If indeed Huckabee announces that he won’t be running for President (and I’m still not convinced) we may soon be able to test the elite thesis that only one of the “serious” candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman) can possibly win the nomination.  Here’s why.  A month ago, Nate Silver wrote a much cited article dividing the Republican field into the Fairfax Five and the Factional Five.  The Fairfax Five was the four “serious” candidates I mentioned above + Barbour (who is not running).  The Factional Five were Palin, Bachmann, Trump, Gingrich, and Paul.  He noted, at the time, that the Factional Five were polling better than the Fairfax Five.  At that time, the Factional Five were netting 44% of the primary vote, on average, while the Fairfax Five were netting 22% of the vote.  The state of affairs today, without Barbour, is scarcely any better for the “serious” candidates.  In RCP’s poll average, the Factional Five clock in at 42.8% while the Fairfax Four are at around 24.2 (Huntsman doesn’t register so I’m putting him at 1%).

The curious ingredient in the primary, as Nate Silver noted, was Mike Huckabee.  Despised by the practical Republican elites and the conservative opinionmakers alike, Huckabee fit neatly in neither group.  So what happens if Huckabee’s not running?  Those of us inclined to favor the Fairfax Four have been entirely too blithe about our chances and strangely dismissive of a group of candidates who seem to command the loyalities of a plurality of Republican voters.  Still, with Huckabee in the race or maybe in the race or sort of in the race, we had good reasons for hope.  The Fairfax Four, while polling pretty anemically, are likely to have better organizations and more money.  The Fairfax Four are also, to a very great degree, interchangeable.  Even if there’s a plurality or even a majority of the party that pines for a non-traditional nominee, there seems to be no great consensus on what that nominee should like ideologically.  If Pawlenty and Daniels start to fade, it is a fair better than all or nearly all of their support will migrate towards either Huntsman or Romney (likely whichever one is in front).  It seems far less likely that one of Paul’s supporters might look at the state of the race in November ’11, note that Paul doesn’t seem to be able to get above 8 or 9%, and strategically vote for another Factional Candidate.  In other words, to a certain extent, the Factional Five belong to different factions.

Huckabee’s exit (or potential exit) complicates things considerably.  Because while it’s true that the Factional Five are not as ideologically and temperamentally homogenuous as the Fairfax Four, they nonetheless have some overlap.  Palin collapsed and Trump sprung up to supplant her.  Trump is collapsing and, suddenly, Gingrich is in double digits again, while a potentially new Factional member- Herman Cain- has received considerable buzz which may soon show up in polls.  We’re in a game of whack of mole.  And this means Huckabee matters.  This means that in a head-to-head matchup between a Fairfax candidate and a Factional candidate, much will depend on the Huckabee supporters.  Are they mostly casual Republicans who know Huckabee as the funny guy with the TV show (more likely to tilt towards the Fairfax candidates when given a choice) or are they largely evangelical, blue-collar conservatives (more likely to tilt towards the Factional candidates)?   Or are they some combination thereof?  Elite opinion insists that the sensible Republican party would never, ever, nominate one of the Factional candidates- but so far, elite opinion is not borne out by the numbers.  The Factional Five are doing very, very well.  When one of their number falters, another seems to fill the void.  At some point there will be a Factional primary and a Fairfax primary, with most of the supporters of both camps gravitating towards the strongest of their number.  If the Fairfax Four pick someone ill-situated to court the Huckabee supporters- if Bachmann is more appealing to the average Huckabee supporter than Daniels or Romney or Huntsman or Pawlenty- elite opinion will have proven itself to be disastrously wrong.

Rich Lowry sees some similarities between the two men:

How could Romney still win? The same implausible, by-the-skin-of-his-teeth way John McCain did in 2008. His situation is comparable to McCain’s in some crucial respects: a weak next-in-line candidate who got caught out on a position that had some conservative support but became a big loser as the party shifted right on it (the individual mandate in Romney’s case, immigration in McCain’s). After blowing up his primary campaign, McCain basically cried uncle and slowly recovered. Romney, in contrast, has now foolishly cast defending his Massachusetts mandate as a matter of personal integrity–making eventual retreat much harder. Nonetheless, Romney could still prevail if none of the other candidates attain critical mass and everything breaks exactly right for him. It’s not a comfortable path to the nomination by any means and it looks harder after his speech this week than before, but it’s not an impossibility.

It has long been my belief that the reason the next-in-line candidate often seems to garner the nomination is due to the “Regular Republicans,” that is, folks that don’t read political blogs, don’t listen to talk radio or even watch much cable news, but who self-identify as Republican and who faithfully vote Republican during every election cycle. Most of these Regular Republicans are probably middle class Americans who aren’t very political, and who simply want a government that keeps their taxes low, makes the trains run on time, doesn’t prevent them from lighting up when they go to the neighborhood bar, and keeps criminals off the streets so that they don’t get mugged on the way home. All things being equal, it’s been the Republican Party, and not the Democratic Party, that’s been the party of those sorts of “average Joe” concerns over the last few decades.

The Regular Republicans voted for such firebrands as Nixon, Dole, and McCain. It’s likely that they will be a stealth yet significant force in the coming Republican primaries as well. But will they go to Romney? That’s the million dollar question. The Regular Republicans made a last minute jump to McCain last time, as Romney and Huck tore each other apart, and as Giuliani seemed to get lost somewhere in Florida, leaving McCain as the last seemingly normal Republican candidate for president still looking and sounding, well, normal. Their mass was far greater than the conservative mainstream of the party, largely because the conservative meat in the middle of the party was divided between Romney and Huckabee.

But this time around, candidates like Daniels, Pawlenty, and perhaps even Huntsman will have at least as much of an appeal to the Regular Republicans as Romney, and if the conservative punditocracy is any indication, these candidates will best Romney amongst mainstream conservative voters. So even if the Regular Republicans don’t really care about this whole RomneyCare debate (that’s what Lowry is implying, I think), it’s not as if they’ll only have one candidate to get behind as they did in 2008. It seems the only way Romney wins is if he pulls a McCain, and consolidates the Regular Republicans while T-Paw and Mitch fight over the conservative middle of the party. That doesn’t seem likely, but it is possible I suppose. I should note that Lowry was one of the few pundits who saw McCain’s comeback on the horizon in late 2007.

The formal beginning of the 2012 presidential campaign is at hand, and we probably know the complete field of candidates from which the nominees will come. On the other hand, do we know, behind and beyond the candidates, what is really at stake in this presidential election?

