Movement is from the last update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an exploratory committee or a candidacy, or who have greater than a 3% chance at the nomination are included. Yellow indicates an exploratory committee; green indicates an official candidacy.

First the Tennessee GOP event, now this.  He’s getting closer to launching what could soon become the front-running campaign for the GOP nomination.

“Mitch Daniels is expected to be the special guest at a National Republican Senatorial Committee event in Washington next week, just as he’s deciding whether to run for president…”

UPDATE: Daniels discusses Iowa, New Hampshire, and campaign staff hires.

Jen Rubin points to a Daniels 2009 video, where he opines about the necessity of avoiding wedge issues.

At one point Daniels says, “The whole concept of a wedge issue should be foreign to us if we really want to come back.”  Coming off a very bad year, it is no great surprise that one of the party’s few electoral successes laid out a blue-print for a comeback.  Nor is it much of surprise that the blue-print was conciliatory, not retaliatory.  But this speech, coming before the truce comments, points to the Daniels style and, if his actions since are any indication, it’s a style he seems incapable of jettisoning.  The real Mitch Daniels is conservative but not rigidly- or even ideologically- so and preternaturally averse to conflict.  In a state setting, where folks care more about keeping the trains running then they do about bombast, this is a decided asset.  At the national level, it looks like a fatal flaw.  Here’s how Redstate’s Leon Wolf reacts:

I am not really sure what is wrong with Mitch Daniels. Two years ago, you would not have found a bigger Mitch Daniels booster in the United States than yours truly. He had bucked national trends to win an landslide re-election and was doing all the right things to demonstrate administrative competence, which is something our party badly needed to demonstrate after the last two years of the Bush administration…

So, as Republicans were gearing up for their biggest electoral victories in 16 years by fighting Obama and the Democrats tooth and nail on every aspect of their agenda, Mitch Daniels was telling everyone that the way to victory was to forget what a wedge issue even was, and just be nice so that people will like us again. Since then, Daniels has demonstrated that having a political tin ear in his case is a congenital defect rather than an isolated occurrence, telling social conservatives repeatedly to get to the back of the bus and indicating that he would pick Condi Rice – widely vilified as a miserable SecState by Republicans of all stripes – as his VP.

Mitch Daniels, by all accounts, was a very good governor of Indiana. By all those same accounts, he is very bad at understanding what it takes to build a coalition that could win a national election. In another candidate, this shortcoming would not necessarily be fatal. But let us face facts: Mitch Daniels is short, bald, and boring, and he is running against the Central Casting President…

Mitch Daniels has shown, again and again, that he has no understanding of how to build such [a political]  army. Thankfully for the GOP, the people he is now busy alienating at every opportunity will be able to prevent him from having the opportunity to lose in a landslide to Obama.

The University of New Hampshire Survey Center released a national poll yesterday of the current crop of 2012 GOP hopefuls. The horse race numbers were published on Race4. The vs. Obama numbers were not. Here they are:

Clearly this poll shows that Mitt Romney is the current frontrunner. He is the only hopeful that actually does better against Obama than a generic Republican.

It will be interesting to watch these numbers evolve over the next few weeks as the withdrawals of both Huckabee and Trump filter through the consciences of the voters.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 43%
• Chris Christie 35%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Rand Paul 32%

• Barack Obama 43%
• Gary Johnson 27%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Rick Perry 28%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Michele Bachmann 27%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Buddy Roemer 21%

• Barack Obama 43%
• Thaddeus McCotter 19%

Seven national surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted May 1-14, 2011. The margin of error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

The President was in Boston yesterday for a fundraiser. The Boston Herald requested access. It was turned down. Why?

Well it seems that the last time Obama was in town, the Herald put a Mitt Romney written op-ed on the front page criticizing the President’s economic policy. That “unfair” treatment was cited by the White House as the reason for yesterday’s snub of the paper.

It was a mistake.

First and foremost, “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel”. That sage advice was first attributed to America’s first sage, Benjamin Franklin. It was true back then. It is just as true today.

Second, it draws attention to the history of heavy-handed press management by this administration. It highlights yet another area of incompetence of this White House — just what they need in the lead-up to the 2012 campaign. Recent examples include exiling a reporter wanting to cover a Biden fundraiser to an utility closet and banning a reporter in San Fransisco who had the temerity to take video of people protesting the President’s visit there.

Third, it gives one of Obama’s likely 2012 opponents a platform from which to attack the President. Said opponent, Mitt Romney, promptly took advantage of the opening. The Herald quotes him as saying:

“The media has a responsibility to be truthful and to be interesting, and the Herald is both of those things. The president barring the Herald from attending a presidential event flies in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment.”

“I know the president and the White House are very sensitive about anyone who talks about the failures in the economy. They’re in denial about putting people out of work and the under-employed. When the Herald speaks the truth, they lash out.”

“I think the president’s campaign promises in too many cases have gone by the boards. The transparency pledge was the first to go. The inclination toward retribution and lashing out toward people who disagree with his economic posture is only the latest chapter.”

Fourth, it shows the President trying to limit news coverage of Mitt Romney. Are they worried? Even if they aren’t, this sort of thing says they are.

