveals his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back programs for seniors and the poor. Across the dial on Sunday, messengers from both parties framed the series of spending fights as debates over cuts — a thematic victory for House Republicans swept to power by a populist mandate for smaller, more austere government.

“We’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on “Fox News Sunday.”

Presidential adviser David Plouffe said Obama has long been committed to finding ways for the nation to spend within its means. He confirmed that the president would unveil more specifics for deficit reduction with a speech Wednesday that would reveal plans to reduce the government’s chief health programs for seniors and the poor.

“You’re going to have to look at Medicare and Medicaid and see what kind of savings you can get,” Obama adviser David Plouffe said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

As the article suggests, the facts that the conversation in Washington has turned from which programs’ funding to increase – which is the norm – to where to cut spending and the President has become compelled to revise his previous budget proposals signify that the GOP can more or less declare victory in the showdown.

Political junkies like us will eagerly await the President’s announcement, as it will reveal whether we may see the impossible – an honest public debate over how to ameliorate America’s entitlement, deficit, and debt troubles between the two parties – take place in the near future. The timing of this development should also shape the 2012 Republican nomination process, with the issues at hand looming large and forcing the contenders to present their solutions in an articulate, convincing manner.

Six months ago, few could have foreseen this unfolding so quickly. Talk about a pleasant surprise.

The Pennsylvania Leadership Conference is a conference some in PA have called PACPAC. It’s a conference with conservative speakers throughout PA. Charles Krauthammer, US Senator Pat Toomey, Lt. Governor James Cawley, and Herman Cain were featured speakers at the event. Following in the footsteps of every other conservative conference this year, they held a presidential straw poll. Of the 189 people in attendance who voted, here’s the breakdown.

• Herman Cain – 14.38%
• Michele Bachmann – 13.13%
• Tim Pawlenty – 13.13%
• Donald Trump – 9.38%
• Ron Paul – 7.19%
• Rick Santorum – 7.19%
• Mitch Daniels – 6.88%
• Sarah Palin – 6.88%
• Mike Huckabee – 6.25%
• Mitt Romney – 6.25%
• Paul Ryan* – 1.56%
• Allen West* – 1.56%
• Haley Barbour – 1.25%
• Chris Christie* – 1.25%
• Newt Gingrich* – 0.63%
• Marco Rubio* – 0.63%
• Jon Huntsman* – 0.63%
• Snooki* – 0.63%
• Mike Pence* – 0.31%
• Jim DeMint* – 0.31%
• Rand Paul* – 0.31%
• Steve Johnson* – 0.31%

* Were for write-in choices who were not on convention ballot. Clearly, with the selection of Snooki, there were those who did not take this seriously. And, honestly, does a straw poll of less than 200 people mean much? Perhaps not, but it shows that even these grass-rootsy types in PA are torn and still undecided as to who they’re ready to throw their support behind. It’s also interesting to note that in his home state at a conservative leadership convention, Rick Santorum did not come out on top, tying Ron Paul for 4th place.

_______________________________________________________

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

If you only read one political piece this weekend, it should absolutely be Sean Trende’s latest electoral analysis over at RCP. In this piece, Sean completed a county-by-county analysis of the Prosser/Kloppenburg state supreme court election in Wisconsin, comparing those results to the results of the 2004 presidential race in the state. This comparison is apt for several reasons. First, both races were essentially base-driven elections. In 2004, the nation experienced the perfect “base election” of the modern era, with 90-plus percent of Republicans voting for Bush, the same percentage of Democrats voting for Kerry, and Independents splitting down the middle. In “Wisconsin ’11,” a similar sort of election took place, with Scott Walker’s legislative agenda essentially at the mercy of the winner of the state supreme court special election. Prosser had been endorsed by Club for Growth, Kloppenburg had expressly stated her intention to block Walker’s agenda, and both sides got their voters out in what was pegged as a referendum on Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature.

That’s why Sean’s comparison of these two races is so intriguing. Here’s what Sean found:

There actually was a bit of a realignment of the parties here. The blue collar counties in the north (settled by Finns, actually), along the western edge of the state (Norwegian/Swedish) and the liberal areas around Dane (Madison) County reacted to the budget showdown by moving toward the Democrats. This is exactly what everyone expected would happen.

So why was the race even close? Because the suburbs of Milwaukee and the blue collar German counties in the east swung against the Democrats.* If you run a regression of how the counties moved from 2004 through 2011 against countywide per capita income, and control for the unique situations in Dane (liberal college town, state employees), Menominee (large Native American population) and Milwaukee (heavily heterogenous), there is a statistically significant relationship between higher incomes and movement toward Republicans. What the suburbs wanted and what the working class wanted were in tension, and so any dominant Democratic majority that could be built based upon the two splintered.

The county-by-county map that Sean included in his piece is a must-see for any political junkie. Note that the “red” counties are essentially the Kerry/Prosser counties, i.e., the counties where Prosser did significantly better against Kloppenburg than Bush did against Kerry. The blue counties are Bush/Kloppenburg counties, and the white counties are the areas where Bush and Prosser essentially had the same base.

It should be noted that a good portion of the state is “white,” meaning that there is most certainly a significant overlap between Bush’s base and the base of the 2009-2011 Republican Party. And in terms of the GOP’s core, what we’re probably actually seeing is the same base applying itself to different issues, with the focus being on economics and small government instead of culture and defense. But none of that should deflect from the fact that there has been a considerable amount of horse trading when it comes to the electorate. Essentially, the new Republican coalition has jettisoned some of Bush’s working class supporters and replaced them with creative class voters from the suburbs.