There is a seemingly perpetual argument among political scientists whether the man (or, in the future, the woman) has more to do with the substance of history, or whether it is the circumstances in which a president presides, has the greater influence.

Common sense instructs us that it is probably a mixture of both, and that the degree of impact depends on the specific historic time, but I have for some time suspected that the growth of the roles of celebrity and the media give an overemphasis to the impact of a personality. A case in point of this argument is the recent turn in foreign policy of the Obama administration. Mr. Obama won his nomination, in part, to his distinctive opposition to the Iraq War, and to espousing policies at 180 degrees opposite from those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Indeed, the opening days and months of the Obama administration seemed to be a methodical dismantling of the Bush perspective on U.S. foreign policy. Less than three years into his first term, however, Mr. Obama seems to have embraced the substance (if not the names) of Bush policies in diplomacy, in fighting terrorism, relationships with other nations, and many other areas, Guantanamo to drones.

Clearly, the public positions of Presidents Bush and Obama had as great a contrast in voice and on paper as any two presidents in recent years, and yet we see the power of circumstances and U.S, vital interests drawing their respective positions closer and closer together over time. (On the other hand, the style, ability and energy and focus of the two men remain in stark contrast.)

I mention this ambiguity as we enter the presidential campaign in earnest because it is in direct conflict with much of the public debate now underway, and with the media descriptions and analyses of this debate. So much of this is preoccupied with personal foibles, outlandish rhetoric and extraneous issues.

It also isolates in some clarity what the contest for each party’s nomination is really about. Of course, the Democratic nomination, 16 months out, seems to be securely in Mr. Obama’s hands, as it usually is for a first-term president, but there remains in this cycle the possibility that economic conditions might provoke a challenge to Mr. Obama from within his own party, particularly from its increasingly restive left wing.

Four our purposes here, however, the real discussion is about the contest for the Republican nomination. In recent days, some of that discussion is whether or not there is a GOP frontrunner, i.e., whether or not Mitt Romney is a bona fide frontrunner. No less than the man I consider the new “dean” of our national press corps (succeeding the late David Broder), Michael Barone, argues persuasively that there is no frontrunner, neither Mr. Romney nor anyone else. I often agree with Mr. Barone who is my friend and one of the colleagues I admire most, but this time I am not certain I do. If the final field is to include Mr. Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and a few other lesser known figures, then I think Mr. Romney is genuinely what we mean by a candidate in front. (Being a frontrunner does not, of course, mean that a candidate is going to win.) In this field, he is the only one who has recently (or ever) run a major campaign for president. That campaign, moreover, was less than three years ago, and much of its structure and personnel remain in place. Mr. Romney is worth so much money he need not ever worry about running out of it (a serious problem if it appears), he is well-known across the country, and is now a seasoned campaigner and public speaker. I would agree that his frontrunner status would be less clear if Mike Huckabee would enter the race, and he may, but as of now it would appear he will not.

Mr. Romney has an impressive resume, does well in most polling, and most voters know who he is. Newt Gingrich, of course, is better known, is almost universally acknowledged the intellectual heavyweight in the field, has an impressive resume himself, is perhaps the best prepared person to run for president in decades, but he has not run for president previously. What we don’t know about Mr. Gingrich is whether the high regard for his abilities is to be transformed into an acceptance of him as president of the United States. Although not personally wealthy as is Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich has demonstrated remarkable fundraising capabilities in the private sector. One question about his candidacy is whether or not he is “too” well-known, that is, whether he can make the transfer from his already historical role as a major speaker of the U.S. house to the presidency. What some who allege he cannot, however, is forget that his public policy organizations, created over the past decade, involve millions of voters at the grass roots level in all fifty states. Traveling extensively in behalf of numerous public policy causes during that period has created allies in and out of elective office across the country. Perhaps the oldest major candidate, Mr. Gingrich was, not accidentally, the first to run for president by formally announcing on Twitter, a statement about his contemporary media savvy. Finally, Mr. Gingrich is the most formidable candidate in a public debate, and there will now be a long series of them Republican voters will watch. It will influence who they decide to support. Mr. Gingrich’s “baggage” (his divorces) are often talked about in the media and by his opponents, but it is unclear how religious and conservative voters, also noting his happy new marriage and his recent religious conversion will judge this.

Two successful Republican governors, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (recently retired after two terms) and Mitch Daniels of Indiana will likely also be formidable figures in the 2012 GOP contest. When currently dominant conservative ideas such as no new taxes, smaller government and reduced government spending were only slogans, Mr. Pawlenty was skillfully putting them into practice in an hostile environment (liberal Minnesota), and outmaneuvering Democrats who controlled both houses of the state legislature. Mr. Pawlenty’s new autobiography also reveals a deep-seeded religious consciousness (like Mr. Gingrich, he converted to a new faith) that will not hurt him with the large base of religious voters in his party base. Although not a “charismatic” speaker, Mr. Pawlenty is exceptionally gifted at articulating complex public policy questions into easy-to-understand ways that could especially appeal to voters in primary and caucus states. Finally, although he has not in the past demonstrated political organization skills, he has done well in recruiting experienced operatives for his presidential campaign, and in drawing major GOP contributors to fund his operations.

Not yet announced, Mitch Daniels could emerge as a finalist for the nomination, and even win it. He apparently will have the strong support of current GOP favorite Governors Chris Christie, Haley Barbour and Scott Walker. His resume is impressive in both legislative and executive experience. He has private sector background. Not known for being a colorful figure, his recent speaking appearances have nontheless been impressive. Reportedly, he will have considerable fundraising capabilities.

Having said all the above about the four currently major candidates, I think it is fair to say that each of them is capable of performing well in the Oval Office. There would likely be several aspects of presidential style that might distinguish them from each other, but each of them seems fully able to bring about what is really at stake in 2012-2013, a conservative transformation of the U.S. government so that the grievous economic and foreign policy crises now faced can begin to be fixed and resolved.

As the nomination contest proceeds, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the above and the other candidates will be revealed. Someone else in the GOP field could also emerge (Jon Huntsman?). I don’t want to sound too cynical, but candidates come and go, presidents come and go, elections come and go. The needs of a country, its interests and its resources, on the other hand, do not come and go. They evolve and change, and they require attention, nourishment and resolution.

That’s what is at stake when we assemble either in person or via television to witness the swearing-in of the president on January 20, 2013.