The President and his people seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the White House is located in Washington, D.C., not Chicago, Illinois. They are rapidly running out of time in which to figure that out.

Politico has the story:

Haley, who was elected in 2010 and basked in favorable news coverage as the state’s first female and also Indian-American governor, hasn’t endorsed a candidate yet. But her shots at Romney and Gingrich has led to speculation in state political circles that her candidate of choice is former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

The two share a common bond– Jon Lerner, her political adviser and Pawlenty’s pollster.

Noting the Lerner connection, one top South Carolina operative flatly said “she’s in the bag for Pawlenty”—a common refrain in recent interviews with a half-dozen state political operatives.

“Her political adviser is Jon Lerner,” another operative, consultant Warren Tompkins, pointed out without prompting.

Needless to say, Gov. Haley’s endorsement will be one of the bigger “gets” of the entire 2012 campaign and has the potential to be a game-changer for prospects of Tim Pawlenty.

Read the rest here.

Tim Pawlenty recently hired two campaign operatives in vital states. First, in South Carolina:

Kurt Pickhardt, the South Carolina Republican Party’s operations director, started work Monday as Pawlenty’s political director in the state.

…The former Minnesota governor’s recently-hired pollster, Jon Lerner, also has South Carolina ties. He advised both Govs. Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley.

And next, in Florida:

Tim Pawlenty has turned to a familiar source for advice as he makes his bid for the Republican presidential nomination: longtime Florida political and education insider Phil Handy.

Handy served as chairman of the state’s board of education under former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush—who has ruled out a 2012 White House bid—and thus had a role in shaping that state’s ambitious and influential policies on school choice, charters, and testing and grading schools.

He brings high-level campaign experience to Pawlenty’s team. Handy served as a top adviser on school issues during Sen. John McCain’s unsuccessful 2008 bid for the White House.

This comes on the heels of word that the Governor held his biggest fundraiser yet tonight in Minneapolis. The campaign extended invitations to many leaders of the Minnesota business community.

With Mitt Romney’s much-discussed fundraising blitz and more suggestion than ever that Mitch Daniels will throw his hat in the ring, things have become that much tougher for Pawlenty. However, T-Paw appears far from ready to take it lying down, as he has shown that he will continue charging ahead and introducing himself to Republicans across the nation.

Lots of rumors and coyness on the part of would-be candidates seem to be floating around the political world today. First, Red State’s Erick Erickson continues to stand by the intelligence he gathered earlier this week that suggested a Daniels run was in the works:

In the next couple of weeks Mitch Daniels will announce he is running for President. I know, he is denying he has made up his mind. On Monday night I put on twitter that my sources are telling me a decision has been made. The next day, Daniels denied that.

But three people who know Daniels well are telling me his mind is made up and his wife is at peace with the decision. They could be reading tea leaves, but they tell me their certainty goes beyond that.

Erickson also dismissed the rumors of a run by Texas Gov. Rick Perry:

Rick Perry is not running for the Presidency.

There is a lot of buzz about what Perry has recently said, but he is not running. His key people are helping Newt. Behind the scenes, many have been pestering him, but he has been swatting them away.

Rick Perry is not running for President of the United States. The buzz is related to the continuing disappointment of many conservatives about the current crop of candidates and the wishful thinking of many.

But he’s not running.

Erickson does suggest that Perry could be talked into running should conservative angst about the field remain high as we head into primary season. I tend to believe that a Perry candidacy would be a high-risk, high-reward proposition. On one hand, Perry is, on paper, a candidate who could appeal to Southerners, evangelicals, and conservatives who want their slab of meat rare, but who also has the policy chops and a decade of governance to appeal to swing voters. But the flip side of that is that Perry has the potential to remind swing voters of George W. Bush, all while being dismissed by a RINO by the base for all the heterodoxies that likely lie in a decade of governance. Personally, I’m sticking with the boring CPA from Indiana.

But that’s not all. It also appears that the vacuum for a socially moderate national security hawk may finally be filled as well:

Rep. Peter King, whose national profile has climbed as head of the U.S. House Homeland Security panel, is leaving the door open for a possible presidential bid.

The New York congressman, responding to a powerful hometown Republican’s suggestion that he run for president, said he was taking a wait-and-see approach.

“Let’s see what happens,” King told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday. “This is something out of the blue. It is a great honor, but right now I am focused on getting re-elected to the House next year.”

The fact that King is leaning towards a run probably means that Giuliani has privately ruled one out.

The Red-Headed Stranger is all in for Gary Johnson in 2012:

Legendary country musician and well-known marijuana smoker Willie Nelson and his Teapot Party have endorsed Gary Johnson for president. The former New Mexico governor, who is running for the Republican nomination, is a well-known advocate for legalizing and taxing marijuana.

“I am truly gratified to have the endorsement of such a legendary entertainer and champion for individual rights as Willie Nelson,” Johnson said in a statement. “Not only is Willie a superstar talent but, he is a strong advocate for social change, as seen through his tireless work on behalf of family owned farms and hard working Americans.”