Can this dynamic be isolated to the Prosser race, or is it a bit more widespread than that? Sean believes the latter is true:

As I noted a few weeks ago, we’ve seen similar results across the Midwest. This is especially true of Ohio, where Governor Strickland ran a populist campaign excoriating John Kasich for his ties to Lehman Brothers. Strickland ran well in blue collar areas of the state, but saw Democratic support collapse in the suburbs.

Unfortunately, Sean didn’t include a nifty map of the 2010 Ohio governor’s race, but he’s done more than enough already. I decided to do my own analysis of the Toomey/Sestak race in Pennsylvania, which will surely pale in comparison to Sean’s work, but which shows that his theory of a Rust Belt quasi-realignment may be accurate.

As political junkies will recall, both the 2004 presidential race and the 2010 Senate race were nailbiters in Pennsylvania, with Kerry edging Bush by about two points in the state, and Toomey beating Sestak by about the same margin. That’s a four point swing, and as I discovered upon analyzing the state at the county level, almost all of Toomey’s gains came from the eastern part of the state.

I looked specifically at the counties where the vote had been close in 2004 to determine whether Toomey fared better or worse against Sestak in the state’s “swing counties.” What I found was that in the swing counties of Central Pennsylvania, counties like Cambria and Centre, Bush and Toomey ran pretty much even. These counties are located in Murtha territory, the part of Pennsylvania that is culturally traditional and economically populist. Toomey didn’t lose any Bush votes in these counties, but he didn’t gain any new voters either. Where Toomey’s gains came from were the following Eastern Pennsylvania counties: Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, and Northampton. In each of these counties, Toomey outperformed Bush, in some cases by a mile. For example, in Bucks County, a part of the greater suburban Philadelphia region, Toomey beat Sestak by a margin of 53/47, while Bush had lost that same county to Kerry by a margin of 51/48. That’s a nine point swing towards the Republicans.

The GOP’s newfound strength in white collar suburbs shouldn’t be surprising. During the Bush years, the Republican Party was organized around a vibrant social conservatism and a heavily interventionist foreign policy, with an economic message that was more muddled than anything, but that amounted to fewer taxes and greater spending. This was of course going to attract more of the Murtha-style Rust Belt voters, folks who have a strong interest in military issues, who are very patriotic, who are traditional, probably churchgoing, but who don’t have the disposable income to afford to pay higher taxes, and who are very comfortable with iron-clad entitlements and a generous welfare state. Today, the GOP is organized a bit differently, with economic growth, smaller government, and individual freedom being its core tenets, and with an understated social conservatism in tow, along with wide-ranging views on defense (Ron Paul and Bill Kristol seem equally welcome these days). That sort of party is naturally going to yield dividends among more educated voters, as well as voters with higher and/or more stable incomes, and those who live closer to urban areas, and who tend to be less traditional and more comfortable with an evolving culture.

Ideally, of course, the Republican Party should be able to snag these new creative class voters without losing any of the working class voters from the Bush years. That’s what Toomey was able to do in Pennsylvania, but it sounds like Kasich and Prosser both bled some blue collar voters, even though both were able to make up for those losses with support from white collar voters. This leads me to believe that Republicans need to work on selling conservative economic ideas to voters who are less economically secure, many of whom see globalization and the decline of collective bargaining as the enemy. As I said before, I think conservative economics can be sold to blue collar voters with the right message. Reagan knew how to do this in the ’80s, as did Jack Kemp.

Ultimately, though, from a pure electoral standpoint, the present-day GOP coalition that is currently being cultivated seems to be outperforming the GOP coalition of the last decade across the Rust Belt. Remember, Bush lost Wisconsin twice. He lost Pennsylvania twice. And he came close to losing Ohio in 2004. Fast forward to 2010-2011, years that featured wins for Kasich and Portman in Ohio, Corbett and Toomey in Pennsylvania, and Walker, Johnson, and Prosser in Wisconsin. As such, the party of Scott Walker seems to have a far brighter future in store for it than did the party of George W. Bush.

A few random items I’ve come across this week. Please add your own miscellany to the comments.

Do Wisconsin’s Extra Votes Add up?

Admit it – if someone had found 7000 extra votes for Kloppenberg we’d all be screaming fraud, so let’s not complain that there are some raised eyebrows on the left.  This article looks into the numbers in Wisconsin, which seem to lead to the conclusion that the extra votes in Waukesha County are legit – the result of incompetence, not fraud.  An example:

… before the “adjustment,” Waukesha County was a big outlier. It showed by far the largest drop-off in turnout between the 2010 race for governor last fall and Tuesday’s judicial race (from about  63% to 37%, for a decline of 26 points). After the adjustment, the drop-off is still one of the biggest in the state (from 63% to 42%), but not freakishly so. The statewide drop-off in turnout rate was 16 points, from 50% to 34%.

What You Measure Is What You Get; What You Bonus Is What You Get a Lot of

The header for this item is one of the first rules of management I learned (the hard way, of course). When setting up business metrics and bonuses based on them, it is important to be conscious of the unintended consequences – employees will quickly figure out ways to game the system.