________________________________________________________________________

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

_________________________________________________________

-Texas Conservative blogs at ILikeMikeHuckabee2012

The prevailing sentiment regarding Mike Huckabee’s forthcoming announcement is that he will put an end to the speculation concerning whether or not he will seek the presidency and declare the he will not be a candidate this cycle. This comes as quite a surprise to me, as I have been hearing from several well-informed sources that not only does Gov. Huckabee want to run for president, but that he had come to the decision to do so after consulting with several close associates who convinced him that he had a viable path to the nomination.

From what I understood, Gov. Huckabee would wait until the very last moment and enter the race just in time to win the Iowa Caucuses once again. This would, in turn, make him the candidate to beat in the South Carolina primary. He could then win a war of attrition as the only Southerner (and the only real social conservative) in the race.

What to make of tomorrow’s announcement then? It is hard to understand how a man who wants to be president and is all but certain to win the Iowa Caucuses (and be, at minimum, the frontrunner in the crucial South Carolina Primary) would walk away from a race where there is no real frontrunner.

My only guess is that FOX told him he has to decide now, and since this would upend his time-line, he has opted to enjoy the rewarding career he has built since the end of the 2008 race. But this is only speculation on my part.

Longtime readers know that I have a strong affection for Gov. Huckabee. I spent a weekend on the campaign trail with him in the Summer of 2007 at the invitation of his campaign, which remains one of the highlights of my time in blogging. I found him to be as warm, engaging, intelligent, and funny in person as he appears on television. I also found him to be a man utterly devoid of pretension, which is a rare trait among politicians as accomplished as him.

Whatever he decides tomorrow, I wish him nothing but the best in his future pursuits and that the Lord continue to bless him and his family.

He Has Decided.

The time for speculation is about to intensify: for about 27 hours! Then it will be all over but the shoutin’. Governor Mike Huckabee has made up his mind. He will announce tomorrow night whether he is running for president of the United States. His family knows. Nobody else does.

Millions may be disappointed. If he runs, all those supporters of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty who had hoped for a much easier ride to the White House may just leave the country. They staked all their hopes in their own confidence “The Huck” wasn’t running. Now what will they talk and write about?

Of course, some of us will be disappointed if he does not run. But most of us never claimed with any certainty that he was running. We’ve been mostly talking about his leadership, and how he would stand head and shoulders over many of the other candidates. Unlike those fools who claim to be Republicans but said they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee, we will find another candidate to support, if need be.

If he doesn’t run, he will likely be heavily lobbied for his endorsement, though most of us supporters, unlike the caricature, are quite able to make up our own minds.

If he runs, he will have none of the disadvantages that all those who knew better than the candidate himself claimed. He has got plenty of time, will raise plenty of money, and will attract all the staff he needs to run an effective campaign. And he will back to Iowa.

God’s people will be fine. We know that it is God who sets up kings and puts them down again. Our world will not be broken if he runs, nor will we fantasize about a perfect world should he run.

More important than finding out who shot “JR” or watching the last episode of M*A*S*H, we will sit back, relax and watch the announcement for ourselves on Fox News at 7 pm Central Time, tomorrow night.

(and maybe do the Jig!)

Dude:

In the wake of the surprise announcement that Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., will not run for reelection in 2012, Wisconsin lawmaker Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget committee, says he will take some time to decide whether to run for the open seat.

“I was surprised by Senator Kohl’s announcement and want to take some time over the next few days to discuss this news with my family and supporters before making any decision about how I’m best able to serve my employers in the First Congressional District, our state and nation,” Ryan, R-Wis., said in a statement Friday afternoon.

I suspect this will be the end of the “Ryan 2012″ chatter, a finale which was inevitable anyway given the likely entry of Mitch Daniels into the race, who mirrors Ryan on the issues. Why Rep. Ryan would give up his prowess in the House to be Wisconsin’s junior senator though is anyone’s guess.

Remember this:

The 2012 GOP Presidential nomination train has blown its whistle, and the conductor has cried, “All Aboard!” The train has began to roll and is picking up speed. The longer Mike waits, the further down the tracks it will be, and the more ground he will have to make up. Granted, he is further down the platform than most and can wait a little longer to grab hold. However, if he waits too long, he is going to be left behind.

Less than ten days after posting that, Huckabee is abandoning his “My race, My pace” credo and as predicted, making his announcement far sooner than “mid-summer” — unless you want to claim mid-May is mid-summer.

Obviously Huckabee saw the same thing as I did. The 2012 nomination train is rapidly picking up steam, and if he wanted to get on it, he was going to have to climb aboard pronto. If he isn’t going to run, putting off his announcement until July or later would smack of being callous to the feelings of his most loyal supporters. I doubt his conscience would let him do that. So either way, it makes more sense to be announcing sooner than later.

What his announcement will be tomorrow should be interesting. Kavon has stated all along that Mike will run. I predicted he wouldn’t at least as early as July 2009 — nearly two years ago.  By Sunday we will know who was right, and who was wrong.

First of all:
Look at Fraser’s wording, “Governor Huckabee will announce tomorrow night on his program whether or not he intends to explore a presidential bid.” Call me crazy, but that sounds like Fraser has the feeling an exploratory committee is forthcoming.  If Fraser thought Huckabee was going to announce a “Nay,” it seems like Fraser would have said, “Governor Huckabee will announce whether or not he intends to run for president.”  But, for some reason, the word “explore” is ringing in Fraser’s head.  Am I reading between the lines too much?  Perhaps.

Second of all:
Five media appearances in one day? Just to announce you’re not running?  Doesn’t seem right.

Third of all:
Huckabee is, in many polls, leading for the Republican nomination, and, in many polls, is the best general election bet against Obama at this stage. Statesmen like Colin Powell might look at numbers like that and still say “No,” but not a politician. And Mike Huckabee IS a politician. It’s in his blood.

Fourth of all:
Yeah, Huckabee is apparently receiving conflicting signals from his family and close supporters–some are encouraging him, and others discouraging him.  Well, that sounds like the perfect impetus to set up an exploratory committee: so that he can genuinely explore the possibility of running for President, see how much money he can raise, and see what kind of official support he can put together.

I predict tomorrow’s announcement consists of Huckabee saying he will soon set up a presidential exploratory committee.