“Americans are demanding the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams without interference from a heavy-handed government, and Willie Nelson lends a tremendous voice to those demands,” Johnson said.

According to the Teapot Party statement, Nelson recently met Johnson after a concert in Texas, sharing a massive blunt backstage.*

Willie Nelson described his stance on the legalization of marijuana as, ”Tax it, regulate it, legalize it. And stop the border wars over drugs.”

Of course, the real reason for this write-up is that there will probably never be another legitimate reason for me to post a Willie Nelson video on the site again.



_____________________________________________________________

* OK, I totally made that last part up.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

“In thinking about the 2012 Presidential Election suppose you had a choice between a Republican candidate and Democrat Barack Obama.  If the election were held today would you vote for the Republican candidate or Democrat Barack Obama?”

• Republican Candidate 45%
• Barack Obama 43%

National Survey of 3,500 Likely Voters. Conducted May 9-15, 2011. Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

From the Des Moines Register (via The Fix), we learn that six candidates have already confirmed their participation in the Ames Straw Poll on August 13. They are:

• Michelle Bachmann
• Herman Cain
• Newt Gingrich
• Ron Paul
• Tim Pawlenty
• Rick Santorum

Kinda takes any remaining mystery out of whether or not Bachmann will run…

According to Chris Cillizza, Huntsman is “unlikely to participate”, leaving the two biggest question marks as Romney and Daniels. (And what about Moore, Roemer, and Johnson? Heh.)

The real estate for the event at Ames will be auctioned off this year on June 23. (For those unfamiliar with how this works, check out this piece and this piece written for last election’s straw poll.) So ostensibly, candidates have less than a month to decide whether or not they’ll play at Ames.

What are your predictions? Will Romney and Daniels do Ames? Do they have to? Does this hurt Huntsman? Who will win Ames, and will it matter?

Per Eric Bolling, the announcement will be made in her home town of Waterloo, IA.

This will be my last post at R412 for a couple of weeks; an impending wedding and honey moon will do that, but I should be back and going strong after Memorial Day. If something breaks between now and then (a foreign policy crisis for example), you may see a quick reaction piece. Until then, there have been enough developments in non-presidential races that it’s worth putting up another “quick hit” post subsequent to last week’s.

1. CA-36: Who the heck is Craig Huey? Like you, I’d never heard of the guy before last night, but he seems to have shocked the political world with his stronger-than-expected finish in the CA-36 jungle primary last night. As many of you know, California has moved to a “top two” jungle primary” system, in which the top two vote-getters–regardless of party–advance to a run-off. In heavily Democratic CA-36, it was expected that LA city council woman Janis Hahn and Secretary of State Deborah Bowen would advance relatively easily, and that the fractured Republican field would be left in the dust. Instead Huey, a self-funding businessman with tea party support, surged passed Bowen to take the second slot in the run-off (assuming the current count holds up when absentees come in). A couple of things seem relevant here. First, Bowen was relying on grass-roots progressives, but it’s possible some of them instead opted for perennial primary challenger and progressive activist Marcy Winograd, allowing Huey to squeak bye. Also, Huey was able to rally Tea Partiers to vote in what turned out to be a very low turn-out affair. If Huey advances, it’ll be a tough slog through the general, but possibly doable. Special elections tend to be low turn-out affairs, and it’s worth asking how motivated progressives will be to turn out for Hahn, who seems like a really straight-down-the-line establishment Democrat. Huey will need to present enough of a moderate, outsider image to attract a high number of indies and disaffected Democrats in the general without alienating his current base. A tall order, but possibly doable.

2. KY-Gov: David Williams somehow seems to lose even when he wins. While it’s true he beat self-funding businessman Phil Moffett and Jefferson county Clark Barbara (Bobbie) Holsclaw, he didn’t do so by a particularly spectacular margin, given how much he outspent them. Democratic governor Steve Beshir has to be feeling pretty good about the fact that he has a four to one fund-raising advantage, and a ten point edge in the polls, against a guy who is not very well liked in the state. Williams could conceivably turn things around, but he needs to run an exceptionally good campaign and for Beshir to screw up at this point. In a previous post on Herman Cain, I argued that Williams would probably still win, but the scope of his win would say something about the mood of the electorate in 2010. For a guy who lapped his opponents in fund-raising, a ten point win isn’t that good, and seems indicative of an enduring discontent in the Republican primary electorate with career politicians. Presidential candidates and others running for higher office, take note.

3. WV-Gov: Speaking of that trend I just mentioned, I will once again mention self-funding businessman Bill Maloney’s comfortable victory in Saturday’s WV-Gov Republican primary. Maloney won by getting to the right of former Secretary of State Betty Ireland, and by spending a lot of money to get the message out (a message primarily focused on his personal story). Though some polling late in the race predicted a Maloney surge, the scope of it–a fourteen point win–was pretty astounding and unpredicted. On the Democratic side, Earl-Ray Tomblin (AKA Joe Manchin’s third term), shot passed divided opposition to take the nomination. However, let’s keep in mind that the winner of the special election will have to do it all over again in 2012, and the leftish elements in WV will probably rally around one Tomblin challenger. Speculation already surrounds state house speaker (and golden boy of WV’s unions) Rick Thompson. Maloney has an uphill climb in the special–any opponent but Tomblin would have been easier–but, again, it’s not impossible in a low-turn-out affair. If he does lose the special, and manages to do so without suffering an epic disaster, he could be formidable in a general, if anti-Tomblin forces unite around Thompson and give Maloney a more liberal opponent. As is, Maloney will need to start working on policy specifics for a general election against a moderate opponent who is the political successor to a very popular governor.