Gannett has established a bonus system to reward reporters based on the number of page views their stories get. Even assuming the writers avoid the obvious (I’d reference Charlie Sheen and Lindsey Lohan in every article, even when writing about Paul Ryan’s budget proposals), certainly Gannett is just begging for a lowering of journalistic standards (Check out rumors before publishing? Are you nuts?)

Who’s to Blame for the ‘Weak Republican Field’?

Conor Friedersdorf has a good article in The Atlantic – though I question the premise. I’m not certain (yet) that the field is weak – we’ll have to wait and see. I’m also not certain that Fox and talk radio are to blame if it is. But his final point, that the right needs a check on talk radio and Fox, is valid.

It’s not that I am opposed to those news/opinion sources – it’s that everything needs a check. We all get better when we are challenged, and we all get sloppy and lazy when we are not. Friedersdorf singles out the National Review, saying in effect that it’s their job to police the right. I disagree again – NR has a role, but I think all of us need to step up and be willing to question orthodoxy.

To be clear, I’m not calling for Rush-bashing. I think Rush and the others perform a valuable function. But I am saying that when the emperor is walking around disrobed, it is appropriate to say so.

Why Wearing a Baseball Cap Backwards is Dumb

Hat Tip (so to speak): Carpe Diem.

Rothenberg on Trump: Not Every Stupid Idea Is Funny

Stuart Rothenberg treats the idea of Trump’s candidacy with the contempt it deserves.

Talk of Trump as a future president or even as a serious contender for the GOP nomination is so far beyond stupid that I almost don’t know where to begin. I can’t believe that so many people are chattering about the possibility that he might run and could be elected, though admittedly most of them are laughing about the absurdity of the prospect.

Besides the facts that the guy’s a Birther, has no relevant experience, and is really, really stupid, there’s the question of what a lifetime spent in dicey real estate deals will yield up when looked at closely:

In the world of real estate and business, Trump is a wheeler-dealer. I don’t know anything about his finances and past deals, but I know that other businessmen with extensive holdings and financial dealings have proved to be the mother lode of opportunity for opposition researchers.

I’m sure that Trump, who knows how to get publicity and relishes in it, understands that his personal life and all of his business dealings would become a matter of public record and public scrutiny just as soon as he announced his intention to run for president, and that alone makes it hard to believe that he is seriously considering a presidential (or any other political) bid.

Where’s the Big Money Coming from (and Going to)?

Good item from Distributed Republic, detailing the biggest contributors to political campaigns, and the biggest recipients. You’ll note that a majority are unions, and that they give their money (big surprise) almost exclusively to Democrats. The businesses and trade associations representing businesses mostly split their contributions fairly evenly between the parties (only two give Republicans more than 60%).

Incomes Aren’t Rising, but Prices Are

I’ve touched in the past on my concern that we’re looking at a replay of the seventies – a stagnant economy coupled with high inflation. The inflation part seems inevitable, given the deficits we’re running, and inflation inevitably hurts the poor more than the middle class, and the middle class more than the wealthy. The MSM is beginning to notice:

Previous bouts of inflation have usually meant a wage-price spiral, as pay and prices chase each other ever upward. But now paychecks are falling further and further behind. In the past three months, consumer prices have been rising at a 5.7 percent annual rate while average weekly wages have barely budged, increasing at an annual rate of only 1.3 percent.

And the particular prices that are rising are for products that people encounter most frequently in their daily lives and have the least flexibility to avoid. For the most part, it’s not computers and cars that are getting more expensive, it’s gasoline, which is up 19 percent in the past year, ground beef, up 10 percent, and butter, up 23 percent.

How do you deal with inflation? You raise interest rates to slow down the economy. Oops, maybe not a good idea this time.

James Pethokoukis looks at the political implications:

… income growth — or the lack of it — political scientists agree, is the economic variable with the most impact on national elections. Strong growth in real disposable personal income led to huge victories for Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Weak or negative growth doomed Jimmy Carter in 1980, George Bush in 1992 and John McCain in 2008.

Real disposable personal income fell 0.1 percent in February. Average hourly wages were flat in March, and have grown at a 1.8 percent annualized rate over the past three months, according to the Economic Policy Institute. With inflation running around 2 percent, this means the average American is falling behind, his standard of living dropping. As the Brooking Institution figures things, between October 2010 and February 2011, real hourly and weekly earnings in the private sector fell 1.1 percent.

Even Goolsbee knows those numbers won’t improve a whole lot unless the unemployment rate moves sharply lower. Yet the official White House economic forecast has unemployment averaging 8.6 percent in 2012, not much below the current 8.8 percent rate. (The broader U-6 rate, which includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want full-time gigs, is a sickening 15.7 percent.) JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli thinks a combination of so-so economic growth, a vast pool of unemployed, higher energy prices and the expiration of the 2011 payroll tax cuts means income growth will likely remain “tepid” going forward.

While hardcore fiscal conservatives and libertarians such as myself wish that more spending cuts would have been pursued by the GOP in this past week’s budget battle, the Republican Liberty Caucus passes along some of the nice silver linings to this compromise:

• The largest spending cut in U.S. history. The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would result in no cuts.

• Hundreds of billions in spending cuts over the next decade. The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.

• An end to the “Stimulus” Spending Binge. The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment.

• Guarantees Senate Vote on Repeal of Obamacare. The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.

• New Tools in the Fight to Repeal Obamacare. The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions – who can’t meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what’s happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.