ADDENDUM: To all the commenters accusing me of “wishcasting,” understand that I am saying this as someone who has no interest in seeing Huckabee enter the race.  I’m a libertarian, and frankly, I wouldn’t miss Huckabee in the debates, since he’s the only explicitly anti-libertarian potential candidate out there (except for Rick Santorum).  I’m working for the Gary Johnson campaign.  All the polling data show that libertarian candidates benefit immensely if Huckabee stays out.  This article is my very best, most intellectually honest, most shrewd attempt to be a good political forecaster–ideology and personal wishes aside.

It was what we were generally guessing the announcement to be, but now it’s official:

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, will announce on Saturday whether he will run for president, the producer of his show on the Fox News Channel said Friday.

“Governor Huckabee will announce tomorrow night on his program whether or not he intends to explore a presidential bid,” Woody Fraser, the executive producer of “Huckabee” said in a statement. “He has not told anyone at FOX News Channel his decision.”

So this is not an announcement about moving show times or selling “educational” videos. It will be a straightforward “I am running for President” or “I am not running for President.” (So much for “My race, my pace.”)

Several sources are indicating now that there would be no legal trouble for Huck or FOX News for Huck to use his show to announce he is running, so this does not automatically indicate he is sitting this one out.

The earliest indications of Huck’s decision may come at 4:00 pm ET when he appears on Your World with Neil Cavuto, the first of five media stops today and tomorrow.

UPDATE: Huckabee to announce a run for President has plummeted on Intrade down to 30.1, down 25 points from opening today.

Potentially huge news from the NYT:

Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist who has served as Mr. Huckabee’s top political adviser, said in an interview Friday that he does not believe Mr. Huckabee will run again.

“I have no idea,” Mr. Rollins said. But he added that the fact that Mr. Huckabee’s top people don’t know what announcement he will make is “pretty indicative that he’s not going to run.”

Over the last several months, Mr. Rollins has been helping Mr. Huckabee to put in place the pieces of a campaign to be ready if he decided to run, Mr. Rollins said.

“There was a tremendous opportunity for him to be a viable, credible candidate,” Mr. Rollins said. “I think Mike has got unique talents but he just didn’t have the fire in the belly. I can’t want it more than the candidate does.”

Mr. Rollins said that “there is a campaign that can be put together in a week. All of the pieces are there.” But he said that in the last two weeks Mr. Huckabee’s family expressed doubts about a run.

“They did not want him to run. I think that had a big impact,” Mr. Rollins said.

In addition, Mr. Rollins said that he did not think Fox News would allow Mr. Huckabee to use the platform of a news show on their network to make an announcement that he is running for president.

 

ABCNews is reporting that Mike Huckabee has made public that he is making an important announcement this Saturday.

Former Arkansas governor and potential presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee is telling a radio audience on Friday that he plans to make “a very important announcement” over the weekend.

“This weekend be sure to catch my Fox News television show,” Huckabee says. “A very important announcement coming this Saturday.”

Huckabee did not elaborate on the nature of the announcement, which he teased on his syndicated radio program “The Huckabee Report.” And a spokesman for the former governor declined to provide details. Huckabee hosts an eponymous program on Fox every weekend.

Well, if this isn’t his announcement to run or not to run, the media isn’t going to like having their chain pulled.

After last night’s Indiana GOP dinner, Daniels gave a frank answer to his student supporters:

Daniels accepted an invitation from those 55 students to meet at a spacious bar several blocks away after the event; he sipped Woodford Reserve bourbon as he asked them about their own lives and families. In return, they asked him who he might like to tap as his vice presidential nominee if he runs.

Hypothetically, he told them, he’d like to pick Condoleezza Rice.

 

Bob Perry is a GOP fund raising machine and one of the biggest donors of recent history. In 2010, he gave more money than any other GOP donor to groups like American Crossroads – outside groups instrumental to the GOP midterm victories. In 2004, he was the top dollar donor to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. In 2008, he supported Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries.

And now, he has thrown his considerable fiscal resources behind Tim Pawlenty.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to note that the top GOP fund raisers, known as bundlers, are essentially lining up behind three competitors at the moment — Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman.

This helps explain why Pawlenty, even with a disappointing debate performance and low (but slowly improving) poll numbers is considered a first-tier contender. It also gives some insight into why investors are so bullish on Huntsman’s chances at the moment. And finally, it illustrates the troubled frontrunner status Romney currently enjoys.

When you add this to the rumors that Daniels has inherited the Bush empire’s big money network, it’s quite easy to see a top tier of candidates consisting of Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Daniels – with everyone else relegated to sideshow or distraction status.

We’ll see when the Q2 numbers are released in the beginning of July where the money actually went, but for now it seems the field is beginning to clear and crystallize around these four serious candidates.

Sources have told CBS News that Daniels has been assured of support from the fundraising network that backed former President George W. Bush and also his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.  This support will coincide with the guaranteed backing of Daniels longtime friend, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

The rumors around Daniels follow a much-anticipated speech by his wife, Indiana First Lady Cheri Daniels.  The Daniels duo were a smash hit at the Indiana GOP spring fundraiser last night, and many observers conclude that the First Lady’s decision to speak is a trial balloon for a national debut.

All of this Daniels buzz coincides with the conservative establishment’s harsh critique of nominal front-runner Mitt Romney’s major healthcare speech.  The broadsides seem to be coming from all corners, from the pages of the Wall Street Journal to the National Review to Karl Rove. This could be a coincidence, or could signal that the GOP and conservative establishment have gotten their man Daniels to enter the race.

This has got to influence his decision at some level…

Two of the biggest icons in the GOP, along with a southern establishment heavyweight, have indicated to CBS News that they will endorse Mitch Daniels if he chooses to run.

Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, and Scott Walker all would throw their support behind Daniels, making him a formidable competitor for the nomination. Additionally, Politico reports that Laura Bush called Cheri Daniels last night to encourage her to support her husband’s potential run. It looks like the stars are beginning to align for Team Mitch…

Pawlenty gives Texas radio host Michael Berry a home-run interview.  It’s about 20 minutes long.  Listen.

Four reasons why I’d call a relatively small interview a “home-run” and potentially even very important.

1.  Pawlenty weaves in his blue-collar narrative naturally.  This has been something of a struggle thus far because while it’s undeniably an advantage to be able to say “I’ve lived like you, I’ve struggled like you, I am you” working this element into the overall story isn’t always easy.  Let’s just take one answer (though I’ll note now, in passing, the union talk in part 2).  Pawlenty’s tossed a hanging curved towards the end of the first segment when he’s asked if he’s ever been in a fight and he rips it.  He mentions hockey and then he’s asked a follow-up “do you have all your teeth?”  He answers, “yeah, but they’re crooked”.  No pause, no laughter (not from him anyway)- strangely, for a space of a minute, mild-mannered Tim Pawlenty exudes blue-collar grit.  Which leads to number 2.