4. MS-Gov: There’s one more contested primary this year, and, again, it could be a good barometer of the Republican primary electorate, so watch it closely. In Mississippi, LT-Gov. Phil Bryant is running for the job of his term-limited boss, Haley Barbour. Also in the race are, you guessed it, a self-funding businessman named Dave Dennis and Hudson Holliday, who besides having one of the better names in politics happens to be a retired national guard two-star general and Pearl River county supervisor. At this point, Bryant looks to be the early favorite, but Dennis is now up on the air, and if either he or Holliday can make it a two-man race, Bryant may have some trouble. The winner of the primary is all but certain to be the next governor of Mississippi.

5. MO-Sen: The news we’ve all been waiting for (those of us watching the Missouri senate race at least) has arrived; Todd Akin is officially in. This sets up a primary with former treasurer Sarah Steelman. Also eying the race is John Brunner (not to be confused with  John Bruning of Nebraska). You guessed it, another potentially self-funding businessman (somebody help me come up with a catchy acronym for this; it seems like we’ll be seeing a lot more of them). Brunner runs a medical supply company and has been getting very good reviews from locals in Missouri.

6. WI-Sen: The primary field is already forming for WI-Sen, and Herb Cole’s retirement is less than a week old. Another poster flagged the fact that former governor Tommy Thompson has already announced on the GOP side, but statements by Ron Johnson and John Cornyn haven’t exactly welcomed him with open arms. Thompson apparently has some substantial healthcare baggage from a Republican primary perspective, and it sounds like former representative and gubernatorial candidate Mark Newman is still thinking hard about the race. Newly-elected AG JB VanHollen, 2006 gubernatorial candidate and ex-rep. Mark Greene, and some state senators and reps are also possible candidates. On the democratic side, openly gay Representative Tammy Baldwin is flirting with the race, and getting a lot of buzz from progressives. Tom Barrett, the 2010 gubernatorial nominee, has ruled it out, but no word on current Rep. Ron Kind, or former senator Russ Feingold.

7. MN-Sen: We’re still waiting to here from state Senator Dave Thompson (lots of Thompsons today), but State Rep. Dan Severson has announced his intent to enter the race. Severson lost a very close SoS race in 2010. Former state senator and AG nominee Chris Barden is also considering the race. Not being an MN expert, I can’t really comment on any of these guys, or their chances of upending a popular first-term senator in 2012.

Sometime soon, we should be getting an actual, 100% post-Huck and Trump primary poll. Until then, here’s a poll done by Suffolk University that was mostly done prior to the two announcements, with results from before and after consolidated together into one mathematically massaged poll. It’s not great, but it’s a step better than Gallup re-releasing months-old numbers. Kind of:

Suffolk University National GOP Primary (PDF)

Before Huckabee and Trump dropped out

• Mitt Romney – 17%
• Mike Huckabee – 15%
• Sarah Palin – 10%
• Newt Gingrich – 9%
• Rudy Giuliani – 6%
• Donald Trump – 5%
• Michele Bachmann – 4%
• Mitch Daniels – 4%
• Ron Paul – 4%
• Herman Cain – 3%
• Tim Pawlenty – 2%
• Rick Santorum – 2%
• Jon Huntsman – *
• Gary Johnson – *
• Buddy Roemer – *

Second Choice of Huckabee and Trump Supporters (asked only of those who answered “Huckabee” or “Trump” on the first question, after the two candidates dropped out)

• Romney – 29%
• Palin – 16%
• Giuliani – 10%
• Pawlenty – 8%
• Santorum – 6%
• Paul – 4%
• Bachmann – 2%
• Cain – 2%
• Daniels – 2%
• Gingrich – 2%
• Huntsman – *
• Johnson – *
• Roemer – *

Final numbers (consolidated total of above two questions)

• Romney – 20%
• Palin – 12%
• Gingrich – 9%
• Huckabee – 8%
• Giuliani – 7%
• Paul – 5%
• Bachmann – 4%
• Cain – 4%
• Daniels – 4%
• Pawlenty – 3%
• Santorum – 3%
• Trump – 1%

Survey of 468 likely voters was conducted May 10-17, 2011.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they still included Huckabee and Trump in their final consolidated poll, or how they even arrived mathematically at those numbers… I guess the big take away from this poll would be that three out of ten Huck and Trump folks break for Romney, and roughly half of that number break for Palin. The rest of the candidates fight over the scraps.

UPDATE: General election matchups and favorability numbers are below the fold.
(more…)

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Jon Huntsman looks to be planning an nontraditional, yet quite familiar, path to the GOP nomination. First came the news that Huntsman will more than likely skip Iowa. Now this morning, Mike Allen reports Huntsman is going to base his campaign out of Orlando, Florida — planning to set up a showdown between himself and Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State.