• Denial of Additional Funding to the IRS. The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues. This increased funding is denied in the agreement.

• A Guarantee of Senate Vote and Debate On Defunding Planned Parenthood.  The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

• Ban of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion in DC. The agreement includes a complete ban on federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”).

• Mandatory Audits of the New Job-Crushing Bureaucracy Set Up Under Dodd-Frank. The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.

Congressman Ron Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton, told The Daily Caller today that Ron Paul has filled out the forms for a 2012 presidential exploratory committee and the filing is imminent.  Looks like it’s official–Ron Paul 2012 is a go.

From Greenville, South Carolina’s GreenvilleOnline.com:

The state Republican Party said today it has confirmed five participants for the GOP presidential debate next month in Greenville that will effectively kick off the national campaign.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum will participate, said state GOP chairwoman Karen Floyd.

The five lucky contestants so far are:

• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Buddy Roemer
• Rick Santorum

Mike Huckabee has said he isn’t coming.

Fred Karger wants in.

No mention of Herman Cain anywhere. No Donald Trump, either.

Mitt Romney isn’t saying. Neither is Sarah Palin.

Should Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin accept their invitations? Without Mike Huckabee, I suspect it would be a mistake for either of them to show up without the other there also. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Mitt and Sarah were working together on this.

Now if Mitt or Sarah were to announce this month, then they would have to be there with or without the other one.

CNN is reporting that congressional Republicans and Democrats have finally hammered out a deal on the federal budget, and that a continuing resolution will be passed by Congress tonight to prevent the government from shutting down, followed by the passage of a budget next week.

It’s at times like this that I’m glad that John Boehner, and not Newt Gingrich, is Speaker of the House.

The reality is that the Democrats had set a trap for the GOP in this most recent budgetary stand-off that could have undone, in one fell swoop, all the hard work that Republicans have accomplished over the past two years in order to bring their party back from the dead. By playing a game of chicken with the GOP over Planned Parenthood funding on the eve of a government shutdown, Democrats were hoping to watch Republicans take the bait and then spend the next few weeks characterizing the GOP as the party standing between women and contraception. Never mind the fact that nothing that Republicans were doing would actually prevent women from having access to birth control. The substance of the issue is irrelevant, because the very fact that Democrats would be successfully changing the debate from one over growth, debt, and freedom to one over women’s rights, reproduction, and “The Pill” means that the GOP would have already lost.

Think I’m overreacting? Think again. Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan posted not one, not two, but fully three separate pieces this evening in support of Planned Parenthood. That’s what the debate would become the instant the government shuts down — one that resuscitates the 1960s battle between Hipsters and Prudes. Again, the substance of any or all of this matters not. The very fact that the nation would be fighting over sex instead of fighting over taxes and spending and size of government would mean that the GOP coalition of 2009-2011, which is NOT the Bush Coalition, as I will demonstrate later this weekend, would fall apart and probably wouldn’t be able to be put back together again in time for 2012.

But all of that is theoretical now thanks to the savvy statesman that is Speaker Boehner. May he serve for a long, long time.

Romney “comes on and says he’s pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state’s health care plan.” Newsmax 12/31/2007

I received an astonishing email today from a concerned friend who has been very influential in the fight to end the scourge of abortion.

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don’t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization. (Emphasis in Original) HuckPAC 6/11/2010

“Nobody’s more pro-life than me. Nobody. But as much as I want to see Planned Parenthood defunded, as much as I want to see NPR lose their funding, the reality is the president and the Senate are never gonna go along with that. So win the deal you can win and live to fight another day.”  The Hill 4/8/2011

You know, I really don’t have a problem when a politician or anyone else changes their mind. We all grow. We all are changed by life’s experiences. We all develop different perspectives as time goes on. Which is why I am often amused when somebody points to something someone said or did 15-20 years ago and tries to hold it against them. People change.

But I do have a problem with people who self-righteously use some principle to score political points off their opponents, and then turn right around and do the same thing themselves.

It was only ten short months ago when Mike Huckabee said, “Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips”. He even underlined it in his blog to emphasize the point. Yet here we are today hearing him talk about them being just that, a bargaining chip. Something to throw away in order to get something you consider more important.

I wonder if Mike is going to apologize to Mitt or to Mitch.

I agree with Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Pat Toomey, and Gov. Mike Huckabee — a government shutdown would be a politically insane move on the part of the GOP that would threaten to set the party back just as it is hitting its stride.

While this most certainly isn’t 1996, and while the nation has moved way, way rightward on economics in the past 15 years, the current debate isn’t over the tax code or the future of entitlements or whether or not we’re going to send the nation over the fiscal precipice. The current debate is over whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood, a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. Given that funding for Planned Parenthood seems to be the only remaining impediment to a deal between the two parties, for Republicans to shut down the government at this point would signal that this fight isn’t really about economic or fiscal issues, but is instead about social and culture war issues.

I know, I know, defunding Planned Parenthood is both a fiscal AND a social issue. Point taken. And as part of a broader package, one dealing with the federal budget en masse, cuts to Planned Parenthood’s funding should certainly be included. But to single out Planned Parenthood funding as a dealbreaker issue, given its minimal role in the overall fiscal picture, would indeed transform the debate from one about economics into one about culture, and that would have the potential to totally reorganize the electorate at a time when Republicans are just beginning to find their voice as the party of economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom.