2.  He effectively uses his background and biography to distinguish himself from his opponents and actually dings them a little bit.  He deftly segues the talk of fights into a discussion of bar fights and then argues, forcefully, that it’s his experience (he, the guy who’s teeth are crooked from fighting) that the folks who talk the loudest and just flap their jaws are usually compensating for something.  And then even more forcefully he goes after folks who just offer “failed amendments” (obviously a ding at Bachmann who, I think, is delaying a Pawlenty rise).  It’s hard to imagine a smoother or more adept rebuttal to the “bland”, “generic” narrative.

3.  He’s forceful and unabashedly conservative without being strident.  He seems a little terse through much of the interview but strangely it works.  Nothing feels tinny or out of place.  He seems like a serious, serious guy and a serious, serious conservative who could calmly and methodically wreck the liberal movement.  His answer on Afghanistan is even better calibrated- he sounds hawkish but not myopically so .  Again, the terseness helps, lending him gravity and weight.

4.  He gets on the right side of a few issues without seeming to pander.  For the first time I believed that he actually didn’t want the debt-ceiling raised and that his opposition wasn’t mere political calculation.  I call this the right side because it’s the popular side and because, whatever one thinks of the ultimate result of indefinitely refusing to raise the debt-ceiling (I think it’d be problematic) it is a plainly good to seem as though you’re prepared to do something which both sides ought to unwilling to do (in this case, default on the debt), if only as a negotiating position.  Second, Pawlenty has an answer on China which manages to be populistic and realistic all at once.  He’s genuinely angry at how China’s behaved, hints at a willingness to punish them, but admits that we can’t argue with our banker- all the while affirming his support for free trade.  This answer seems designed to take advantage of popular disgust with China, without on a Trump-like frenzy that dries up conservative support.

Only it’s not designed.  Pawlenty sounds like a tougher, more conservative version of what he was a few years ago- a relatable, authentic guy.  If he keeps it up, he may well get his break and those of us shouting to sidelines miracle candidates, might actually find ourselves with a candidate who can satisfy and excite this  fragile coalition.

Mitt Romney’s speech today accomplishes a few important things to advancing his bid for the nomination. So often political reports and pundits have repeated that Romney must take on this issue of health care reform. He has now fulfilled their request, whether they agree with his points or not. Team Romney is now prepared to look forward and talk about things that he will do if he were to become president, and that is as it should be. He is not simply brushing away healthcare and saying “I don’t want to talk about that, let’s talk about economy instead.” He is laying out his plan in a forward-thinking manner. He is already looking forward to the general election, not assuming that he’s won the nomination, but showing his strength as a nominee by disclosing how he plans to take on Obama. It is the tactics of a front-runner, and I believe his campaign is playing their cards well.

It is also important for Romney to take on this issue before the debates. The slotted time for debate answer simply do not provide ample occasion to discuss all the details of his plans. I say plans meaning both his plan that was enacted in Massachusetts, as well as his plan to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a bill of meaningful reform. Romney’s speech today was the greater part of an hour, yet even then I feel he didn’t have time to get into the minutia. There was simply not enough time to cover everything in full detail. That would take the greater part of a day and no casual watchers would stick around long enough to hear it all. Now, when the issue arises in debate he will have addressed most of the major issues, and can point back to his presentation today as a response. “Are you going to apologize for Mass-Care for being a complete failure.” “No, that would be an easier route, be it wouldn’t be honest.”

Which brings me to my last point. Romney points out in his speech, and this portion is included in the video below, that the prevailing political winds at the moment are incessantly calling for him to apologize for the supposed failure, and admit that he should have never tried to fix health care in Massachusetts. Now if Romney were the ultimate spineless finger-in-the-wind candidate that some opponents attempt to make him out to be, why wouldn’t he just succumb to the political pressures? If such a large percentage of conservatives are screaming for it, why should he not join in and help himself out politically? “There is just one problem with that, it wouldn’t be honest.” Romney digs in his heels and says I don’t care what the prevailing notion is, I did what I though was best – and I applaud the Governor’s courage in taking this stand today.

The AP has provided a nice segmented video (embedded below) that shows the more interesting parts of the speech, though it is only 4.5 minutes worth. With this short time I think they have done well encapsulating the message that Romney wanted to get across today. The whole video can be watch a this link to C-SPAN.

The slides for the speech are embedded below and they can be downloaded also –> click here.

More reading:

Romney rebuts the WSJ attack piece with a piece of his own in the said publication.

Jim Talent also jumps in the debate with A Conflict of Visions in the NRO.

Rep. Brad Jones in the Boston Herald: Romneycare Right Medicine

And lastly, a little suprise from Chris Cilizza: Mitt Romney’s authenticity appeal on health care

Say what you will about Mitt Romney’s policies, he sure knows how to fill the coffers:

Mitt Romney’s swing through the New York City fundraising circuit this week snared over $1 million for his presidential exploratory committee, knowledgeable sources told POLITICO.

Romney raised that cash with two fundraising events in the Big Apple, the sources familiar with the efforts said.

…it’s the latest in a string of events Romney has held aimed at swelling his campaign coffers, and outraising the rest of the prospective GOP field.

As the nominal frontrunner in the race, with opponents sure to hammer him on his record at every opportunity, Romney will certainly find plenty of uses for those campaign funds. After all, much of his potential success lies in getting out ahead of his opponents and defining himself and his candidacy in his preferred terms. And with his sterling history of business success and the recent best practices (to invoke a term Mitt no doubt holds near and dear) from the Obama campaign, he no doubt understands the fundamental importance of branding.

While most potential 2012 candidates are building organizations, fundraising, hiring staff, and preparing to take on our country’s biggest challenges, Mike Huckabee is doing this:

That’s right kids, a history of World War II that doesn’t mention President Roosevelt and a story about the Reagan Revolution that begins with an African American mugger in a shirt that reads “DISCO”.

Amazingly these do not appear to be a prank, but rather the newest business venture of Gov. Huckabee.  Whether they are an indication of his 2012 plans has yet to be seen.

UPDATE: The official Huck-infomercial! I swear I thought he was going to throw in a free ShamWow at the end of his pitch.