Skipping Iowa? Building a firewall in Florida to stop Mitt Romney? Does this remind anyone of another failed candidacy of the recent past?

In fact, Ben Smith at Politico headlines this news: “All Giuliani Now”.

Unlike Giuliani, Huntsman might actually play in a couple of the early states: he has a five day tour of New Hampshire lined up and did the commencement address in South Carolina. However, if Huntsman’s plan is really to skip Iowa and build a firewall in Florida, someone may want to hand him a brief history of the 2008 primaries.

After a brief hiatus (3 years) I am back to blogging for a bit. The hiatus didn’t include stop reading the blogs (like this one) or keeping tabs on things, but it did include some political introspection. Some of my most strongly felt political convictions have changed a bit, and while I still find myself rooting for Romney, I’ll be honest, I can see more clearly his imperfections as political candidate as well as the current trends in the Republican Party.

That is not to say I don’t want him to him to win this time, I think I do, but I hope to be a bit more level headed and honest about those assesments than last go around. But still, I may just break out a Romney family sledding video if needs be.

Also, I don’t like the tea party, I am tired of the culture wars (truces aren’t all bad), and more importantly I am generally positive towards Obama. I would have no problem voting for him over some of the candidates in the field (think Santorum). That being said, I still consider myself a Republican and continue side on lower taxes, smarter spending and privacy. I would hope someone on the level of Romney, Daniels or even T-Paw can make things happen and win in 2012.

Ok, I will be back later…

Gallup National Republican Primary

• Mitt Romney – 20%
• Sarah Palin – 18%
• Newt Gingrich – 11%
• Ron Paul – 8%
• Michele Bachmann – 5%
• Mitch Daniels – 4%
• Tim Pawlenty – 4%
• Rick Santorum – 2%
• Jon Huntsman – 2%
• Gary Johnson – 1%
• Herman Cain – *

This first release of numbers sans Huckabee and Trump requires a massively important caveat: this is not a new poll. Gallup simply took the horse race numbers from their March/April results, removed Huckabee and Trump, and then redistributed their share of the vote according to who those voters reported their second choices were.

Therefore, we must point out several important factors: these numbers are 1-2 months old. They are from before the South Carolina debate, before Romney’s health care speech and his fundraising day, before Gingrich’s stumbles, and yes, before Huck and Trump actually dropped out of the race. Also, one would assume that asked a theoretical question of who your second choice is might yield different results than being asked who your first choice is after your guy actually drops out of the race.

These are supposedly the first post-Huck/Trump numbers to be released, but in actuality what we see is a polling organization grabbing some headlines for free by using old data. The first new horse race numbers could come out as early as today, but more likely they will be released tomorrow or Friday. Consider this thread a place to make predictions on what those numbers will look like as well.

With Mike Huckabee out of the race, the field for the GOP is almost set. While we wait for the last few contenders to jump in or stay out, the focus will now shift to the first big test of the Republican race; the annual Ames Straw Poll. A little over 3 months away, Ames is always an important event; it caused at least 4 candidates to drop out in 1999 and solidified George W. Bush as the heavy favorite for the nomination (ironically though, he beat Steve Forbes by less than Romney beat Huckabee, but I digress). In 1995, it showed Bob Dole’s weakness when he exactly tied Phil Gramm, and in 2007, Ames signaled the rise of Mike Huckabee and would catapult him to a victory in Iowa. So, with history in mind, looking forward to the 2011 Straw Poll, there are a few key indicators that’ll come out of Ames.

1.)    How much of a front-runner is Mitt Romney: Right now, Romney is the front-runner for the nomination; his very impressive money bomb from yesterday was testament to that. Ames will be a test of both Romney’s front-runner status, as well as give us an insight into what kind of effort Romney is going to put into Iowa. Ames will be a double-edged sword for Romney; on the one hand, Romney’s front-runner status will raise certain expectations for him. On the other hand, Romney’s win last time in Ames is not played up nearly as much as his eventual loss. Finally, a big win by Romney could do for him what it did for George W. Bush; make him the undisputed front-runner.

2.)    The other members of the Fairfax Four: This will be a big test for Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Mitch Daniels, especially Pawlenty and Daniels. As Midwesterner Governors, both Pawlenty and Daniels should be able to appeal to Iowans better than say, Huntsman and Romney. Both Governors need to do reasonably well, at least ending in the top five, if they don’t want to be crucified by the media for failing to meet expectations. A strong showing by either or both should propel them closer to front-runner Romney. Even more than that, this will be one of the first chances the nation at large will get to see them. It is very, very hard to change a first impression, and a flub would wound the candidate who did poorly. Out of the Fairfax Four, Ambassador Jon Huntsman has the least to lose in Iowa, since he is not expected to do well in the Hawkeye State anyways, so clever playing of the expectations game could really help the Ambassador.