As I will demonstrate in a post later this weekend, the GOP coalition of 2010 and 2011 is not identical to the GOP coalition of the Bush years. Thanks to the work of the inimitable Sean Trende, who has been writing extensively on this subject over at Real Clear Politics, I will have lots of data to present this weekend that shows that the GOP owes its 2010 and now 2011 victories in states like Ohio and Wisconsin to suburban, white collar voters, not to rural or blue collar voters. These new Republican voters are likely responding to the GOP’s focus on economics and freedom, and it is impossible to say how they would react to a party that changed its focus to cultural issues or, for that matter, national defense.

That’s not to say that the GOP should walk away from its pro-life roots. Indeed, even Northeastern Republicans like Chris Christie and Donald Trump are becoming more pro-life, not less, as they gain national prominence within the party. And party superstar Paul Ryan is a down-the-line social conservative who once worked for Sen. Sam Brownback. But the point is that the focus of the GOP has been on a specific array of issues since Obama took office, and to change that focus, even implicitly, by shutting down the government indefinitely over Planned Parenthood would be a foolhardy risk that could shift the tectonic plates of national politics once again and allow President Obama and the Democrats to stumble into a fresh new lead in public opinion.

It’s time for House Republicans to cut a deal. And then to make the next year and a half into a debate over Paul Ryan’s vision for the country versus the Democrats’ lack of vision.

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of my “quick hit” posts, so we’re about due for another one. As all eyes are locked on tense government shut-down talks, and electoral politics seems heavily presidential-focused, here are some quick bits of campaign news from further down-ballot.

1. Wisconsin: Democrats have got to be gnashing their teeth at the results of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, as they stand today. It looked, on Wednesday morning, like union-backed Joanne Kloppenberg was going to win the election by a narrow 200 vote margin. However, as is so often the case, a clerical error was found, which added votes to one candidate’s total. In this case, the candidate was David Prosser, the conservative Supreme Court incumbent, and the number of votes added exceeds 7,000. It’ll take a lot of ballots in a lot of car trunks to even that up. Of course, absentee ballots still need to be counted, but it’s looking less good for Democrats than it did a couple of days ago.

2. West Virginia: the Democratic primary in WV to finish the gubernatorial term of now Senator Joe Manchin looks like a crazy quilt, but with acting governor Earl Ray Tomblin on the top of the heap. Tomblin is probably the most conservative Democrat in the race, and is most likely to govern in the mold of Manchin. State house speaker Rick Thompson has locked up most of the unions, while Secretary of State Natalie Tenet has the progressive activist base, and EMILY’s list for good measure. On the Republican side, the primary is increasingly looking like a two-horse race between former Secretary of State Betty Ireland and businessman Bill Maloney, probably most famous for the role he played in rescuing Chilean miners last year. Maloney has the advantage in fund-raising, while Ireland has way higher name recognition. This primary is sliding below the radar, but could be one to watch.

3. Virginia: Tim Kaine, after dithering for months and months, is finally in the senate race. The VA GOP is welcoming him to the party by seeking to tie him to President Obama (since he was, ya know, Obama’s point man at the DNC and all). On the other side…sigh, George Allen… sigh… has once again said something that looks racial, asking an African-American reporter–twice–what position he played in sports. I’d give Allen a free pass on this, but you’d think he’d have learned his lesson after 2006. This race is rapidly moving into I-don’t-care territory, and it just started, and happens to be taking place in the state in which I vote.

3. New Mexico: it looks like things are forming up for the New Mexico senate race largely as expected. First district Representative Martin Heinrich is in for the Democrats; no word yet on state Auditor Hector Balderas, who I thought was all but a done deal. On the Republican side, former representative Heather Wilson is in, and Lieutenant-Governor John Sanchez is thinking about it.

4. Missouri: Geeze, what is with politicians and their expensive travel in the show-me state. As of this writing, Senator Clair McCaskill, Lieutenant-Governor and expected gubernatorial candidate Peter Kinder and governor J Nixon all have travel issues of one kind or another. Meanwhile, McCaskill foe and former treasurer Sarah Steelman apparently has a lot of documents missing from her time in office. Meanwhile, Todd Akin, of Missouri’s second district, is watching, waiting, and trying to decide if he’s going to take the plunge and run for senate.

5. Florida: the FL-sen field is beginning to take shape, with state senate President Mike Haridopolos, former state house majority leader Adam Hasner and interim senator George Lemeux all either in the race or entering it imminently, and Florida congressman Conney Mack taking himself out of contention. We’re still waiting to hear from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and 2006 senate candidate Will Macbride.

6. Arizona: Everyone seems to be extremely perplexed by Representative Trent Franks at the moment. Franks let it be known that he was running for senate, then backed out at the last minute. This all benefits Jeff Flake, who has the field to himself and is making immigration moves to shore up his right flank. Short of Giffords entering the race, or a real, credible candidate against Flake in the primary, this one’s Flakes to lose.

7. Nevada: Dean Heller is officially in the senate race, and Sharon Angle is officially not challenging him. So, now, all eyes are on Democratic congresswoman Shelley Berkley. Will she give up a safe seat to run against Heller, or stay put, and deny Democrats their best shot at a pick-up here? Her internal polls are showing Berkley with a slight lead over Heller, but some of my friends across the isle are not wild about her as a debater. If she takes a pass, Democrats could turn to either Secretary of State Ross Miller, or Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto.