No, Mark Lowe did not steal my username and password. And yes, my preferred Republican nominees remain Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan, in no particular order. All of that said, I am compelled to give credit to Gov. Romney for putting together an alternative to ObamaCare that is both conservative and amenable to swing voters. This new version of RomneyCare pretty much mirrors the reforms that right-wing journalists and think tank gurus have been pining for over the last few years, and comes very close to the reforms suggested by Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin in their recent piece on the subject in National Review. But equally important is the reality that suburban swing voters — the sorts of voters who gave Republicans victories throughout the nation’s swing states last year — will find a lot to like in Gov. Romney’s latest health care plan. Following are three major areas in which I believe Gov. Romney and suburban swing voters will find common ground.

First, Romney’s new health care plan allows for increased portability in terms of health insurance. In so doing, it recognizes that America is no longer safely nestled in the 1950s, where the average American would remain on the payroll of a single employer for several decades, and thus establish a relationship with a single health insurer. In today’s America, folks are far more likely to go to college, get their first job, leave for grad school (and buy an individual plan), obtain another full-time gig, move across the country and start their own business (along with another individual plan), and so on. Americans are no longer wedded to a single employer, nor to a single location, for that matter, which is why essentially starting from scratch with a new insurance plan each time one of these life changes occurs is unrealistic.

Romney’s plan solves this by ensuring that Americans will “own” their health coverage, and that their coverage will pass from one insurer to the next unabated whenever one of these life changes occurs. Romney also breaks down outdated laws that prevent insurance plans from making their way across state lines. In so doing, Romney addresses the concerns of the highly mobile, highly educated creative class voters, a large percentage of whom will find themselves living in multiple cities and working for multiple employers over the course of their careers, and many of whom will start small businesses or initiate entrepreneurial endeavors, pushing them into the individual market. Our nation’s current policies governing health insurance make no sense in the context of a dynamic 21st Century economy. Romney shows that he “gets” that.

Secondly, Romney targets the affordability of health care, largely by ending the bias in the tax code for Americans who get their health insurance through their employer. By giving a tax deduction to all Americans to purchase a health plan, and by freeing up Americans who are displeased with the plan they receive through their employer to use the deduction to purchase a plan on the market, Romney’s plan will help the broader middle class more easily afford health insurance, and will give Americans more latitude to find a plan that is right for them. Again, this is an area where the average suburban independent — say, someone who makes between 40,000 and 75,000 dollars a year — has long been overlooked by the government. These folks know they’re not going to qualify for any of the Obama subsidies to purchase care, nor do they want subsidies. They just want the same deal as folks who get coverage through their employer and who are happy with that coverage. Moreover, this plan expands and fleshes out HSA use in America, one of the primary mechanisms for introducing market forces, and thus cost control, into health care. High deductible plans that are HSA compatible are very popular among young creative class voters. Romney again shows that he is cognizant of the economic changes that are taking place on the ground.

Third, Romney addresses the accessibility of health insurance to folks who may be unable to afford insurance regardless of tax breaks, and to those who are too sick to insure. He does this by block-granting Medicaid to the states, adding funds to deal with the aforementioned problem cases, and then requiring states to use the funds to insure the poor and the uninsurable in a way that makes sense in any given state. Thus, Massachusetts can keep RomneyCare if it chooses to do so, Texas can try out high-risk pools and subsidies for low income folks, and Vermont can adopt full blown single payer if it prefers to do so. The states thus become laboratories of democracy, as they were intended to be.

At this point, readers may wonder just how aid for the problem cases ties into support among creative class voters, given that most suburban independents will never find themselves on Medicaid, and will never be in need of this type of government assistance. Much of this goes back to the ongoing debate over the reasons behind states like Connecticut, which sports a very affluent population, consistently seemingly voting against its economic self-interest by electing Democrats to office. I have argued in the past, and continue to believe, that creative class voters harbor a sort of updated sense of Noblesse oblige. Traditionally, that was a sentiment reserved for the Aristocracy, which felt that because it had inherited its wealth, it was obligated to provide for the masses. In today’s America, though, most folks who are successful have earned their success with the sweat of their brow. While one would reason that the sense of Noblesse oblige would not be present among the creative class, the reality is that many of America’s bluest voters are also the folks who would see their taxes go up under a Democratic economic agenda. As such, Romney’s requirement that states find a solution for folks who cannot buy insurance, either because they cannot afford it or because no one will sell them a policy, will satisfy the conscience of the creative class voter.

All in all, Romney did himself a lot of good by releasing his latest health care plan. For the first time in awhile, I can envision Romney as the Republican nominee, holding his own in a race against Obama, and winning the swing voters necessary to deny the president a second term.

No age group went harder for Obama in 2008 than the college kids. That same group is now learning the important life lesson that actions have consequences.

From the New York Post:

Beaten down by heavy debt and out of work, today’s college grads are the new underclass. Many are struggling to stave off financial ruin.

It’s so tough that some eight out of 10 graduates this year are moving back home, according to a recent poll by a consulting firm. Some will continue their studies — betting on an economic turnaround later — and others are criss-crossing the country, desperate for work.

…

“It’s brutal for the average undergraduate,” said Rick Raymond, vice president of marketing at College Parents of America, an advocacy and support group for college parents. “Graduates are not the first to be hired when the jobs markets begins to improve,” he added. “We’re seeing shocking numbers of people with undergraduates degrees who can’t get work.”

This year, some three million young people are expected to graduate from college. Facing a double-digit unemployment rate for young people, 85 percent of them will initially move back home with their parents, and that’s up from 67 percent in 2006, according to a poll by researcher Twentysomething Inc.

(emphasis added by MBL)

We are seeing more and more rumblings of what Glenn Reynolds has taken to calling “The Higher-Education Bubble”. Students are paying more and more for a sheepskin that is worth less and less. Degrees in African and/or Women Studies mean little to future employers. Even such staples as English and History don’t seem to be helping much in today’s economy.

To make matters worse, many of these students took out loans of tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a degree that won’t help them obtain a job. Compounding the problem is the fact that bankruptcy is not an option. Student loans are exempt from bankruptcy. You are pretty much stuck with them until you finally pay them off.

All is not dark. Graduates with technical degrees such as engineering, medicine, and the hard sciences are finding employment. But the rest are in deep trouble.

With the cost of tuition soaring for the past couple of decades far in excess of the rate of inflation, the bubble was bound to burst sooner or later. However, there is little question that the failed economic policies of the current administration have contributed to making a bad situation worse. And the majority of these now financially strapped young adults did their best to help place Obama in office. The chickens are now coming home to roost.