3.)    What about the So-Cons: Perhaps the most asked question following Mike Huckabee’s withdrawal from the race is: who gets the so-con vote? Ames will be a great way of taking the temperature of Iowa’s restless so-cons. The second-tier candidates, including Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann all have strong appeal to the social conservative wing of the GOP. If one of them breaks through, they might repeat the success of Mike Huckabee. Further, if one of these candidates breaks through and becomes the so-con candidate, they’ll squeeze out some of the second-tier candidates and narrow the field.

4.)    Who withdraws after Ames: The last two Ames events have helped weed out some of the weaker candidates. Tommy Thompson (hopefully Wisconsin’s next Senator) was out after Ames, and Sam Brownback didn’t last much longer either. In 2000, four major candidates: Lamar Alexander, Dan Quayle, Elizabeth Dole and Pat Buchanan fell by the wayside after Ames. I do not doubt that at least one candidate will be out after Ames this time too. My own prediction is Gingrich (if he’s still in the race) and maybe Santorum.

 As you can see, we have a lot of questions surrounding the Ames Straw Poll. One question though should already be answered: is Ames important? Given history, I’d say the obvious answer is a definite yes. Stay tuned for August 13^th, no matter the results, it’ll be a very interesting show.

Race42012 – and, rightfully so, much of the media in general – have widely discussed Mitt Romney’s stratospheric $10.25 million one-day fundraising haul. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t view the money bonanza as anything close to a game-changer, but the unique dynamics surrounding the 2012 Republican nominating contest may suggest otherwise.

As many in the Race community have observed, more than any other election in recent memory, a cavernous disconnect appears to exist between political pundits and the Republican rank-and-file. Look no further than the first GOP debate, where the focus group “post-game show” moderated by Frank Luntz showed Herman Cain as the runaway victor, followed by Rick Santorum. If you looked at the comments in our debate thread, however, you saw a different picture, as most of us believed Tim Pawlenty came out on top.

The disconnect extends to Gov. Romney. The typical pundit’s analysis of Mitt holds that he will find himself unable to overcome the visceral objection of Republicans to individual health care mandates. Opponents will constantly hold MassCare over Romney’s head, and his efforts to maintain focus on economic and fiscal issues will prove futile.

On the other hand, the polls tell a different story: a majority of voters – or, more specifically, “regular Republicans”, to use Dave Gaultier’s term – care first and foremost about the economy, jobs, and the deficit. This is where Romney’s money advantage really comes in handy.

Aside from the fact that the eventual Republican nominee will have to compete with the Obama fundraising machine, which may round up a billion dollars, campaign funds help candidates define themselves in their own terms and position themselves opportunely the minds of voters. To put it succinctly, money facilitates branding.

Few would dispute that Romney has employed (no pun intended) an almost laser-like focus on the economy, jobs, and the deficit since President Obama’s inauguration. The Governor’s massive war chest can help him continue that discipline. He can drown out ads from competing candidates with messages pushing his proposals. And by organizing his communication and promotional strategies around economic issues, he can cement his intended status as the best candidate to address the salient issues of the day.

To sum up, in this election cycle, the typical voter will respond better to a message centering on economic growth, job opportunity, and an optimistic view of America’s future than a debate about health care policy minutiae. Mitt’s deep campaign coffers, coupled with his extensive business background and consistent efforts to brand himself as an authority on economic matters, just may give him the right combination to outlast his opponents and nab the nomination.

Erin McPike and Scott Conroy have the scoop over at RCP:

As many grass-roots Republicans remain in search of a conservative candidate with the pizazz to go toe-to-toe against President Obama, a man from deep in the heart of Texas who was tea party before the tea party was cool appears to be giving the presidential race some thought.

Gov. Rick Perry has insisted on multiple occasions that he has no interest in the presidency, but RCP has learned that political associates have begun to nose around quietly on Perry’s behalf.

A Texas pol who is close to Perry has been telling a few key strategists that the nation’s longest-serving governor sees a vacuum and is waiting to be summoned into the race. This source believes that could happen by late summer. Without fellow Southerners Haley Barbour or Mike Huckabee in the race — and with Newt Gingrich’s early troubles raising further doubts about the current lineup — there could be a glaring niche for Perry to fill.

According to another well-connected Republican, at least one Perry confidant has been very quietly making inquiries about the political terrain in the nation’s first voting state of Iowa. A third Perry associate, RCP has learned, has been heralding a small contingent of Iowans with the time-tested line that is often used by would-be candidates who are leaving their options open: “Keep your powder dry.”

Perry’s aides have long made it clear that the tough-talking Texan, who succeeded George W. Bush in Austin in 2000, would not seriously entertain the idea of mounting a White House run before the state’s legislative session finishes at the end of this month. That date is now less than two weeks away, and the 2012 presidential field remains fluid.