8. Pennsylvania: I’ve been a little surprised at the timidity of politicos from my old home state in challenging first-term senator and virtual empty suit Bobby Casey junior in 2012. Now, it looks like state Rep. Sam Rorer, last seen losing the gubernatorial primary to Tom Corbett, is considering the race. Rorer has some statewide profile as a noted conservative, but I’m not sure he can raise enough money and enough of a profile in the Eastern counties to go up against Casey. For my money, I’d like to see state house speaker Mike Turzai, former 2006 gubernatorial candidate Bill Scranton, Congressman Jim Gerlach or even former governor Mark Schweiker give the race a go. However, I’m not sure how likely this is to actually happen.

9. New York: Any hopes Democrats had of a tea-party-inspired fractious in the New York 26 special election are now officially dead. Not only did Iraq war veteran David Balavia fail to qualify for the ballot in this district, but Tea New York has just endorsed Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, after castigating Democrat-turned-tea partier-turned opportunist Jack Davis for stealing the Tea party line. It looks like the May 24th special election will be a straight-up slug-fest between Corwin and Eerie county clerk Kathy Hochull, which means the Republicans should win here pretty easily.

Did I miss something? Let me know in the comments.

Retrograde: moving backward; having a backward motion or direction; retiring or retreating.

It seems collective political minds have come to the same conclusion this week – albeit for differing reasons – the once bright political star of Sarah Palin is in serious

retrograde. Evidence is mounting, pointing to a sharp decline in the popularity the former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate once held in the GOP.

Recent polling among GOP voters – both in key 2012 states and nationwide – has shown a steady and consistent decline since the November 2010 mid-term elections. Some of the theories causing Palin’s slumping stature:

• Her handling of the Arizona/Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting in January
• Palin’s endorsement of failed, controversial November 2010 candidates
• The GOP’s rejection of Palin’s tiresome defensiveness regarding criticism
• A political focus by the GOP on fiscal issues – not viewed as Palin’s forte
• The emergence of new political rogues – Bachmann & Trump
• Resigning the Alaska Governorship – never fully or satisfactorily explained

Today, Washington Post’s The Fix authors Chris Cillizza and Adam Blake recap many of these points quite effectively. In addition, the web site – GOP’12 has an equally concise summation on Palin’s current political standing.

While it’s likely anyone of the above factors could act as the single catalyst for most people to develop a negative view of Palin, a more likely scenario would be the confluence of all these issues within people’s minds.

Perhaps the most significant influence in Palin’s decline within the party is the emergence of Michelle Bachmann and Donald Trump as potential GOP candidates for 2012. They have shown a willingness to push the envelope when attacking President Obama. This was the ground and the supporters who occupy it, Palin used to command at the height of her popularity, most notably as when she called out Obama as having “death panels” in his Health Care reform package. But with Trump and Bachmann ratcheting up the volume, Palin finds her base being courted by new voices, willing to speak just as loud as she has.

Bachmann has not been shy about calling the President’s plans and intentions “Socialist” or venturing into any media forum to say so. Trump is making daily headlines by adopting the controversial “Birther” story, as he ponders a run for the GOP nomination. These are the types of red meat issues certain elements in the GOP had fervently expected the fierce, fighting “Mama Grizzly” Palin to take directly to the doorsteps of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With the aggressive campaign styles both Bachmann and Trump have recently displayed, restless Palin supporters apparently are looking for new champions to rally around.

These developments pose serious political and tactical problems for Palin, should she decide to make a run for the GOP nomination in 2012. She either has to join in on the controversial side of the political argument or move to the center, confronting Obama on the seriousness of the issues and in non conservative arenas. Joining in with Trump and Bachmann would enable Palin to shore up her base support, but risks increased mainstream criticism and favorability declines. It would re-affirm the negative, reactionary and superficial image many hold of her. Should Palin go the serious route on the issues, tackling the economy, social ills and foreign affairs, she’ll run headlong into more formidable and credible rivals, such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, each of whom has shown an expertise or command of these issues.

Further compounding any efforts for a Palin turnaround, is the dwindling game clock the former “Thrilla from Wassila” faces. Does she have time to recast herself as a serious and credible alternative to Obama, as more GOP voters become concerned with the issue of electability, when selecting their nominee?

Fatefully, Palin herself may have inadvertently short changed her own political career. In her haste to pursue quick money and safely play solely to her political base, via exclusive media outlets like Fox News, Facebook and Sean Hannity, Palin now finds herself on shifting political ground with a narrowing area of support. It was often said of one of her potential 2012 rivals – Mitt Romney – that his support was a mile wide and an inch deep. Palin is the mirror image of this, as her support evidently is a mile deep but a mere inch wide.

Had Palin taken time to hang back after 2008, picking her battles selectively, establishing a solid issue-oriented base and re-emerging with a more credible persona, she would now be positioned as a vibrant, viable, mainstream alternative – to the Bachmanns and Trumps. As it is now, she cedes the mainstream to Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Palin assumed she had the hard right base to herself, but the energy, command of the issues and fundraising ability of Michelle Bachmann has recently opened a serious breach in that thinking.

Now, with an evaporating political base and the balance of the GOP holding a high negative view of her, Palin meteoric star, which once burned so bright, is now alas, in retrograde.