And nearly nine out of ten of them happen to be coming home to their parent’s coop.

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.

A bunch of movement this week throughout the rankings. Investors haven’t reacted well to Pawlenty’s debate performance last week, or, presumably, to the fact that Daniels is most likely going to jump in the race soon. Meanwhile, Huntsman continues his sharp rise to land solidly in third place and just a couple points behind T-Paw.

Cain is enjoying a massive bounce after his debate performance and is now tied with Trump – who suffered a big slide down as his flash-in-the-pan moment wanes.

And I went ahead and colored Paul green since he’s announced he will be announcing.

Here’s the official release:

REPEAL OBAMACARE, REFORM HEALTHCARE

Gov. Mitt Romney Lays Out The Right Path Forward

ANN ARBOR, MI – Today at the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Mitt Romney called for the repeal of Obamacare and proposed a series of health care reforms to lower costs and empower states to craft their own health care solutions.

Romney said that upon taking office, he would issue an Executive Order paving the way for Obamacare waivers for all 50 states and begin the process of fully repealing the legislation. Romney also spelled out steps he would take to reform health care by giving the states incentives to make market-based reforms:

Restore State Leadership

Restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their poor, uninsured, and chronically ill:

• Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
• Limit federal standards
• States will experiment and learn from one another
• Flexibility to deal with uninsured: e.g., charity, exchanges, subsidy for private coverage
• Flexibility to deal with chronically ill: e.g., high-risk pools, reinsurance, risk adjustment

Empower Individual Ownership

Give a tax deduction to those who buy their own health insurance, just like those who buy it through their employers:

·         End tax discrimination

·         Greater consumer choice—can buy what you want, not only what your employer wants

·         Promote portability

·         Help control health care costs

Focus Federal Regulation

Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work:

• Correct common failures in the insurance market

-        Ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions who are continuously covered for a specified period may not be denied coverage

-        Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools

• Eliminate counterproductive federal constraints

-        Remove barriers to the sale of insurance across state lines

-        Allow providers to design plans that meet consumer needs

Reform Medical Liability

Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs:

·         Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits

·         Innovation grants for state reforms: health courts, alternative dispute resolution, etc.

Introduce Market Forces

Make health care more like a consumer market and less like a government program:

·         Unshackle HSAs—e.g., permit HSA funds to be used to pay insurance premiums

·         Promote “co-insurance” products

·         Encourage “Consumer Reports”-type rating of alternative insurance plans

·         Facilitate IT interoperability

·         Promote alternatives to “fee for service”

First Coast News/Dixie Strategies (R) Jacksonville, Florida 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 24.3%
• Mike Huckabee 17.1%
• Newt Gingrich 15.1%
• Donald Trump 7.6%
• Marco Rubio 6.8%
• Sarah Palin 6.4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3.2%
• Michele Bachmann 2.0%
• Ron Paul 1.2%

Survey of 1,039 likely Republican primary voters in Jacksonville, Florida was conducted May 4-5, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.04 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of my “quick hit” columns, which collects random bits of interest from house and senate races in 2012. And there’s been quite a bit happening in house and senate election-land, so without further adieu, here’s what’s happening in the 480-odd other races of national importance happening in 2012:

1. NY-26: During the American Civil War, confederate households used blackberry leaves as a tea substitute. Given that he’s run (twice) as a Democrat for this seat, and is now seeking to claim the tea party mantle, I hereby dub Jack Davis Blackberry Jack. In any event, Blackberry Jack hasn’t been having a very good week. First, American Crossroads piled on with a massive add buy in the district, much of which is targeted at him. His…odd…decision to skip this morning’s debate with Republican candidate Jane Corwin and Democrat Kathy Hochull was compounded last night, when he punched the camera of a video tracker from the Eerie county GOP, who was questioning him about skipping the debate. Memo to candidates: don’t assault the guy with the camera, no matter how irritating he may be. Anyway, this is no Doug Hoffman situation folks: Corwin, our nominee, is not only the second most conservative legislator in the NY Assembly, but was endorsed by the Conservative party of NY, Tea New York and Karl Paladino. Hochull is narrowly leading Corwin in this R plus 6 district, so any diminishing of Davis’ vote share here likely helps Corwin.

2. ND-Sen, ND-Cong.: Rick Berg must be the most popular guy in North Dakota or something. After his sound defeat of Earl Pomeroy in 2010, and the subsequent (possibly not unrelated) retirement of Senator Kent Conrad, Berg has been heavily recruited by the ND-GOP to run for the open senate seat. And when I say “heavily”, I mean a monster letter asking him to run was signed by big chunks of the state house and senate delegations, as well as AG Wane Stenehjem, Berg’s most high-profile potential competition. This week, Berg has made his run for this seat official, and barring some sort of epic catastrophe, or a tea-party-fueled challenge, he’s likely to be North Dakota’s next senator. This will mean his house seat is likely to open up, meaning a whole host of ambitious North Dakota politicians will likely make the race.

3. Mo-Sen, Mo-01, Mo-02: Missouri has been…interesting of late. First, the Republicans in the state house and senate managed to eliminate the current congressional district of Russ Carnihan in MO-02, leaving him the choice of running in the new Mo-02, which is mostly territory currently represented by Todd Akin (R) at present, running in a much more heavily African-American Mo-01 against Lacy Clay (who used allies in the state legislature to help dismember Carnahan’s district), or running for a higher office like Mo-LT Gov. Carnihan’s calculations may well be complicated by the fact that Todd Akin seems increasingly likely to run against Clair McCaskill for senate. The fact that both former MoGop chairwoman Anne Wagner and 2010 congressional candidate-turned-senate candidate (now turned congressional candidate again) Ed Martin have filed for Mo-02 indicates they expect Akin will not be running for that seat again. This would set up two intra-party primaries of note on the Republican side, between Wagner and Martin in Mo-02, and between Akin and state treasurer (and former gubernatorial candidate) Sarah Steelman for Mo-sen. I’m not too familiar with Akin, but my impression is that he’s pretty conservative, meaning both of these primaries will likely be mostly stylistic. There’s also been a recent report that one of the two majority-minority districts might actually be a white plurality district, leading some progressives to call on Carnihan to run against Clay after all. One can only hope he does so.