The Perry chatter has been so discreet that nearly a dozen early-state GOP operatives and consultants contacted by RCP hadn’t heard a word about it. But they are unfazed that the buzz exists.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

During the final short-strokes of the contests for RNC Chairman in 2009 and again earlier this year, I commented more than once on this site that these contests are ultimately more about who is going to benefit directly from RNC contracts for consulting services as well as other assorted perks of inside influence and connections than anything else.  No clearer example of that can be found than in this revelation from this morning’s Wall Street Journal.  Rather than me commenting any further, I suggest everyone carefully read the following item and come to your own conclusions as to the implications.  I report, you decide.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is attending a fundraiser for the GOP today in Silicon Valley.  This seems to be another attempt to repair a relationship that went bad in the early 1990′s and sunk to new lows during the George W. Bush – Tom DeLay era of the last decade.  As accurately characterized by Politico.com’s Michelle Quinn, the high-tech industry in The Valley generally considers Washington a nuisance and Republicans even worse.  Of course the paradox is that the so much of the high-tech, non-union, free-thinking, entrepreneurial “creative class” folks would hold the Republican Party in such low esteem.  This should be a natural constituency for a political party that purports to believe in freedom of enterprise and limited government, but rather, it is a constituency that was lost early on in the post-Reagan transformation of the GOP.  Rather than focusing primarily on fundraising in The Valley, Boehner ought to place top  priority on finding out why that happened.  Why did the GOP lose what should be a natural constituency and what can be done to regain some of this lost ground?  Personally, I think Boehner would have been well advised to have taken Paul Ryan along as he can articulately address some of the concerns and interests out there such as tax reform.  In any case, this is at least a beginning and I hope that Boehner will be more in “listening mode” than in money-hustle mode.

It would seem that Mitt Romney might have convinced at least one former Obama supporter to switch her vote. Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman tweeted yesterday:

Cindy Crawford appears in a demonstration video at Romney call day to show people how to use ComMitt fundraising software

A nice subtle announcement, that. So subtle, in fact, that there is no way to tell if she supports Romney, or if she merely did a contract job.

The supermodel’s most recent Presidential candidate was none other than Barack Obama. From Newsmax dated August 2008:

Already the star-studded roster of Obama donors includes Clooney, Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston, Winfrey, Leonard Nimoy of Star Trek fame, model Cindy Crawford, and singer Harry Connick Jr., to name just a few.

(emphasis added)

I will say this much. If she has really changed her allegiance to Romney, she is certainly a whole lot easier on the eyes than Chuck Norris.

In other news, speed skater Dan Jansen was at the Mitt Telethon yesterday again according to Mr. Fehrnstrom. There Dan made the comment that Mitt, “turned the Olympics around and he’ll turn the country around.” Now he we can be sure is supporting Romney.

*** UPDATE ***

According to The Hill:

Crawford’s publicist contacted The Hill on May 17 to say Crawford “is not aligned with anyone politically.”

Asked why Crawford attended the event in Las Vegas, Crawford’s representative said, “She is friendly with Romney’s son.”

Pressed on which son she was referring to, and whether Crawford will support Obama’s reelection campaign, the publicist said she would check and get back to The Hill.

Hugh Hewitt’s latest ramblings have erased all doubt that this “pundit,” who once showed so much promise, has become totally irrelevant and out-of-touch with the real world.  Screwy Hughey recommends “exiling” Rep. Ron Paul, Gov. Gary Johnson, and CEO Herman Cain from future Republican debates, because according to Hugh, they’re not “serious” candidates.

Let’s leave aside the fact that Paul, Johnson, and Cain do not have “no shot.”  Leave aside the fact that Paul is at a quite respectable 10% nationally (and, with Huckabee out of the race, is polling in second place in Iowa), leave aside the fact that Johnson has already proven his ability to go from 2% to victory (as he did in his first gubernatorial run) in a matter of mere months, and that many feel Cain gave the most compelling performance of all the candidates at the most recent debate.  Leave aside the fact that two of Hugh’s “non-serious” candidates (Paul and Johnson) claimed a Top 3 trophy in 2011′s CPAC straw poll.  Leave aside the fact that the frontrunners who have been leading the 2012 polls up until recently, were–for virtually all of 2007–exactly where Paul, Johnson, and Cain are in the polls now.

What Screwy Hughey has evidently forgotten is that presidential debates are not merely meant to be a platform for the high-name-recognition frontrunners to re-hash their résumés over and over again, nor are they merely intended as a forum for frontrunners to endlessly repeat their canned talking points regarding the 4 or 5 boilerplate issues.  Debates are meant to be a dialogue, and including individuals who have a notable (though initially somewhat small) following, like Paul, Johnson, and Cain, enriches that dialogue, and allows certain issues (such as the Federal Reserve, or the Drug Prohibition, or the Fair Tax) to be brought to the fore that might not otherwise have been.  The GOP needs underdog candidates to play a role in the national dialogue, not only because they might just pull off a Clinton ’92, but because they make the nation a wiser and better informed society.

Even from the standpoint of political advantage, it helps the GOP’s image to have a diverse range of candidates on camera.  How many tens of thousands of new Republicans did Ron Paul create in 2008, by bringing previously disenchanted voters and non-traditional conservatives back into the Big Tent?  And are we not a far wiser and more informed nation on matters like the Fed and monetary policy, as a direct result of Paul’s 2008 efforts?  And, in fact, Paul’s 2008 presence played a vital role in the creation of the Tea Party wave that handed back control of the US House and several Senate seats to the GOP in 2010.