_________________________________________________________________________

-Doug NYC GOP also blogs at Rightspeak

Fox News 2012 Presidential Survey

Republican Nomination

• Mike Huckabee 15%
• Mitt Romney 14%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Donald Trump 11%
• Rudy Giuliani 9%
• Newt Gingrich 7%
• Tim Pawlenty 4%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Mitch Daniels 3%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Michele Bachmann 2%
• Herman Cain 2%
• Haley Barbour 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Someone else 1%
• Too soon to say 5%
• Don’t know 8%

(more…)

Mark McKinnon at the Daily Beast wrote an interesting piece on how Michele Bachmann could capture the Republican nomination. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Though prone to gaffes and non-answer answers, she is a formidable fundraiser, an icon among Tea Party enthusiasts, draws cameras like flies, and her detractors are legion. And it’s looking more and more likely she will run for president. Also, it’s not a stretch to see how she could very likely win Iowa and we know what happens after that. 

No, not Sarah Palin. Get ready for a conservative firebrand from Minnesota who may make memories of Palin pale quickly. We are talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann who, while Palin hesitates, has aggressively jumped into the fray. And while she’s not my cup of tea (party), Bachmann would arguably be a stronger GOP candidate for president than Palin in 2012. She works harder, she’s smarter, she has more discipline, more focus and, perhaps most important, she has fire in her belly.

Chair of the House Tea Party caucus and an outspoken champion of the movement, Bachmann raised more campaign cash in the 2010 congressional midterm elections than any other candidate. And her $2.2 million haul in the first quarter of 2011, mostly from small donors and before she has officially entered the race, tops former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Her “positive intensity” among Republicans and right-leaning independents, as measured by Gallup, is higher than Palin’s, even though her name recognition is far lower. Though political pundits pounce on her every misspeak and mangled factoid, while being far more forgiving of the president’s mispronunciations, and historical inaccuracies, she electrifies crowds and displays unnerving message discipline.

Her upstaging of the GOP’s response to the State of the Union address created consternation within the party, but got at least twice the attention and coverage as did Paul Ryan, who delivered the party’s formal response. Ninety percent of politics is showing up. And Bachmann is showing up in Iowa. And she’s creating a lot of excitement among the conservative faithful. And Bachmann would fill the void left by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who decided not to run for president in 2012: She is both a fiscal and social conservative, which is what Iowa Republican primary voters like. If Mike Huckabee doesn’t run, and Palin doesn’t run, that leaves Rick Santorum as Bachmann’s only real competition among these core voters. And he lost his last election by 16 points.

What I find most fascinating about the article is this quote from Karl Rove on Michele Bachmann:

She’s smart, she’s tough, she’s funny, she’s got a lot of personality and all of that will help her if she throws her hat in the ring. 

Will she win the nomination? Will she even decide to run? Both questions are up in the air. That said, they do make a compelling case. If Palin doesn’t run, Bachmann will very readily be able to capture her base of support mostly unopposed and, without Huckabee, could surprise us in Iowa. With an Iowa win and her already powerful fundraising network, Bachmann would fastly become competitive in other states which are friendly to her brand of conservatism. With her “Tea Party” credentials, fundraising prowess, and personal roots to Iowa – a win there for Bachmann is not out of the question.

Could we see President Bachmann in 2013? I don’t know. What I do know is that I would vote for her over Obama any day of the week, especially if she can lay out a good platform with a solid running mate.

_______________________________________________________

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

There have been two strong arguments for why Mitch Daniels would not run:

1. His wife, some say, doesn’t want him to

2. The Indiana legislature ran away

Why #1 matters is obvious. Regarding #2, he had said he would not decide what to do until the legislative session was finished, because he had campaigned hard for a Republican legislature in the 2010 elections with a specific agenda promised, the most important element of which was a massive overhaul of public education. When the Democrats ran to Illinois (the favorite hide-out of Midwestern fleebaggers) it looked like he might need to call a special session going into the summer. When he was asked what that might mean to any presidential hopes, he admitted that a summer session might delay things too much.

The Democrats eventually returned, the education reform bill passed the House and is now in the Senate. There were compromises, of course, but it is still reasonably described as the most extensive voucher law in the US:

The legislation takes a portion of state funding usually provided to public schools and gives it instead to families who want to send their kids to private schools.

The income threshold below which a student is eligible for a voucher is about $62,000 for a family of four.

Families making $41,000 or lower would be eligible for a larger voucher. The amount of the voucher depends on average funding in individual school districts with a cap of $4,500 for grades 1 through 8.

For those watching presidential politics, the important point is that obstacle #2 has been removed. The legislature is expected to adjourn on April 29, and Mitch Daniels will be speaking (on education reform, coincidentally) to the American Enterprise Institute on May 4:

Daniels will speak May 4 at the American Enterprise Institute. Spokeswoman Veronique Rodman says Daniels chose to talk about education policy.

This will be the governor’s fourth high-profile trip to Washington since mid-February. He’s said he’ll decide after the scheduled April 29 end of the state legislative session on seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

Daniels is backing numerous education changes moving through the Legislature, including an expansion of charter schools, limiting collective bargaining for teachers and starting a voucher system using taxpayer money to help parents send their children to private schools.

So what about obstacle #1? Well, as Hoosierpundit puts it: Cheri ‘No Politics No Way, No How’ Daniels to Keynote Indiana State Republican Dinner.

The clever spin on this from Mrs. Daniels’ staff is that she’s never done a speech like this at a political event before because, gosh, nobody asked.