4. Ind-Sen: Democrats have landed about the best recruit they’re going to get for this race in the person of Rep. Joe Donnelly. Donnelly narrowly survived a stiff challenge from state Rep. Jackie Walorski in 2010, and Indiana Republicans have made his district a good bit tougher, so this looks like a reasonable risk on his part. Of course, Brad Ellsworth was the same sort of challenger in 2010, and he didn’t fair well at all against Dan Coates. At any rate, Donelly might make it a race against Richard Mourdock, if he wins the Republican primary, but he shouldn’t count on steam-rolling the state treasurer, like Reid and Coons did with Angle and O’Donnell. If nothing else, Mourdock has demonstrated an ability to win statewide in the past.

5. WV-Gov, KY-GOV: The primaries for 2011 gubernatorial elections in KY and WV are fast approaching. In WV, acting governor Earl-Ray Tomblin, by far the most conservative Dem running, looks like the heavy favorite, at least in part because his more liberal challengers have fragmented badly. On the Republican side, it looks like a two-horse race between former Secretary of State Betty Ireland and mining executive Bill Maloney, with Ireland holding the edge right now. In KY, it seems like a virtual certainty that David Williams will win the primary; a recent CN2 poll had him up by double digits over businessman Phil Moffett. That said, the same poll should over 20 percent undecided–less than a week out–so it seems that everyone has underwhelmed (a third candidate, Jefferson County official Bobby Holsclaw, languished at 12 percent). Honestly, this isn’t looking like a particularly great pick-up opportunity; Williams has run a lackluster campaign, and Democratic governor Steve Beshir has a four to one fund-raising advantage over him.

6. Fl-Sen: The field for the Republican primary looks pretty firm at this point. Former appointed Senator George Lemieux is probably the moderate standard-bearer in the race, while former state house majority leader Adam Hasner is trying to recreate the Marco Rubio effect, and state senate president Mike Haridopolos is relying on his legislative accomplishments and absolutely prodigious fund-raising to see him through. Haridopolos has struggled with allegations surrounding a book he wrote for a Florida school and some other ethics uncertainties, but he received the endorsement of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee today, which could be very helpful. The winner of this primary should–if not too badly damaged–have a fair shot at Bill Nelson in the general election.

7. NE-Sen: Sometimes, the Tea Party Express really surprises me. I’m not surprised they didn’t endorse Don Stenberg in the race to take out Ben Nelson; Stenberg has a bit of prennial candidate disease and has already lost once to Nelson, but the fact that they went out of their way to endorse AG John Bruning is kind of unusual. As always, there’s push-back from local tea party groups, but this is significant in that it indicates a somewhat more pragmatic endorsement strategy for TPX this cycle. All eyes will now be on TX-Sen. Speaking of which…

8. TX-Sen: Marvel with me, for just a moment, at the absolutely, mind-bendingly, stunningly cynical events that are unfolding in the Democratic party’s latest Charlie Brown-like attempt to kick the football that is Texas. Banking, I suppose, on the fact that a Democrat with a combined military and Hispanic background will somehow galvanize Hispanic voters to turn out in record numbers, thereby finally putting the second largest state in the union into the blue column in a statewide elected office, Democrats have tapped former General Ricardo Sanchez to run for the open senate seat in Texas. If you have the feeling that these self-same Democrats might have sorta kinda implied General Sanchez was…oh, I don’t know…guilty of war crimes or something not too terribly long ago, you’d be right. Sanchez was the commander of US forces during the Abu Graib scandal, and as such, some of the same Democrats who are now embracing him were kinda sorta hinting he should be prosecuted not too long ago. All Abu Graib issues aside, Democrats are probably trying to replicate the success of Jim Webb’s 2006 senate campaign by running a military-oriented hawk in a red state. It’s worth pointing out, in this regard, that Webb only one Virginia by 9,000 votes against the flub factory that was the George Allen campaign of 2006. Speaking of which…

9. VA-Sen: Some recent polling has this race basically within the margin of error, which we basically already knew. More interestingly, it also indicates that neither Allen’s “macaca” gaff or Tim Kaine’s stint at the helm of the DNC really affects voters’ thinking about this race at all. If Allen can keep on-message and avoid embarrassing himself, he may be able to pull this one out, in the right kind of environment. Meanwhile, tea partiers have yet to really settle on a challenger to Allen in the primary.

10. MN-Sen: Republicans in a number of rust belt states–Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota–have struggled to find challengers to Democratic incumbents. Rumor now has it that Amy Klobuchar (who is probably one of the strongest of this batch of incumbents) might have a challenger after all, in the person of state senator Dave Thompson. I know absolutely nothing about the guy (Minnesotans please advise), but he is apparently going to make a final decision at the end of the MN legislative cession.

CNN has the scoop:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul is expected to announce Friday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination, a source close to the campaign tells CNN.

Paul will hold a morning campaign event in Exeter, New Hampshire where he is expected to receive several endorsements.

Read the rest here.

PPP (D) Virginia 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Tim Kaine 46% [47%] (50%)
• George Allen 44% [47%] (44%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Tim Kaine 42% [46%] (43%) / 41% [38%] (40%) {+1%}
• George Allen 36% [39%] (40%) / 42% [40%] (41%) {-6%}

Survey of 547 Virginia voters was conducted February 24-27, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.2 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% [39%] (36%) Democrat; 34% [34%] (35%) Republican; 29% [27%] (30%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 31% [32%] Moderate; 22% [25%] Somewhat conservative; 21% [16%] Very conservative; 18% [16%] Somewhat liberal; 8% [11%] Very liberal. Results from the poll conducted February 24-27, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 10-13, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

PPP (D) Arizona 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney 24% [23%] (27%)
• Ron Paul 12% [5%] (9%)
• Mike Huckabee 12% [19%] (12%)
• Sarah Palin 12% [15%] (13%)
• Michele Bachmann 10%
• Newt Gingrich 10% [15%] (19%)
• Donald Trump 8%
• Tim Pawlenty 5% [4%]
• Someone else/Undecided 8% [16%] (19%)

(more…)

As reported by Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, Mike Huckabee has a new entrepreneurial venture: a history education company, Learn Our History:

“Learn Our History” sells educational animated history videos for kids. The video featured on the website is about the Reagan Revolution. A sign that the former Arkansas governor isn’t running for president?

Cillizza’s speculation regarding Huckabee’s presidential intentions makes sense. After all, why would he devote the time, resources, and effort to co-establishing an education company if he’ll soon find himself consumed by a presidential bid? As a candidate who compensated for his lack of funds by logging countless hours on the road in Iowa, he certainly must understand the rigors of a national campaign.