And having individuals like Gov. Johnson on stage, who can espouse fiscal conservatism without sputtering in fearful hatred of gays and Spanish-speakers, will help make the next generation of conservatives, who–let’s face it–are much more tolerant and liberal (in the classic sense) than their forebears, feel comfortable in the GOP.  Many in the Republican Party are silently sick of big-government endeavors like the marijuana prohibition, the federal education bureaucracy, and the giant humanitarian boondoggles that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have become, but dare not voice their concerns for fear of rubbing against the grain of Bush-era Republican orthodoxy.  Having someone like Gov. Johnson on stage, making a conservative case for decriminalizing marijuana, abolishing the Department of Education, and bringing the troops home, gives other, like-minded conservatives courage to say the same.

FOX News and the South Carolina GOP made the right call by having the reasonable standards they did: if you get yourself registered as an official candidate, can pony up a sizable chunk of money, and register visible support in five national polls, then we want your voice in the debate.  Cain, Paul, and Johnson are all very relevant, and they all do have a believable path to the nomination (though theirs may be harder than others’).  What is becoming clear is that sentries of the status quo, like Screwy Hughey, are the guys who are truly irrelevant.  Their out-dated and inflexible idea of how the Republican Party should appear is not meshing with how the Republican Party is in fact evolving, and that scares them.  Their only solution is to shut out all other ideas.  Luckily, no one is listening to them any longer.

PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?

• Dennis Kucinich 43%
• Sarah Palin 36%

Among Democrats

• Dennis Kucinich 66%
• Sarah Palin 12%

Among Republicans

• Sarah Palin 69%
• Dennis Kucinich 16%

Among Independents

• Dennis Kucinich 42%
• Sarah Palin 32%

(more…)

Yesterday, though few realized it, Twitter had a big day as far as breaking political news goes.

First, the news that Trump was declining to run showed up on Twitter before any traditional news outlets.

Then, news of Romney’s $10.25 million fundraising total broke on Twitter long before any traditional media picked it up.

And late last night, Erick Erickson tweeted the news about sources confirming Daniels would be announcing for President… followed up by a tweet from the Purdue Exponent newspaper that said an announcement from Daniels was “imminent” – and that they were checking into the exact timing.

It used to be that I would check Google News for the latest breaking news on the political front. I’d search for a name or phrase, and then click on “last hour” or “last 24 hours” to ensure everything but the newest stuff was filtered out. Now, it appears that breaking news travels faster than even “last hour” filtering can keep up with.

What does this mean? Well, first and foremost, if you don’t have a Twitter account, I’d recommend getting one – then start following a bunch of reporters, news makers, and bloggers. An account isn’t required to search Twitter for breaking news, but if you’re following someone you’ll get the news that much quicker.

Secondly, I’d expect to see Twitter being used a lot more as a primary source for information on blogs and even by traditional news outlets. We’ll probably be quoting tweets a lot more around here (as we did four times yesterday alone) as we get you the news as efficiently as we can. This carries with it the potential downside of passing along imperfect information, but we’ll note (as we always have) when things are rumors, guesses, or opinion, and you can recognize when we’re quoting tweets and process the information accordingly.

Finally, you should always be keeping an eye on Twitter for your news, in addition to R4’12 and whatever other sites you visit. The rise of Twitter as a news source may have began during the protests in the Middle East, when traditional media was simply not available. But now it is taking off here as a way to get news out in an even more quickly and unfiltered manner.

During the $10Million plus telethon yesterday, Mitt engaged in a Facebook townhall webcast. You can watch it by clicking on the image below. The webcast starts at around 1:15.

He starts with a monologue praising America and American principles and values, and argues on how we can solve our economic problems if we would just allow those principles to work. He then answers five questions:

1. As President, what is your plan to stimulate the economy while maintaining a free market? How would your plan assist young people such as myself in launching careers, starting business, and paying of student loans?
2. Hi Mitt. I’m struggling to start my own mirror manufacturing business here in the U.S.. What programs would you put into place for investors and entrepreneurs if you are elected President?
3. Governor Romney. What would you do to help America become self-sufficient and energy independent?
4. Given your experience in business, state government, and the Olympics; what would you do if you became President to deal with the current national debt?
5. How will you use your business experience to lower unemployment numbers?

He spoke for over fifteen minutes with no notes (except the list of questions) and no teleprompter. There wasn’t even a moderator or an interviewer for Mitt to play off of, or to help keep things moving.

It is obvious that Mitt is focusing on the economy, betting the farm that that is what the 2012 election will be about. Every question he took dealt with the subject. For those who might be inclined to point out that none of the questions were about health care; yes, that is true. None of them specifically dealt with health care.  The subject was addressed in his answers, however.

My assessment? Mitt has obviously done his homework and knows of what he speaks. He gave some very substantive off-the-cuff answers. The delivery was  loose and natural with no sense of rattling off memorized talking points. I would say that he is far more comfortable in his own skin this time around than last.

Perhaps the unbutton shirt helps?

Tommy Thompson, the former four term Wisconsin governor and Secretary of Health and Human Services, has told friends he plans to run for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin.  This news comes on the heels of Rep. Paul Ryan telling supporters that he will not run for Senate next year.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) said Friday that he won’t seek reelection in 2012.