While that’s probably true, it’s also true that nobody asked because she’s made very clear in the past that politics isn’t her thing and she wants no part of it.

Now, the times, they are a changing.

Of course, she’s speaking in Indianapolis, not in Iowa, so there is that. But for someone that has so shunned the political spotlight for so long, any appearance like this is bound to raise eyebrows (and has already).

The timing is interesting, one week after Mitch’s speech at AEI. Could mean nothing, but we will presumably know on May 4.

“The Donald” discusses his change of heart on abortion in an exclusive interview with David Brody:

David Brody: “Evangelicals do want to feel secure that they’re going to have a nominee that’s going to at least be solid on those issues, those social issues. Someone that’s not just going to cut and move on.”

Donald Trump: One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago. One of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married.

She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story. He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye.It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him.

And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.

David Brody: So those stories did change you, they came around and changed you?

Trump: They changed me. Yeah, they changed my view as to that, absolutely.

For those who are still undecided about whether to take a Trump presidential run seriously (and perhaps a bit concerned about its impact on the Republican primary), it is heartening to see that Trump has, at least, a firm grasp on which issues are deal-breakers for GOP primary voters. For my part, I believe its illustrative of a certain savvy on Trump’s part that has been absent in other recent presidential contenders in Trump’s mold.

See the rest of Brody’s exclusive interview here.

Hat-tip: K-Lo

Roanoke College in Virginia has just released a new political survey of potential and registered voters in Virginia.  While I do not know the historical accuracy of the Roanoke College Polls, if this one is at least in the ballpark, it should be good news for Republicans next year if the current trends hold.  First off, in next year’s US Senate race, George Allen holds a 45-32 percent lead over Tim Kaine.  Secondly, President Obama’s job approval is fairing poorly in Virginia with 57% disapproving and just under 34% approving of the president’s performance.  However, Governor Bob McDonnell enjoys a 67% approval rating.  Another interesting point is that 71% think that things in the country have gotten off on the wrong track, but 49% think that things in Virginia are on the right track.

Certain underlying structural issues in the survey are more of a mixed bag.  Consider the following findings on taxes, wealth, and the budget deficit:

A majority of respondents (59%) prefer that the federal budget deficit be reduced through a combination of budget cuts and tax increases, but more than one-third (37%) prefer budget cuts alone, and only 4 percent want tax increases alone. (This represents a 12 percent increase for budget cuts alone and a 13 percent decrease for a combined approach from December when a similar question about state finances was asked.) Interestingly, respondents were split regarding whether the government should (47%) or should not (46%) redistribute wealth by increasing taxes on the rich.

Respondents perceive that the rich are paying too little in federal taxes (63%), while middle income people are paying their fair share (53%) or too much (39%) in taxes. Opinion was evenly split regarding the poor paying their fair share (40%) or too much (39%), but 20 percent did say the poor are paying too little. Two-thirds (67%) said that corporations are paying too little. More than half of respondents (58%) thought that everyone should pay something in taxes, regardless of how much or how little they make, but 36 percent said that not everyone should pay. Most people (69%) perceive their tax burden this year as fair.

I found the respondents views’ as to what defines “rich” to be both surprising and disturbing:

• A plurality of Virginia residents (44%) think they should pay less than 20 percent of their income in taxes.
• When asked how much the rich should pay in taxes, 53 percent of respondents think the rich should pay between 30 and 39 percent of their income in taxes.
• What defines “rich?” According to 40 percent of respondents, an income of $100,000 or less would define a person as rich. Twenty-six percent think that cutoff point is between $100,001 and $250,000, while 21 percent think it is between $250,001 and $500,000. Eleven percent think people earning between $500,001 and $1 million are rich, while 3 percent think an income in excess of $1 million was needed for a person to be considered rich.

Take a look at the complete set of questions and demographic sampling.  The questions, sample selection, and demographics represented appear to be objective and thus this survey should on balance indicate that Virginia should be favorable turf for Republicans next year.  At least the stage is set—it will be up to our side not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

One week ago, Rick Santorum became the first 2012 contender to officially announce his attendance at the first debate of the primary season, an event in Greenville, SC co-sponsored by FOX News and the SC GOP.

Later that day, Buddy Roemer announced he would also attend the debate.

Two days ago, Ron Paul seemed to end some speculation by announcing he would participate in the debate as well.

And so far, that’s it. With the debate less than four weeks away, the only folks signing up to debate are a few third-tier candidates. FOX News and the South Carolina Republican Party say there are no plans to postpone the event. Interestingly, the SC GOP Executive Director told the media that several candidates have “informally committed” to him to participate.

I’m setting the over/under on the number of candidates in this debate at 6.5. It’s time to make your predictions: who will participate in this debate? Who has informally committed to debating but not officially announced their intentions yet? Will any top tier candidates be there?

Wow. Anyone following the Intrade markets over the past two weeks has seen quite a bit of shift in how the investors view the horserace for the GOP nomination.

Romney had the second largest gain, pulling away from Pawlenty – who had the biggest loss, down 3.4 points. Meanwhile, Bachmann and Trump rocketed to the top of the second tier while Palin and Huckabee collapsed and tumbled, even falling below Barbour and Huntsman briefly. Gingrich fell all the way down to third-tier territory with the likes of Chris Christie and Ron Paul (a newcomer to the chart, which I only extend down to a 2% chance of winning the nomination).

Here’s the current state of the race (movement is from the last update two weeks ago):